SKY Machamp VS Blex

Discussion in 'Cards: Strategy and Rulings Discussion' started by Ultramew, Mar 25, 2004.

8 league13 468 60
  1. Ultramew

    Ultramew New Member

    In other words, does Volcanic Ash count as normal damage, or effect damage?
  2. ~Blazi-King~

    ~Blazi-King~ New Member

    I believe it counts as normal damage becuz machamps power calculates for anything other than damage and blex's volcanic ash text says This attack does 100 "damage" to that pokemon
  3. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it's to the Active or to the Bench.
  4. Ultramew

    Ultramew New Member

    Yeah, I had the idea that was it. However, if we look at the card at a closer level, we can see something...

    Volcanic Ash does 0 damage to the defending Pokemon.
    Volcanic Ash has an effect which allows it to do 100 damage to any Pokemon.

    Would that then count as an effect of an attack, rather than actual "damage", which is what Immunity doesn't prevent?
  5. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Its okay to be confused on this one Ultramew. I'm anything but clear in my mind too... ;)

    In all the rulebooks, both Wotc and Ninty, we are told to do DAMAGE first then do all other EFFECTS of an attack.

    also we are used to DAMAGE being indicated by a number or a ? beside the attack name.


    Seems easy and once upon a time it was. But the folowing statements that look like the above are in fact WRONG

    No Number or ? beside the sttack name means that the attack does not do damage (THIS IS WRONG)

    Card templating seperates out DAMAGE from EFFECT (also wrong).


    So where are we?

    1) the word damage is used in more that one way. So be carefull.
    2) PLACING DAMAGE COUNTERS is not 'doing damage'
    3) The attack text may instruct you as to how much damage is done.
    4) doing damage will involve a weakness and resistance check!

    The biggest clue that damage is being done as part of Volcanic Ash is a statement about NOT applying weakness and resistance to the bench ie to miss out the W/R part of the damage calculation process.

    There you go: absolutely crystal clear. LOL. No chance of anyone ever getting it wrong???? errr Not!
  6. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    I'll stick my neck out and say that

  7. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    NoPoke: you sure are making huge statements, saying he is totally wrong and you are right, but where is the proof that there is no such thing as effect damage?

    Also, this has been very lightly ruled. I can guarantee that TC has not asked this to nintendo. All the rulling said was that immunity did not stop damage, but it stopped effects of attacks. That is the same exact thing that the card reads. Now how do we know if blaziken's 100 damage is not an effect of it's attack? Well lets look into the definition of attack.

    Attack Damage

    Do we all agree? Now lets look at blaziken EX. It does not have 100 on the damage side. It has the 100 damage in the effect side part of the card. So it would seem clear that the 100 damage would be an effect of an attack.

    No effect damage? Well they ruled placing damage counters was an effect.
  8. dld4a

    dld4a Feature Writer

    Just to confuse things even more, the word effect has been ruled in the past to mean only status (poison, confusion, paralization, etc.). So Machamp's power would not stop any switching or other attack wording, but that's not the ruling. The ruling as stated before is that his power stops everything but damage (period). As far as your debate here, the number next to the attack is not the only way to "do damage". It comes down to "doing damage" or "placing damage counters". Volcanic Ash actually says "do damage" you can't get any clearer than that.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2004
  9. SuperWooper

    SuperWooper New Member

    The 'Pop has speaked!

    This is also my opinion. NoPoke, you just keep on confusing us, we'll be all ears for the final confusion. I mean all eyes......

  10. SuperWooper

    SuperWooper New Member

    Sorry for the back to back post, but here's a link to the closest thing to a ruling we could find:


    This backs up my theory that it's damage.

  11. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Ultramew asks if Volcanic ash does attack damage or effect damage?

    I don't think there is such a thing as "effect damage". Which means that Volcanic Ash does 'attack damage'. Or more simply Volcanic Ash does damage.

    Like 'pop says damage is damage!

    In the past effects were limited to the simple status effects of posion sleep paralysis and confusion. But that was a long time ago. The confusion comes from hanging on to old ways of thinking in the light of new effects.

    Placing damage counters is not damage.

