Discussion Forme clause vs species clause (oriented towards OMs)

Hello world!

First, I'd like to say that I'm aware that a thread has been made about this a while ago. I checked it in the archive and still decided to make a post because the targeted metas are not the same.

So yeah, the purpose of this thread is not to question species clause overall because, just as it was stated within the old thread, why should we change something that is working well for almost no reason?

Then, the point is definitely not to ask for any change in metagames like OU, UU, Ubers, etc... because in those metas, a change from the species clause to forms clause will not result in something more interesting (rather the opposite in fact).
However, they are numerous metas in which such a change might open up some new possibilities that might be worth the change if we put everything together: other metagames.

It's not new that OMs make some exceptions to "standard rules" even though they try not to, to still be consistent with the overall tiering policy framework. (see the Electrify ban in AAA, Godly Gift banning Swift Swim, Camomons banning Calm Mind, etc through this gen or another). This is simply related to the nature of OMs themselves being, by definition, not something "standard" and the reason why they have to build their own set of rules most of the time to account for their specifities.

Again, if it doesn't change a lot of things in OMs like AAA (bar Zapdos?), a change from the species clause to a form clause might have some impact in the builder of some others.

Here are a few examples associated with the explanation of how the metagame works for those who don't know them:

Explanations: Here's how the Uber's stats are distributed to each team mate.

upload_2016-8-17_1-13-56-png.67552


You will be able to recognize from team preview how your opponent is gifting their stats, based upon the position of their Uber.

Benefits:
Here the removal of the species clause could allow for a new type a Regecore to work with (Slowking + Slowking-G) considering their role can be very different depending on the stat you give to them. For instance, you could go with a Speed stat Slowking-G with an offensive LO NP set and a Slowking on the defense slot being a pretty decent defensive pivot. A team could also run both Landorus's forms, a defensive one and an offensive one. If we take into account the fact that this meta didn't ban tera, forms can become even more differents by virtue of being able to change their types.

Idk if greninja-bond counts as a different form but we could imagine a standard greninja in the Spa or Atk slot (or any stat for a lead hazard setter one) paired with bond one either in Atk or Spa slot.

We could also imagine stategies with both Zapdos, Rotom or Hoopa forms even though they are less likely considering their overall viability.

Multiple forms mons like Arceus shouldn't be an issue due to the nature of the metagame allowing for only one "god" (therefore, you can't run 2 Arceus, or 2 Kyurem (one is banned btw)).

Issues:

I don't really see some.

Explanations: Mix and Mega is an Ubers-based metagame that allows you to use any transformation item on any permitted pokémon. When that Pokémon then transforms, it undergoes the same stat modifications that the original user of that item does, along with its ability and any type changes that the altered form has compared to the base species. Primarily this takes the form of the Gen 6 Mega Evolution mechanic, with the usual restrictions of one per team removed, but also included are the Red and Blue Primal Orbs as well as the Gen 8 Rusted items.

Benefits:
Slowking-Galar@Latiasite/Gyaradosite + Slowking@Sablenite might be a decent core if you're looking for a pivoting core setting up snow (Weather Ball or Blizzard abusers in the back?
Zapdos@Manectite/Lucarionite + Zapdos-Galar@Loppunite might be a decent combination.

Issues:
Nothing is preventing to run multiple Arceus forms there. Also applies to both Kyurem or Deoxys forms.

Explanations: Pokemon change their type to match the types of their first two moves in their moveslots. Pokemon with multiple moves of the same type in their first two slots will have only one type. Types are revealed to the player instantly upon being sent out.

Benefits:
You can now run Slowking and Slowking-G together to form a nice Regecore and abuse very different types to cover each other weaknesses. You could try multiples Ogerpon forms if you want to (let's not forget they can get a STAB on Ivy Cudgel without running an actual Fire, Water or Rock move making them definitely worse in Camo). Double Avalugg stall? Double Urshifu? Double Hoopa Sticky Web?
Overall, the change may allow for more diversity due to the nature of Camomons being able to make similar mons very differents by changing their types.

Issues:
I don't see some.

