I don't see a lot of room for abuse. Great Ball would seem a much more likely candidate for abuse.
Going to send you a PM Ian
I don't see a lot of room for abuse. Great Ball would seem a much more likely candidate for abuse.
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.
I don't see a lot of room for abuse. Great Ball would seem a much more likely candidate for abuse.
Going to send you a PM Ian
BINGO.... thanks Pablo for making my point.
BINGO.... thanks Pablo for making my point.
Never mind...
Against, this isn't directed at you, Ryan, but printing the ACE SPEC "you can't have more than 1 in your deck" text on the card prevents someone who would cheat from playing more than 1 copy anyway because........?
I've witnessed some idiots play with 60+ card decks, and then take out the extra cards before their decks are checked. Cheaters will find a way to cheat anyway. Obviously, these particular players suck at the game, which is why they would need to do that in the first place. It's not like pleading ignorance when caught with multiple Computer Search because the old print is allowed will result in any lighter of a penalty.
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?
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.
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.
I don't think anyone was hoping for Computer Search to be legal with a reference- we were hoping for an errata. There is no major text change to the card itself. There is, essentially, an Ace Spec stamp on it, and it has changed from Trainer to Trainer-Item. Trainer to Trainer-Item is no issue (PP, Rare Candy, Potion, Switch, etc). The Ace Spec stamp is the only thing in contention.
The Exp Share argument is interesting to me, as text that affects the type of card was effectively errataed onto it. I realize this was a printing error... But I don't see how that makes a difference. Both situations are a card missing a simple designation, one in which the card became playable, the other in which it did not. This seems highly inconsistent, and is understandably frustrating.
EDIT: Looks like, from the scan, Computer Search will be Ultra Rare (silver star). Correct me if I'm wrong.
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.
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.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).
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.
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.
I don't think anyone was hoping for Computer Search to be legal with a reference- we were hoping for an errata. There is no major text change to the card itself. There is, essentially, an Ace Spec stamp on it, and it has changed from Trainer to Trainer-Item. Trainer to Trainer-Item is no issue (PP, Rare Candy, Potion, Switch, etc). The Ace Spec stamp is the only thing in contention.
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).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erratum said:1. an error in writing or printing.
2. a statement of an error and its correction inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication; corrigendum.
Old versions of Computer Search must be allowed if they're going to be consistent with rulings. As long as it has the same name as a current card, it should be able to be played. This Super Rod is LEGAL for tournament play if you have a reference.
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.
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)