An Alternative to Species Clause

[The Official Glyx]

While almost all rulings from the ingame battle system have been removed, altered, or added on to, Species Clause is the only one that remains unchanged. Its main use is to keep players from cheesing matches with multiples of the same Pokemon, but as time has gone by, particularly with the introduction of more and more alternate forms and regional variants of existing Pokemon, I believe that the strict limitation on teambuilding enforced by Species Clause has overstayed its welcome. Despite the original purpose of Species Clause being to prevent identical Pokemon from cheesing matches, it is now instead preventing Pokemon that are nowhere near as comparable to one another from being used on the same team, simply because they share the same dex number.

A considerable majority of Pokemon with alternate forms that are neither cosmetic (or close enough) or in-battle transformations all have a wide disparity in all their defining factors as a Pokemon between niche, viability, and even general tiering. Think along the lines of the Deoxys forms, Kyurem, Necrozma (not Ultra), Shaymin, Zacian/Zamazenta, and almost every regional variant. Simply put, I don't think it makes sense to limit use of these Pokemon paired with other forms while simultaneously allowing things like Chansey + Blissey, Latios + Latias, Slowbro + Slowking, Venusaur + Vileplume, etc.

With the above in mind, there are effectively two paths you can go down, between either loosening restrictions on teambuilding or restricting it further. The latter of these options isn't really ideal, as it involves the drawing of many subjective lines between how "similar" a mon has to be to another existing mon before being restricted, which only leaves the former being a potential viable option. When considering loosening the restrictions, you still have to be careful in order to avoid similar subjectivity, lest you otherwise risk opening the flood gates to things like double Keldeo, Magearna, Toxtricity, or even 6 Silvally.

The main solution I'm getting at is that Species Clause should be changed out for a new clause of similar effect that also allows a single regional variant to be used along with its base form, or vice versa.

The general problem with allowing all alternate forms of Pokemon to be used concurrently with one another is that you'd have to draw a line in the sand as to how "different" certain forms have to be from one another, lest they violate the original purpose of Species Clause, which becomes an especially awkward scenario for cases like Gourgeist and Pumpkaboo with notably different stats for each size, Basculin with different abilities, Rotom forms only changing type and one move, and Arceus/Silvally in general. Regional variants, on the other hand, is a much more easily defined group of Pokemon, thus cutting back on the issue of subjectivity.

With a considerable majority of all regional variants being in completely different worlds from one another, as far as niche, viability, and tiering goes, this stands to be a very minimal change to the dynamic of most metagames, which is exactly why I think it should be implemented, as it only serves to increase the range of teambuilding capability for those looking to have fun with the game.

For clarity's sake, here's a list of each Pokemon with a regional form and their corresponding tiering and viability ranking in said tier:

Hide

Green = 3+ tier separation or Unranked
Yellow = 2 tier separation
Orange = 1 tier separation
Red = 0 tier separation
-(Unranked)--------------------------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Unranked)--------------------------------------------- (Gen 7 LC C)
-(Gen 7 LC Uber / Gen 8 LC Uber)------------------------ (Gen 7 LC B / Gen 8 LC Uber)
-(Gen 7 LC A+ / Gen 8 LC A+)---------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Gen 7 Ubers A / ZU B- / Gen 8 Ubers A / Unranked)----- (Gen 7 PU C+ / Gen 8 RU C / NU ~B)

-(Gen 7 LC B / Gen 8 LC C) (Unranked) ------------- (Unranked)
-(Unranked)--------------------------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Unranked)--------------------------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Unranked)--------------------------------------------- (Gen 7 LC B)
-(Gen 7 ZU A-)------------------------------------------ (Gen 7 UU B-)
-(Gen 7 ZU B+)------------------------------------------ (Gen 7 RU B-)
-(Unranked)---------------------------------------------

