So every time sleep clause gets brought up, it's usually alongside other stuff that provokes a strong reaction, like freeze clause. However I wanted to discuss cartridge-accurate sleep clause without dredging up the other stuff, because I honestly don't see a solid reason why we wouldn't modify sleep clause to be cart-accurate- this wouldn't affect 99% of matches and it would resolve on of our most conspicuous deviations from the goal of actually simulating the pokemon games. However, one point that I have noted previously is that there's some dispute over whether a cart-accurate sleep clause would be non-restrictive and simply DQ players for violating, or whether it would prevent players from selecting moves that violate sleep clause. I would like to propose that sleep clause be amended to function as follows:
If a player has inflicted sleep on an opposing pokemon which hasn't subsequently reset its status, they are not permitted to attempt to inflict sleep again unless they have no other choice.
To discuss this further:
Where my proposal differs from the status quo is not in when sleep clause is in effect, but in what happens when it is in effect. The issue with the current sleep clause is that it causes sleep moves to fail, which would be impossible to replicate on cart. Under my proposal, you would be unable to "attempt to inflict sleep again"- this means you could not select moves that primarily induce sleep, such as Spore or Sing, unless you had no other choice. When I say no other choice, I mean that literally, where it's impossible to switch to another pokemon and the pokemon in play cannot select a move that does not induce sleep
Addendum: an issue I changed my mind on is that if a player knows in advance with absolute certainty that they cannot inflict a second sleep, then any usage of a sleep move doesn't count as attempting to inflict further sleep. This would mean that in situations where all remaining pokemon are either statused or KO'd (the latter obviously being more plausible), an exception would also be granted. The reason I've added this note is that I think invoking sleep clause in last mon scenarios is a bit ridiculous, and that logic extends to all similar scenarios. Note that it doesn't include cases where an unstatused pokemon would die to entry hazards- given the imprecise knowledge of the opposing pokemon's HP available when playing on cart, whether a pokemon dies to hazards is not something that can be known in all cases.
Notable omissions
My proposal only covers moves whose main effect is to induce sleep, and omits things like Effect Spore, Relic Song and Sleep Talk+Psycho Shift. To be blunt, most of these I don't feel need to be addressed. Afaik, all of these edge cases are not considered viable, with the exception of Relic Song. More importantly, most of them have slim odds of successfully inflicting sleep, such that it isn't worthwhile modifying our rules to accommodate them. The only moves that have a significant impact for the purposes of inflicting sleep are moves whose primary function is to inflict sleep. This could in theory change in the future, but at present I think this is a very clear distinction.
Why the exception for no other choice?
It's simple- players could realistically end up in scenarios where they have no choice but to violate sleep clause- the example that springs to mind is if a sleep user gets Tricked a Choice Scarf by Gothitelle. In such scenarios, the sleep user wouldn't have a usable move under my proposal, likely meaning they would Struggle and thus break cart mechanics. This problem persists even if DQs are allowed- in such scenarios the sleep user would've effectively been checkmated in an unfair fashion, forced to DQ themselves.
Could this exception be abused? Frankly, I don't think this is a significant problem. The conditions for triggering this exception are so onerous that in basically all cases they will be at such a huge disadvantage that it frankly doesn't matter.
Potential impacts
Although this will make no difference to how battles are played in 99% of cases, there will be a few niche cases where gameplay is affected. The most notable change is that it becomes impossible to preempt a pokemon waking in order to immediately put it to sleep again. This is something that occasionally occurs in RBY, but is a play that is almost never seen in other generations. Another consequence is that Natural Cure pokemon could "block" sleep- by absorbing Sleep, they would prevent it from being used again, allowing another pokemon to be switched in on something that isn't a sleep move, while curing their own sleep and thus ensuring that ultimately there is no pokemon asleep. An exception could be made for NCure, but I think that just complicates things and is not worth the effort. Lastly, it can also have implications in PP stall scenarios, however it's extremely rare for sleep inducers to get involved in PP stall wars.
