Hey! PUI! Wrong ruling again!

[vincent0906]

== BUFFER (Jumpluff - EX:Team Rocket Returns; Skiploom - EX:Team Rocket Returns; Hoppip - EX:Team Rocket Returns)

Q. Say TRR Skiploom has 50 damage on it and the opponent uses ATM-Rock to devolve Skiploom back to Hoppip. Would Hoppip's "Buffer" Poke-BODY come into play in a situation like this?
A. Yes, ATM-Rock's "Stone Generator" is considered an attack, and if an attack causes the Pokemon to be KO'd during that player's turn then "Buffer" will trigger. (Nov 18, 2004 PUI Rules Team)

<<<<<<
This ruling is TOTALLY WRONG.
First of all, This card NEEDS to be errated, becoz the Japanese Version of these cards (Hoppip, Skiploom and Jumpluff) stated that, this body works only if this pokemon is KO'ed by opponent's attack DAMAGE, not damage and effect.

If not get errated, this ruling still wrong :D , the effect is acting on skiploom but not hoppip,
the pokemon needs to be KO'ed is Hoppip but not Skiploom.
So the effect of ATM rock is acting on the Skiploom, then It devolve.
But after devolution, the Hoppip get KO'ed.
During devolution, all effect on the old pokemon faded.
So after that, the effect of ATM rock would not effect Hoppip anymore, and Hoppip being KO'ed not by ATM rock, but by unknown damage :)

== POWDER PROTECTION (Ledian - EX:Team Rocket Returns)

Q. If my Active Pokemon has an owner in its name, and its attack does damage to my own benched Pokemon, would Ledian's "Powder Protection" protect it from such damage.
A. Yes, that is correct. (Nov 18, 2004 PUI Rules Team)

This card needs to be errated too, the Japanese Version stated that, it prevent opponent's pokemon(with owner in its name) damage.

1. If my Rocket's Zapdos EX does 30 damage to my benched Ledian, the Ledian cannot prevent it.
2. If my Rocket's Zapdos EX does 30 damage to my own benched pokemon, the defending Ledian's body cannot affect benched damage but can -40 to the damage to Ledian itself. as it stated "-40 to ITSELF"

[TRJessie579]

Originally Posted by vincent0906

2. If my Rocket's Zapdos EX does 30 damage to my own benched pokemon, the defending Ledian's body cannot affect benched damage but can -40 to the damage to Ledian itself. as it stated "-40 to ITSELF"

I think this is what they meant, it was just worded strangely. (I had to look it over a few times last night.) I believe what they said was, if my own Rocket's Zapdos EX were to do damage to my benched Pokemon, and it did damage to MY benched Ledian, the Ledian's "Power Protection" would prevent that damage.

Still doesn't matter if the Japanese version is worded the way you say it is, but I just wanted to maybe clarify. :D Now I just hope I understood YOU correctly...

[Glumanda]

I think that this ruling is absolutely correct in that way.
The case "Mew´s Devolution Bean vs. Focus Band" was ruled the same way...

[SteveP]

Interesting point about the Skiploom/Hoppip. Certainly, the Japanese version works different if indeed what you say is correct.

Regarding a devolved Skiploom, the devolution effect is meaningless until Skiploom devolves into Hoppip, at which point the KO check is made.

The Focus Band ruling is different since the effect comes from the trainer, not a Poke-Body on the devolved Pokemon. The Focus Band KNOWS the KO was a result of the attack.

Devolving a Pokemon removes ALL effects on THAT Pokemon. So I'd say vincent has a valid point here. It's kind of like this:

- Skiploom devolves
- Hoppip wakes up and says, "What the heck?"
- Hoppip has no clue how Skiploom was removed, whether it was an attack, Devo Spray, etc.
- Hoppip notices his damage exceeds his health, but with no clue that he was attacked, gets KO'd.

But hey, this is a real tricky ruling and I suppose could go either way. Until otherwise, I'll go with the PUI ruling.

[PokePop]

The thought was that this was occurring during the attack resolution (attack phase, if you will) and therefore was a result of the attack, triggering the power.

Now, if the Japanese card specifies being KO'd due to damage, that's something to ask about regarding an errata.

However, with the card printed as is and no errata issued, to emphatically state the ruling is wrong (exclamation point!) is getting a little aggressive, don't you think?
I can see it being argued the other way, but let's keep it civil.

[vincent0906]

Originally Posted by PokePop

However, with the card printed as is and no errata issued, to emphatically state the ruling is wrong (exclamation point!) is getting a little aggressive, don't you think?
I can see it being argued the other way, but let's keep it civil.

OK, but the thing I have to say is,

THIS IS THE FACT, DIFFERENT IS DIFFERENT.
If the same game have 2 version of rulings, how I can play? Which Version I should follow?

We need a UNITED RULING.

So, errating cards is extremely important, it is the first step.

Say I play 4 benched TRR Mantine in the world championship in the next year,
when I willing to use 4 Mantine's power, a PCL staff came and said 'Hey you cannot do like that!'
How your result is affected?

Although its troublesome, but we still have to do that. :D

[PokePop]

In point of fact, PUI is the official source of rulings for everywhere outside of Japan.
Yes, they in turn can get rulings and errata from Japan.
But unless PUI issues such erratas or rulings, you play by the rulings put out by PUI.
Period.
There is no "two sources of rulings" for people playing in POP play. There is only one.

At Worlds, PCL did not overrule any way that a card was being played during the tournament.
If it wasn't covered in pre-tournament errata (as a few things were), the PUI way of playing it stood.