Unifying Baton Pass Clause, second try

Baton Pass Clause should be:

  • Baton Pass is banned (completely)

    Votes: 97 68.3%
  • different in every tier

    Votes: 45 31.7%

  • Total voters
    142

Sam

why not seize the pleasure at once?
is a Super Moderatoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Super Moderator
#26
For the point of this thread though, BP is a clause that each tier can modify. Given then complexity with BP given above it can vary between tiers and I would like to have each tier's clause be as non-restrictive as possible. It isn't really a huge issue so I think it makes sense to keep it as it is.
 

wishes

lavender lamborghini
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
#27
hey, question

Eevee @ Eevium Z
Ability: Adaptability
EVs: 252 HP / 4 Atk / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Curse
- Baton Pass
- Protect
- Last Resort

this is banned by ou clause, but couldn't it theoretically use its z move, then curse down two to make it so it's passing stats, but not speed? it's a little dumb intricacy but it would be semi-viable on things like pyukumuku. so shouldn't this be legal or did i miss something?

(p.s. i've been a supporter of any boost+baton pass being banned, which fixes this, but that's clearly not gonna happen soon i think, so yeah)
 

Acast

Classy af
is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
#28
hey, question

Eevee @ Eevium Z
Ability: Adaptability
EVs: 252 HP / 4 Atk / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Curse
- Baton Pass
- Protect
- Last Resort

this is banned by ou clause, but couldn't it theoretically use its z move, then curse down two to make it so it's passing stats, but not speed? it's a little dumb intricacy but it would be semi-viable on things like pyukumuku. so shouldn't this be legal or did i miss something?

(p.s. i've been a supporter of any boost+baton pass being banned, which fixes this, but that's clearly not gonna happen soon i think, so yeah)
But it still has the capability to pass speed+other stats, which is why it's not allowed under the current Baton Pass Clause. If you're implying that we should restrict people from using Baton Pass on Eevee until they've used Curse twice, then you're saying we should mess with the mechanics of the game itself, which Smogon just doesn't do outside of extreme cases like Sleep Clause. You would be adding an unusually complex restriction just so people can use one gimmicky Eevee set. I don't see the value in that.
 
#30
For the point of this thread though, BP is a clause that each tier can modify. Given then complexity with BP given above it can vary between tiers and I would like to have each tier's clause be as non-restrictive as possible. It isn't really a huge issue so I think it makes sense to keep it as it is.
I can agree with the sentiment of letting each tier decide differently on BP, but I don't think it makes sense to have any options other than "have BP banned" and "don't have BP banned". I don't see why BP being a complex move should mean it deserves to have a bunch of different complex bans in place just to keep it legal in some form. In gen 6, way too much time and effort was spent arguing about and testing a move that was obviously the core problem in many cases of various things being broken. I really just don't think it's worth it to just spend tons of time and energy coming up with and then voting on a bunch of new and different clauses when a lot of the time they end up not working anyway, usually when either a mon drops or people start using some new strategy with BP that wiggles around the current clause but still ends up being broken. It's really just a waste of everyone's time when you have a move that causes several broken strategies to appear even after being heavily restricted (which happened because it was clearly the problem beforehand) get tested several times just to have all of that time be for nothing when the clause that had been devised yet again hasn't sufficiently nerfed the move.

The bottom line is: I don't think BP should be given the special snowflake treatment unless the benefits of doing so outweigh all the ridiculous hoops that end up needing to be jumped through. While drypass can have positive effects on some metagames, I really don't think "it can sometimes have a positive effect but usually doesn't" is enough.

There's also the fact that "it can vary between tiers" is somewhat misleading; almost every time you have something remotely usable that gets BP + a move that raises any offensive stat it ends up being broken, regardless of what the actual meta is like. Baton Pass chains were never given a chance in lower tiers but I really, really doubt they wouldn't have been a problem. This is hardly the case of "this is broken in some tiers but fine in others" but rather a case of "if a Pokemon that is remotely usable on its own has a certain (relatively common, I might add) combination of moves, it will almost always be broken, it just depends on if a Pokemon like that exists or not". To me this very much says that Baton Passing as a mechanic is inherently broken in singles metagames and should just be banned rather than wasting our time on it over and over again.
 

