“Hey! Learn our syntax here.”
- zoom
- jpg (177 KB)
- cred: nago
825
{D}{C}{C} → Air Crash : 50
Flip a coin. If heads, discard an Energy attached to your opponent’s Active Pokémon.
{D}{D}{C}{C} → Wings of Destruction : 80+
If your opponent has Xerneas (including Xerneas-EX) in play, this attack does 40 more damage.
illus. Masakazu Fukuda
External: Pokemon.com ↗, Bulba ↗ · #ad / Affiliate Links: TCGplayer ↗, cardmarket ↗, Amazon ↗, eBay ↗
When this legendary Pokémon’s wings and tail feathers spread wide and glow red, it absorbs the life force of living creatures.
Nosredna
I feel like the way the second attack is worded would confuse people more than if it just said “If your opponent has Xerneas or Xerneas-EX in play, this attack does 40 more damage.” Some people might be lead to believe that a Pokemon-EX could be considered the same as a non-EX for purposes of Repeat Ball or other card like that.
Otaku
Some people make that mistake anyway, though. I do see a potential problem here, but only if the intent was not “Pokémon with Xerneas in their name” but specifically Xerneas and Xerneas-EX. In other words, does the effect count Xerneas-GX?
Nosredna
I feel like that was their line of thought, the text essentially saying it does extra damage if there is a Pokémon with Xerneas in its name in play, but there was only one other card at the time that could fit the bill so they made a specific note of it (though in just two years there would also be Xerneas Break, which doesn’t activate the extra damage because its name isn’t Xerneas or Xerneas-EX). So it makes me think that there’s just not a lot of thinking ahead when it comes to the card design, at least in this instance. Anyway, I had never seen a card with this kind of wording so it made me want to think more on how it might be interpreted