New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokémon"

ShadowMoses05

ShadowMoses05

Aspiring Trainer
Member
So if you check pg. 27 on the rule book it states the following:

Defending Pokemon: The Pokemon that Receives an attack.

Either this is just a vague statement that needs to be corrected by TCPI or this implies that Bench Pokemon (either yours or your opponent's) can also be defined as a Defending Pokemon.

One idea that's been discussed is Fighting Stadium and Landorus EX. When combined with both, it allows up to 100 HP being distributed evenly to the Active Pokemon EX and one Bench Pokemon EX, which makes it all the more devastating.

Ideas? It's a trap? Discuss.
Click to expand...

This was posted on reddit r/pkmntcg by user Brocksalwayshigh, it seems like pretty big news and can change the way some cards are looked at so I wanted to share with people here in case they haven't seen it.

I want to add in also that this rule that defines "defending pokemon" also affects jamming net. Here's an image of a question asked over at PokeGym, http://i.imgur.com/77itsLf.jpg

Topic: Jamming net Vs Benched damage

IceforPvM:
Reading jamming net I know it does -20 to the active but as it's worded it says "all defending" would that also include doing -20 to the benched Pokemon?

PokePop (Admin):
Yes it does.
With the release of XY, Defending Pokemon has been redefined to mean any and all Pokemon that are affected by an attack.
Click to expand...
 
RE: New ruling regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I would have thought if it hits the bench in addition to the active its from the effect of an attack and not due to being the recipient of the attack- you arent attcking two pokemon with hammerhead, youre attacking the active with the effect of 30 additional damage to the bench. That benched pokemon is a recipient of damage but not of an attack. I might be wrong
 
RE: New ruling regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Pipotchi said:
I would have thought if it hits the bench in addition to the active its from the effect of an attack and not due to being the recipient of the attack- you arent attcking two pokemon with hammerhead, youre attacking the active with the effect of 30 additional damage to the bench That benched pokemon is a recipient of damage but not of an attack. I might be wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true, I think damage done by the effects of an attack can also be affected by modifiers. This would need a professor/judge input though.
 
RE: New ruling regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I can confirm that Fighting Stadium does NOT boost damage to benched Pokemon-EX on PTCGO. My Landorus-EX used Hammerhead, targeting a benched Mew-EX while Fighting Stadium was in play and only hit for 30.
 
RE: New ruling regarding "Defending Pokemon"

My Little Keldeo said:
I can confirm that Fighting Stadium does NOT boost damage to benched Pokemon-EX on PTCGO. My Landorus-EX used Hammerhead, targeting a benched Mew-EX while Fighting Stadium was in play and only hit for 30.
Click to expand...

Card ruling shouldn't be based on ptcgo, the system has a lot of little bugs in it so it doesn't always work properly. I think once/if a judge rules that Landorus EX gets boosted bench damage then the online game will be fixed to also reflect this.

Just as an example on how bugged ptcgo is right now, playing Jirachi EX to select a supporter locks you into the search field without being able to select a card, Gengar EX can't switch into a safeguard pokemon when using Dark Corridor, and theres been cases of Robo Substitute allowing prizes to be taken.
 
RE: New ruling regarding "Defending Pokemon"

My Little Keldeo said:
I can confirm that Fighting Stadium does NOT boost damage to benched Pokemon-EX on PTCGO. My Landorus-EX used Hammerhead, targeting a benched Mew-EX while Fighting Stadium was in play and only hit for 30.
Click to expand...

PTCGO is WRONG. They are often buggy and don't fix things immediately (the rule change has been in affect since XY).
The rule is official:
Pokepop Answer on Jamming net: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?184751-Jamming-net-Vs-Benched-damage
Thread on how this affects Landorus EX: http://bbs.http://google.com/.com/t/new-ruling-on-defending-pokemon/3355
On the Pokegym page, Pokepop says that "Defending Pokemon has been redefined to mean any and all Pokemon that are affected by an attack." While he was talking about Jamming net, his answer is very general on the fact that Defending and Active are somewhat different.
This only takes XY-on cards into affect with this ruling, but as no item cards boost bench damage (they all say active pokemon), fighting stadium and Jamming net are the only cards affected by the ruling. Dugtrio and Landorus EX would be doing additional bench damage if fighting stadium was in play, and an EX with Jamming net attached, such as Landorus EX, would only be doing 10 to the active AND the benched pokemon because it says defending.

Hopefully this is more clarifying.
~Elbow
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

TCGO does fix things eventually (if enough people report it anyway). I do admit it's not the most reliable of sources, however Fighting Stadium has been out for some time now and still function as it does (again this is questionable). I have yet to see anyone play the card this way, but it certainly invokes a big change in how the game is played if this is the case. As far as a difference between "Your opponent's active Pokemon" and "The Defending Pokemon" this must hold true, as Elbow has pointed out. Several cards from the XY block, such as Spiritomb PHF use both terms in different instances on the same card.

I'm actually heading out to League right now, and I'll consult with some people both tonight and at tomorrow's League on Fighting Stadium. Don't expect anything official, but I'll report back with feedback.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

My Little Keldeo said:
Several cards from the XY block, such as Spiritomb PHF use both terms in different instances on the same card.
Click to expand...

Yes, but its very clear what the definition means in this instance.
Active pokemon only refers to the active pokemon.
Defending pokemon refers to the pokemon being attacked (hence defending in its name).

B-Cancel: Your opponent can't play any pokemon from his or her hand to evolve the defending pokemon during his or her turn (10).
This attack is not attacking all pokemon on your opponent's field; the 10 damage is only going to the active pokemon and not the bench. So in this instance Defending does mean active.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I think he was just pointing out the fact that it used both terms on the same card; thus the two terms are not necessarily the same.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Earlier today, I thought this was a sick joke and that it would get errata'd immediately. Now it's confirmed. How terrible. Landorus EX was expensive enough going into FFI and that was when we didn't even know about this rule. I think this also means that people who played Landy with Fighting Stadium at Regionals and LCs could've taken advantage of this. Must be sad to be a Landorus player and realizing this, could've definitely shaken up the tournaments a bit.

Get your mimes guys, Landorus is hyped again.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

So if what i am reading is correct Landorus EX and stunfisk can now do more damage to benched pokemon with fighting stadium. If that is correct then why did it take so long to have this rule come up and landorus EX is so much more broken now.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Ironman131 said:
So if what i am reading is correct Landorus EX and stunfisk can now do more damage to benched pokemon with fighting stadium. If that is correct then why did it take so long to have this rule come up and landorus EX is so much more broken now.
Click to expand...

The rule was always there it just wasn't questioned until Jamming Net was brought up. Basically everyone that's been playing Landorus EX could've been taking advantage of this since the release of fighting stadium but no one thought enough to question it at the time.

I really think that we need a Pokemon TCG Twitter account or something similar were these major rule changes can be announced to a broader audience. A lot of people that play the TCG don't even know about the compendium
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I guess it's time to grab as many Landorus as possible while they are still hovering at $27, because this could really make Landorus a ton more powerful.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

After reading this it just makes me always think that pokemon has never been very clear on there cards and always need a massive errata list to define card rules.

Though defending pokemon can refer to both active and bench, bonus damage is only added onto the active unless the card directly specifics otherwise, so no the +20 from fighting stadium does not apply to benched EX's.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Yo-yos said:
After reading this it just makes me always think that pokemon has never been very clear on there cards and always need a massive errata list to define card rules.

Though defending pokemon can refer to both active and bench, bonus damage is only added onto the active unless the card directly specifics otherwise, so no the +20 from fighting stadium does not apply to benched EX's.
Click to expand...

The card dose directly specify otherwise, it reads "The attacks of each Fighting Pokémon in play (both yours and your opponent's) do 20 more damage to the Defending Pokémon-EX (before applying Weakness and Resistance)." The card clearly states defending pokemon, not "active" defending pokemon.

That along with the rule change "DEFENDING POKÉMON: The Pokémon that receives an attack."

Therefor both the active Pokemon EX and a benched Pokemon EX would take the additional 20 damage from fighting stadium when using Hammerhead attack.

The only way I could see them not ruling this way is if TCPi created an errata for fighting stadium or says that the additional damage (in this case bench damage) can not be affected by modifiers.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

The most worrying part about this honestly is how up-to-date is the professor exam? I wanna become a professor soon and changes like these make me wonder. Although hopefully nothing like this comes up.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Honestly, I think people are overreacting to this just a liiiiiittle too much. I mean, yeah, 20 damage can be a lot when playing a Fighting deck, but it's only to Benched EXs. It's not like Landorus EX didn't already do a ridiculous amount of damage for 1 Energy. 20 additional damage isn't going to change the format in some radical way. This is also something players can easily counteract. They can either play more counter Stadiums, or be more careful when benching EXs.

I think the big shock with this revelation is that nobody noticed this until now! How did no Professor see a game with a Landorus and say "Hey, you should be doing 20 more damage to that benched EX"? Or how no one read the compendium and notice Defending Pokemon means something different than it used to? Heck, I made top 4 at 3 League Challenges with Landorus EX and Fighting Stadium, and it turns out that whole time, I was playing the card incorrectly. This is quite the unique series of events, I must say.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I think 50 to benched EXs can be kind of huge. It changes a 3HKO on certain exs for a 2HKO. Like Jirachi being one of the more played pokemon that will suffer the most. Still a good card none the less.

But we can also look at it this way. Darkrai has been good just because it can do 90/30 for 3 energy. Now Landorus is capable of hitting for 90/50 with a strong energy, muscle band, and fighting stadium, the same amount of cards it takes to night spear. So turn 1 attack thats better than night spear is pretty crazy.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I've been saying since FUF that Mr. Mime PLF should become a 1-of in almost every deck (INCLUDING those that play Garbodor), and this just reaffirms that. It is by far the single best tech against Landorus-EX.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Well looks like it's been confirmed:
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?184787

Let's see if Landorus EX jumps in price again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top