- ↓ 3.15
- ꩜ 4.54
- ↑ 9.99
Damage done by attacks to the Pokémon Metal Energy is attached to is reduced by 10 (after applying Weakness and Resistance). If the Pokémon Metal Energy is attached to isn’t {M}, whenever it damages a Pokémon by an attack, reduce that damage by 10 (after applying Weakness and Resistance).
Metal Energy provides {M} Energy. (Doesn’t count as a basic Energy card.)
illus. Milky Isobe
External: Bulba ↗ · Shop: TCGplayer ↗, cardmarket ↗, Amazon ↗, eBay ↗
Ambassador
Following up from what I assumed was an innocuous observation on Lt. Surge’s Electrode Lv.33, I noticed the subsequent compendium ruling was an example of WOTC apparently outright lying in their errata towards the end of their contract;
“== METAL ENERGY (Expedition Expansion)
* This card was incorrectly translated in this set. Just like the Darkness Energy, play all Metal Energy as it was written in Neo Genesis. This card will be reissued with corrected text in Aquapolis. (Sep16, 2002 WotC Rules Team Update, Item 14)”
There are four prints of Metal Energy worth discussing in the JP edition. (n.b. this entire situation is perfectly mirrored for Darkness Energy as well.)
JP neo 1 – 2000.12.16 – Specifies damage is reduced when from an attack.
JP Intro Pack neo – 2001.04.06 – Does not specify damage is reduced when from an attack (therefore it could reduce damage from a Power, et al.)
VS – 2001.07.19 – Specifies damage is reduced when from an attack.
e-Card 2 – 2002.03.08 – Specifies damage is reduced when from an attack.
As compared to the EN edition;
EN neo 1 – 2000.12.16 – Removes specification damage is reduced from an attack.
EN Expedition – 2002.09.16 – Includes specification damage is reduced from an attack.
EN Aquapolis – 2003.01.15 – Removes specification damage is reduced from an attack.
There’s a few things up for question. First is what exactly happened for WOTC to accidentally include what seems to be a correct translation in this set? Expedition stealthily features a fair amount of interference from WOTC. Some examples;
– changing the name of cards (e.g. “Energy Removal” to “Energy Removal 2”)
– using their old text for the Expedition print of Master Ball, even though the JP e-Card 1 print of Master Ball featured completely new text
– changing the text of Dual Ball to add “except Baby Pokémon” to compensate for their continued faffery with Baby Pokémon
If our “Expedition” is meant to map to e-Card 1 (and the starter deck that released alongside), there weren’t actually any Metal Energy cards in either product. So WOTC had to look elsewhere to get their correct translation. I propose they either [i] accidentally included a correct translation they had made for the neo print but decided to mess with, or [ii] looked at the VS card (and/or the e-Card 2 card proactively) and translated it fresh. We can infer they didn’t look at the Intro Pack Neo print, since it would’ve given them this translation.
Another question would be why the Intro Pack Neo print doesn’t specify damage is reduced from an attack. There’s another important thing about Intro Pack Neo we’ve talked about before, wherein Riptide Feraligatr’s text was updated to feature an errata that ensured it would work properly with N3 Parasect¹, so you can read IPN’s print of Metal Energy as a bugfix for their Neo 1 print and therefore the entire oldback format. But for the newback format, at least for the e-Card era, the intention seems to be for Metal Energy to only reduce damage from attacks.
The last question isn’t really a single question so much as observation, of sorts? These are pretty consequential cards in both formats in question, and WOTC’s “This card was incorrectly translated in this set.” is so brazen it actually gives me pause. A basic motivation, if they were lying, is to hide the fact they mistranslated the neo print and EN organized play might have been playing two very consequential Energy cards incorrectly for the entire neo era – but to do it like this? They were very rarely interested in even admitting that cards had errors when they were the results of their mistranslations, so why would they now cite mistranslation for a card they appear to have translated correctly? I feel like I’m being gaslit by old WOTC errata.
Having said all this, I’m not sure what the impact is;
– Like I said above, I think the Intro Pack Neo prints should be read as errata of the Japanese neo 1 prints. WOTC “lucked out” and WOTC’s N1 card worked the way JP had wanted it to work all along. [Could readily confirm this with a JP player by asking how N2 Forretress’ Spikes works vs a Pokémon with Metal Energy attached.]
– For the e-Card era, the VS and e2 prints are binding. i.e., it works differently from its neo print. WOTC’s EX card is correct, WOTC’s AQ card is incorrect, and the errata is a lie. But the impact isn’t apparent to me, because I can’t think of any interaction where a e-Card card can cause damage via anything other than an attack.
– The impact is ultimately cut off by the EN and JP TCG harmonizing their Metal Energy with its new effect at the start of the Gen 3 TCG. i.e. the only impact would be to anyone playing an EN e-Card-only format, and only if you can think of a card that does damage via Power/Body/Trainer/Energy/otherwise.
¹ https://ambassadortcg.substack.com/i/112898831/neo-genesis-feraligatr-riptide
Ambassador
Update; I misread the Intro Pack Neo print of JP Metal Energy, it’s identical to the neo1 print of JP Metal Energy. There was never a version of Metal Energy in Japan that did anything other than reduce damage from attacks. Likewise Darkness Energy should only ever be increasing damage from attacks.
So yeah, confirmed that the only time WOTC translated these cards correctly was for Expedition, but they lied about it and said that they were mistranslations.