thepliskin5005
New Member
Yea i would try to add in a 2 2 reuniclus with this skipping the first stage of evolution. Yea great idea putting them on cresslia.
Wow togekiss is actually amazing
- Thread starter thepliskin5005
- Start date
dialga master
Member
I'm predicting togekiss to win the next japanese battle carnival.
But by the same merit, attacks that say "discard an energy card attached to the defending Pokemon" are still blocked by "prevent all effects of attacks done to this Pokemon" effects. That means that the game considers removing something attached to a Pokemon as being done to that Pokemon and not the energy card.
Last edited:
Otaku
Active Member
Sounds like a logical fallacy to me. This is not a=b, b=c, and thus a=c.
You attach an Energy or Tool to one of your Pokémon, targeting that Pokémon with the Energy or Tool. Reversing the process does not require targeting the Pokémon unless specified; a card can target something "attached" to the Pokémon without targeting that Pokémon. If the wording said "Select a Pokémon...", then it would be targeting the Pokémon.
Otaku
Active Member
The difference is?
The discarding is "done to" the card being discarded. Inflicting a Special Condition is done directly to a Pokémon; discarding a card from in play is done to that card unless worded appropriately.
If this keeps up, I am going to start missing the almost insulting amount of reminder text the cards used to have. ¬_¬
The difference being that an effect can be "done to" things other than its target. If A is angry about losing a game against player B and flips the table at him, he's targetting B with that table. If C is also on B's side of the table, then A hits C as well - the table flip would be done to C, even though the target was B.
Otaku
Active Member
"Reality checks" don't usually work to well with TCGs, and definitely not with Pokémon. I am fond of many RPG systems where that is actually a "thing", but TCGs usually are a self-contained system of game mechanics and while there may be a "storyline", it is essentially just a "skin" on the game.
Your example isn't analogous to the game situation. I guess the closest I can come is if for some reason there is a rule prohibiting hitting Player B with a table but not player C... in which case Player A is only in trouble for hitting Player B, and not Player C. :lol:
When Crushing Hammer succeeds and is used against an Energy attached to Togekiss, given the actual wording (just being clear what we are discussing - the ruling is the ruling) Bright Veil should "check" what is happening; an Item is targeting and affecting an Energy... so Bright Veil doesn't trigger. The only thing that might arguably be "affecting" Togekiss is the Energy attached to it... and Bright Veil does nothing about your own Energy affecting your own Pokémon.
In the suggested situation there'd be a rule against hitting player C. A flips the table at B, but only gets in trouble for hitting C, even though the target was B. Nobody likes B.
...it's a bit of an absurd analogy, I know
It wasn't really meant to be analogous to the whole situation, just the idea of "done to".
...it's a bit of an absurd analogy, I know
It wasn't really meant to be analogous to the whole situation, just the idea of "done to".I like how my post was ignored during the argument.
Here's an official statement.
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49133&highlight=agility
Here's an official statement.
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49133&highlight=agility
Otaku
Active Member
We've gotten bad rulings that have before.
Note that I am not stating that anyone in a tournament setting (and not in a casual one where the rules are being obeyed) should ignore what has been said.
I am arguing that the rulings can be "wrong", and that this one might be. Creatures, Inc. is not perfect. Neither is anyone else that comes between the players and the game design and rules. Mistakes happen.
For example:
If you aren't familiar with the cards, in question, here is the Entei (Aquapolis H8/H32, 10/147), here is the Eevee (Neo Discovery 38/75), and here is the then most recent printing of Rainbow Energy (Aquapolis 144/147).
Then we got this ruling
This post is already long, so I'll just add that with the 400-500 cards a year released in the game, it is incredibly important for rulings not to be based merely on "fiat". It leads to contradictory rulings where you can't depend on the rulings, and that really sucks the fun out of a game. We are losing some "metarulings" that helped the game make sense because either they were always wrong, or the designers have decided to change things but don't think it is worth mentioning.