Kink

www.soundcloud.com/keylontix
is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#31
I'm against banning Baton Pass in its entirety. Instead I believe that banning Baton Pass + Stat Boosts is the proper first start. I'm not too concerned with ban transivity (although I think in general every tier deserves to address this independently), this is a perspective of why I wouldn't support such a ban. Here is a post from the NP thread during the UU suspect test that offers my opinions on why I believe Baton Pass should retain drypassing, at least until it's proven to be unhealthy/uncompetitive.
I'll be voting to ban Baton Pass + Stat Boosts. I don't think other variants of Baton Pass (drypassing, subpassing, wishpassing) are unhealthy in any way, and I have no desire to get rid of more than what I think is necessary. If Baton Pass is still a problem (which I don't think it will be) after this test, then I'll gladly revisit my opinion and change it to remove BP as a whole. As of right now, all that I see is that passing stat-boosts is an unhealthy element in our tier which is disproportionately affecting viability and team versatility while promoting skilless play. My decision reflects that. If Gen 7 causes us more Baton Pass problems, I'll gladly participate in addressing those problems at the appropriate time. I'd rather a slower process where we make decisions step-by-step rather than skipping steps. Something about getting full marks in math class.

Hopefully this perspective will add to the discussion to some degree, and if anyone has questions as to why I think the way I do I'll be happy to provide more justification.
 
Last edited:
#32
I'm against banning Baton Pass in its entirety. Instead I believe that banning Baton Pass + Stat Boosts is the proper first start. I'm not too concerned with ban transivity (although I think in general every tier deserves to address this independently), this is a perspective of why I wouldn't support such a ban. Here is a post from the NP thread during the UU suspect test that offers my opinions on why I believe Baton Pass should retain drypassing, at least until it's proven to be unhealthy/uncompetitive.
I'll be voting to ban Baton Pass + Stat Boosts. I don't think other variants of Baton Pass (drypassing, subpassing, wishpassing) are unhealthy in any way, and I have no desire to get rid of more than what I think is necessary. If Baton Pass is still a problem (which I don't think it will be) after this test, then I'll gladly revisit my opinion and change it to remove BP as a whole. As of right now, all that I see is that passing stat-boosts is an unhealthy element in our tier which is disproportionately affecting viability and team versatility while promoting skilless play. My decision reflects that. If Gen 7 causes us more Baton Pass problems, I'll gladly participate in addressing those problems at the appropriate time. I'd rather a slower process where we make decisions step-by-step rather than skipping steps. Something about getting full marks in math class.

Hopefully this perspective will add to the discussion to some degree, and if anyone has questions as to why I think the way I do I'll be happy to provide more justification.
What exactly do you want to ban? You can say "ban bp + boosts" all you want but that isn't actually a solution because you can't just ban a concept; you need either an in-battle clause or a teambuilder ban. I've already explained why both of those options are very messy in a previous post in this thread, so if you want to propose a specific ban of either of these types then you should also respond to my concerns (which no one has even attempted to respond to yet, by the way).
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
RU Co-Leader
#33
What exactly do you want to ban? You can say "ban bp + boosts" all you want but that isn't actually a solution because you can't just ban a concept; you need either an in-battle clause or a teambuilder ban. I've already explained why both of those options are very messy in a previous post in this thread, so if you want to propose a specific ban of either of these types then you should also respond to my concerns (which no one has even attempted to respond to yet, by the way).
Ban BP + boosting moves in the same set, its pretty obvious? People can still pass boosts if they get Swaggered / Flattered, but how is that intrinsically different than switching a different pokemon in on those moves? When you use those moves you are accepting the fact that one of your opponent's pokemon is going to be receiving boosts that it may not be able to get under other circumstances so who cares if they get them by being baton passed into. I guess maybe there is something else I'm missing (like maybe you are asking if ancient power counts or meteor mash or w/e and I guess I'm not really sure what people are advocating (I'd assume no they don't count personally)), but I feel like you are just being pretty pedantic if you couldn't make the jump from ban baton passing boosts to ban baton pass and boosting moves on the same set.


