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?
So just to clear things out, are below statements correct? ([R]: basic R energy, [RR]: buzzap’d double energy.)
Attached
Damage Amount
To Discard
[R]
20
none
[R][R]
40
[R]
[R][R][R]
60
[R][R]
[RR]
60
[RR]
[RR][R]
60*
[RR]
[RR][R]
80*
[R][RR]
*Note that in this case, you get to deal 60 damage if [RR] was selected & discarded first, or 80 damage > if [R] then [RR] were selected & discarded.
I am that Cyclone that was mentioned.
Just to be perfectly clear, the way the card is supposed to work is that the single Fire Energy, once used to pay for the attack, is locked. It cannot be discarded in any way. All other Energy MUST be discarded. So if you use the attack with four Energy, you will discard three and do 80 damage automatically.
The information quoted above is correct in all except one case: the last line. The user cannot select to discard the Fire Energy before discarding Buzzap. All Buzzap, Double Rainbow Energy, etc. cards that give two energy must be discarded FIRST. It must always be possible to have that one Fire Energy left over. The ONLY exception is cases like line 4, where Buzzap is the only Energy. In such a case, two Buzzap would also both be discarded, leaving 0 Energy for Charizard to hold on to. Since the system can do this without user input, it should automatically remove all eligible double Energy, then all but one Fire Energy. As such, since all double Energy have to be removed no matter what, there is no check needed on those, only on the Basic Energy. After that, just add up the discarded Energy.
Rule 309.4: Energy cards are removed one at a time from the Active Pokémon until the Retreat Cost is met or exceeded. Once the Retreat Cost is met or exceeded, a player may not remove any more Energy cards. The player chooses the order in which Energy cards are removed.
Example: You have an Active Pokémon with a Retreat Cost of [C][C]. You have 2 Basic Energy cards and a Double Rainbow Energy (which provides 2 Energy) attached. You may pay the Retreat Cost in one of three ways:
You may remove the Double Rainbow Energy (which counts as 2 Energy), or
You may remove both Basic Energy cards, or
You may remove one of the Basic Energy, and then the Double Rainbow Energy.
You could not, however, remove all three cards. Once the Retreat Cost is met or exceeded, you must stop removing cards.
The reason I did suggest the above resolution of this effect was because of the rule 309.4 of the above quoted document. The process of discarding given set of energies works exactly as described in the Gameboy game also. Therefore, I thought the selection of discarding [R][R] (2 Fire energy) from a Pokemon holding [RR][R] can be realized in two different ways, depending on what card was chosen first.
Now the question is what is the exact English translation of the aforementioned card, so that we can deduct whether it is a generic discard (for which I believe the referenced retreat discard semantics would take place) or a specialized clause that requires the player to always keep the last energy when possible?
(PS: sorry I didn’t want to be a jackass but just wanted to clarify my train of thoughts )
Discard all Fire energy cards attached to Blaine’s Charizard. If all Energy cards attached to Blaine’s Charizard provide 2 Fire Energy, discard all of them. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each Fire Energy discarded in this way.
The way this is worded, it would lead one to believe that the Energy used to pay for the attack cost is meant to count towards the discarded Energy boost. Let’s look at how this works competitively. 40 damage for 1 free Energy attachment per turn, with no way to prevent or otherwise game it by the opponent, seems overpowered by first generation TCG standards. So we have to look at the original Japanese print. I can’t read that, so…
Jason’s quote above from DKQuagmire comes directly from an e-mail exchange when I contacted him through his site asking about his errata posting on his site. Here is a quote from that page for further clarification:
The entire reason that second confusing sentence, If all Energy cards attached to Blaine’s Charizard provide 2 Fire Energy, discard all of them , exists is because of the possibility that Blaine’s Charizard could have an Electrode from Base Set attached to it, or in case a Ditto uses a Double Colorless Energy to perform a Roaring Flames attack. In both of these cases, it wouldn’t otherwise be clear if their single Energy card providing two Energy counted as extra Energy that needed to be discarded. (On one hand, it provides more Energy than the attack requires, but on the other, there’s only one Energy card is being used to pay for the attack cost.) This sentence clarifies how to handle that. If Roaring Flames was played as written, where all Fire energy needed to be discarded, there would be no purpose for the second sentence. Source: Wizards Era Card Erratas – Retro Pokémon TCG
And that is why the implementation of the card is incorrect. That clarification sentence. The card SHOULD be translated as follows:
Discard all Fire Energy cards not used to pay for this attack’s Energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each Fire Energy card discarded this way.
