>>54317432There are many instances that are ambiguous or arguably counterintuitive. And the English game is very bad for them. For example, is damage an 'effect'? Look at the Wailord linked earlier in this page and the text of its Dive attack;
>>54317048>Flip a coin. If heads, prevent all effects of attacks, including damage, done to this Pokémon during your opponent’s next turn.The text of its attack clearly states that damage is an effect.
So why 3 years later does this Swoobat's Unaware include this text?
>(Damage is not an effect.)Let's look at the original Japanese text of the respective cards.
Wailord's Dive:
>コインを1回投げオモテなら、次の相手の番、このポケモンはワザのダメージや効果を受けない。 >(Loosely): Flip a coin. If heads, during your opponent's next turn, this Pokémon takes no damage or effects from attacks.The text is not suggesting damage is an effect.
Swoobat's Unaware:
>このポケモンは、相手のポケモンが使うワザの効果を受けない。 There is nothing in parentheticals about damage being an effect, because damage is not an effect.
The English card game has had this issue since Base Set, cards like Raichu had text saying " Flip a coin. If heads, during your opponent’s next turn, prevent all effects of attacks, including damage, done to Raichu." If you look at the respective Japanese text, there was never at any point any text suggesting damage was an effect. WOTC mistranslated it and their judges propagated it. Because PUSA (and TPCI) hired these useless staff, and these same staff advised their judges, etc. how to play the game, confusion existed for over 20 years. That is why a card like Swoobat now had to add "(Damage is not an effect.)" to the English game. Why only now? Maybe the useless people originally from WOTC have finally retired. I don't know.