Frankly, I think these changes aren't that big of a deal and shouldn't be viewed as obstacles to implementing cart-accurate sleep clause. Furthermore, I don't even think that they'd be all that bad. It would shift sleep away from being a pseudo-KO towards being a potential advantage that must be actively capitalised on to be realised. These are options that simply should never have been available, and if the status quo weren't the existing sleep clause, there probably wouldn't be an issue imo.
Why not DQ?
There are currently no other ways to reach a win state than to KO all opposing pokemon. Implementing DQs introduces an entirely new win condition to the game, one that's extremely different to what currently exists. The existence of such a win condition I believe would undermine competitive play (to the extent that it's relevant). It's an exceptionally cheesy way to win, that doesn't depend on beating the opponent, but instead baiting the opponent into making a single minor mistake that has a universally harsh punishment- other valid gameplay cases where a single mistake can cost a game are rare and context-dependent, but are rooted in player skill to recognise such risks and act accordingly.
The positives of implementing a DQ rule are that the gameplay impacts described above are avoided. However, I'd argue that these positives are not significant in practice. In almost all scenarios, the risk-reward of trying to sleep something while sleep clause is active and potentially getting DQ'd is so atrocious that no sane player would go for it, such that it practically resembles a move selection restriction. Granted, this does make the negatives of implementing a DQ rule less significant, but in response I'd point out that not all players are actually sane. Ladder newbies often don't know how these things work, and a DQ rule would have a massive adverse impact on their experience.
Areas to develop
One notable weakness in my proposal is that for pokemon that may or may not have Shadow Tag, it may not be obvious to the player whether or not they have options (again, the example here is Goth Tricking a Choice Scarf), creating ambiguity on whether or not sleep clause is active. I suppose technically they could attempt to switch, but that's a poor solution imo. My first thought is that, if playing on cart, players could discuss with each other prior to acting if sleep clause applies or if there's an exception to be made- this does technically rely on player honesty, but it would be fairly easy to verify so I don't imagine it would be an issue- on simulators this wouldn't be an issue, as you would have automated messages.
My second thought is that you could just assume that if a pokemon has STag that it is probably running it. This would mean that non-STag variants of pokemon with STag must be careful with restricting the opponents moves, but again, I don't think the impacts are significant, just be careful about Tricking Choice items.
===========
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the matter? I really think modifying sleep clause is something we should do, as the changes caused by a shift to cart mechanics would be minor at most, and it would bring sim play more in line with cart play.
If a player has inflicted sleep on an opposing pokemon which hasn't subsequently reset its status, they are not permitted to attempt to inflict sleep again unless they have no other choice.
To discuss this further:
This is my way of saying that sleep clause should be activated under the same conditions that it is currently (barring the case where there's no choice)- if an opposing pokemon is asleep and it wasn't self-inflicted via stuff like Rest, sleep clause will be in effect.
Where my proposal differs from the status quo is not in when sleep clause is in effect, but in what happens when it is in effect. The issue with the current sleep clause is that it causes sleep moves to fail, which would be impossible to replicate on cart. Under my proposal, you would be unable to "attempt to inflict sleep again"- this means you could not select moves that primarily induce sleep, such as Spore or Sing, unless you had no other choice. When I say no other choice, I mean that literally, where it's impossible to switch to another pokemon and the pokemon in play cannot select a move that does not induce sleep
Addendum: an issue I changed my mind on is that if a player knows in advance with absolute certainty that they cannot inflict a second sleep, then any usage of a sleep move doesn't count as attempting to inflict further sleep. This would mean that in situations where all remaining pokemon are either statused or KO'd (the latter obviously being more plausible), an exception would also be granted. The reason I've added this note is that I think invoking sleep clause in last mon scenarios is a bit ridiculous, and that logic extends to all similar scenarios. Note that it doesn't include cases where an unstatused pokemon would die to entry hazards- given the imprecise knowledge of the opposing pokemon's HP available when playing on cart, whether a pokemon dies to hazards is not something that can be known in all cases.
Notable omissions
My proposal only covers moves whose main effect is to induce sleep, and omits things like Effect Spore, Relic Song and Sleep Talk+Psycho Shift. To be blunt, most of these I don't feel need to be addressed. Afaik, all of these edge cases are not considered viable, with the exception of Relic Song. More importantly, most of them have slim odds of successfully inflicting sleep, such that it isn't worthwhile modifying our rules to accommodate them. The only moves that have a significant impact for the purposes of inflicting sleep are moves whose primary function is to inflict sleep. This could in theory change in the future, but at present I think this is a very clear distinction.