Therefore, the CORRECT text on the card might have been:
Discard all Fire Energy cards attached to Blaine’s Charizard not used to pay for this attack’s Energy cost. If all Energy cards attached to Blaine’s Charizard provide 2 Fire Energy apiece, discard all of them. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each Fire Energy discarded in this way.
This is really interesting and finally provides the real reasons for the odd wording used for the attack description.
Click the link below to view the version of Blaine’s Charizard I have modified for Pokemod, but now I’m wondering if I should correct it again or not. It’s definitely OP in the original Gen1 format because of the original Pokemon Center and immunity to ER and SER. In Pokémod however, Pokemon Center now has the same ruling as Max Potion and ER is a coin flip (Crushing Hammer) with SER adopting Enhanced Hammers rule making them less dominant. So Blaine’s Charizard isn’t quite as powerful in Pokémod in comparison to the original classic formats. But I can see this new insight on the correct ruling for Blaine’s Charizards Roaring Flames attack could be beneficial to the balance of the cards power within Pokémod.
At this time my vote would be to amend it and have the attack description read correctly
"Discard all [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard that’s not used to pay for this attacks energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each [R] Energy discarded in this way. If you are unable to discard any [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard, this attack does 20 damage."
There’s no reason you should be able to attack for more than 20 with only a Buzzaped Electrode attached. This wording clears that up. I guess you could tear the card in half when you attack The fact that 1 of the energy Electrode provides covers the attack cost is irrelevant. The 2 energy come as one, therefore nothing can be discarded to gain the extra damage. @admin@DKQuagmire@Cyclone
axpendix would you like me to update the non-pokemod version to state the correct ruling also? Should help save confusion…
Hey @ZF_Goku let’s make the rewording exactly this both for original and pokemod versions, if possible:
Discard all [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard that were not used to pay for this attack’s Energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each [R] Energy discarded this way.
Happy to correct the original version over the next week or so when I get time, still need to test how dramatically this would effect the Pokemod version as the meta is very different and could make the card undesirable.
Hey @ZF_Goku let’s make the rewording exactly this both for original and pokemod versions, if possible:
Discard all [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard that were not used to pay for this attack’s Energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each [R] Energy discarded this way.
I presume you intend to keep the original explanation for cards utilizing two Energy in there? Otherwise it will leave confusion over how to handle those. Another issue was recently brought up with Ditto on things like Wildfire where the distinction between an “Energy” and an “Energy card” was brought up. Charizard uses Energy, whereas Moltres in the new example uses Energy cards. So keeping the two Energy description can be beneficial because saying to spend Energy not used for the attack cost without it leaves the ambiguity over how to handle Buzzap or, in Unlimited format, Double Rainbow Energy.
I honestly believe this is the best ruling to save Buzzaped Electrode confusion
Discard all [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard that were not used to pay for this attacks energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each [R] Energy discarded in this way. If you are unable to discard any [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard, this attack does 20 damage.
I don’t believe it’s ambiguous. I don’t intend to keep the description for two energy cards, they’re unrelevant to put in the text. Same principles of discarding energy during retreat should apply as I stated above.
I don’t think we need the last sentence. We can use modern-ish wording which does not include obvious things. Maybe remove ‘20 damage plus’ part too, that way only the plus part would be described.
Discard all [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard that were not used to pay for this attack’s energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each [R] Energy discarded in this way. If the only Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard provides more than one [R] Energy, discard all [R] Energy instead.
I would prefer that over stating the obvious with the 20 damage bit. Either way, remember the apostrophe on “attack’s”.
Discard all [R] Energy attached to Blaine’s Charizard that were not used to pay for this attack’s energy cost. This attack does 20 damage plus 20 more damage for each [R] Energy discarded in this way.
Im fine with the above wording as long as we follow the correct damage output displayed below. You cannot contradict the first sentence of the description. If a Buzzaped Electrode is the only energy attached, it cannot be discarded.
)
The fact that 1 of the energy Electrode provides covers the attack cost is irrelevant. The 2 energy come as one, therefore nothing can be discarded to gain the extra damage.