DPPt/HGSS Competitive Battling Rules

[KoL]

These rules and regulations will be used for competitive battling on Pokecharms. They are considered a mandatory default unless both players in a battle agree to alter certain rules to suit their needs.

Pokecharms Standard Battle rules and restrictions:

No Ubers - This prohibits the use of the following pokemon:

- Mew
- Mewtwo
- Wobbuffet
- Lugia
- Ho-oh
- Celebi
- Wynaut
- Latias
- Latios
- Kyogre
- Groudon
- Rayquaza
- Jirachi
- Deoxys
- Garchomp
- Dialga
- Palkia
- Giratina
- Manaphy
- Darkrai
- Arceus

Item Clause - Players are permitted to have one duplicate item in their team, but all other items must be unique (for instance, teams may carry up to two copies of Leftovers, but all other items MUST be completely unique with no duplicates in the team at all.) Different items with identical effects are not affected by this. [Razor Claw and Scope lens both raise the critical hit ratio, for instance]

No Identical Pokemon - This prohibits the use of identical pokemon, but does not prohibit the use of two different pokemon along the same evolution line [Poliwrath and Politoed are okay on the same team]

No Evasion Boosting - The use of moves that increase evasion [Acupressure, Double Team and Minimize] is prohibited. Using moves that lower accuracy does not violate this clause. The use of Snow Cloak, Sand Veil and BrightPowder also does not violate this clause.

No OHKO Attacks - The use of attacks that deal a OHKO [Horn Drill, Sheer Cold, Fissure, Guillotine] is prohibited. Perish Song is excluded from this clause due to the way it works.

Sleep Clause - You may not put more than one pokemon to sleep on your opponent's side of the field at a time. A pokemon put to sleep by the move Rest or the ability Effect spore do not count.
Additionally, all pokemon with the ability Natural Cure must be identified as having this ability as soon as they are put to sleep.

Fair Game Clause - If a player is on their last pokemon and it uses Selfdestruct, Explosion, Destiny Bond, or Perish Song, that player loses the match even if the move fails to work properly.
Recoil attacks, Life Orb and other such methods that can impose a tie are not in violation of this clause.

EDIT: Lucky Items Clause nixed. Feel free to use your King's Rocks and Razor Fangs.

 

[Linkachu]

Pokecharms Baby Battle rules and regulations

* No Identical Items
* No Identical Pokemon
* No Evasion Boosting
* No OHKO Attacks
* Sleep Clause in effect
* Fair Game Clause in effect


In addition to the above clauses:

* Battles are to be held "Open Level" with all pokemon at level 5.
* While this can't be enforced, the use of
* Vitamins for EVs is prohibited.
* Pokemon used must be capable of evolving, but in their earliest stage
* Sonicboom and Dragon Rage may not exist on any pokemon's moveset.
* Deepseascale, Deepseatooth, and Thick Club may not be held by any pokemon


The following pokemon are banned and may not be used:

* Aipom
* Yanma
* Gligar
* Sneasel
* Murkrow
* Misdreavus
* Lickitung
* Tangela
* Nosepass
* Ponyta
* Scyther
* Meditite
* Lileep
* Wynaut
* Cranidos
* Munchlax
* Phione



The following pokemon are restricted, you may only have one on your team.

* Abra
* Gastly
* Onix
* Rhyhorn
* Staryu
* Porygon
* Magby
* Elekid
* Shroomish
* Wailmer
* Duskull
* Drifloon
* Bronzor
* Mantyke

 

[SoIHerdYaLiekAnime]

Hm.

I don't get exactly why some of these Pokemon are banned/restricted (mostly Ponyta). Could you explain why?

 

[Stark]

I don't get exactly why some of these Pokemon are banned/restricted (mostly Ponyta). Could you explain why?

Ponyta's stats are massive, in comparison to other Tier 1 Pokémon.

Also relating to the restricted ones, are we going to split the list like in the Baby Cup tournament? Because my team was eligible for that, but now isn't for this one

 

[Ruko]

Already answered LoN's question via chat, but a post here would be good for reference.

No the restrictions won't be split up because of the complications it causes. Most of the pokemon on the second list were dropped entirely, but a couple were shifted over to remain restricted.

