Substitutions Overhaul

[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.

 

[Matezoide]

I have no issues with Frosty's suggestion. Allowing a single ''AND'' will certanly give battlers more freedom in battles, which seems like a good thing.

I propose we vote on that as Proposal 5 once we are done with Proposal 4.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Food for thought:

Counter > Counter > Counter
IF (Damaging Fighting Move) is not issued, THEN use High Jump Kick that action.

Is basically the same as:

High Jump Kick > High Jump Kick > High Jump Kick
IF (Damaging Fighting Move) is issued, THEN use Counter that action.

So allowing IF NOT X is fine.

In terms of AND NOT Move; I think that can be resolved in a way, a way that prohibits AND NOT in terms of Substituting for two or more moves/classes from the same Pokémon in the same action, that is, you cannot say:

IF (Damaging Grass Move) is issued, AND Seed Bomb is not issued, AND Wood Hammer is not issued, THEN use Counter that action.

But you can say:

IF Knock Off is issued, AND Encore is not issued the following action, THEN use Protect on the first instance.

Likewise, you can say:

IF Fidgit uses Trick Room, AND Clefable does not use Encore, THEN use Taunt (Fidgit) on the first instance.

Basically the only (imo) solution for this AND NOT thing should be:

1. IF (Pokémon X) (Substitution) AND NOT (Chance-based Substitution) is legal.
2. IF (Pokémon X) (Move Substitution) AND NOT (Pokémon X) (Move Substitution) (Different Action) action is legal.
3. IF (Pokémon X) (Move Substitution) AND NOT (Pokémon Y) (Move Substitution) is legal.
4. IF (Pokémon X) (Move Substitution) AND NOT (Pokémon X) (Move Substitution) is illegal.

I fail to see another appropriate, reasonable solution than this. These ground rules prevent AND NOT where it would have been exploited (i.e. Substituting for two moves from the same Pokémon in the same action).

OR Should never be considered legal for substitutions, bar the Protective/Evasive substitutions. OR is a poor attempt to disguise two substitutions as one to the inexperienced player, & I am of the opinion that substitutions should never be on the same line as each other for readability & identification reasons. OR is also "lazy".

Re-posting since it is relevant now! ^_^

 

[ZhengTann]

...... 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.

I'd think that the argument is valid only at mid to high-tier play, where there are just about enough moves that a single NOT clause helps tremendously when ordering first. But it lower tiers, it either breaks the Substitution (in cases where your only SE Fire-type coverage is Flare Blitz / Fire Blast) or is completely redundant (like, when you have only Fire Blast).

If we're concerned about better opportunities to counter second-orderers, then I'd repeat that increasing number of allowed Substitutions in a match is the easiest way to go.

 

[Stratos]

Sub Rules should start fresh with one major premise:

1) Each substitution can only have two outcomes: being triggered and not.

If to this we add:

2) Substitution classes are all-or-nothing. If a sub calls a sub class, it must trigger on every move in that class.

3) An exception to rule #1 is that a substitution can have a different result each TIME it is triggered (if x then y the first time, z the second time) <- if you think about it this was always combining two different subs "if x and first time" and "if x and second time." Tbh im ambivalent on keeping this rule but i lean in favor of stronger subs.

4) Substitution triggers cannot be broadened with additional clauses such as "or" clauses. Additional clauses may only be used to narrow the circumstances of activation.

5) Substitutions based on knowing something can only trigger after that thing is known. (e.g if the opponent crits a2 then counter that action is legal if you were already going to move second a2, but illegal otherwise). (If you know something, your Pokemon knows it).

That's basically all I can think of that we need, though obviously if someone thinks we need more then feel free to challenge me. The perscriptiveness in Engineer's rules means you're always going to have weird buggy shit. See me vs em with Protect substitutions in BoB. Or another example (which bugs me to hell) is that "if gallade uses drain punch and encore the next action" or "if gallade uses drain punch and not encore the next action" or "if gallade uses drain punch and togekiss uses encore" aren't legal when they always used to be and it makes it a lot harder to make sound subs.

We can obviously vote on the non-#1 rules based on what specifically we want to allow but the bottom line is we can't just bandaid the broken rules we have.

 

[Frosty]

I am not opposed to overhaul of the sub rules, but I am not sure if your proposal covers all bases. While I feel we will need to screw up awfully for the player to order first be able to abuse subs (since it already starts in major major major disadvantage), it is something that needs to be ironed out carefully.

This is my way of saying that I will proceed with the votings as they are being held (+ the 5th question about the possibility of 1 "NOT" before attack clause) and after that is done, I will create a new topic for said rehaul. To point out the limitations our current sub rules have that aren't supposed to be there and then decide if they will be fixed through amendments or with new rules.

