Mew EX and aadding damage

[baby mario]

If is future combos that used to be non-issues that are a concern. Some may say "you can't know future combos anyway!" and to a degree that would be true.

In the end we have to trust the game designers not to release anything that would be too outrageous.

In fairness, their track record with this is pretty good (it's not YGO after all). In recent years only Sableye/first turn rules has truly been 'broken', and this only happened because we fell way behind the Japanese rotation (which is what cards are designed for).

 

[Box of Fail]

When they changed the first turn rules, I read the new first turn rules, and moved on.

When they changed the bench damage rule, I read the new bench damage rule, and moved on.

You probably read the new bench damage rule in the Ask the Rules forum of Pokegym. That's not where you read the first turn rules change. That was posted on Pokémon.com.

When the fundamental rules of the game change, it's a big deal. Even changing something like the Meta-Ruling below should be front page news, even though it has almost no bearing on the competitive scene:

Effects that prevent you from healing or from removing damage counters do not affect moving those damage counters between Pokémon. (Dec 1, 2011 TPCi Rules Team)

It's not about whether this rules change breaks the game. In fact, I think it may actually benefit the game and allow for interesting strategies to be utilized. In the future, I think the format will broaden and improve because of this ruling.

So what? That's not relevant. If you're going to change Meta-Rulings, make sure everyone knows about it or don't change them at all. I know to many competitive players, it only matters if it affects what's at the top tables, but there's more to it than that. Whether or not this ruling has any significant impact on the format, people need to be told immediately regardless, simply because it breaks a Meta-Rule. All this talk of "future combos" is moot because even if nobody changes their decks as a result of this ruling, a Meta-Ruling was changed, and it ought to be huge news.

 

[psychup2034]

When the fundamental rules of the game change, it's a big deal. Even changing something like the Meta-Ruling below should be front page news, even though it has almost no bearing on the competitive scene:

Not all rule changes are made equal, Some rule changes have a much more wide-ranging effects than others. The first turn rule change is a much bigger deal than the bench damage ruling.

Example:

• The 19th amendment allows women to vote. <- A big deal
• The 27th amendment prevents congressional salary changes from happening until the beginning of a congressional session. <- Not such a big deal

They're both amendments, but one is a much bigger deal than the other. Just because they're both changes to the fundamental rules of the game, it doesn't mean that both are equally important.

 

[Box of Fail]

Not all rule changes are made equal, Some rule changes have a much more wide-ranging effects than others. The first turn rule change is a much bigger deal than the bench damage ruling.

Example:

• The 19th amendment allows women to vote. <- A big deal
• The 27th amendment prevents congressional salary changes from happening until the beginning of a congressional session. <- Not such a big deal

They're both amendments, but one is a much bigger deal than the other. Just because they're both changes to the fundamental rules of the game, it doesn't mean that both are equally important.

While your example is well taken, the Constitution is there to protect the rights and private property of those under its jurisdiction; that is to say, every time the Constitution is amended, there is a clear purpose; to make it better at protecting those things.

When the rules of the game are modified, there is a slew of reasons for which it may happen. Sometimes it's to make it fairer. Sometimes it's to make it simpler. Sometimes it's to market a new specialty card (Pokémon Lv.X, for example, were given an exception in the Meta-Ruling about copying attacks). These ends contradict each other often. I don't think there are many who think the recent rules change was unambiguously good for the competitive scene, or even designed to improve it (the primary motive seems to have been simplicity). As such, the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene cannot in all fairness be used to determine how much of "a big deal" a rules change is.

