|
Author
|
Topic: Define "attack"
|
The Dark Llama
Member
Member # 75434
|
posted January 10, 2003 11:51 PM
I have no real example for this, but here goes:
If a Pokemon has two attacks, one that does something and the other that needs the first to work correctly, (like Hypnosis & Dream Eater)
If the first attack needs to flip coins to do damage (like, "if tails, this attack does nothing") would the second attack count just USING the first one, regardless of whether it worked or not?
--------------------
Best Decks
Kurai Tsuki no Kokoro
Dark Ampharos/Dark Espeon
31-7
Kage Ha!
Dark Scizor
8-0
Elm, Oak, Cleffa and Copycat are archetypes.
YGO Deck:
Yukai na Shi ni yotte Ryu
Pleasant Death by way of Dragon
25-8
My have/want list
One Sentence Add-On!
From: San Diego | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrGrass
Member # 166
|
posted January 11, 2003 06:18 AM
Well, there's no real precedent for this as of yet. It's hard to make rulings without any real examples. The closest example I can think of is Night Eyes/Perish Song against a Snorlax. Say you use Night Eyes on Snorlax, who can't fall asleep. Then the next turn you use Goop Gas Attack to turn off powers, then use Sleep on the Snorlax. You could use Perish Song on Snorlax since it's asleep now and was attacked with Night Eyes last turn, even though Night Eyes had no real effect.
I don't know of any pokemon like the one you're describing, unless it's something like Brock's Dugtrio vs. a baby. If you flip tails while trying to use Lie Low, you'll have to try again next turn because you never actually used the Lie Low attack, which you need to use before doing Earthdrill.
--------------------
"They possess armor that explodes on impact." He-Man action figure commercial
"This is so good it just has to be fattening." Stewy from The Family Guy
AIM: SpectreX0
Yahoo: Shiny_Psyduck
From: A WOTC Store in Pennsylvania | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted January 11, 2003 06:56 AM
I believe it was ruled that a Smeargle could not sketch an attack that failed on the baby rule as the attack was not used. In that case, the attack itself was prevented. In the Snorlax case, the effect of the the attack was prevented, and therefore the attack was used. I believe that is the distinction.
Now if you'll excuse me...
I'm leaving on a jet plane...
[ January 11, 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: yoshi1001 ]
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
