-
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!
Substitutions Overhaul
- Thread starter Frosty
- Start date
Since we're not allowed to talk about Substitutions here (despite being brought up in the OP, Pwnemon), I figured it was finally time to talk about it right here instead.
So here's the whole thing pretty much: Levitate (the Ability and the Command), Magnet Rise and Telekineses would all give the user a new condition that we would call something like Hovering or Levitating. This condition would be put into its own sub class that could be subbed against.
This is pretty much as detailed as it's going to get, I think. I've met some very positive reactions to this, and no actual negative feedback after it was fleshed out. Does anyone have any comments or feedback about this?
So here's the whole thing pretty much: Levitate (the Ability and the Command), Magnet Rise and Telekineses would all give the user a new condition that we would call something like Hovering or Levitating. This condition would be put into its own sub class that could be subbed against.
This is pretty much as detailed as it's going to get, I think. I've met some very positive reactions to this, and no actual negative feedback after it was fleshed out. Does anyone have any comments or feedback about this?
So IAR said to post this here rather than in the Self-Targeting Moves discussion, so I am.
We should have a new type of substitution, effectiveness substitutions: IF [move] would [not affect/be resisted by/do normal damage to/be super-effective against] [target] THEN [do this]. This would be useful against things like skill swapped/role played levitate/flash fire/sap sipper/etc., Protean, Levitate (Command)/Magnet Rise/Telekinesis (Self), and others. It would take up a move substitution.
We should have a new type of substitution, effectiveness substitutions: IF [move] would [not affect/be resisted by/do normal damage to/be super-effective against] [target] THEN [do this]. This would be useful against things like skill swapped/role played levitate/flash fire/sap sipper/etc., Protean, Levitate (Command)/Magnet Rise/Telekinesis (Self), and others. It would take up a move substitution.
I agree with Avnomke's idea. I think that, to help with subbing for Protean/Color Change, we could make ineffective or resisted count as one.
Now that I think about it, I think that Avnomke's idea is actually better - not that Levitating wouldn't be totally legitimate as a new condition, but that it does cover a lot of room for possibilities (see: Birkal's Crayons).
Also, Levitate, Levitate (Command), Magnet Rise and Telekinesis don't give you total Ground immunity, just immunity to some of the most important Ground-type moves (i.e. Earthquake and Bulldoze) as well as 3 BAP reduction for Earth Power and an immunity to Dig as long as other certain conditions are/not met. It does nothing against moves like Mud Shot and Sand Tomb.
Also, Levitate, Levitate (Command), Magnet Rise and Telekinesis don't give you total Ground immunity, just immunity to some of the most important Ground-type moves (i.e. Earthquake and Bulldoze) as well as 3 BAP reduction for Earth Power and an immunity to Dig as long as other certain conditions are/not met. It does nothing against moves like Mud Shot and Sand Tomb.
In light of recent rulings, I'll point out that while Telekinesis (Self) is no longer viable, it still has the same effects that it always did. In other words, let's not forget about Telekinesis completely.
Also, I forgot about this until recently, but the consumable item Air Balloon has basically the same effects as all the other methods listed above. It does work with Dig a little differently by comparison though.
Also, I forgot about this until recently, but the consumable item Air Balloon has basically the same effects as all the other methods listed above. It does work with Dig a little differently by comparison though.
I want to discuss one thing (actually I want to discuss many things, but will only do so with this one) regarding NOT clauses and attacks being ordered/used.
Going straight to the point: If this precedent holds water, then afaik there is no way to put up a p/e sub without being screwed by protect*3.
I mean, we usually use either:
a) IF P/E is used successfully
b) IF X is under the effect of successful P/E
c) IF P/E AND a P/E move wasn't used on the turn prior THEN
If we consider that action = action ordered, then "a" and "b" are activated every time protect is ordered, regardless of its success.
Also, if we consider that action used = action ordered = Attack Clause, then c is illegal because you can't use NOT before Attack Clause.