Not personally advocating that we change or implement a clause that does such a thing, but this seemed pretty obvious to me (at least I hope people aren't advocating for bp to "fail" if used with boosts or something of the sort, one mechanic breaking clause is enough).
 
#34
Ban BP + boosting moves in the same set, its pretty obvious? People can still pass boosts if they get Swaggered / Flattered, but how is that intrinsically different than switching a different pokemon in on those moves? When you use those moves you are accepting the fact that one of your opponent's pokemon is going to be receiving boosts that it may not be able to get under other circumstances so who cares if they get them by being baton passed into. I guess maybe there is something else I'm missing (like maybe you are asking if ancient power counts or meteor mash or w/e and I guess I'm not really sure what people are advocating (I'd assume no they don't count personally)), but I feel like you are just being pretty pedantic if you couldn't make the jump from ban baton passing boosts to ban baton pass and boosting moves on the same set.


Not personally advocating that we change or implement a clause that does such a thing, but this seemed pretty obvious to me (at least I hope people aren't advocating for bp to "fail" if used with boosts or something of the sort, one mechanic breaking clause is enough).
I addressed this but it doesn't cover Speed Boost and involves moves like Metal Claw and Steel Wing, unless you want to say "only this list of 30 or however many moves" which is really dumb to have to remember. The best option I can think of is "Baton Pass + any move that has a 100% chance of raising stats or any ability that can raise stats" but that's still really messy and in my opinion we'd be better off just banning the move.
 

Acast

Classy af
is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
#35
I have to agree with Magnemite. Where do you draw the line? Is Baton Pass + Defiant okay? What about Baton Pass + Rattled? Weak Armor? Charge Beam? If you set the line at "any move that has 100% chance of boosting a stat + Baton Pass", then what about Contrary+Superpower+Baton Pass? Spinda has access to that combination, so it could easily be a loophole in the clause. It just gets too messy and there are too many details that would need to be ironed out. Unless we decide to keep things as they are, banning Baton Pass as a whole is the simplest and most effective solution.

EDIT: Ignore the crossed out part. I just realized Baton Pass + Superpower is incompatible on Spinda. My point still stands, though. It's too messy and there are too many potential loopholes.
 

Teddeh

They say I'm up and coming like I'm fucking in an elevator.
is a Tiering Contributor
#36
I don't see the need to make things so difficult for baton pass. It's well established that there are problems surrounding the move and its ability to pass boosts to things that can't get them, with the notable amount of baton pass clauses that have still come into play and the discussion to be still going on, even now into gen 7, then it's clear it's not a competitive move, despite dry pass being a thing. The easiest solution is to simply ban baton pass.
 

p2

enfuego theorist
is a Tiering Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
#37
why do people want to preserve this:
  • Baton Pass Clause: Players cannot have more than one Pokémon with the move Baton Pass. Furthermore, a Pokémon cannot have Baton Pass while also having a move or ability that boosts Speed and a move or ability that boosts another stat.
this is so disgusting and it's so so easy to avoid by banning one simple component instead of running through all these loops to try and preserve it for some inane reason

i've also had to sit and explain to some new guys on ps for at least a good 10 minutes explaining the clause and how tiers break ban transitivity just to preserve baton pass which is straight up ridiculous because these clauses should be the same for all tiers (for simplicity), and forcing transitivity for something like this just causes confusion.

