Initial hit means exactly that; the first hit in a combo. You consider the BAP of the combo if it hit once and apply accordingly.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III
- Thread starter Dogfish44
- Start date
- Status
When does a combo hit multiple times ?_?
Edit @ below: ok that makes sense
Last edited:
When a Multi-Hit move is part of the combo.
I'm honestly not pointing any fingers at people here, so please no one get personally offended (lots of people do this anyway so it doesn't need be specific) but I'm pretty tired of seeing people post vague as fuck LOAs.
"School is busy tag me if I'm up"
"Going to be a busy few days might push DQ."
"Been a busy week will catch up when I can"
These are just some examples of things I've seen or in the vein of what I've seen. They are all basically a cop out, an excuse not to be DQed if you go over in anything without actually explicitly stating when or how long you will be gone for. Can we make some kind of rule or just a good faith agreement that LOAs need to be more specific. Simply stating a number of days you will be out for, or when you will be returning. You don't even need provide a reason. But vague LOAs help absolutely no one.
"School is busy tag me if I'm up"
"Going to be a busy few days might push DQ."
"Been a busy week will catch up when I can"
These are just some examples of things I've seen or in the vein of what I've seen. They are all basically a cop out, an excuse not to be DQed if you go over in anything without actually explicitly stating when or how long you will be gone for. Can we make some kind of rule or just a good faith agreement that LOAs need to be more specific. Simply stating a number of days you will be out for, or when you will be returning. You don't even need provide a reason. But vague LOAs help absolutely no one.
General rule about the matter is: you aren't forced to obey LoA. Gyms can probably have their policy, each tournament has their policy and everyday matches as well. Aside a specific rule of the tournament/gym, you aren't forced to keep waiting for someone under LoA. If you feel the LoA isn't specific or reliable, then by all means disregard it entirely.
Thunder Wave has some very unusual wording: "Pokemon with a Ground typing or the abilities Lightningrod, Limber, Motor Drive, or Volt Absorb are immune to Thunder Wave."
Isn't this a given because it's an Electric-move that inflicts paralysis? All this wording does is prevent Normalize from using Thunder Wave on Ground-types (And the very few instances where a Pokemon would have those abilities and be susceptible to the move to begin with, which is basically Seaking, Mega Sceptile, and ability-changing circumstances).
This kind of behavior is completely unique to ASB, and I don't see why it's necessary at all; the sole abuser of this tactic, Delcatty, is known for having this unique behavior ingame, and it would just be an effective Glare anyways.
Isn't this a given because it's an Electric-move that inflicts paralysis? All this wording does is prevent Normalize from using Thunder Wave on Ground-types (And the very few instances where a Pokemon would have those abilities and be susceptible to the move to begin with, which is basically Seaking, Mega Sceptile, and ability-changing circumstances).
This kind of behavior is completely unique to ASB, and I don't see why it's necessary at all; the sole abuser of this tactic, Delcatty, is known for having this unique behavior ingame, and it would just be an effective Glare anyways.
Honestly, let's just change it to say that it respects the type chart and abilities with regards to immunities pertaining to its current typing (considering Thunder Wave is the only Status move to really respect the type chart) and it's done. I or another mod can do this pretty quickly if it gets enough support or just do it but it's kinda bad form.
^ Or we could simply remove the line from Thunder Wave, since all 4 Abilities mentioned had made it clear that Thunder Wave does nothing except triggering said Abilities. Only Ground-type didn't mention the line "immunity to Electric attacks", something Flying does- wait, neither does Normal or Ghost. Well, still fixable :)
Today's topic: Wonder Skin
(1) Allied moves such as Heal Pulse?
(2) Moves with -- Acc such as Skill Swap?
Does this affect:NDA/ASBot said:
(1) Allied moves such as Heal Pulse?
(2) Moves with -- Acc such as Skill Swap?
The wording (to me) is very clear on this; both types of actions are affected by Wonder Skin.
To elaborate:
(1) Yes. Whether or not this is intentional, the wording of "changes the accuracy of all non-damaging attacks" is indicative that you will be missing your attempts to support that Pokemon based on a coin flip whenever you try such. You could remedy this by changing the line to as simple as "all enemy's non-damaging attacks."
(2) Yes. The description of the ability states "it changes the accuracy... to 50%." This is not halving the move's accuracy (which is another syntax issue if you want it to half the accuracy of incoming non-damaging attacks, but as of now functions as it does in-game.), because, when read exactly as it stands, it reduces the accuracy of incoming status attacks by an appropriate amount that will leave it at 50%.
But that's just my take. I could be arguing nonsense in someone else's viewpoint.
I like the bolded part above. Thoughts?
I don't like the bolded part above. In fact, I strongly disagree. They are functionally different moves. Sky Drop is not damaging evasive. Period. A direct result of its attack is not evading a move. In fact, it's effect directly redirects attacks towards it. It's effect in multiple battles is irrelevant, the function of the move is not evasive.
Classing it under damaging evasive is fundamentally non-concordant and I cannot support it.
This is probably super redundant because alcohol but the point is clear.
edit
[22:29:30] <LouPhone> I can't agree with that at all; it presumes that doubles+ don't matter
[22:29:42] <Texas> not true whatsoever
[22:29:46] <LouPhone> if that were the case, KO subs would not exist
[22:29:54] <Texas> it simply argues that battle format is irrelevant
[22:29:57] <Texas> to the function of move
[22:30:01] <Texas> and classing moves as identical
[22:30:30] <Texas> if Sky Drop has differing effects based on format you fundamentally cannot class it based on an effect realised in only one format
[22:30:38] <Texas> and thus you must class it based on its definitional effect
[22:30:43] <Texas> which is fundamentally different from D/E
Classing it under damaging evasive is fundamentally non-concordant and I cannot support it.
