Just in case this isn’t a bit: OP, the structure in English should be “adjective noun.” The opposite to most romantic languages where you say the noun then the description word. So a cat girl is a girl (assumed human) that can be described as a cat (has the traits of a cat). A girl cat is more reasonably a cat that is a girl, though you’d probably say “female cat” more often. For allergies you’d want to look into hypoallergenic cats like the hairless sphynx.
Obviously it depends on the deck, but in general you want a large number of item cards and less pokemon and energy.
Item/trainer cards provide a lot of ways to draw/recycle and support your pokemon/energy and you’ll likely want to see a bigger ratio of them in your opening hand. Especially since you’re not going to go through too many more pokemon than you have prize cards and you can only have 1 active pokemon at a time with 6 total in play.
So the exact ratio depends on the deck and the pokemon you are trying to support, but essentially you shouldn’t be running more the 15 pokemon and 15 energy on a high end. 12 pokemon is pretty standard. Most of the rest of your deck should be search and draw cards which there should be plenty of.
Disclaimer: I don’t play this game.
That’s not the same logic though. His logic is “Noun A is part of noun AB, that does not mean noun AB is equal to or a subset of A.” While the way you’re interpreting it is “Noun A is part of noun AB, thus AB is not equal to and not a subset of A.” The important part is that his logic only dictates that the relationship between A and AB are independent of eachother, while your interpretation states that A depends on AB in an inverse manner. Ie: “We cannot say popcorn is or is not corn based on name alone,” vs “popcorn cannot be corn because corn is in the name.”
Not taking a side on social justice, the logical comparison you attempted just bothered me. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Yes