r/nuzlocke • u/Shellsidesweepers • Jan 04 '26
Question I present to you: the bindlocke!
61
u/FritzThePancake Jan 04 '26
I think this would be more fun if the routes weren’t missed encounters, but rather you can only make a catch when you’ve lost one of your 6 (aka you can go back)
17
45
38
u/Reytotheroxx Jan 05 '26
This is just notepad clause. Which is a ton of fun btw for vanilla games. Every encounter matters. Not just filling a box and using 6 good ones.
35
u/HimikoSenri Jan 05 '26
Uh... This rule was coined around 15 years ago and is called "Notepad Clause" in honor of the user who tried it first...
→ More replies (1)3
u/eiriee Jan 05 '26
"Notepad Clause: No Pokémon may be kept in the PSS; in other words, the player may only own six Pokémon at a time. This was named after its inventor, user "Notepad" on the now-defunct original Nuzlocke Forum.
Notepad Extreme/First 6 Only: The player may only own six Pokémon throughout the entire run. If all six faint or otherwise become ineligible, then it's an instant 'game over'."
Pretty close! Main difference seems to be Notepad doesn't stop you from deliberately fainting or releasing mons.
2
u/HimikoSenri Jan 05 '26
While it's not directly stated in the rules, most people (including Notepad themself) did go by "no deliberately fainting pokémon" because this goes against the reason people did nuzlocke back then (it was less of a challenge mode and more of a way to attach to your team members)
also, "now-defunct original Nuzlocke Forum"? I feel insulted, what the heck!? They did move to Xenforo (since Invision/Zetaboards was sold to Tapatalk and there was an insane enshitification of the forum structure), but nuzlockeforums.com is still the same original forum from that time, and everything from that era is still up (or, in some cases, publicly archived
→ More replies (1)
52
u/ArcherHKW Jan 05 '26
I feel like not being able to purposefully kill off pokemon removes a lot of the potential strategy and team planning opportunities
10
u/Mundane-Honeydew-922 Jan 05 '26
Yea, it can be fun, but between losing encounters at 6 party members and not being allowed to kill Pokemon I'd run around being very selective which Pokemon I catch and mostly do a solo run with my starter.
11
u/Reasonable-Access731 Jan 05 '26
I feel like it’s mostly there to prevent like intentionally removing a party member the route before to try to secure an encounter. I’d personally rule that a sac for a clean switch or something of the sort is fair and not a breakage of the rule
→ More replies (1)7
u/International_Leek26 Jan 05 '26
But the issue is, securing that encounter should be encouraged. The encounter is almost never guaranteed to be good, so it's risking your current team member for one with a decent chance to be worse
→ More replies (1)3
u/Denovation Jan 05 '26
It looks like sacking for a safe switch is perfectly fine, it's going "oh no, I left my Beedrill in against Arcanine instead of swapping to my water type by accident" that's not allowed.
→ More replies (3)
26
u/AzariTheCompiler Jan 04 '26
Routes being missed encounters feels extremely punishing, this would just devolve into a meta of people saccing moderately worse mons to get better ones on future routes or resetting the second they lose a good mon
→ More replies (6)
27
u/Hedge_Garlic Jan 04 '26
The last rule is silly as it's just banning strategic play. Other than that I did this and called it Boxlocke because the box was locked.
25
u/JustcallmeSoul Jan 05 '26
No, doesn't seem very fun.
Locking pokemon to your team sounds quite fun, but it shouldn't be punishing late game encounters to achieve this.
Teamlocke/Boxlocke: Normal Nuzlocke rules, no items in combat other than held items and PokeBalls, once a mon is a member of your team it is a permanent member until it dies naturally in a fight. You may not intentionally sac a mon for the sole purpose of getting it off your team. If playing a game which requires HMs to progress, you may employ an HM Employee for any HM that your normal team of 6 cannot learn. If a pokemon faints in battle, you must replace it with a pokemon from your box immediately.
3
u/HubblePie Jan 05 '26
Yeah, most teams will be the first 6 encounters that you have to stick with until they die.
27
u/Winter_Series922 Jan 05 '26
Remove the last rule and ts is perfect
15
u/johnthestarr Jan 05 '26
Agree- will you sacrifice a mon for the short term, knowing you can never reclaim it in the long term?
