TCG Fakes Monarch's Fall Set - M Salamance EX Out!

I think Valor should be worded something more like;

> Whenever an effect would prevent this Pokémon from attacking, prevent that effect done to this Pokémon.

I think prevent is the word to use over ignore in the latter clause, although prevent may block extra effects that you weren't planning to block. I'd go with prevent, anywhohow.
 
bbninjas said:
I think Valor should be worded something more like;

> Whenever an effect would prevent this Pokémon from attacking, prevent that effect done to this Pokémon.

I think prevent is the word to use over ignore in the latter clause, although prevent may block extra effects that you weren't planning to block. I'd go with prevent, anywhohow.
Click to expand...
While I would agree with you here (even though I'd prob change that wording a bit so it looks more like Omega Barrier's wording), I think it's better to base it on Shred-like attacks.
Except that instead of ignoring the effects on the Defending Pokémon, it looks more like:

This Pokémon isn't affected by any effects that would prevent it from attacking.

^That wording is fairly simple and straightforward. Of course, there would still be questions like 'If my Pokémon used an attack that prevents all damage done to it, would it still work?' or 'What if my Active Pokémon is a Giratina-EX (AOR)?' but I think this is the best wording for it, at least with the existing references. If I had to come up with something based on my imagination, it would be more like: This Pokémon cannot be prevented from attacking. Even more simple and straightforward than the other one, though I feel like it's kind of awkward.
 
Vom said:
While I would agree with you here (even though I'd prob change that wording a bit so it looks more like Omega Barrier's wording), I think it's better to base it on Shred-like attacks.
Except that instead of ignoring the effects on the Defending Pokémon, it looks more like:

This Pokémon isn't affected by any effects that would prevent it from attacking.

^That wording is fairly simple and straightforward. Of course, there would still be questions like 'If my Pokémon used an attack that prevents all damage done to it, would it still work?' or 'What if my Active Pokémon is a Giratina-EX (AOR)?' but I think this is the best wording for it, at least with the existing references. If I had to come up with something based on my imagination, it would be more like: This Pokémon cannot be prevented from attacking. Even more simple and straightforward than the other one, though I feel like it's kind of awkward.
Click to expand...
Good idea! That's what I got for doing it quickly in the morning. :p

Those to questions/scenerios actually wouldn't be affected by the AT your proposed. The AT says attacking not damage/effects.
 
bbninjas said:
Good idea! That's what I got for doing it quickly in the morning. :p

Those to questions/scenerios actually wouldn't be affected by the AT your proposed. The AT says attacking not damage/effects.
Click to expand...
You mean in the night
Thanks! :D
I know they wouldn't , but that kind of doubt usually pops up when a card comes out. Look at Sceptile EX's Assassin Claw (no, not Unseen Claw, that name doesn't make any sense imo :p). A lot of people had doubts like: 'If the Defending Pokémon is affected by 2 Special Conditions, does it do 60 (or 70, Idr atm) more for each?' Or the Eeveelutions from AOR. People were wondering if they also gained Weaknesses, even though the card said they only gained types.

Buuuuut that's beside the point. No they wouldn't :p
 
Thanks guys for taking the time to look at the wording. I'll be using Vom's version:

This Pokémon isn't affected by any effects that would prevent it from attacking.

Will update the past ones when I have the time to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top