However, he also knew that by doing that he would've put a pokémon on the opposing team to sleep.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Sleep Clause V2: a better definiton for WiFi battles.
- Thread starter Incarnation
- Start date
Not always. The Magic Coater might have been expecting Leech Seed (many Grass Pokemon learn it, many Grass Pokemon also learn sleep moves). Or they just might have been expecting a status other than sleep.
How did he know? That pokemon has three other moves at its disposal, one of which might be a different status move like Stun Spore.
Actually, all these arguments are really just theory. I'd say only the selection of a sleep-inducing move by the player when other options are available should have a chance to break Sleep Clause until it is proven that other methods of spreading sleep are significantly abused, then let the abused methods trigger Sleep Clause. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
How about this for a clarification of the rule;
Only if the move selected could ONLY cause sleep and was selected (not encored, or forced) does it result in a DQ.
Examples, Magic coating on the 1st turn will not result in a DQ, because the opponent could use any move, but if you've encored the opponent into a sleep move then use magic coat, you would DQ because you know the result.
But, if you have a choice item... and using a sleep move and youre opponent uses block, or shadow tag, or w.e, you would DQ, because you willing chose to use a sleep move repeatedly (because you knew the limits of the held item).
Alternatively, if you were imprisoned so that all you could use was a sleep move, and you were blocked, you wouldnt be DQed, because it wasnt you who limited you to a sleep move it was your opponent
how does that sound?
Only if the move selected could ONLY cause sleep and was selected (not encored, or forced) does it result in a DQ.
Examples, Magic coating on the 1st turn will not result in a DQ, because the opponent could use any move, but if you've encored the opponent into a sleep move then use magic coat, you would DQ because you know the result.
But, if you have a choice item... and using a sleep move and youre opponent uses block, or shadow tag, or w.e, you would DQ, because you willing chose to use a sleep move repeatedly (because you knew the limits of the held item).
Alternatively, if you were imprisoned so that all you could use was a sleep move, and you were blocked, you wouldnt be DQed, because it wasnt you who limited you to a sleep move it was your opponent
how does that sound?
I don't think either situation should violate Sleep Clause, especially not Magic Coat. You can't tell whether the user was expecting another status move or was trying for a second sleep. Further, it can't be abused to put a large number of Pokemon asleep unless there are a lot of sleep moves on the opponent's team and the opponent keeps trying to put your Grumpig to sleep for whatever reason.
Encored sleep shouldn't break the clause, either. If you keep trying to put an already sleeping Pokemon to sleep, you're wasting time that the sleeper could use to try to wake up. The best move in that scenario is for the Encore target to switch, so why ban the inferior tactic?
Encored sleep shouldn't break the clause, either. If you keep trying to put an already sleeping Pokemon to sleep, you're wasting time that the sleeper could use to try to wake up. The best move in that scenario is for the Encore target to switch, so why ban the inferior tactic?
Quoted for massive truthery.
Neither of these moves should cause rule violation. Only Psycho Shift is a maybe. Might be worth trying for a Shoddy server to test the clause and this move.
EDIT: I again push my suggested Wifi sleep clause to be one of the best, if not the best, for these purposes. It keeps things simple and easy to understand, and avoids imposing extra technical conditions on the battle, making things closer to the internal game engine, particularly in regards to moves like Encore. It also allows for a wider range of strategic play and building decisions.
Ok, you've convinced me. Seeing as Magic Coat can't be exploited and any reasonable player with an Encored Sleeper would switch out anyways, I think both moves should stay unbanned.
Moves that break Sleep Clause when inducing Sleep
-Dark Void
-Sing
-Hypnosis
-Sleep Powder
-Spore
-Grasswhistle
-Psycho Shift (selected with Sleep Talk)
-Secret Power
-Yawn
Moves that do not break Sleep Clause when inducing Sleep
-Rest
-Effect Spore
-Metronome
-Sleep moves used by a pokémon forced to use it (Encore, Imprison, Torment)
-Sleep moves by a Choiced Pokémon that is unable to switch out (Mean Look, Arena Trap, Shadow Tag)
-Magic Coat
I'll keep the poll up for a while though, there still might be people that disagree.