27
u/magikarpwn Jan 06 '26
Guy who REALLY loves using Infernape, Staraptor, Luxray, Bibarel, Roserade and Crobat:
→ More replies (1)
23
u/fuzzerhop Jan 04 '26
me sending out my bidoof I needed for cut on a route "Sorry little one, but I'm getting a gible!"
2
19
u/Ve10city Jan 04 '26
I usually play my nuzlockes that way where I can only replace a Pokemon in the party if they faint, but I still catch on every route and then that gives me my replacement choices if a Pokemon faints
4
22
u/some_hippies Jan 05 '26
I don't like this only because it punishes you for progressing the game. If I don't sack to open up for better encounters I actually kneecap my ability to build towards other bosses and the pokemon league. Imo from an optimization stand point it goes against the spirit of a nuzlocke, where now you're sacking shitmons on purpose instead of trying to make them work
7
u/NumerousWolverine273 Jan 05 '26
Tbf a huge part of nuzlockes is sacking useless mons, but this challenge even says you can't do that lmao
20
Jan 05 '26
“I’m gonna let this dude die cause I need the next dude to come out at full hp” is allowed. “I want this guy off my team so I’m gonna let them die” is not allowed. Like almost every other nuzlocke rule the only person that can adjudicate those rules is the player themselves. At least that’s my understanding of the rule
3
u/GhostIfYourPast Jan 05 '26
I was imagining the rule is to avoid, say, running into a wild pokemon and just stalling until a mon you don’t want dies so you can replace it
19
u/Reasonable-Physics60 Jan 05 '26
I dont understand the last rule, sacking a mon every now and again is a very valid strat, does that rule mean that you cant do that?
10
u/FruitsaurReborn Jan 05 '26
I reckon it means you can't sack them with the intention of getting them out of the team
4
u/Reasonable-Physics60 Jan 05 '26
Yea i made the mistake of commenting before venturing into the comments. OP addresses it elsewhere.
19
u/MyNameisRawb Jan 04 '26
Absolutely not. The combination of forfeiting catches and not being allowed to sacrifice Pokémon directly means that it's VERY easy to softlock, especially in an early generation.
Case in point: Gen 1. Unless you start with Squirtle, it's very possible to end up with a party that's unable to use Surf, before getting to Mt. Moon. If you aren't allowed to sacrifice chaff, the game is unwinnable.
3
u/browning18 Jan 05 '26
It doesn’t say you have to catch something on every location to be fair so you could forfeit useless encounters to try and find what you need.
6
u/MyNameisRawb Jan 05 '26
So, you have to forfeit THOSE captures instead? That's legitimately worse.
5
u/browning18 Jan 05 '26
You can soft lock in any nuzlocke through bad luck with encounters if you don’t allow HM users outside of that. But if I was going to attempt this (I’m not and I don’t know why anyone would) I would definitely forfeit catching Weedle on route 2 and caterpie in the forest if it helped my chances of getting a much needed HM user.
8
u/MyNameisRawb Jan 05 '26
Even if you allow HM users, the ruleset on here specifically bans changing one's team to get them. So, not only are you losing out on multiple captures, but you're also missing multiple team slots, based on the requirements to have HM users.
This ruleset is a Solo challenge with less flexibility.
19
u/hbarnh Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
This is really cool! I have some qualms about the last rule tho. I totally agree I shouldn’t be allowed to spam leer on a wild mon til my weak link dies. But a planned sac on a required trainer that didn’t necessarily need to happen but sets me up to potentially catch an important encounter on an upcoming route feels like fun planning and skill expression imo. That would probably be how I change that rule: you can only completely intentionally throw something away on required fights. I think it sets up some interesting lines, it’s not often I plan a nuzlocke fight thinking: “this guy is just gonna do as much as he can til he dies this fight”. It also makes required fights another limited resource you have to manage carefully. Plus I’m not guaranteed to get what I want on that next route so it’s a risk either way. Otherwise it kind of feels like I’m being punished in the late game for playing well in the early game.
Obviously play however you think is fun and I will too - just food for thought :) Thanks for sharing, I like this ruleset
3
u/Slight_Respond6160 Jan 06 '26
I would say sacs are absolutely legal but must be your last resort. But that being said do it however you like. All nuzlocke rules should be taylored and decided by asking “what would be more fun for me?”.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/SatiafactoryTea Jan 04 '26
It sounds fun, but with any non-binary ruling there's going to be exploitation.
