• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

What do you guys think about the item clause?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm mainly against item clause for the aformentioned Sandstream-being-overpowered bit. Without lefties negating it, a Sandstorm team can really wear down your team after awhile, which is just annoying. Compounded with spikes/stealth rock and no weather changer, you're in for an uphill battle.

Beyond sandstorm-based teams though, I don't think it's too bad of a problem, though slightly unneeded as, again, already mentioned, there are usually 2-3 tanks/walls per team and lefties is an essential item to them.
 
Yoshi King said:
I'm mainly against item clause for the aformentioned Sandstream-being-overpowered bit. Without lefties negating it, a Sandstorm team can really wear down your team after awhile, which is just annoying. Compounded with spikes/stealth rock and no weather changer, you're in for an uphill battle.

Beyond sandstorm-based teams though, I don't think it's too bad of a problem, though slightly unneeded as, again, already mentioned, there are usually 2-3 tanks/walls per team and lefties is an essential item to them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it encourage Weezing use due to Black Sludge? I don't play with Item Clause, but I thought I'd bring up Weezing. . .
 
I don't mind about item clause. As someone said earlier, I tried to adapt with different clause, so item clause is not an exception.
The real point is that item clause sounds like "leftie clause" to prevent others to use too many leftovers. But as some people says, by doing that people are just restraining themselves in the most cases.
So if I'm not against "item clause" I think I would prefer a "leftie clause" which would prevent to use more than, let say, 2 lefties (or maybe 3 but not more).
In that case it still encourages people to be a little creative and doesn't hinder a team in a sandstorm for example.

So basically : "Go Go Leftie Clause"
 
Item clause surely makes the metagame more ''boring'', with a lesser variation of teams. I mean, you're pretty much forced to run a poison type with black sludge and a steel type with shed shell, just to keep using 6 good items on your team. The thing is with Leftovers, which is pretty much the only item people run more than one of. I think 2 lefties should be the maximum, and after that anything goes. No one runs 5-6 pokés with lefties, but everyone does run 2-4 with it. Most of the teams I battled on Wi-Fi (from Smogon users) had 3 pokés with lefties, 1 with Focus Sash, 1 with Life Orb, and 1 with Choice X. I think limiting lefties to two should increase diversity at least by a small margin, while full item clause asks for people to ''cheat'' on the Item Clause by playing poison types with Black Sludge and running a steel type with the shed shell rather than the 3d lefties user.
 
Mekkah said:
I don't like Item Clause much in theory because it makes Sand Stream more broken than it is already, and also pretty much encourages Skarmory use through Shed Shell.
Click to expand...

Main reason against Item/Lefties Clause:

All teams are required to run a Weather Changer or have at least half of their team lose 1/16 of health each turn.

Standard team under item clause:

TTar @ Choice Band
Garchomp @ Life Orb/Choice Scarf/Yache Berry
Gliscor @ Brightpowder (if allowed)/Yache Berry
Heatran @ Choice Specs/Choice Scarf
Blissey @ Leftovers
Skarmory @ Shed Shell

The Sandstorm team likes item Clause, it doesn't lose HP each turn. Gliscor can be replaced with Weezing @ Black Sludge, but the point stands. TTar, Garchomp, and Heatran rarely run Lefties. Skarmory has an altenative item designed especially for it. You give Blissey or Cresselia your Lefties and then you need a Heracross counter. Gliscor and Weezing are the best.

Pretty simple, except what can wall this without Lefties on at least two of their walls?
 
Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that neither of the finalists of Smogon Wifi tournament #1, and very few of the semi/quarter-finalists, used sandstream teams. Smogon Wifi tournament #1 was item clause, if you didn't already know or guess.
 
I dislike it. I feel it adds nothing worthwhile, and just takes options away from team creation. I can't see any reason for it, and I see reasons against it, so that's why I dislike it.
 
I am on the fence. On the one hand, I love to run a couple of focus sashes on my team, but if i am unable to use more than one, I can easily adjust.
 
I prefer to play with the item clause so that, if nothing else, i don't have to fight a team of 6 focus sashers. For sweepers without sandstorm, this can get pretty annoying.
 
Item Clause, simply, is clausewhoring. The original "clauses" were implemented into the game in order to prevent things from becoming broken. If sleep went unclaused, for example, sleep would be broken. There is no compelling reason to clause items.
 
I dislike item clause because I believe, like many others, that it makes Sandstream way too powerful. Besides, it seems kind of pointless now that there is a variety of viable items and people tend to not use over 3 of the same item on a team anyway.
 
As I said the last time I sounded off on this, I like Item Clause as an option both players can willingly agree on, but not as the default and certainly not mandated. Gamefreak went out of their way to provide us with so many more options than Advance ever had. If a battler doesn't want to take advantage of this and decides to keep using six Leftovers, who cares? The battler is:

1) not capitalizing on the advantages of items other than Leftovers
2) much, much more predictable, since his or her opponents know all his or her pokemon have Leftovers, either immediately upon entering battle (thanks to taking a hit/Stealth Rock/Spikes) or eventually.

