“Hey! Learn our syntax here.”
- zoom
- png (613 KB)
- cred: nago
1.3K
- ↓ 0.02
- ꩜ 0.18
- ↑ 999.00
Ability ⇢ Plasma Bane
If your opponent has any cards in their discard pile that have “Colress” in the name, this Pokémon can use the Trifrost attack for {C}.
{W}{W}{M}{M}{C} → Trifrost
Discard all Energy from this Pokémon. This attack does 110 damage to 3 of your opponent’s Pokémon. (Don’t apply Weakness and Resistance for Benched Pokémon.)
illus. Shiburingaru
External: Pokemon.com ↗, Bulba ↗ · #ad / Affiliate Links: TCGplayer ↗, cardmarket ↗, Amazon ↗, eBay ↗
Dwelling within it is a power even greater than that of Reshiram or Zekrom, but the extreme cold keeps that power bound.
leaf
i need to know the thought process behind this card’s design so badly, like. who thought this was necessary to come up with in the first place and who thought it was a great idea to actually put to print
Sam May
I think its a really cool/fun card personally….
Luis
Don’t get me wrong, it’s attack is pretty useful due to the spread damage that it does. However it’s ability is indeed head-scratching. Why they decided to word it like that (& thus making it extremely circumstantial) is beyond me and indeed an odd choice.
JL_muserwolves
It was printed as an explicit counter to Lost Box (see Colress’s Experiment, supporter). Designed to be a card that could take 3 prizes in 1 turn against a deck that I’m sure the game designers were very tired of seeing be so good for so long, while having very little impact elsewhere. It wasn’t the first card that was like this about Lost Box either; Jirachi from Paradox Rift is very narrow to protect against the Sableye from Lost Origin the deck used so well. Nor is this the first example of a deck they’ve tried to print specific counters for; see Drapion V for Fusion Strike Mew VMAX.
Charmaster
It was meant to be a tech against Lost Box decks, since it could knock out three Comfey LOR, Cramorant LOR and Sableye LOR, but Lost Box was so rare by that point that the only decks that ran it for the most part were ones that could copy Trifrost for a lower cost, like Regidrago VSTAR and Slowking SCR… which could use it in virtually every matchup. So it ended up becoming the very thing it swore to destroy… an once-oppressive spread card that slid down the ranks as the meta shifted away from its core archetype.
Luis
I see. Did this card actually see much use in any decks in tournaments after it was printed?
Pual
Yeah! Regidrago was fiiiine before this, but this card really put it on the map and made decks reliant on smaller basics feel pretty much unplayable.
https://limitlesstcg.com/cards/SFA/47/decklists
Zeni
I’m a little confused on the wording here – does Trifrost do 110 damage “spread out” over 3 Pokémon (eg: 50 to first, 30 to second, 30 to third) or 110 damage to first, 110 to second, 110 to third Pokémon of your choosing?
JLB
110 each. 110 to the first, 110 to the 2nd and 110 to the 3rd
Gaardus
110 to Pokemon A, 110 to Pokemon B, and 110 to Pokemon C. 330 total.
Adam Capriola
To give precedence on this: There are a few cards that do 10 damage to 2 of your opponent’s Pokémon: https://pkmncards.com/?s=%2Btext%3A%22This+attack+does+10+damage+to+2%22
In those cases it’s apparent that you’re not able to split up 10 damage, so you’re doing 10 damage to each of the 2 Pokémon.
Implicit in the wording for these types of attacks is: “This attack does X damage to each of Y of your opponent’s Pokémon.” (X being the damage and Y being the number of Pokémon.)
And then you have far more instances of: “This attack does X damage to each of [all of] your opponent’s Pokémon.”
GeneralTeng09
Is this any better in Regidrago VSTAR decks?
Gaardus
Yes, it’s a near universal inclusion. Discarding 3 energy is still a steep requirement, but not so steep that it isn’t worth it to completely prevent your opponent from setting up.