Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Multi Energy Ruling problem/question

H

hinkbert

New Member
Ok, so I posted this in the Ask the Masters forum and I got an answer but I need further explication and since you can't respond in that forum I wanted to start a thread here. So here is what I originally posted:

MULTI ENERGY (EX:Sandstorm)

Q. The wording for Multi Energy is a bit confusing; does it mean that if I have Multi Energy already attached, and then I attach a special energy card, does the "rainbow effect" of Multi Energy disappear at that time?
A. Yes. Multi Energy provides colorless energy when any other Special Energy card is present on the Pokémon (Sep 11, 2003 PUI Rules Team)

Q. If I have one Multi Energy attached and then I attach a second one, do they cancel each other out and both become colorless?
A. Yes, since they are both Special Energy cards, each one cancels out the other. (Sep 11, 2003 PUI Rules Team)


Basically I want to know why the multi-energy becomes colorless. On the text of the card it says that multi energy provides :colorless when attached to a pokemon that already a special energy attached. So if you attach multi energy first turn and then second attach a say a Darkness energy the next turn, why does Multi energy become :colorless since the text says that multi energy only becomes :colorless when attached to a pokemon that already has a special energy attached?


And the response I received was this:
It's just poorly worded, that's all.


Now it seems to me that wording on this card isn't poor, it's strategic. So basically I want to know why the conclusion that was reached was reached. Was the card mistranslated? If that's the case then I think it would need to be errated. Otherwise the word seems to be strategically placed, so a person could play Multi energy first, and then another special energy later so they can keep the rainbow effect turned on.
 
No, it makes sense. You're just trying to find a loophole where there isn't one. Basically the wording is saying if any other special energy are present on the same pokemon, it provides C. The "Strategic" way to read it is a cheap way to look at it, really... if you want to see the "Strategic" gag at work, you should've been around when the original wording of Metal Energy existed - it prevented any application of 10 damage, and the original Rainbow Energy did 10 damage. Early US Metal decks would just attach Metal first and cancel the damage from Rainbow... but that's a broken strategy, and BOTH cards were errataed to fix the issue in their first reprints.
 
This is the exact wording pertaining to the part of text that I am having an issue with:

"Multi Energy provides :colorless Energy when attached to a Pokemon that already has Special Energy cards attached to it. "

The strategy isn't cheap, or contrived, or attempting to find a loophole where this isn't one, the strategy is taking the wording of the card literally (which I know can be dangerous in a game like this), which is why I'm seeking information on why the ruling was made the way it was. In your example metal energy got errated which was fine since the combo was broken. All I'm saying is that is the situation that should happen here if the word "already" has no significance. I mean look at the text if you take the word "already": out:

"Multi Energy provides :colorless Energy when attached to a Pokemon that has Special Energy cards attached to it. "

As you can see the empahsis on when the card was placed is gone and the temporal aspect of the placement is no longer important. If the card was supposed to become colorless anytime any special energy was attached then that is how is should be worded. To me, it seems the word "already" had to be purposefully added and thus it would effect the strategy of the way the card is used. If the word "already" has no point it should not be there in the first place, and if the card was mistranslated it should be errated to reflect this. Basically to sum up my argument, why is the word "already" included in the text? And since the word "already" is there why is it basically ignored in the conpendium ruling?

I wasn't on this board when Sandstorm was released so if this was argument already presented and explained I'm sorry for rehashing an old argument, but I won't ignore what a card says and play it a different without some sort of basis for why a ruling was made. The conpendium ruling does not address the word "already" and I want to know why.
 
Last edited:
But that's part of the problem there's only one place where I could find a ruling which was on the conpendium, there's no ruling at the op.pokmon-tcg site (at least none that I could find so if there is one I'd appreciate if someone could provide a link cause I searched for a while and couldn't find one). In other rulings there's an explaination for why the ruling was made a certain way (for example you can't Rain Dance a multi energy because it does not provide energy until in play). But for this there is no explaination. And again if the card is wrong (like Steven's Advice was) is should be errated or addressed in some way. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but I think a situation like this should be examined so the card is being played correctly.
 
Its more like Translation issue. These cards are meant to maintain an unkeep about the requirements. For examples, you cannot attach a Double Rainbow Energy and transfer it to an EX pokemon or a basic pokemon. Multi Energy only provides all energy when it is the only special energy attached (now why didnt they translate it this way? :p)
 
Well that's what I'm saying, if it was a translation issue isn't there some way to figure that out? I'm sure there is given the copious amount of resources the various people that visit this site have. I mean lets look at what Double Rainbow Energy says:

"Double Rainbow Energy can be attached only to an Evolved Pokemon (excluding Pokemon-ex). While in play, Double Rainbow Energy provides every type of Energy but provides 2 Energy at a time. (Doesn't count as a basic Energy when not in play and has no effect other than providing Energy.) Damage done to your opponent's Pokemon by the Pokemon Double Rainbow Energy is attached to is reduced by 10 (after applying Weakness and Resistance). When the Pokemon Double Rainbow Energy is attached to is no longer an Evolved Pokemon, discard Double Rainbow Energy. "

It says that it can only be attached to evolved pokemon except and EX. The the last line of the card deals with whatever situation would happen if a pokemon was no longer evolved, but says nothing about EX's. So obviously the question of using a Poke Power to move the energy came up and was answered properly, it gets discarded, because it can never be attached to an EX. But there is no kind of adjective here to describe any relationship with time or placement precedence that the card might have, and that's the issue I want examined for multi energy since it does have that situation where placement precedence would seemingly be involved since the word "already" is in the text.
 
About your question. Yu-Gi-Oh! has the same problem as well. It is not that easy to translate one language to another to another. And when you do that to mass number of cards, mistakes are going to be there. The best we can do is to errata the problems as soon as it comes out. YES, its better to prevent it, but thats not in our power
 
It's a matter of whether "attached" is referring to an action or a state of being.
You are taking it as the action, PUI maintains the "state of being" meaning.

Again, poorly worded, but defensible by semantics.
 
btw the multi energy effect is permanent,no matter when u attach another special energy,it wil be come colorless after tat
 
I understand what everyone is saying, and that "attached" can refer to either the action (verb) or "state of being" (adjective). I guess I just want to know why the word "already" is included at all in the text since I pointed out that it seems to serve no purpose. I mean if the intent of multi energy is to become colorless if any other special energy is present, the word "already" would not be needed, so if was mistranslated I understand (since translations can be difficult). But basically I just want to make sure that it isn't supposed to serve some purpose since the word "already" is included (such as, if it is the first special energy attached to a pokemon it never loses its rainbow status). So I can see where the ruling came from but I guess I just wanted to make sure that no one ever saw this (the word "already") and questioned the overall use of the card. I don't know Japanese so I can't read their cards, but the wording of this just made me curious I guess. Does anybody know what the Japanese version of multi energy states?
 
It's not poorly translated if you combine the "state of being" argument with a "constant check" one; that is, the energy constantly checks itself for conditions specified in its text, much like any pokebody or power that turns on when a certain condition is met (no retreat when you have a metal energy attached, etc.) - kind of like a continuously compounding interest rate. You could think of it this way: the card is always asking itself "Is there another special energy attached? How about now? Now? What about....dumdumdum....now? Ohhhh, there already is...I'm colorless."
 
So basically when a card states "attach" it's refering to the action (i.e. when you attach this card to a pokemon...etc.), when a card states "attached" it refers more to the adjective or "state of being". And since this card says attached that means it would refer to it already being attached to the pokemon, so I get it now, but still that has to be one of the most poorly translated and thus one of the most difficult rulings to defend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top