I mean, things like being able to add to Bench damage, even if it requires a complex combo, is at least as big of a deal as making it clear that Pokémon-EX don't count as Pokémon-ex.
Now the ruling in question that Tash brought up is an attack being performed directly against the protected Pokémon. This is enough of a dissimilarity that while I can understand it being grounds for basing a ruling upon, it isn't a guaranteed association. The attack is performed against the Defending Pokémon... an Item discarding an Energy bypasses that unless worded specifically to target the Defending Pokémon.
---------- Post added 03/23/2013 at 10:49 AM ----------
[DEL]At the risk of this completely backfiring, let me try my hand at a fake card hypothetical:[/DEL]
Oh no, exactly what I should have known would happened, happened.
1) I rushed and made an obvious mistake trying to create an "example"; serves me right. :nonono:
2) It already appears to not be illustrating my point and in fact may be confusing some readers. Last thing I need to do.
As such, not even going to leave it crossed out for the sake of reference if someone has to see the stupid thing I did. It was folly, and hopefully that will be enough.
Last edited:
Otaku, stop confusing people with your overly tl;dr posts that make no sense. You got an official recent ruling here:
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=174918
It doesn't matter what you think or like, this is how it is.
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=174918
It doesn't matter what you think or like, this is how it is.
Last edited:
SolarPichu
Member
I'm confused. Does Energy Burning Laser allow you to burn benched Pokemon?
Normal guy
Member
It's not a real card (I think)
Otaku
Active Member
Mekkah, if what I think or like doesn't matter...
why does what you think or don't like matter?
Well, generally that is what "fake" and "hypothetical" would indicate. Deleted it, though, because obviously it was failing in its purpose.
Last edited:
psychup2034
New Member
You are intentionally skewing Mekkah's words. Mekkah was implying that only the official ruling matters.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
'Play as intended' is the meta rule that trumps all meta rules.
Otaku
Active Member
This is a message board, not an actual game of Pokémon, not a Pokémon tournament. Discussion of rulings is allowed, and frankly should be encouraged; it is how people learn to understand them. While not always fun, this is a basic function of this message board. Now, was this the best place to discuss this?
No, no it wasn't. Best place would have been in Ask The Masters, as odds are Pokepop could have cleared this up for me with a few extra sentences in his explanation. Next best would have been in its own thread. However if I am somehow "in the wrong" in discussing this here, what was the correct procedure? Oh yeah, reporting me. Half tempted to report myself just to get a Moderator's input, though that in and of itself would be an abuse of the system.
Multiple times I made it clear that players should follow the rulings, even when I disagree with them. Do I question the rulings? When I don't understand them (which would include disagreeing with the reasoning behind them), yes, yes I do.
In this particular case, as has been linked to by others and has been linked to in my current signature, I went out of my way to ask a question in as clear a manner as I could. The answer I received didn't actually answer anything, and actually confused me more.
Over the course of responding with this post, I finally get it. I finally comprehend the arguments put forth by tutti and Tash; that Pokémon simply is not detailed enough to distinguish between cards attached to a Pokémon and that Pokémon. While not similar in all regards, it seems akin to how using an effect that forcibly promotes a Benched Pokémon while another Pokémon is Active doesn't create a 2-on-2 match but results in the former Active Pokémon being Benched (barring extenuating circumstances).
This is perhaps what Pokepop meant by "Subtlety is not Pokemon's strong suit." It took me filtering what Pokepop said through the course of this discussion (double checking the definitions reinforced my confusion) for me to understand that... because when I was asking that question, I wasn't looking for "subtle meanings" in the card words; I was going strictly surface level. It actually requires more than a "surface understanding" of the words to arrive at that conclusion.
So...
thepliskin5005 I am sorry I derailed your thread. Hopefully people will stick around and discuss the idea some more. For those who took the time to explain the ruling to me, that is to actually explain, thank you.