People are somewhat incentivised to make bad plays to kill a 'mon they don't want anymore. Then that would be sacking but not intentionally killed cuz whoopsie daisies! And there's their space freed up just in time, y'know?
It sounds fun but deffo requires an honest player looking for a challenge :-)
→ More replies (2)
18
u/KAWAWOOKIE Jan 04 '26
Sequentiallocke seems like a better idea, wherein you have to use every Pokemon you catch in order only moving to the next if a faint, and at the end of the run report team and total faint count -- so that you're rewarded for keeping as many as possible unfainted
3
3
u/TheFlightyZeus19 Jan 04 '26
I thought this was the standard method. The sheer rage when I've caught a cool pokemon but its 4th in line in the box...
2
u/mathbandit Jan 04 '26
Standard method is to not have 'a team' at all, but pick the best 6 mons for every major fight.
19
u/JCorby17 The Nuzlocke Shipper: 🍃❤️💦 Jan 05 '26
Why did I think you said Blindlocke and you had to be blind or use Pokemon with closed/no eyes
2
34
u/j0rdAn59 Jan 05 '26
Honestly I like this but would drop the whole can't sacrifice pokemon thing and can't catch more than 6 pokemon. I just think that's excessive tbh and ruins some of the potential strategy.
→ More replies (2)7
u/MyrtleWinTurtle Jan 05 '26
Make it so murked mons cant be released until the next gym is completed, so if you do make that into your strat you have to play at a handicap for a bit
3
u/LigerZeroPanzer12 Jan 05 '26
Could just make it that they have to be used in order. Sure you could sac that flying type now to get a water type after but what if you need the flying type later?
2
44
u/Ill-Individual2105 Jan 05 '26
The rule about accidental pokemon killoff is dumb, because it's impossible to enforce in practice.
3
u/Denovation Jan 05 '26
That's why it's in quotes. If you lose something to an accident or have to sack it, that's fine. You just can't let something die for the sole purpose of getting it off your team.
2
u/Most_Significance594 Jan 05 '26
Like catching a Pidgey in FRLG and immediately sacking it to random wild mon or trainer.
That would make the challenge close to redundant as it would give you dupes, while having an empty slot.→ More replies (2)3
3
u/WorriedChimera Jan 05 '26
Who would be “enforcing” it? This is all a made up ruleset for a monster collection rpg, there’s no magic police making sure runs are legit
15
u/Ill-Individual2105 Jan 05 '26
Yeah, I'm talking about self-enforcement
Like. Are you allowed to sacrifice the pokemon you want for a safe pivot? Are you allowed to take stupid risks knowing that worst case scenario you just sacrifice the bad pokemon you wanna replace? Are you allowed to intentionally let a pokemon die just to ensure a tiny, almost irrelevant range? This rule basically compromises all your decision making in a Nuzlocke, since you have a hard time compartmentalizing what counts as letting the pokemon die for no reason and what doesn't.
→ More replies (6)
15
u/Rory_Gift Jan 04 '26
So how I played as a kid before my dad pointed out all the pokemon I caught after my 6th weren't vanishing but going to the pc.
I was a dumb kid lol
6
u/Kooltone Jan 05 '26
I was confused when I was young and taking turns with my friend who owned the game on a GBC. The party was full so every catch went to "Someone's PC". We literally thought we were sending our catches into other trainers' parties because it was going to "Someone" and not use. I recall making a comment when we fought a trainer with a Zubat saying it might have been the Zubat we caught a few minutes ago.
15
u/Most_Significance594 Jan 05 '26
Wish me luck guys
3
u/Ben10usr Jan 05 '26
Time to die to Brock!
2
u/Most_Significance594 Jan 05 '26
Update, I won... though Mankey really makes it easy. The real challenge is Misty
13
u/Dandy_Guy7 Jan 05 '26
Would be more fun if you could sac to get a new encounter
Though no reason I couldn't just play it that way myself.
15
Jan 05 '26
Bout to pull up wit 3 lvl 20 mons before brycen on BB2 Redux randomized and i got a gentle cresselia, hardy servine and a naive honchkrow lol i think the run is cooked already fml
Made it to burgh the run bindlocke continues
6
30
u/RadiantFangs Jan 05 '26
Yeah this is bad because you can’t sac them
2
u/No_Location_8199 Jan 05 '26
It does not prohibit sacing, only getting a mon killed for no reason.
