Ruling Garchomp lv.X

sillykyle

boop
Member
I have a really confusing question. If I use Garchomp's restore attack to restore a stage one (therefore making it a basic), then I evolve it, is it then a stage one because it evolved from a basic, or is it a stage two because only the basic was effected by restore?
 
Wow, I've ran this type of deck before with blaziken/empoleon/salamence lol, it was awesome. I had blaze for fire weak decks, empoleon to snipe if needed, and sally for sheer power. But back to your question, I've never thought of that, even having ran the deck before. I suppose....it would be...(...)...a stage 2? Yeah, I'm gonna go with stage 2, even though it defies all logic.
 
The Pokemon would be a Stage 2 Pokemon because that is what's written on the card.

Stage 1 and Stage 2 have nothing to do with evolution. When you evolve a Pokemon, it is an Evolved Pokemon, regardless of the stage on the card. If you use Baby Evolution to turn Pichu into Pikachu, that Pikachu would be an Evolved Pokemon, even though its card says "Basic." It would no longer be considered a Basic Pokemon because you have evolved it from something.

In your example, since you evolved the Restored Stage 1 Pokemon, your new Stage 2 would be considered an Evolved Pokemon, but it's still Stage 2, even though there is only 1 Pokemon underneath it.

If you had Restored the Stage 2 Pokemon only, it would still be a Stage 2 Pokemon, but it would not be an Evolved Pokemon, leaving it susceptible to things like Mewtwo LV.X.

Keep in mind that many cards that refer to "Stage 2 Evolved Pokemon" such as Alakazam MT and Glalie MT have received errata. Their respective attacks should read "Stage 2 Pokemon" instead of "Stage 2 Evolved Pokemon."
 
If evolution was the way to determine stage, baby pokemon would be basic, and basic would be stage 1 (At least until HGSS comes out, then baby pokemon will not be able to evolve), and stage 1's would be stage 2. So ya, it stays seperate from the evolution line.
 
Back
Top