(Okay, there's enough argument about this that it needs its own thread as opposed to clamouring for a quickfix as SOME PEOPLE have done.)
Freeze Clause should not be used in simulators attempting to simulate RBY cartridge play. It is a perversion of in-game mechanics to suit whiners.
Sleep Clause can be implemented on cartridge; you make a rule that you can't use sleep moves if you've slept something (mechanical sleep clause does allow the player to waste a turn using it and failing, which is not a good thing in my book; however, wasting turns is a terrible idea in almost all circumstances and thus it's not very relevant). But all three moves that inflict freeze do it as a secondary effect, so that rule doesn't work very well. In any case, we should not be allowing the moves to do damage and then negating the freeze by fiat; this is literally no different from declaring arbitrarily that Thunderbolt is banned from inflicting paralysis, or that Pokemon are banned from getting critical hits. It is a modification of game mechanics, which is unfaithful to the game it is attempting to simulate. Bans are faithful because they restrict player choices rather than changing the way the game works; this is not.
If you want to implement Freeze Clause in a Stadium-simulation metagame, I'm all for it. Not in cartridge play. If it's frozen in cartridge, it should be frozen in sim. This is why they are called simulators. And why we don't houserule any of RBY's myriad other oddities.
I am not putting a poll on this thread. I don't care how many whiners there are, only how many counterarguments there are.
Freeze Clause should not be used in simulators attempting to simulate RBY cartridge play. It is a perversion of in-game mechanics to suit whiners.
Sleep Clause can be implemented on cartridge; you make a rule that you can't use sleep moves if you've slept something (mechanical sleep clause does allow the player to waste a turn using it and failing, which is not a good thing in my book; however, wasting turns is a terrible idea in almost all circumstances and thus it's not very relevant). But all three moves that inflict freeze do it as a secondary effect, so that rule doesn't work very well. In any case, we should not be allowing the moves to do damage and then negating the freeze by fiat; this is literally no different from declaring arbitrarily that Thunderbolt is banned from inflicting paralysis, or that Pokemon are banned from getting critical hits. It is a modification of game mechanics, which is unfaithful to the game it is attempting to simulate. Bans are faithful because they restrict player choices rather than changing the way the game works; this is not.
If you want to implement Freeze Clause in a Stadium-simulation metagame, I'm all for it. Not in cartridge play. If it's frozen in cartridge, it should be frozen in sim. This is why they are called simulators. And why we don't houserule any of RBY's myriad other oddities.
I am not putting a poll on this thread. I don't care how many whiners there are, only how many counterarguments there are.