Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Clarity Please!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ArizonaMan

New Member
Hi everyone. I'm thinking about playing Pokemon lately. So I am reviewing the rules, the cards, the strategies, the rulings and the associated web sites.

I have discovered, so far, that the published TCG rules vary a little bit between "The Compendium" and "go-Pokemon".

For instance;

Concerning the evolving of Pokemon, "The Compendium" says


http://compendium.pokegym.net/compendium-lvx.html
Meta-Rulings

"A Pokemon is considered an evolved Pokemon if it has a Pokemon card with a different name underneath it; this does not include Pokemon cards that are attached (e.g. tool cards, energy cards, etc.). (Jan 15, 2009 PUI Rules Team)"

However, the "go-Pokemon" web site says

http://www.go-pokemon.com/op/strategy/rulebook.html
Expert Rules
Illegal Evolutions

"Whenever you evolve a Pokémon, the Evolution card has to read it "Evolves from" the name of the Pokémon it goes on top of. Certain Pokémon (such as Rocket’s Meowth) or Pokémon-ex (like Scyther ex) do not evolve into normal versions. A Pokémon card would have to state "Evolves from Rocket’s Meowth" to allow for that evolution."
_______________________________________________________
To me, it looks like http://www.go-pokemon.com/op/strategy/rulebook.html was not updated or excluded the issues concerning evolving "Baby" Pokemon.

My point that I want to make is, shouldn't there be only one rulebook(per language)? Come on, for english there are atleast 4 versions.

1. http://compendium.pokegym.net/compendium-lvx.html
2. http://www.go-pokemon.com/op/strategy/rulebook.html
3. http://www.go-pokemon.com/tcg/howtoplay/rules.html
4. Printed booklets that come with theme decks.

I understand that printed rules are the least efficient for fast changing rules. However, all associated web sites linked to only one online rulebook is very optimal.

I also found other differences between the various rulebooks. I'm certain that I have not found all the differences yet. These differences are confusing me and lead me to some frustration about playing this game.

Can we(us, all of us) come up with only one rulebook?
 
This is a valid topic of discussion, but not something that we can give a "rulings" answer to.
So, I'm moving this to News & Gossip where it can get the discussion that it deserves.
 
Is there really a disagreement?

The compendium tells you how to determine if a Pokemon's status is evolved (or not). That is it is an after the fact statement.

The rule book and online reference tell you how to actually perform an evolution. In particular how to evolve a card in the absence of any Trainer or PokePOWER that may modify the normal game rules.

Now since your claim is quite broad it is likely that I may have missed some small or even not so small nuance. So can you give me a specific disagreement between the several sources to examine. Thanks.

----------

As a topic for discussion a single rule book whilst apealling is unlikely to meet the needs of the very different audiences that make use of the current rulebooks. Beginners through to judges have different needs.
 
Thanks For The Replies

I was not really looking for a game play ruling. I just want to minimize my frustrations when it comes to learning and playing Pokemon.

Since I am reviewing various sources of rules, I see the differences between them. I understand that there are particular needs within each of the concerned groups when it comes to the "rules of the game".

I've done a lot of technical writing in my history too. It is not too difficult to write a document that serves many concerned groups. The document could be segmented into BEGINNERS, INTERMEDIATE and ADVANCED sections.

The key things I am trying to communicate is; 1) With multiple sources of "rules of the game", there is a higher potential for errors and inconsistencies to occur. 2) I believe one "rules of the game" document would be better for everyone.

What do you guy think?

P.S.
I really do not want to get into pointing out all the bugs that I notice between these various documents.
 
you want to see a rules of the game document, just ask Chairman Kaga for his comprehensive rulebook. Keep in mind, youll need ALOT of free time to read it.

The go-pokemon site just gives the most basic rules for playing, as that is for the beginners.
The rulebooks give more insight for iontermediate players who are still learning, but have a grasp on how to play.
The compendium is for the advanced players who go out and play events like City championships and above. This document is the technical rules of the game.

The comprehensive rulebook that Kaga is working on it kinda like the M:tG rulebooks that they have on how everything interacts. Kaga's work is always in process as there are new rulings posted every so often.

