Resource Game Issues and Feedback Thread


is a Forum Moderator
Ground Rules
  • All posts here must follow the forum's rules
  • Keep conversation within this thread on-topic
Got it? Good. This thread is for the general public to bring up any issues, questions, or suggestions they have with BBP in mind. Make sure all posts here have some sort of substance - no "yes this" or "pls" posts or anything of the like.

At any point in time a moderator may decide to branch the discussion from here into a separate thread in order to reduce the clutter within this thread. The link to the discussion thread will be posted in this thread for all interested parties.

Deciding Body: Moderators


is a Forum Moderator
See: this match

Currently, one of the substitution rules is:
Conversely, if, ordering second, your substitution would cause the Trigger of an opponent's substitution to have its conditions met, but that Pokemon has already acted this action, then it is ignored.
According to this wording, if Player 1 were to create a sub that relies on future knowledge, it can be circumvented like so:
Player 1: IF Toxic a2 THEN Taunt a1.

Player 2: At the start of a2, before either Pokemon have acted, IF (*chance clause*) THEN replace a2 with Toxic.
At the time Player 2's substitution triggers, Player 1's Pokemon has not already acted this action (a2), so the substitution is legal. I would like to suggest the following change:
Conversely, if, ordering second, your substitution would cause the Trigger of an opponent's substitution to have its conditions met, but the opponent's Pokemon has already performed an action that would be retroactively changed as a result, then it is ignored.
Last edited:


is a Forum Moderator
The theoretical you've posted is different from what actually occurred in the linked match.

1. Sub is perfectly legal
2. No actions occur to alter the legality of the sub
3. Sub is "circumvented"

The quotes there is because the current rule is supposed to cover that abuse too, but the wording is rather tricky. It will likely be altered to some like this:
Conversely, if, ordering second, your substitution would cause the Trigger of an opponent's substitution to have its conditions met, but the timing for their substitution's result has passed, then it is ignored.
For those who didn't peek into the match:

1. Sub is perfectly legal
2. Sub can no longer activate due to a status condition
3. Sub is ignored when it could've been popped given it being illegal.

The overall ruling for this is a potential tweak - likely hinged on specifying that the avoided substitution still has to be legal in order for it to be considered for this rule. A mix between this and the above change I noted.


is a Forum Moderator
Ah, I didn't see how Taunt affected the situation. I thought it was just a trick with wording. Regardless, I like the rewording you gave here. Also, I agree that the interaction should be specified in the rulebook because the way the rule is currently written does not list legality as a requirement. I would suggest:
Conversely, if, when ordering second, your substitution would have caused an opponent's substitution to activate, and the opponent's substitution is still legal, but the timing for their substitution's result has passed, then it is ignored.
We already have clear rules about the requirements for a substitution to activate, so I think it would work well.
Last edited:


is a Forum Moderator
In the BBP Data Audit, a little over half of the damaging moves that should have 100% Effect Chance are listed as having -- Effect Chance. I propose standardizing the Data Audit so that all these moves have a 100% Effect Chance. Benefits include:
  • Making the information in the Data Audit more accurate towards the VG.
  • Clarifying which moves are affected by Sheer Force/Shield Dust and which moves are not.
Below, I've compiled two lists of moves. They're all the moves with an Effect Chance of 100% (according to Bulbapedia). The first list contains moves which are listed with an Effect Chance of -- in the NDA. The second contains moves listed with 100% Effect Chance in the NDA.
Acid Spray
Anchor Shot
Dynamic Punch
Fake Out
Flame Charge
Genesis Supernova
Low Sweep
Mud Shot
Rock Tomb
Spirit Shackle
Struggle Bug
Throat Chop
Zap Cannon

