Help needed on the new Unown G vs Froslass/Sandslash ruling.

[Rainbowgym]

Seems to me there is something wrong with the new ruling made about Froslass/Sandslash vs Unown G.
If there is anybody reading Japanese and with access to their official ruling website, please I need your help.
Contact my so we can try to find out if this ruling should be revised (very important with BR in a few days).

Or voice you opinion in this thread.

Ruling made.

== SPIKE ARMOR (Sandslash - DP:Mysterious Treasures)

Q. If my opponent uses Sandslash's "Spike Armor" attack, but then on my turn I attack Sandslash with a Pokemon having Unown-G attached with its "GUARD" Poke-POWER, would Sandslash's "Spike Armor" be able to place any damage counters on my Pokemon or not?
A. The effect of Spike Armor is on Sandslash. The Unown G’s Poké-Power GUARD will prevent the effect of your opponent’s attacks, so you don’t put damage counters on your Active Pokémon (that has Unown G attached to it) after doing damage to Sandslash. (Sep 11, 2008 PUI Rules Team)

Q. Can Unown-G's "GUARD" Poke-POWER prevent the effect of my opponent's Froslass's "Destiny Bond" attack last turn?
A. The effect of Destiny Bond is on Frosslass. The Unown G’s Poké-Power GUARD will protect your Pokémon (that has Unown G attached to it) from being Knocked Out. (Sep 11, 2008 PUI Rules Team)

Short and simple why this ruling is wrong.
The attack of the Pokemon with Unown G attached is causing the effect, NOT the Sandslash/Froslass.
Therefor Unown G is NOT preventing anything.
Unown G equiped Pokemon are prevent effects of attacks from the opponent's Pokemon attack, but not from it's own attacks.

Or even more simple. During the turn, the Unown G equiped Pokemon attacks, Unown G doesn't even work at all. Because it only works against effects of attacks from your opponent's attacks. (and the opponent is simply not attacking)


Also found this comment on Unown G from a while ago

The attack effect is originally placed on Sandslash.
By the time damage counters are being placed, it's no longer directly an "effect of an attack on" that Pokemon and so it gets past the protection.

More interesting is this

Holon Energy WP and Ancient Technical Machine [Ice] only prevent effects that come from attacks, not all effects in play. Trainer cards, Poké-Powers, and Poké-Bodies are not prevented by those cards.

Seems that an effect like the Sandslash/Froslass have, is more an "effect in play" after the turn ends, which will make the current ruling invalid.

EXAMPLE

Player A - attacks with Froslass Destiny Bond attack, to "any Pokemon with Unown G attached" and discards a P energy.

[P] Destiny Bond - Discard a P Energy attached to Froslass. During your opponent's next turn, if Froslass would be Knocked Out by damage from an attack, the Attacking Pokemon is Knocked Out.

At this point the opponent's Unown-G equiped Pokemon is protected from effects of attacks done by Player A it's Pokemon, so check if there are effects done to this Unown-G equiped Pokemon.

Since the effect of the attack of Player A is NOT an effect on the unown-G equiped Pokemon but on itself. Unown-G has nothing to prevent.

turn Player B
Player B attack's with the Unown-G equiped Pokemon, but nothing is checked.
Because Unown G only works against OPPONENT's attack (and the effects of those).
Since it's Player B's attack, there is nothing to protect.
However Player B's attack will trigger any "effects in play" like the KO from Destiny Bond, or for example the effect of the Venomoth Poke-Power.

 

[Nu Gundam]

I am not sure what exactly is wrong with the ruling ... just to post the text of Unown G's Guard PokePower first: (though remember that the text has been errata'd to prevent all effects of your opponent's attack only)

GUARD - Once during your turn (before your attack), if Unown G is on your Bench, you may discard all cards attached to Unown G and attach Unown G to 1 of your Pokemon as a Pokemon Tool card. As long as Unown G is attached to a Pokemon, prevent all effects of attacks, excluding damage, done to that Pokemon. (Poke-POWER)

Spike Armor, Destiny Bond, and such are effects of your opponent's attacks that occurs when your Pokemon attacks the Defending Pokemon (or known as delayed/triggered effects to some). This basically how it would work under normal circumstances using Frosslass as an example:

1) My opponent used Destiny Bond last turn, discarding a Psychic Energy.
2) I attack using Luxray's Shock Bolt and discard all Lightning Energies attached to Luxray, doing 100 damage and Knocking Out Froslass.
3) Destiny Bond's effect will trigger due to Froslass being KO'd and Luxray is KO'd as a result.

