Ruling Unown G vs. Sandlsah
- Thread starter abaxter94
- Start date
Yes Unown G protects you from the damage.
Unknowm G WOULD NOT prevent the damage. Unknown G says prevents all effects of an attack EXCLUDING DAMAGE. Sandslash spike Armor inflicts damage so since Unknown G can't block damage the damage would still be done.
Ken
Now if Poison Spike was used, it would prevent the Pokemon from being poisoned because that would be an effect other than damage.
Ken
Ken
Now if Poison Spike was used, it would prevent the Pokemon from being poisoned because that would be an effect other than damage.
Ken
LEPRECAUN said:
Wrong. Sandslash places damage which is different then doing damage. G prevents all effects and placing damage is an effect.
Thats not the way we are playing it around here. I guess we will have to wait until they make an official ruleing on the card. Until then all of us will be playing it a diff way I guess.
I guess it depends if you consider that part of the attack as being damage or just an effect. When we had that discussion around here, it was determined that asleep, poisioned, paralized, etc would be blocked, but no damage effects. We may be playing it wrong!!!!
It really doesn't matter to me, its just you ask 10 people and half of them give you a diff answer.
I hope you are right, I'm useing the card and it would make it more effective. Some people I know are saying they can use it to prevent cards like Whaler from going to sleep which is really crazy. It's going to be a mess until an official ruleing is made.
Ken
I guess it depends if you consider that part of the attack as being damage or just an effect. When we had that discussion around here, it was determined that asleep, poisioned, paralized, etc would be blocked, but no damage effects. We may be playing it wrong!!!!
It really doesn't matter to me, its just you ask 10 people and half of them give you a diff answer.
I hope you are right, I'm useing the card and it would make it more effective. Some people I know are saying they can use it to prevent cards like Whaler from going to sleep which is really crazy. It's going to be a mess until an official ruleing is made.
Ken
Its the exact effect as holon wp (well no free retreat..that would just be wrong). It only works on the opponets attacks. It prevents all effects of attacks excluding damage. Effects of attacks are everything except the damage printed next to the card's attack or "do 50 damage...ect".LEPRECAUN said:
This is an interesting question. Holon WP and Unown G prevent effects done to a Pokemon by the opponent's attacks, but Spike Armor's effect doesn't reside on your Pokemon, it's an effect on Sandslash.
There's no question that Holon WP/Unown G block effects when your opponent attacks. But there is no precedent for an effect that your opponent placed on their own Pokemon that later triggers when you attack. The more I think about it, the more I think WP/Unown G would not prevent Spike Armor's damage.
I've posted it to the Rules Team here. It will take a while for an answer, though, as there's no Rules Team meeting this week.
There's no question that Holon WP/Unown G block effects when your opponent attacks. But there is no precedent for an effect that your opponent placed on their own Pokemon that later triggers when you attack. The more I think about it, the more I think WP/Unown G would not prevent Spike Armor's damage.
I've posted it to the Rules Team here. It will take a while for an answer, though, as there's no Rules Team meeting this week.
They still have to put the damage on the pokemon which is prevented by the g/wp. "Prevent all effects of attacks, excluding damage, done to the pokemon by the opponets attacks". Even though the effect resides on sandslash, the damage it causes still has to be placed on the defending pokemon. And since the damage is placed by the opponets attack, it is prevented.
We look forward to getting some clarification on the issue. I believe there is a pending question, if Unknown G could prevent your own Whailer from going to sleep. Serveral people around here say they can use Unknown G for Whailer, but I hope thats not the ruling, It would make things crazy. Hopefully they will give you some answers on these questions before States.
Thanks for your help,
Ken
Thanks for your help,
Ken
LEPRECAUN said:
Not to be mean or anything but I don't think that you should be posting stuff and you don't know if it is true.
Papi/Manny said:
But it's not the opponent's attack placing the damage counters, it's a previously-applied effect on a different Pokemon that's triggered by your attack. The effect may have originated from an opponent's attack, but the damage doesn't occur until your turn. The question is whether WP or G prevents "indirect" effects such as this, or only the creation of effects on that particular Pokemon while resolving the opponent's attack.
I think if the answer was as clear cut as you think it is, PokePop would have given me a straight answer on ATM. He deferred to the next Rules Team meeting instead.
