just because this got skipped over
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
np: OU Suspect Testing Round 3 - So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
- Thread starter reachzero
- Start date
- Status
just because this got skipped over
The metagame seems relatively fine right now. The standard metagame, not unreleased dreamworld I mean.
Garchomp on his own is dangerous as hell. He's relatively bulky, has a secondary STAB to smash grounded steel types with, and a way to boost his attack in one turn. Depending on what set he's running, he isn't even that easily checked. Yache berry chomp is only checked by the likes of Cloyster. Haban Berry chomp laughs as his opponent loses thier own scarfed garchomp or their lati@s. Just like with Gen 4, you'll need at least two faster pokemon to take this guy down if you don't want to lose to it.
He's a dangerous pokemon. Sand Veil is merely icing on his cake. If I miss ice beam against any other snow cloak/sand pokemon, I probably haven't lost the game. This isn't the same for garchomp. He's the only pokemon that will seriously bother you when your attacks miss. Blame Garchomp. Not sand veil.
If he gets even popular, I'll have to edit my teams to handle him yet again. Easier said than done, considering the dude's bulk. Hooray for taking CB Terakion Close Combat....
Garchomp on his own is dangerous as hell. He's relatively bulky, has a secondary STAB to smash grounded steel types with, and a way to boost his attack in one turn. Depending on what set he's running, he isn't even that easily checked. Yache berry chomp is only checked by the likes of Cloyster. Haban Berry chomp laughs as his opponent loses thier own scarfed garchomp or their lati@s. Just like with Gen 4, you'll need at least two faster pokemon to take this guy down if you don't want to lose to it.
He's a dangerous pokemon. Sand Veil is merely icing on his cake. If I miss ice beam against any other snow cloak/sand pokemon, I probably haven't lost the game. This isn't the same for garchomp. He's the only pokemon that will seriously bother you when your attacks miss. Blame Garchomp. Not sand veil.
If he gets even popular, I'll have to edit my teams to handle him yet again. Easier said than done, considering the dude's bulk. Hooray for taking CB Terakion Close Combat....
That is unrepresentavtive of Garchoms power, frankly, he isnt as strong as you make out. First, he has to SD to be guaranteed of doing a shitload of damage. Easier said than done given how easy it is to cripple him. Second, you assume he will always be in a favourable position against a frail sweeper. Im sorry but the metagame is decidedly more bulky than frail. BU Roob laughs at him, bulky Mamo laughs at him. he can be checked in a lot of different ways. Hell, even if he gets up 3 SD's you can send in Sturdy Skarmory to WW him away.
Also, before anyone replies and starts bitching about Sand Veil I invite you to read the last post on the previous page.
Also, before anyone replies and starts bitching about Sand Veil I invite you to read the last post on the previous page.
He isn't as easy to cripple as you make out, nor does he have a seriously rough time setting up. He can come in on the majority of SR users and walls and set up from there.
Of course, if a bulky booster has gotten in before garchomp, then he's losing. I've beaten SD chomp with BU Gallade and CosmicCRITICAL HIT Power Shinpora before. But that doesn't make it hard for garchomp to find set up oppurtunities at all. Groudon isn't any less threatening just because a +6/+6 Roob can take him on.
And if you're being phazed by sturdy pokemon not named steelix, then you should be using entry hazards, which have no downside to them anyway.
I'm not saying that garchomp is broken. But he is still the top tier pokemon he always was.
By the way, I hope you don't mind if I steal your sunny day heatran idea.
Of course, if a bulky booster has gotten in before garchomp, then he's losing. I've beaten SD chomp with BU Gallade and Cosmic
And if you're being phazed by sturdy pokemon not named steelix, then you should be using entry hazards, which have no downside to them anyway.
I'm not saying that garchomp is broken. But he is still the top tier pokemon he always was.
By the way, I hope you don't mind if I steal your sunny day heatran idea.
Aldaron never stated that my suggestions were a misunderstanding of his proposal. I recall Aldaron posting in this thread on two occasions. On both of them, as far as I can tell, he misinterpreted my suggestion; I remember the first time, he addressed the matter of Sand Throw and Chlorophyll, saying that they should not be banned as they are not broken, but he said nothing about what should happen in other situations in which something combined with a weather ability is broken or otherwise justified in banning. The second time, I remember that he expressed concern with my suggestion that the bans of Manaphy and Swift Swim + Drizzle be scaled back and asked what I would suggest would be done instead. In response to this, I explained my suggestion and told him that if he believed it went against his proposal, I would withdraw that suggestion. He has not responded since then.
