Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

IMPORTANT: Rulings Updates for Worlds!

Ok, I'll blame them too. How HARD is it for anyone in any of these companies to go "alright, Unown G prevents any switch with Blaze FB/Trapinch SW and that's it! No changing it." ???????

Pay me a ton of money to make rulings, I will be happy to make one ruling and stick with it -- not change it before or even AT Worlds two years running.
 
k lets be honest here whoever is freakin out at these rulings probably needs to rethink their game plan as if whether or not trapinch SW can inviting trap a pokemon or not makes or breaks your deck i strongly recommend picking up some new cards
 
Why don't you take a deep breath and calm down there general...

The people on this side of the rulings - namely TC - don't get paid for their time. I know that they have to work with TPCi and then TPCi has to go to PCL / TPC and then maybe they get a quick response. Usually not though.

The reason that this 'always' happenes 'every' year is because this is the one event a year that the Japanese mix with the other OP group.

You may notice that it is only when the Japanese and the rest of OP get together - maybe it is not the fault of TC, but maybe everything from the translations being off to different game terms between the cards to anything else that can go wrong.

Either way, really the only choice you have is to play by the ruling - or don't play.
 
With that said does that mean Blazekin FB's Luring flame would work no matter what? Also with that ruling on unown G Can blazekin FB use luring flame on Mewtwo Lv.X to pull up say a claydol?
 
TheGeneral said:
Ok, I'll blame them too. How HARD is it for anyone in any of these companies to go "alright, Unown G prevents any switch with Blaze FB/Trapinch SW and that's it! No changing it." ???????
Click to expand...

*six months later*

"Wait, but that killed Flygon and all stage 2s, we didn't want that to happen! Crap. Can we safely change this back or do we have to wait and release something later? ?????"
 
magicarp101 said:
will it still negate attacks like luring flame that says switch the DEFENDING with one of your opponets bench
Click to expand...

It depends on what Pokemon has the protection.

In this case, if the Defending is protected, then the effect is blocked.
If there is a Pokemon on the bench with Unown G on it, then it is not blocked, even if the defending player chooses that protected Pokemon.
What matters is, is the primary, named, target protected or not.
It doesn't matter if the "side effect" Pokemon is protected.
 
It might be worthwile to check all the cards with attacks like that to make sure they were translated correctly. Prior to this ruling it wouldn't matter weither a card had wording one way or the other so there might not have been good attention to distinguish in translation.
 
Ahhhh I've been waiting for that Unown G ruling for about a year now.

It makes me mad that I've known all year long that this SHOULD be the ruling and it won't
make one bit of difference next season.... :mad:

Seriously.... they wait till now to make it official? :confused::thumb:
 
There's a TON of cards in there. According to Pokepedia, there are 72 Pokemon that can switch the opponent's Pokemon with an attack. Too many for me to list singly here...
 
You don't need a ruling on each and every Pokemon attack.
This covers the principle involved:
PokePop said:
It depends on what Pokemon has the protection.

In this case, if the Defending is protected, then the effect is blocked.
If there is a Pokemon on the bench with Unown G on it, then it is not blocked, even if the defending player chooses that protected Pokemon.
What matters is, is the primary, named, target protected or not.
It doesn't matter if the "side effect" Pokemon is protected.
Click to expand...
 
Man you know how many Flaridos Match ups i lost cause someone attached a holonWP and then two years later it's like, Opps sorry you CAN spider trap then bench
 
yoshi1001 said:
Here's a more ambiguous one:

http://pokegym.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=45514&c=205

For tail code, what's the target? The defending Pokemon? The other Pokemon? The energy card?
Click to expand...

It seems that the gist of it is the first Pokémon to have something happen to it/be selected is the "target" and anybody else is the "side effect." Losing an Energy card would still be being affected, so I would think you could move the Energy card from Pokemon A to Pokemon B if B has the Unown, but not if A has the Unown.

So if I'm right, the Energy card would no longer fall into limbo and be discarded (I think that's how it was before, right?)
 
Well...I always played that you had to attach the Unown G to the Claydol to prevent it from being lured out...I was right! *gets silly and hysterical
 
PokePop said:
There is already a ruling on Tail Code. There is no change to that ruling.
Click to expand...

Was that (or something similar) specifcally brought up in regards to this ruling, or am I correct in understanding that this concept of targeting only applies to Pokemon?

There's also another question with Luring Flame. It says the switch the Defending Pokemon with a Benched one, so an Unown G on the Bench wouldn't stop it, but then it Burns the new Defending Pokemon. If an Unown G is on the Benched Pokemon, am I correct in interpreting that the effects have seperate targeting and the Pokemon would switch but no Burn would occur?
 
Last edited:
PokePop said:
You don't need a ruling on each and every Pokemon attack.
This covers the principle involved:
Click to expand...

PokePop I disagree somewhat. My point was that we don't know for sure which Pokemon is the the one being targeted in all the cases where an attack forces a swap. The wording on the card is not a sure guide since this never mattered before now so the translations might not have distinguished.

Trapinch is the perfect example. It says to "Switch the Defending Pokemon with one of your opponent's benched Pokemon." That wording looks like the attack is targeting the active. We have to infer that the actual target is the benched guy for the ruling to work and for the whole situation at Worlds last year to make sense right? Blaze FB has nearly identical wording and folks are already confused about whether it works if Mewtwo lv.X is active (something that's bound to happen next season).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top