Maybe this will be the last sub rule revision for a while?

Mowtom

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top Community Contributor
Moderator
Blah blah don't post here if you aren't supposed to

Dogfish44 said:
I guess I'll make a formal proposal?

Here is a list of the intended "updated" rules I would like to see used, plus an actual update that would be nice for clarity on sub priority. Removal and additition. I'd be up for anyone who can simplify the example set without making it vague to do so.

  1. A substitution is made of a "Trigger" and a "Result"
  2. Substitutions either activate, or they don't.
    1. The result of a Substitute's "activation" can be changed by instance, but the trigger never changes.
  3. A pokémon's substitutions activate whenever the trigger's conditions are met, a substitution with a higher priority has not already activated for that Pokemon, and the result of that activation is legally usable.
    1. The priority of substitutions is set by the user - unless the user otherwise states, whichever sub is first in the list of substitutions they make activates first
  4. All clauses of a substitution's trigger must narrow it's scope.
  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). Attack clauses activate based on what would currently be used according to the main order set.
  6. Player 1 can substitute for Attacks, Chance, and KOs. Player 2 can substitute for Chance and KOs.Players can use Attack, Chance, and KO clauses, detailed below
    1. All clauses can be appended by 'NOT'. Note that KO Clauses appended with 'NOT' become Chance clauses.
    2. 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.
    3. You can make a substitution trigger on the 'successful' usage of a move. Such a clause is treated as both a Chance Clause and Move Clause, obeying rules for both
    4. 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.
  7. If a substitution causes an infinite loop, then it is ignored. If two or more substitutions would cause an infinite loop, ignore the substitution made by the player who ordered later. If the substitutions were ordered at the same time (Either a single player ordering, or in brawl orders where all player orders are treated as simultaneous), then both are deemed illegal.
  8. If, ordering second, your substitution would cause the Trigger of an opponent's substitution which has already legally activated to no longer have it's unknown conditions met (Such as 'AND NOT Encore next action), then it is ignored.
  9. In each sub, each action (Action 1, Action 2, Prior action, This action, etc.) can only have one attack clause per Pokémon out.
    • To clarify, let's say you're using Gigalith vs your opponent's Mantine.

      The substitution "IF Wide Guard AND you are to use Rock Slide THEN Stone Edge" would be legal, since it has one attack clause for Mantine, and one attack clause for Gigalith.

      The substitution "IF Damaging Flying Attack AND NOT Air Slash THEN Iron Defense" would be illegal, since it has two attack clauses for Mantine, both of which are being used to cover the same action (In this case, "This action")

      The substitution "IF Endure AND NOT Rest on the following action THEN Toxic" would be legal, since although it has two attack clauses on one mon, each of these clauses is on a seperate action (In this case, "This Action" and "The Following Action").

      In larger formats, if a Pokémon is not specified as the user of a move, then the move is counted as that sub's attack clause for that action for all opponents. As such, in the matchup of A and B vs C and D "IF NOT Protective/Evasive AND C does not use Wide Guard THEN..." would be illegal, since it subs for C using both "Not Protective/Evasive" and "Not Wide Guard" at the same time. However, "IF D does not use a Protective/Evasive action AND C does not use Wide Guard THEN..." would be legal, since the above issue does not occur.
Click to expand...

There are 4 subquestions for this proposal and 1 other question. In order:

1) Rule 3 & 3.1:
a) Adopt the updated segments
b) Leave as is

2) Rule 6.2:
a) Do not adopt
b) Adopt

3) Rule 6.4:
a) Do not adopt
b) Adopt

4) Rule 9:
a) Leave as is
b) Adopt "One attack clause per Pokemon per action" (With the clarifications proposed)
c) Adopt "Attack clauses at most equal to the number of Pokémon on the field at the start of the round, subtract one"

5) Substitution Classes:
a) Add in a 'Self-KOing Move' substitution class for Explosion, Memento, etc.
b) Do not.

For Q4 list in order of preference, for the others pick your favorite

deadfox081 Glacier Knight Its_A_Random Mowtom Texas Cloverleaf

FROSTYEDIT: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ title
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adopt all

then adopt future fixes for the orders that break this sub set

B C A
 
Last edited:
I figure that if I keep using this thread, the title will still be true lol.

Options:
a) Keep the "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." sub limitation
b) Remove the "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." sub limitation
Click to expand...

Dogfish44
deadfox081
ZhengTann
Texas Cloverleaf
Maxim

pick one.
 
b) Remove the "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." sub limitation
 
a) Keep the "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." sub limitation

I still just don't like the idea of entirely NOT subs
 
b) Remove the "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." sub limitation

Yes, I share DFs' sentiments.
 
Last edited:
b) Remove the "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." sub limitation
 
Okay. Hopefully we've all got our votes correct.... Majority on b)

"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." is no longer a limiter to Substitutions. This means:
  • "IF Aggron NOT P/E AND Sableye NOT Taunt, THEN Taunt," is LEGAL
  • "IF Sableye NOT Taunt AND IF Gardevoir NOT SNATCH, THEN Imprison" is LEGAL
  • "IF Sableye NOT Taunt AND IF Sableye NOT SNATCH, THEN Imprison" is ILLEGAL
Reasoning being:
  1. In Singles, you can only have one clause since you only have one active opponent mon.
  2. In Doubles, where you have two opponents (say, Sableye and Gallade), you can have one clause for Gallade and one for Sableye.
  3. Same principle applies for Triples and above. Also applies where one or some of your opponent's mons are left at the end of match.
Now allow me to sleep on it while some mod does the grunt work of making it comprehensible to people and put it in Handbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top