Vanilluxe (Noble Victories NVI 29) – Card of the Day

I’m sure if you looked at a different card game, you wouldn’t find a creature that looks like it came from an ice cream vendor.

Meet Vanilluxe.

Actually, let’s meet his pre-evolutions first. Vanillite has a slightly shaky 50 HP, and a mediocre retreat of 1. Icicle Barb isn’t terrible for a Common NFE (Not Fully Evolved), as it could do 20 for 1 energy. If you are running this with FlipTini (more on that later), and you already have a Victini out, you are more likely to do that 20 damage, which is nice for this Commoner. Vanillish, the next step in the evolution line, has a slightly bad 80 HP and an annoying retreat of 2. What is interesting is that this Pokémon basically has weaker versions of Vanilluxe’s attacks.

Now for the 130-pound ice cream thing himself. 130 HP is merely average for a Stage 2. The requirement for retreating this Pokémon isn’t too bad, considering it is a Stage 2 with average HP. Metal weakness is currently pretty good in the metagame, as ReshiPlosion seems to be keeping Cobalion at bay…for now. Water typing is excellent in this metagame, due to all of the Fire types being played.

Double Freeze is the main reason that this card is getting some hype. It allows you to flip two coins, doing 40 damage for each heads. If you get lucky, you are doing 80 damage for two energy, which is great, but not incredible. Additionally, however, if you just get one of the coin flips heads, the Defending Pokémon is stuck in the Active Spot (unless your opponent plays a Switch or Full Heal) and cannot attack.

With FlipTini, who allows you to re-flip coins from attacks, it is actually quite likely that you will hit one heads, and you may occasionally hit two. Essentially, you are flipping four coins, and if any of them are heads, the Defending Pokémon becomes Paralyzed and takes at least 40 damage. Frost Breath is actually a nifty companion to this attack, as it allows you to deal consistent damage if you don’t have FlipTini out or need to hit for 60 more than you need to Paralyze. The low damage output doesn’t matter too much since you are probably Paralyzing the Defending Pokémon anyway.

However, 40 damage still isn’t much, and your opponent may be able to set up a lot during that time. Vileplume may actually be a good partner for this card, in that case. Additionally, Vileplume can make it virtually impossible for your opponent to switch out their active Pokémon when it is Paralyzed. Nevertheless, remember that there is always the chance that Double Freeze will completely fail, which can leave you in a very bad situation.

The 130 HP means that your opponent will need to pull many strings to get the revenge KO. However, if Vanilluxe is already damaged, watch out. Generally, though, you should have time to charge up another Vanilluxe before your Active one is KO’d.

To sum it up:


– Vanillite works with FlipTini (and the average Vanilluxe deck’s strategy)

– Pretty good attacks

– Good typing

– Good Weakness

– Has something that other Pokémon can’t do better


– Cannot stand on its own very well

– Relies on coin flips

– Can 1HKO almost nothing

I honestly don’t know why they made a Pokémon that looks like its owner would be more likely to eat it than raise it, but they made that Pokémon reasonably powerful. Out of the cards that rely on coin flips, this is one of the better ones. I’m going to give it a 7.5/10 or Quite Good. This card may be reasonably popular in rogue decks. Some of you may rank this card 1 or 2 more/less points.

I’m not sure if others do the ratings differently, but here are cards that are roughly comparable to their ratings alongside a statement for each rating, in accordance with my rating system:

1/10 – Hitmontop HS (This card is simply a joke, and it is also disgusting – you may not even want to keep it in a binder with your other cards, or even in the same room as your other cards)
The editors, however, decided to put Hitmontop in the same article as Vanilluxe and Victini.

2/10 – Wave Splash Alomomola BW 38 (This card is so awful, it might stain your other cards if you put it in your deck)

3/10 – Musharna BW (You may not even have heard of this card)

4/10 – Galvantula BW (A bad card that n00bs might play at League)

5/10 – Noctowl HS (This card is never really used)

6/10 – Ampharos CL (This card is good, but it has a major weakness or doesn’t fit into the metagame, and thus is still never used)

7/10 – Manaphy UL (This card is used sometimes, though not that often)

8/10 – Ability Samurott BW (This is a great card that is kinda common)

9/10 – Professor Oak’s New Theory (An amazing card that is either a staple or played in powerful deck(s))

10/10 – AbiliBoar AKA Emboar BW (This card is one of the best in the format)

11/10 – Pokémon Catcher (BROKEN – this card unbalances the metagame)

Anyhow, have a good day, and feel free to post a comment! :)

Reader Interactions

38 replies

  1. beyblade1410

    ya, I’m not big on Vanilluxe either. Who on Earth would play a deck thats main Pokemon is an ice cream cone, seriously? 