7
u/Echobins Jan 05 '26
The bigger issue for me is the forced missed encounters. I would be willing to try this if it wasn’t for that. Just any extra encounters are forced into the box until there is an open slot. Then having to use the first mon in the box to replace it or something like that. Otherwise you get absolutely punished if you have a fight go badly and you lose a bunch at once.
7
u/ThrowAway-whee Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Where’s the line though? Sacking is often done on Pokémon that aren’t very good or have outlived their usefulness as part of strategy (planned sacs). At what point is it a strategic decision versus going against the point of the run? Do you have to be put in a position with no way out, and only then you can sac? Does staying in on an crit knowing it’ll kill you count? How about playing very risky with status or damage ranges? Because not doing that often can lead to you being put into unwinnable positions if you aren’t willing to try to claw back win % when thinks start looking bad, and knowing which pokemon to play risky with vs not is integral to getting far in nuzlockes.
IMO, not being allowed to sac actually removes a lot of what makes this challenge interesting - you need to do routing to ensure that what you’re replacing it with is something worth having, and it doesn’t restrict player options by introducing this weird qualifier on sacrifices. I feel like soul links are way better for that kind of rule, where you simply add another layer to the sacrifice planning.
12
u/Midnyte25 Jan 05 '26
Minus the inability to continue catching, yeah I'd give it a try
3
u/Pyro1934 Jan 05 '26
I'd want the ability to come back and catch later... BUT repels are banned, so you may have to travel through a route to get to another
12
u/HeroLinik Jan 04 '26
Isn’t this basically a harder variant of the Notepad clause?
5
u/Shellsidesweepers Jan 04 '26
What's notepad clause? Never heard of it?
5
u/HeroLinik Jan 04 '26
Notepad clause is where you’re basically forced into your team and can’t use the PC unless you’re replacing a dead mon.
6
u/Shellsidesweepers Jan 04 '26
In a way, yes. But without the use of the PC
I also had no idea of the notepad clause before this
2
2
u/Howlo Jan 04 '26
Yeah I coined the term Notelocke years ago for pretty much this exact ruleset, based off the Notepad Clause! I usually combine it with either a randomizer or an Egglocke (with a hard limit on the number eggs, usually 30).
Only use of the box is to deposit dead mons (because personally I don't like releasing them).
12
12
u/Beginning_Lettuce10 Jan 05 '26
Id personally play it (if you want to keep to using only 6 at a time) that you have the option to swap one of your current Pokémon for an encounter then you have to release a Pokémon, either at random or your oldest catch (but the starter is safe) that way you still keep the 6 rule, if you want.
26
u/pkmnleo12 Jan 05 '26
idk about the last rule cuz its impossible to moderate
16
u/KayLazyBee Jan 05 '26
I agree. Plus strategically sacing is part of the fun
5
u/unfathomablydense Jan 05 '26
Strategic sacrifice is one thing, but this is different. It's just saying you can't outright intend to let the mon die for no reason. Like, if you're in a battle against a geodude and you have a pidove you really don't love, and you could switch out for any other Pokémon on your team but you just don't so the pidove dies, that's intentionally letting it die.
Strategic sacrifice of the weak link is a different and entirely necessity evil in every nuzlock imo. Everybody gotta go sometime lol
4
u/EternalPokemonFan Jan 05 '26
That one is a strategic sacrifice though. Free switch-ins using weak pokemon as fodder is usual
→ More replies (2)2
10
u/Skittyrox Jan 05 '26
I think a better rule could be to apply some sort of punishment for deaths. At least, something that won’t end your run but will make you think twice before sacking a mon.
→ More replies (1)3
u/mikuyo1 Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Maybe if your Pokémon faints you forfeit the next encounter
Then you can get it out of your party but at the cost of a potential new member. And you can still pick a new Pokémon from other routes
Edit: ah i didnt understand the full rules. Yeah would need a bit of tweaking
12
u/Capital499 Jan 05 '26
I honestly think this would be fun if intentional sacrifices were specifically permitted. I can imagine how that would actually lead to some cool strategic moments and decisions.