However, if I attach Unown G to Luxray before I attack, it would be slightly different.

1) My opponent used Destiny Bond last turn, discarding a Psychic Energy.
2) I play Unown G on my Bench, and use its PokePower and attach it to Luxray.
3) I attack using Luxray's Shock Bolt and discard all Lightning Energies attached to Luxray, doing 100 damage and Knocking Out Froslass.
4) Destiny Bond's effect will trigger due to Froslass is KO'd. However, since Unown G prevents Destiny Bond's effect (Knock Out the Pokemon that Knocks Out Froslass) from applying to Luxray, nothing happens to Luxray.

Your example with ATM Ice is a poor one since the text on ATM Ice states the prevention of the effect is done during your opponent's next turn, so it would obviously not prevent delayed effects. Meanwhile Holon Energy WP would act as the same as Unwon G since it prevents all effects of your opponent's Pokemon attacks done to the Pokemon with Holon Energy WP and basic Water Energy attached to it.

While I understand where you are coming from since PUI's explanation on the matter is rather vague as they do not explain how delayed effects of an attack works in the rulings. However, these effects would still be stopped by Unown G (or PokeBody and such that would protect your opponent's Active Pokemon from effects) since they are still effects of attacks done to your opponent's Active Pokemon.

 

[Mystery Thing]

I can totally see both sides of this argument, which makes it all the more interesting.

I think the ruling they have now is correct. As Nu Gundam said, those are still effects of attacks, even if they aren't happening right away. Unown G doesn't give a time frame for when the effects have to be happening in order for them to be prevented, it merely says prevent all effects of attacks. If we define an "effect of an attack" as anything, except non-placement damage, that could possibly be done to a Pokémon by an attack, you're left with:

• Switching of Active Pokémon
• Moving/Removing of Energy cards
• Placement of a specified number of damage counters
• Instant Knock Out
• Affliction of any Special Condition(s)
• Moving/Removing of a Pokémon Tool card

and then anything that can be done to you (although these are not prevented, since they're done to you and not to the Attacked Pokémon:

• Discarding of cards from your hand
• Shuffling cards from your hand into your deck
• Removal of your ability to use any Poké-Powers or Poké-Bodies on any Pokémon you have (or may have) in play
• Revealing one/some of your Prize Card(s)
• Discarding your Stadium card

In addition, you have effects that are done to the Attacking player, but those are same as above. plus a few others that aren't relevant at the moment.

Both Sandslash and Froslass cause one of the above things to happen to the Pokémon with Unown G attached, and both Sandslash and Froslass inflict these possible effects by their attack. It doesn't matter when the effect actually occurs (in this case), they are still effects from an opponent's attack, even if you're the one that's causing the effect to actually occur.

One of the big keys, for me, is that it has been ruled that the effect of the attack, even though the result is done to the (at the time of the Destiny Bond/Spike Armor) Attacked Pokémon, resides on the (at the time of the Destiny Bond/Spike Armor) Attacking Pokémon. It would be much more interesting if the effect resided on the Attacked Pokémon - it could then be removed by your usual assortment of Evolving and such, but then you could also have the question of when does the attack have to happen, relative to the prevention, to be negated. So would there still be a KO if Froslass used Destiny Bond, and THEN you attached the Unown G and attacked. It's sort of a moot point, but it would be fun to think about.


I guess that's my bit. Since Unown G doesn't give you a specified time frame for when the effect has to happen, only that it can be traced back to an opponent's attack in order to be prevented, I do agree with both rulings.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

The reason this has come up (I brought it up in ATM as well) is because this new ruling is a reversal of previous precedent.

