DARKNESS energy

Discussion in 'Cards: Strategy and Rulings Discussion' started by NoPoke, Sep 23, 2003.

8 league13 468 60
  1. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    All of the following relate to the new wording and sequence for calculating the effect from a Dark energy card.

    1) Does an attack have to have a potential BASE DAMAGE (before weakness and resistance) of greater than zero to allow the +10?

    2) Similar to 1) but does the attack have to have an actual BASE DAMAGE (prior to adding darkness) of greater than zero to gain the +10

    3) Does an attack have to have a number 9including zero) , or question mark printed after the attack name to gain the +10?

    4) Does the +10 now apply to Bench Damage too?


    I'm going to be rulling Yes, No, No, and No at the tournament this weekend unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

    For the distinction between a POTENTIAL BASE DAMAGE and BASE DAMAGE consider a flippy attack that gets all tails: result zero BASE damage, but there was the POTENTIAL for damage prior to the flips.

    [What I'm after is examples where this interpretation will result in a card becoming broken. Or examples why alternative ,more relaxed, answers don't result in Darkness becoming King!]

    let the debate begin... unless there is a rulings meeting this week. ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2003
  2. GuardianTIM

    GuardianTIM New Member

    I'm thinking that unless something has changed in the rules, go with the old DarknessEnergy/Pluspower ruling where you calculate the base damage, and if that is 0, then Dark/Pluspower has no effect, regardless if you could have done more than 0.

    After all, would you want RocketsSneasel (BEST promo) to use it's Entrap attack for (D), and instead of just stopping you from retreating, doing 10 damage as well?
    Another Example is the Aquapolis Sneasel. It's first attack "Rob" costs 1 dark energy and lets you look at your opponents hand and put one TM or PokemonTool back into their deck. It's not designed to do damage, so why should it?
    Same goes for Aq Tyranitar with it's Destructive Roar attack, where you flip a coin and if heads, discard an energy card attached to one of your opponents pokemon. Not designed to do damage.

    Okay, enough examples.
    Perhaps someone else has an opinion to share?
     
  3. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Ahh guess you missed that the rules HAVE changed.

    Darkness is now included prior to applying weakness and resistance. A single dark energy can now add 20 after weakness.

    BTW I believe that my Yes,No,No,No answer is consistant with your 'not designed to do damage' proposal. Nice way of putting it.!
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2003
  4. dkates

    dkates New Member

    I have to agree with you two here. If an attack can do damage before W/R, apply the effect if it's hitting the Defending, regardless of whether there's an indicated base damage (example -- Murkrow's Feint Attack). The only thorn might be the flippy attacks that end up at 0. Let's imagine this, using Sneasel's Fury Swipes as an example. If you slash at a Pokemon 3 times, and miss all three, does it matter where you got the power to do those slashes? I'm tempted to say no. Some attacks are a little harder to imagine than that, but it comes down to the same thing. Attempt the same thing X number of times, and fail all of them. Does it matter how you were able to try in the first place? You still failed.
     

Share This Page