  2. Jak Stewart-Armstead

    There’s two kinds of people in this world . . .

    1. People who think Vanilluxe looks stupid (these people are wrong, but try to be tolerant with them, they can’t help it)

    2. People who recognise that Vanilluxe is two scoops of awesomeness served up in a cone of brilliance.

    • theo Seeds  → Jak

      There’s a third type: the one that is unaware enough not to know of Vaniluxxe’s existence. They’re the worst.

    • Johnny Y  → Jak

      This card is more of two scoops of troll served up on a cone of rage if it’s paired with Fliptini…

  3. Ross Gilbert

    Brilliant article: Good discussion, well-reasoned arguments and excellent subject matter.

    I do think it’s worth pointing out that Cobalion is becoming very common and will KILL Vanilluxe :p

    Also, the ratings system is not very good. Hitmontop can do 60 for one energy! (especially with Victini). It’s a good starter in the right deck.

    And i’ll be waiting for your apology for what you said about Musharna!

    • Will E  → Ross

      Musharna alone only has a 25% chance of doing 90 damage. Cheaptini can do 30 more damage for 1 less energy with the same odds, and you don’t have to wait a turn. Even with Hypno, the odds are only 50-50 that Dream Eater will work.

        • Will E  → theo

          So, you’re using three to four Stage 1s to do 90 damage a turn? Hmm… seems a bit clunky to me.

        • theo Seeds  → Will

          I’m not saying that it’s the best thing in the world. I’m saying it’s decent. It would be amazing if it were a grass or fire type.

    • andrewgn12  → Ross

      Emboar rating should be like 7-8 in my opinion, its kind of catcher bait, even it does win worlds doesnt mean that its broken.
      1/10 should be like WATCHOG and PATRAT from BW, hate that pokemon so much and their names are kinda stupid
      3/10 is not musharna but something like stunfisk or emcee chatter/bill 

  4. theo Seeds

    As a serious thing to say, I liked the review, but the rating system at the end wasn’t the best. But Musharna isn’t too bad. I’ve seen it paired with Hypno, and 90 for PP ain’t too shabby.

    As a funny/serious thing to say, I’d say that they really are running out of good ideas for pokemon. I know Baby Mario will have something to say about that, but it’s true. Excadrill is the Subterrene Pokemon. Beartic is the Freezing Pokemon. I think the only reason they haven’t made a bacon pokemon is some people would get offended.

      • Vinay Patel  → Mekkah

        Hey Mekkah, are you writing more Just my Type articles? They were awesome, but I haven’t seen them in a while. Are you waiting for the Pokemon EX to come out before you do Psychic, or something?

        • Mekkah  → Vinay

          I might, or I might not. From the last few it seemed not to be such a great hit anymore, and as a result I wrote a few other articles and didn’t look back. But they might come back sometime.

  5. Simon Narode

    No love for Hitmontop?

    I fell a little bit in love with Vanilluxe when I read somewhere online that a Vanilluxe/Mew variant is being called IceCreamMewScream. It makes me almost want to play it.

    Great article on an interesting card. I’m curious to see how much Vanilluxe gets played.

  6. José Yago De Alberto

    Hitmontop is not that awfull,it can donk sometimes.Musharna is fun. Noctowl HS deserves more respect also.
    I didn´t vote.

    • Will E  → José

      The key word here is “sometimes.” Even with FlipTini, there is only a 23.4% (I think that’s right) chance that you will donk a 60 HP Basic. Even so, Hitmontop’s low HP is just begging for a revenge KO.  Pretty much the only thing Hitmontop has going for it is its type advantage against Zekrom. Other than that, it’s way to flimsy and flippy.

      Anyway, yeah, maybe Hitmontop is at the higher end of the “1” spectrum… especially when compared to junk like Kyogre CL.

      As for Noctowl, I have never seen him in a competitive decklist. He also has only one attack, which is far from viable, and simple drawing a card is far from the best Poke Power in the format.

  7. Anonymous

    Pretty good arricle. I’m not really sold on the card.