I understand that sub rules are important etc, but they are still a tad too restrictive IMO. I mean, right now even if I manage to forsee specific moves or situations being a problem I still can't do anything about them when ordering first due to technicalities (aka bs). Sure we must avoid people abusing "IF Damaging Fire move AND not fire blast AND not flamethrower AND not ember AND not Lava Plume AND not Incinerate AND not Mystical Fire AND not Blue Flare AND not Fusion Flare AND not *insert special fire move I forgot* THEN Counter" subs, but we shouldn't go the other route. There is a MASSIVE second-to-order advantage in ASB and a restrictive set of subs only make that worse.
Dunno what to suggest...maybe allow one "NOT"? Or put "if MOVE is used sucessfully" and "if MOVE is used" as condition clauses?
Going straight to the point: If this precedent holds water, then afaik there is no way to put up a p/e sub without being screwed by protect*3.
I mean, we usually use either:
a) IF P/E is used successfully
b) IF X is under the effect of successful P/E
c) IF P/E AND a P/E move wasn't used on the turn prior THEN
If we consider that action = action ordered, then "a" and "b" are activated every time protect is ordered, regardless of its success.
Also, if we consider that action used = action ordered = Attack Clause, then c is illegal because you can't use NOT before Attack Clause.
I understand that sub rules are important etc, but they are still a tad too restrictive IMO. I mean, right now even if I manage to forsee specific moves or situations being a problem I still can't do anything about them when ordering first due to technicalities (aka bs). Sure we must avoid people abusing "IF Damaging Fire move AND not fire blast AND not flamethrower AND not ember AND not Lava Plume AND not Incinerate AND not Mystical Fire AND not Blue Flare AND not Fusion Flare AND not *insert special fire move I forgot* THEN Counter" subs, but we shouldn't go the other route. There is a MASSIVE second-to-order advantage in ASB and a restrictive set of subs only make that worse.
Dunno what to suggest...maybe allow one "NOT"? Or put "if MOVE is used sucessfully" and "if MOVE is used" as condition clauses?
"However, despite the terminology used, the substitution with that clause will activate if the right move is ordered, regardless of whether or not the move is actually successfully used."
Or we just remove/edit that nonsense and the problem is solved. Given successfully is used to mean a protect that doesn't "fail"
Also there was some conjecture regarding the word not that I'm forgetting. Basically it had to do with people interpreting the word NOT too broadly, i.e. taking IF P/E AND a P/E move was not used on the turn prior... as illegal when the intent is to prevent if sub clause AND NOT move, etc
Or we just remove/edit that nonsense and the problem is solved. Given successfully is used to mean a protect that doesn't "fail"
Also there was some conjecture regarding the word not that I'm forgetting. Basically it had to do with people interpreting the word NOT too broadly, i.e. taking IF P/E AND a P/E move was not used on the turn prior... as illegal when the intent is to prevent if sub clause AND NOT move, etc
Wrong. You can use "If Pokemon X fails to act (because, for example, you hit yourself in confusion or are fully paralyzed), do Y.", and then put NOT before it and put an and to p/e move. It would be worded "If the target uses a p/e move and the target does not fail to act, then use move X." That is a more wordy way of saying "If successful p/e, then X."
Stratos
Banned deucer.
in a fit of rage texas put me in charge of this thread discussion (do u even remember this texas?) so i figure i should probably comment
Frosty: the original post that you linked from me carried a long invective against the sub rules that allowed me to do that, but texas edited it out :(
We still need an "AND othermove is used otheraction" in my opinion for one reason: Encore. you can kiss goodbye to about 2/3 of your subs if you're trying to sub vs a faster Pokemon that has encore. "If protect, use substitute?" ha gl. "if sucker punch, use willowisp" yeah ok try it bud. etc etc. There is no valid way to make your sub not activate if the following action is encore under the current sub rules. "and othermove other action" was always a valid sub class before we adopted engis rules and it should be now.
(at a later time i'd like to address nots but baby steps, baby steps)
Frosty: the original post that you linked from me carried a long invective against the sub rules that allowed me to do that, but texas edited it out :(
We still need an "AND othermove is used otheraction" in my opinion for one reason: Encore. you can kiss goodbye to about 2/3 of your subs if you're trying to sub vs a faster Pokemon that has encore. "If protect, use substitute?" ha gl. "if sucker punch, use willowisp" yeah ok try it bud. etc etc. There is no valid way to make your sub not activate if the following action is encore under the current sub rules. "and othermove other action" was always a valid sub class before we adopted engis rules and it should be now.
