Project Pokemon - **The Return To Greatness**

[wulfhunter667]

Originally Posted by mac122

Strength/Weakness - since we will have our own template we're not locked into symbols at the bottom of the text area. Looking at a classic Scape card, the Move-Range-Attack-Defense boxes can be reduced in size allowing for something like this:
+1A
-1D
Of course, replacing the cheerleader and zombie with actual types. These can be ignored for use in Classic Scape but available for our Pokemon-specific rules and campaigns.

There's only two things I see wrong with this.
1) We can't get the zombie to move on the printed card.
2) More seriously, if you have one weakness and one strength, you miss half of the purpose behind type compatibility. A single entry at the bottom of the card referencing Pokescape-specific types should serve perfectly fine.

Originally Posted by mac122

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.

After we set the final Master Set Pokemon list later tonight, we'll talk about playable trainers and an idea I have for Trainer "glyphs." We'll get there, rest assured.

[wulfhunter667]

Also, I referenced symbols a couple of times in the last two posts. I found this excellent graphic to represent the various type symbols based on the CCG.

Spoiler Alert!

What do you guys think of using these symbols as the standard?

[Xn F M]

Originally Posted by mac122

STAB - Thanks for the explanation. But is this necessary? Wouldn't the majority of abilities on the cards be of the same type as the Pokemon? Let's just write Charmander's Ember to reflect that a fire type is using a fire type attack. If we put Ember on Magikarp, first, we should all be locked up, second, Magikarp's Ember would not be as powerful.

Yes and no. I can think of two good examples off-hand.

1) Dragonair/Dragonite often have Thunderbolt. Compared to say Ampharos (an electric pokemon of roughly comparable power) the dragon's Thunderbolt should/would not do as much damage as the Ampharos's. Hitmonchan and Nidoking/Queen also often have off-type attacks.

2) Most normal attacks and certain other attacks (like Bite/Crunch) are often on pokemon that do have a corresponding type. Sometimes these attacks (like Bite especially) are "signature" attacks.

If we were to include STAB it would be in the background and not explicitly spelled out on the cards. Assuming that a figure's normal attack value would represent a Normal type attack, it would also help to make Normal type pokemon more playable in a field that's sure to be dominated by special attackers.

[Carakki]

Thanks, Xn. I knew the effect, I just didn't know the name.

Originally Posted by mac122

Card template - first, let's open this up to anyone in the group who has an idea on design, look at all submissions and vote.

I like this idea. I'm working on different deigns.

Originally Posted by mac122

Common/Uncommon/Unique - Save Unique for the true one-of-a-kind Pokemon like Lugia, Suicine, Zapdos, etc (I think there were only one of each of those, right). Eventually, we might want to explore making "Ash's Pikachu" or "Brock's Onyx" - don't know if we ever would, but these would be Uniques. Other than that, I think it will depend on the specific Pokemon we're working on. Ratata, eh, probably Common. Pikachu, probably Uncommon, IMO.

This sounds good, too. I'm sorry to all those with lvl.100 Ratattas out there, but (as I've said) the common Ratatta is just that - Common.

Originally Posted by mac122

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.

Yes, yes, yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by mac122

Master Sets and Waves - Yes! This helps us set goals and reach milestones. It's so much easier to stay involved and focused when you have clear a clear picture of where you are going.

Agreed.

[fiddlerjones]

Originally Posted by mac122

Trainers - Personally, I want playable Trainer figures eventually. I wouldn't see them having much, if anything, in the way of a normal attack, but they would boost the Pokemon in their army. I could see at least some of them having a Pokeball power ala Mindshackle where they would "catch" a Pokemon from an opponent's army. Jesse & James could have some sort of "Team Rocket's Contraption" that would remove order markers from other Trainer's cards.

I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

I'm getting off on a tangent, as this isn't what's currently being voted on, but I just don't feel like trainers as figures makes sense.

[wulfhunter667]

Originally Posted by fiddlerjones

I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

I'm getting off on a tangent, as this isn't what's currently being voted on, but I just don't feel like trainers as figures makes sense.

Not really a tangent, is part of what we are workingon, just not being voted on today.
As far as trainers go, I mentioned an idea for "gylph" trainers. What we could do is have "unseen" draftable trainers that you have to draft, have special abilities, but no figures represented on the battlefield. They would have to be Pokescape-specific though. This idea would not work in classic HS. But then, who's going to want to have a non-combat trainer on the battlefield with classic HS figures anyway?

[Xn F M]

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

Also, I referenced symbols a couple of times in the last two posts. I found this excellent graphic to represent the various type symbols based on the CCG.

Spoiler Alert!

What do you guys think of using these symbols as the standard?

While those sybols look great, I think plain text would be easier to understand. Simply stating

Normal and Flying type: attacks and special attacks of xxx, yyy, and zzz types roll one additional attack die against ~this~. ~This~ rolls one additional defense die against aaa, bbb, and ccc type attacks.

It's clean, and it takes the work of knowing/referencing the type chart away from the players. I think we can spare two sentences and a title line on each card.