Explanations: Pokemon can learn any move that matches their typing. This transfers with evolutions and out of battle forme changes, so if a Normal-type evolves into a Psychic-type in the game, you can teach the Psychic-type Pokemon any Psychic and Normal moves.

Benefits:
As always, you could try a Regencore with both Slowking (phy def pivot Slowking + AV Gking). Rotom forms are much more viable in this meta due to the very large movepool they can abuse from so you could perfectly imagine a core with both Rotom-H and Rotom-Wash that have quite a different set of resists. Zapdos and Zapdos-G is another possibility as always. Double Indeedee for Expanding Force spam team.

Issues:
Ogerpons might have been an issue but both Hearthflame and Wellspring are banned so...

Those are a few examples because I'm not an expert in every OMs but it shouldn't be that hard to find some other "nice" possibilities in metas like Inheritance, Convergence, Bonus Type, etc.

As a matter of fact, some metas are already using a form clause like National Dex Balanced Hackmons (with an added Arceus-form clause) allowing to run things like MMX and MMY or were using it like SS BH. However, I don't know in what conditions it's been approved with respect to the tiering policy.

I think a change from species clause to forme clause in some OMs could be audited by council and submitted to their respective communities considering what it can bring in terms of diversity with respect to technical or competitive issues if any. Of course, the change will certainly not drastically change any of those metas because running 2 forms will still be rare cuz only very few of them are "viable" together but it might still be an interesting degree of freedom to have in the builder.
At the moment, it feels like species clause has been "grandfathered" from older gens because it was still working perfectly fine in "standard metas" but, due to GF releasing more and more new regional forms, species clause feels kind of outdated in some metas in which forms can be decently viable together.

Thanks for reading and have a good day! :heart:
 
I was actually planning on making a post about this exact topic, but for 1v1. It does actually come up in 1v1, primarily with Zapdos but occasionally with other Pokemon like Ninetales. Being able to run two forms of the same Pokemon would allow some new and genuinely interesting teambuilding options that weren't there before. While it isn't an OM, 1v1 is still very different from the standard 6v6, and tiering policy should be treated differently as so. I fully support this potential change.
 
I am opposed to Forme Clause in general; it takes something objective and supported in cart-official formats and turns it into something subjective for usually either minimal gain (running Zapdos and Galarian Zapdos on the same team) or utterly game breaking (allowing a team of six Arceus).

Additionally, "formes" is a wide group with radically different definitions currently. In some cases it's mons with entirely separate stats, typing, and movepool (Articuno and Galarian Articuno) while in some cases it is "only" a type change (the Oricorio formes) and in others its impact varies generation to generation (Zygarde-10% with Power Construct and Aura Break). This latter point is why I think Forme Clause is actually worse for OMs than standard play, not better.

Mix and Mega is the worst offender listed above, along with Balanced Hackmons. Tiers that allow unrestricted Arceus should never consider Forme Clause, as ArcSpam can and will crowd out other more varied strategies. Arceus Clause should be a non-starter; if your more complex clause needs a second, mon-specific clause to patch it, it is not a viable option. Neither of these tiers would seriously consider Forme Clause over Species Clause.

Camomons subverts one of the most common forme differences (typing) by changing typing; it would be entirely possible to run two identical Oricorio or Rotom formes or near-idential Slowking (yes I am aware that Galarian has slightly different stats and movepools).

STABmons already buffs several types of formes (the ones that can forme change in-game) considerably by letting them gain access to moves of all their typings in any forme. Notably, Ogerpon formes and Rotom formes are already significant threats due to their expanded movepools, and letting teams double up on them only compounds the issue.

Godly Gift does not introduce any particularly adverse effects, but the most commonly cited example throughout this thread (doubling up on Slowkings) is already largely replicable with the Slowbro formes and stat donations; a Galarian Slowbro in Special Defense is already extremely similar to a Galarian Slowking in Defense.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Slowking is mentioned as the example in every single meta listed above; this is a change with minimal impact, in most cases the SlowTwins, except for the metas that it introduces much larger issues like MnM and STABmons.