This is probably super redundant because alcohol but the point is clear.
edit
[22:29:30] <LouPhone> I can't agree with that at all; it presumes that doubles+ don't matter
[22:29:42] <Texas> not true whatsoever
[22:29:46] <LouPhone> if that were the case, KO subs would not exist
[22:29:54] <Texas> it simply argues that battle format is irrelevant
[22:29:57] <Texas> to the function of move
[22:30:01] <Texas> and classing moves as identical
[22:30:30] <Texas> if Sky Drop has differing effects based on format you fundamentally cannot class it based on an effect realised in only one format
[22:30:38] <Texas> and thus you must class it based on its definitional effect
[22:30:43] <Texas> which is fundamentally different from D/E
I approve of the "Sky Drop OR Damaging Move" sub change. It's simply intuitive to be able to combine the two clauses.
#saveacacturne
#saveacacturne
Sky Drop in itself is not damaging/evasive. But in Double and above if Aerodactyl used Sky Drop on Pyroak then it evades Pyroak's team mates attacks. This is enough reasoning for me to support "Sky Drop OR Damaging/Evasive move" as one move clause. Should probably be able to extend that to say "is in the evasive portion of Sky Drop OR damaging/evasive" with both the properties of move and chance clauses in the same way you can sub for "is underground" now. This distinction also allows you to still sub for "IF damaging/evasive" in singles and continue to exclude Sky Drop.
I'd like to amend that that should only be doable in Doubles++? Like, "IF D/E or Sky Drop" should not be a thing in singles as a single substitution.
Ideally I'd just add "Sky Drop (Targetting someone other than you)" to the clause list, since that's when it's purely a D/E move.
Ideally I'd just add "Sky Drop (Targetting someone other than you)" to the clause list, since that's when it's purely a D/E move.
"The user releases blue sparks that target the opponent's muscle nerves, making them have a chance not to respond to any commands, effectively paralyzing them. Thunder Wave does not ignore the type chart and does not ignore abilities with regards to immunities and effects."
I would remove the line altogether but don't want to get into a Thunder Wave vs. Ground-type policy headache so I changed it to the bolded and to note that Thunder Wave is indeed, an exception to the rule wrt status moves. Did this while I was fixing Sky Drop's wording for the 857456897th time.
Effective immediately.
I would remove the line altogether but don't want to get into a Thunder Wave vs. Ground-type policy headache so I changed it to the bolded and to note that Thunder Wave is indeed, an exception to the rule wrt status moves. Did this while I was fixing Sky Drop's wording for the 857456897th time.
Effective immediately.
Ally Switch - Psychic | Other | Any Non-User Ally | -- BAP | -- Acc | 5 EN Cost | -- Eff% | Contact: N/A | 1 Prio | Combo Type: Passive | Snatch: No | Magic Coat: No
The user uses telekinetic powers to switch places with one of its allies for the duration of the action. This move fails in singles battles.
In-Game, Ally Switch fails if you're in the middle position in a triple battle. Does this apply in ASB, if so, does this applys to when positioning is OFF as well, andHow long does it last? apparently one action mb
The user uses telekinetic powers to switch places with one of its allies for the duration of the action. This move fails in singles battles.
In-Game, Ally Switch fails if you're in the middle position in a triple battle. Does this apply in ASB, if so, does this applys to when positioning is OFF as well, and
The way Ally Switch works in Triples Positioning = OFF for ASB is that you select who you will swap places with, and any attack aimed at the target of Ally Switch hits the user instead and any attack aimed at the user hits the Ally Switch target instead. In other words, it doesn't fail at all in that format.
Do I have to make this clear in the wording?
As for Positioning = ON, there has never been an official ruling on it, but I am okay to rule that it works the same as Positioning = OFF unless we absolutely must follow the precedent from in-game (Though honestly it probably makes more sense to either have a collective mod ruling on this or have a council vote).
"Any one adjacent ally" is just fine for Ally Switch's targeting paradigm. In positioning = OFF, everyone is adjacent to everyone else (that's the literal meaning of turning off positioning), so it solves that problem as well.
Aligning the move to better match its in-game use case should be more that enough justification, given its flimsy clarification in the current rules text.
Aligning the move to better match its in-game use case should be more that enough justification, given its flimsy clarification in the current rules text.
Ally Switch generally targets it's opposite (So if the mons were A - B - C and A used Ally Switch in-game, my understanding is that you'd end up with C - B - A). I'm of the opinion that it's a move that'll only see usage in TLRs by evil people, and in 202 Reffings by irritable tutors, so should jjust be any adjacent target, ignoring in-game oddities.
You'd be wrong on that count, it was very nearly used in conjunction with Counter by both Stratos and myself in our TT matches in conjunction with other moves - ended up not being worth it but it could have been.
FROSTYEDIT: I agree with Texas. Ally Switch is a pretty useful move at times. But that isn't that important.
FROSTYEDIT: I agree with Texas. Ally Switch is a pretty useful move at times. But that isn't that important.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah it's called "you are faster and Trick Room is not up OR you are slower and Trick Room is up"
dgaf what the rules say that's what practice says actually happens from the last 120910342 years so make the rules accommodate it
dgaf what the rules say that's what practice says actually happens from the last 120910342 years so make the rules accommodate it
- Status