Regarding Rapidash of the Jungle Set and Speaking of both Jungle and Base Set 2, they both say to put them on the Stage 1 card, instead of the correct Basic Pokémon. And regarding Vaporeon’s Water Gun attack (from Jungle), the text says “Extra Water Energy after the 2nd doesn’t count.” when cards with the same effect from Fossil onwards have the updated and correct wording of “You can’t add more than 20 damage in this way.” The latter of the two sounds more plausible if this helps.
Would you like me to help by trying to find mistranslations in the Pokémon-e cards?
Ohh, Seaking has the same issue as Rapidash. As for Vaporeon, that was an old way to write that effect (Water gun on base set 1 was written that way too), but the different wording doesn’t imply a difference in function, so I’m not sure if it necessarily needs fixing (if that were the case, flamethrower got updated text in neo/legendary collection, for example) so it would be a long rabbit hole.
Elm, bill, pokemon breeder, pokemon trader, pokemon breeder fields, bill’s teleporter in the neo-skyridge format would be supporters according to the Japanese errata from when pokemon vs released. The decision to not errata them may have been intentional? Using the cards as printed seems inconsistent with applying other japan exclusive errata like the “up to” ones but it is a much bigger change.
I don’t know if it’s gonna stay this way forever, but Neo-Skyridge has always been played WotC style on TCG1. Perhaps one day if/when VS, web, etc. get added to TCG1, they might also implement the supporter and power/body errata for the format?
Can someone clarify this? My understanding was that neo-skyridge functions the same as other wotc formats, with energy charge, unown etc functioning according to their japanese text or errata.
Definitively from WoTC perspective, they liked to keep cards as printed, so they wouldn’t have issued an errata for as many cards as Japan did. That being said, Japan wasn’t playing with a rotation at the time (so Base-Skyridge, plus the many exclusive cards they got).
Neo-Skyrigde is in TCGOne a mix between what we had irl and some additional erratas (however those come from mistranslations of the original text, rather than the cards getting updated).
A format with VS/Web/E- would definitively benefit from having those cards updated to what PCGL did through the trainer’s magazine. But probably that you’d want to have a separate format and add these sets in parallel so it doesn’t disrupt a format people is already playing.
On that note, I’ve been doing some ground work to make that happen
I don’t know if these cards are actually implemented on tcgone using their japanese text or english but they currently have images with the english text and are not listed here or on Jason’s blog (though they are on the wotc compendium archive): crystal nidoking’s ability says it can change to fire (should be fighting) unown c neo destiny says to apply weakness and resistance. The japanese card does not.
Oh, we haven’t got around fixing any card past neo because we don’t have the right templates just yet. I hadn’t noticed but you’re right about Unown C. I don’t think it should but it would be good to have confirmation @JasonKlaczynski would you be able to confirm?
Ohh that’s great! Sorry when it comes to erratas my head goes immediately to making the whole thing from scratch but for this definitively it makes sense to do it like that!
Crystal Nidoking definitely has an error with the Energy symbol and Unown C appears to be one that we simply skipped over. Great eye catching these, @byvci! Let’s get them fixed!
Giovanni’s Machamp and Neo Revelation’s psychic type Celebi also only have their Pokemon Power activate if the Knock Out was via damage from an opponent’s attack.
This was understood by the English wording of the day so it does not necessarily require an errata. (The only tricky things would be something like Misdreavus’s Perish Song.) If we attempted to rewrite the text of old cards with more modern, standardized wording we would end up having to rewrite every card’s text, so it’s best to limit erratas to only true errors.
While I do agree that we shouldn’t errata cards simply for the sake of clarity or to match better with modern wording, I disagree about it not being an error.
Dark Forretress (although also mistranslated) did specify it had to be Knocked Out by damage.
There also were at least the following cards that placed/moved damage counters as an attack:
Sabrina’s Golduck
Sabrina’s Gengar
Rocket’s Mewtwo
Misdreavus (the promo)
The same Celebi I mentioned above
I agree that damage counters isn’t the same as damage. However, I don’t think it creates unintended interactions (unless we’re thinking about unlimited, because I’m not familiar enough with all of the gen 3-4 cards), as all of the instances that reduce damage are from attacks (that’s why modern cards always put damage counters on abilities and attacks that put damage counters is to specifically bypass attack mechanics).
Tldr, I think we should check first if an unintended interaction exists before determining if an errata is needed (I don’t mind making them, but I understand the approach is to change as little as possible while preserving the intended interactions).
Origin is not wrong, I just remember the ruling being understood properly in the day so I never felt compelled to correct it. But if we have a proper wording for the text on Dark Forretress’s Armor Up, we could just replicate that in an errata.
Yeah, its definitely not a priority, but I think it would be nice to do . (but pretty much everything else should be done first).
Also, I don’t have a source, but I remember seeing multiple people citing Light Dragonite as reducing the amount of energy as well as the type and effects. Do we have confirmation on that? If so, that would definitely be something we need.
but for this definitively it makes sense to do it like that!