Fly and Dig implementation and possible ban, opinions wanted

[Golden Gyarados]

What are peoples thoughts on allowing fly and dig but with the requirement that if you ever become invulnerable you must only select charge moves or switch. Maybe explosion could be allowed as well. It just has to be a move that will end the invulnerability.

I am not really sure why we havent thought of this before. It could be implemented on the sim by greying out all other moves when in the invulnerability state. And it allows us to be true to the cart and doesnt require banning some occasionally useful moves. Plus it could have the fun side effect of allowing people to launch solar beams from underground.

So much this. Dig and Fly can be useful and in themselves not uncompetitive, so simply banning the moves full stop isn't really analogous to banning OHKO or evasion. In those cases, we're banning the moves for their typical, expected, intended results. Here we'd be looking at banning the moves because of a rare and unintended side effect. Even if pure move banning is "simple," it's a serious example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not a blind cartridge adherent, but even if I were it's hard to argue with Hipmonlee's suggestion. The Dig/Fly glitch is game breaking, but IT CAN BE UNDONE while still adhering to pure cartridge mechanics. Let's take advantage of that and EVERYBODY wins and everybody is happy. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Lutra]

So much this. Dig and Fly can be useful and in themselves not uncompetitive, so simply banning the moves full stop isn't really analogous to banning OHKO or evasion. In those cases, we're banning the moves for their typical, expected, intended results. Here we'd be looking at banning the moves because of a rare and unintended side effect. Even if pure move banning is "simple," it's a serious example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not a blind cartridge adherent, but even if I were it's hard to argue with Hipmonlee's suggestion. The Dig/Fly glitch is game breaking, but IT CAN BE UNDONE while still adhering to pure cartridge mechanics. Let's take advantage of that and EVERYBODY wins and everybody is happy. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Okay, so bans shouldn't be simple if the issue is one relatively less common intersection of a mechanic with another, Dig/Fly invulnerability state with full paralysis. Good argument.

Let's say I am a blind cartridge adherent and I demand the original set of game mechanics. If new mechanics are pushed onto to the set of mechanics, aimed at balancing, we're clearly changing the original set of game mechanics. That does not make me happy. The idea behind simple bans, is that we're removing mechanics from the original set, so not adding any of our own, even if the adding is in a less common intersection and even if the removing of mechanics by simple banning is still changing the original set of mechanics. I reckon I'd only ban hackmons.

In what sense is the Dig/Fly Glitch game breaking? I thought it doesn't cause the game to freeze or an endless battle (which increases the chances of the game freezing).

 

[Golden Gyarados]

Okay, so bans shouldn't be simple if the issue is one relatively less common intersection of a mechanic with another, Dig/Fly invulnerability state with full paralysis. Good argument.

Let's say I am a blind cartridge adherent and I demand the original set of game mechanics. If new mechanics are pushed onto to the set of mechanics, aimed at balancing, we're clearly changing the original set of game mechanics. That does not make me happy. The idea behind simple bans, is that we're removing mechanics from the original set, so not adding any of our own, even if the adding is in a less common intersection and even if the removing of mechanics by simple banning is still changing the original set of mechanics. I reckon I'd only ban hackmons.

In what sense is the Dig/Fly Glitch game breaking? I thought it doesn't cause the game to freeze or an endless battle (which increases the chances of the game freezing).

Poor use of words with "game breaking" then, I wasn't using it in the jargon sense, I was using it in the "this battle is now stupid and over" breaking sense.

But how does Hipmonlee's proposal change mechanics? You can "undo" the Dig/Fly glitch by simply using the move again, this "clause" would just require the player to do that, as a rule. The mechanics remain unchanged. Even if the simulators are adjusted to literally require the player to do so (by greying out the other attack options), that doesn't change the mechanics, it just changes the player's interface to force adherence to a fully cartridge-supported course of action.

 

[Mirabel_]

The rule itself is a mechanic, albeit a high level one.

Banlists are not mechanics because team construction is not considered a phase of play, but compulsory moves within the core gamestate for certain situations, like the "you must capture whenever possible" rule in tournament checkers. Forcing the breaking of invuln is as much of a mechanic as wrap preventing switches in later gens.

That said, as I said on PP this is just a matter of being less ambiguous about the priorities of the ruleset. I feel the community is hoping to solve too many problems at once without compromise which is why this issue remains unresolved.