All Gens Cart-Accurate Sleep Clause

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:
If a player has inflicted sleep on an opposing pokemon which hasn't subsequently reset its status
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:
To be honest, there is no reason to keep sleep clause in gens like RBY or GSC and they don't have any excuse because there is no natural cure mindgames or pokemon choiced into a sleep move.

Theoretically, you have encore on a sleep move, but in real games It's a rare situation, unless you face baton pass teams.
You also have the last pps on a sleep move, am I forced to switch? What If I'm trapped?

Now there are several problems, because If there are no DQs (the sim grey out the button to prevent you from sleeping 2 mons) then the clause would get complicated really fast (for example, what If all my opponent mons are para or asleep? What If the only "healthy" mon will die because of spikes? What If a trapped pokemon who is faster than my pokemon can only use rest this turn? What If the trapped fast pokemon is forced to use heal bell/safeguard? What If I don't know it? What If I know it because I scouted the moveset with ditto?).

The problems with DQs is simply abuse. What If people try to use it as a second wincon? And It feels very lame to lose a game because of an obscure rule like this.

But at the very least It will prevent absurd situations that would have never happened on cartridge (like a gengar pp stalling my snorlax with hypnosis when sleep clause is active looooooooool)
 
To be honest, there is no reason to keep sleep clause in gens like RBY or GSC and they don't have any excuse because there is no natural cure mindgames or pokemon choiced into a sleep move.

Theoretically, you have encore on a sleep move, but in real games It's a rare situation, unless you face baton pass teams.
You also have the last pps on a sleep move, am I forced to switch? What If I'm trapped?

Now there are several problems, because If there are no DQs (the sim grey out the button to prevent you from sleeping 2 mons) then the clause would get complicated really fast (for example, what If all my opponent mons are para or asleep? What If the only "healthy" mon will die because of spikes? What If a trapped pokemon who is faster than my pokemon can only use rest this turn? What If the trapped fast pokemon is forced to use heal bell/safeguard? What If I don't know it? What If I know it because I scouted the moveset with ditto?).

The problems with DQs is simply abuse. What If people try to use it as a second wincon? And It feels very lame to lose a game because of an obscure rule like this.

But at the very least It will prevent absurd situations that would have never happened on cartridge (like a gengar pp stalling my snorlax with hypnosis when sleep clause is active looooooooool)
Regarding the questions for last pp on a sleep move and being encored into a sleep move, those scenarios are specifically why I included an exception for when you have no choice. If you can switch, you must, if not, then you're at such a disadvantage that it doesn't matter if you break sleep clause.

Regarding your criticisms of the no DQ policy, there's no need to complicate things. Those plays simply would not be allowed. The scenarios you're describing are exceptionally obscure, given that you're describing scenarios that require significant conditions to be met in order to occur AND they're also scenarios where going for sleep is almost always a terrible play. Consequently, it's no great loss for those options to be unavailable. Another point I want to make is that we should be adapting our rules to fit the games, and if that impacts gameplay options, then so be it. Instead I feel like it's the reverse, we're modifying the game to fit in with our precedent (why the sleep clause mod was implemented in such a fashion, I have no fucking clue, but it's been in place since before I started playing competitively), and then acting entitled to a handful of options ranging from niche to irrelevant that are only available because we inexplicably decided to mod the game. That to me seems sooooo backwards.

I fully agree regarding DQs though
 
Regarding the questions for last pp on a sleep move and being encored into a sleep move, those scenarios are specifically why I included an exception for when you have no choice. If you can switch, you must, if not, then you're at such a disadvantage that it doesn't matter if you break sleep clause.

Regarding your criticisms of the no DQ policy, there's no need to complicate things. Those plays simply would not be allowed. The scenarios you're describing are exceptionally obscure, given that you're describing scenarios that require significant conditions to be met in order to occur AND they're also scenarios where going for sleep is almost always a terrible play. Consequently, it's no great loss for those options to be unavailable. Another point I want to make is that we should be adapting our rules to fit the games, and if that impacts gameplay options, then so be it. Instead I feel like it's the reverse, we're modifying the game to fit in with our precedent (why the sleep clause mod was implemented in such a fashion, I have no fucking clue, but it's been in place since before I started playing competitively), and then acting entitled to a handful of options ranging from niche to irrelevant that are only available because we inexplicably decided to mod the game. That to me seems sooooo backwards.

I fully agree regarding DQs though
Well, I kind of disagree going for sleep isn't "always" a terrible play.
I'll give you a few realistic scenarios that happen quite often where sleep clause plays a big role.
In GSC It's any variant of snorlax against a lovely kiss snorlax. On simulator the best move when playing lovely kiss snorlax is to use sleep when you think that the opposing snorlax is going to wake up (and because you have more curse boosts you are slower than him).
But If my opponent has one more mon even If it's going to die because of spikes I won't be able to do this...

Another situation that happened to me was blissey + tyranitar and I had exeggutor. Tyranitar and exeggutor were para and blissey was sleeping. when I thought that blissey was going to wake up I used sleep powder. It was basically riskless and I had no POSSIBILITY of breaking sleep clause.

You may argue that these situations were "unique" but I frequently run into them at least once very 10 games.
That's why I kind of favor the DQ-rule even though It may *theoretically* mean that I may be at a disadvantage If I don't never take the risk but my opponent does and there are going to be plenty of situations where taking the risk of DQ will be the optimal play (pp stalling with gengar/misdreavus a pokemon that can't hit me for example) and there are going to be abuses like (I think that my opponent will go for hypnosis again, I'll decide to switch out to try to win) but It's less harmful than preventing me for going for riskless sleeps.

