Computer Search and Why Both Forms Should Be Legal

[bullados]

Pop, the problem here is that ALL of those 3 rulings are bad rulings given the ruling already in place for Modified.

If you make either the 2nd or 3rd ruling, then you are directly contradicting the ruling for the Modified format.

If you make the first ruling, then you are banning a card for only the second time in TPCi history. And the first time for an English Language card.

TPCi has put themselves in a no-win situation as far as Unlimited is concerned with this card. Any ruling they make will contradict either a precedent that they have long held standard, or will contradict a ruling that is currently being held in Modified.

 

[AnUnown]

I can't believe this thread is still going... The card isn't hard to find and you only need one. Pull it or buy it and move on.

 

[solo59486]

I can't believe this thread is still going... The card isn't hard to find and you only need one. Pull it or buy it and move on.

Yeah, i already got my computer search from BC so i honestly dont care if the other one is playable or not anymore...

 

[baby mario]

Yeah, i already got my computer search from BC so i honestly dont care if the other one is playable or not anymore...

So what you are saying is 'I've got my Computer Search, so who cares?'

I'm not particularly upset about the ruling either (I understand both points of view), but your post is so completely selfish and so irrelevant to the discussion that I seriously wonder why you bothered.

 

[tutti]

I'm... still confused. They've ruled that the cards are different, that despite all their similarities there's nothing linking them. It doesn't make sense given that fact to ban the old card, unless they simultaneously decide that the old card is too good for Unlimited. Requiring it to be player like the new card (with or without reference) would make even less sense, since the entire point is that they are different enough to not be the same card. Making the old card and the new card not different would break that.

 

[PokePop]

I'm... still confused. They've ruled that the cards are different, that despite all their similarities there's nothing linking them.

That is NOT at all what was ruled. You're adding a whole lot of extra things into what was ruled.

 

[Shen]

I can't believe this thread is still going... The card isn't hard to find and you only need one. Pull it or buy it and move on.

At this point, I don't care that I can't use my old ones. I just don't understand why the ruling was handled this way, it seems inconsistent. I'm sure others share my viewpoint.

 

[Tash]

I'm... still confused. They've ruled that the cards are different, that despite all their similarities there's nothing linking them. It doesn't make sense given that fact to ban the old card, unless they simultaneously decide that the old card is too good for Unlimited. Requiring it to be player like the new card (with or without reference) would make even less sense, since the entire point is that they are different enough to not be the same card. Making the old card and the new card not different would break that.

Pokemon Center and Alph Lithograph are both limited to 4 total, despite the fact that there are multiple individual cards with those names. It apparently falls under the same umbrella as "Base Charmander and BC Charmander are different, but still limited to 4 because they share a name". Logically, this should also be "4 total computer search", unless they decide to also errata the old one into an Ace Spec, but a DIFFERENT Ace Spec computer search than the new one.

*shrug*

 

[ShadowCard]

At this point, I don't care that I can't use my old ones. I just don't understand why the ruling was handled this way, it seems inconsistent. I'm sure others share my viewpoint.

Yup. It is inconsistent. If a judge did acted in such a way, the PTO would get complaints. Makes it look like someone had a bias against the card.

 

[tutti]

That is NOT at all what was ruled. You're adding a whole lot of extra things into what was ruled.

Really? I was under the impression that the ruling was "the cards are different", and that not being able to play the old in place of the new was a direct consequence of that. If I was wrong I do apologise, but in that case what is the ruling?

 

[PokePop]

Yes, it was ruled that the cards had differences.
You added "that despite all their similarities there's nothing linking them."
That was not said.

 

[tutti]

I know. I did not mean to imply that it was said; it was a logical conclusion of what was said. If there's something "linking" the cards while still keeping them different, what is it? I assume it's not the name, since the only rule I know of regarding that just limits us to 4 cards by the same name.

I'm sorry if I'm being difficult. I'm not trying to cause trouble, I am genuinely trying to figure out the logic. Feel free to tell me off if I'm too irritating.

 

[falcom4ever]

At first I was also suprised that old Computer Search was not playable.

But I think that it is not a bad idea. A-Spec are a new part of Pokémon TCG rules, and it is less confusing and more clear if everybody plays the new one.

I can imagine that if a younger players knows what A-Spec is, but does not know that Computer Search is an A-Spec, they might not notice that the opponent is playing an illegal deck if he has 4 Computer Search in the deck.

I think that from this point of view it is normal to not allow the old computer search, in fact A-Spec rules are wrote on the new card only.

 

[PokePop]

I know. I did not mean to imply that it was said; it was a logical conclusion of what was said. If there's something "linking" the cards while still keeping them different, what is it? I assume it's not the name, since the only rule I know of regarding that just limits us to 4 cards by the same name.

I'm sorry if I'm being difficult. I'm not trying to cause trouble, I am genuinely trying to figure out the logic. Feel free to tell me off if I'm too irritating.

When I get a ruling from Pokemon, I make no assumptions of further meaning.
I take the ruling as is. Meaning what they say it means.
I agree that you took it to "a" logical conclusion.
But it was not "the" logical conclusion. There are other conclusions that one could arrive at.
Knowing OP, your conclusion is not one that is being considered.

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

I can imagine that if a younger players knows what A-Spec is, but does not know that Computer Search is an A-Spec, they might not notice that the opponent is playing an illegal deck if he has 4 Computer Search in the deck.

If it is discovered that a player is using 4 Comp Searches in a deck, they will get DQ'd. And all the cheaters guilty of this will eventually fade away, if they were to exist at all. It's pretty hard to not notice someone next to you playing a second comp search in a tournament game or seeing them with a second one in hand, so they just need to notify a judge after they're finished with their game.

The ruling of ACE-Specs doesn't affect game-play, it only affects deck building.

 

[ShadowCard]

Note: The Rules Team proposes rulings questions to Pokemon R&D, as well as suggested rulings for them, but the final ruling on each and every official ruling posted in the Compendium is decided on and signed off on by Pokemon R&D.
...
Bottom line, the rulings come from Pokemon. The Rules Team is merely the method of publishing those rulings.

bolded for emphasis. I thought Team Compendium was the method of publishing those rulings while everything else mentioned, the proposed questions and suggested rulings, is the role of the Rules Team .

 

[PokePop]

bolded for emphasis. I thought Team Compendium was the method of publishing those rulings while everything else mentioned, the proposed questions and suggested rulings, is the role of the Rules Team .

It kind of blurs since the Rules Team is Team Compendium plus Pokemon R&D.

 

[SteveP]

FYI - The Decklist Program allows 4 Computer Search and 1 ACE-SPEC Computer Search in unlimited format.