if a pokemon is broken in uu and banned to bl, you can't force it into lower tiers through breaking ban transitivity, so why do we give moves a free pass and why still chase baton pass through the same loop we've been chasing it through for 2.5+ years now? put the nail in the coffin and remove absolutely all problems that could possibly occur because clearly 3+ limitations and revisits just isn't clearly isn't enough.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
RU Co-Leader
#38
I addressed this but it doesn't cover Speed Boost and involves moves like Metal Claw and Steel Wing, unless you want to say "only this list of 30 or however many moves" which is really dumb to have to remember. The best option I can think of is "Baton Pass + any move that has a 100% chance of raising stats or any ability that can raise stats" but that's still really messy and in my opinion we'd be better off just banning the move.
True forgot about abilities, not actually advocating this so I don't really want to get to far into it, but something along the lines of, "any ability or move that has a 100% chance of granting boosts is banned in conjunction with bp" (yeah this is kinda dumb :p). That being said I disagree with the implications of Acast's defog defiant example, thats kind of like arguing that we should have banned swagger cause it had the potential to make the opposing pokemon too strong (not because of the actual reason it should be banned), if the opponent wants to take the risk of defogging into a defiant mon with BP that's their problem. Contrary / Moxie / Beast Boost / Magearna's abilities are the things that would have to have some thought put into whether or not they would be allowed with BP (and not even really contrary).
if a pokemon is broken in uu and banned to bl, you can't force it into lower tiers through breaking ban transitivity, so why do we give moves a free pass and why still chase baton pass through the same loop we've been chasing it through for 2.5+ years now? put the nail in the coffin and remove absolutely all problems that could possibly occur because clearly 3+ limitations and revisits just isn't clearly isn't enough.
Smogon tiers pokemon, if UU banned Alomomola it would be BL, and because it can't be used in UU, it can't achieve the less than 3.41% usage (this is weird wording and I can clarify if people need me too). Smogon does not, and should not aim to tier moves or abilities (obviously there are times where it is necessary to ban them but what I mean to say I will clarify), if Baton Pass (or baton pass in whatever state) is banned from UU it doesn't necessarily mean it is broken in RU (as people itt seem to be indicating), and unlike a pokemon, it isn't tiered based on usage in the above tier so there is no reason it /has/ to be reflected in lower tiers (unlike with Pokemon). Just as a for instance, UU in the beginning of the generation had T-Spikes voted on as something that could be banned, it would be absolutely dumb for T-Spikes to be banned in RU when we have Venu / Flygon / Drapion as three of the better mons in the tier, even though it is theoretically possible for there to be a meta in which t spikes is broken (probably).
This is an excerpt from my post about transitivity in the RU NP thread about BP, the differences between pokemon and moves / abilities is that one of which is actually tiered (primarily via usage, but also bans) and one of which is not tiered but sometimes banned. If a meta game needs to ban a move or ability, there is no mandatory logistical reason for a lower tier to ban said move / ability (because they aren't tiered). In general I think smogon should limit the amount of "tiering" it does in regards to moves / abilities, obviously there are times when it has to be done (and bp maybe one of them), but idk I was pretty against universal transitivity when the council above us was voting on stupid shit like toxic spikes and sticky webs at the beginning of the previous gen.
 

dEnIsSsS

'scuse me while i kiss this guy
is a Tiering Contributor
#39
as the guy who proposed the baton pass clause thats currently applied in OU, i feel like i have to express my feelings and share my thoughts cause after lurking through these bp threads for so long without saying anything, i felt my mind was gonna explode.

why do people want to preserve this:
  • Baton Pass Clause: Players cannot have more than one Pokémon with the move Baton Pass. Furthermore, a Pokémon cannot have Baton Pass while also having a move or ability that boosts Speed and a move or ability that boosts another stat.
yes, that thing looks ugly as fuck, but my original proposal was to ban speed pass as well, and even though people argued that it was not broken, i still tried to convince them to just ignore this so the clause would look way less ugly and it would be much easier to understand (for newcomers), but for some reason i conceded for something i didnt really agree with, and i do regret about that. http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/unifying-baton-pass-clause.3588048/ do not pass speed boosts was the most voted option, so i guess im not alone regarding this topic.

