When Self-KO Doesn't Apply

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
What should happen if both sides lose their last mon on the same action, but neither one activated the self-KO clause? This is most common with Endure, but could happen other ways too.

Can we open up a discussion and/or immediate council vote on "What happens when a gym match ends in a tie, but not one which self-ko resolves for us". Normally this happens when Endure and Residual Damage are combined, but there are other cases.
Just resolve it in favour of the user who delivered the final KO; the fairest solution. As for Destiny Bond, rule it against the user of Destiny Bond (Link I am basing this off).

the residual bit could have been completely averted if we decided to finish the game the instant one side is out of pokemon like ingame though
I don see why we should put this to council voting. The gym commitee should just decide if tie is counted as victory for leader or challenger. Every rp has their own rules regarding the matter. Cant see why the same cant be done on gyms by the people in charge of it.

Also I dont understand how that is the fairest solution. Regardless of ingame, the council decided to deviate from it. If you say "it is a tie because anime precedent" but then say "but the tie will be broken towards the one that delivered the blow" you might as well blow away the council decision. Because in reality that is what you are doing: using a ruling to completely overturn a council decision on the only occasion it applies.
Except you need to consider tournament play and how to break ties caused by residual damage in tournaments. Which you clearly haven't.

Yeah whole is more relevant to gyms but I would rather kill two birds with one stone.

Then there is the case of both Pokémon fainting at the same time to residual damage in the last Pokémon on both sides scenario in tournaments... >_>

EDIT: Also "using a ruling to completely overturn a council decision on the only occasion it applies." is exactly what I want, because this current shitty resolution system is discriminatory and opens up to situations like exactly the above. The "anime precedent" argument and the "Other RP's have their own resolution system" argument as far as I am concerned are terrible hand-wave arguments for keeping such a flawed system (which does not even help for tournaments) and by reverting to the in-game way of handling the end of a match—which we should have done forever ago—we get a system that does not discriminate, a system with a built-in tiebreaker, a system that prevents people from losing after they won, and a lot of redundancy removed, making a last round reffing less time consuming; far more fair than what we have now. As I said, if we kept with the superior ingame last rounds, we would never be having this conversation in the first place.
Okay I'm going to clean up the posts before this and post a final ruling.

In this situation, Pwnemon's Kitsunoh KOes Emma Togekiss, and is subsequently KOed by the Future Sight combo as the action is reffed to conclusion as per the results of this voting thread (http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/last-action-of-a-match.3485056/)

This results in a draw situation.

As per the implementation thread (http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...e-protect-is-dead.3462105/page-2#post-4741320), "whoever deliberately KOs themselves either by energy depletion or using a move that reduces the user's HP to 0 loses."

However, Pwnemon does not activate this form of self-KO clause, and thus, following the extension of that ruling, "otherwise follow the in-game standard."

In in-game, a battle ends immediately upon resolution of the damage step of the attack, recoil is incurred, rough skin etc, but not any subsequent effects such as Life Orb, Toxic, or Future Sight.

Therefore, Pwnemon is the winner.


With respect to deadfox's concern over Objection's "ability to extend the ruling to following in-game precedent, despite this not being voted on by the council," the council's ruling being narrower in scope, I am deeming this concern invalid to the result of the match for the following reason.

ASB has historically always followed in-game precedent where a given rule is not stated. In the case of Objection's implementation, I am deeming that he posted the decided upon ruling as voted by the council, and simply added on the ASB standard ruling of otherwise deferring to in-game precedent for clarity of the given situation. As he did not alter of implement a ruling of his own accord, and simply stuck with council ruling and ASB precedent, I deem it valid.


Hopefully this resolves any concerns over the ending of this match, if you still have issues feel free to bitch at me over IRC or forum PM.

Pwnemon advances to round 2.
This could be relevant.
Uh...I feel I am defending oranges and you are attacking apples. Let me try to make myself crystal clear here.

If you want to change the system, then outright propose a revote. Don't use rulings and schemes to do it through other ways. I have no objection to changing that council decision through a revote (tbh I have mixed feelings about that specific decision as from a practical point of view it's only use is to distribute ties and KOC to everyone and I don't like neither of those effects), the same way I don't mind if any other decision is revisited, especially decisions as old as this one. I have many objections though to anyone wanting to change a council decision through means other than a council revoting. If we keep finding ways to not abide by the council decisions, then why have a council in the first place?

And Mowtom that ruling above is exactly what I mean. What should NOT be done. The council states it is a tie instead of whoever attacking last getting the victory (read: the council decided that Anime Precedente > Ingame Precedent in this case, so the second option lost the voting) and the someone "rules" that while it is a tie, it will be broken in favor of the player that delivered the final blow, because ingame is like that. Except that the "ingame option" lost the voting. The basis of the decision made is the option the council said NO to. I can also put it in red if that helps making my point. That is what drives me insane. You might as well shit all over that decision, and over the authority of the council.