I have claimed no such thing. As I have already explained to you, my stance is that if there is a good reason to ban something, but that reason only exists in the condition of a specific permanent weather, than it should be possible to ban that thing in that specific permanent weather only. In other words, if the only reason not to make a ban is the matter of complexity, and if the only thing making that ban complex is that it would only apply under a specific permanent weather condition, then that ban should be permissible.
This is false. If Sand Veil + Sand Stream was banned, Garchomp would still be completely capable of using moves such as Stealth Rock. It would simply be unable to use those moves when it is also on a team with Hippowdon or Tyranitar - and even then, only when that teammate has Sand Stream as their ability rather than their respective Dream World abilities, if they are ever released. Aside from hax, the only synergy Garchomp has with Sandstorm is immunity to the passive damage, so it's hardly a strategic loss.
And while it may be just as possible for either of those things to happen, each of them is much less likely to happen in any given situation, and perhaps also less likely to decide the game in that situation. But the point is moot in the first place. Burn chance and critical hits are part of the game; we cannot prevent either one without either doing serious and unjustified meddling with game mechanics or banning massive swaths of strategies. On the other hand, banning Sand Veil + Sand Stream and Snow Cloak + Snow Warning means losing virtually nothing of any competitive value. So I ask again: Why not ban those combinations? I have yet to see a reason for this.
Addressed above. Please stop making statements that are completely false.
---
On another note, I reiterate that I am by no means saying that there is any imperative need for this ban. As far as I'm concerned, the metagame is fine as is, and if anything, it's time to start scaling back the bans we've already made. However, this change has been brought up yet again, and implementing it would only make the game even better than it already is at virtually no loss. For this reason, I am advocating for it.
Ugh not this again
- Any bulky steel can absorb DM if needed. Not counting the above, that adds in Skarmory, Metagross and Scizor
- There's a whole bunch of stuff in this meta that can revenge Latios.
- Latios needs to win two predictions to get past ttar - 1) catching it on the switch and 2) avoiding Pursuit. That gives TTar about a 75% chance of winning. And to be honest, Tyranitar doesn't even need Pursuit. Latios' overall damage output is fairly small compared to the residual damage it's taking from hazards/sand and/or Life Orb (if Latios is Specs it's not too hard to take advantage of it, depending on its locked move). Of course, if the opponent has something to sack and you fall for it, TTar doesn't need to predict much at all...
- I don't find Latios that easy to switch in at all. For instance, in sand, and with SR up, switching Latios into a Rotom-W Hydro Pump essentially cuts half of its health away (it takes about 46% combined). if Latios makes an attack, it takes another 6.25% from sandstorm. Of course, there are Earthquakes it can switch into, but these quakers usually have some move to badly hurt Latios. It's hard to say exactly why I feel that Latios doesn't swap into things easily, but a lot of the time I use him, I often have to rely on double switches and sacrifices to bring Latios in. Switching into resisted attacks is simply an emergency thing. Which happens a surprising lot, because Latios usually ends up in your team because your team needs coverage against many things that it handles.
3 solid counters, 1 Tyranitar, 5 other checks, many revengers. The metagame has more than enough to solidly handle Latios. You would so wish many other sweepers in the metagame have this much stop to them. My opinion from the beginning of the suspect test still remains: Latios is undeserving of suspect status at this moment (or at least much less so than stuff like genies deoxys-s blaziken reuniclus etc).
EDIT:
IMO, 50% is not much when you consider that they can Roost. Although this does force the steel into the defensive, Latios is still forced out (that is, assuming Specs, as SpD Scizor takes 50% only from Specs DM), further adding residual damage to it (especially if sand is present). Furthermore, Scizor learns Pursuit to snag a switching Latios, while Skarmory has access to Spikes (even if it is not using it at that time) to limit Latios' switch out (not in) possibilities.