While keeping the game in balance may be a secondary effect of Meta-Rulings, the primary purpose is, without a doubt, to help players play the cards correctly. Having a misconception about a card effect is bad enough in a tournament with judges, but potentially game-ending to casual players who don't know how to resolve a certain card interaction. Thus, the Compendium. Because of this, the primary concern we should have in mind is not whether the ruling significantly affects the format, but whether there is potential for ambiguity in a casual game. Even here, I'll grant the first-turn rule is likelier to come up in a casual game, but the Hone Claws ruling holds plenty of potential for ambiguity and it is thus very important that the Compendium be correct with regards to this interaction. If they change the Meta-Ruling, the Compendium ought to be updated, which is hard to accomplish if nobody knows the ruling except Japan.

The Hone Claws ruling has little bearing on the format, but is very ambiguous. Thus, it is a big deal, regardless of whether it will come up or not at a sanctioned event. It's a reversal of over 10 years of precedent and should be announced as such.

Also, whenever the Constitution gets amended, it is a very big deal. While of course the 19th Amendment is more important, that shouldn't diminish the significance of the 27th Amendment. In over 200 years, we've only amended the Constitution 27 times (really 18 times, since the Bill of Rights was adopted all at once). Each and every one of those Amendments was a very big deal when it happened. As this reversal of a long-established Meta-Ruling ought to be.

 

[Otaku]

psychup2034: Your example seems inaccurate in many ways.

First and foremost, any amendment to the U.S. Constitution is incredibly important... and thus if anyone should be using this as an example, if should be box of fail, myself or someone with a similar view on the matter. Imagine if you were only aware of such a staggering change to the law that amending the U.S. Constitution represents because you regularly read up on Supreme Court Rulings, or when it somehow became pertinent to you (likely being used against you). Every U.S. citizen not only needs to know about Amendments t the Constitution of the United States of America, but should want to know.

Second, the nature of how such changes are effected matters: the United States of America is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. The Pokemon Trading Card game is a product from a company, sold commercially to generate revenue. TPC may alter the TCG as they wish, but must deal with the potential business ramifications.

The Constitution of the United States requires States ratify Amendments, and has many specific procedures how to go about this, as well as for the proposal of Amendments to begin with. Comparing amending the U.S. Constitution to altering the metarules of Pokemon does not work well for these reasons.

 

[psychup2034]

When the rules of the game are modified, there is a slew of reasons for which it may happen. Sometimes it's to make it fairer. Sometimes it's to make it simpler. Sometimes it's to market a new specialty card (Pokémon Lv.X, for example, were given an exception in the Meta-Ruling about copying attacks). These ends contradict each other often. I don't think there are many who think the recent rules change was unambiguously good for the competitive scene, or even designed to improve it (the primary motive seems to have been simplicity). As such, the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene cannot in all fairness be used to determine how much of "a big deal" a rules change is.

And yet the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene is probably the most logical indicator of how much of a "big deal" a rules change is....

Also, whenever the Constitution gets amended, it is a very big deal. While of course the 19th Amendment is more important, that shouldn't diminish the significance of the 27th Amendment. In over 200 years, we've only amended the Constitution 27 times (really 18 times, since the Bill of Rights was adopted all at once). Each and every one of those Amendments was a very big deal when it happened. As this reversal of a long-established Meta-Ruling ought to be.

Some amendments to the constitution have a larger impact than others. For example, giving black people the right to vote (amendment 15) is a much bigger deal than say... limiting the presidency to two terms (amendment 22).

Not all amendments are equally important in terms of "protect[ing] the rights and private property of those under [the Constitution's] jurisdiction," as you say. It would take someone who is extremely racially insensitive to argue that the 15th amendment wasn't a bigger deal than the 22nd amendment.

Similarly, certain Pokemon rulings are more important than others. In tournament play, the first turn rules have been applied tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of times more than the Featherdance/Hone Claws rule this past season. In fact, I implore you to find 1 instance in tournament play this past season where the Featherdance/Hone Claws + bench damage combination was pulled off. Talk about an insignificant ruling.

---------- Post added 08/27/2012 at 05:02 PM ----------

First and foremost, any amendment to the U.S. Constitution is incredibly important...