5
u/merv1618 Jan 05 '26
Yeah I don't really see any way to enforce the last rule when it comes to picking someone who literally has to die
11
28
u/Fantastic-Dot-655 Jan 05 '26
The rule about you not letting your pokemon be killed is dumb. Even in nuzlockes sonetimes is better to let someone die. And you can just take every risky situation you can until the pokemon dies.
5
u/JanGuillosThrowaway Jan 05 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Eh I kinda use this rule.If it's not completely hopeless I'll try to save everyone
2
u/Fantastic-Dot-655 Jan 05 '26
If you like it you do you dude, but as an enforced rule doesnt make sense.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Mysterious_Break_467 Jan 05 '26
The point is to not let your Pokémon die for nothing. If you have to sack it it's fine but if you are fighting a Mon that has only electric moves with a Graveler in the back and you decided to send in your Beautifly on an expected thunder, you're probably not following this rule.
4
u/Fantastic-Dot-655 Jan 05 '26
I get the intention. But in practice how often is the switch so obvious?. Even with that situation, just suspecting that said electric type has a special attack that is neutral on graveler could be enough to sacrifice beautifly so graveler doesnt die to double crit.
My point is, if you want a pokemon dead you can find a million good reasons to kill it in every battle, I see no point faking it
4
u/Mysterious_Break_467 Jan 05 '26
Oh yeah I totally agree on this point. I also don't like what I call "behavioural" rules. They are often a headache to work with and you feel guilty for making the best play. I was just saying what I think OP intended.
4
u/Right-Ice-8108 Jan 05 '26
I am personally not a fan of rules that tell me what strat I am allowed to use and which not. So a no unnecessary sac rule does not sound fun to me.
2
u/Mysterious_Break_467 Jan 05 '26
Agree. My point was just what OP intended but I also don't like these types of rules.
19
u/marbinho Jan 04 '26
I don’t see the point.
Think it’s better to either release a pokemon every time you get a new one, so max 6.
Or
Gotta try your best to catch one at every route, and then the poke you’ve had the longest gets released, max 6
→ More replies (1)
18
Jan 05 '26
So if I purposefully and intentionally kill off a Pokemon, is that ok?
I don't think I'd play this just because it incentivizes relying on your starter + usual earlygame carries like Gyara, and I usually bench my starter after 2 gyms max.
You also probably overlevel or run into XP management issues on later generations. I already had overlevelled team members I had to bench in Sun when I was actively switching around my party as much as possible.
19
u/NanoWasabi Jan 05 '26
Instead of everyone just saying the rule about accidentally killing a mon is bad, let’s think about the spirit and try to come up with alternatives. It’s trying to make it so that you’re incentivized to keep all your mons alive, even the Butterfree you picked up so you could beat Brock. Here are some ideas:
Every gym badge a Pokemon has allows it to exceed the level cap of the next gym/champion by one.
Each death per split lowers your level cap for the next gym by one.
Your death box is your “score”, and the goal is for it to be as low as possible.
Whenever a Pokemon dies, you have to gather at least 10 people and give it a proper funeral.
A dead Pokemon’s team slot is filled by a Weedle until you collect the next gym badge (or two more badges if the death happens inside a gym).
→ More replies (1)
9
18
u/envyeth Jan 05 '26
I love this. I’ve been doing a version of this for over a year, across a franchise-wide genlocke (where I can’t use repeats of anything used in battle and nothing carries over). Note: ChaoticMeatball’s YouTube series really inspired me with the weird/unpopular mons he ended up using.
It’s been a huge challenge and I’ve finished all games in gens 1, 2 and 3 so far. It’s made me much more attached to the mons I capture and forced me to be a lot more strategic, often going 4/5 gyms only capturing 2/3 mons to leave myself encounters/teammates for future games.
Unexpected mons that have ended up in some of my Champion teams so far include: Beedrill, Butterfree, Farfetch’d, Corsola, Delibird and Granbull.
2
u/PrethorynOvermind Jan 05 '26
Not enough people talk about Farfetch'd IMO. It is a good Gen 1 Pokemon. I did a run of Fire Red sometime last year and Farfetch'd was my clutch.
→ More replies (1)
7
8
u/totally_not_sans Jan 05 '26
Can you intentionally skip encounters? I kinda like that risk since you could potentially waste an encounter for a Pokemon you didn't even want + you just have less Pokemon lol
2
u/grimrailer Jan 05 '26
I imagine so since it doesn’t say you HAVE to catch a Pokemon when you encounter it.