EDIT EDIT:
if your only option to take on a Latios DM is Scizor well then you kindof deserve to get crippled. There is a decent number of Dragon Pokemon in the metagame, and they too will probably beat you up badly if Scizor is your only actual answer. Plus, being able to get rid of Latios, though crippled, is moderately generous, because Scizor isn't trapping the other Dragons anywhere as easily. If you just happen to have something to sack, Scizor doesn't even have to be crippled. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that other dragons are better than Latios, but if that's your only way to handle Lati@s you may be at a greater risk, even if you don't know it.
- Latios gets walled completely by Bronzong, Jirachi and Chansey (who btw can eat a Psycho Shock too. Bold 248/max+ Chansey takes 38% max from LO Psycho Shock and 43% max from Specs). In rain, Ferrothorn completely walls Latios too, while sun can use Heatran. Trick? Okay but Latios becomes substantially weaker and the Tricked Pokemon can still absorb Draco Meteors if needed. Three solid counters, two more solid ones in their respective weather.
- Any bulky steel can absorb DM if needed. Not counting the above, that adds in Skarmory, Metagross and Scizor
- There's a whole bunch of stuff in this meta that can revenge Latios.
- Latios needs to win two predictions to get past ttar - 1) catching it on the switch and 2) avoiding Pursuit. That gives TTar about a 75% chance of winning. And to be honest, Tyranitar doesn't even need Pursuit. Latios' overall damage output is fairly small compared to the residual damage it's taking from hazards/sand and/or Life Orb (if Latios is Specs it's not too hard to take advantage of it, depending on its locked move). Of course, if the opponent has something to sack and you fall for it, TTar doesn't need to predict much at all...
- I don't find Latios that easy to switch in at all. For instance, in sand, and with SR up, switching Latios into a Rotom-W Hydro Pump essentially cuts half of its health away (it takes about 46% combined). if Latios makes an attack, it takes another 6.25% from sandstorm. Of course, there are Earthquakes it can switch into, but these quakers usually have some move to badly hurt Latios. It's hard to say exactly why I feel that Latios doesn't swap into things easily, but a lot of the time I use him, I often have to rely on double switches and sacrifices to bring Latios in. Switching into resisted attacks is simply an emergency thing. Which happens a surprising lot, because Latios usually ends up in your team because your team needs coverage against many things that it handles.
3 solid counters, 1 Tyranitar, 5 other checks, many revengers. The metagame has more than enough to solidly handle Latios. You would so wish many other sweepers in the metagame have this much stop to them. My opinion from the beginning of the suspect test still remains: Latios is undeserving of suspect status at this moment (or at least much less so than stuff like genies deoxys-s blaziken reuniclus etc).
EDIT:
Make that SpDef skarm :p
IMO, 50% is not much when you consider that they can Roost. Although this does force the steel into the defensive, Latios is still forced out (that is, assuming Specs, as SpD Scizor takes 50% only from Specs DM), further adding residual damage to it (especially if sand is present). Furthermore, Scizor learns Pursuit to snag a switching Latios, while Skarmory has access to Spikes (even if it is not using it at that time) to limit Latios' switch out (not in) possibilities.
EDIT EDIT:
SDef Skarm does not suck -_-. It can take hits from Gengar, Virizion, CM Reuniclus (though it cant do much back, but it can phaze it away), HP Fire Grass types, bulky waters (to an extent), and of course, Lati@s Draco Meteors.
if your only option to take on a Latios DM is Scizor well then you kindof deserve to get crippled. There is a decent number of Dragon Pokemon in the metagame, and they too will probably beat you up badly if Scizor is your only actual answer. Plus, being able to get rid of Latios, though crippled, is moderately generous, because Scizor isn't trapping the other Dragons anywhere as easily. If you just happen to have something to sack, Scizor doesn't even have to be crippled. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that other dragons are better than Latios, but if that's your only way to handle Lati@s you may be at a greater risk, even if you don't know it.
I completely agree with Haunter's post from pg 38.
People are saying that Garchomp (with Sand Veil) is broken because your 100% accuracy move might miss. It might cause you to miss and lose a game that you would otherwise win.
Paralysis is the same way. You can have a match as an almost guaranteed win, then lose to being fully paralyzed. But no one complains about that. Granted that paralysis is entirely different, I'm just saying that something isn't broken because it involves luck.
There are things worse than Sand Veil. Let's look at it number-wise. Let's say Garchomp has 10% usage. In 10% of matches, Sand Veil will activate 1/5 of the time. So if Sand Veil activates in 2% of matches, let's assume it makes you lose 50% of the times that it activates.
