Does Wurmple need eratta?

[Dunjohn]

Two "r"? One "r"? I never could get my head around how to spell that. Anyhow...

Wurmple's first attack reads:

Signs of Evolution
Search your deck for Silcoon and Beautifly, or Cascoon and Dustox cards. Show 1 card or both cards of a pair to your opponent and put them into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

It's always been a rule that, when a card lets you get any card from your deck, you don't need to reveal it, but if the search is in any way more specific, you do need to reveal it, so that your opponent knows you obeyed the search requirements.

As I see it, Wurmple lets you search for two specific cards, but gives you the option of only revealling one of them. This probably wouldn't get past a judge, but, where one isn't present, an unscrupulous player could search for, say, Silcoon and Elm, and the opponent could be fooled by that. The Wurmple player wouldn't have to reveal the Elm.

[babayaga]

Originally Posted by Dunjohn

Wurmple's first attack reads:

Signs of Evolution
Search your deck for Silcoon and Beautifly, or Cascoon and Dustox cards. Show 1 card or both cards of a pair to your opponent and put them into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

<snip>

As I see it, Wurmple lets you search for two specific cards, but gives you the option of only revealling one of them. This probably wouldn't get past a judge, but, where one isn't present, an unscrupulous player could search for, say, Silcoon and Elm, and the opponent could be fooled by that. The Wurmple player wouldn't have to reveal the Elm.

I think that should be errata'ed. Because the attack has you search for either a Silcoon and Beautifly or Cascoon and Dustox, so you are pulling two cards out of the deck, and you don't even need to talk about a single card. Unless that's one way of saying that the attack doesn't fail if, say, your Beautifly is in your prizes instead of your deck. So we'd need two kinds of clarifications:

1. whether the whole attack fails if you can't pull the pair,
2. that you must show any cards pulled.

Besides that, it's just plain poor grammar. I'd hope to not see any more cards printed with that type of wording because it's ugly and causes problems like this!

[NoPoke]

Probably the Japanese to English translator doesn't have a very clear understanding of the game as it is played. It'll be clarified when we finally get a rules chat or some other forum for rules questions.

Anyone who tries to gain unfair advantage by only showing one of the pair of taken cards is heading dangerously close to unsporting conduct/cheating.

[Marril]

It is cheating to get a somewhat-free CPU Search that way. In a tournament, that'd be a game loss to tutor for just any card like that.

No errata, but future printings should be worded "Show both cards" instead of "Show one or both".

[PokePop]

it means show one if all you found was one, that's all.

[Tails]

But it can be interpreted differently, 'Pop, Marril, just by the presence of "or." It's obvious to us, but not to everyone, I'm betting... We should Errata it, just to be safe...


"Show both cards (Or one if you only found one) to you opponent..."

[RaNd0m]

Ok but it's always been a rule, such as with Pokemon trader, to show the card to make sure it's what you're supposed to be getting. Since you can take 1 or 2, it's meant to say show the cards you got.

~ RaNd0m

[Baboon]

Yeah, RaNd0m's right here. Technically, by the laws of the English language, "or" is a gigantic loophole. BUT, as with a number of things in life, you take your best assumption, which in this case would be "show whatever you took". If this were in a tournament, a judge wouldn't let you cheat. If this went to the Supreme Court, they'd prolly let you cheat to be "politically correct" ;-p
But I do specifically remember seeing a rule from a WotC chat a while back that ANY specific card you take MUST be shown to your opponent, but this rule doesn't take effect if you search for just any card in general. And last I checked, a rule takes precedence over a card's text. :)

[Marril]

Originally Posted by Baboon

If this went to the Supreme Court, they'd prolly let you cheat to be "politically correct" ;-p

Ah, but that's a debate for another day. :D

[Prime]

But this is nintendo baby! I would say it wouldn't hurt to errata it. It'd be a simple errata but a safe errata.

[Marril]

Signs of Evolution
Search your deck for Silcoon and Beautifly, or Cascoon and Dustox cards. Show all cards searched for this way to your opponent and put them into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterwards.

That'd work.

[NoPoke]

there are always wrinkles..... eg your opponent INSISTS that you have to take 'Silcoon AND Beautifly' or the other pair.

Or better yet you notice 'cards' and take two Cascoons and two Dustoxes.

[Dan the Pokeman]

This simply needs a ruling clarification, not an official errata.

The text says "seach for" the 2 cards. You may not find both of them (they might already be in your hand, in play, in your prizes or in the discard pile). For example, if you have 1 Cascoon and 0 Dustox in your deck, you'd only take 1 card, and you'd only show your opponent 1 card.

So, if you take 2 cards, you'd have to show 2 cards.

If you only take 1, you only show 1.

[The_Matrix999]

IMO its worded properly.to me all you need to do is get one pair or the other.if they're in your hand you search anyways.its fine the way dan says it but it doesnt need to be fixed when its not messed up