Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Level Up a LV. X

Status
Not open for further replies.
taurik said:
Here's a few questions, which may or may not shed light on the subject:

1. In the TCG, there are different versions of the same pokemon, i.e. different versions of Pikachu. Do they all have the same level?
2. When a pokemon evolves to the next stage in the TCG, i.e. Pikachu to Raichu, does Raichu always have the same level?

If not, it would imply to me that evolving (in the TCG) doesn't necessarily go one level at a time, and can be any number of levels difference. By that logic, wouldn't it make sense that "leveling up" in the TCG doesn't mean increasing by just one level, but it could be some unknown quantity of levels?
Click to expand...

  1. That's how you tell the different Pokémon apart, by their level. Each different version of a card that is printed will have a distinct level. That way you don't have to worry about sets to tell the different cards apart in decks.
  2. I have not checked, but I would think they would typically have a level that is higher than what they were before. Evolving is a different mechanic then Leveling Up. Leveling Up directly deals with a Pokémon's level whereas Evolving doesn't.
 
Ditto said:
  1. That's how you tell the different Pokémon apart, by their level. Each different version of a card that is printed will have a distinct level. That way you don't have to worry about sets to tell the different cards apart in decks.
  2. I have not checked, but I would think they would typically have a level that is higher than what they were before. Evolving is a different mechanic then Leveling Up. Leveling Up directly deals with a Pokémon's level whereas Evolving doesn't.
Click to expand...

Okay, so for example (not even attempting to get the levels right) my level 12 Pikachu could evolve into a level 50 Raichu, or my level 20 Pikachu could also evolve into the level 20 Raichu, correct? He'd be skipping levels. Why couldn't the leveling up effect be the same? Outside the TCG, when a pokemon evolves, how many levels does it skip?
 
  1. Pokémon grow one level at a time, they don't jump to some random level.
My Lvl 11 Squirtle got Rare Candy'ed to a Lvl 38 Wartortle and then i Wally's Training to a Lvl 58 Blastoise skipping many levels. When levels were printed ages ago, Basics that Evolved had low levels, Stage 1's had a higher level than the Basics (generally, i believe someone once found a "level down" but can't remember now), and Stage 2's have a higher level than the Stage 1.

  1. If they wanted it to be some high level constant, then why not just use the actual number? There's no reason not to.
Because what would that number be? Right now there is only 1 Lucario. If history is any indication, another set will have a different Lucario printed in it with a different Level. The only level i could see that they could have printed it as would have been "Level 100" but then that caps out the levels. Then another set with a Lucario with a different Level. And another....
  1. There is no "ultimate" form in Pokémon, so why are they trying to make one up to fit this scenario?
Pokémon-EX? And it is a "generic ultimate" - that's why it's "Level X" not "Level 100" or "Level 1000"
 
X has no end since there was no direct number. If they used 100 who says they couldnt go, 'lets make a lv. 101'? I mean, they could, even if the max level in the games are 100

But i see my "The lv_ has nothing to do with the name of the pokemon" got through
 
Thanks Pop for pointing me to this thread.

Bottom line is that PCL has said no to Lv X onto a Lv X. It's their game, they make the rules.

Do you all know the golden rule?

He who owns the money makes the rules.

PS: I agree with Ditto. lol
 
this is crazy, i'm about 99.9% sure that if you level'd twice in a tourney, you'd get picked up for it.

there is a certain amount of common sene involved in this. in that this is way too nitty gritty and just annoyingly picky. in mean, do you examine the rulebook and look for a gap in it just to cause a problem?

sorry if i sound off key here, but for god sake, why do you have to make something that is really simple soooo dificult?
 
Well... since in an equation if X is a varible, then if you find it somewhere else it's the same thing. Besides, when did we decide to put letters in our math. I'm just disagreeing with Ditto because he seems to get annoyed when we do it. I can tell. His X=/= X thing is messed up. X=100 ok. The highest you can get.

But I am also disagreeing with the ruling. Now if another LV. X of the same pokemon with a bunch of new attacks, YAY! It will change the game state. That's a whole different card.

Lawman, what you said earlier about the EX pokemon and the LV.X pokemon. EX pokemon are evolved to, LV.X are leveled up. They are way different. EX says put it on Vibrava(FLYGON EX) and the LV.X says put it on Infernape(INFERNAPE LV.X) .