Anyone who took part in the Baby Cup will need to re-read those rules and possibly make some changes

 

[Stark]

Anyone who took part in the Baby Cup will need to re-read those rules and possibly make some changes

Or alternatively make a move in the 3v3's with your Baby Cup team until you get a larger one fixed up Just putting that out there so people don't completely write the possibility off.

 

[Blisk]

Just curious, what has made Garchomp so special compared to the other Pseudos on the banned list?

 

[KoL]

Outrage + Earthquake + Fire Blast + Swords Dance pretty much devastates anything you put in front of it. If used right, Garchomp will almost always guarantee 1 KO at worst, and will sweep a whole team at best if brought out at the right time, which isn't hard to do since it can set up against anything that doesn't pack an Ice or Dragon-type move. Stick it in a Sandstorm and Garchomp becomes even more deadly thanks to Sand Veil. No other pseudo-legendary boasts that kind of power.

 

[Agent Zero]

No Evasion Boosting - The use of moves that increase evasion [Acupressure, Double Team and Minimize] is prohibited. Using moves that lower accuracy does not violate this clause.

What about Snow Cloak? Forslass' Snow Cloak ability raises her evasiveness in Hail. Would that mean I would be barred from using my Froslass during a hail storm?
Not trying to challenge the rules or anything, I'm just carious.

 

[Blisk]

[quote author=Gerudo Ganon link=topic=6953.msg123505#msg123505 date=1258225584]
No Evasion Boosting - The use of moves that increase evasion [Acupressure, Double Team and Minimize] is prohibited. Using moves that lower accuracy does not violate this clause.

What about Snow Cloak? Forslass' Snow Cloak ability raises her evasiveness in Hail. Would that mean I would be barred from using my Froslass during a hail storm?
Not trying to challenge the rules or anything, I'm just carious.
[/quote]

KoL, not to hijack this thread, but I can answer this.

Snow Cloak is legal. It is not a move that increases evasion, just an ability. If Froslass and any other evasion raising ability Pokemon were not allowed, they would be on the banned list as well as the Ubers.

Hopefully this was explained well enough.

 

[Agent Zero]

[quote author=Agent Zero link=topic=6953.msg128250#msg128250 date=1261967532]
[quote author=Gerudo Ganon link=topic=6953.msg123505#msg123505 date=1258225584]
No Evasion Boosting - The use of moves that increase evasion [Acupressure, Double Team and Minimize] is prohibited. Using moves that lower accuracy does not violate this clause.

What about Snow Cloak? Forslass' Snow Cloak ability raises her evasiveness in Hail. Would that mean I would be barred from using my Froslass during a hail storm?
Not trying to challenge the rules or anything, I'm just carious.
[/quote]

KoL, not to hijack this thread, but I can answer this.

Snow Cloak is legal. It is not a move that increases evasion, just an ability. If Froslass and any other evasion raising ability Pokemon were not allowed, they would be on the banned list as well as the Ubers.

Hopefully this was explained well enough.
[/quote]
You explained it perfectly. Thank you.

 

[KoL]

Added that bit to the clause.

Otherwise, Blisk is absolutely correct.

 

[Agent Zero]

Awesomeness, thanks again.

 

[KoL]

Small update, and an opportunity for everyone to get involved with the 'Charms competitive rules...

After having a discussion between some who disapprove of Item Clause, as well as those who do approve of it being kept, I've thought it over and considered editing the Item Clause so that instead of having no items the same, players can have up to two of the same item used within their team (for instance, you can have 2 Pokemon carrying Life Orb in your team, but no more than 2.) However, I won't implement this change if people dislike it, so...I wish to hear your thoughts, both for and against this suggestion.

Try to keep it unbiased too - arguments such as "I like Item Clause the way it is" without justification as to why aren't helpful here.

 

[Blisk]

I think the Item Clause should be changed to the two of the same items per team. This allows more windows to open up without haxing the items. Say you have two Pokemon on your team that could benefit from the Life Orb, you can then use it on both. Having only one type of item kind of restricts the possibilities with some teams. Having two lets those possibilities work without overuse of the items.

I think this is a great idea KoL.

 

[Balakai]

To be honest with you its not that big a change and i dont think it will give anyone that much of an advantage really it just gives abit more variety to team set ups because you will be able to have more then one pokemon using a specific item. I am for this

 

[Magpie]

I agree with Bal and Blisk. I think opening up Item Clause to two of any item is a happy medium between the current version and scrapping it all together.