(Unranked)
-(Gen 8 NU Unranked)------------------------------------ (Gen 8 LC B+)
-(Gen 8 LC B)------------------------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Gen 8 LC C)------------------------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Unranked)--------------------------------------------- (Unranked)
-(Gen 7 ZU A- / Gen 8 PU A-)---------------------------- (Gen 7 PU A- / Gen 8 RU A+)
-(Gen 7 RU A / Gen 8 RU A)------------------------------ (Gen 7 OU C- / Gen 8 OU C)
-(Gen 7 ZU A+)------------------------------------------ (Gen 7 NU B)
-(Gen 8 NU Unranked)------------------------------------ (Gen 8 UU C)
-(Gen 8 RU B-)------------------------------------------ (Gen 8 PU C+)
-(Gen 8 UU A)------------------------------------------- (Gen 8 Ubers B+)
-(Gen 7 ZU B-)------------------------------------------ (Gen 7 PU C+)
-(Gen 7 ZU B)------------------------------------------- (Gen 7 PU A)
-(Gen 7 Unranked / Gen 8 PU B+)------------------------- (Gen 7 PU B+ / Gen 8 RU C / NU ~B)
-(Gen 8 RU B)------------------------------------------- (Gen 8 UU A-)
-(Gen 8 PU A-)------------------------------------------ (Gen 8 NU C+)
-(Gen 7 ZU A+)------------------------------------------ (Gen 7 ZU B-)
-(Gen 8 LC A)------------------------------------------- (Gen 8 LC B+)
-(Gen 8 NU Unranked)------------------------------------ (Gen 8 RU C / NU B)
-(Gen 8 NU Unranked)------------------------------------ (Gen 8 UU C- / NU A)

While a notable number of these cases are particularly close to their corresponding base forms, in terms of tiering, it's still important that we assess what each Pokemon is worth in their corresponding meta, and what they can do. For instance, Rapidash and Ponyta have nearly nothing in common beyond identical stats and similar coverage moves with one another, Stunfisk performs a similar role to one another, but does so with near everything else being different (with base Stunfisk seeing almost zero usage), Persian is almost completely different from one another, etc. With that said, however, there are also some cases that are close in almost all facets, like Golem, Raticate, Raichu, etc, that could stand to be problematic. Additionally, I have not explored comparability across other metagames and doubles.

Overall, while there might be some negatives that result in particular metas suffering from particular mons, I believe the broader impact of this change would be a net positive for teambuilding. The particular mons can always be banned if problems arise. Ultimately, with things like Blissey + Chansey, Magnezone + Magneton, Latios + Latias, etc all coming back through DLC, I just don't see how it makes sense to simultaneously restrict things like Dugtrio + Dugtrio-A, Corsola + Corsola-G, Darmanitan + Darmanitan-G, etc.

A name for a clause like this could be something along the lines of "Form Clause", or even just altering the definition of the existing Species Clause, with a shorthand description being that it limits teams to solely one use of a species of Pokemon on a team at a time, with regional variants being counted as a proper separate species, rather than a duplicate mon or form change.

 

[tcr]

This seems very largely unnecessary. What are the practical benefits of changing this? Are teams with Rotom-Wash and Rotom-Heat viable and necessary to answer metagame trends? Is there a reason a person would want to run both Corsola-G and Corsola? Or is it more likely that people will start running multiple Silvally sets in PU, lending to that Pokemon as a whole being banned, or Ubers running Deo-A+Deo-S HO teams, or people running both Darmintan’s just to wallbreak? The only strategy I see being preserved is to have a certain Pokemon become even more centralizing, as in the case of Silvally, or more broken, as in the case of Darmanitans.

 

[The Official Glyx]

I avoid including alternate forms in my main proposal on account of Pokemon that do have glaringly similar alternate forms muddying the waters; eg Rotom, Silvally, etc. The main bulk of my proposal pertains to specifically regional variants, which serve to change very little, as far as metagame centralization goes.

While there isn't really a good reason someone would want to run both Corsola beyond having fun, there is an equal lack of reason as to why the ability to run both Corsola should be restricted, when there is little evidence to suggest that dual Corsola may present any substantial issue.

