You don't have to agree with it, by all means continue to argue it, it gives the rest of us a good laugh. Continue to think its wrong, by all means, you are still wrong ^_^.
Zangoose Ruling Required
- Thread starter Nintenfreak
- Start date
You don't have to agree with it, by all means continue to argue it, it gives the rest of us a good laugh. Continue to think its wrong, by all means, you are still wrong ^_^.
Axel D Ogu
New Member
Again i'll repeat not saying it's wrong, just saying its BAD. Not legit. Not the ruling I would have made, ect. Comprende?
Its still weird that attacks can cross over their color boundaries. It seems like White attacks should affect white, puprle affect purple, blue blue ect. Not a white attack that can cross over and be any other attack. Inconsistent but hey WHATEVS only my opinion soooo cya at dogmass
Its still weird that attacks can cross over their color boundaries. It seems like White attacks should affect white, puprle affect purple, blue blue ect. Not a white attack that can cross over and be any other attack. Inconsistent but hey WHATEVS only my opinion soooo cya at dogmass
To Be Decided...
Ok... after reading through the rulebook again, and letting it sink in for a few more days... I'll have to wait for an official ruling on the PTFG Web site or a future rulebook.
Before I go into it let me restate the rulebook rule (pg. 8 "Altering Attacks):
"Some effects change the damage a Pokemon does. If an effect adds or subtracts damage, it only changes attacks that actually do damage. For example, if a Pokemon has an effect that multiplies the damage its attack does, and it spins a Miss or a Blue, there isn't any damage (there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue)."
Now I believe the last sentence in which it said there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue is referring to the original effect of the attack that's looking to be modified, meaning the effect doesn't trigger because it was not a damage based attack. We all agree on this, I think. BUT... this wording could mean one of two things happen. It could mean the non-damage attack resolves or it doesn't resolve because, in order for the effect to trigger (from the initial spin of swords dance), the immediately successive spin must be a damage based attack.
There's a big statement going for the successful resolution of Dodge after spinning swords dance, "If an effect adds or subtracts damage, it only changes attacks that actually do damage." That statement right there tells me if it's another attack (that doesn't do damage) after the initial attack and effect (swords dance in this case) it will not be changed (a miss or blue). An effect only "changes" attacks that actually do damage. It's clear a dodge doesn't do damage, so the effect of swords dance does not trigger or change the attack.
BUT...
It could be argued that "change" refers to damage related attacks and it is merely a reiteration of common sense (you cannot multiply damage of an attack that does no damage), still leaving the problem of resolution (does the effect not triggering mean the attack is over and it does no damage or do you resolve the non-damage attack?) However, I would think they makers wouldn't need to reiterate common sense. I would only think they'd need to qualify the rules and disambiguate them if necessary. However, they didn't disambiguate the resolution of the attack after spinning the effect, still leaving the rule up for interpretation pending an official PTFG ruling on their Web site or in future editions of the rulebook.
All the makers would need to do to fix this confusion is add a qualifying statement after the last sentence of the ruling I listed that says "there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue and those attacks (Miss or Blue) resolve as they would without the effect" or "If an effect that would multiply damage on successive spins does not result in an attack that does damage immediately after the effect, it does not resolve and the attack does 0 damage.
Ok... after reading through the rulebook again, and letting it sink in for a few more days... I'll have to wait for an official ruling on the PTFG Web site or a future rulebook.
Before I go into it let me restate the rulebook rule (pg. 8 "Altering Attacks):
"Some effects change the damage a Pokemon does. If an effect adds or subtracts damage, it only changes attacks that actually do damage. For example, if a Pokemon has an effect that multiplies the damage its attack does, and it spins a Miss or a Blue, there isn't any damage (there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue)."
Now I believe the last sentence in which it said there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue is referring to the original effect of the attack that's looking to be modified, meaning the effect doesn't trigger because it was not a damage based attack. We all agree on this, I think. BUT... this wording could mean one of two things happen. It could mean the non-damage attack resolves or it doesn't resolve because, in order for the effect to trigger (from the initial spin of swords dance), the immediately successive spin must be a damage based attack.
