00:52:13 ~ <Lucy> "IF Scolipede is not under the effects of a P/E move, AND Scolipede is not behind a substitute, AND Scolipede doesn't have Double Team clones up, THEN use Thief on the first instance."
00:52:40 ~ <Lucy> p sure thats illegal right
00:52:40 ~ <FortColors> I think so
00:52:57 ~ <FortColors> because "not under p/e" is the only opposing move clause
00:55:06 ~ <Lucy> IAR?
00:55:24 ~ <~Its_A_Random> it's legal
00:57:02 ~ <FortColors> did we remove that thing about move clauses involving the opponent needs at least one "is using"?
00:57:02 ~ <phoenix> i'm 99% sure that's not legal because you can't have a NOT without one without not
00:57:13 ~ <FortColors> or was that just discussed and not implemented
00:57:18 ~ <phoenix> that was implemented
00:57:34 ~ <phoenix> i should know :v
00:57:41 ~ <FortColors> lol
00:58:24 ~ <&dogfish44> it's awkwardly illegal, but under current rules it's illegal.
00:58:42 ~ <@elevator_music> ok tlr is a gogogo
00:58:42 ~ <FortColors> !asbmove stealth rock
00:58:42 ~ <@elevator_music> maybe i'll have a manaphy by next september
00:58:42 ~ <FortColors> !asbmove fake out
00:59:22 ~ <FortColors> !learn alakazam, helping hand
00:59:22 ~ <TIBot> Alakazam can't learn Helping Hand.
00:59:22 ~ <FortColors> :(
00:59:55 ~ <Lucy> okay so uhh
01:02:07 ~ <Lucy> it's... legal then?
01:02:29 ~ <phoenix> it shouldn't be
01:02:41 ~ <Lucy> dangit gale
01:05:20 ~ <~Its_A_Random> it's def legal
01:05:53 ~ <~Its_A_Random> if not move and not chance and not chance
01:06:54 ~ <FortColors> i like how lucy is like ok; iar says no, ignore everyone else. Asthmerian mentality in a nutshell.
01:07:17 ~ <FortColors> im not quite sure, but im pretty sure if not move is illegal if theres no if move involved
01:07:45 ~ <phoenix> you can't have if not move
01:07:47 ~ <phoenix> without if move
01:07:47 ~ <Lucy> imean like yeah with the "without not" thingo
01:07:48 ~ <phoenix> we added that
01:07:49 ~ <Lucy> but idk
01:08:10 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I thought we legalised if not move ?_?
01:08:19 ~ <FortColors> i think it used to be illegal
01:08:21 ~ <phoenix> then we illegalised it if you don't have if move
01:08:23 ~ <FortColors> *legal
01:08:31 ~ <FortColors> subs are too confusing
01:08:37 ~ <phoenix> when everybody decided phoenixsubs were a horrible thing and to blame for everything bad in asb
01:08:43 ~ <FortColors> we should just remove them and ban kecleon/greninja
01:08:45 ~ <FortColors> and then be fine
01:09:07 ~ <~Its_A_Random> "All clauses can be appended by 'NOT'. Note that KO Clauses appended with 'NOT' become Chance clauses."
01:09:17 ~ <phoenix> it's somewhere else
01:09:28 ~ <~Its_A_Random> "If you have any attack clauses for your opponent's team, then at least one opponent's attack clause must not have a NOT clause."
01:09:28 ~ <phoenix> that it should say you can only have IF NOT MOVE if you have IF MOVE
01:09:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> except he's only subbing for one move clause
01:09:49 ~ <phoenix> and
01:09:53 ~ <phoenix> one = any
01:10:10 ~ <~Its_A_Random> "Substitutions for effects which last either for only the action the move is used, or require constant use of a move(s) to maintain (Such as 'Under the effect of a P/E move' and 'In the evasive stage of a D/E move') are treated as both a Chance Clause and Move Clause, obeying rules for both."