But the best way for anyone to learn is to ask questions. You dont need to point out bugs in the dosuments, but rather just ask here and all the members here can help you.

~Duke
 
ArizonaMan said:
.......I really do not want to get into pointing out all the bugs that I notice between these various documents.
Click to expand...
No need to point out all the bugs. Just a few would do to improve the documents. Personally I find the starting procedure in the theme decks to have a few gaps. But gaps aren't the same as bugs.

As a technical author you will be well aware that the biggest problem authors face is that users just don't bother to read instructions. So would plugging a few gaps actually increase new players knowledge or just have them stop reading even earlier? There is only so much new information we can take in at a time. Indeed a modern trend is that youths seem unable to absorb written information as well as in days of old when it was the primary method of communication. I find it harder than I did when I was young but that is just an age thing.

A further complication for a single document is that as the game is a translation we are not always aware of subtleties in the Japanese game. A single source document would be under permanent revision. Publish and be damned or never publish?

Did I mention that every extra page added to the rule book has a cost? I recently bought a telephone and the user guide was a leaflet on how to plug the thing in and mke and receive a call followed by a website address for anyone who wanted to know about all the other things it can do. I would anticipate that few visit the website and of those that download the document even fewer read it all.

So a council of despair? I hope not. More a recognition that technical authors have a tougher time now than they once did.
 
Last edited:
I would agree to new players that would be confusing beyond belief. I think that it needs a bit more clarity and maybe examples to show exactly what the point it is trying to get across is.

Drew
 
One Rulebook Issues

I agree that there are issues(or challenges) with development of one rulebook. Below is a list of some of the things that I see as issues that would need to be addressed.

1. The agreement between all involved parties to develop and maintain a single comprehensive rulebook that is accurately translated into each interested language.
2. The agreement between all involved parties concerning the web posting of rulebooks(various languages). I.e. what web site?, downloadable?, etc.
3. A multi lingual board established to review proposed rulebook changes and to make the decisions to incorporate the proposed changes or not. This board would also decide on how the approved changes will be incorporated into the rulebook.
4. Substitution of the many rulebooks with the links to the one rulebook.

The great thing here is that most of the work needed is already being done. If Chairman Kaga is making "THE" official rulebook, then this would serve well as the base for the Main(the one) rulebook. The ACCURATE translations would still need to be done. For the common rulings of cards and game play, I do not have any problem using one or two lines in the rulebook that state "For the common rulings of cards and game play see http://pokegym.net/forums/". In this way, the material that changes the most is left to online resources.

For booklets, I can see using only the BEGINNER section of the rulebook along with a line that states "The following rules are for beginners. For complete rules see (the rulebook link)".
 
the thing is: PUI will *never* give 'official' status to the 'gym or compendium. legally, they can't; it's not their site nor content, and they have no control over what is pubished here.

for a good example of this: look at the rules and resources page on the OP site. those are the 'required reading' in order to take and pass the professor test; do you see the compendium listed there?

'mom
 
Well, the Compendium does have a slightly different status than the other documents being discussed.
M_Liesik said:
PokePop said:
So, basically, while rulings given on the POP forums and here are official, we do prefer people to use the Compendium to look for existing rulings.
Not just to avoid the same questions being asked again and again, but also so that people get used to using it as a reference that can be pulled out and consulted at a moment's notice.
Click to expand...
<insert PUI stamp of approval here>
Click to expand...
BDS
 
ArizonaMan said:
3. A multi lingual board established to review proposed rulebook changes and to make the decisions to incorporate the proposed changes or not. This board would also decide on how the approved changes will be incorporated into the rulebook.
Click to expand...

I somehow highly doubt the game owners would really allow a board to mess with their game.
 
Sorry

I guess I am a bit to idealistic on this subject.

It just been my experience that when I buy a new game, it comes with the complete rules. Everyone that ends up buying and playing the game gets the same rules. There is no room for discussion about the rules.

Obviously, "the gym" and "the compendium" fill a need for Pokemon players and others. It seems like these services should belong directly to the Pokemon business. I find that the issues created by this division are not advantagous to me or the game.

It's difficult for me to comprehend that the rules of Pokemon are more dependant on a non-Pokemon business entity.

