>>57384150>No? There's mechanically only two, but the first has four versions with different art.Oh OK. I just said because that's what I what I saw for the cards shown on the page for Cleffa on the Pokédex section of the official Pokémon website. Taking another look, I see what you said, four of them have the same effect. Still cool that Cleffa got those variants.
>>57385763I don't know. While the OP image does have a Cleffa, OP didn't say if it is a thread for Cleffa specifically, whereas the Cleffa thread from last month specially stated it was one. With two non-Cleffa images posted already. But I think it'd be fine for this thread, just post them anyway. There's still plenty of Cleffa already here and the OP image is a Cleffa too, so I don't think OP will mind.
>>57387519>They could babies a small benefit to your team, like letting them level up faster or some overworld effect.I was thinking more about in-battle benefits. But that's good too. Again, it also matters to what extent. It seems to me that for the main games they don't the idea of incentivising never Evolving a Pokémon that can Evolve, which is kind of strange as there's Pokémon who stay as NFE in the anime, notably Ash's Pikachu, also many NFEs are popular, like Pikachu. If I had to guess I feel it's at least partially because Evolving is permanent, and Evolving works differently for the TCG. Baby Pokémon in the main games need way more positives to balance out the negatives that naturally happen with the idea of "Baby" Pokémon.
>Also just realized, has the team "Baby" Pokemon actually been used in game?I wonder this too, I don't think we've seen the term used in the main games. I don't really know where the criteria for Baby Pokémon in the main games originates from. We do however see the Baby Pokémon acknowledged as such outside the main games.
>it can beTrue. I'd like and be OK with another Cleffa thead, the last one was nice. The Fairy Baby trio with Pichu, cute!