(at a later time i'd like to address nots but baby steps, baby steps)
Fails to act = can't do anything. Protect fails = tried to use protect but it failed. Both things are different. Fails to act is applicable to hitting self in confusion, full paralysis, attract etc, when the pokemon can't do anything. But it doesn't apply if the attack itself fails as the pokemon acted (even to use a move that failed).
Okay can we please discuss things like this:
IF Fidgit is under the effects of (Protective/Evasive Move) when you act, THEN use Chill that action.
IF Fidgit is under the invulnerable stages of Dig when you act, THEN use Chill that action.
The thing is you are trying to combine a chance substitution and a move substitution of sorts. Then we have things like.
IF Fidgit is under the effects of (Protective/Evasive Move) when you act, AND Colossoil is not under the effects of (Protective/Evasive Move) when you act, THEN use Chill that action.
Because nobody ever green lighted those and not rules I proposed on the previous page, this brings up a dilemma. Currently, NOT (Chance sub) is legal, while NOT (Move sub) is not legal. What the hell would the example substitutions be classed under? At the moment it is like you are using a move sub as a chance sub and can be seen as a pretty big loophole assuming it is ultimately a chance substitution.
So... clarify I guess?
IF Fidgit is under the effects of (Protective/Evasive Move) when you act, THEN use Chill that action.
IF Fidgit is under the invulnerable stages of Dig when you act, THEN use Chill that action.
The thing is you are trying to combine a chance substitution and a move substitution of sorts. Then we have things like.
IF Fidgit is under the effects of (Protective/Evasive Move) when you act, AND Colossoil is not under the effects of (Protective/Evasive Move) when you act, THEN use Chill that action.
Because nobody ever green lighted those and not rules I proposed on the previous page, this brings up a dilemma. Currently, NOT (Chance sub) is legal, while NOT (Move sub) is not legal. What the hell would the example substitutions be classed under? At the moment it is like you are using a move sub as a chance sub and can be seen as a pretty big loophole assuming it is ultimately a chance substitution.
So... clarify I guess?
I'd argue that being "under the effects of a Protective / Evasive Action" is a move substitution, not a chance substitution: you're making a substitution for a specific move (or a move class, in this case), albeit an narrower subset. Same thing for the Damaging Evasive Attack class. This solves your problem nicely as well!
*casts resurrection*
Erm...reviving this thread.
I would like to propose that we include a paragraph on the handbook regarding Sub interaction. Something like:
Wording is bad and can be redone, but that is the general idea. The current rules don't mention much about sub interaction and, why it is a bit more advanced than the usual subs we see, sub interactions provide tools for very nice substitutions on higher level plays and have to be accounted for. IMO.
Erm...reviving this thread.
I would like to propose that we include a paragraph on the handbook regarding Sub interaction. Something like:
It is possible for a Substitution to interact with other substitutions, whether on the First or the Second half of the substitution. So clauses like:
If Magmortar's second substitution is to be activated THEN ...
If Chansey's first substitution activates for the second time THEN ...
If Rain Dance AND Eelektross's first substitution doesn't activate THEN ...'
If (...) THEN Disregard Aipom's first sub
If (...) THEN Rain Dance AND Replace Thunderbolt on the first sub with Thunder
If (...) THEN (...) AND Replace all instances of Hyper Voice with Surf, including on substitutions
are acceptable.
Also, it is possible that two or more substitutions activate on a given situation, as long as there isn't any conflict between them. To give one example, consider the following actions:
Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor)
IF P/E THEN Redirect towards Mr. Mime
IF Rain Dance is up THEN Thunder
If, on A2, Rain is up and the pokemon uses a P/E, the first sub activates and the second too and there isn't a conflict between them (it is logically possible for both to be applied on the same action). So, due to first sub, the attack is redirected to Mr. Mime and, due to the second sub, that attacks turns from a Sludge Bomb into a Thunder. In the end, in A2, said pokemon will use Thunder on Mr. Mime.