Fling (this move isn't affected by Sheer Force but is affected by Shield Dust.
The heck is up with that?)
Clangorous Soulblaze
Fire Lash
Icy Wind
Mystical Fire
Power-Up Punch
Stoked Sparksurfer
Trop Kick


is a Forum Moderator
Adding onto the above:
  • Stomping Tantrum's description is incorrect. It reads:
The user stomps on the ground in rage, striking the opponent in the process. If the target's previous attack failed or missed the target, this move has 15 BAP. Otherwise this move will have 8 BAP.
It should say, "If the user's previous attack failed or missed the target."
  • Trick-or-Treat is incorrectly listed as "Magic Coat/Bounce: No" even though it can be bounced back in-game. (However, Forest's Curse is already correctly listed in the NDA as "Magic Coat/Bounce: Yes").
A while back, I noticed that a few moves in the NDA are different from their ASB incarnations, yet were not included in the BBP Introductiory Update's list of changes; as examples: Grass Knot and Low Kick share Psychic's BAP and energy formulae, entry hazards deal less damage, Highhorse Power lost BAP, and Dodge disappeared entirely. A few hours ago, a battle that tests major changes to the Rank system and damage formula was posted and stickied. The issue here is that nothing was spoken on the BBP forum about these development; such a lack of documentation gives the game a sense of unpredictability and instability. To avoid optics problems for a game with historic troubles attracting new players, a change should be made in the way BBP records its balancing process.

The quickest option is to report all mechanical changes made over Discord or PM's in the Implementation and Announcements Thread. This choice retains the convenience of real-time discussion for working through mechanical issues and requires the least amount of effort on leadership's part, as it takes little time for a mod or council member to post a blurb in the thread. However, this suggestion cannot help the visibility of ongoing discussions, as it only follows finalized decisions.

In contrast, a more thorough fix is to conduct all matters of game balance in the Policy Center subforum. While issues can still be brought up over Discord, a post must be made in this very thread in order for its content to be considered for implementation. The major advantage of this solution is that it displays the entire process behind every change—potential or realized—within the BBP forum. Nevertheless, it slows down the speed of discussion by limiting Discord's influence over BBP's mechanics.

Regardless of the path taken, BBP's balancing philosophy needs to be reexamined. While its current methods are fast and convenient, the neglect of the Policy Center poses long-term problems to the game's health.


is a Forum Moderator
The Policy Center in general is currently decrepit as a result of a lack of a player base and as such the moderation team has taken it into our hands to move swiftly and make the decisions amongst ourselves for the time being.

That being said, I did forget to make a formal announcement in the thread about the recent changes. Stealth Rock’s change might have just been something I missed and same for the removal of Dodge, as both of those happened at the advent of BBP. The recent changes to all table BAP moves (except for Fling, which I just realized I never added the link for the table to the Handbook as intended) however, that was very recent and something I forgot to announce here.

Regarding optics, those have taken a sideshow to actually making progress on getting things done. As much as we'd like to maintain the appearance of the old system, the old system got us into a place where changes that needed to be made were not getting made, and dwindled our player base to a point where we had to decide to just make decisions ourselves. And more importantly, the changes that are being made are massive and wide-sweeping changes that are not to be designed by an entire community, but rather reviewed. Currently, these changes are in the design phase, which is why they haven't been made public yet. The test match that went up today is the first bit that has been made fully public, so that when the discussion begins next month, people will have seen a part of it.

At the end of the day currently, all decision-making lies in the hands of the moderation team to be discussed publicly at our discretion, and we’ll make sure to be more thorough in announcing changes. Also last note, keep an eye on the mechanical rulings thread as well, as a fair amount of things that may be changed could end up there instead of the implementation thread as a ruling matter and not a release matter.

Florina Liastacia

Gotta flex on the rest of Battle-By-Post
Alright, so LouisCyphre and LucarioOfLegends pointed out an issue with the move Stomping Tantrum: "If the previous attack failed or missed the target" is fairly undefined and leaves a lot into interpretation. I just want a detailed list, maybe in Mechanical Ruling Compendium, what qualifies exactly for a "failed" move (if only for the purpose of this move; maybe append the list to the move's description?). LouisCyphre linked a fairly detailed video that helps define what "failed" means, and I'd like to see this codified somewhere, because sites like Serebii and Bulbapedia don't show much of a description in the move's page, and knowing when moves failed or not shouldn't come down to having to hunt down sources to know what works or not.


is a Forum Moderator
I have a proposal for a new rule regarding Combinations:

"A Combination of a single-target move plus a multi-target move may fail against some targets and succeed against other targets. In that case, the Combination has no effect on any targets it would fail against. The Combination is considered to have been successfully performed if there was at least one valid target."