01:10:22 ~ <phoenix> p/e is an attack clause
01:10:24 ~ <~Its_A_Random> sub and dt dont last the one action
01:10:30 ~ <~Its_A_Random> yes
01:10:31 ~ <phoenix> therefore he has an attack clause
01:10:42 ~ <phoenix> none of her attack clauses don't have not clauses
01:10:54 ~ <phoenix> therefore the second thing you quoted makes it illegal
01:10:56 ~ <~Its_A_Random> not p/e is the attack clause we established that
01:11:12 ~ <FortColors> yeah it has a not in front of it
01:11:29 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I mean
01:11:32 ~ <FortColors> and the second thing says if you have a move clause with a not, you also need a move clause without a not
01:11:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> please direct me to the part where it says
01:11:45 ~ <phoenix> "If you have any attack clauses for your opponent's team, then at least one opponent's attack clause must not have a NOT clause." makes IF NOT P/E illegal unless you have IF a move
01:11:50 ~ <~Its_A_Random> you cant do this
01:11:50 ~ * LightWolf (~
LightWolf@diabolic.dog.sanyi) Quit (Quit: )
01:12:11 ~ <~Its_A_Random> ._.
01:12:18 ~ <~Its_A_Random> who added that lol
01:12:24 ~ <phoenix> when everyone
01:12:28 ~ <phoenix> panicked about phoenixsubs
01:12:35 ~ <Lucy> I thought that was voted on or something idk
01:12:41 ~ <FortColors> i think the idea was against not d/e and not p/e
01:12:44 ~ <&dogfish44> People sick of 'IF NOT X THEN Y', and the surrounding culture therin
01:13:02 ~ <phoenix> there was a voting yes
01:13:03 ~ <FortColors> everything was voted on by the council lucy
01:13:10 ~ <~Its_A_Random> am I really the only person not worried about if not move or smth ._.
01:13:20 ~ <~Its_A_Random> shows how much behind the times I am
01:13:39 ~ <Lucy> illegal then, kays
01:13:49 ~ <&dogfish44> I can't stand them - mainly because you have to figure out what the actual orders are meant to be @@
01:14:46 ~ <~Its_A_Random> like why shouldnt I be allowed to earthquake my opponent if he doesnt magnet rise
01:14:50 ~ <phoenix> it was specifically my IF NOT under P/E AND NOT under D/E AND NOT to use Counter THEN Giga Drain the first and third instances and Power Whip the second instance
01:14:55 ~ <phoenix> and then mowtom's pushed it over the edge
01:15:36 ~ <~Its_A_Random> and yeah those two handbook things are
01:15:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> quite contradictory
01:15:47 ~ <%Rainman> New sub rule: stop making your subs obnoxious as fuck and sucking the fun out of the game
01:16:02 ~ <&dogfish44> Like, maybe it's ingrained habit, but subs which react to things are easier to read clearly than subs which are... almost always active? Also, what rainman said
01:16:15 ~ <~Its_A_Random> it says you can append not to anything then it says no you cannot do it to attack without having an if
01:16:56 ~ <~Its_A_Random> ... why couldnt have we just kept the old sub rules lol
01:17:02 ~ <&dogfish44> Which old sub rules?
01:17:17 ~ <~Its_A_Random> the ones before the overhaul last year
01:17:20 ~ <&dogfish44> The easily abused ones, or the broken ones, or the ones so complex we would have 2 hour debates on
01:17:29 ~ <&dogfish44> oh, the latter two then @@
01:17:35 ~ <~Its_A_Random> or "overhaul" if you rather
01:17:41 ~ <Lucy> you can append not to everything, but if it's a move clause you need an "and" or smth idk w/e
01:18:15 ~ <&dogfish44> But yeah, you can append a 'NOT' to any clause type - you just can't go 'NOT' on every move clause you use.
