Just because you spent $30 at prereleases to get that card doesn't mean that eveyone else wants to...
Its not always about you...
Computer Search and Why Both Forms Should Be Legal
- Thread starter Tylertyphlosion
- Start date
- Status
Just because you spent $30 at prereleases to get that card doesn't mean that eveyone else wants to...
Its not always about you...
meganium45
Active Member
Once again, is this over?
There has YET to be a good reason that I have seen to allow an old Base Set Computer Search as a reprint for the good of this game.
The price of Computer Search as a ACE SPEC is not going to be so out of whack to make a 1 per deck card impossible to get.
OMG, do you actually have to buy new product to get a card? WOW. Isn't that what printing a different card is all about?
And yes, this IS a different card, with different rules.
FAILURE to allow the reprint for this card is good for the game. It emphasizes that this card is DIFFERENT from the old one in key aspects.
To allow the reprint would have further damaged my faith in the game.
Oh, and yes, it is always about me.
Vince
There has YET to be a good reason that I have seen to allow an old Base Set Computer Search as a reprint for the good of this game.
The price of Computer Search as a ACE SPEC is not going to be so out of whack to make a 1 per deck card impossible to get.
OMG, do you actually have to buy new product to get a card? WOW. Isn't that what printing a different card is all about?
And yes, this IS a different card, with different rules.
FAILURE to allow the reprint for this card is good for the game. It emphasizes that this card is DIFFERENT from the old one in key aspects.
To allow the reprint would have further damaged my faith in the game.
Oh, and yes, it is always about me.
Vince
That's the point though the new product you would have to buy to obtain Computer Search is BC packs and their is only a few amount of good cards in the set...
Between Tournament Rules 15.1 ("A card is defined by the English translation of the name of the card.") and 15.4 (whether the two words "Ace Spec" constitute a "significant text change" or not, there is a clear, established mechanism for handling old cards with outdated text in the rules), it seems to me that the onus is on the Rules Team to explain why their own document doesn't apply; not on the players to provide "a good reason" why it should be allowed.
The reason appears to be "Because we said so." We have the reason; that doesn't mean we agree it's an acceptable reason.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
My guess is that they're considered different types of cards. It's been ruled that you can't have multiple Ace Specs in your deck in limited, meaning that the deck construction limitation is not a guildline, it is an explicit rule of the card.
By that reasoning, Ace Specs are an entirely new class of Trainer card, so Computer Search would follow the same rules as Bill. Just because they happen to have the same game effect doesn't matter; they're two completely different cards. (For the record, I always felt letting people use old Bills was incorrect.)
That would mean you would have to have a reference card, and since you're only allowed one in the deck anyways and you would have to have a copy of the new card with your deck anyways (remember, no more CardDex since foreign cards bit the dust), there's no point in letting you use an old one when you have to have a new one anyways. That's what makes it different from Bill; Bill you could do a 4:1 whereas this can never under any circumstance be more than 1:1.
And I reject the "wanting to protect the card" argument - they've been shown to be way more common than FAs (somewhere between 2 and 3 boxes to get a specific Ace Spec on average, whereas around 4.5 to 5 boxes for a specific BCR FA), yet you don't see anybody screaming about wanting to protect their FA Skyla/Cheren/Bianca.
(Yes, I agree that they should have just called it something different to avoid this headache in the first place. But that's a Japan thing, not an us thing.)
By that reasoning, Ace Specs are an entirely new class of Trainer card, so Computer Search would follow the same rules as Bill. Just because they happen to have the same game effect doesn't matter; they're two completely different cards. (For the record, I always felt letting people use old Bills was incorrect.)
That would mean you would have to have a reference card, and since you're only allowed one in the deck anyways and you would have to have a copy of the new card with your deck anyways (remember, no more CardDex since foreign cards bit the dust), there's no point in letting you use an old one when you have to have a new one anyways. That's what makes it different from Bill; Bill you could do a 4:1 whereas this can never under any circumstance be more than 1:1.