I'm just going to stick with the ruling because it doesn't effect me. Mainly because I'm not the guy who descided I'd play 2 LV.X in a deck.

Robby.
 
I've just been reading around this thread. Why do we make video game references? THe VG has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with the rules of this card game(to my knowledge.) Same thing with algebra/computer math/science.
 
You can't put a Lucario Lv.40 on to a Lucario Lv.40. Same thing with the Lv.X.
I also agree with Doppleganger. Why must you make something so simple so complicated?
 
Rew said:
But I am also disagreeing with the ruling. Now if another LV. X of the same pokemon with a bunch of new attacks, YAY! It will change the game state. That's a whole different card.


Robby.
Click to expand...

Oh my... Especially since it does seem like pokemon(PCL)'s trying to put unique levels on each pokemon to identify them by Level, rather then set number. THAT will be bizarre. But I suppose they'll have to do it, or start printing new LV.X pokemon each set then... ((Could you imagine the mess from Wormadam LV.X? DDD=))
 
Rai said:
Oh my... Especially since it does seem like pokemon(PCL)'s trying to put unique levels on each pokemon to identify them by Level, rather then set number. THAT will be bizarre. But I suppose they'll have to do it, or start printing new LV.X pokemon each set then... ((Could you imagine the mess from Wormadam LV.X? DDD=))
Click to expand...

Wormadam FTW! The best new deck in the metagame.

Arceus999, read the LV. X card. Does a regular Lucario have it's nice text that says hey you can put this on your Active Lucario? I'll answer that for you, no. That's the only reason we argue this topic, IMHO ditto doesn't make since with his X as a variable.

Lucario LV. X on the other hand, does.
 
Wow. Who revived this?

The fact is, PCL said you can't do it, so you can't do it.

If it's not in the rulebook now, I have a feeling it's going to be soon. (PokePop will know why I have a sly smirk on my face while writing that comment.)
 
Okay here it goes...


LV.X is the HIGHEST level possible. There is NOTHING higher then a LV.X. Lets forget the video game for a minute since this is NOT the video game. If there is nothing higher then a LV.X that means you can NOT make that Pokemon level up again. Thus you can NOT put a LV.X card on itself because it will be like evolving a Lucario into another Lucario..... This would make no since. The only way to make this simple is to say this...

A LV.X does not level up into the same level it must go up at least 1 level. Just as when you evolve a Pokemon it must go up at least 1 Stage. If a Pokemon LV.X were to level up then it must level up into a LV.Y. Does this make since?
 
Rew, I meant that you can't Level up a Lv.X into a Lv.X.

It says in the rulebook that Pokemon Lv.X ARE TRAINED TO THEIR ULTIMATE FORM. How can you Level up the best? They did NOT Level up 1 Level. This isn't the games. This is the TRADING CARD GAME. Pokemon Lv.X are like Pokemon Lv.Infinite. Trainers have trained them to their fullest. I repeat, WHY must you make things SO complicated.:nonono: As Pokepop said at the begining of this thread, it would have NO GAME EFFECT. Yes, you may remouve Special Conditions, and yes it would prevent all damage done to you if your Lucario Lv.X, but I repeat: YOU CAN'T PUT A LUCARIO ON A LUCARIO. The text at the bottom doesn't mean anyting. Does it say "put Lucario Lv.X onto your active Lucario OR Lucario Lv.X"? No. They don't refer Lucario Lv.X as Lucario because it would get too complicated. To put it simply,no.
 
Honestly, you SHOULD be able to put a level up on a already leveled up character because it is true that LV.X is not in it's name and as long as it has the name you Should be able to, being that the proper rules are met. BUT! It is also true that a variable is a variable and x=x.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!
Is X really in place of a variable? Could it maybe just be a character that may stand for "eXtreme" or something. I really don't think that the makers of the cards would get that technical and say that x is standing for a certainvariable.

If they wanted it to not be able to lvl up any more they should have made it a LVL 100 instead of LV X. I think it is very possible for you to lvl up a lv.x. EXAMPLE! Who is to say that they will never make another Infernape LV X and you may want your active Infernape to have more than just Burning Head but also a NEW Power or Body given to him by the other LV X? By my call I would let it go, and I would say that the player could do so.

One more point, I really am not even sure how plausable this discusion is because regardless the ruling I don't think I've ever seen a well played deck with more than one LV X in it. Who knows though? Maybe Pemeire Ball will change that along with night Main and such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top