Originally Posted by Wulf

What we could do is have "unseen" draftable trainers that you have to draft, have special abilities, but no figures represented on the battlefield. They would have to be Pokescape-specific though

If we do trainers this is how I want to do them

[Carakki]

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

Also, I referenced symbols a couple of times in the last two posts. I found this excellent graphic to represent the various type symbols based on the CCG.

Spoiler Alert!

What do you guys think of using these symbols as the standard?

Those are cool, if a bit newfangled. I'm fine with using them.

Originally Posted by fiddlerjones

I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

I'm getting off on a tangent, as this isn't what's currently being voted on, but I just don't feel like trainers as figures makes sense.

This seems to have to do with the 'scape' in 'Pokescape.' In Pokemon games, Pokemon battle for sport - hence, Trainers have nothing to do with it. In Valhalla, the battle is a war, with real fighting - not scores and win/loss records. Hence, Trainers are actually on the battlefield, commanding their trained Pokemon. When a Trainer goes down, then the Pokemon don't become mindless - in terms of gameplay, they're still Heroes (unique, common, or uncommon) that can have Order Markers placed on them - you just lose the flexibility and support provided by the Trainer.

[mac122]

Originally Posted by wulfhunter667

There's only two things I see wrong with this.
1) We can't get the zombie to move on the printed card. It's simple, just use a lenticular images. I'm sure that wouldn't cost too much!
2) More seriously, if you have one weakness and one strength, you miss half of the purpose behind type compatibility. A single entry at the bottom of the card referencing Pokescape-specific types should serve perfectly fine.
I don't think it would have to be limited to 2. I'd like to see an example of your single entry - when we get to that point. The broader point, though is that we shouldn't be completely bound to the style of classic Scape Cards.

After we set the final Master Set Pokemon list later tonight, we'll talk about playable trainers and an idea I have for Trainer "glyphs." We'll get there, rest assured.
That's why I said eventually. We've got bigger fish to fry first.

The symbols are fine with me.

Fiddler
I like all the other ideas mentioned here, but trainers as figures doesn't work for me. I can't recall a situation where I've seen pokemon attack and kill (or knock out) a person. What happens if the trainer dies? Do the pokemon become mindless? The idea here is that you ARE the trainer, so you wouldn't be represented by a figure on the field.
I'll go along with whatever the majority votes on this.
I'll admit, this is greatly influenced by the cartoon show, where trainers were regularly in danger from the actions of Pokemon. Yes, we're basing this mostly on the video games, but I don't see anything wrong with using other Pokemon franchises to add some flavor.
To me, it adds another layer of strategy and tactics if the Trainers are on the field, especially when mixing with classic. Unseen Trainers in Classic Scape will be an awful lot like equipment cards used on some customs, which personally, I'm not too fond of.
The Pokemon wouldn't become mindless if the trainer is knocked out, they would just lose the boost the trainer provides.

I don't like the "Catch" ability because Mindshackle is an annoying attack in the first place. "Oh you got a lucky roll and took control of my best guy? Awesome." I DO like the Team Rocket's Contraption idea, but that's just as easily represented on a trainer card.

Annoying especially when it works for your 6-year old playing against you. But, again it's strategy and tactics. Don't want to be Mindshackled, do everything you can to keep Ne-Gok-Sa away. Don't want your Pokemon caught, try to knock out the trainer before he has a chance to throw a Pokeball.

[Xn F M]

Originally Posted by mac122

Fixed.

[minimoose38]

I think those symbols are a great addition to the card layout. The few templates I made used a couple (the ones that were actually in the TCG) and I was dreading trying to make the types not represented (Poison, Ghost, Dragon, etc.)match the official ones. I think the symbols should go above the name where the general's symbol would be normally and the type name would be underneath where the general's name would be. Are we going to represent dual types in the card or just primary/iconic types? IE: Charizard is obviously known for being a Fire type rather than a Flying type.

As for what should be included in master sets, I think that besides the starters lines we should keep the rest to things that only have 2 forms in its evolutionary line. Having the 1st and 2nd stages but not the 3rd forms of the evolutionary line seems really lame to me. Having Abra and Kadabra for example in the 'master set' and Alakazam in a later set, for "anticipation" seems lame to me. While that does seem like something Wizards of the Coast would do if they were actually producing this, it seems to be completely unnecessary for us to do. I think anytime a Pokemon is 'released' by us all of its forms (at least that ones in the current generation we are working on) should come with it. This would mean switching Pidgey/Pidgeotto for probably Spearow/Fearow, in the master set, and then Abra/Kadabra for maybe Drowzee/Hypno.

Also, is the goal of this project to make a card for every single Pokemon? Or just chosen 'highlights' representing each generation? Making 493 customs or even 151 seems like an exhaustive undertaking and I fear at some point interest would dwindle or cards would start looking too similar.

[fiddlerjones]

One thing we haven't addressed but I think we need to:

When it comes to designing and playtesting cards, we should have a set deadline for each. Like, say when it's your turn to design, you need to have your design in by the following Sunday. Then, voting lasts until the next Sunday or until it gets >50% (or whatever) of the vote. Do a similar thing for playtesting. WE need a little bit of structure here or down the road we'll end up with procrastination and dwindling interest.