LEPRECAUN said:
It's virtually guaranteed that Unown G will receive an errata. It should read "prevent all effects of attacks, excluding damage, done to that Pokemon by your opponent's Pokemon". It does not prevent negative effects from your own attacks.
?? It is the opponets attack putting damage on. It doesn't matter what triggers the effect. It still would be stopped. This is one of the few attacks that do something on the opponets turn so its a rarity (and, as far as I can recall, the only one with an effect).Chairman Kaga said:
BTW, just asked bjj763 (not on the rule team but a very well respected judge) and he agreed that the damage could not be placed.
Papi/Manny said:
It is the only one. Which is why it needs an official ruling.
Consider the current ruling on Fluff vs. Dark Seed:
Fluff triggers on the initial attack, but not when the damage counters are actually placed. It only prevents the placement of the effect, not its results.
Similarly, WP/G only prevent the creation of effects, not the results of them. Since it can't stop the creation of the effect on Sandslash, it shouldn't be able to stop its damage either.
1) Rocket's hitomochan
2) That ruling is from 2005
3) Dark Seed's target is the defending pokemon and is thus prevention is triggered when the attack is announced. Sandslash's resides on sandslash and is thus triggered when any requirement of the attack is met.
4) The damage is still caused from the attack. Thus, since wp/g states prevent all effects of attacks done by the opponets pokemon's attack, and given that an effect is being activated, it is prevented by the wording of wp/g.
2) That ruling is from 2005
3) Dark Seed's target is the defending pokemon and is thus prevention is triggered when the attack is announced. Sandslash's resides on sandslash and is thus triggered when any requirement of the attack is met.
4) The damage is still caused from the attack. Thus, since wp/g states prevent all effects of attacks done by the opponets pokemon's attack, and given that an effect is being activated, it is prevented by the wording of wp/g.
Papi/Manny said:
Not relevant. Rocket's Hitmonchan places an effect on the Defending Pokemon in order to do its damage. Sandslash does not.
Papi/Manny said:
And still valid.
Papi/Manny said:
You obviously didn't read anything I wrote. Done arguing with you.
We'll see once the Rules Team gives us something on this.
lol, I love when people give up arguments for no reason. I read everything you wrote. I simply summarized what you were saying and the difference between the two attacks, thus making that ruling invailed for this discussion. The difference in triggers effects when fluff, ect. activate but doesn't prevent fluff from activating (aka doesn't matter when the damage is being placed, the fluff still has a chance to activate to prevent the first effect/damage of the attack).
But see, you keep ignoring my point and just insisting that the damage counters themselves are an effect. The Fluff ruling shows there is a difference between the effect and the results of resolving it. Things (like Fluff, Holon WP, and Unown G) that prevent effects only prevent the creation of effects, not their results. That is why Spike Armor gets through them.
I concede that it's entirely possible that the Rules Team will shoot me down, but I think I've actually read this one right, as backwards as it appears at first glance.
I concede that it's entirely possible that the Rules Team will shoot me down, but I think I've actually read this one right, as backwards as it appears at first glance.
The Fluff ruling shows an attack only has to get by Fluff once to resolve the effects of it, given a distrubtion of the effects over the period of 2 turns instead of getting a 2nd chance to block the rest of the attack, even though it sucessfully bipassed the body. The attack Spike Armor doesn't actually do anything until the opponet damages sandslash so I don't see how you can claim that wp doesn't prevent the effect of it when the attack's effect only occurs once and thats when it gets activated from damage from an opponets attack. This is a delayed attack. Even though it was announced, it never actually did anything during the attackers turn. It has to wait for the opponet's turn to actually do anything. Thats when the effect activates and the WP kicks in to block it.Chairman Kaga said:
Papi/Manny said:
Again, you missed it. And you completely misread the Fluff ruling.
There is no distribution of effects. It's one effect. And that effect is on Sandslash. Holon WP cannot prevent effects on the opposing Pokemon. So it gets placed when Sandslash uses Spike Armor.
Next turn, you attack Sandslash. The existing effect is then triggered. The damage counters are not a separate effect, it is the resolution of the existing effect.
Holon WP does not prevent this. It only blocks an effect from being created.
If we follow what you're saying, then Holon WP should prevent Poison damage between turns, since each damage counter is a "delayed attack" effect that Holon WP blocks. But we both know it's not. The Spike Armor case is really no different than this.