Why the exception for no other choice?
It's simple- players could realistically end up in scenarios where they have no choice but to violate sleep clause- the example that springs to mind is if a sleep user gets Tricked a Choice Scarf by Gothitelle. In such scenarios, the sleep user wouldn't have a usable move under my proposal, likely meaning they would Struggle and thus break cart mechanics. This problem persists even if DQs are allowed- in such scenarios the sleep user would've effectively been checkmated in an unfair fashion, forced to DQ themselves.
Could this exception be abused? Frankly, I don't think this is a significant problem. The conditions for triggering this exception are so onerous that in basically all cases they will be at such a huge disadvantage that it frankly doesn't matter.
Potential impacts
Although this will make no difference to how battles are played in 99% of cases, there will be a few niche cases where gameplay is affected. The most notable change is that it becomes impossible to preempt a pokemon waking in order to immediately put it to sleep again. This is something that occasionally occurs in RBY, but is a play that is almost never seen in other generations. Another consequence is that Natural Cure pokemon could "block" sleep- by absorbing Sleep, they would prevent it from being used again, allowing another pokemon to be switched in on something that isn't a sleep move, while curing their own sleep and thus ensuring that ultimately there is no pokemon asleep. An exception could be made for NCure, but I think that just complicates things and is not worth the effort. Lastly, it can also have implications in PP stall scenarios, however it's extremely rare for sleep inducers to get involved in PP stall wars.
Frankly, I think these changes aren't that big of a deal and shouldn't be viewed as obstacles to implementing cart-accurate sleep clause. Furthermore, I don't even think that they'd be all that bad. It would shift sleep away from being a pseudo-KO towards being a potential advantage that must be actively capitalised on to be realised. These are options that simply should never have been available, and if the status quo weren't the existing sleep clause, there probably wouldn't be an issue imo.
Why not DQ?
There are currently no other ways to reach a win state than to KO all opposing pokemon. Implementing DQs introduces an entirely new win condition to the game, one that's extremely different to what currently exists. The existence of such a win condition I believe would undermine competitive play (to the extent that it's relevant). It's an exceptionally cheesy way to win, that doesn't depend on beating the opponent, but instead baiting the opponent into making a single minor mistake that has a universally harsh punishment- other valid gameplay cases where a single mistake can cost a game are rare and context-dependent, but are rooted in player skill to recognise such risks and act accordingly.
The positives of implementing a DQ rule are that the gameplay impacts described above are avoided. However, I'd argue that these positives are not significant in practice. In almost all scenarios, the risk-reward of trying to sleep something while sleep clause is active and potentially getting DQ'd is so atrocious that no sane player would go for it, such that it practically resembles a move selection restriction. Granted, this does make the negatives of implementing a DQ rule less significant, but in response I'd point out that not all players are actually sane. Ladder newbies often don't know how these things work, and a DQ rule would have a massive adverse impact on their experience.
Areas to develop
One notable weakness in my proposal is that for pokemon that may or may not have Shadow Tag, it may not be obvious to the player whether or not they have options (again, the example here is Goth Tricking a Choice Scarf), creating ambiguity on whether or not sleep clause is active. I suppose technically they could attempt to switch, but that's a poor solution imo. My first thought is that, if playing on cart, players could discuss with each other prior to acting if sleep clause applies or if there's an exception to be made- this does technically rely on player honesty, but it would be fairly easy to verify so I don't imagine it would be an issue- on simulators this wouldn't be an issue, as you would have automated messages.
My second thought is that you could just assume that if a pokemon has STag that it is probably running it. This would mean that non-STag variants of pokemon with STag must be careful with restricting the opponents moves, but again, I don't think the impacts are significant, just be careful about Tricking Choice items.
===========
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the matter? I really think modifying sleep clause is something we should do, as the changes caused by a shift to cart mechanics would be minor at most, and it would bring sim play more in line with cart play.
Last edited:
