Substitution Rules Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-Wegetit-visited

[Frosty]

This probably got ignored in the storm about jayy's stuffs:

On a separate note, I think that the thing in subs where you can't have a NOT move clause for a opposing mon if there isn't a "yes" move clause is unnecessary for blocking ridiculous subs and starts to infringe on reasonable subs like

9:05:42 PM <Rainman> If Glalie is under the effects of Endure, and Safeguard is not up on the opponent's side, and Glalie does not use rest on any action, use toxic and push actions back

or

IF Magenzone is under the effects of magnet rise, AND magnezone is not to use thunder wave, THEN smack down and push back.

I think the "1 move clause per mon per action" rule covers the most ridiculous sub effectively now (IF NOT under p/e AND NOT under d/e, THEN attacking move), so I feel like we should remove the offending clause.

Thoughts on the above?

 

[Dogfish44]

I think I will always have some reservations with plain "IF NOT P/E", but fine.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I've always stated that there is nothing wrong with straight up IF NOT Move, THEN Y and argued for it in that log dogfiish posted in feedback a few weeks ago: Please educate me on how the aforementioned sub will ever be broken.

 

[Frosty]

echoing iar's sentiments.

There is no opposal to this other than dogfish44's "reservations". I will give it 48h before sending to the booth this:

Options:
a) Keep the "If you have any attack clauses for your opponent's team, then at least one opponent's attack clause must not have a NOT clause." sub limitation
b) Remove the "If you have any attack clauses for your opponent's team, then at least one opponent's attack clause must not have a NOT clause." sub limitation