1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Removing the "egg rule"

Discussion in 'Little Cup' started by eric the espeon, Nov 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. umbarsc

    umbarsc

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,000
    First, you haven't even bothered to explain why complexity is a bad thing. It's not as if banning Selfdestruct Munchlax (yes I know that that's not what we're doing, but that's the only actual implication of this rule) makes it difficult for someone new to LC to start playing.

    Second, you are changing a fundamental rule of LC. "Must be able to have hatched from an egg" seems like a pretty fundamental part of LC. In fact, your own definition from bulbapedia contradicts your own standpoint:

    First, note: "officially for Pokemon hatched from an egg". Next, and the more important point: "they follow the same restrictions as the others", which means that if a wild Pokemon gets a move that a hatched Pokemon doesn't (Selfdestruct), then it isn't legal under this definition, so in this instance you clearly are straying from what LC intended.

    It's cool if you're a LC purist and think that we ought not change any rules, and it's cool if you think it's ok to change a couple dumb rules while still being true to the "spirit" of LC, but you can't be both. Let's just have a little consistency.
  2. Dubulous

    Dubulous I look just like Buddy Holly.
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,121
    umbarsc, read the second part of your quote.

    "Pokémon caught in the wild can be entered as well"

    the pokewalker is, to my understanding, the same thing as catching something from the wild. you can't just pick and choose which points you look at, since the second part is the damning evidence in this case. if we could play with, for example, a self-destruct munchlax in the original little cup (impossible i know, but think hypothetically) why shouldn't we be able to play with it in our little cup, which is based off of the original little cup?

    if anything, changing this rule emphasizes consistency, since the rule that we have in place now actually limits the pokemon that could be entered (again, theoretically) in the original little cup.
  3. 420

    420

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    245
    So, lets just hypothetically say Bubble Squirtle was accidentally banned long ago and nobody noticed it till today. By your logic there is no point in removing the ban because the ban doesn't effect the metagame at all, even though the ban is completely pointless. Makes sense I guess. But where do you draw the line on what makes something useless. Bubblebeam? Surf? What if the pokemon in question was Murkrow?
  4. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,574
    I'm trying to stay out of this argument since the majority voiced their opinion and whatever, but when there are arguments such as this I cannot help but respond.

    Your hypothetical situation does not apply to this situation at hand. It would have made sense if "Bubble Squirtle is not obtainable when hatched from an egg, and now we want to remove this rule", because that applies. Your example involves banning. This isn't a change in the basic rules of Little Cup, this is a banning of a specific Pokemon.

    Selfdestruct Munchlax is not "banned". It is "disallowed" for not fitting the rule description of Little Cup because of an uncompetitive technicality. This is the same as Rotom, for example. We have decided that uncompetitive technicalities should remain even at the cost of a competitive advantage previously, so why go against that now? (Eric, yes I know you think it simplifies the metagame and I'll agree to disagree, this post is aimed at the person responding to my post)

    My argument is that we should not change the rules of little cup for little to no reason when we have previously decided that the rules "should not be changed". I and many others would find it hypocritical to do so. We can't just change one rule if we aren't willing to consider changing others. Well we can, but we can't do it without being hypocritical.

    Quoted for truth.
  5. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Given that this rule is useless competitively, and has extremely little support (including umbarsc's own quote!), and the agreement of all LC policymakers, the rule is officially removed from the ruleset.

    Also, Rotom discussion is over. It's been discussed to death, and it's not happening. Don't derail any more threads with it.

    EDIT: Here is the official stance on this rule.

    - This rule has no competitive effect due to Pomeg Glitch allowing fully-evolved Pokemon to hatch from eggs.
    - With no effect, the rule has no use.
    - Less rules > more rules.
    - This rule is also not in ANY of Nintendo's LC rulesets.

    Therefore, removing a rule with zero effect from the ruleset is optimal.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)