The way it is ~ I've never found Item Clause much of a problem. I have two defensive Pokemon on my team, both of whom appreciate Leftovers. I've always just worked with one having Leftovers and the second having Shell Bell. Obviously both having Leftovers would be great, but it's nothing to get upset about.

Two of the same item ~ With the example above, I'd have both of my walls with Leftovers. While more desirable, it wouldn't make that much of difference to the overall battle. My second wall attacks quite often, so more often than not Shell Bell works just nicely.

Going away from my own examples, with stuff like Choice Items they make a big difference in either speed or attack power for some Pokemon, so allowing two of the same would have obvious impacts. However, they also come with restrictions that in my opinion balance out the increased usage. You'd have two Pokemon instead of one locked onto a move, making prediction and switching a little easier on the opponent.

I know there are those that don't like Item Clause and its restrictions, but a happy compromise of two, rather than scrapping it all together is a great idea in my opinion - it still prevents the use of six Focus Sashes (thank goodness), but opens up the possibilities a little and allows a little flexibility.

Therefore, all in all, I'm for Item Clause being changed to two of an item, rather than one.

 

[Fumanshu]

I was always against the item clause, cause it breaks certain platypus playstyles totally, like Fullstall.
I dont play it, but I like diversity.
Always just facing "xy pokemon is faster and overpowers yx" is a boring strategy that oh so many people use.
With 2 Items you can at least run semi defensive or ad a substitute user or 2 to your team.
Cause offensive substitute without Leftovers is meh too in my eyes.
Full Choice band/Scarf/whatever can get punished anyways when played right against.
When you use Trick with some pokemon AND a pokemon that uses the Trick item for offensive play you would be crippled too, in a team building way.

I like the change, and I think its a step into the right direction (the right direction being no item clause).
With no item clause I can go around and switch my Pokemon all the way I like without taking too much care.
With it I must watch out to not have an item doubled and maybe even not use a pokemon because the hold item is NEEDED for the strategy to work.

But well. Its a good start

 

[Linkachu]

I like the change, and I think its a step into the right direction (the right direction being no item clause).

Just for the record - and this was my greatest worry when KoL originally brought this question up - we have no plans of ever scrapping the item clause completely. If anything, this change to using two of the same item is very unlikely to be altered again in the future.

I know some people dislike the item clause, but please understand that it does serve a purpose and the people who like it like it for a reason. I'd personally never want to see any Charms tournament run without it in some capacity, but that's just me. The PokemonWorld tournament was an exception since it involved two websites with differing rules and a happy medium had to be found somehow.

But I digress... I've always approved of the item clause, but if the majority would like to see it changed to two of the same item per team I'm willing to compromise. In other words, my vote sides with the majority vote.

 

[Stark]

The only reason I'm leaning towards what I say is because I'm a fan of diversity... but another option that might be good enough to be considered is allow one pair of items on a team, but the rest the same.

I dunno, maybe its a silly idea, but then that frees up the two leftovers idea, or whatnot, without having six on a team.

 

[Fumanshu]

@LoN could you explain that by using an example..I dont understand that right ;o
You mean as an example 2x Choice Band and 4xLeftovers, or do you mean allow one pair of the same items and go for Single Item clause for the other 4?

@Katie: I know that the discussion isnt about no item clause or item clause, but I just voiced my opinion, no matter what the majority vote is.
And all my arguments for 2items>1items are covered in my little textblock, just with me thinking that moar same item usage would even be better as being another option for Team building for certain people.
The arguments are basically the same.

Like I said, I would prefer no item clause, but 2 Items is better than 1.

[EDITZ]

I know some people dislike the item clause, but please understand that it does serve a purpose and the people who like it like it for a reason.

I still dont know what the actual reason is, that makes the game oh so bad when you dont do the 1item clause. it actually just forces you to build your teams differently for Pokecharms than you would build them for any other place where you like to battle and restricts you from having more choices. Its even worse than tier lists, because tier lists actually allow you to use lower Tier Pokemon for Higher-tier Battles.

I wasnt around when the Item clause was introduced and all I hear is "it serves a purpoooooose"
I would like to know which one ;o

 

[Stark]

@LoN could you explain that by using an example..I dont understand that right ;o
You mean as an example 2x Choice Band and 4xLeftovers, or do you mean allow one pair of the same items and go for Single Item clause for the other 4?