    As for the rating system: go to study that rating system. Use it. This will put all the CotD writers on the same page

    • Will E  → Anonymous

      The problem with that is the ratings simply have names: “Good” “subpar” etc. What is subpar? Is it something that is below Tier 3 or below Tier 1? These are just my interpretations of the ratings, so that we’re all on the same page.

      Different people will interpret such ratings in different ways. Someone once said that a 10/10 card should have 3000 HP and be absolutely broken in other words.

      Anyway, I’ll try to find cards that are more universally recognized as either good, bad, or in between, and perhaps only do have card comparisons for the odd numbered ratings.

      • Jak Stewart-Armstead  → Will

        The problem with using card comparisons for ratings is that things change.

        What kind of benchmark would Yanmega Prime have set a year ago? How about at US Nats? How about now?

        Then come the rotation, all the cards are forgotton and irrelevant.

        And as the comments show, people get more hung up on the status you give to Hitmontop or Noctowl. I know I’m thinking ‘no way would I give AbilityBoar 10/10 . . . that card isn’t PERFECT! ‘ Rating a card by comparison with another only works if everyone puts the same value on the reference card. Which is rarely going to happen.

        • Will E  → Jak

          OK, I see your point.

          No more rating system next time, then.

          BTW I would say that a 10/10 doesn’t have to necessarily be perfect, just in the top 3 or 5 or so best/most useful cards in the format.

        • Anonymous  → Jak

          I think you are over thinking things.

          It should be obvious to virtually all people that the cards are being rated based on the current meta and how the fit in. Yes, things change and when they do then you can go back and do another CotD saying why it changed.

          Abandoning a rating just because things change is a big cop out.

          Yes, putting a whole list of cards up for comparison will distract people. So, instead of explaining the system (as the article does) everyone just needs to use the tcgscans system and then only give out the number (or small range).

          The rating system is, IMHO, the core of any CotD idea. It gives a concise overview of the card and it’s relative place in any given format. It drives good conversation on why the card deserves that rating or not. If everyone would just use the same system (Adam should just make this a rule of anyone who wants to write a CotD) it would be fine. Actually, it would likely be more than fine because of the honest discussion about the card’s score that would happen instead the discussion about the inconsistent rating systems.

        • Jak Stewart-Armstead  → Anonymous

          I’m not over thinking things, just suggesting that a rating system which relies on a  comparison to existing cards quickly becomes outdated. It is possible to have a ratings system without that. Maybe you misunderstood my post?

          It’s also unnecessary. People know what ‘bad League card’ means without being referred to Galvantula.

          I actually don’t want a standardised rating system. I like the fact that the different reviewers have different styles, different ways of scoring, and their own bias toward certain cards and strategies. It puts a bit of personality into the reviews and makes them interesting.

          As for the idea of ratings themselves, I’m indifferent. I don’t find it especially useful personally, but I know some people feel the need so . . . eh . . . leave it up to the reviewer. The point is to have (hopefully) insightful and well-written overviews of cards. That’s what generates discussion. The threads where people just spend their time quibbling over the rating are both tedious and unenlightening.

        • Anonymous  → Jak

          I might have misunderstood you. Sorry.

          I do think that every single rating system will compare cards to other cards in the current format. This is because we naturally evaluate the card in its environment. So, no matter what type of system is used, the ranking could be useless after each new set release. That is why it is OK to do multiple CotDs on the same card at different points in time.

          I do think that we agree that no one should use cards as the bench mark for the different levels of the ranking. Not even to explain the system as was done in this article because then it becomes “you gave X card a 2?!?” Rather, if you are going to use a system, let the levels be the bench marks for the cards.

          I will continue to disagree (and we will likely not come to an agreement) that if you are going to have a rating system, I think it should be standardized. This will not remove people’s personalities from their writings. They still have unique styles and may come to different conclusions for the specific ratings on specific cards. There would still be plenty of room for personality. However, it would remove the argument over the rating system each separate writer uses (as we see in this comment section, people are easily distracted by different systems from article to article. as long as the system is known to everyone in advance this would go away).

          If there was a standard system that everyone knew what the levels were, the discussion would eventually become a discussion of the merits of the card and why it deserves  (or does not deserve) the rating it received. It would clarify the conversation. This would help to keep the discussion focused because people would, hopefully, offer legit evaluations of why a card deserves the rating they think it deserves. This would not necessarily become “quibbling” that is “tedious and unenlightening.”

Leave a Reply

You are logged out. Register. Log in.