I do not think any OM particularly stands to benefit from a proposed move to Forme Clause, and in fact most would suffer in a vacuum. The status quo is simplier as well, and I would say working better in OMs than in Standards.

(I have no special insight to 1v1, but in general would still recommend against Forme Clause. If 1v1 wants to consider no form of Species Clause at all I think that's a viable alternative but entirely up to them).
 
I agree that Forme Clause is not the answer - primarily because Arceus and Silvally were designed in such a way that they have been meta defining staples of every tier they've been relevant in and allowing multiple variants would be far too damaging for any upside (running multiple Ogerpons on HO?) to make up for it.

On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment behind the proposal and I think the alternative implementation of Species Clause linked in the OP is worth revisiting. "Regional Form" is an objective criteria that is used in-game, on official websites, and other resources - and we even have search categories for them already available on showdown (e.g. /ds galar). Changes to typings, movepools, and stats prevent typespam compositions from being a serious concern while observable synergies do exist between some of them (mostly just the birds in higher tiers, but I would've been using Mimes/Golems in PU/ZU back in SS/SM respectively for sure). I can't think of any reason to lock out the addition of these building compositions and there don't appear to be any counter-arguments in the prior thread except for an appreciation of the status quo.

Exempting "Pokémon-Region" variants from Species Clause would be a minor improvement to the existing clause that I'd like to see welcomed.
 
Species Clause is outdated and was definitely not designed with regional forms in mind. It seems flawed than one is disallowed to run Sneasel-Hisui and Sneasel on the same team, while running Sneasler alongside Weavile is perfectly fine. If two Pokémon are considered different enough to be tiered separately, it should make sense that they are different enough to be allowed on the same team.

I am opposed to Forme Clause in general; it takes something objective and supported in cart-official formats and turns it into something subjective for usually either minimal gain (running Zapdos and Galarian Zapdos on the same team) or utterly game breaking (allowing a team of six Arceus).
There is nothing subjective about form clause. That's already how tiering is done and how we have some Rotom forms across every tier. Cart-official formats support item clause, and as we see in our ruleset, this clause isn't necessary to maintain balance. The Arceus statement is just entirely subjective; it does buff individual Arceus forms (and also Silvally), but there is no guarantee that it will be game breaking.

I don't think moving to Forme Clause in SV is a good idea because it would completely reshape some metagames, most notably Ubers, which I believe should be avoided so late in the generation. However, I support replacing Species Clause with Forme Clause at the beginning of gen 10.
 
Chiming in with a 1v1 perspective, I think even for our purposes we wouldn't be better off allowing different formes of Pokémon like Silvally, Urshifu, and Arceus. Basically any Pokémon whose forme is ambiguous on team preview, as well as cosmetic formes (like Furfrou, Vivillon, and Minior) should probably stay exclusive in any metagame that is looking to enforce species clause. I echo Greybaum's sentiment though that I can totally see a case for regional formes being non-exclusive, and I believe it'd enrich more metagames than just 1v1 without functionally breaking anything that I can see.

Like UT said, anything beyond "regional formes" would need a proper definition that I'm not sure exists as of now, and might be more trouble than it's worth
 
I am opposed to Forme Clause in general; it takes something objective and supported in cart-official formats and turns it into something subjective for usually either minimal gain (running Zapdos and Galarian Zapdos on the same team) or utterly game breaking (allowing a team of six Arceus).

Formes are perfectly well-defined and treated as such by PS if I'm not mistaken. As mentionned by Tuthur, they are treated as different mons when it comes to tiering but as the same mon when it comes to species clause... isn't that a bit weird?
As for Silvally and Arceus that have been mentionned, the first has been dexited so it doesn't matter this generation and the second it only does for Uber-based metas (BH, MnM, SP, 350 cup) in OMs because GG is something else.

Additionally, "formes" is a wide group with radically different definitions currently. In some cases it's mons with entirely separate stats, typing, and movepool (Articuno and Galarian Articuno) while in some cases it is "only" a type change (the Oricorio formes) and in others its impact varies generation to generation (Zygarde-10% with Power Construct and Aura Break). This latter point is why I think Forme Clause is actually worse for OMs than standard play, not better.

