A user on the discord server that goes by the name “Cyclone” recently got in touch with me over an oversight on TCG ONE, with the card Blaine’s Charizard from Gym Challenge. So all credit should go to “Cyclone” over this matter.
For as long as I can remember it always did 40 damage for 1 fire energy plus an additional 20 damage for each additional fire energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard (so if you had 2 fire energy attached you would do 60 damage), and then you discarded all fire energy attached to it, but apparently this is incorrect.
The card is only supposed to discard any extra energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard, which is not used for the initial attack cost of 1 fire energy. and only the extra energy can be discarded in order to use the attack. So if Blaine’s Charizard only has 1 fire energy, it should only be doing 20 damage, and it doesn’t discard the fire energy. But if it has 2 fire energy attached, then only 1 of those 2 fire energy gets discarded (as it is extra energy not used for the initial attack cost) and you can then do the standard 40 damage for discarding that 1 extra fire energy.
Apparently Jason Klaczynski himself has also stated on this matter by saying the following:
When I reached out to Japanese players, I found my answer. The card was mistranslated, and as I indicate on my site, should only discard extra Fire Energy cards not used to pay for the attack. Now, if it’s only discarding extra Energy cards, how would you handle a Blaine’s Charizard with only a Buzzapped Electrode attached? Electrode is paying for the attack cost, so it isn’t an extra card, but it does provide an extra energy. This clarification instructs you to discard the card if your only Energy provides two Fire Energy. After learning this, it finally made sense. For starters, that confusing sentence finally had a purpose, but even the damage dealt from Blaine’s Charizard now seemed more consistent with other cards from the era. (Being able to discard a single Fire Energy to deal 40 was unusually strong for 1999.)
what are your thoughts on this matter @axpendix, and how should we go about fixing it. should we sort out this errata, or keep the card the same as how wizards of the coast would of wanted the card to be played?