And MrIndigo, I agree that a list would indeed be the best way to make the Clause, but if we could summarize why a move is banned or not in one rule, it would be even better. Next to that rule, the list would still be used as a reference in case of doubt.
So far, the only move that is banned and doesn't directly induce Sleep is Psycho Shift, because it could be abused in combination with Rest. However Rest is induced by the Psycho Shifter itself. If we could formulate that properly, it wouldn't even differ much from the current Clause.
Moves that break Sleep Clause when inducing Sleep
-Dark Void
-Sing
-Hypnosis
-Sleep Powder
-Spore
-Grasswhistle
-Psycho Shift (selected with Sleep Talk)
-Secret Power
-Yawn
Moves that do not break Sleep Clause when inducing Sleep
-Rest
-Effect Spore
-Metronome
-Sleep moves used by a pokémon forced to use it (Encore, Imprison, Torment)
-Sleep moves by a Choiced Pokémon that is unable to switch out (Mean Look, Arena Trap, Shadow Tag)
-Magic Coat
I'll keep the poll up for a while though, there still might be people that disagree.
And MrIndigo, I agree that a list would indeed be the best way to make the Clause, but if we could summarize why a move is banned or not in one rule, it would be even better. Next to that rule, the list would still be used as a reference in case of doubt.
So far, the only move that is banned and doesn't directly induce Sleep is Psycho Shift, because it could be abused in combination with Rest. However Rest is induced by the Psycho Shifter itself. If we could formulate that properly, it wouldn't even differ much from the current Clause.
After thinking about it, Psycho Shift should not be banned. We're taking into consideration only the RestTalkShift set, which indeed can put Pokémon to sleep only depending on an RNG roll (like any other sleep move). However, if a Pokémon isn't running Rest (only Psycho Shift and Sleep Talk), that's the same case as Mirror Coat, only with an even lower chance to work. Either we ban one and not the other (which could cause arguments about a Pokémon's set during the battle) or we keep both unbanned.
Whatever happened to Assist?
Whatever happened to Assist?
Assist is still up in the air. I dont think you can really abuse assist realistically. Also almost nothing good learns it, and theyre all NU.
Also youd need to have 6 sleep moves it put it above youre 30% acc rate.
Provided all the other moves are allowed by assist. So keeping it in the current teir only 2 other NU pokes use 2 sleep moves, which are venusaur and exeggcutor.
So youd need to have them on your team to get above 30%. Plus assist doesnt increase the accuracy of the move choosen (correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure). So you would be pretty hard stretched to get it up to that 30% anyway.
Then again, assist isnt really a game breaker and there arent that many stategies running off it. We should just take a poll, because I dont think it'd break the wifi game either way.
Also youd need to have 6 sleep moves it put it above youre 30% acc rate.
Provided all the other moves are allowed by assist. So keeping it in the current teir only 2 other NU pokes use 2 sleep moves, which are venusaur and exeggcutor.
So youd need to have them on your team to get above 30%. Plus assist doesnt increase the accuracy of the move choosen (correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure). So you would be pretty hard stretched to get it up to that 30% anyway.
Then again, assist isnt really a game breaker and there arent that many stategies running off it. We should just take a poll, because I dont think it'd break the wifi game either way.
Well, you'll at least need both Sleep Talk and Psycho Shift to pull it off, and pokémon that use those two moves but don't use Rest in one set practically don't exist. Seeing as RestTalkShift is abused very easily, I think it should stay banned.
Jrrrrrrr came with a very interesting arguement about Effect Spore in the other Sleep Clause thread, which I wanted to repost here.