Q. If Dark Raticate uses "Dark Seed" against a damaged Swablu, is the "Fluff" coin flip done as soon as the attack is announced, when the 5 damage counters are placed, or both times?
A. It would only be done the first time. You would flip for Fluff when the Dark Seed attack puts the effect onto the Swablu; but you would not flip when the five damage counters are placed because that's a *result of the effect* on Swablu rather than a direct result of the Dark Seed attack [just like you wouldn't flip each time you placed a damage counter for poison]. (Apr 21, 2005 PUI Rules Team)

What this ruling establishes is that the result of an effect (Spike Armor placing counters, Destiny Bond KO) is not itself considered an effect, and cannot be prevented by something that prevents effects. (Otherwise Fluff would flip before the placement of damage counters, since it triggers "whenever Swablu would be damaged or affected by an opponent's attack".)

We had posts in ATM supporting this position, and now it's been reversed.

I personally don't care which way it goes, but I do care about what the Rules Team has learned (presumably from Japan) that resulted in this reversal.

 

[Mystery Thing]

The difference there though is that Dark Seed's effect resides on the Swablu, not on the Dark Raticate - it's on the Attackee, not the Attacker. Both Destiny Bond and Spike Armor reside on the Attacker.

You're flipping the coin/looking at Unown G at whatever point the effect hits the Swablu/Pokemon with the Unown. Although all of Destiny Bond/Spike Armor/Dark Seed are effects of attacks, for Swablu, it's immediately, since the effect resides on the Swablu. For the Pokemon with the Unown G, you're delaying the check for effect prevention since the effect doesn't hit until later.

Yes, the Sandslash one was reversed to match the Froslass one, but they're both different than the Swablu one.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

The difference there though is that Dark Seed's effect resides on the Swablu, not on the Dark Raticate - it's on the Attackee, not the Attacker. Both Destiny Bond and Spike Armor reside on the Attacker.

You're flipping the coin/looking at Unown G at whatever point the effect hits the Swablu/Pokemon with the Unown. Although all of Destiny Bond/Spike Armor/Dark Seed are effects of attacks, for Swablu, it's immediately, since the effect resides on the Swablu. For the Pokemon with the Unown G, you're delaying the check for effect prevention since the effect doesn't hit until later.

But that's the entire point. The effect doesn't hit at all. The result of the effect hits, but not the effect itself. The effect is on the Attacker. Unown G never gets a shot at it, since it only prevents effects from being placed on that Pokemon.

You are right that the Dark Seed ruling is not exactly the same thing, but as usual we have to build rules by looking at established rulings. It establishes the division between the effect and the modifier it eventually creates when it resolves. Unown G only prevents the original effect; it is (or at least used to be) unable to stop its resolution once it's placed. It's the same reason Unown G doesn't prevent Poison or Burn damage if the Pokemon is already affected, and the same reason Fluff doesn't get a second flip when the effect actually hits.

There's no such thing as a delayed effect creation. In Spike Armor's case, the effect is created at the moment the attack is used and resolves when its trigger condition is met. At that point, it's too late to stop whatever it does from happening.

 

[NoPoke]

The Destiny Bond Knock Out is an attack effect from an opponents' Pokemon. The fact that its final resolution is delayed by a turn appears to not matter.

It was a surprise to me too, not a complete surprise but a surprise nevertheless.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

You're right, Ian, apparently it doesn't matter anymore.

It used to. I'm curious why that changed, or if we just had it wrong the whole time.

 

[NoPoke]

I'm not sure that it ever mattered, the five damage counters from dark seed will never trigger fluff because the effect (place five counters) is now coming from Swablu itself. Not a source that Fluff can stop.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

I'm not sure that it ever mattered, the five damage counters from dark seed will never trigger fluff because the effect (place five counters) is now coming from Swablu itself. Not a source that Fluff can stop.

But see, that conflicts with this new philosophy that apparently traces results of effects back to their original source and allows Unown G to block them after the effect has been placed.

If Fluff can't flip for the five counters, Unown G can't block Spike Armor or Destiny Bond. These rulings are about two completely different things and yet they're totally intertwined.