This rule would allow for more freedom in assigning Combo Classes/Subclasses to moves with specific success requirements (for example, Sucker Punch or Attract combos). It would also help future-proofing in the inevitable case that we overlook such a combo being feasible.


is a Forum Moderator
Uhhh changes I want implemented, let's list them all:
  • Fake Out to Combo Type: None (as discussed in Discord, its combos are stupid jank)
  • Sucker Punch: add Combo Class "Body" (it already has subclass "Arm", but the "Body" class will give it a lot of combos with punching moves that should make sense already)
  • Branch Poke: When combined with Wood Hammer or Solar Blade, the Base Attack Power of that attack is increased by one and a half (1.5x) [e.g Branch Poke + Solar Blade is 4 + 13 * 1.5 = 23.5 BAP]. (Imagine not having a combo interaction. This post was made by 4BAP Gang)
  • Change the effect of No Retreat to:
The user purposefully backs itself into a corner in order to rouse its fighting spirit. Increases the user's Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, and Speed by one (1) stage each, but the user becomes Trapped by all active opponents. This move will fail if the user has already used it since it was last sent out.
Z-Move Effect: None.

As-is, the move locks the user out of switching forever, which is basically a self-kill if the opponent has a benched Pokemon that can check it. Changing the penalty to a Trapping effect (like being hit by Mean Look) would make the move slightly more feasible to use while still maintaining a hefty penalty (Falinks doesn't have any trapping moves, so it's still giving up a free Switch Phase -- it's just that the Falinks isn't permanently locked into the new matchup). Scoring a KO would be the best outcome for Falinks, since the Trapping effect would go away -- but even then, if it switches out of the next matchup, it loses the boosts, so there wouldn't be much benefit. Expected effect on the move: the speed boost is probably the only useful part of the move, and now you can get that boost relatively safely in more situations than you could before. Is anybody going to use Falinks seriously now? Probably not, because matchup control is god in Singles and Falinks doesn't have any moves for matchup control. I guess this would open up unintended possibilities with Shed Shell and Rapid Spin, but Macho Brace is already better than Shed Shell for Falinks, and Smeargle can already use Baton Pass to play around the penalty far better than Rapid Spin would.

The failure condition is to prevent Macho Brace boost stacking, which would probably be too powerful.
would it be too much to ask for the stage boosts on No Retreat to be natural stage raising? my biggest problem with the move is that it doesn't last long, especially in 2apr formats


is a Forum Moderator
would it be too much to ask for the stage boosts on No Retreat to be natural stage raising? my biggest problem with the move is that it doesn't last long, especially in 2apr formats
I mean, we could? I considered it. I don't think it would be broken. But right now the existing boosting moves that are permanent (Belly Drum, Clangorous Soul, and Extreme Evoboost) all have really big activation costs: Belly Drum and Clangorous Soul cost 30% HP, and Extreme Evoboost requires an item slot and a Z-Move to be consumed. Reducing the penalty for No Retreat and making the boosts Natural is probably more than we need to buff the move to make it usable, especially when you compare the move to, say, Dragon Dance. I'd suggest we do one or the other: either reduce the penalty, or make the boosts Natural. That's my opinion.


Look at my shiny CT!
Two things, both regarding signature items:

1) Leek and Lucky Punch both raise Farfetch'd's and Chansey's critical hit stage by 2, respectively, and both cost 6 RC. Scope Lens does the same, but for any Pokemon, and costs 4 RC. I propose that we revert the sig items to be a guaranteed crit as they were in gen 7 and previous BBP/ASB. Also, Sirfetch'd appears to benefit from the Leek in-game, but not here?