Of course every amendment to the U.S. Constitution is incredibly important, but some are waaaaay more important than others.

If you disagree with me, I want to hear your argument for why abolishing slavery (amendment 13) is equally important to setting congressional term limits (amendment 20).

If you can come up with an argument for why abolishing slavery is equally important to setting congressional term limits without sounding really racist, I'll concede the point.

 

[Otaku]

Of course every amendment to the U.S. Constitution is incredibly important, but some are waaaaay more important than others.

If you disagree with me, I want to hear your argument for why abolishing slavery (13) is equally important as setting congressional term limits (20).

If you can come up with an argument for why abolishing slavery is equally important to setting congressional term limits without sounding racist, I'll concede the point.

So does ignoring the point mean you surrender?

I never said all Amendments were equally important, just that all are so important that they are major news and should be a big deal, major news, and heralded with clear announcements.

 

[psychup2034]

So does ignoring the point mean you surrender?

Actually, I thought your points were so off-base that it wasn't worth my time to respond. However, since you misinterpret my silence as tacit agreement, I'll refute your points:

1. Everyone learns of the laws through school, parents, or some other type of indoctrination. Some laws are more pertinent to life than others. Those laws that are more pertinent should be given more emphasis. Don't waste my time with laws that aren't pertinent. There's a reason why the 20th and 22nd amendments aren't really taught in schools, aside from maybe a list in the textbook. They're pretty inconsequential to our everyday lives. Same thing goes for the Featherdance ruling.

2. Your propensity to exaggerate situations is astounding. "TPC may alter the TCG as they wish, but must deal with the potential business ramifications." What type of asinine comment is this? There are no business ramifications to changing the meta ruling about bench damage. No-one's going to quit Pokemon TCG because bench damage can now be increased. ._.

Comparing the relative importance between Pokemon rulings and the relative importance between U.S. laws is very relevant. Only your own analytical skills are to blame if you can't make the connection yourself.

 

[Box of Fail]

And yet the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene is probably the most logical indicator of how much of a "big deal" a rules change is....

Some amendments to the constitution have a larger impact than others. For example, giving black people the right to vote (amendment 15) is a much bigger deal than say... limiting the presidency to two terms (amendment 22).

Not all amendments are equally important in terms of "protect[ing] the rights and private property of those under [the Constitution's] jurisdiction," as you say. It would take someone who is extremely racially insensitive to argue that the 15th amendment wasn't a bigger deal than the 22nd amendment.

Similarly, certain Pokemon rulings are more important than others. In tournament play, the first turn rules have been applied tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of times more than the Featherdance/Hone Claws rule this past season. In fact, I implore you to find 1 instance in tournament play this past season where the Featherdance/Hone Claws + bench damage combination was pulled off. Talk about an insignificant ruling.

I couldn't name one. I doubt most could. But as I said earlier, the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene is not a good basis for judging how much of a "big deal" it is. To think that rules changes matter because of their affect on the competitive metagame is plainly misunderstanding what Meta-Rulings are for. I feel like I ought to repeat myself here, as this was addressed merely by one misguided and subjective sentence.

While keeping the game in balance may be a secondary effect of Meta-Rulings, the primary purpose is, without a doubt, to help players play the cards correctly. Having a misconception about a card effect is bad enough in a tournament with judges, but potentially game-ending to casual players who don't know how to resolve a certain card interaction. Thus, the Compendium. Because of this, the primary concern we should have in mind is not whether the ruling significantly affects the format, but whether there is potential for ambiguity in a casual game. Even here, I'll grant the first-turn rule is likelier to come up in a casual game, but the Hone Claws ruling holds plenty of potential for ambiguity and it is thus very important that the Compendium be correct with regards to this interaction. If they change the Meta-Ruling, the Compendium ought to be updated, which is hard to accomplish if nobody knows the ruling except Japan.

