> >My deck has been doing OK, and it is a variant of
> Lock Down. Here it is:
> >
> >
> >Melt Down V2
> >
> >Pokémon
> >
> >4 Ponyta
> >3 Rapidash
> >4 Horsea
> >3 Seadra
> >3 Lapras
> >3 Magmar
> >
> >Trainers
> >
> >4 Bill
> >4 Energy Removal
> >4 Energy Search
> >4 Potion
> >2 Gambler
> >
> >Energy
> >
> >2 Double Colorless
> >10 Fire
> >10 Water
> >
> >Sideboard
> >
> >2 Pikachu (League Promo)
> >2 Pikachu (Movie Promo)
> >2 Raichu (Basic)
> >1 Raichu (Fossil)
> >3 Electabuzz
> >10 Lightning Energy
> >
> >Thanks in advance
>
> ***
>
> It just so happens that I fixed a deck very much
> like
> this during the Deck Garage contest. Since I passed
> that round, I'm going to assume that my fix for that
> deck was good, and follow a similar strategy. First,
> though, we need to clarify some rules. Last time I
> checked, there was no sideboard in Pokemon.
> Everything
> must be run main deck. You'll just have to let go of
> the past :-)
>
> 1) Once again, I have been treated to a deck that is
> very hard to nitpick purely in terms of Pokemon. The
> one thing I might do is replace Seadra with Golduck.
> Why, you ask? Simply because those 10 extra HP can
> be
> a lifesaver. Not only that, but I believe Hyper Beam
> is, all other things being equal, superior to
> Seadra's
> Agility. Agility relies upon a coin flip, and as
> such
> is unwise to depend upon. Hyper Beam, on the other
> hand, automatically removes an energy. It may not
> prevent your opponent from attacking, but it has a
> much greater overall chance of screwing up their
> strategy. Why, then, do I scorn Seadra's Agility but
> laud Rapidash's? Because, with so many 50, 60, and
> 70-HP Pokemon out there, an extra 10 damage is worth
> much more than it might seem. Your Pokemon look
> otherwise good.
>
> 2) Your trainers need a little fine-tuning. 4 Bill
> and
> 4 Energy Removal are nice, and will save me a lot of
> yelling and lecturing, but your other choices are
> questionable. Energy Search might seem good in this
> deck at first glance, but it would probably be
> better
> simply to have more energy in the first place, along
> with Oaks to draw the energies and Computer Searches
> to pull the Oaks when you need 'em. The Oaks will
> replace the Gamblers, which are kind of "poor man's
> Oaks"--all right when you have absolutely nothing
> else, but you should drop them like a hot potato the
> instant you have something better. For the
> neccessary
> card slots, we can also take out the Potions, which
> aren't that excellent--especially in a deck where,
> if
> all goes as planned, your opponent won't get to
> attack
> that often.
>
> 3) I would add some more of each color energy,
> simply
> to increase your chances of drawing the energy you
> need, and you should lose the DCE if you replace
> Seadra with Golduck. The fact that it's occasionally
> useful with the Ponyta family isn't enough of a
> reason
> to use valuable space keeping it in, IMO.
>
> ***
>
> 20 Pokemon:
>
> 4 Ponyta
> 3 Rapidash
> 4 Psyduck
> 3 Golduck
> 3 Lapras
> 3 Magmar
>
> 16 Trainers:
>
> 4 Bill
> 4 Energy Removal
> 2 Oak
> 2 Computer Search
>
> 28 Energy:
>
> 14 Fire
> 14 Water
>
> ***
>
> This is a nice, streamlined deck. You shouldn't
> really
> be needing Switches too often, given the low retreat
> cost of most of your Pokemon. Things like Switches,
> GOWs, and perhaps additional Oaks or Searches can be
> added as necessary after you have a chance to play
> with the deck and see what cards would come in
> handy.
> You can drop 1 or 2 energy of each color if you need
> some space.
>
>