Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Babies Lose Protection!

Status
Not open for further replies.
That may settle the question on the "older" babies but I bet there will still be some argument about the "youngest" "so called" baby pokemon like elekid & wynaut.
No where on the newest ones does it say that they are a baby pokemon. They say they are basic's. Yes they have a poke power that's called baby evolution but it still is NOT a baby pokemon
 
League Leader Terry said:
Well, if the new "babies" say Basic Pokemon instead of Baby, then the flip for the Baby power doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Yep ur right on that one. They do say basic so you would not have to flip for them.
 
And the debate goes on! I think this new set has energized the game. Lots of discussion, maybe no drastic changes, but certainly some new directions.

I agree with those that have pointed out that the newer 'Babies' wouldn't require a flip, because they are not classified as Babies. Since nothing on the card says the Pokemon is a Baby, like the older cards did, it would be pretty hard to make a case that the line in the rule book referencing the Baby flip would apply to them.

It will be interesting to see if the traditional 'Baby' reappears in future sets or promos.

BDS
 
A lot of players notice this at the Prerelease on Saturday. I think it is a good thing for the reason that some players used a ton of babies in their decks just to stall that game. I don't have a problem it a player wants to use them to give himself a little time, but just to stall out the whole game is another thing. I like that they are basic in the set.
 
It's a RULE - not a power!

You folks need to pick the nits back up from where you dropped them.
It's a rule - not a power. Most players are aware that this rule has never gotten the end-run because it is a rule. There is also a rule that says babies are treated as basic pokemon. This so there's no argument about mulligans, putting down on the bench etc etc.
My guess would be that since Pichu, Cleffa, et al are KNOWN to be baby pokemon, it matters not what is printed on the card as far as "baby" or "basic" goes - the baby rule still applies. Think about it. Elekid and Electabuzz. Does that make Electabuzz a stage 1 now that "babies are basics"? Nope. Representing a baby as a basic and not a baby anymore (do pokemon suffer puberty?) would raise way more questions and problems than it would solve.
Besides (warning: 2 cent soapbox coming up :p ) babies carry enough of a penalty as it is - They are balanced and the game is more interesting because of them.
 
Besides (warning: 2 cent soapbox coming up ) babies carry enough of a penalty as it is - They are balanced and the game is more interesting because of them.

What a comedian!! .... Wait... were you SERIOUS?!
 
Yeah, I'll miss the whole baby rule thing but I'd have to agree with Nick15, "the less flips the better". Guess it seems that we've left the Golden Age of "babies" and now moved back to where we were when the game first started in '99 with now the Second Age of BBP's.
 
If the card doesn't say "Baby" on it, it ain't a Baby and the Baby Rule (Rule, not Power!) does not apply.
If it says Baby on it, it's a Baby Pokemon, just like Shining Gyardos isn't a Stage 1.
You go by what's printed on the card.
There's no "assumption" about the stage of a card. It's whatever is printed on it.
 
Ball and Chain

Nick15 said:
Besides (warning: 2 cent soapbox coming up ) babies carry enough of a penalty as it is - They are balanced and the game is more interesting because of them.

What a comedian!! .... Wait... were you SERIOUS?!
Click to expand...
Ka-Ching - man that chain you left laying there was too easy to pull Nick! :lol: and it only cost 2 cents...
 
Last edited:
Its a game mechanic, I really dont think people should refer to it as a "power" (because its NOT) calling it the "Baby" rull is also strange- just call it the baby-mechanic, or ex-mechanic or whatever. Less flips the better? Ok then... whatever, I like fliping, eh go figure. I belive these new Pre-evolved forms (tech term from Pokemon show heh) are really `Stronger' types, like the Magbi in one of the eps, able to dish out some dammage, thus they gain weakness, retreat cost, etc- and lose the mechanic, also this pulls it inline with the gameboy version and that (seems) to be what NoA and Japan (?) want.
 
It doesnt matter what the back of the rulebook says. If it isnt printed on the card then you dont have to flip before attacking it. Period.

These "new babies" are interesting. I especially like Wynaut. His attack is very good if Trader will not be allowed in the upcoming format.
 
JohnnyBlaze said:
It doesnt matter what the back of the rulebook says. If it isnt printed on the card then you dont have to flip before attacking it. Period.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can't assume text that isn't printed to be there, unless it was added in a later printing of the same card. There are exceptions, but each has been specifically noted, such as the Poke-Powers that should have had "You may" but didn't. Always play exactly as written unless and until given a reason to do otherwise.
 
PokePop said:
I guess they're more like "Toddlers"
Click to expand...

That sounds good to me. So we have babies, toddlers, basic, Stage 1, and stage 2, and some got to stage EX instead of stage 2 :p
 
Maybe just basics that evolve into basics. Toddlers is such a harsh word, it sounds like the next thing you'll see is an Elekid with diapers needing changing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top