Oh, my bad.

I mean something like having your team equipped like so: Cheri Berry, Cheri Berry, Leftovers, Life Orb, Choice Band, Smooth Rock.

Or whatever. One pair of items.

 

[Linkachu]

@ Fuman: I probably should've explained that I was making a generalized statement (it wasn't aimed directly at you, so sorry if it came off that way). KoL agreed with me that the increase to two max would be as far as it went, and I wanted to make sure people realized this. I really don't want to have this debate brought back up yet again in the future.

What purpose does it serve? The same thing we generally strive for here. Diversity, making people need to think more creatively, etc. Others within this single thread have already stated why they like it, too. It isn't just some rule we thought up for the hell of it, lol, and the official tournies use it, too (as does one of the Pokemon games, tho I can't recall which it is offhand). It's not about the game being "bad" without it either.

To be honest, I don't understand what's so bad about having the item clause, and a lot of the arguments I've seen against it are just as bad as the arguments for it. But eh. That's besides the point here, and I never intended to debate it. Like I said, I get that some people dislike the clause, but I'd hope that those people could at least understand why others do like it. That's all I meant.

/x10 edits, lol

 

[KoL]

Just to clarify a few things:

- The new item clause I proposed is that you can use up to two of any item in your team. This means you can use 2 Leftovers in your team, but no more than 2.

- You CAN have more than one pair - a team using 2 Leftovers, 2 Life Orbs and 2 Expert Belts is allowed, but obviously 4 Leftovers is not allowed.

- As Katie said, this clause won't ever be increased beyond 2 since it results in ridiculous Leftovers abuse (Leftovers on anything that can take a hit, resulting in 5-6 copies of the item.) Even the most defensive stall team should be able to manage with 2 copies of Leftovers, and for anything more offense-oriented than that, 2 of the same item at maximum should not be any restriction to you whatsoever.

I'll leave this open for a bit longer, although the idea seems to have gotten good support thus far.

 

[KoL]

Bump.

Since the number of people for the change to the Item Clause (4) outweighs those against (0) and I think I've left this open for a sufficient amount of time, the Item Clause is officially changed to allow a maximum of two of the same item within a team. This applies to 3vs3 and 6vs6, and as clarified, you CAN have more than one "paired" item, but you don't necessarily have to have more than one pair.

Basically, you're allowed up to two of any item in your team - it's as simple as that.

 

[Ruko]

Well, it was pointed out to me that I missed this entire conversation while I was gone.. I'm only one vote against four, so I know I can't singlehandedly make the item clause change back, but I can still express why I'm against the change

I wasnt around when the Item clause was introduced and all I hear is "it serves a purpoooooose"
I would like to know which one ;o

Much like my argument against removing restrictions.. because it makes Pokecharms different for a start. It forces a certain level of diversity. If you live on one website with a team tailored to their rules, you can't expect to go to another site without having to make changes to the team.

I like the item clause because it personally helps with prediction. When a gengar surprises you with a scarf, you can know that a Flygon appearing later won't have one. If I notice that Blissey doesn't have leftovers, then my opponent probably has a second, more valued wall carrying them while Blissey may have Wish/Protect.

I like playing on sites without the item clause as well, mind.. but I do prefer playing with it all in all.

One point at a time:

[quote author=Fumanshu link=topic=6953.msg131313#msg131313 date=1265378744]Always just facing "xy pokemon is faster and overpowers yx" is a boring strategy that oh so many people use.[/quote]
The game will never be like this unless pokemon are allowed only one specific moveset while Items and EVs are banned.

[quote author=Fumanshu link=topic=6953.msg131313#msg131313 date=1265378744]With 2 Items you can at least run semi defensive or ad a substitute user or 2 to your team. Cause offensive substitute without Leftovers is meh too in my eyes.[/quote]
Are you willing to sacrifice leftovers from your wall [or nix the wall entirely] to use an offensive substitute with leftovers? You only get one more consecutive substitute from leftovers.. and even that much is a bit conditional with entry hazards about.

As an off-note - the largest instance in which leftovers + substitute would be great is against a non-offensive team that might have difficulty breaking the substitute in one hit. If there are multiple subs + leftovers pokemon on a team, it makes it that much harder to overcome. Unlimited leftovers hurts stall teams in this way, even though it helps them in others.


