Talk:Double-Edge (move)

I think that there needs to be some corrections to this page.

I think this is what it should be:

Generation I: Base damage 100, Recoil 1/4

Generation II: Base damage 120, Recoil 1/4

Generations III/IV: Base damage 120, Recoil 1/3 (Found in three Nintendo Power guides and through personal experience I know this to be true)

Fensti 01:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC) fensti

There's only one way to test this. Hurting myself with Double-Edge! Yay! And yes, 1/3 is correct. TTEchidna 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Clairify?

"If the user of Double-Edge attacks first and makes itself faint due to recoil damage, the target will not attack or be subjected to recurrent damage during that round. However, the user will still be subject to recurrent damage. " Am I the only one that thinks this statement could be clearer? What's being said here? The way I read it the target pokemon won't receive poison/leach seed damage...and the user...does still take damage from that type of move? After...fainting? Is this a programing technicality or am I reading this wrong, because that situation (taking damage apparently after a self-inflicted KO) doesn't seem like it would ever happen.--Barakku 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the description it says:

"Self-inflicted recoil damage from Double-Edge from the previous turn can be countered if the target does not make a move on the following turn"

What does this mean, exactly? If the target is asleep or faints due to this attack, the user doesn't get any recoil?

Raven-14 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It means your Pokémon uses Double-Edge, then on the next turn uses Counter, provided the opponent has not made a move (for whatever reason) the damage done by counter will be twice that of the recoil recieved by using Double-Edge on the previous turn. Werdnae (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Double-edged sword

I added to trivia that the name for this move was likely based on the phrase "double-edged sword". This was removed because it "didn't make enough sense" and there wasn't any concrete evidence to back my claim up. Why does there need to be? Its clear that the name alludes to fact that move is powerful but it hurts you as well. Its a double edged sword. What other explanation would make more sense? - unsigned comment from ElementX (talk • contribs)