But if there is a conflict between the substitutions, then the player can specify which one has priority or, if they don't do so, the first one is applied. So, for example, consider the following actionset:
Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor)
IF P/E THEN Sludge Bomb towards Mr. Mime
IF Rain Dance is up THEN Thunder
In that case, the first sub calls specifically for Sludge Bomb on Mr. Mime, while the second calls for Thunder. Since it isn't possible for that pokemon to use Thunder and Sludge Bomb at the same time, the substitutions are mutually exclusive and the first one takes priority, ending with Sludge Bomb on Mr. Mime
If Magmortar's second substitution is to be activated THEN ...
If Chansey's first substitution activates for the second time THEN ...
If Rain Dance AND Eelektross's first substitution doesn't activate THEN ...'
If (...) THEN Disregard Aipom's first sub
If (...) THEN Rain Dance AND Replace Thunderbolt on the first sub with Thunder
If (...) THEN (...) AND Replace all instances of Hyper Voice with Surf, including on substitutions
are acceptable.
Also, it is possible that two or more substitutions activate on a given situation, as long as there isn't any conflict between them. To give one example, consider the following actions:
Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor)
IF P/E THEN Redirect towards Mr. Mime
IF Rain Dance is up THEN Thunder
If, on A2, Rain is up and the pokemon uses a P/E, the first sub activates and the second too and there isn't a conflict between them (it is logically possible for both to be applied on the same action). So, due to first sub, the attack is redirected to Mr. Mime and, due to the second sub, that attacks turns from a Sludge Bomb into a Thunder. In the end, in A2, said pokemon will use Thunder on Mr. Mime.
But if there is a conflict between the substitutions, then the player can specify which one has priority or, if they don't do so, the first one is applied. So, for example, consider the following actionset:
Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor) - Sludge Bomb (Staraptor)
IF P/E THEN Sludge Bomb towards Mr. Mime
IF Rain Dance is up THEN Thunder
In that case, the first sub calls specifically for Sludge Bomb on Mr. Mime, while the second calls for Thunder. Since it isn't possible for that pokemon to use Thunder and Sludge Bomb at the same time, the substitutions are mutually exclusive and the first one takes priority, ending with Sludge Bomb on Mr. Mime
Wording is bad and can be redone, but that is the general idea. The current rules don't mention much about sub interaction and, why it is a bit more advanced than the usual subs we see, sub interactions provide tools for very nice substitutions on higher level plays and have to be accounted for. IMO.
We're going to want to specify somehow that these are a subset of chance subs and thus can only affect actions that happen after you trigger the sub. I've had new players try to do the following or similar:
Player 1: Roost -> Peck -> Peck
If he uses Taunt A1 use Peck instead
Player 2: Taunt -> Peck -> Peck
If his substitution activates A1 use Peck on A1 instead
Obviously this shouldn't work, so I'd like some sort of clarification on it that expressly disallows it. Also I thought we agreed that instead of explicitly declaring sub priority and allowing disregarding previous subs we were going to just make it so that the highest one has top priority? Not really a big issue (I prefer the explicit system myself, with the ordering system only coming into play if no explicit priority is given), and maybe I'm misremembering (this all happened while I was gone and I'm basically going off what I remember from skimming this thread before), but if that was the decision made then some changes will need to be made to your blurb.
Player 1: Roost -> Peck -> Peck
If he uses Taunt A1 use Peck instead
Player 2: Taunt -> Peck -> Peck
If his substitution activates A1 use Peck on A1 instead
Obviously this shouldn't work, so I'd like some sort of clarification on it that expressly disallows it. Also I thought we agreed that instead of explicitly declaring sub priority and allowing disregarding previous subs we were going to just make it so that the highest one has top priority? Not really a big issue (I prefer the explicit system myself, with the ordering system only coming into play if no explicit priority is given), and maybe I'm misremembering (this all happened while I was gone and I'm basically going off what I remember from skimming this thread before), but if that was the decision made then some changes will need to be made to your blurb.
Can it be codified what happens if there are subs that lead to infinite loops in send orders via PM matches?
For an example:
Player A: Close Combat - Drain Punch - Close Combat
If Player B's pokemon uses Counter, use Swords Dance and push back.
Player B: moves not named Counter go here
If Player A's pokemon uses Close Combat, use Counter.