01:18:32 ~ <phoenix> except that you can't actually append NOTs in singles
01:18:35 ~ <phoenix> because you only have one move clause
01:18:48 ~ <phoenix> except AND NOT move next action
01:19:47 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I mean why cant we just make an exception for a straight if not move condition without anything else attached to it
01:19:52 ~ <~Its_A_Random> like
01:19:58 ~ <FortColors> you could go IF NOT p/e move, AND damaging fire type move on any other action, THEN Knock Off
01:20:09 ~ <FortColors> as a syclant
01:20:09 ~ <~Its_A_Random> when if if not p/e then taunt ever going to break anything
01:20:28 ~ <~Its_A_Random> because its the same as ordering taunt then subbing for if p/e
01:20:41 ~ <FortColors> that sounds like a great idea tbh
01:20:51 ~ <FortColors> emphasis on sounds
01:21:01 ~ <FortColors> i havent thought about it at all
01:21:03 ~ <FortColors> so lol
01:21:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> most straight if not x subs are outright bad and abusable
01:22:03 ~ <Deck_Knight> If not JUSTICE then FREEDOM
01:22:18 ~ <phoenix> because it was required for phoenixsubs
01:22:24 ~ <phoenix> therefore people wanted it gone
01:22:36 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I'm not talking about
01:22:44 ~ <phoenix> even though they were killed three times over before that
01:22:49 ~ <phoenix> *two
01:22:49 ~ <FortColors> id prefer justice over freedom actually
01:22:51 ~ <&dogfish44> I think we could probably remove that rule tbh
01:22:54 ~ <~Its_A_Random> if not move and (endless) not chance
01:23:06 ~ <&dogfish44> I can deal with the endless not-chance
01:23:13 ~ <~Its_A_Random> i'm talking about
01:23:16 ~ <~Its_A_Random> if not move
01:23:18 ~ <~Its_A_Random> nothing else
01:23:26 ~ <&dogfish44> it's the not-d/e and not-p/e and not counter and not fake out and not...
01:23:53 ~ <phoenix> you already ran out of move clause :v
01:23:54 ~ <phoenix> besides
01:24:12 ~ <phoenix> zam's proposal by ITSELF really handled them almost entirely
01:24:17 ~ <FortColors> tbh the 1 move clause per action + setting p/e and d/e as move clauses does that well enough
01:24:29 ~ <~Its_A_Random> like yeah you can have that amendment that was made god knows how long ago
01:24:31 ~ <FortColors> phoenix just wants more things to do with subs
01:24:49 ~ <&dogfish44> we basically voted on 3 different ways to kill obnoxious subs
01:25:00 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I'm just saying to make a sole exception for an if not move sub with no extra conditions
01:25:01 ~ <phoenix> that all worked by themselves pretty well too :x
01:25:05 ~ <&dogfish44> General case: Should "IF Scolipede is not under the effects of a P/E move, AND Scolipede is not behind a substitute, AND Scolipede doesn't have Double Team clones up, THEN use Thief on the first instance." be legal or illegal, in your opinions?
01:25:05 ~ * Skyla (
uid131181@synIRC-2FBF67D2.brockwell.irccloud.com) Quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
01:25:14 ~ <FortColors> Oh wait
01:25:14 ~ <~Its_A_Random> because they arent broken
01:25:16 ~ <FortColors> i just realized
01:25:23 ~ <FortColors> cooldown is a move sub isnt it
01:25:26 ~ <&dogfish44> n
01:25:35 ~ <FortColors> because its a status that lasts 1 action
01:25:37 ~ <~Its_A_Random> cooldown is a debuff
01:25:45 ~ <~Its_A_Random> not a move
01:26:08 ~ <~Its_A_Random> calling cooldown a move is analogous to calling sleep a move
01:26:16 ~ <~Its_A_Random> in the context of asb
01:26:17 ~ <FortColors> ok
01:26:22 ~ <FortColors> i just reread that line
01:26:24 ~ <&dogfish44> being a 1a effect isn't the same as "Substitutions for effects which last either for only the action the move is used," :P
01:26:25 ~ <FortColors> and yeah youre rig ht
01:26:34 ~ <FortColors> yea lol
01:27:46 ~ <&dogfish44> I'm going to toss this log into feedback @@
Discuss.