EDIT: OR we may let the sim grey out the move and only allow it when It's 100% safe to do so, even If It begin to be a bit complicated
 
Last edited:
Well, I kind of disagree going for sleep isn't "always" a terrible play.
I'll give you a few realistic scenarios that happen quite often where sleep clause plays a big role.
In GSC It's any variant of snorlax against a lovely kiss snorlax. On simulator the best move when playing lovely kiss snorlax is to use sleep when you think that the opposing snorlax is going to wake up (and because you have more curse boosts you are slower than him).
But If my opponent has one more mon even If it's going to die because of spikes I won't be able to do this...

Another situation that happened to me was blissey + tyranitar and I had exeggutor. Tyranitar and exeggutor were para and blissey was sleeping. when I thought that blissey was going to wake up I used sleep powder. It was basically riskless and I had no POSSIBILITY of breaking sleep clause.

You may argue that these situations were "unique" but I frequently run into them at least once very 10 games.
That's why I kind of favor the DQ-rule even though It may *theoretically* mean that I may be at a disadvantage If I don't never take the risk but my opponent does and there are going to be plenty of situations where taking the risk of DQ will be the optimal play (pp stalling with gengar/misdreavus a pokemon that can't hit me for example) and there are going to be abuses like (I think that my opponent will go for hypnosis again, I'll decide to switch out to try to win) but It's less harmful than preventing me for going for riskless sleeps.

EDIT: OR we may let the sim grey out the move and only allow it when It's 100% safe to do so, even If It begin to be a bit complicated
I did say almost always.

In any case, I adamantly disagree that the scenarios in which sleep can be used "safely" and where doing so isn't a terrible play are remotely common.

Your Snorlax example sounds like a minor but relevant case, but that's in large part because the way you describe the scenario focuses specifically on the Lax-Lax matchup and only tacks on the fact that every other remaining pokemon on the opposing team needs to be statused after setting the scene.

The Egg vs Ttar/Bliss example also sounds like an isolated situation, and not something that could be characterised as a recurring trend.

With all that said, I've somewhat changed my mind on the issue. The reason is that I think banning preemptive sleep in last mon situations seems a bit ridiculous, given that there's no other pokemon to be put to sleep. However, if an exception is made for last mon scenarios, then it should follow that situations where the only other mon is already paralysed should be allowed, and so on. I would draw the line at status and KOs blocking sleep though- if a pokemon would die from entry hazards, that's not necessarily something that would be recognisable on cart without one player divulging hidden information, as the game doesn't necessarily provide enough information to know whether a pokemon dies to Spikes or lives with 1 HP or something. I might go ahead and edit my OP to reflect this adjustment
 
I did say almost always.

In any case, I adamantly disagree that the scenarios in which sleep can be used "safely" and where doing so isn't a terrible play are remotely common.

Your Snorlax example sounds like a minor but relevant case, but that's in large part because the way you describe the scenario focuses specifically on the Lax-Lax matchup and only tacks on the fact that every other remaining pokemon on the opposing team needs to be statused after setting the scene.

The Egg vs Ttar/Bliss example also sounds like an isolated situation, and not something that could be characterised as a recurring trend.

With all that said, I've somewhat changed my mind on the issue. The reason is that I think banning preemptive sleep in last mon situations seems a bit ridiculous, given that there's no other pokemon to be put to sleep. However, if an exception is made for last mon scenarios, then it should follow that situations where the only other mon is already paralysed should be allowed, and so on. I would draw the line at status and KOs blocking sleep though- if a pokemon would die from entry hazards, that's not necessarily something that would be recognisable on cart without one player divulging hidden information, as the game doesn't necessarily provide enough information to know whether a pokemon dies to Spikes or lives with 1 HP or something. I might go ahead and edit my OP to reflect this adjustment
I wouldn't stop at entry hazards because even there we can be sure If the pokemon is going to die. What If the mon used endure previously? What If I wore it down using seismic toss? What If It's at 6%? It's ridiculous to trigger sleep clause in these situations.

"that's not necessarily something that would be recognisable on cart without one player divulging hidden information" Well, we can ask the player to divulge the information to an arbitrer/judge, now we know If It's legal to use a sleep move or not.

But at least we don't have this issue in RBY lol
 
I wouldn't stop at entry hazards because even there we can be sure If the pokemon is going to die. What If the mon used endure previously? What If I wore it down using seismic toss? What If It's at 6%? It's ridiculous to trigger sleep clause in these situations.

"that's not necessarily something that would be recognisable on cart without one player divulging hidden information" Well, we can ask the player to divulge the information to an arbitrer/judge, now we know If It's legal to use a sleep move or not.

But at least we don't have this issue in RBY lol
I really don't think it's ridiculous. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise that would be made to accommodate cart play. At some point you have to be willing to accept that maintaining a fair game will require some tiny constraints on play, lest the rules become absurdly arduous to maintain, so riddled with caveats and conditions that it's simply unworkable. Moreover, in order to be able to recognise that remaining pokemon will die to entry hazards effectively requires you to be counting the number of pixels of HP remaining each turn and accurately recording them every time something switches out. This is not a reasonable expectation when dealing with rules that are binary and can potentially result in DQs (optimising performance is another matter)

Involving a judge or arbiter as a standard procedure and not solely as a means of resolving disputes really isn't good policy. The game should be able to be played solely by the players playing in good faith

It's also worth repeating how absurdly niche these scenarios are. They aren't remotely worth making a simple rule obscenely complex.

Hell, even in the scenarios you mention you can't consistently know that the pokemon will die to hazards- 6% isn't enough to guarantee that something will die to hazards, while using only SToss doesn't tell you how much health a pokemon had to begin with
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top