2) I feel that the Dawn Wings and Dusk Mane attachments should be renamed to N-Lunarizer and N-Solarizer, respectively, since those names don't appear to be used for anything currently and that item name is actually used in-game. This doesn't really affect anything and is just to sate my (and probably others') OCD.
There's no SQSA thread anymore, so I'm asking here. Now that we've prohibited Stage 4+ Pokemon from evolving, which implies that a Stage's rewards cannot be applied after a Pokemon leaves that Stage, I would like some clarifications on evolving a Pokemon at a lower stage.

1. Must a Stage 2 or Stage 3 Pokemon evolve only at the moment its Stage increases? For example, if a player raised a Charmander from Stage 1 to Stage 2 but refrained from evolving it, could the player choose to evolve that Charmander at a later date without spending another TC?
2. If a Stage 2 Pokemon that is in the first of three evolutionary stages advances to Stage 3, can that Pokemon evolve twice to reach its final evolution? If the player above missed out on evolving their Charmander, could they still wind up with a Charizard at the Charmander's next stage?


is a Forum Moderator
P2X7 Evolving Stage 2* or Stage 3* Pokemon is fair game. If you wanna delay evolving them, there's no punishment -- do so at your leisure. The only reason for the Stage 4+ prohibition is to make facility rewards more consistent (i.e. not allowing someone to clear Battle Tree with Ralts and then claim it as a Stage 5* Gardevoir).


I'm so meta, even this acronym!
The data audit says "A substitute protects the user from all moves except for Attract, Curse, Destiny Bond, Encore, Grudge, Perish Song, Psych Up, Roar, Taunt and Whirlwind." The Bulbapedia article on Substitute lists a bunch more moves that ignore it, such as Mean Look and Powder. Is the departure from in-game intentional, and if not can we fix the data audit please?


is a Forum Moderator
Mowtom lists for moves like Substitute, Encore, and Sleep Talk take purposeful departures from in-cartridge. For any moves that are missing, it would probably be best to take a case-by-case look.

Gemini Taurus I'm strongly in favor of that idea. I'll probably adjust that next time I'm at a computer.


I'm so meta, even this acronym!
Mowtom lists for moves like Substitute, Encore, and Sleep Talk take purposeful departures from in-cartridge. For any moves that are missing, it would probably be best to take a case-by-case look.

Gemini Taurus I'm strongly in favor of that idea. I'll probably adjust that next time I'm at a computer.
So the moves that ignore Substitute in game but not in BBP are:
After You
Aromatic Mist
Conversion 2
Fairy Lock
Gear Up
Guard Swap
Heart Swap
Helping Hand
Hold Hands
Hyperspace Fury
Hyperspace Hole
Magnetic Flux
Me First
Miracle Eye
Odor Sleuth
Play Nice
Power Swap
Reflect Type
Role Play
Skill Swap
Spectral Thief
Speed Swap
Sorry for misremembering, Mean Look is not in fact on the list. But there's so many moves here that I really doubt they were all nerfed on purpose? Substitute is already a decent move, there's really no reason to make it give the user even more random immunities than it should have. I'm fine with the lists not being identical but the discrepancy should not be this large.
Last edited:


is a Forum Moderator
Mowtom thanks for the list. I'll see about trying to add a column to the Data Audit to accomodate those moves, since there are way too many to put in Substitute's description.


You can call me Jiggly
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributor
Early Bird
This Pokemon is used to waking up at early hours or operating in low-light conditions and subsequently sleep status is automatically reduced by one intensity level when inflicted on this Pokemon. When the Pokemon uses Rest they will gain 18 HP per action and only be asleep for two actions.
As much as the idea of Kanga getting +36 HP for 15 EN over 2a appeals to me, based on the adjustment's to Rest's healing this should be +15 HP/a.

(Also, can we purge any mention of Dodge? Trick Room, Pursuit, and Dodge all need modernising on that front)

Shadow Claw. Despite Shadow Claw having a higher crit chance, this does not seem to be reflected. Thankfully, the calcs I was calculating scored a critical hit without this.

I’m not too sure if this is a bug. If it isn’t, would you mind telling me what is the crit. hit chance? (Like, on my wall.) You guys know I’m a beginner, so I’m not too familiar with the tools. Thanks :)

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