Those numbers are pretty generous, and even then you only lose 1% of matches to Sand Veil Garchomp. I cannot believe that Sand Veil on Garchomp is broken.
People are saying that Garchomp (with Sand Veil) is broken because your 100% accuracy move might miss. It might cause you to miss and lose a game that you would otherwise win.
Paralysis is the same way. You can have a match as an almost guaranteed win, then lose to being fully paralyzed. But no one complains about that. Granted that paralysis is entirely different, I'm just saying that something isn't broken because it involves luck.
There are things worse than Sand Veil. Let's look at it number-wise. Let's say Garchomp has 10% usage. In 10% of matches, Sand Veil will activate 1/5 of the time. So if Sand Veil activates in 2% of matches, let's assume it makes you lose 50% of the times that it activates.
Those numbers are pretty generous, and even then you only lose 1% of matches to Sand Veil Garchomp. I cannot believe that Sand Veil on Garchomp is broken.
To be fair, SpDenfensive Scizor still takes 50%+ from the Meteor and Skarmory with no SpD investment is taking 60%+.
Sp.Def Skarm kinda sucks and 60% might not be such a worry for Skarm(Unless it has taken some residual damage), but Scizors usually run a Choice Band, and taking a max of 59% is kinda crippling for such a slow mon.
Scizor can deal with Latios, but not without becoming kinda crippled.
That's what bothers me about Latios :/
Again, that's passive luck. Your opponent actually has to do something in order to induce paralysis, and that something can be prevented. I mean, there's the matter of Static, but that requires randomness to activate in the first place, and it's also dependent on the actions of the player whose Pokemon would be affected by the ability. Besides, Static is not close to relevant in OU, whereas Sand Veil is.
1% of battles actually sounds a bit high; there are a few other factors to consider, such as the chance of there actually being Sandstorm in the first place, and Garchomp's sets - Scarfchomp doesn't benefit nearly as much. On the other hand, there's probably going to be more than one chance for Sand Veil to activate, as well, which increases the chance.
Regardless, I reiterate yet again that what is in question is not anything being broken. What is in question is whether or not the combination of Sand Veil + Sand Stream violates Evasion Clause, and whether or not it is reasonable to ban it for that reason. Certainly, there isn't that much to be gained by banning the combination. But there is even less to lose from banning it, so I ask again: Why not?
Its a waste of effort for one, and trying to justify to people why they cant use garchomp in sand would be a difficult feat seeing as how sand veil isnt really a big deal, 20% chance wow, il tell you thats not exactly a compelling reason to tell people that they cant use Hyppodon/T-Tar and Garchomp on the same team unless you change their abilities.
Its not like Drizzle + SwSw where people would understand that its either that or get pwned by a team full of Swift Swimers + Politoed all the time.
Furthermore, it would create a true precedence for the further banning of pokemon/abilty combinations. Despite various peoples statements that no precedent will be created there are plenty of people who want to modify the game to their benefit by banning things like Sand Power Landorus. It just opens to great of a shitstorm for too little benefit.
Also just stating my opinion that I think this is an excellent metagame at the moment.
Also just stating my opinion that I think this is an excellent metagame at the moment.
Let's look at it from the other perspective.
Say you're using a Sandstorm team with Garchomp. Chances are, you're using SDChomp, because he benefits the most from the potential misses. So every game where you bring out Garchomp with Sandstorm in play, and use it in such a way that your opponent only has one chance to stop it from sweeping their team, you will win 20% of the time. And if you're playing half-decently, none of those things are at all unlikely to happen. So let's say 5-10% of the games that person plays are a free, luck-based win for them. And they're the only person who would be able to complain about such a ban. For them, it would be introducing a luck element that is high enough to justify a ban.
We only ban things when they are broken or when they introduce an unreasonable luck element. As long as that is maintained, it doesn't matter what people try to ban; it won't happen.
Arguably, Aldaron's proposal is already violating that by restricting the usage of the many Swift Swim users that are not broken in any conditions. However, I have already outlined how that can and should be fixed, now that Aldaron's proposal has fulfilled its short-term purpose of demonstrating that Drizzle without the top Rain sweepers is not broken. This was a good reason to test the proposal, but not enough to keep it long-term.
Granted, however I still maintain that Sand Veil only makes a good pokemon better but not enough to be considered broken and that the precedence it opens up is considerably more detrimental to the continuing development than allowing it to remain.