Honestly it doesn't matter if formes have either different types, stats, movepools or are just purely aesthetic. PS is able to differentiate them and tier them separately if needed. There's nothing subjective about a form. About Zygarde I don't really understand the issue? Zygarde-10% and Zygarde are 2 different formes of Zygarde. Granted that to go from one to another you need Power Construct as an ability although in practise, in metas changing ability, they are treated as different formes regardless of their ability (see Zygarde-10% being free to change ability in SS AAA without people finding any issue there). Finally, from this gen's perspective, Zygarde is irrelevant being dexited.

Camomons subverts one of the most common forme differences (typing) by changing typing; it would be entirely possible to run two identical Oricorio or Rotom formes or near-idential Slowking (yes I am aware that Galarian has slightly different stats and movepools).

Yes but realistically no one is gonna try to make them the most similar as possible but quite the exact opposite: we want to make them as different as possible so they really are 2 different mons completing each other rather than doing similar stuff.

STABmons already buffs several types of formes (the ones that can forme change in-game) considerably by letting them gain access to moves of all their typings in any forme. Notably, Ogerpon formes and Rotom formes are already significant threats due to their expanded movepools, and letting teams double up on them only compounds the issue.

The last point seems very subjective isn't it? Especially considering Rotom-W is ranked A+ but the only other ranked form is Rotom-H, in C+. It seems very ambious to think multiple Rotom formes strategies will become a massive threat. Now about Ogerpons, again, Hearthfame and Wellspring are banned so the only formes you can stack are Ogerpon-base and Ogerpon-Cornerstone... Not exactly a threat either right?

Godly Gift does not introduce any particularly adverse effects, but the most commonly cited example throughout this thread (doubling up on Slowkings) is already largely replicable with the Slowbro formes and stat donations; a Galarian Slowbro in Special Defense is already extremely similar to a Galarian Slowking in Defense.

This is missing the fact that Slowbro and Slowking are actually very different mons this gen! The first is a very passive wall while the second is a Regen slow pivot. This "simple" difference makes them completely different in terms of viability and I rather use Slowking in the Defense slot than Slowbro in the SpD literally all the time (bar in stall maybe?).

I don't think it's a coincidence that Slowking is mentioned as the example in every single meta listed above; this is a change with minimal impact, in most cases the SlowTwins, except for the metas that it introduces much larger issues like MnM and STABmons.

Like as I said in my first post, the expected changes are rather smalls. Now, opening up for new teams and new kind of stategies (double chilly reception allows to build snow without needing an active setter like Ninetales-Alola) is interesting. Because in some metas those 2 (king and gking) are perfectly viable, a strat we both of them wouldn't be unviable at all and could open up some possibilities that are worth the change.

And, again, this is an expert's view in terms of viability. In practise, the change allows for much more than slowtwins combination independently from those types of pairing being highly viable. It's often pointed out that we shouldn't ban moves or abilities for tiering coherence especially considering non-problematic users exist and they should be able to run this or that ability/move, even though the mon is still perfectly unviable with or without: we want to keep this degree of freedom. So why do we want to remove one here for technical facilities (supposing there are technical issues which is mostly not right bar say Arceus this gen).

I think we have to question what do we want the most? If tiering's purpose is to ensure both competitiveness and diversity accross metagames, this change might be perfectly worth it. Especially for OMs where we tend to promote more diversity because that's what the playerbase is often looking forward (even though we sometimes have to sack a bit of competitiveness and say tiering coherence).

I agree that Forme Clause is not the answer - primarily because Arceus and Silvally were designed in such a way that they have been meta defining staples of every tier they've been relevant in and allowing multiple variants would be far too damaging for any upside (running multiple Ogerpons on HO?) to make up for it.

Again, the only issue that could really stands out is Arceus. So yeah, maybe the change is prob not worth in Ubers-based meta (I still doubt Arceus spam will be that insane in BH or MnM but I can see the issue). Multiple Ogerpons seems perfectly fine to me (GG banned 2 of them, same for STAB, SP banned the hearthflame form, same for Convergence, unviable in Camo, irrelevant in MnM and BH, etc). The only meta where Ogerpons spam can matter is AAA and calling the strat OP is completely subjective at the moment.