Again: if you feel the "anime precedent" is bogus then discuss the matter and put it under voting. If you want, you can create a topic about it, or just move to straight voting. You have my blessings or permission or whatever name you want to call it. Rules are meant to be followed until they are changed. If you don't want to follow a rule, then change it. Chances are, you will probably succeed this time.


And either way you will need to draw tiebreaker rules. I don't doubt there are other ways to get a draw without anime precedent. You might as well cover all bases instead of losing time trying to cover only some of them.
Should we abolish ties altogether? Should we only worry about battles that need a winner? Should we do nothing at all?

Discuss away!
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
to be perfectly honest I'd rather split it by a case basis. in cases like tournaments where a winner is required to advance the game, revert to in game or some other method of determining a winner. in gyms, have the leader retain the badge due to "house rules" or some other metric the committee decides.

but if you don't need a winner? fuck it, do what you like! anime, in game, ties, whatever creates the most utility
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
as far as gyms are concerned I'd would be more prone to say that the challenger should get the badge in ties simply because the odds are so staked against him (tough opponent, twisted arena, almost maxed movepool mons) that if he managed to get to a draw, he should be awarded. And because it would be frustrating as fuck to go so far and lose like that on a tie. Raids have tie benefitting the challenger and I feel the same logic applied here.

aside from that, I see the following options warranting merit:

(rule = by committee or mods. decide = by council. bare with my laziness please)

1) Remove, via council decision, anime precedent and rule/decide that, to determine the winner of a match if necessary, Direct Damage > Indirect Damage.
2) Keep anime precedent and decide that, to determine the winner of a match if necessary, Direct Damage > Indirect Damage.
3) Do whatever you want with anime precedent and rule victory if necessary goes to house or challenger
4) Do whatever you want with anime precedent and rule a different tie-breaking mechanism for when it is necessary (vote by committee? more damage dealt? number of legendaries or some other silly and stupid parameter?).

(on the second option it would be the council deciding whether or not to make an exception for the previous council decision, which is fine by me).


All of them pass on revisiting Anime Precedent. Since that is an old and disputed decision I am inclined to put it under voting regardless and go from there.

Soooo...

This is the original thread: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/last-action-of-a-match.3484883/

This is the original voting: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/last-action-of-a-match.3485056/

This is the Slate I intend to use:

How should the last action of a match be reffed?
End reffing as soon as one side has no Pokémon left following an attack/residual effect
After all end of action effects are applied

Leaving this open for discussion. If no discussion in 48h I will move the slate above to voting.
 
Last edited:

Mowtom

I'm truly still meta, enjoy this acronym!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I do agree with Texas that on casual matches that don't need a winner, ties are perfectly fine. They're flavorful and don't really do anything negative. Can something like that be added to the options?
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I put a bunch of "if necessary" to make it clearer. The idea is that tie-breaking is only used when a winner is necessary. As for ties, adopting anime precedent or not isn't tailored to prevent ties or not, but simply as a flavor option. Sure, if anime precedent falls, we will have less ties, but we will still have them just fine.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
First voting is over, we like anime precedent and I am pissed at g0ld. Things that didn't change lately.

So our options:

1) Keep anime precedent and decide that, to determine the winner of a match if necessary, Direct Damage > Indirect Damage.
2) Do whatever you want with anime precedent and rule victory if necessary goes to house or challenger
3) Do whatever you want with anime precedent and rule a different tie-breaking mechanism for when it is necessary (vote by committee? more damage dealt? number of legendaries or some other silly and stupid parameter?).


first option is a council voting, second and third options can be decided by the gym committee.

I am inclined to send it straight to voting by council. Whether to determine the winner of a match if necessary, direct damage > indirect damage or if other means to break ties will have to be used.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
This is kinda frustrating -_-

24h before this goes to booth

Question: What should be done to determine the winner of a match when a winner is mandatory (e.g. gyms and tourneys)?
a)
The owner of the pokemon that dealt direct damage is declared winner even if they faint due to indirect damage (e.g. weather or poison etc.) on the same round. This rule is mandatory on Gym and Tournament matches, along with self-KO clause.
b) Allow the Gym Committee and Tournament Hosts to put up on gyms and on individual tournaments, if they feel like it, a clause that declares the winner the owner of the pokemon that dealt direct damage even if they faint due to indirect damage (e.g. weather or poison etc.) on the same round
c) Prohibit that Gym Committee and Tournament Hosts declare as winner the owner of the pokemon that dealt direct damage when they faint due to indirect damage (e.g. weather or poison etc.) on the same round and return to the drawing board to consider other possible tiebreaker rules.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top