[quote author=Fumanshu link=topic=6953.msg131313#msg131313 date=1265378744]Full Choice band/Scarf/whatever can get punished anyways when played right against.[/quote]
It can only be punished/beaten if someone really knows that they're upagainst six choice items to begin with... so likewise using two of each choice item on a team is very powerful if played right. The game ends up being nothing more than prediction and switching. Substitute is about the only thing I can think of to fully counter such a team. [Substitute is rather common, though]

[quote author=Fumanshu link=topic=6953.msg131313#msg131313 date=1265378744]When you use Trick with some pokemon AND a pokemon that uses the Trick item for offensive play you would be crippled too, in a team building way.
[/quote]
This.
This is all the more reason to have our item clause. Say the scenario I used above contained six pokemon who happened to know trick as well. Even with the item clause restricting you to one of each item, there are three different choice items which can be tricked... which worries me a tiny bit XD

[quote author=LoN link=topic=6953.msg131317#msg131317 date=1265385260]
The only reason I'm leaning towards what I say is because I'm a fan of diversity... but another option that might be good enough to be considered is allow one pair of items on a team, but the rest the same.

I dunno, maybe its a silly idea, but then that frees up the two leftovers idea, or whatnot, without having six on a team.
[/quote]

I like this as a compromise more than two of each item. It'll allow for one extra leftovers/sludge on stall teams, an extra life orb for offensive teams, etc. But it won't overdo it, which allowing two of each does imo.

I would still prefer our item clause left how it was before, but I can settle for this if it came to it.

[Edit]

I just noticed that this discussion was only opened for two days.. that doesn't seem like enough time for everyone to respond ^^;

 

[KoL]

I'm glad you made it here in the end regardless.

I've already explained why the "being different" logic is flawed, but I'll explain here for the sake of everyone else. If I were to decree that 'Charms permits the use of Arceus in standard battles as well as the use of Double Team, Minimize and the OHKO moves, that would certainly make 'Charms different, but would it be different in a good way? Absolutely not.

Being different is all fine and dandy, but there's a fine line between being different in a good way, and being different in a way that only serves to excessively restrict the game and worsen it for everyone involved, not that the old Item Clause was in any way bad, but the logic should be fairly obvious.

That said, I'm considering altering the Item Clause further so that it only permits a single duplicate item (i.e. you can have two Leftovers, but all other items must be unique) due to the horrific Trick abuse that could result from all three Choice items being permitted as pairs. LoN's already said he thinks that'd be better going from Ruko's quote in his post, so I'm going to once again leave this suggestion open to debate...if not for that long since I'm lazy like that.

 

[Linkachu]

That said, I'm considering altering the Item Clause further so that it only permits a single duplicate item (i.e. you can have two Leftovers, but all other items must be unique) due to the horrific Trick abuse that could result from all three Choice items being permitted as pairs. LoN's already said he thinks that'd be better going from Ruko's quote in his post, so I'm going to once again leave this suggestion open to debate...if not for that long since I'm lazy like that.

I support that alteration (ie. one pair of items allowed while the rest must be unique), so if you're looking for votes you can throw mine in that direction.

 

[Ruko]

and the OHKO moves

Actually, I don't mind OHKO moves at all... I know most other people hate them, and I should hate them for the same reason I dislike double team.. but that's another matter entirely XD

I'll go ahead and put a vote toward changing it to "one pair of items allowed while the rest must be unique".

I'd put it toward changing entirely back, but that won't be winning anyway, methinks

 

[Carmen Lopez]

Going by Ruko's argument and KoL and LoN's suggestion, I do agree that having a pair and the rest unique is a good compromise. I'll throw my support in for it.

 

[Pheonix]

Going by all the arguments and suggestions so far, I'm inclined to agree about the compromise of one pair of items and the rest be unique. Not that I battle much (if at all) but I support this change.

 

[Blisk]

I am for only having one pair of the same items and the rest unique. People have already said my reasons why, so there's little point in repeating it.

 

[KoL]

...and in my laziness, I've left this open for a lot longer than I had planned.

Anyway, since the votes have reached a standstill now, and the number of votes in favour for only one pair of items permitted (5) has beaten the number of votes against the suggestion (0) then the change is official - teams may have one duplicate item, but all others must be unique, as of now.

Thanks for your input ladies and gents.