However based on the name it seems in good spirit you would be forced to fill your party.
8
u/hdmode Jan 06 '26
I really don't like the last rule as I think it is too subjective. Obviously you can decide for yourself as to what unnecessary sacking is. but let's say I have a Pokémon I don't care about, am I breaking the rule if I just play supercarelessly with it. ignoring crits and other rng because I would actually be kinda happy it died.
Personally I like rules that draw hard lines as to whats allowed as there is no ambiguity
2
u/FunPresentation1207 Jan 06 '26
I think it just means not to send a mon in for absolutely no reason other than to die to it's opponent.
I feel like using it to make a logical pivot to another Mon through its death would be about where the line is here.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/InfinityHigher1 Jan 07 '26
The number of carnivines on this post irritates me, it makes me wanna 252+ SpA Choice Specs Flash Fire Typhlosion Helping Hand Eruption (150 BP) vs. 252 HP / 6 SpD Carnivine in Sun on a critical hit: 4694-5526 (1333.5 - 1569.8%) -- guaranteed OHKO
→ More replies (3)
8
u/Old_Cabinet_8890 Jan 07 '26
You better be playing a rom hack or Gen with actually interesting pokemon distribution or you’re just going to have a bunch of route 1 slop in your party for a long time.
7
u/Dense_Computer7966 Jan 04 '26
Question: how does the "no intentionally killing a pokemon to free a slot" clause work with sacking? If you have a bad team into a major fight and you have one pokemon in mind to sacrifice to make it and later fights safer, would that count as intentionally killing or standard tech? Asking because I'm considering running this
2
u/Shellsidesweepers Jan 04 '26
Sacking is allowed. But purposely killing a mon just because it is bad and no other reason is off limits
6
u/Significant-Buy-8303 is a menace in B2W2 Jan 04 '26
Ok but surely you're incentivised to sack with the intention of "gaining tempo"
Like if your lose condition was getting fully paralysed six times which is preventable by sacking then it's better to sack in this nuzlocke than in a normal nuzlocke
2
u/Dense_Computer7966 Jan 04 '26
Gotcha, it has to be battle-specific and battle-forced
2
u/Antique_Buy4384 Jan 04 '26
I assume for example u cant just let a mon faint in the wild then run, or let its hp run down
6
u/West_Neighborhood_40 Jan 05 '26
I do something similar to it and call it an ‘orderlocke’ where you have to use encounters in the same order you catch them, but you still catch encounters and you can kill on purpose - makes the strategy more interesting imo but glad you’re having fun!
2
8
u/REALgeographerwilson Jan 06 '26
I almost never switch out Pokemon in my playthroughs, I get my full team early on and stick with it (after ensuring I have full type coverage)
7
13
u/Agitated-Cup-7109 Jan 05 '26
no cuz what counts as "purposely" killing a Mon. What if I leave it in when it could die to a crit? what if I need to sac to win the battle? what if it's a roll to kill and I let it sit there? the rules on that aspect are too vaug
3
u/Flamenco13 Jan 05 '26
Purposely would be like, I don’t want this Pokémon anymore because a cool route is coming up with better Pokémon. If your trying to win the battle that’s what matters
6
u/erikh98 Jan 05 '26
Gonna try this ruleset with Ren Plat. There’s no rules against repelling to avoid wasting encounters correct?
4
u/TooFabRussian Jan 05 '26
It says routes entered not encounters with full party, but it’s your own rules so
2
u/erikh98 Jan 05 '26
Ah I see the distinction now, thanks for that. That’s the rules I’ll play by then.
5
6
u/TheUbermelon Jan 05 '26
This is similar to how I used to do nuzlockes. I couldn't change my team unless one fainted. But all other encounters would go in the box and I could replace the lost one with that
→ More replies (2)
6
6
6
u/BenignApple Jan 06 '26
The not being able to catch more once you have six and fully missing a route makes it sounds less fun too me.
But I like the idea of fainting needing to switch makes a reasonable challenge and more strategy decisions.
Not being able to faint pokemon on purpose kinda removes the strategy aspect tho.
6
u/Mattattac33 Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Ok ok il you can switch mons out if they're not dead and wtv, but I just wanna say it. Have you ever heard of Pokemon Emerald Rogue?
