New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokémon"

RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

This should make Landorus-EX's capacity for picking off weakened Pokemon even more nuts. Jirachi-EX can now be two-shotted without ever being active, turning it into a serious liability agaisnt Fighting decks. We can watch the value of Landorus skyrocket beyond the point it already has. On a similar note, this makes Stunfisk (Landorus' non-EX counterpart) all the more valuable in Flareon decks, since it can now hit benched Pokemon-EX for 40 (who said Flareon shouldn't be running stadiums?), making it even easier for Flareon to go in for the kill.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

I was thinking it as I was reading this page and then a couple of people mentioned it in that PokeGym thread, so I think it bears repeating.

Shouldn't the inclusion of the word "ALL" defending Pokemon on Jamming Net be enough to differentiate it from the wording on Landorus, which obviously lacks the same terminology? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Landorus-EX's Hammerhead only says that it does 30 damage to one of your opponent's benched Pokemon (in addition to the base damage on their active). Under the new definition, the opponent's active Pokemon and the benched Pokemon being targeted are BOTH considered "Defending Pokemon." If you are referring to Fighting Stadium saying "THE Defending Pokemon" and Jamming net "ALL Defending Pokemon," I would have agreed with this, and this is the conclusion some Professors and I reached a couple of days ago. However Pokepop has ruled that not to be the case, and while he has noted the possibility of it being a translation oversight, this is how both Fighting Stadium and Jamming Net (and anything else that targets multiple defending Pokemon for that matter) are to be played unless tPCI makes an official errata.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

Sorry, yes, I was referring to the Stadium. I think the ruling is wrong, honestly. I'm curious to see how this plays out.
 
RE: New Ruling Regarding "Defending Pokemon"

UPDATE: Fighting Stadium uses the text "Defending Pokemon", but it has been determined that it should read "opponent's Active Pokemon". An errata is in the works for this and will be issued soon. In the meanwhile, we'll get a ruling published and posted.
Landorus EX's Hammerhead attack will therefore only get the bonus on damage done to the Active Pokemon EX.
Click to expand...

Found this edited into the article. Looks like tPCI is taking action on this. Hopefully this should resolve everything.
 
Well that hype was short lived, looks like fighting stadium is going to get an errata from "defending pokemon" to "opponents active pokemon"

UPDATE: Fighting Stadium uses the text "Defending Pokemon", but it has been determined that it should read "opponent's Active Pokemon". An errata is in the works for this and will be issued soon. In the meanwhile, we'll get a ruling published and posted.
Landorus EX's Hammerhead attack will therefore only get the bonus on damage done to the Active Pokemon EX.
Click to expand...

They must've realized that fighting stadium would be way to powerful with the current definition of defending pokemon. Cards like Groudon EX using "Tromp" would've done 30 damage to all benched EXs instead of 10.
 
ShadowMoses05 said:
Well that hype was short lived, looks like fighting stadium is going to get an errata from "defending pokemon" to "opponents active pokemon"

UPDATE: Fighting Stadium uses the text "Defending Pokemon", but it has been determined that it should read "opponent's Active Pokemon". An errata is in the works for this and will be issued soon. In the meanwhile, we'll get a ruling published and posted.
Landorus EX's Hammerhead attack will therefore only get the bonus on damage done to the Active Pokemon EX.
Click to expand...

They must've realized that fighting stadium would be way to powerful with the current definition of defending pokemon. Cards like Groudon EX using "Tromp" would've done 30 damage to all benched EXs instead of 10.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe that Fighting Stadium was mistranslated. The Japanese version apparently says "active" not "defending".
 
Camoclone said:
ShadowMoses05 said:
Well that hype was short lived, looks like fighting stadium is going to get an errata from "defending pokemon" to "opponents active pokemon"


They must've realized that fighting stadium would be way to powerful with the current definition of defending pokemon. Cards like Groudon EX using "Tromp" would've done 30 damage to all benched EXs instead of 10.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe that Fighting Stadium was mistranslated. The Japanese version apparently says "active" not "defending".
Click to expand...

Yup that's what the Pokegym team is saying now, which means that we'll have an errata to the English card to fix this mistranslation. Its a good thing they caught this now, before someone were to bring it up at a major tournament.
 
Well the UK Regionals start next week so if theres no errata by then a fear that there may be a tonne of Landorus abound.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top