>Here's the deck I like to use called Acid Rain, It's
water/fire and has
>won much more than lost.
>4lapras
>4fossil magmar
>3jigglypuff
>2wigglytuff
>3ditto
>10water energy
>10fire energy
>4double-colorless energy
>4plus power
>4bill
>2oak
>4energy removal
>3gust
>2comp. search
>1item finder
>Well I don't have any restrictions,I have about 4 of
almost every card.

***

A water/fire haymaker. Mmm, good. I like this idea--I
actually thought it up on my own, but didn't have the
cards to try it out.

1) I can't argue with Lapras, nor with Magmar, nor
with Jigglypuff. I just wish to hell you had told me
why you put those Dittos in there. I have yet to see
Ditto used well--most people just stick him in their
decks and try to take advantage of situations as they
come along. This may pay off in some cases, but it can
also blow up in your face. I'd rather have Scyther, so
I'll swap the Ditto for some of those.

2) You also show remarkable intelligence when it comes
to trainers. The one thing I think should be done is
to add in SER somewhere. We can take out one of the
GOWs and the Item Finder (no reason to have only one
Finder, and we can't afford to add any more.)

3) You shouldn't have any energy problems, considering
that none of your Pokemon require very much to attack
(except Wiggly and Scyther, which can make use of
DCE.) In other words, I'm not changing the energy
balance at all.

So:

***

Pokemon: 16

4 Lapras
4 Magmar (Fossil)
3 Jigglypuff
2 Wigglytuff
3 Scyther

Trainers: 20

4 PlusPower
3 Bill
2 Oak
4 Energy Removal
3 Super Energy Removal
2 GOW
2 Computer Search

Energy: 24

10 Water Energy
10 Fire Energy
4 DCE

***

I really, really like this deck. If I *were* to play a
haymaker (heaven forbid) it would probably end up
looking something like this. By the way, when one of
my articles is this short, it generally means the deck
was good. I don't use up that much space when I don't
have a lot to complain about.

(This deck gets the official "I DID NOT HAVE TO ADD
ANY OAKS OR BILLS TO THIS DECK" award.)