(Regarding the "NOT" part, it was discussed to some good extent before and not voted fsr, so I will make an exception and pass it to the booth now)

Allow 1 use of a "NOT" boolean before an attack clause per sub (so IF Water-Typed damaging move AND NOT surf THEN protect is valid)
Allow the usage of "NOT" booleans before an attack clause (so IF Water-Typed damaging move AND NOT surf AND NOT muddy water AND NOT water Spout THEN protect is valid)
(as is) Disallow the usage of "NOT" booleans before an attack clause (so IF Water-Typed Damaging Move AND NOT surf THEN protect remains illegal)
Back to the drawing board because of X

 

[TSRD]

A conversation I had with Frosty on IRC just a bit ago:

Hide

11:08 TSRD what is the best way to sub for something being ordered without leaving yourself open to order abuse? For example I had a sub "If X is ordered to use Encore." The mon is question was already encored into different move. However they "ordered" Encore anyway and thus triggered the sub. How do you get around that?
11:09 Frosty uh...link?
11:09 TSRD "successfully ordered"?
11:09 dogfish44 ugh, one of ASB's last stupid loopholes -.-'
11:10 TSRD http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/battle-hall-challenge-tsrd.3524467/page-3#post-5966655
11:10 TSRD It was my Shuckle vs his Jumpluff, at one point he was encored into protect
11:10 TSRD I subed for his encore
11:11 TSRD I'm just curious what the proper wording is
11:13 Frosty you can say "IF X AND Y isn't under the effects of encore THEN"
11:13 Frosty although I am not positive I got the question
11:14 TSRD I see, so I do need to put "and Y wasn't under the effects of encore" or "And not A!" or something. Just checking
11:15 TSRD Is there any other "starting" options than IF X is ordered" or "If X uses"?
11:16 Frosty For an action clause no
11:16 TSRD ok
11:16 Canis_Majoris you could say "IF X" but that's pretty much same deal as "IF X uses"
11:16 Frosty actually there are, but not for actions
11:17 Frosty as per rules, regardless of how you put it, if you use an action sub (or whatever is the name of that), it will be read as "if X is ordered" and then you will have to add "AND not encored" "AND not asleep" "AND not (...)"
11:17 Frosty you can even try the ridiculous and add "AND not under cooldown"
11:18 TSRD Can you do that Sub abuse trick with Bide? For example Bide>Hold>Release is the natural progression but can you do Bid>Encore>Protect to abuse subs? Or does Bide turn itself off if you order something else?
11:18 Frosty uh
11:18 Frosty let's just say that
11:18 Frosty it is a grey area
11:18 Frosty technically speaking, bide is a 3-actions move
11:19 Canis_Majoris bide > encore > protect won't trigger "IF X uses" but it will trigger "IF X is ordered" iirc?
11:19 Frosty the same way a combo is a 2-actions move (combo - cooldown)
11:19 Frosty so in theory if you say "bide-explosion-explosion" you are saying Bide-hold-release, as Bide will already take up all 3 actions
11:19 Frosty or else it would be insanely stupid
11:19 Frosty BUT
11:20 Frosty the written rules say nothing about it, so a case may be made about those subs triggering
11:20 TSRD Can you sub "If X *will* use Move?"
11:20 Frosty which is absurd
11:20 Frosty nope
11:20 Frosty not "successful uses" or "used" or whatever
11:20 Frosty however you write it, it will be read as "if X is ordered"
11:21 TSRD successfuly uses isn't allowed? People use that on P/E all the time...
11:21 TSRD Huh
11:21 Frosty until we get to change it. It is just that sub rules usually give insane headaches <_<
11:21 Frosty people use it yeah
11:21 Frosty but it is read as "if Protect is ordered"
11:22 Frosty search for the BoB battle Pwne vs Elevator Music and you will see where all started

 

[Frosty]

OK, so...

Mixing a little of what pwne said and a little of TSRD pasted, let's continue with the overhaul focusing on Chance Subs.

Let me explain myself.

Our system (I think) operated under the assumption that the actions of a round (including subs) are given to a mon at once and then the three actions of the round happen with mons doing stuff and what-not. So its like: one dude says "use X, then Y, then Z!", the other says "use Y, then Z, then A!" and after that the pokemons use their moves and act. That is why the pokemon knows what was ordered for itself and its opponents even before a1 actually kicks in. But it can't know if he will be poisoned or will have X hp A3 in A1 as it can't predict the future.

Not messing with Action Clauses (aka the second half of a sub) We have 3 types of substitutions:

1) Attack Clauses: Substitutions that activate when an attack is ordered. Since the pokemon knows the orders before the action begins, those subs don't have any time limitations. You can have a substitution regarding an order for a3 kicking in a1.
2) Chance Clauses: Substitutions that activate if a certain circunstance happened or the situation is in a specific way when the pokemon is to order. It can only kick in if whatever triggered it already happened (A move already done critted, a substitution activated) or is happening (pokemon is under a sub or have X hp), so it has time limitations.
3) KO Clauses: A Special Chance Clause where the circunstance that happened is a KO. Has the same characteristics of a Chance Clause and is only separated from it because each mon has infinite of those to use.


Our problem is incredibly simple actually: According to our current rules, the only admissible Chance Subs are the ones listed on handbook, which are:

list

• If the remaining HP of Pokemon X is less than/equal to/greater than/at least/at most Y, do Z
• If the remaining energy of Pokemon X is less than/equal to/greater than/at least/at most Y, do Z
• If attack X misses, do Y
• If attack X lands a critical hit, do Y
• If attack X's secondary effect Y (such as burn or flinch) occurs, do Z
• If you currently have condition X (such as being asleep, burned or taunted), do Y (note: a specific condition must be named)
• If Pokemon X fails to act (because, for example, you hit yourself in confusion or are fully paralyzed), do Y
• If your stat X is at stage Y (or higher/lower), do Z
• If other substitution(s) X do(es) not activate, do Y

But there are many many other circunstances that are known by the pokemon and aren't on that list. Stuff like:
- A move was actually used instead of just ordered
- A pokemon is under a substitute or a protect (ordered or passed)
- A pokemon is under safeguard
- X's sub has Yhp
- A pokemon has X type or has Y item or Z ability.

and so on. Most of those are subs we already use extensively without much problems and yet, in theory, they would be illegal.

We could just add more stuff to the list, but I feel that that would be, like Pwne said, band-aiding a broken rule. Some day other circunstances or situations will occur and then we will return to this problem.

My suggestion is simple: we change Chance subs to be the ones triggered if a certain circunstance happened or if the situation is in a particular manner when the pokemon is to act and use the list as examples, not excluding other kinds of circunstances. So we would go from:

Current Rules

These clauses are used in case of misfortune. Most of these clauses relate in some way to whether an attack succeeds or fails, but there are a couple of more general condition clauses that can be used here. The possible chance clauses are as follows:

• If the remaining HP of Pokemon X is less than/equal to/greater than/at least/at most Y, do Z
• If the remaining energy of Pokemon X is less than/equal to/greater than/at least/at most Y, do Z
• If attack X misses, do Y
• If attack X lands a critical hit, do Y
• If attack X's secondary effect Y (such as burn or flinch) occurs, do Z
• If you currently have condition X (such as being asleep, burned or taunted), do Y (note: a specific condition must be named)
• If Pokemon X fails to act (because, for example, you hit yourself in confusion or are fully paralyzed), do Y
• If your stat X is at stage Y (or higher/lower), do Z
• If other substitution(s) X do(es) not activate, do Y

Note that if the action that is being changed is the action when the chance-based effect like full paralysis, secondary hit activation or miss occurs, the new move's priority must be less than or equal to that of the move being replaced. Also, NOT can be used with chance clauses.

to

Proposal

These clauses are used in case of misfortune. Most of these clauses relate in some way to whether an attack succeeds or fails, but there are a couple of more general condition clauses that can be used here. Chance clauses are triggered if a certain circunstance happened or if the situation is in a particular manner when the pokemon is to act. Examples of Chances clauses are:

• If the remaining HP of Pokemon X is less than/equal to/greater than/at least/at most Y, do Z
• If the remaining energy of Pokemon X is less than/equal to/greater than/at least/at most Y, do Z
• If attack X misses, do Y
• If attack X lands a critical hit, do Y
• If attack X's secondary effect Y (such as burn or flinch) occurs, do Z
• If you currently have condition X (such as being asleep, burned or taunted), do Y (note: a specific condition must be named)
• If Pokemon X fails to act (because, for example, you hit yourself in confusion or are fully paralyzed), do Y
• If your stat X is at stage Y (or higher/lower), do Z
• If other substitution(s) X do(es) not activate, do Y

Note that if the action that is being changed is the action when the chance-based effect like full paralysis, secondary hit activation or miss occurs, the new move's priority must be less than or equal to that of the move being replaced. Also, NOT can be used with chance clauses.

With this simple change we can use stuff like "IF X is under Protect" or "If Protect is used successfully" without any fear of it being deemed illegal. Sure, the ref would have some discretion to decide what is and isn't allowed, but most situations are clear-cut anyway and there is always irc. We do that for combos in a much much more subjective manner and we haven't exploded because of it yet.

The only thing to notice is that they would be Chance Subs, not Attack Clauses, so the time limitations apply. Also, with this only "IF X is ordered" or "IF X" will be considered Attack Clauses. "IF X is used" and similar expressions would become Chance clauses.

Sorry if this seems confusing and all. Subs are confusing <_<.

Thoughts?

 

[Frosty]

I like likes as much as the next guy, but some discussion would be nice <_<;. Unless you all agree with me, which I doubt.

So uh...

I will give 120h (that = 5 days for you "you need to be patient!" people) for discussion. If no discussion I will just send it to the booth.

After it I have one last sub-related issue to discuss and then I am done with it.