Exempting "Pokémon-Region" variants from Species Clause would be a minor improvement to the existing clause that I'd like to see welcomed.

I'll also welcome such a possibility if anything, that's a good proposal imo.

Chiming in with a 1v1 perspective, I think even for our purposes we wouldn't be better off allowing different formes of Pokémon like Silvally, Urshifu, and Arceus.

Def not an 1v1 expert but this looks like a fair point. Now, Urshifu shoudn't be an issue because, if you see both form, you know one is the single blow one while the other is the rapid strike one and can prep accordingly: there's no ambiguity about type, movepool, etc. The real issue is Arceus and Silvally having way too many formes so you can't predict which ones you're gonna fight at all in terms of types. But I believe Arceus is banned and Silvally is again dexited this gen so it doesn't really matter.

Thanks for input and smooth talking so far :heart:
 
Last edited:
Formes are perfectly well-defined and treated as such by PS if I'm not mistaken.
Ehh this isn't totally true. Showdown is more of a common sense list cobbled together between the actual cartridge mechanics and what's logical.
For example, Toxtricity and Tatsugiri both have multiple forms that are tiered together because competitively there is no real reason to switch forms so tiering them separately would be (mostly) duplicating that pokemon in multiple tiers.

On the other side there is Indeedee which acutally doesn't have two forms at all it just has different stats and learnset depending on gender, a unique mechanic that has the same overall effect as being two forms so in showdown they are tiered separately.

As for regional forms, they are the same pokedex number so they are treated as one pokemon but in gen 8 and 9 Game Freak introduced Ecologically similar pokemon like Toedscruel and Wugtrio that are basically regional forms in everything but flavour. But because of pokedex number, they are tiered separately.

Finally there's Ash Greninja and mega evolutions. While sharing the same base pokemon, these are alternate forms that hold special rules for activation and have the option to appear as the "base" form before transforming. After some discussion, it was agreed by smogon that megas should be tiered separately from their base pokemon (at least in terms of rising higher than the base mon) as it was a different form that merely started out the same. This case is pretty clearly (to me) a fun factor decision as forcing base Sableye to be an OU pokemon clearly didn't make the most sense when lower tiers were just fine disallowing the mega stone.

This is not even touching on the forms that the cartridge recognizes as separate but are purely cosmetic, such as Keldeo-Resolute. In the end Showdown's form rules are a patchwork that was created over time to best suit players' habits, and work around species clause as needed. Relying on that patchwork as the replacement for something as rigid and reliable as species clause probably makes no sense
 
Honestly it doesn't matter if formes have either different types, stats, movepools or are just purely aesthetic. PS is able to differentiate them and tier them separately if needed. There's nothing subjective about a form. About Zygarde I don't really understand the issue? Zygarde-10% and Zygarde are 2 different formes of Zygarde. Granted that to go from one to another you need Power Construct as an ability although in practise, in metas changing ability, they are treated as different formes regardless of their ability (see Zygarde-10% being free to change ability in SS AAA without people finding any issue there). Finally, from this gen's perspective, Zygarde is irrelevant being dexited.

I want to provide some clarity as to why this is an issue.

In-Cart there are not 2 different forms of Zygarde that can be in your party, but 4: Zygarde-10 with Aura Break, Zygarde-10 with Power Construct, Zygarde-50 with Aura Break, Zygarde-50 with Power Construct. You can read more about that here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...e-with-power-construct.3756930/#post-10377276


The reason I bring this up is because I myself would like some alternative to species clause, primarily for the reasons that have already been brought up. There are OMs and UMs that would and could benefit from a less restrictive version. But it's hard to just go ahead and say "forms clause" as the alternative.

Really, I'd just prefer an optional clause that restricts the pokemon on a team to be based on how Smogon tiers pokemon, as that's already a more thoughtful approach for a purely competitive community.
 
Back
Top