5-10% of wins are luck? I bet that many wins and loses come from critical hit hax all the time (10% chance of happening)
The average player will not find this compelling enough to take seriously a baning of the usage of Garchomp with T-Tar & Hypodon unless they change their abilities.
Its too much to ask just to prevent 5-10% luck based wins becasue of people taking advantage of Sand Viel.
Other hax is irrelevant. That hax can't be reasonably prevented. This hax can.
Doesn't matter if they take it seriously or not. If it passes, it's the rule, and they have to abide by it. Most players won't be using Sand Veil + Sand Stream or Snow Cloak + Snow Warning anyway, so it won't affect them, in which case they're unlikely to care. The ones that would use the combination might be annoyed, but all bans annoy someone who wants to use the banned thing. A 5-10% chance of a free win is very significant, and it shouldn't be allowed just because some newbies will whine about it.
To be fair, your opponent has to "induce" Sand Veil by keeping the sand up. But that point is largely moot as I myself said "Granted that paralysis is entirely different,".
Thorhammer said:
Here's where I disagree. You say that there is almost nothing to lose by banning it. What is to lose is that movepools are decimated and sets made unviable.
You said it's not broken. Given the two drawbacks I just listed, and that you agree it's not broken, I cannot see why it should be banned.
QFT. It seems that some are trying to over-complicate the game with a new thing to ban everyday. Passive effects are in the game to add luck to the game. Pokemon is not a game of pure skill in which every single move is calculated the preferred outcome happens just as planned every time. It's a game with skill, in which you do calculate your moves, but the outcome is not always the same; sometimes, Flamethrower gets that lucky 10% burn chance that you didn't think would happen. Sometimes, Iron Head gets that lucky Flinch that you only half-way expected. And sometimes, Sand Veil activates for that lucky miss you weren't expecting at all.
All passive effects add unnecessary luck to the game. That's their job. The 10% paralysis chance, the 30% burn chance, the 60% flinch chance -- all of them are there in order to add luck to the game.
The problem here isn't that it's such unnecessary luck that it needs to be banned. It seems to me that the problem is this: each day when someone loses to something once or twice, and they think they could remove it, be it simple ban or (new) complex ban, they want to remove it. Why? Because they lost to it. If that burn, that miss, that flinch hadn't happened, they would have won their match. Instead of shaking it off, it seems that the right thing to do is option 3: "bitch about it on the forums"
Sit back and think: If Garchomp can't use Sand Veil in the sand any longer, will the game significantly improve? If Jirachi couldn't use Iron Head to flinch my Magnezone to death anymore, would the game significantly improve?
The point of bans is not to make winning easier, it's to create an improved metagame. I'm not sure that's something everyone here realizes, and you should consider AT LEAST that one question before advocating any further bans. When you make a nomination, you write it this way: "I feel that banning ______ will significantly improve the metagame in the following ways: _____". Not, "I feel banning ______ will make it easier for everyone to win."
I guess that's my two cents, but it really feels like a lot of people in this thread are advocating bans for things just to make it easier to win, and not to improve the game.
not really in response to anyone, i just kind of feel people have lost focus on why you ban things and everyone expects a ban to happen. back to lurking?
To play Devil's Advocate:
It's not about making it easier to win, it's about making the game more based on a player's skill, not whoever gets the better luck. It's hard to play a game competitively with so much unnecessary luck around every corner, and having a brand of exist that is already explicitly banned seems like a complete disregard for our very own rules. Removing this unnecessary luck would most definitely significantly improve the meta-game, as it brings us closer to a truly ideal meta-game where skill prevails over all else.
In conclusion (No longer Devil's Advocate): The "ban to make an ideal meta-game" ideology is an awful concept when one considers bans. It is far too vague and too easy to manipulate. It isn't hard to make it support both sides of an argument. The term "ideal" itself correlates too strongly with opinions rather than anything concrete, and thus creates a void of the clarity that is needed for such a process.
I pretty much agree with you. I don't particularly wish to take sides regarding anything because I hate to be a person involved in a lot of this. The only thing I wish to get across in my post is that the effects of the ban need to be considered outside of the scope of regards to helping a player win, which it seems most are considering as the primary reason for a ban.
