Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

IMPORTANT: Rulings Updates for Worlds!

This stuff happens because of translation and last minute stuff anyone remember the Blastoise EX thingy? Like most of knew it was translated/played wrong the enitre time but was only changed right before worlds. Heck that's you expect when you translate a ton of cards and translators.
 
PokePop said:
It depends on what Pokemon has the protection.

In this case, if the Defending is protected, then the effect is blocked.
If there is a Pokemon on the bench with Unown G on it, then it is not blocked, even if the defending player chooses that protected Pokemon.
What matters is, is the primary, named, target protected or not.
It doesn't matter if the "side effect" Pokemon is protected.
Click to expand...

Isn't the wording on both SW Trapinch and Blaziken FB the same? (NOT similar, it's word per word the same thing except blaziken FB's second effect of burning the new defending poke). If so, why am I getting the impression that the ruling for these 2 cards are different depending on which of the opponent's poke has the unown G attached to? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding things here. :confused:
 
The way I see it is that if a Pokemon is mentioned in the effect of a card then it is affected by the card meaning Unown G would indeed block Luring Flame because the words "Defending Pokemon" appear in the card text.
 
We're working on getting the official ruling published asap and that should help.

Here's the thing. There are about 10 attacks that are templated like Inviting Trap where is says to "switch the Defending Pokemon with one of your opponent's Benched Pokemon".
It seems that in every case, since they were using the same template, they have the emphasis wrong, that it should be the Benched Pokemon chosen first, and moving the active is incidental.

So, in all of those cases, if the Defending Pokemon has an Unown G on it, it doesn't matter.
The Benched Pokemon that is chosen would have to be the one that has protection from effect to block the move.
 
bulbasnore said:
I wouldn't impute the delay to laziness at TPCi either; sometimes a lot of hard work goes into something before anything comes out. Or, maybe a domino had to fall in order to get this sent out. It may seem simple to you and me, but really this is a far reaching ruling (as you can see from Pooka's astute questions), and maybe being sure, for now and the future, was better than being quick.

Would you rather have this info now, or after worlds? I think now is better.
Click to expand...
After Worlds would have been better.

It's not like the wrong ruling was made and then realized mid-event. We have known about this opposing ruling since LAST YEAR. In spite of that, there was no change on our side. Why change it now? It it was to change, it should have been reversed last fall after Worlds, last winter before States, last spring before Regionals.

There is too much bureaucracy involved in these rulings.
 
ShadowCard said:
After Worlds would have been better.

It's not like the wrong ruling was made and then realized mid-event. We have known about this opposing ruling since LAST YEAR. In spite of that, there was no change on our side. Why change it now? It it was to change, it should have been reversed last fall after Worlds, last winter before States, last spring before Regionals.

There is too much bureaucracy involved in these rulings.
Click to expand...

Who knew about it last year? Are you talking about Yamato doing/trying it? The team ruled it the way the USA had been all year. The G on the active stopped him from bringing up the benched poke. I dont recall the japanese (PCL) telling the team we were wrong. That is the way we ruled it all the time. Now, we have the correction in from Japan. Sure, we would have loved to see it corrected earlier. Unfortunately, we only have japanese players and judges with us @ Worlds. Ergo, we "find out" more things then.

Keith
 
I know you guys do the best you can do and all that, but kamz was not far off base by saying what he did.

Unown G will be rotating out in a week and you can only tell us this now?

I know you guys are a slave to the system, but you can admit that this ruling is very late.
 
We should just discard the active Pokemon with the Unown [G] lol

Anyways, this completely changes the timing the searches happen in PLOX if they play a [G]
 
pikkdogs said:
I know you guys do the best you can do and all that, but kamz was not far off base by saying what he did.

Unown G will be rotating out in a week and you can only tell us this now?

I know you guys are a slave to the system, but you can admit that this ruling is very late.
Click to expand...

[obvious]Yes, this has been on the plate since Worlds last year. [/obvious]
 
pokemonforever said:
*Adds to Pokemon TCG Dictionary* "target"
Click to expand...

displayimage.php
 
Lawman said:
Who knew about it last year? Are you talking about Yamato doing/trying it? The team ruled it the way the USA had been all year. The G on the active stopped him from bringing up the benched poke. I dont recall the japanese (PCL) telling the team we were wrong. That is the way we ruled it all the time. Now, we have the correction in from Japan. Sure, we would have loved to see it corrected earlier. Unfortunately, we only have japanese players and judges with us @ Worlds. Ergo, we "find out" more things then.
Click to expand...
Last year, a notable JPN player thinks something is wrong and the issue catches so much attention that it gets reported about on Pokegym but that isn't good enough for you, Lawman, to question the understanding of the card?

Why be so passive to wait for PCL to jump in? You had PCL right there last year when the problem first appeared, why not take the intuitive to ask "hey, do we understand this interaction correctly?"

It was discovered that there is an error on certain English cards directing a switch to happen, such as Trapinch. We've known since August 2009 that there is an error on our side but chose to not correct it. Do we need to wait for Japan's approval to fix errors on our side?

This is one more argument that the way rulings are reviewed needs revision. In an age with e-mail and instant messaging, and we have people who both know how the game is played and can translate what is written on the JPN website in order to offer a second opinion, it should not be as hard as it is to find out how cards are played in Japan. Again, too much bureaucracy involved.
 
Last edited:
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. There really isn't anyone to blame. In fact, the only thing at fault would be the nature of card games, especially ones translated from an original language. Yes, this ruling was likely known for quite a while, but there are a lot of differences in the card games and even some differences that have cultural roots that may surprise some.

I'm not sure if I am allowed to give any examples in the Pokemon TCG, but I'll give comparative examples in another card game that originates in Japan that uses smaller cards...

