Sableye vs Manaphy
Answers
-
The issue at hand isn't whether or not it's an attack; it's whether or not the attack deals damage. The answer to that is no. It places damage counters, which is an effect of an attack. I don't like people trying to win a debate by changing the context. Also, consider the possibility that the distinction is more clear in Japanese and simply didn't translate over to English very well.
Regardless, I'm not angry. You're the one here asking for a 25-year-old rule to be changed for your personal satisfaction instead of just hoping for a new card that protects the bench from effects of attacks. (Though, I'm sure if that happens you'll throw a fit about it not blocking Radiant Greninja.)
It defends from Radiant Greninja, which is often a more immediate threat in the early game. There are also other decks which spread damage.
0 -
Manaphy is still around because of Radiant Greninja. In Gardevoir & Lost box, you can't just let Radiant Greninja nuke all your Ralts before they evolve. And I agree with TechHog, he's explaining it correctly. Placing damage counters isn't actually doing damage. Sure, it has damage on it later, but the attack states that you place damage counters. It's very confusing. It's hard to understand, I get it.
0 -
Manaphy is for damage, Jirachi is for effects of attacks. Raw damage is not damage counters. This is the way as it has been before the naysayers. 🙏 Praise Arceus.
2 -
Also many players keep Manaphy in their deck for the greater whole of dealing with alot more decks in the current meta. Not every deck runs Sable Eye.
0
