As the title suggests, this thread is here to discuss how the support clause can be applied to a suspect. The reason why I came up with this is due to the reasoning for Salamence's ban from the standard metagame. Did we stretch it too far, or were we justified in our use of it on Salamence? I would like to remind potential posters that this isn't a thread to discuss why Salamence is broken or not. We already dealt with that mess in another thread. Of course, I won't be opposed to using pokemon as examples to see if they fulfill the definition of the support clause that we choose to use which is shown in the following line. Here's my opinion in this. I believe that the support clause can only be used as an argument whether a pokemon is broken or not due to being able to consistently being able to set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep. With this definition in mind, we know that Wobbuffet is broken due to the support clause since the combination of Shadow Tag and Encore can easily and consistently allow for a myriad of pokemon to set up with ease for a sweep. Meanwhile, Salamence doesn't fulfill the support characteristic due to the fact that MixMence doesn't have the ability to choose who to kill. As of such, it would be impossible to know the hole that Salamence would make on any given battle until the damage is already done. As of such, it's not possible for Salamence to provide for a sweeper on a consistent basis to allow it to sweep easier.