This would cause Player B's sub to activate and his pokemon would use Counter, thus activating Player A's sub and causing his pokemon to use Swords Dance, thus no longer activating Player B's sub so Player A's sub is no longer active, leading into an infinite loop.
Another example:
Player A: Close Combat - Close Combat - Close Combat
If Player B's pokemon uses Close Combat, use Counter.
Player B: Close Combat - Close Combat - Close Combat
If Player A's pokemon uses Close Combat, use Counter.
This is a similar premise, but slightly different effects.
For an example:
Player A: Close Combat - Drain Punch - Close Combat
If Player B's pokemon uses Counter, use Swords Dance and push back.
Player B: moves not named Counter go here
If Player A's pokemon uses Close Combat, use Counter.
This would cause Player B's sub to activate and his pokemon would use Counter, thus activating Player A's sub and causing his pokemon to use Swords Dance, thus no longer activating Player B's sub so Player A's sub is no longer active, leading into an infinite loop.
Another example:
Player A: Close Combat - Close Combat - Close Combat
If Player B's pokemon uses Close Combat, use Counter.
Player B: Close Combat - Close Combat - Close Combat
If Player A's pokemon uses Close Combat, use Counter.
This is a similar premise, but slightly different effects.
In the first example, the Counter sub is illegal anyways, because by the time Counter is used it is already too late to switch to Swords Dance. If it were worded "Pokemon B is ordered to use Counter" it would be legal.
By the same premise one of the subs in the second example would be illegal depending on the Speed stats of the mons in question. In that case the problem is entirely solved.
Also I'm pretty sure that "IF Pokemon B is ordered to use Counter" only looks at main orders, so I think we're fine there too. Although that could use some clarification.
By the same premise one of the subs in the second example would be illegal depending on the Speed stats of the mons in question. In that case the problem is entirely solved.
Also I'm pretty sure that "IF Pokemon B is ordered to use Counter" only looks at main orders, so I think we're fine there too. Although that could use some clarification.
Uhh, no, they are very different. IF x uses y activates upon the usage of the move, whereas IF x is ordered to use y activates at the beginning of the round due to the move in question being ordered. You can also order a move and fail (due to Encore/Disable/Taunt/Torment etc.), activating the second but not the first.
Something else that should be clarified imo
Geodude6
Look at my shiny CT!
AOPSUser: The only difference is the terminology used. They are the same. They are treated the same. If you really want to get your Spiderman underoos in a twist over this, go for it. But go complain on IRC, not this thread.
#minimodding
Mulan15262: The loop-causing subs simply cancel each other out, as I've seen multiple times in multiple places. But still, it would be nice to have this in the handbook.
IAR EDIT: Do not minimod you john
#minimodding
Mulan15262: The loop-causing subs simply cancel each other out, as I've seen multiple times in multiple places. But still, it would be nice to have this in the handbook.
IAR EDIT: Do not minimod you john
Last edited by a moderator:
Hang on a sec. Going back to my example:
Player 1: Roost -> Peck -> Peck
If he uses Taunt A1 use Peck instead
Player 2: Taunt -> Peck -> Peck
If his substitution activates A1 use Peck on A1 instead
If what you're saying is true and both subs cancel out, that's no good; that completely and utterly invalidates the entire point of Attack subs. In this scenario, if these subs cancel out, then Player 1 uses Roost and Player 2 uses Taunt which completely defeats the purpose of subbing for Taunt in the first place! If that's actually how it works then this NEEDS to be fixed.
*sigh*
In brawls, where orders are PMed in, Substitution Conflicts are common. They cancel out and are ignored. If this isn't in handbook already I'll move it there, it's something that probably ended up missing.
As for subbing for other substitutions activating, I'm going to say "No". We already have the Chance Clause to specify not activating implemented, which doesn't tend to end in infinite loops.
In brawls, where orders are PMed in, Substitution Conflicts are common. They cancel out and are ignored. If this isn't in handbook already I'll move it there, it's something that probably ended up missing.
As for subbing for other substitutions activating, I'm going to say "No". We already have the Chance Clause to specify not activating implemented, which doesn't tend to end in infinite loops.