Newly Added: Shiny Vault (8/23), Unified Minds (8/2), Unbroken Bonds (5/3), Detective Pikachu (3/29)
To get started, enter search terms above. By default, only card names, sets, and numbers will be matched in the search results. Use the advanced search and search syntax to refine them further. For the completionist, all sets are available for viewing. Chance upon a random card if you’re indecisive.
Or, just check out the latest discussion below:
So cccooooooollll
Still didn’t stop the likes of GRI Sharpedo or SUM Masquerain from popping up. But yeah, I have no idea why they merged the family box in with our extra fancy set
The vanilla rares in UNM are all from Japan’s “Family Pokemon Card Game” which is intended to be simpler (to teach small children). I’m glad we got the cards internationally but it is a bit of a bummer that they took up rare spots in boosters. Maybe something like another Trainer Kit would’ve been more appropriate…
Ram? I thought it was a sheep
Cards like this make me sad about the current state of the game. Jank rares have always existed, but before the Heartgold Soulsilver block they at least had multiple attacks with some type of effect other than doing damage.
this card can be 0hKO by Darkrai GX
Lowest HP on a 2 prize Pokemon. The attacks don’t really make it worth it either it seems
Nice catch!
This is the selfie that she’s taking in this card!
Only 1st-edition and non-1st-ed shadowless printings have the error.
So it’s only the shadowless one that is flawed?
No worries–going over old cards in detail is what this site is all about! Note also that the non-shadowless (“shadow-ful”?) Base Set 1 printing of this card is also corrected.
Ah, I see the BS2 printing was corrected. Not a big deal as it’s hardly played now days, but I just found it odd. Thanks!
Later printings of Sandshrew do say “that attack”. Unfortunately the site doesn’t have a good way to deal with errata–it’s pretty inconsistent, especially for cards that were actually corrected in later printings.
I see in the card text, it says if tails this attack dies nothing. But in the description, it says that attack. Is there an errata?
Some Bagon and Shelgon cards of the time also had Fighting resistance. I’m guessing since, out of the 8 fully evolved Dragons of the time, 4 were Dragon/Flying and 3 had Levitate, they treated Ground immunity as a property of Dragon.
The [F] Resistance is odd, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Dark Dragonair is not a “true” Darkness Type. It released at a time when Pokémon controlled by evil Trainers had this corruption represented by gaining the [D] Typing. However, this added Darkness Typing did not alter the cards Weakness and Resistance, which were based on whatever Type or Types the card would have used if it weren’t corrupted at all.
Video game Dragon Types at this time were represented by Colorless Pok…
Based on the typing and weakness, I’d think it was supposed to translate to Dark/Dragon, so the Fighting resistance seems out of place.
Are you speaking from experience with how the card was used back in the day, experience testing out the old Format but in the present, or just conjecture? I’m not saying you’re wrong, as I don’t clearly remember how much this card was used, and sometimes old builds have old blind-spots when it comes to efficiency, so I’d like to know. :)
Edit: I finally remembered what Dark Dragonite/Dark Electrode decks from this period were actually called (Dragtrode). A quick Google sea…
you’d think that this would be an improvement over the original, but the worse ability really just ruins the whole thing. Still not terrible but not amazing.
“It lets the baby out to play only when it feels safe.”
Shouldn’t be the standard behaviour?
Interesting how this Grotle are in a similar pose as the Torterra of this same set. Both artwoks are from Ito.
Fixed!
The rarity for this should be HR
Hi there are you good.