 

[Shurtugal]

I do not think any chages need to be made unless there was strategies worth preserving. Double Slowbro might be interesting in the future, but tcr put it best by saying that loosening Species Clause rules only highlights how centralizing one Pokemon is being and in all cases this seems unhealthy.

I think Species clause should remain untouched. Why fix something that isn't broken?

 

[Bughouse]

The point being made is that with regional formes, there are often many substantial differences to all of typing, movepool, and abilities, and sometimes even stats and that this is not the same thing as Arceus/Silvally formes whose only difference is their typing and equivalent STAB typing of Multi-Attack. Rotom Formes are also roughly as different as that.

I think it's fine to point out that these differences are much larger than those past forme differences in Arceus/Silvally/Rotom.

But I still don't see how these are substantially different from other past forme changes that are more significant than the 3 mentioned above that are probably the most minor. We've always had Deoxys, Giratina, Shaymin, Wormadam, Tornadus/Thundurus/Landorus, Kyurem, Gourgeist, Zygarde, Hoopa, and Greninja formes trigger species clause.

I don't really see what the bright dividing line between these is. Just saying that these ones are "regional formes" isn't good enough for me.

 

[The Official Glyx]

The dividing line is that those Pokemon don't belong to as easily definable of a group of Pokemon as regional variants do.

I'd love to also have Pokemon like Hoopa, Therians and Incarnates, Wormadam, etc be usable alongside one another, but the underlying issue is that you'd either need to allow all mons with alternate forms, ie Keldeo + Resolute, Toxtricity + Low Key, Basculin + Blue Striped, Rotoms, etc, which is essentially a direct violation of the original intent behind Species Clause, or otherwise cherrypick mons with alternate forms that aren't similar enough to be restricted, which lends more to the notion of complex action, which is an issue.

Specifying only regional variants, while not solving the entire problem, is less cherrypick-y, which is why I believe it's the best course of action. If complex action were to actually be a viable option, on account of being a complex clause rather than a complex ban, then that would be great and would solve the entire matter.

As for in-battle transformations like Greninja, Zygarde, Primals, and Mega Evolutions, I feel that those would need to be restricted as well, since you're forced to run the same base mon prior to their transformation.

 

[Ren]

Honestly, I don't know why this is in Policy Review - It feels like the kind of thing that should be decided by each metagame for themselves. BH went for a forme clause because we felt species clause wasn't a good idea - That's because the only relevant cases of same number Pokemon having formes blocked by species clause were also a case of each forme being very different in terms of what they do. Similarly, something like PU for example could go for species clause over forme clause because they feel like forme clause enables too many Silvallys and that's unhealthy (or Arceus in Ubers, etc.) I don't think that this kind of decision is one that should be made by just a thread in PR. If this is an issue that a metagame feels needs to be addressed, they can do it in their own forum. I don't think a thread in PR should have that kind of power to change so many metagames, since the effects of this would be different for every tier. Also, I disagree with the idea that if something isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed - There's always room for improvement and it never hurts to pursue it.

 

[Martin]

I think the problem with making an exception for regional variants is just what do you do if we get another large group of alternative formes later on? Sure, it's not ideal that I can't run, IDK, double Darm offense in ubers or whatever, but I feel like in the majority of cases the regional variants are broadly designed as as type swaps of the base form, which isn't that different from Rotom, Arceus, and Silvally in practice. Hell, the Therians are far more distinct from the base forms than a lot of regional variants are, with the ability+stat differences completely re-defining their roles in most cases—that is also a moderately sized "objective" group of alt formes for multiple Pokemon, like regional variants are, so should we legalise those too?

The fact is that there is no good objective differentiator to use when reducing the scope of species clause unless you want to legalise all alternative formes, which I don't think is a good idea at least for singles—you can't make it OK in OU unless you decide multiple Arceus'/etc. are OK in ubers without breaking ban transistivity, and obviously stuff like Rotom, Silvally etc. become points of contention as you go down the tier list.