So far we've been unbanning moves if the user of the sleep move didn't choose to put a pokémon to sleep. However, if you decide to use Effect Spore as the ability of your pokémon, you know there's a 10% chance you'll sleep something. I think that specifically choosing that ability is enough to make it clausebreaking.
Except you don't know there's is a 10% chance you'll sleep something.
Breloom with Effect Spore doesn't put anything to sleep on it's own. It has 0% of a chance. And usually it will only have a 0% chance because so many common moves are non-contact. Earthquake, Ice Beam, Surf, Thunderbolt, Fire Blast, Hidden Power...
However, if your opponent is using Bullet Punch or something on a Breloom that isn't holding a Toxic Orb, they must be aware of the possible consequences.
Breloom with Effect Spore doesn't put anything to sleep on it's own. It has 0% of a chance. And usually it will only have a 0% chance because so many common moves are non-contact. Earthquake, Ice Beam, Surf, Thunderbolt, Fire Blast, Hidden Power...
However, if your opponent is using Bullet Punch or something on a Breloom that isn't holding a Toxic Orb, they must be aware of the possible consequences.
I think it's quite possibly not as abusable as it seems on paper, which is why I recommend running tests on it.
By this logic, choosing to have a Sleep move at all automatically means that you know that there is a small chance of being Encored and then having your opponent trapping, and so consequently this entire debate is moot.
This discussion thread, like the last one, is falling into the same trap that most groupthink discussions do: You're getting so bogged down in technical exceptions that you forget why you have an issue at all. Take a step back and look at what the problem really is:
- There is no Sleep Clause embedded in the game's code, it is something we as players apply ourselves.
- Why do we apply a Sleep Clause? Because without one, Sleep becomes too easy to abuse, leading to less fun and more luckhax in battles based on sleep-move accuracy.
- What do we need the Sleep Clause to do? Prevent Sleep from being abusable.
Consequently, concerning yourself with the minor advantage one might get when using Spore and Effect Spore on the same set is a waste of time, and missing the point. The point is not that you manged to put two of your opponent's pokemon to Sleep; that's not what the clause is trying to prevent. It is just trying to make sure that Sleep is not abusable and overpowered; i.e. that you don't have the freedom to deliberately Sleep your opponent's team to an unbalanced degree.
The simplest definition for a Sleep clause that prevents Sleep abuse is therefore what you are looking for, not some complicated punishment system for niche situations where a random effect causes two of your opponents' pokemon to fall asleep instead of one.
Actually, I'd say yes to the breach. This is the same sort of thing as Encoring a sleep move, but with the roles reversed. Yawning when they already have a pokemon asleep is breaking the clause.
Yawn isn't a phazing move, it's a sleep move that fails if they switch.
Yes it does. Putting more than one pokémon to sleep is our chosen line of when it is abused. It is true that we are trying to prevent abuse of Sleep, but we need a strict guideline for when it is abused.
If you have a rule, you need a punishment for breaking that rule, otherwise it doesn't work. The punishment of breaking a clause is simple; you get disqualified. It doesn't matter that there was only a small chance that you put something to sleep. If you have a revolver with only one round and you shoot at someone's head with it, it doesn't matter that there was only a 1/6 chance. If you happen to shoot that one round, you still murdered him.
However, we've seen that there are several scenarios in which the clause gets broken unintentially. The thing we're trying to prevent is people getting disqualified when they accidentially broke a clause.
The big problem lies in when someone can be held responsible for breaking the clause or not.
You could say that you couldn't know that your opponent was going to switch in Dugtrio on your Spore-using Scarfed Breloom.
You could say you couldn't know that your opponent wanted to use a contact move on your Breloom.
You could also say that you couldn't know that your opponent wasn't planning on switching in an Insomnia pokémon when you were using Spore.
Saying whose "fault" it was in these kind of situations is completely subjective. To compare our little video game with our court system again, the law simply says "don't kill people", and if you do murder someone, a judge says if it was your fault or not.
