Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Computer Search and Why Both Forms Should Be Legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tylertyphlosion

New Member
This will all be referencing THIS.

Until this ruling is made official in The Compendium, we can take PokePop's ruling as official.

Without any explanation on his part, I would simply like to ask "why?" The only difference between the 2 cards is that the new one, from Boundaries Crossed, has ACE SPEC on the side which states that only 1 copy of the card is able to be played in the deck. Is there any other real difference? Slight wording differences, yes, but that is what an errata is for if I remember correctly. Do we need to state on all other cards that only 4 are allowed (in the case of everything except basic energy)?


Also, for further reference, here are both side-by-side.
http://i.imgur.com/cAoQk.jpg
 
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.
 
Pooka said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're asking too much for them to be consistent with rulings. The old Pokemon Center, for example, is not legal for tournament play.
 
True, but it just seems silly to not allow this Computer Search to be played when that Super Rod can be used. I understand that the "ACE SPEC" makes it different from the old one, but an old Super Rod is completely different from the current one. I would prefer to have the old Super Rod just made illegal, but if it's not, I would hope that the logic stays the same for this situation. It just causes confusion on what cards we can and cannot play. I wouldn't be arguing this as much if the Modified Legal Reprint list were kept up to date, but it isn't.
 
Unlocking. While it is being discussed in the Dusknoir topic, it is off topic there.
Better for it to have it's own topic.
 
Pooka: You're basing your reason for allowing or not allowing a card on the name and text.
Pokemon is basing their reason for allowing or not allowing a card on the name and card type.

Neither is an unreasonable position.
I could work with either, as a judge.
 
FWIW I'd like the old CPU search to be playable too, I could live with it requiring an external reference.

I know that POP say that they do not base their decisions upon the secondary market and I trust that that is the case. It seems probable that the conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day if the old CPU search is not playable in modified and has to be played as though an Ace Spec in unlimited.
 
It never came up in the past, but was the old Bill legal when the Supporter Bill was in the format in HGSS?
 
I'm not sure. I mean it has the same picture, same name and text, just on a different card layout. If you ask me, this seems like they are making this choice based on the secondary market.

I can understand the case with Pokemon Center as they act differently. Don't know about Super Rod but this is coming from the same people that say ex and EX are completely different...

Take a look at Item Finder, Junk Arm and the future Dowsing Machine. They all have the same effect text but the difference is they all have different names. I mean, there is nothing different with both Computer Search cards. It the same card on a newer card layout.
 
It's just a layout change. Anyone who says this is NOT based on it becoming a $100+ card in the secondary market is outright lying; at an ultra rare print run, I can easily see it reaching these prices. It becoming the next Catcher ($10-15) is okay; it becoming the next Luxray GL Lv. X or even worse is absurd.

From a rules perspective, it doesn't make sense. When Bill became a Supporter, the old one was legal with a reference. Super Rod is also legal, as are Great Balls from old sets.

The rules changes for Computer Search are:
- TRAINER becomes Trainer - Item (rule used in play)
- ACE SPEC added - rule used only during deck check

As it is a Trainer/Supporter/Stadium, it is marked on decklists as Computer Search. Therefore, the ACE SPEC appearing on the card has NO RELEVANCE in tournament play, where the rule is known to both players building their decks and deck checkers. It is a player's responsibility to submit a legal deck. It is a judge's responsibility to know Computer Search is an ACE SPEC when reviewing a decklist. (btw, do I HAVE to use caps for that?)

Now it becoming a Trainer - Item is the only remaining problem. This loses to precedent, with Bill, Super Rod, Great Ball, Switch, etc.

Therefore, if I can play a Base Set Switch in a tournament with a deck check, I should be able to play Computer Search.
 
You guys know by now that I like to explain the other side when possible, just to expose a viewpoint that maybe isn't easily seen. I'll admit I'm having trouble thinking of a logical reason why the Base Set one shouldn't be allowed.

The one-per-deck thing is a fact, but anyone who knows of the new Computer Search becoming a new card in the format and has the means of procuring and substituting a Base Set one surely knows to properly apply the one-per-deck limitation without having it printed on the card. Rare Candy and Great Ball are the biggest examples for me, where the text on the card is significantly different of how it's expected to be played....so there's precedent in my opinion.
 
I was totally in agreement with the ruling until the point was brought up in the Dusk thread regarding the EXP Share errata that just occurred.

While the EXP. Share was clearly a necessity to preserve the card, it did show that errata to include a missing rules box (In this case, the Tool text, in Ace Spec's case, the Ace Spec text) is apparently perfectly fine by TPCi R&D/Rule Team. To further elaborate, EXP. All is legal in modified. With that stretch of a ruling, I really am starting to not see a reason for it to be disallowed.
 
Yeah, but to be fair, I just amended my point on that thread:

losjackal said:
To be 100% truthful in the comparison, the errata for Experience Share was due to a printing error. The errata for Computer Search would be to change the mechanic of the old card. Said another way, if the printing error didn't happen, we'd have less ammunition for this.
Click to expand...
 
My post from the other thread...

I 100% agree with this ruling. The simple fact that Computer Search can only be played 1 per deck makes being able to use older ones UNNECESSARY. Even if players had 1 older copy of Computer Search in their decks, they would be required to have a newer copy outside of the deck as a reference due to text changes. A print out also no longer works because the Card-Dex is no longer updated. The question is then asked... why not just play the newer copy in the deck and take the old copy out of the deck. Players will say they like to play the older retro version of the cards just for flashy purposes, players can do that now with multiple pluspower, switch, potion, etc... In addition to this functionally/necessity issue there is room for abuse... I won't go into details but the room for abuse here mirrors the issues there were with foreign language and references for these cards.

Smart Decision!
 
It's just a layout change. Anyone who says this is NOT based on it becoming a $100+ card in the secondary market is outright lying; at an ultra rare print run, I can easily see it reaching these prices. It becoming the next Catcher ($10-15) is okay; it becoming the next Luxray GL Lv. X or even worse is absurd.
Click to expand...

This also is my fear for the new Ace spec cards to reach values like the Secret Rare Ray was before it was reprinted. Does anyone have knowledge of the Rarity of these Ace Spec cards?

Also while on topic of print runs who controls the ability in the US to issue the rarity of cards - PCL or TPCI? Remember Pokemon Catcher was printed in a theme deck in Japan, why did that not happen here? In Cardfight Vanguard TCG the Japanese print runs are exactly the same when they are released in English, the only difference is their issue of promo cards. Japanese promos are issued as promo 1 card booster packs which are released to local leagues to distribute the Japanese Cardfight promos in English.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
LOLZ said:
I won't go into details but the room for abuse here mirrors the issues there were with foreign language and references for these cards.
Click to expand...

What room for abuse is there? During the game the card plays exactly the same way as the Base Set version. The only difference is that it's restricted to 1 per deck. All ACE SPEC does is replace "You may play only 1 of these cards in your deck." with a fancier and flashier version of the same text. If someone tries to play 2 it'll be caught either during deck checks or during a game, either way they'll get punished accordingly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top