Frosty
=_=
While we vote on the lovely subs tidbit, I have another thing regarding that was sub threw around when the implementation happened.
The current rules disallow the "NOT" boolean before an attack clause (so IF Fire Typed Damaging move AND NOT Fire Blast is illegal). But it was discussed if we should allow at least 1 "NOT" boolean. The argument was that one single NOT wasn't enough to abuse the sub rules while it also provides the player ordering first with better tools to counter a danger they anticipated.
What do you guys think about it? Should one allow only 1 "NOT" before attack clause per sub? For reference it means that "IF Fire Damaging Type AND NOT Fire Blast THEN X" is legal, but "IF Fire Damaging Type AND NOT Fire Blast AND NOT Flamethrower AND NOT Ember AND NOT Flame Burst AND NOT Mystical Fire THEN Counter" remains illegal.
The current rules disallow the "NOT" boolean before an attack clause (so IF Fire Typed Damaging move AND NOT Fire Blast is illegal). But it was discussed if we should allow at least 1 "NOT" boolean. The argument was that one single NOT wasn't enough to abuse the sub rules while it also provides the player ordering first with better tools to counter a danger they anticipated.
What do you guys think about it? Should one allow only 1 "NOT" before attack clause per sub? For reference it means that "IF Fire Damaging Type AND NOT Fire Blast THEN X" is legal, but "IF Fire Damaging Type AND NOT Fire Blast AND NOT Flamethrower AND NOT Ember AND NOT Flame Burst AND NOT Mystical Fire THEN Counter" remains illegal.