I guess, that by "improve", I'm meaning to say that through banning something, one won't simply create the same metagame just with one less used Pokemon, but instead something is being banned that would probably drastically change the metagame. By that I mean that the Pokemon, Ability, or Pokemon(s) + Ability involved were at a point considered broken in which they affected the game in an bad way, where more focus than needed was put into it or it caused problems that were ridiculous. Something to that effect.
There was no reason for him to respond because, like is usually the case with your posts, he would simply be repeating himself. What was the intent of Aldaron's Proposal, and as such the justification for it? It's right in his post, yet you conviniently ignored it. Instead you chose to selectively view and nitpick only the examples he gave about Sand Throw and Chlorophyll.
Would a Sand Veil + SandStream ban accomplish this? How about a Snow Cloak + Snow Warning ban? Manaphy + Drizzle? No? Then they cannot draw justification from Aldaron's proposal.
In response to your stance on Evasion Abilities + Weather, sure they are passive, but so is almost every bit of hax present in the metagame. Should we ban Boiling Water because it has a passive chance to burn the opponent's physical sweeper? Before you nitpick my example and say "Boiling Water has nothing to do with weather," recall what I have already said in this post: You can not draw justification for any of your proposed bans from Aldaron's proposal or the complex weather exception, because your stance is, in fact, against them.
Well, if we can agree that they're entirely different matters, I'm not sure how much more there is to say.
However, it is completely false to say that movepools are decimated, and therefore it is also false to say that sets are made unviable. Even when not paired with a Pokemon with Sand Stream, Garchomp can run Sand Veil, and thereby gain access to any of its moves. The restriction is on movepools in combination with teammates. And for Garchomp at least, most of those moves are of little consequence. I'm not too concerned about people being unable to run a Garchomp with Stealth Rock on the same team as their Tyranitar or Hippowdon.
But the movepool restrictions are only when DW abilities are released. Currently, there is no Rough Skin Garchomp; the only Garchomp is Sand Veil Garchomp. So for now, it's really just a ban on teammates: You can't run Garchomp on the same team as Tyranitar or Hippowdon, because doing so would violate Evasion Clause. Again, those Pokemon don't have any notable synergy outside of hax, which makes it less of a concern than making Evasion Clause work completely.
Read a bit farther down that post you quoted. There are two parts to that justification. Take a look at the last paragraph:
As you can see, this indicates the opposite: If the combination in question is actually broken, then Aldaron's proposal can be extended to apply to it.
This seems like a contradiction. You'll notice that I asked him about that just a few posts later:
As I said in my previous post, he did not respond, and therefore we cannot definitively state his stance on the matter.
Addressed above. While it is indicated that preventing a massive cascade of bans was a part of the reasoning behind Aldaron's proposal, it seems inaccurate to assume that a complex ban would have to prevent a cascade of massive bans in order to follow in the limited precedent set by Aldaron's proposal.
Hax clauses such as Evasion Clause are a separate matter. They are never required to be an integral part of balance in order to be put into effect. However, Aldaron's proposal demonstrates a way that Evasion Clause could be extended to apply to evasion abilities as well without removing anything strategically relevant from the metagame.
No, he has not. Again, take a look at the last few lines of his post:
As I said, he did not know what I was suggesting at the time, and it is clear that none of the guesses he made are at all like the extension of the proposal that I am suggesting. He cannot give a response to a suggestion when he does not even know what the suggestion is.
...Are you even listening to yourself? Scald's chance to burn is active. You have to use the attack in order for the chance to happen. The same holds true for any hax related to any attack in the game. It may not require continuous use of a specific attack like Jirachi's flinchhax, but it still requires an action, which can be prevented or limited by the actions of the player that would be on the receiving end of the hax.
And while I did not need to make the argument you are suggesting I would make, I will say again regardless that you have shown nothing about how my stance relates to Aldaron's proposal. All you have done is make guesses about the intent behind the proposal.
That's impossible, because it actually modifies a game mechanic rather than just preventing players from building a team that includes that mechanic. We don't change mechanics.
Sleep clause (as it is currently implemented). (Also, this is an anti-sleep clause we have now post, not a pro change game mechanics post)
That isn't accurate, either, as we still have the Sleep Clause that modifies game mechanics. However, it's based on the Sleep Clause of past Pokemon games, so we still aren't inventing some mechanic change with no basis in the games.
- Status