The only way this works is if PCL is now declaring that the effect, as a game entity, is not created until the specified time in the attack and then resolves immediately, rather than having an immediate creation and a future resolution. But that opens up an entire dimension of ruling conflicts.

 

[NoPoke]

no it doesn't necessarily trace it back to the original source.

• It is an effect from an attack and not a stadium or a pokebody or pokepower or marker such as poison.
• The effect is coming from an opponents pokemon.

Both conditions are neded for Guard to block the effect.

You can see how this is different to the Dark Seed- Fluff case. Dark Seeds' delayed placing of five counters remains an effect from an attack, but the source is now Swablu.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

You can see how this is different to the Dark Seed- Fluff case. Dark Seeds' delayed placing of five counters is an effect from an attack, but the source is now Swablu.

But the ruling specifically states that's not the case. The counter placement is the result of an effect, but is not an effect itself. That's why Fluff doesn't flip for it.

 

[NoPoke]

In Pokemon just as in Physics, we can often have the right answer for not quite the right reason. New information can sometimes change the reason without always changing the answer.

This new information changes my understanding of why Fluff does not trigger. It means that in future I'd give a differently worded response to the fluff-Dark Seed scenario, but I'd still say no flip.

[edit: the wording on the existing Dark Seed- Fluff interaction is still consistant with the change I've made to my own understanding of effects]

 

[Chairman Kaga]

I wish you'd explain how you're reading the Dark Seed-Fluff interaction, because I totally don't see it.

 

[NoPoke]

Effects when they resolve know the following details.

Cause

• Poke-POWER
• Poke-BODY
• Stadium Card
• Trainer
• Attack

Location

• Player
• My Pokemon
• Opponents' Pokemon

My Opponent announces Dark Seed.
It is an Attack and originates from the opponents' pokemon so I flip for fluff.
I get tails so the effects resolve and are placed on Swablu.
At the end of my turn The 5 damage counters effect is triggered.
Whilst it is still an effect of an attack it is no longer located on any of my opponents pokemon so no flip for Fluff.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

That's not how I read it at all.

You would flip for Fluff when the Dark Seed attack puts the effect onto the Swablu; but you would not flip when the five damage counters are placed because that's a *result of the effect* on Swablu rather than a direct result of the Dark Seed attack [just like you wouldn't flip each time you placed a damage counter for poison].

Fluff flips on the initial attack for obvious reasons. You're trying to place an effect onto Swablu.

Fluff doesn't flip when the counters are actually placed because, as stated in the ruling, it's not a direct result of the attack. Fluff only prevents effects. In this case, the effect has already been created. Fluff can stop the effect from being placed but can't stop it from resolving. The source has nothing to do with it.

Once the effect is in place, there's nothing left to prevent. Creating the effect is like arming a bomb. It's going to go off unless you disarm it (remove the effect completely).

 

[Rainbowgym]

Interesting, so if you attach an Unown G to Swablu after the Dark Seed attack, the damage counter effect will still happen. Just because that effect happened to be placed on Swablu before the Unown G was attached?

 

[NoPoke]

Well that is how I'd rule the interaction.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Well in the case of Sandslash/Froslass I see the effect of the attack is only putting a kind of condition/status onto Sandslash/Froslass (which is the same condition as the Power of Venomoth in a way, but it's not a power only a 1 time condition).
This is not prevented by an opponent's Unown G, so why is the effect of this status prevented?

For me it's more a temporary kind of Poke-Power added to Sandslash/Froslass.

 

[NoPoke]

Unown G does not prevent the Destiny Bond effect being placed upon Froslass. It never could.

Two questions have to be answered with a Yes for unown-G to interfere
1) Is the effect coming from an oponents' pokemon?
2) Is that effect associated with an attack?

Now even though I originally expected that Destiny Bond once placed upon Froslass would be a resolved effect and thus have broken the tie with the original attack, this is evidently not the case. I suspect some of this comes down to how the Japanese language utilises redundancy. Destiny Bonds' effect could never come from a Stadium card, pokeBODY, PokePOWER or marker so all that is left is that it came from an attack. The Latin/German/French european languages don't work this way, we would not make the conclusion that it is still an attack effect, rather it would be left as 'undetermined' or to be decided..