And I reject the "wanting to protect the card" argument - they've been shown to be way more common than FAs (somewhere between 2 and 3 boxes to get a specific Ace Spec on average, whereas around 4.5 to 5 boxes for a specific BCR FA), yet you don't see anybody screaming about wanting to protect their FA Skyla/Cheren/Bianca.
(Yes, I agree that they should have just called it something different to avoid this headache in the first place. But that's a Japan thing, not an us thing.)
NoPoke
Active Member
Vince I disagree. Not with any claim for or against it being good for the game that the old card can't be used or bad for the game because new players will have to pay more because of scarcity.
I disagree with disallowing the old card because it has the same name. If the powers that be do not want the old card playable in modified then they need to issue an expicit ban on the old card in modified.
If the future of the game relies upon Ace Spec CPU search being a high $ value card then the game is in a very bad place for players and retailers alike. I wonder if that is where all the angst is coming from??
Last edited:
Otaku
Active Member
Except if it is an entirely new class of Trainer card, why do effects that specify "Items" and not "Ace Spec Items" work on it? Ace Spec seems to be a "modifier" of Trainer in general. The closest I can come to something similar would be the Delta Species mechanic for Pokémon.
Oh, we've have cards with the "one-per-deck" mechanic before, as well as "only of copy" before, but those cards weren't released with the same name as something older. You had cards like [insert Pokémon name]* (where "*" is my stand in for a star), or the Shining Pokémon (like Shining Magikarp).
Aron Figaro
New Member
If "Ace Spec" does and "Supporter" doesn't, there's a direct inconsistency, as these are both frequency restrictions on cards - one per deck versus one per turn. At that point before such a ruling is legal, there needs to be a change to this document. The tournament rules, not the Pokegym forums, are the rules by which we play tournaments. Even the Compendium is a collection of documentation and precedents; errata and rule changes require official publication on the Play! Pokemon website, or ideally, in a Pokemon TCG rulebook.
Otaku is right that it isn't a new card type. Even if it was, "Supporter" was a new card type relative to Bill.
We will see what the rules actually are when the set is released. We can't get too mad about lack of publication of the rules change until then.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
The same reason that Skyla can get both Rare Candy and Professor Juniper.
Supporters and Items (and Stadiums) are all under the "Trainer cards" umbrella, and normal Items and Ace Spec Items are all under the "Item card" umbrella. It's just one more step down the tree of classifying the cards.
Otaku
Active Member
Your card taxonomy seems a bit... odd Mystery Thing. Note that I understand that is indeed how the game works as rules, but there is a definite disconnect. Trainers are currently divided into three catagories:
1) Item
2) Supporter
3) Stadium
Nothing can belong to more than one of those categories. Some of these catagories do have further divisions. Items can also be Pokemon Tools or Technical Machines.
Right now, we have Ace Spec cards that are only Items. However some are Items (no further division), some are Items (Pokemon Tools). Ace Spec text on cards do not indicate they must be Trainers at all, either; it is possible that they could use the mechanic on any card classification.
So when you change an Item (historically, "Normal" Trainer) into a Supporter, it alters how it is played during a match. Making any card an Ace Spec merely restricts how many can be in a deck (at least for now). The former change takes it and moves it further down the taxonomical scale. Being a Ace Spec is simply a "yes/no" trait.
So even if older copies Computer Search should only be allowed with a new copy for reference, which does nothing for players wishing to avoid purchasing a copy of the newer version, we still have confusion over the basic mechanics of the game. There is also some fear that this could spread to other newer cards; if this is just going to eventually be the new policy (after all, different art will confuse some players), it will become rather tedious having to pick up four new Switch and similar common cards every few years.
1) Item
2) Supporter
3) Stadium
Nothing can belong to more than one of those categories. Some of these catagories do have further divisions. Items can also be Pokemon Tools or Technical Machines.
