Yeah I realy like the item clause, I just lost to this guy who had mass focus sashes (2 to be exact). My SR/Spiker was unable to use even one Stealth Rock or Spike beacuse it were hit by spore... So It was pretty lame losing cuz his sashed smeargle (-.-) baton passed to a sashed Electivire and they both survived by 1hp and helped him beat me. =( So I play by Item Clause from now on if I realy feel like winning.
-
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.
What do you guys think about the item clause?
- Thread starter DEL337ED
- Start date
- Status
It's your choice if you want to request item clause, but if you really feel like winning then you could prepare better. I feel that multiple focus sashes actually makes your team much LESS dangerous, and there are only a few instances where surviving with 1 hp is all that useful.
You can choose to not fight players who don't adhere to item clause, but it sounds like you're more satisfied by winning rather than by playing the best competition that you can get.
What are the arguments for Species clause, then? If the opponent want to use 6 Blissey, aren't they just hurting themselves? Using repeated Pokemon definitely gives a disadvantage in terms of type weakness and coverage, as it's doubtful that the same Pokemon can use two completely different movesets and have two completely different uses.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here!
Just playing Devil's Advocate here!
probably because we like to test shit out? we dont just mandate stuff randomly, it usually has a few test runs
I don't like it, i feel as if it limits what your team can do. Having one lefties hurts especially since i run 2 walls, who can't really effectively use anything else. I also would like to run more than 1 choice item on a team..but i can see how your opponent would get PO'd at that
Because IIRC it's an official rule enforced by Nintendo in the Stadium games. Same with restrictions on Sleep and Freeze, but not some of the fruitier ones like Evasion (come on people we're not playing RBY anymore and OHKOs.
But seriously, Leftovers? The bigger threats are teams that run multiple choice items, or multiple sashes, and not those that squeeze out a little bit of recovery in an environment where several Pokemon are capable of 2HKOing everything on your team.
Hmm, interesting stuff.
Since by the looks of it the item clause will not be enforced, I've been preparing for either occasion my team might have to face. It's not that bad, but I still have a bit of trouble against people with 3 walls (all with leftovers) and 3 sweepers (all with choice items).
Since by the looks of it the item clause will not be enforced, I've been preparing for either occasion my team might have to face. It's not that bad, but I still have a bit of trouble against people with 3 walls (all with leftovers) and 3 sweepers (all with choice items).
I think this is probably the most succinct way of putting it. We should be striving for the best. If, somehow, someone actually puts a team together where the best items for it are 6 Lefties, so be it (annoying as it'd be on WiFi... -_-;), I wouldn't want to force that person to be using 2nd or even 3rd and 4th best options.
As E said, Item Clause is "official" and here we are having a debate about it. Is that really the only reason we have Species Clause? Is there something "cheap" about having multiple Pokemon with the same weaknesses and movepools?
I think that a reason species clause is enforced is that without it, it would be impossible to build a solid team that holds up against a wide variety of pokemon. As it is now, most teams have maybe 2 or 3 pokemon that can handle a certain threat. Without species clause, you would have stuff like 3xSalamences combined with 2xTyranitars and maybe a Blissey. Your team may be able to take down the first two mences, but by then your team will be worn down sufficiently enough for the third one to sweep the rest of your team. With that in mind, lets say you rebuild your team to include 3xBlisseys so it can handle multiple Mences. Then a team with 3xSlakings comes along and sweeps your team again. Any team you built would just be destroyed by another team with 3xThreats that you just wouldn't be able to respond to.
Also, just think of how annoying it would be to take down a major threat and then be like "fuck, another one?"
Also, just think of how annoying it would be to take down a major threat and then be like "fuck, another one?"
A team with 3 Salamence is extremely vulnerable to Ice attacks; your first hypothetical team is swept 6-0 by a single Weavile. 3 Slakings is pretty bad as well, since half of the team cannot attack on consecutive terms, so they literally cannot "sweep". 3 Blissey is bad: no offense and very vulnerable to physical attacks.
I don't really care how "annoying" anything is since that is too subjective to worry about.
I don't really care how "annoying" anything is since that is too subjective to worry about.
Well since that first team would have 3 Salamences, why not scarf/focus sash one of them in case the other team even has a Weavile? With Weavile out of the way, the other 2 can sweep. Heck, one of the Mences could be choice banded with the other holding choice specs. How would a team respond to this?
