Going to send you a PM Ian
Computer Search and Why Both Forms Should Be Legal
- Thread starter Tylertyphlosion
- Start date
- Status
Going to send you a PM Ian
No, what LOLZ is referring to is the fact that people used to have an english version of Dusknoir DP set aside to trick someone into thinking you were running Dusknoir, and have them play differently, whilst you yourself did not run it.
The same could be done with this. If you have Computer Search Ace Spec outside your deck, you could actually be playing a different Ace Spec and your opponent would not see it coming because they assume you are using the old Computer Search.
The same could be done with this. If you have Computer Search Ace Spec outside your deck, you could actually be playing a different Ace Spec and your opponent would not see it coming because they assume you are using the old Computer Search.
psychup2034
New Member
Ok, let's assume that I buy your argument that allowing a reference could be a bad idea. Then why are you against an errata?
We don't want to need a reference card, just an errata, which would render this type of cheating moot.
LibertyFigter
New Member
To repeat myself (; P), I don't think anyone is advocating Base Set Computer Search be allowed with a reference: that helps no one. I think what most (if not all) of the argument here is over giving the Base Set Computer Search an errata, allowing it for use without a reference. There is precedent for this (Bill, etc.) and seems to be the only way to keep rulings consistent. This decision to not give an errata makes the company's motives seem suspect, whether or not they are.
ryanvergel
New Member
Yeah, you're right in that regard. They will still cheat.
To be honest I am not the biggest fan of errata’s for reprinted cards (Potion, Rare Candy, Great Ball, PlusPower), in general. From a judging perspective when an older copy of an errataed card is played at a tournament, a newer player or young player may be confused on what exactly is going on. Requiring players to have a most recent copy of the reprinted card on hand to show their opponent is preferable, in my opinion, as opposed to explaining what exactly the card does to the new or younger player. Explaining a reference is still something that has to be explained mid-match to a player, but the fact that they are shown the card there at the table makes it more preferable then explaining an errata.
Errata for print/translation errors I understand are necessary , but for reprinted cards, I would like to see reference required and no errata, doing this, would only leave 1 card in the format that has an errata issued and that is EXP Share.
The 4 cards that are currently errated for updated card text on a reprinted card were issued and errata because of a major text update. EXP ALL (Neo Destiny and FRLG) and Super Rod (Neo Genesis) are two cards have been allowed to be played with an outside reference. This is an inconstancy when comparing cards that have been reprinted for major text updates. I think these 6 cards should be given the same treatment either give them the errata or require a reference. Since no errata was issued for EXP ALL and Super Rod, the other 4 should require the reference instead of the issued errata in my opinion.
The fact that Computer Search is projected to be a chase card in the next set has no impact on my opinion, I am only considering how it can effect a tournament.
Bill was not issued an errata, Bill required a reference.
---------- Post added 10/18/2012 at 04:33 PM ----------
To respond to that, let me quote you from a previous posts
If there was no Major Text Change (aside from the Ace Spec Rule), what precedents is there for issuing an errata. Erratas are only issued to: A- Address Translation Errors, B- Address Print Errors (Colerless Dialga, EXP Share), C- Address text change on Reprints (Pluspower, potion, great ball, rare candy).
Last edited:
psychup2034
New Member
The Base Set/Base Set 2 Computer Search actually has no difference in terms of game play compared to the Boundaries Crossed one. None.
The only confusion that would result would be in terms of deckbuilding. I think if a Junior player (or his/her parent) doesn't know about the Computer Search errata, they wouldn't be playing the older version anyway. It's not like these Juniors have a bunch of Computer Search lying around the house from when they used to play the game way back before they were born...
As previously mentioned by other posters, there have been more irrational erratas/references in the past. EXP ALL has a different name for crying out loud. Super Rod does something completely different. Potion heals a different amount of damage counters.
While you only concern yourself with how an errata/reference will affect a tournament, that's clearly not what the decision-makers at Pokemon are concerned about (based on their past decisions). Clearly, allowing Super Rod, EXP ALL, Potions, etc. to be played in tournaments indicates that they may not care as much as you about the effect on tournaments. Given this, it appears that someone is trying to screw over players by increasing the cost of a staple.
Personally, I don't think that TPCi (or whoever makes these decisions) has any intention to screw the players. However, their actions give off the wrong impression.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Does anyone know if Japanese players are allowed to use the old Computer Search?