Right now, we have Ace Spec cards that are only Items. However some are Items (no further division), some are Items (Pokemon Tools). Ace Spec text on cards do not indicate they must be Trainers at all, either; it is possible that they could use the mechanic on any card classification.
So when you change an Item (historically, "Normal" Trainer) into a Supporter, it alters how it is played during a match. Making any card an Ace Spec merely restricts how many can be in a deck (at least for now). The former change takes it and moves it further down the taxonomical scale. Being a Ace Spec is simply a "yes/no" trait.
So even if older copies Computer Search should only be allowed with a new copy for reference, which does nothing for players wishing to avoid purchasing a copy of the newer version, we still have confusion over the basic mechanics of the game. There is also some fear that this could spread to other newer cards; if this is just going to eventually be the new policy (after all, different art will confuse some players), it will become rather tedious having to pick up four new Switch and similar common cards every few years.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
While it is (clearly) not my position to say that Ace Spec Supporters aren't coming down the pipe, I don't see it happening. It would just seem weird (although in this game, so does a lot of other stuff, so yeah...) for their to be a rare overpowered person, as opposed to a rare overpowered physical thing. And with the move to make Item cards clearly be physical items that one could theoretically hold (one of the reasons GoW became Catcher, I assume) and Supporters to clearly be a person/group of people, it would seem off to me.
I don't disagree. However, even if it doesn't change how the card is played in-game, the extra text still has the potential to spin it into a different class of card, in my view.
But new art doesn't constitute a text change/addition. Switch has always been a vanilla Item (or whatever the equivalent at the time was), has always been named "Switch," and has always done the exact same thing. No text added, no text changed. Computer Search did have an addition made to it.
At least we can all agree they should have just called it something different. :lol:
Otaku
Active Member
I don't think Ace Spec is about flavor, that is to say, bound by "story" reasoning. Why on earth would you only have access to a single usage of the computer? Something you can do all you want in the video games provided you are near one (and they aren't rare). The Ace Spec for these appears to merley balance out the potent effects, and as such to satisfy both the demands of game mechanics and the demands of game "flavor", you just need to find accomplished figures or unique locations that justify potent effects.
Actually Ace Spec Stadiums/Supporters probably make more sense than Items. People tend to not exist in multiples, and many people are significantly more powerful than others; imagine Giovanni as an Ace Spec Supporter. There is only one Giovanni, and he has tremendous wealth, influence, and not sure if this is canon, but skill as a Trainer. Many locations could also be unique.
For Items, you have to assume something that is somehow "unique"... but in the real world and the world of Pokemon, that is more a function of lost knowledge or rare/dangerous materials than true uniqueness; sure something might be a rare prototype, but if it is worthwhile it tends to eventually get a mainstream release, and if it wasn't worth while... should it get an effect worthy of being an Ace Spec.
Maybe I should make a thread about this; it is a far more pleasant discussion. :lol:
Just to be clear, some of the issue is the "hierarchy" of card traits as well as the various rules; I fear this one is another "justifying the desired outcome" instead of "actually applying the existing rules, and then updating those rules if they are inadequate."
Correct, but it can make Switch look like two different cards. This was a very specific response to assertions, and I was careless and how I quoted attributed this solely to you when I shouldn't have, that newer players would be confused by the lack of Ace Spec text on older cards. So distinct artwork can also confuse newer (especially younger) players in a similar way, hence why I didn't consider that reason substantial.
Participating in Organized Play, one needs to know the rules, and while I don't expect the Floor Rules to be memorized or even well studied, using "older printings" of cards is majorly important since it ties directly into the Modified format itself. Likewise knowledge of errata are important. If someone knows these things, allowing older printings of cards be confusing, but not much more than basic understanding of the game at the Organized Play level.