There's a big statement going for the successful resolution of Dodge after spinning swords dance, "If an effect adds or subtracts damage, it only changes attacks that actually do damage." That statement right there tells me if it's another attack (that doesn't do damage) after the initial attack and effect (swords dance in this case) it will not be changed (a miss or blue). An effect only "changes" attacks that actually do damage. It's clear a dodge doesn't do damage, so the effect of swords dance does not trigger or change the attack.
BUT...
It could be argued that "change" refers to damage related attacks and it is merely a reiteration of common sense (you cannot multiply damage of an attack that does no damage), still leaving the problem of resolution (does the effect not triggering mean the attack is over and it does no damage or do you resolve the non-damage attack?) However, I would think they makers wouldn't need to reiterate common sense. I would only think they'd need to qualify the rules and disambiguate them if necessary. However, they didn't disambiguate the resolution of the attack after spinning the effect, still leaving the rule up for interpretation pending an official PTFG ruling on their Web site or in future editions of the rulebook.
All the makers would need to do to fix this confusion is add a qualifying statement after the last sentence of the ruling I listed that says "there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue and those attacks (Miss or Blue) resolve as they would without the effect" or "If an effect that would multiply damage on successive spins does not result in an attack that does damage immediately after the effect, it does not resolve and the attack does 0 damage.
If an attack had an effect, would you not do it as well? Dodge has the added effect of dodging all the attacks of your opponent attacks. So, in your logic, you are 100 % right, the attack does 0 damage, but it also has the added effect of doging your opponents attack, thus the 0 damage means nothing. Does that clear things up?
I'm not sure. See... there needs to be more clarity in the resolution of an attack after an effect that modifies damage. Does the dodge resolve, or does it fizzle (not resolving dodge, but resolving the initial attack), with the effect doing 0 damage because there was no damage to the attack? I can see what you're saying, but it's not clear in the rulebook either way.
LegacyEeveeVGC
Active Member
The thing is that most people would spin again befor the other figure stops...
Master_Whiscash_77
New Member
Actually, the chance of getting Dodge would be Dodge + Dodge's % chance of being hit excluding Swords Dance x % chance of hitting Swords Dance. I think that's right.
Professor_Baker
New Member
It would appear that there are two camps and this question needs an official answer, I'm not sure where this should come from.
Here's how I think about the Swords Dance attach and how to resolve this and other questions over these types of attacks. When attacking the first spin determines the attack. In the case of most attacks the results are easily determined. So Ho-Oh's Fire Blast attack does 120 damage, Gust does 50 damage, etc. For other figures while the attack has been determined by the first spin, the resolution of the combat damage requires additional spins. These additional spins do not change the attack, but only determine the results of that attack. So for Beedrill if the first spin lans on Twineedle as the attack, a second spin is needed to determine if the attack does 40 or 80 damage. For Charizard a first spin of Fire Spin requires additional spins to determine the amount of damage done. But a spin ;landing on Miss does not chage the attack, it just ends the opportunity to do additional damage. Eevee and Zangoose would work the same way. If the first spin is Focus Energy or Sword's Dance then that result is the attack for this turn. In order to resolve that attack additional spins are necessary. If Eevee lands on one of the tackle attacks, then the damage is doubled. If a Miss or Dodge is the result then the attack Focus Energy does no damage and this would be resolved according to the rules. It is important to note that if the defending pokemon spun Miss as the result of their attack they would still be knocked out. Miss loses to all attacks. (See Page 3.) So if Zangoose's first spin results in Sword's Dance, then additional spins are necessary to resolve the attack. If Scratch or Crush Claw are the result of the additional spin then the damage is double. If Dodge is the result, then Sword's Dance does no damage.