Because if it was ruled in Japan that they are to be treated as separate cards, TPCI may not be able to go against that, even if they wanted to.
Because if it was ruled in Japan that they are to be treated as separate cards, TPCI may not be able to go against that, even if they wanted to.
LibertyFigter
New Member
That was a very good point. You are right: the Base Set Computer Search should be allowed to be used in formal play without a reference or errata. It is the same card.
Essentially, if it is argued that an errata cannot be issued because there was no major text change, then it should be legal in tournament play without reference or errata.
If it is argued that the card cannot be played because of a major text change (ACE SPEC), then there is precedent for an errata to be issued (potion, etc).
If it is argued that it is a card with an entirely new mechanic (which it is not) and that it is radically different, then the old version should be playable with a reference (Super Rod).
There is simply no logical argumentative thread to support Base Set Computer Search not being playable, aside from business decisions. And it's never fun, as a player, to see business decisions being made in spite of your best interests.
PS. I believe you are correct with Bill, my bad : ).
badganondorf
New Member
I'll ask that from my Japanese friend.
And speaking of inconsistencies in rulings, the Random Receiver + shuffling ruling is also inconsistent to all the other same kind of cards in the history of Pokémon TCG. Makes no sense to me.
Zarmakuizz
New Member
^ I think it's easier to say "shuffle after your Random Receiver" all the time instead of "You know, you don't have to shuffle if you revealed a Supporter immediately".
It helps being consistent when you then say "you have a hand of 0 cards and your opponent plays N, shuffle your deck".
It helps being consistent when you then say "you have a hand of 0 cards and your opponent plays N, shuffle your deck".
No sir, you are taking that quote out of context, and are implying that my opinion is to allowed older copies of Computer Search without a reference, that is not my opinion, please do not quote me and assume that is what I mean. Here is the correct context, and all quotes involved for anyone reading
I think alot of people are calling for an errata to act as a type of loop hole so you are able to play older copies of Computer Search without a references. An errata is not a loop hole.
The definition of errata is the plural of erratum.
Erratum is defined as followed-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erratum said:
There was no translation or print errors. The text on the card has changed, but not significantly enough to influence game play.
No translation errors, no print errors, no significally different text updates to influence game plays... there is no precedents to issue an errata under the definition of errata/erratum.
A better reference would be Bill from Base being legal last format because of the change in the "type" of card, which is the only arguement they could make for it not being legal (Trainer to Supporter compared to Trainer to Ace Spec).
GodBlessAmerica
New Member
I would be more okay with this ruling if they would have just called the new computer search a completely different name. Nobody complained that they couldn't use old their old item finders in place of junk arm, and people didn't complain too much that they couldn't use GOW in place of catcher. Here, we have a card that will be a staple and will run up to $50 if they don't allow old copies of a card with THE SAME NAME and THE SAME EFFECT to be used. You shouldn't need a reference either in my opinion, because it is literally the same effect.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
Disagree. Every other occurrence of counting an area of the playing field that takes place in the game, when the words "up to" are not present, has 0 as an acceptable result. Hand size, deck size, both still exist even if they're 0. (For example, still having to shuffle on 0 for N and PONT.) And prior to the text shrinkage that occurred a few years ago, Random Receiver would have said "Put the other revealed cards on top of your deck. Shuffle your deck afterwards." There, it's treated as two separate thoughts; even if you put 0 cards on top of your deck, you still do have to shuffle.
This just happens to be a side effect of that text shrinkage. Yes, as the card is printed, in literal English you should not shuffle. But if you read it as it would have been worded prior to their saving space on the cards, you still would have to.
Quick Ball (Majestic Dawn; DP Trainer Kit 1 (Gold); Mysterious Treasures)
Q. If I use Quick Ball and the very first card revealed is a Pokemon, do I still have to shuffle my deck?
A. If the first revealed card is a Pokemon then the deck is not shuffled as there are no "other revealed cards" to shuffle back in. (Oct 25, 2007 PUI Rules Team)
A. If the first revealed card is a Pokemon then the deck is not shuffled as there are no "other revealed cards" to shuffle back in. (Oct 25, 2007 PUI Rules Team)
Mystery Thing
Administrator
- Status