I am actually glad they reprinted Computer Search with this restriction, but solely as a means of improving Unlimited... which won't be much of an improvement if older versions of the card are flat out illegal. Or would they do something weird like "Older copies are legal for Unlimited". Not a huge deal given how few people play Unlimited competitively, I know. Had I known what all would result, yeah I guess I would have preferred a new name as well.
Of course, I am uncomfortable with the Ace Spec concept as a whole, as "one per deck" cards, unless we radically alter the structure of the game, feel like a push to make for more luck based "powah" plays.
An underdiscussed point in this thread about TPCi's justification for not allowing Base Set Computer Search is that any old print of a card requires you to have a reference card anyways. You're not allowed to print off a reference card, it must be a real version. Thus, to use Base Set Computer Search you need a Computer Search BC anyways. And if you've got one, why are you proxying it?
So the deckbuilding limitation makes it pointless to allow an old copy, since you'd need a real one anyways.
That said, I think they should allow base set Computer Search.
So the deckbuilding limitation makes it pointless to allow an old copy, since you'd need a real one anyways.
That said, I think they should allow base set Computer Search.
A company made a decsion to sell more product...can you really blame them? TCPI is not a Charity organization and Comp Searches are only around $20...sure its a tough pill to sallow but realize if we were playing yugioh you'd be looking at a $150 card...Pot of Duality anyone?
ogremarauder
New Member
The two posts above me seem to be based on monetary issues. I for one don't see this as a money issue. Rather, it falls under the umbrella of continuity and by extension, confidence in the game/company. To keep making off-the-cuff decisions like this, ie.changing what is considered a playable reprint,printing same name cards with vastly differing functions, or even making functional reprints and disallowing older copies THAT HAVE THE SAME IN GAME MECHANICS , strikes many players as an insult. Or at the very least a poor design/execution decision. Who cares if a newer one isn't insanely priced? It has the same name and function as a card already in existence. One cannot reasonably argue that Ace Spec classification has any bearing on the card's mechanic beyond the construction of your deck. Whatever the justification given us by the Deciders, it reeks of shameless high-handedness(just made a new word:smile
The two posts above me seem to be based on monetary issues. I for one don't see this as a money issue. Rather, it falls under the umbrella of continuity and by extension, confidence in the game/company. To keep making off-the-cuff decisions like this, ie.changing what is considered a playable reprint,printing same name cards with vastly differing functions, or even making functional reprints and disallowing older copies THAT HAVE THE SAME IN GAME MECHANICS , strikes many players as an insult. Or at the very least a poor design/execution decision. Who cares if a newer one isn't insanely priced? It has the same name and function as a card already in existence. One cannot reasonably argue that Ace Spec classification has any bearing on the card's mechanic beyond the construction of your deck. Whatever the justification given us by the Deciders, it reeks of shameless high-handedness(just made a new word:smile
Pokemon is a business...they have costs, payrolls, and yes they want to make money. I don't get whats so hard to grasp about how a company needing to make a business decesion? They gave us decent pull ratio and didn't make Computer Search an instant "4 of" by making it an Ace.
Diaz
New Member
When we (competitive players) want nice things, we aren't the target market, and don't affect the bottom line much, so TPCi shouldn't cater to us. When they do something to increase revenue from us, it's a good business decision.
If competitive players make up a negligible portion of revenue for cards, why make a decision aimed at increasing revenue from competitive players? Make the old cards legal. It will be negligable to the bottom line, and increase community moral. It seems that the "competitive players aren't the target market" idea is only brought up when it is convenient for TPCi.
The pokemon community moral is at the lowest it's been since the end of the wotc days. Reversing this ruling is a simple way to help change that.
If competitive players make up a negligible portion of revenue for cards, why make a decision aimed at increasing revenue from competitive players? Make the old cards legal. It will be negligable to the bottom line, and increase community moral. It seems that the "competitive players aren't the target market" idea is only brought up when it is convenient for TPCi.
The pokemon community moral is at the lowest it's been since the end of the wotc days. Reversing this ruling is a simple way to help change that.
Last edited:
- Status