Rulings are there so those who do not understand the intricacies of the game can avoid ambiguity when resolving card interactions. They're not there to make sure the modified format is in balance, or to prevent broken combos from ruining the format. Nor are rules changes. The B/W rules change wasn't to make the format better (it did the very opposite, in fact), it was to make it easier to understand for those outside of a tournament setting. Thus, the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene is not "the most logical indicator of how much of a "big deal" a rules change is" by any stretch of the imagination. Whether Hone Claws breaks the format is irrelevant. I don't think it will; I think the rules change may even be for the better. But such a situation causes great potential for ambiguity, and thus it is extremely important that the Compendium handle such a situation correctly. A major announcement of such a rules change on the official Pokémon website is to be expected, not an "oh, by the way" sort of thing in the Ask the Rules Team section of a pseudo-official fansite.

Of course every amendment to the U.S. Constitution is incredibly important, but some are waaaaay more important than others.

This is the key, so much so that I don't have to address your uncalled for slavery comparison. I too am of the opinion that the first turn rules change is more important than the Hone Claws one. But the Hone Claws ruling is also incredibly important, not because of the effect on the metagame (about which I frankly could care less), but because of the potential for ambiguity. That's why the Compendium is there, to clear up ambiguity. The bottom line is, both rulings are important, and both deserved a front-page announcement on pokemon.com.

 

[psychup2034]

I couldn't name one. I doubt most could. But as I said earlier, the degree to which a rules change affects the competitive scene is not a good basis for judging how much of a "big deal" it is. To think that rules changes matter because of their affect on the competitive metagame is plainly misunderstanding what Meta-Rulings are for. ...

That's why the Compendium is there, to clear up ambiguity.

Let's find out the purpose of the Compendium.

Purpose: This Compendium was designed to facilitate rulings at Pokémon tournaments.

The stated purpose of the Compendium is to "facilitate rulings at Pokemon tournaments." As you implied, this rule change doesn't affect the tournament (competitive) scene at all. So really, it's not a big deal.

To think that a change to the contents of the Compendium matter other than their affect on the tournament metagame is plainly misunderstanding the stated purpose of the Compendium.

 

[Box of Fail]

Let's find out the purpose of the Compendium.



The stated purpose of the Compendium is to "facilitate rulings at Pokemon tournaments." As you implied, this rule change doesn't affect the tournament (competitive) scene at all. So really, it's not a big deal.

To think that a change to the contents of the Compendium matter other than their affect on the tournament metagame is plainly misunderstanding the stated purpose of the Compendium.

I think you are mistakenly merging two claims of mine into one, when the two are in fact distinct.

First, that the purpose of Meta-Rulings is in no way to keep the modified metagame healthy.

Second, that the purpose of the Compendium is to clear up ambiguity in card interactions.

The first is key here, because it explains the paragraph from which I bolded portions. Organized Play ought to make a big deal of fundamental Meta-Ruling changes regardless of their bearing on the metagame, because the purpose of Meta-Rulings is to disambiguate complex card interactions.

The second holds true. I did not mean to claim that the purpose of the Compendium is to regulate games not in tournaments; that interpretation is caused by mixing up the two claims above. The Compendium's primary function is a rulings resource for judges. Once again, that does not mean that a Meta-Ruling change isn't big news merely because of its limited bearing on the metagame, because there are going to be players who encounter the ruling incidentally (for example, if you have a Swanna and I a Mew EX) who may not be at the top tables. The purpose of the Compendium rulings is also to make clear how card interactions play out, just to judges, not players without a judge. Their purpose is absolutely NOT to maintain the health of the format or prevent broken combos (or to help you make an informed deck choice). So just because decks with a remote chance of being competitive cannot utilize the ruling does not make it unimportant, unless matches of players X-3 or worse don't need judges since they can't cut. Whether I am X-0 or 0-X, the judge still needs to know the ruling at my table. Many judges turn to the Compendium for this.