    So don't let your entities multiply beyond that which is necessary. We don't need 'attack damage' or 'effect damage' as concepts within the game.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2004
  12. Ultramew

    Ultramew New Member

    Right well how about Swift? In 2v2, you can target a active, but attack the other (thus being a good baby killer). Would that not count as "effect damage"? I don't think anyone has mention "placing damage counters" to mean damage at all, NoPoke. You're just getting ahead of yourself.
  13. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    Machamp says to prevent ALL effects of attacks. Even if damage is damage, there is still effect damage and regular damage. Having pop say that damage is damage doesn't mean anything because there can still be effect damage, just like blaziken EX. Chrisbo gave us a rulling but he had to go out on a limb. Exactly why I want them to atleast ask nintendo about it. People will be arguing about it until they do, and that will put the nail in the coffin and shut everyone up.
  14. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    All of the current rullings that I can think of do not require a distinction between damage that is written on a card as a number and damage that is calculated by flipping coins or written explicitly in the Attack text. If there is no need to introduce a new concept to the game (ie effect damage) then I'd suggest that we stay with Occam's razor and don't introduce an unnecessary new concept.

    During a brief period with Suicune it did look like we were going to have to introduce the idea of effect damage but thankfully the Suicune rullings were resolved without the need to introduce anything additional. Damage IS Damage.

    If you would normally apply a weakness and resistance check then it is DAMAGE.
    Some attacks that do DAMAGE have additional text to say not to apply the normal weakness and resistance calculations. Just because a step is being explicity missed out in the normal process of damage calculation does not stop that process from being one of doing damage.

    Show me a rulling that indicates that we have effect damage and I'll go back to joining the ranks of the confused over damage much like during the "Suicune Month". But at the moment I'm with pokePop that damage is damage.

    Attacking a baby with the baby rule requires a baby flip before anything else takes place. Once the baby flip is passed you are free to damage any pokemon you like. The standard way of getting round this is to attack a non-baby so you don't have to flip and then target the baby for the KO.

    Placing damage counters is the closest that you might get to 'effect damage'. But why introduce 'effect damage' when it is well established that placing damage counters IS NOT DAMAGE.

    My position is that a Pokemon attack can have two parts:-

    a) DAMAGE
    b) EFFECT.

    How these two elements appear on the cards has altered from the days of BASE set to the current templating where DAMAGE can be wholely described within the attack text. It is this alteration over the years along with a reasonable, but incorrect, assuption that results in the confusion that players have with DAMAGE. I too went through a period of being confussed over damage. It was only when I let go off my earlier assumptions and restricted myself to DAMAGE IS DAMAGE AND NOTHING MORE that my confusion was lifted.
  15. Physics Squirrel

    Physics Squirrel Active Member

    I'm with NoPoke, any part of an attack that does damage is not an "effect." There is no such thing as effect damage. Any damage dealt is not treated as an effect. In the case of the baby killing scenario, damage is being done to the3 baby, not the "effect" of damage. Any damage dealt is simply "damage", and not an effect.
  16. bulbasnore

    bulbasnore Administrator Staff Member Trader Feedback Mod

    A lot of confusion comes from those awful (nightmarish) Suicune Crystal Body Pokémon Power rulings.

    From the correction/overrule paragraph of the original Compendium's discussion of 'Crystal Body', we have this:

    "If Suicune is a Benched Pokemon and Dark Arbok uses its Stare attack against it ("Choose 1 of your opponent's Pokemon. This attack does 10 damage to that Pokemon. Don't apply Weakness and Resistance for this attack. (Any other effects that would happen after applying Weakness and Resistance still happen.) If that Pokemon has a Pokemon Power, that power stops working until the end of your opponent's next turn."), Suicune would still take the 10 damage but its Crystal Body Pokemon Power would prevent the Stare's effect of shutting off the Pokemon Power."

    Just like BEX, if you check out D. Arbok, you'll see its Stare attack's damage is not printed to the right (this 'number in a specific location' is the 'templating' NoPoke referred to as NOT being related to the definition of damage):

    So - Immunity:Volcanic Ash::Crystal Body:Stare, i.e. the damage gets done despite the power.

Share This Page