Admittingly, the 3xSlakings was a rather bad example. I was just trying to think of a pokemon that would hurt blissey a lot. And the last line was more of a joke lol.
Admittingly, the 3xSlakings was a rather bad example. I was just trying to think of a pokemon that would hurt blissey a lot. And the last line was more of a joke lol.
I fail to see how that's a relevant comparison. Sure, Focus Sashers are a royal pain, but each Focus Sasher under Species Clause would have a separate counter.
The problem with no Species Clause is in the case of having three of one Pokemon, with one specifically designed to null the most common counters. Let's say a team with three Blisseys. First keep in mind that very few things can OHKO Blissey, and that Blissey can therefore retaliate in grand fashion with Counter. The first Blissey can easily take out the initial Blissey counter with Counter, then the other two Blisseys can stall like crazy (and possibly Counter any other major physical threats) now that their counter is out of the way, leading to a deadly sweep from one of the other Pokemon on the team. Further adding to this team's cheapness would be the open team slots to cover any Blissey counter that can't be Countered into oblivion.
The only way to beat such a team is to have two counters to one Pokemon, which isn't practical team-building.
So basically, the argument is that we accept Nintendo's rule about this because otherwise teams would be unbeatable, but we don't like Nintendo's rule about items and evasion because, respectively, item clause prevents a team/pokemon from being at their best, and evasion makes teams unbeatable?
If one is merely striving for the best/most powerful combination, why not use three blisseys? If it's better than one, and extremely hard to counter, it sounds better to me.
I guess it's all a matter of drawing arbritary lines based on what style of playing one personally likes, and what pokemon one personally likes...
Unless one's trying to make the "metagame" into a chess-like situation where there can be similar but equal possibilities for different players? I dunno.
I don't like it, because if you don't like using multiples of the same item, then fine, go ahead. But if you DO want to repeat items (like Leftovers) then there's no real reason not to. Why limit your items if you don't want to?
It doesn't solve anything...except forcing you to choose items a bit more carefully, perhaps.
It doesn't solve anything...except forcing you to choose items a bit more carefully, perhaps.
Very, very poor analogy.
Species clause was more relevant in RBY in which a team with 3 Tauros would actually be reasonable and extremely dangerous. I really don't see why we still need a species clause now (though there should be a nickname rule so you can always tell two Pokemon apart). I say that full metagame testing once Competitor comes out is a great way to resolve all of this. I really can't see how it would even really benefit you to use two of the same Pokemon (assuming they had different nicknames so you can't be deceptive with it), let alone be unfairly good.
As per the item clause, meh, multiple of the same item is hardly unfairly good in theory at least. It doesn't really even promote that much variety so much a s a greater emphasis on attacking since Leftovers is one item and Choice Band, Choice Scarf, and Choice Specs are three items, and most other decent items are all about offense as well.
As per the item clause, meh, multiple of the same item is hardly unfairly good in theory at least. It doesn't really even promote that much variety so much a s a greater emphasis on attacking since Leftovers is one item and Choice Band, Choice Scarf, and Choice Specs are three items, and most other decent items are all about offense as well.
The developers put something into the game, so it was obviously put in for a reason, and items are another layer of strategy. Just find a way to deal with it, and if you're on this board, then there's no reason why you can't. If you get pestered by stealth rocks/spikes, Rapid Spin. If I have Leftovers, use switcheroo or Knock Off. It's not that hard >_>
(Do you approve of this post, Firestorm? v_v)
(Do you approve of this post, Firestorm? v_v)
By last one I was saying your analogy was crappy. Although I think that might come from you not understanding what item clause is. Item Clause means each Pokemon must be holding different items. It does not mean items are completely banned.
For your SSBM comment in the first post, some people (say me) find the game more fun without items. It's also definitely necessary for competitive play. Item Clause and No Items are completely different. Nobody will ever ban items in competitive Pokemon.
It really is annoying if everybody's holding Lefties, as not everybody needs the item. For sweepers, putting on a Life Orb/Choice item will enhance their power. Some Pokemon benefit from Pinch Berries, like Revvers, and frail Pokémon like wearing a Focus Sash. But still, if you have a strict Item Clause, there are going to be players who will use hax items as a result of that, and then people will get angry, and stop battling altogether.
- Status