..Exactly as how the current Sleep Clause works. If someone breaks Sleep Clause in a big tournament, one of the organizers will say if he gets disqualified.
Even though it's odd for me to say as the OP, maybe the current Sleep Clause is good as it is. It is true that you could get disqualified due to Metronome or a trapped Choicer, but those scenarios are extremely rare and it is impossible to make a clear line for fault, you will always need an opinion.
You're using a common defence attorney rhetoric there by saying the current one works; the three scenarios that you listed are not equally weighted in likelihood. Just because there is a chance of your opponent switching in an Insomniac, doesn't mean that it excuses your deliberate attempt to double-sleep. (The analogy is that defence attorneys often try to trick juries into deciding on the basis of "Beyond all doubt" when the actual guilt metric is "Beyond reasonable doubt".
In any case, the problem with what you're saying is this. You're defining "putting two pokemon to sleep" as your level of abuse arbitrarily. This is, in general, fine; it just means that your Sleep Clause is an entirely arbitrary rule and it makes it unclear why you're including it at all. If you were running a Wifi tournament, and that's the rule you wanted, then it would be perfectly legit for you to impose it, because you control the tournament.
However, for general practice, you need to avoid as much arbitrariness as possible; this demands a functional definition of Sleep abuse. Now, I'm sure you'd find that most players would agree that having no Sleep Clause would break the metagame, and Sleep-based or counter-Sleep-based strategies would dominate. However, I think if you were to poll players and test under different rules, you would find the ability to sleep two of your opponents' pokemon (in only niche situations, I might add) does not break the metagame at all. You don't need to make the rule outlaw situations that will almost never come up, you're simply trying to stop deliberate abuse.
I think the definition I was suggesting before is probably not a perfect solution (it doesn't answer the Psycho Shift question by itself, for instance), but it is pretty close to what a tested functional definition would be.
In short, in order to avoid arbitrariness in the additional rules you're applying to the game, it should be the minimal intervention that maintains a balanced and functional metagame.
Anything more than that functional minimum is abusing the priveleges as rules-setters to your personal preference for/against Sleep moves. As I said above, this is fine to do if you're running a house-rules tournament, but for general practice, it should be as objective as possible.
In any case, the problem with what you're saying is this. You're defining "putting two pokemon to sleep" as your level of abuse arbitrarily. This is, in general, fine; it just means that your Sleep Clause is an entirely arbitrary rule and it makes it unclear why you're including it at all. If you were running a Wifi tournament, and that's the rule you wanted, then it would be perfectly legit for you to impose it, because you control the tournament.
However, for general practice, you need to avoid as much arbitrariness as possible; this demands a functional definition of Sleep abuse. Now, I'm sure you'd find that most players would agree that having no Sleep Clause would break the metagame, and Sleep-based or counter-Sleep-based strategies would dominate. However, I think if you were to poll players and test under different rules, you would find the ability to sleep two of your opponents' pokemon (in only niche situations, I might add) does not break the metagame at all. You don't need to make the rule outlaw situations that will almost never come up, you're simply trying to stop deliberate abuse.
I think the definition I was suggesting before is probably not a perfect solution (it doesn't answer the Psycho Shift question by itself, for instance), but it is pretty close to what a tested functional definition would be.
In short, in order to avoid arbitrariness in the additional rules you're applying to the game, it should be the minimal intervention that maintains a balanced and functional metagame.
Anything more than that functional minimum is abusing the priveleges as rules-setters to your personal preference for/against Sleep moves. As I said above, this is fine to do if you're running a house-rules tournament, but for general practice, it should be as objective as possible.
In that case, how do you think we should make a rule about a subjective rule like this?
We could silmpy poll them all, or test banning and unbanning moves on Shoddy Battle, but then we need much more participants.
We could silmpy poll them all, or test banning and unbanning moves on Shoddy Battle, but then we need much more participants.