I guess one set of rules is too much to ask for.
 
unfortunately, this disconnect has been ongoing ever since the days when WotC had the TCG.

my guess is much of it has to do with the fact that the game is originally produced/R&D'd in japan. so distance from the game's creators plus translation issues (...slowking anyone?) = what we have now.

imho it's better than before; ymmv, of course. given the different 'levels' of play in a 'child's game' "one set of rules" is going to be hard to achieve for both ends of the spectrum, again imho.

'mom
 
Last time I bought a magic the gathering starter it did not come with a complete set of rules.
Same thing for YuGiOh.

The compendium is primarily a repository of rullings based upon questions asked by players. The Japanese have something similar as does Magic. I can't see the Compendium ever being replaced by a rule book.

One set of rules may not be too much to ask for, I would ask a different question: would one set of rules be helpfull? There is the equally important question of what would you leave out of your one set of rules, which would immediately bring accusations that there is now no longer one set of rules.

However that gets away from one of your original assertions: that the existing rules disagree. Where this is the case it should addressed. Omissions are not the same thing as errors, perhaps I am missing something but I saw no problem with either of the rules you excerpted from their source documents.
 
Last edited:
NoPoke said:
Is there really a disagreement?

The compendium tells you how to determine if a Pokemon's status is evolved (or not). That is it is an after the fact statement.

The rule book and online reference tell you how to actually perform an evolution. In particular how to evolve a card in the absence of any Trainer or PokePOWER that may modify the normal game rules.

Now since your claim is quite broad it is likely that I may have missed some small or even not so small nuance. So can you give me a specific disagreement between the several sources to examine. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Agreed with this. Can't really think of an example where there is actual disagreement between the two definitions...

DukeFireBird said:
you want to see a rules of the game document, just ask Chairman Kaga for his comprehensive rulebook. Keep in mind, youll need ALOT of free time to read it.

The comprehensive rulebook that Kaga is working on it kinda like the M:tG rulebooks that they have on how everything interacts. Kaga's work is always in process as there are new rulings posted every so often.

~Duke
Click to expand...

Agreed with all of this too, except it doesn't take that much time to read through his rulebook. Have you tried to read the M:TG comprehensive rules? Urgh...

Can I highly recommend Chairman Kaga's rulebook? Its very nicely written and easy to follow. Trumps every professional attempt to codify the rules for any TCG I've seen, not just Pokémon, which is impressive.

SD PokéMom said:
the thing is: PUI will *never* give 'official' status to the 'gym or compendium. legally, they can't; it's not their site nor content, and they have no control over what is pubished here.

for a good example of this: look at the rules and resources page on the OP site. those are the 'required reading' in order to take and pass the professor test; do you see the compendium listed there?

'mom
Click to expand...

This surprises me - I thought most people have the Compendium open whilst taking the test. I thought PUI had given as official a status as can be given to it (including encouraging its use for the Professor test)

NoPoke said:
Last time I bought a magic the gathering starter it did not come with a complete set of rules.
Same thing for YuGiOh.

The compendium is primarily a repository of rullings based upon questions asked by players. The Japanese have something similar as does Magic. I can't see the Compendium ever being replaced by a rule book.
Click to expand...

A couple of things here:

Rulebooks in starters

- M:TG is a lot more complicated than Pokémon
- M:TG designs sets thematically, meaning not all the rules are relevant with every game

But before you think I've missed your point, as you said re the Pokémon theme deck rulebooks, having gaps in rulebooks is not the same as errors

Compendiums in Japan

I was aware of some sort of system whereby they can ask ruling questions and they get answered (by who, I don't know, but I have seen some on the official website). But do they really have anything like our Compendium (and if they do, shouldn't we check to make sure rulings are consistent?)

In M:TG, there is a lot less reliance on individual rulings as you should be able to work out most things from 'first principles' if you study the comp rules long enough
 
I'm on shakey ground with the Japanese compendium I only have the most rudimentary ability to use it as I have no facility with the Japanese language and have to rely upon online manglators.

The Japanese "compendium" is a serachable database of rullings. You type in the name of a card and it produces a list of all rullings where that card is mentioned. It functions like the index at the bottom of our Compendium EX. Of course it may do much more but that is all I've managed thus far.

And yes it is used to try and get consistant rullings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top