Carefully read the Altering Attacks section on Page 8 and this is the only logical interpretation of that rule. "if a pokemon has an effect that multiplies the damage its attack does, and it spins a Miss or a Blue, ther isn't any damage." Stop there for a second and digest that statement. Sword's Dance followed by a Dodge has no damage. The part in parentheses "(there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue)" refers back to the fist sentence "some effects change the damage...) it does not say change the attack, at this point the spins are to determine the damage of the attack of the first spin results.
I hope this helps and I believe that thinking about this in stages will keep these types of questions from happenin gin the future. The first spin determines the attack, all subsequent spins are only determining the damage based on the effect of the first spin.
Here's how I think about the Swords Dance attach and how to resolve this and other questions over these types of attacks. When attacking the first spin determines the attack. In the case of most attacks the results are easily determined. So Ho-Oh's Fire Blast attack does 120 damage, Gust does 50 damage, etc. For other figures while the attack has been determined by the first spin, the resolution of the combat damage requires additional spins. These additional spins do not change the attack, but only determine the results of that attack. So for Beedrill if the first spin lans on Twineedle as the attack, a second spin is needed to determine if the attack does 40 or 80 damage. For Charizard a first spin of Fire Spin requires additional spins to determine the amount of damage done. But a spin ;landing on Miss does not chage the attack, it just ends the opportunity to do additional damage. Eevee and Zangoose would work the same way. If the first spin is Focus Energy or Sword's Dance then that result is the attack for this turn. In order to resolve that attack additional spins are necessary. If Eevee lands on one of the tackle attacks, then the damage is doubled. If a Miss or Dodge is the result then the attack Focus Energy does no damage and this would be resolved according to the rules. It is important to note that if the defending pokemon spun Miss as the result of their attack they would still be knocked out. Miss loses to all attacks. (See Page 3.) So if Zangoose's first spin results in Sword's Dance, then additional spins are necessary to resolve the attack. If Scratch or Crush Claw are the result of the additional spin then the damage is double. If Dodge is the result, then Sword's Dance does no damage.
Carefully read the Altering Attacks section on Page 8 and this is the only logical interpretation of that rule. "if a pokemon has an effect that multiplies the damage its attack does, and it spins a Miss or a Blue, ther isn't any damage." Stop there for a second and digest that statement. Sword's Dance followed by a Dodge has no damage. The part in parentheses "(there would be no effect to the Miss or Blue)" refers back to the fist sentence "some effects change the damage...) it does not say change the attack, at this point the spins are to determine the damage of the attack of the first spin results.
I hope this helps and I believe that thinking about this in stages will keep these types of questions from happenin gin the future. The first spin determines the attack, all subsequent spins are only determining the damage based on the effect of the first spin.
There's already been a ruling on this.
Focus Energy/Swords Dance followed by Dodge acts as a Dodge. However, purple attacks will still trump Swords Dance, so if Murkrow spins Whirlwind and Zangoose spins Swords Dance, Zangoose does not get to spin again to try for a Blue dodge.
Focus Energy/Swords Dance followed by Dodge acts as a Dodge. However, purple attacks will still trump Swords Dance, so if Murkrow spins Whirlwind and Zangoose spins Swords Dance, Zangoose does not get to spin again to try for a Blue dodge.
ryanvergel
New Member
You guys need to take the tone down a notch. Keep it calm, cool and collected.
Discuss all day and night. Jimmer is a higher authority, yes, but there have been times when the higher authorities turned out to give wrong rulings (this is very rare, but in the TCG it's happened before IIRC).
If you DO choose to discuss and debate, keep it clean and decent. Nothing's gotten out of hand, but that doesn't mean this thread isn't on that route.
Discuss all day and night. Jimmer is a higher authority, yes, but there have been times when the higher authorities turned out to give wrong rulings (this is very rare, but in the TCG it's happened before IIRC).
If you DO choose to discuss and debate, keep it clean and decent. Nothing's gotten out of hand, but that doesn't mean this thread isn't on that route.