That isn't to say I have any objection to re-visiting stuff like this. Formats without species clause are actually very interesting because of how it affects the dynamics of teambuilding; you can stack multiple of one attacker to help conceal coverage moves and/or to overwhelm checks—look at AG, which has historically been home to teams that stack Arceus (often multiple of the same forme) for this exact purpose. However, I'd be very wary of implementing anything like this below maybe Ubers because, like people said above, formats can be very easily overcentralised by just stacking 2 or 3 of an attacker that lacks consistent defensive counterplay, which I think goes against the spirit/point of playing Pokemon in "balanced" formats.

 

[Zarel]

I want to point out a technical problem:

Say, in Doubles, you send out a Kantonian Raichu and an Alolan Raichu. Your opponent uses Hydro Pump. The game says "Raichu avoided the attack!"

Which Raichu was targeted? You're supposed to know that (it's why VGC enforces Species Clause and Nickname Clause). But without Species Clause applying to dex number, you wouldn't.

This could be worked around by forcing one of them to be nicknamed, but just be aware that it's something you'd have to work around somehow.

 

[marilli]

This thread is laughably ridiculous and highlights a degenerative problem with the Smogon subcommunities.

Feel free to start a motion to adjust Species clause as you like from 1v1 or whatever metagame subcommunity you moderate, but why try to force this change upon dozens of other metagames that are perfectly fine as is with the current species clause? What a solution looking for a problem. It's fine to have your opinions on metagames you don't play, but when you actually voice it on a public forum don't be surprised how everyone else reacts to it.

 

[Perry]

This thread is laughably ridiculous and highlights a degenerative problem with the Smogon subcommunities.

Feel free to start a motion to adjust Species clause as you like from 1v1 or whatever metagame subcommunity you moderate, but why try to force this change upon dozens of other metagames that are perfectly fine as is with the current species clause? What a solution looking for a problem. It's fine to have your opinions on metagames you don't play, but when you actually voice it on a public forum don't be surprised how everyone else reacts to it.

posts like this (and the users that reacted positively to it) just showcase how toxic smogon and its "known" users can be to other people for no other reason than being "cool": attacking people unnecessarily don't add strength to your argument, just make you look like an absolute cunt.

for what it's worth, i agree with the notion that its unnecessary work at best and smogon shouldn't come through with it.

 

[The Official Glyx]

I do agree that there appear to be some underlying problems, namely with the "if it isn't broke don't fix it" mentality people seem to have. That subject on its own probably warrants a separate thread, but wrt my suggestion in particular, if it stands to solely improve teambuilding, why not do it? What even is the point of holding back progress in a metagame just because "it's been fine that way forever" or something?

I get that multiple Rotoms, Silvally, Arceus, etc would be dumb, so just don't add them? If cherrypicking mons that are fine to use alongside their alternate forms is a viable option, I see no reason why we can't do that. I would even go as far as to encourage that each tier makes their own list of mons that are okay for this clause. This would give each tier a greater power of choice with how they want to run things, rather than being limited to the single rule they've been using for ages. If a complex clause isn't an option, then I withdraw.

As for the point of centralization, on the basis that cherrypicking mons for the clause turns out to be viable, then that problem effectively solves itself; tier leaders can simply just not free mons that might add onto something that is already incredibly centralizing on its own, or conversely open up the perspective that if something is so centralizing that getting one new good teammate at all would set it over the edge, then perhaps the restriction shouldn't be placed on the teammate, other than obvious uncompetitive extremes like 6 Silvally, 4 Gourgeist, 6 Pikachu, etc.

In hindsight, I will admit that I didn't know I could just propose this to 1v1 first, though I stand by my suggestion that this can only serve to be a universal good and that every tier should at least consider it and think about what base Species Clause is doing for them vs this revised clause.