 

[bullados]

The problem is that people misread cards for such a long time that a blanket statement had to be read. For a very, very long time, virtually every effect that added damage specifically stated that the damage was added either to the Active or the Defending Pokemon. But nobody would actually Read The Card. So the blanket rule was placed there to combat this.

More recently, the language has been standardized, so that it's abundantly clear which effects add only to the Active, and which ones add to anything. It's the reason there's a self-damage rule with damage modifiers. And it's the reason why that self-damage rule with damage modifiers is NOT universal.

It's a semi-universal rule that probably should have been taken out of the semi-universal area, if that didn't mean about a thousand different other updates for obscure cards.

The basic rule comes down to READ THE CARD. The language has been fairly consistent these days. Read The Card, and you'll answer about 90% of the rulings without having to access the Compendium or ATM.

 

[psychup2034]

First, that the purpose of Meta-Rulings is in no way to keep the modified metagame healthy. ... Organized Play ought to make a big deal of fundamental Meta-Ruling changes regardless of their bearing on the metagame, because the purpose of Meta-Rulings is to disambiguate complex card interactions.

First of all, I haven't mentioned anything about keeping the metagame healthy. I too, don't think that the purpose of meta rulings is to keep the modified metagame healthy.

I don't think there's anything "fundamental" about meta rulings changes. From what I understand, you seem to believe in the principle that changing a meta ruling is so important that they need to make a big deal about it when it changes.

While your argument is based in the realm of principle, I'm more of a practitioner. How important is this ruling in terms of tournament play (stated purpose of the Compendium)? How often would this ruling affect an actual tournament game? That should determine how much effort is made to publicize the ruling.

I think we're at an impasse here.

Second, that the purpose of the Compendium is to clear up ambiguity in card interactions.

I disagreed with you on this when I had misinterpreted what you said before. I was bundling your two points into one. However, now that you've clearly separated these two points into two separate statements, I actually agree with this.

 

[Darkrai Trainer]

I just realized the new Mew EX has a retreat cost. The old one didn't!

 

[canderson]

I just realized the new Mew EX has a retreat cost. The old one didn't!

It sure does, which means mew EX really loves Skyarrow bridge
And who else thinks this thread got a little crazy lol
I didnt mean for this to get out of hand......
In the end the final ruling is that it does add bench damage correct??
Ive followed this for so long that i dont clearly remember if they actually changed the ruling or not lol
Dud they change it or not?

 

[kevstoy]

For what it's worth, I went and tried this out on PTCGO just to see what the "software" did.

T1: Start Mew EX - Collector for Kyurem and Drilbur - Attach and Pass
T2: Mew EX - Attach and Hone Claws
T3: Mew EX - Attach and Glaciate - Does 60 to all pokemon - active and bench.

 

[canderson]

For what it's worth, I went and tried this out on PTCGO just to see what the "software" did.

T1: Start Mew EX - Collector for Kyurem and Drilbur - Attach and Pass
T2: Mew EX - Attach and Hone Claws
T3: Mew EX - Attach and Glaciate - Does 60 to all pokemon - active and bench.

Interesting, so then it must b right if they put it in that way online.......so that's pretty cool, maybe ill just make a deck with it just to Piss ppl off at league, i can hear it now "there is no way you can do that?!?"
Lol sweet

 

[bullados]

Do not trust TCGO to be correct on the rules. According to TCGO, Rescue Scarf stops you from taking a prize when you knock out a Pokemon with it attached.

But, in this case, TCGO is correct.

 

[kevstoy]

Do not trust TCGO to be correct on the rules...

Couldn't have said it better myself. But interesting that that is how the "logic" got applied in the computer program.

 

[canderson]

Couldn't have said it better myself. But interesting that that is how the "logic" got applied in the computer program.

Sometimes logic is all we have when it comes to this game lol
But I dont play TCGO (even tho I have like 500 of those code cards lol)
Maybe i should try