Double Rainbow: Does it trump basic energy?

Discussion in 'Ask the Rules Team' started by Clueless in Seattle, May 28, 2009.

  1. Clueless in Seattle

    Clueless in Seattle New Member

    Do you answer questions here in this forum about old cards that are no longer included in the list of modified legal cards?

    Last night in a game with my grandson I played a Double Rainbow Energy (Emerald 87/106) onto my Lucario (P6 2/17) because I didn't have any Basic Energy cards in my hand. The Lucario already had one Fighting Energy card attached to it. By adding the DRE I was able to use Lucario's Aura Sphere attack, which requires two Fighting Energies and does 20 damage to one of my opponent's benched Pokemon.

    Of course, the downside of this old DRE card is that it reduced Lucario's Aura Sphere main attack from 40 damage to 30.

    So, when, on my next turn, I drew a Fighting Energy card, I immediately attached it to Lucario, assuming that now that I had two Fighting Energy cards attached to Lucario, I could now use the full 40 damage of the Aura Sphere attack.

    But my grandson countered that even with the two Fighting Energies attached to Lucario, as long as the DRE was also attached, Lucario's attack would still be reduced by ten damage.

    Upon examining the card I had to admit that the wording did seem to indicate that the DRE card would continue to cripple my Lucario, even though I now had the two Fighting Energy cards required for the full Aura Sphere attack.

    Here's the wording on the card:

    "Damage done to your opponent's Pokemon by the Pokemon [that] Double Rainbow Energy is attached to is reduced by 10 ."

    This wording doesn't specify whether the DRE card must be actually utilized to power the attack in order to exact the reduction of ten. It just seems to be saying that as long as the DRE is attached to a Pokemon, that Pokemon's attacks are reduced by ten, regardless of how many additional Basic Energy cards are attached to that Pokemon.

    So, I reluctantly was compelled to concur with my grandson's argument.

    Did we interpret the card correctly?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  2. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    Your grandson was correct.
    What's important is that it's attached. Not that you needed it.
    Also, the 20 damage to the bench is also reduced to 10.
     

Share This Page