In unnamed card game, in the US, it was "okay" to be late. You would be penalized for it, but it was still allowed. However, when the parent company took over, their tournament software (official sanctioned one that affects ranking) does not allow late entry AT ALL. We inquired into this and asked if late entry could be implemented, but we got a response that in the origins, it is rude for a player to be late so this is to be remained unchanged.

We should be glad that TC spends their time to support and compile all of this data for us, the players, judges, LL's, TO's, etc to use FOR FREE. While it may take a while for rulings or translations to be corrected, I'd say TPCi and TC are doing a superb job at what they're doing. Look back at the WotC days and Slowking. There was a translation error that greatly affected the game and many knew about it, but we were told to play the card as is. Look at Onix from HS Unleashed. While we knew there was an error pretty early on, TPCi issued a pretty quick errata.

All in all, we should expect that rules changes and errata can and will happen at any time. Sometimes at the most inconvenient of moments. That's the nature of a card game.
 
ShadowCard said:
Last year, a notable JPN player thinks something is wrong and the issue catches so much attention that it gets reported about on Pokegym but that isn't good enough for you, Lawman, to question the understanding of the card?

Why be so passive to wait for PCL to jump in? You had PCL right there last year when the problem first appeared, why not take the intuitive to ask "hey, do we understand this interaction correctly?"

It was discovered that there is an error on certain English cards directing a switch to happen, such as Trapinch. We've known since August 2009 that there is an error on our side but chose to not correct it. Do we need to wait for Japan's approval to fix errors on our side?

This is one more argument that the way rulings are reviewed needs revision. In an age with e-mail and instant messaging, and we have people who both know how the game is played and can translate what is written on the JPN website in order to offer a second opinion, it should not be as hard as it is to find out how cards are played in Japan. Again, too much bureaucracy involved.
Click to expand...

So....Yamato questioned a call?? He never is in error, right? Actually, it was the oppo who asked for a judge bc Yamato tried to bring up a benched poke w/ trapinch and the active had a G attached. The team ruled as we had all year long...it was blocked by the G. PCL was there, on the floor. They could have told us then we had a translation error. They DIDNT. So, how is this on us???

Sure, in hindsight, there is a translation error. That is not OP's fault....they dont translate the cards. We play them as we get them. When a Q/issue comes up, they send off for confirmation to the parent/owner of the game. We have to wait for their response, whenever it comes, to make a change to how we have ruled a card. I'm sure 'Pop can explain this better than I, since he is on the rules team.

To go back to your initial Q, the japanese player(s) are not perfect. If you recall, @ the LCQ, one of the japanese qualifiers apparently laid a Dusknoir (dark palm) out as a "translation card". Problem was, he didnt play dusknoir. Yet, his oppo's were affected by this. He "got away" with this in his pod and was never called on it. When a SR player tried the same "trick" the next day during worlds....he got DQ'd from the event with a 4-1 record (if I recall the record correctly). He learned that from the japanese player. Just one example. There are others.

As another analogy...I'm sure you have seen a player do/try something that you knew was contrary to the rules/how a card is played. Did you alert a judge so they could go to that match to correct and possible penalize the wrong doer or did you sit silently? Hopefully, you spoke up. Same with PCL. We had 2 PCL in each age group judge team last yr. Why didnt they bring it up? Looks like they say there silent on this issue.

Keith
 
Lawman said:
So....Yamato questioned a call?? He never is in error, right? Actually, it was the oppo who asked for a judge bc Yamato tried to bring up a benched poke w/ trapinch and the active had a G attached. The team ruled as we had all year long...it was blocked by the G. PCL was there, on the floor. They could have told us then we had a translation error. They DIDNT. So, how is this on us???
Click to expand...
I never said Yamato is a living Compendium, but you sound like you're implying that players have inferior knowledge about the game compared to judges. A player from JPN, where the game originates, presents a different understanding of the interaction between two cards and no one thinks to ask PCL about it? :confused: And it's not like Unown G wasn't already known to be a confusing card.

How is it on you? Did you (the judges, not necessarily you personally) ask PCL? If not, it is on you because you didn't ask as much as it is on PCL for not speaking up. Neither of you made an effort to communicate. But why does PCL have to speak up first? Why can't you be the proactive one and ask?

Lawman said:
Sure, in hindsight, there is a translation error. That is not OP's fault....they dont translate the cards. We play them as we get them. When a Q/issue comes up, they send off for confirmation to the parent/owner of the game. We have to wait for their response, whenever it comes, to make a change to how we have ruled a card.
Click to expand...
What I'm getting at is this exactly. The mistake is on our side, so why are we going to PCL? That such a long wait time is required means the process is not efficient.
 
^I never said players have inferior knowledge than judges. Nice strawman attempt there. I simply stated that Yamato (or any player can be wrong)....same with judges.

The reason I pointed this out was the use of multiple judges to discuss this very ruling w/ inviting trap. I was part of that process. We had interpretors there to explain/ask Q's and tell answers. PCL was standing right there too! IF we were making a poor ruling, why didnt THEY speak up? I dont speak japanese. Yet, we had translators there to talk to Yamato. If he didnt understand anything, why didnt he ask PCL? Or PCL step in? We had this ruling for some time. It wasn't the 1st time I explained that ruling. Just bc it involved Yamato didnt change anything. Why should I (or the HJ) ask PCL if we were wrong? We had ruled it that way for some time.

I'm sure 'Pop can correct me, but I'd imagine that this type of interaction between cards was asked by the rules team to PCL before worlds. Without an answer, we play the way we have ruled in the past. BTW, Worlds is a US run event, not Japanese. Ergo, they play to our rotation (when it is different).

Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top