Honestly, why would you care if your opponent, in DP, is using six Leftovers pokemon? You should be thanking him or her for making your battling a lot easier, since the inherent threat posed by the Choice Items and Focus Sash is literally non-existant. Complaining about repeated items is almost like complaining about OU pokemon — your opponent is free to use whatever he or she wants, and who cares? The more recognizable your opponent's pokemon are, the more familiar you should be with them and, therefore, how to BEAT them. It's almost that simple.

Being "annoyed" by the notion of six Leftovers is the only reason wanting an Item Clause is an issue in my mind, unless I'm missing something...
 
Jumpman16 said:
Being "annoyed" by the notion of six Leftovers is the only reason wanting an Item Clause is an issue in my mind, unless I'm missing something...
Click to expand...

I personally don't mind six leftovers. It doesn't give much of an advantage as you said. However, being forced to have sand/hail or stealth rock just so the opponent doesn't spam Focus Sash can be annoying.
 
I don't really mind item clause on my Double Battle team, because even without it, they already all hold different items, lol.

But on my Single Battle team, due to being a pretty defensive person, I have three of them holding Leftovers. It's not like I can't find something else, but it won't be as effective.
 
iruchii said:
But on my Single Battle team, due to being a pretty defensive person, I have three of them holding Leftovers. It's not like I can't find something else, but it won't be as effective.
Click to expand...

Thats why item clause is bad; without it, you have the freedom to play defensively, like you want, and others have the option of playing offensively, running multiple life orbs, choice bands, etc; with item clauses their will be a much smaller variety in teams, as their wont really be such a thing as really defensive teams meant to where down the opponents, or, at the other end of the spectrum, extremely offensive ones...


Item clause does the opposite of bringing variety; it restricts it.
 
So uh, what should we do about the Item Clause?

If things are gonna stay the way they are, then this discussion isn't really necessary. Why voice opinions when nothing will change.
 
I don't understand why a lot of people (even the more experienced players) are against mandating item clause, but then smogon's own wifi tournament uses it =/
 
I don't really like the idea of Item Clause, and this is coming from someone who doesn't use doubles very often. Although not using it encourages Leftovers abuse, there are many instances that Leftovers is not the best choice for a Pokemon. I choose items by looking at what fits my Pokemon or team best, and if there is a double in there, so be it.

Coincidentally or not, the only times that I have ever faced Tyranitar were against people who requested Item Clause :/
 
I don't really prefer it, but most of my teams only ever end up with 1-2 Leftovers anyway, and it isn't THAT hard to find a viable choice for replacement.
 
There isn't that much "formulaic" team-building that Item Clause enforces. The only item notorious for being used a zillion times is Leftovers, which is a generally useful but hardly necessary for most pokemon. Brightpowder isn't bad for certain "tankish" pokemon and Sitrus Berry is a decent item these days, so it's somewhat replaceable (and, of course, Black Sludge). I'd say Item Clause is more helpful than harmful in encouraging more variety.

Sometimes you really, really want to use two of the same item, though. Item Clause allowing for only two max of an item, perhaps? That way you still don't have entire teams of boring Leftovers users, but you can at least put them on more than one tank and it doesn't ruin the occasional team with two CBers or whatever. And Jump certainly makes a good argument against it.
 
Tinnacious said:
So uh, what should we do about the Item Clause?

If things are gonna stay the way they are, then this discussion isn't really necessary. Why voice opinions when nothing will change.
Click to expand...

Why are you convinced that nothing will change? The discussion is toward figuring out if a change is needed in the first place. Whichever consensus is reached, the Smogon community will likely use the decision in making the rules for competitor (as well as any future Wifi tournaments).

I'll also throw in a vote against Item Clause. While it makes for a few interesting item choices, it limits a team by forcing second-best choices.
 
GLink said:
I don't understand why a lot of people (even the more experienced players) are against mandating item clause, but then smogon's own wifi tournament uses it =/
Click to expand...

Because the rules are up to the people that run the tournament, not every player on the boards. It could probably be for experimentation too, since we really don't fully understand how the metagame in D/P works, so people are still trying to nail down the most enjoyable, flexible, and balanced rule set possible.

People are still doing crap like running without Sleep Clause or Evasion Clause just for sake of experimenting.
 
I think it's homo. This game has a ton of good hold items, where in GSC it was all Lefties, in ADV it was Lefties, CB, and like maybe a Salac. If you're enforcing restrictions before the game has really had a chance to blossom and mature, then you actually restrict creativity by forcing people to do things, instead of just letting them do what they want. I will always and forever be opposed to item clauses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top