>>26623223
no and no

>>26623223
It is better, but that doesn't make it good. It's like the flu being better than tuberculosis.

>inb4 some blue/white control player who also plays stall in Pokemon comes in to defend Magic.

>>26623262
what makes it better?
got back into Magic this week because my brother wanted to play. Been thinking about going into Pokémon for a while now

I actually think mtg is loads more fun, but every now and then I'll play pokemon tcg and have a blast

>>26623223
Pokemon right now has no complexity at all. Mtg always tries to bring more stuff to the table every set, while pokemon has been stale for quite a while, especially at HGSS.

Play mtg if you like mixed play, pokemon if you don't like that someone beat you without even playing a monster, yugioh if you like combos.

And no.

>>26624136
I loved Yugioh for its combos and building decks with goofy gimmicks. I left because they didn't know when to stop dumping complexity on top, and the way that top play depended entirely on a small handful of cards that rocketed in price every single time.

Would I like MTG? I've tried the Pokemon CG and didn't like it much. Just didn't feel right.

>>26624136
>pokemon if you don't like that someone beat you without even playing a monster

Eh?

>>26624404
In mtg, there are multiple decks that win without even interacting with your opponent. Burn decks literally plays damaging spells after damaging spells until they win or lose.

>>26624390
Mtg is much less complex in terms of text(compared to yugioh), since most common mechanics have a keyword for them, like "Flying" or "First Strike".
Every set they print out a small group of mechanics, so you don't need to learn dozens of mechanics that only a card or two have.
In formats where a large amount of sets are valid like modern, you need to have a vast knowledge about mechanics, since there are dozens of them.