"Baton Pass Clause: Players cannot have more than one Pokémon with the move Baton Pass. Furthermore, a Pokémon cannot have Baton Pass while also having a move or ability that boosts Speed."

doesnt look as bad, right? :s

but at the end of oras, people like njnp managed to reinvent the playstyle, which was considered as dead at some point, in an non broken way (people may argue that it was indeed a broken thing, but here is my last post about this subject: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/baton-pass-yes-again.3573973/page-4#post-6990292), and that is pretty cool IMO. anyway i just wanna say that i still support my old proposal JUST for aesthetics (and maybe to make people finally stop complaining about speedpass scolipass lol), but it would also be fine if you guys keep the way it is right now.

the "oh but blaze blaziken, torrent greninja, shadow tag wynaut etc arent broken so why they got banned" logic annoys me a lot. how can you compare irrelevant stuff like this with something that brings a whole unique dynamism to the game? non broken forms of baton pass existed since ever, and it would be a shame if we just get rid of that because of... aesthetics or whatever other arguments you can come up with. i also just dont get the "bp is a broken move" logic.

regarding the main topic of that thread, im against "unifying" baton pass clause (lol every single lower tier banned bp or is about to ban it) because when i was trying to figure out the root of the baton pass issue, i only had the ou tier in mind. the bp clause basically covers so many things such as bp chains, geopass, irondef scolipass, smashpass, and other less broken, but still annoying forms of bp such as speedless chains, quiverpass, NP/SD + rock polish mew and SD + rock polish gliscor; while still preserves many things such as drypass lopunny (this + a strong pursuit user is pretty nice. got wrecked by it when i laddered for olt), nastypass mew (once used by BLOO and tesung), bulk up mew (used by abr in spl), SD gliscorpass (tesung used that in some tour weeks. it was also brought in the ghosting tour finals lol), medicham (i still remember bluwing bringing it in some tour week against me) and many other things such as celebi, togekiss, scizor, shedinja etc. keep in mind that not every single player focus on the competitive side of the game, some just play for fun, so preserving stuff like tailglow volbeat and contrary spinda is cool.

i got slightly annoyed to see every lower tier copying ou's clause because they didnt need to do that (once again, the clause was specifically designed for the ou tier). it seems they are all going to ban bp anyway but ou really shouldnt be bothered about that because we have resources to deal with every single bp strategy. try to think a single recipient capable of being brought in safely in a metagame full of extremely powerful threats, and also not be annoyed by any sort of status, phaze etc (espeon sucks). i cant speak for sm because i havent played that enough to have a solid opinion, but im pretty sure that ONLY speedpass has potential to be annoying to deal with in this new meta considering how talonflame, twave, prankster and priority moves in general got much worse. if scolipass ever gets annoying in sm, and theres enough people bitching about it, please do not ban the move, just change the clause into what once was my ORIGINAL proposal. as long as a threat has no speed boosts, it is possible to revenge kill, strike with a powerful hit, set up alongside, trick, taunt, spread status, crit etc. sharpedo sucks in ou, so SD pass into sharpedo is not an issue.

lastly, i just wanna say that if a non speed pass strategy ever gets troublesome to deal with in ou, only then i will support a full bp ban because i would finally be convinced that my theory and all the work ive done so far no longer serve any purpose. im not good with words, and people have refuted to every single anti bp ban post here very well, but lets please use the common sense. you guys are about to remove a freaking move that has been used since gsc and has impacted many games during smogon's history. since ou is smogon's main tier cause it is the most played on the ladder and is the most featured in official tournaments, there is a need to think very carefully here before doing anything.