 

[Deck Knight]

As a matter of differentiation, I think this would be most helpful:

If you are given one instance of a Pokemon (Dex number) with no item, move, ability, or interacting mechanic (Appliances, Meteorites, and Reveal Glass, chiefly), how many differentiating formes would it have? Can you switch between those formes on the same instance of the Pokemon?

The answer for regional pokemon is equal to their number of variants. The answer for the various legendaries is just one, and you can switch formes with just a single instance of the Pokemon. With only 1 Giratina and no interacting item, you just have Altered Giratina. Without Plates/Memories, you only have vanilla Arceus/Silvally. Without Reveal Glass/Meteors/Appliances, you only have Incarnates, Deoxys, and base Rotom.

I have no idea how the new Galar birds are going to function mechanically, but even assuming they are straight separately catchable regional variants, I do not think they will cause any problems. Functionally as a Species they would be completely separate. If you can change between Articuno and Galar-Articuno, then they no longer count under "Variant Clause."

Essentially under "Variant Clause" instead of "Species Clause" you would whitelist Pumpkaboo/Gourgeist Formes, Toxtricity Formes, Meowstic Formes, -Alola and -Galar formes to be separate Pokemon from the base form. This would make them functionally indistinguishable from say Nidoking/Nidoqueen or Glalie/Froslass.

 

[Shurtugal]

Update: allowing two Zapdos on a team seems really strong. For those who do not yet know, Galarian Zapdos is Defiant Fighting/Flying type. Are we really sure updating Species clause to allow regional variants is smart? On one hand it fundamentally different than vanilla Zapdos, but it still seems rather powerful. It might not have too many consequences now, but it might in the future? It seems the DLC is supporting more regional forms, and there are bound to be a few surprises when each of them drop. Should we handle them case by case and implement the new clause, or should we maybe uphold current species clause until after DLC?

 

[Finchinator]

Fully echoing the sentiments of Perry: there is nothing wrong with a genuine proposal being made and comments being made about it; we never need to make trouble out of these situations and having a space for healthy discussion allows for the best decisions to be made for the entire community. With this said, this seems to not be worthwhile to to me as OUTL and NUTL. I would prefer maintenance of the status quo regarding species clause, which I currently do not have any issues with.

 

[Adri]

I do agree that there appear to be some underlying problems, namely with the "if it isn't broke don't fix it" mentality people seem to have. That subject on its own probably warrants a separate thread, but wrt my suggestion in particular, if it stands to solely improve teambuilding, why not do it? What even is the point of holding back progress in a metagame just because "it's been fine that way forever" or something?


I get that multiple Rotoms, Silvally, Arceus, etc would be dumb, so just don't add them? If cherrypicking mons that are fine to use alongside their alternate forms is a viable option, I see no reason why we can't do that. I would even go as far as to encourage that each tier makes their own list of mons that are okay for this clause. This would give each tier a greater power of choice with how they want to run things, rather than being limited to the single rule they've been using for ages. If a complex clause isn't an option, then I withdraw.

I don't think that this mentality is a problem. To be honest, that's mostly the philosophy behind the whole Smogon tiering: you won't ban a mon if it's not broken obviously, but most of the time we also won't unban a mon in OU unless there is a problem in the tier and that mon is suspected to solve it. Let's take Blaziken regular with Blaze for instance: yeah, sure, it's not broken, and unbanning it would theoretically give more "space" in the builder. But is it worth transforming a clear ban (= "Blaziken is banned") into a complex one (= "Blaziken is not banned but only playable with the Blaze ability") ? Historically, people on Smogon decided that no, it is not worth it. That's pretty much the same here: it's much more simpler to just say "not twice the same species on a team" than "not twice the same species on a team except if it's a regional form" (and also if it's banned because we don't know yet if this change won't allow some unhealthy or broken cores, like double slowbro could be for instance).

The goal of the Smogon tiering policy has been, among other things, to remain as simple as possible, and I don't think that this proposal allows the tiering to remain as simple as it has been until now.