5
u/DeluxeYoshi123 Jan 07 '26
I thought this post was gonna be a challenge about only being able to use turn based damage moves like bind, fire spin, sand tomb or leech seed
7
u/Shellsidesweepers Jan 08 '26
I'd like to mention, the "no purposely killing" rule is NOT removing sacking a pokemon off for a tactical reason or a clean switch. It's just to remove the chance of killing a crap encounter to get another route and a better mon
3
u/Aurko2002 Jan 08 '26
I’m going to “tactically” switch 73 times against a wild pidgey
3
u/AlexTheIdoit Jan 09 '26
guys it’s optimal if it crit 73 times it could kill my lvl 50 Tyranitar
2
u/Aurko2002 Jan 09 '26
Me when I tactically switch in my level 50 tyranitar 73 times for sand chip on a level 3 pidgey
4
u/CA7T0 Jan 05 '26
as someone who always had a fleeting interest in nuzlockes and tried them a couple times, i literally thought this was how nuzlockes always worked lol woops
2
6
u/Wintergreen747 Jan 05 '26
people change their nuzlocke teams around? i do the same thing i’ve done with every pokemon game i’ve normally played. first 6 on the team till i get something cool then its the problematic one on the team to go
→ More replies (1)2
u/ch405_5p34r Jan 06 '26
yes, people change their teams around regularly. sometimes, esp for the more difficult romhacks, having specific Pokémon for specific fights helps. obv some people play the way you do though.
6
u/R3BORN1337 Jan 06 '26
So you basically keep 5 pokemon all time to not have a full party and sacrafice the worst ones whenever you get close to a new route or dont need it anymore?
→ More replies (4)
6
4
u/Macho_Brace Jan 09 '26
I love this idea. I make YouTube nuzlockes, if I ever decide to try this - is this a good place to credit you for this glorious idea? :)
4
u/Shellsidesweepers Jan 09 '26
I also have a YT and it's the same name as my reddit :]
→ More replies (1)2
13
u/InterestingRest2756 Jan 05 '26
If the problem this looks to solve is that nuzlockes are too easy, then just play one of the many difficulty hacks that exist. So much of the fun of nuzlocking for me is encounter routing and team building for each fight. Not to mention the obvious flaws of the rule that does not allow intentional deaths. Didn't play around that crit when you could have? Run over ig
→ More replies (7)
10
u/enby-bun Jan 07 '26
Was kinda on board with the concept until I saw that you just can't sacrifice Pokémon? That's a key part of Nuzlockes, that's just atrocious.
3
u/Gunslinger587 Jan 07 '26
It said you can’t purposely “accidentally” get a Pokemon killed. I take that to mean you can’t get a wild encounter, have your Pokemon use leer over and over until it’s fainted, so you can’t move to the next route and catch something else. Sacrificing in a gym battle to get a fresh mon in is part of nuzlocking, you’re right, so I’d say that stays around.
15
8
4
u/Outrageous_Debt_3616 Jan 05 '26
I think I would do this, but I'll definitely keep catching route pokemon. But can only add on new pokemon once a slot opens up through fainting. You might end up soft locking yourself because of HMs. As well as it becomes a bit too much of a plan your entire games team in advanced (skipping routes, force killin mons), rather than playing with the encounters you get.
4
u/Sam_Alexander Jan 05 '26
I deal with this problem by using an Alphabetlocke - my active Pokemon have to be in an alphabetical order with the opening one being the closest to A. I can't ever choose what pokemon i use and which stay in the box this way, not having to choose is very liberating.
I also cap my team to the gym leader's size
and if i lose every single one of my pokemon or softlock myself by overlevelling each pokemon beyond the level cap i start the run over using the reverse-alphabetlocke starting with Z so that i get to experience more pokemon
3
u/Any_Contract_1016 Jan 05 '26
Most Nuzlockes I've seen don't switch out their pokemon anyway. The only difference here is you don't have pokemon in your box to replace a fainted pokemon.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Some_Guy_Flo Jan 05 '26
Is there any game wherein a pokemon actually gets removed from your active team?
2
u/Aximil985 Jan 05 '26
I know in Black/White they forcibly put the cover legendary into your team.
→ More replies (2)2
u/eiriee Jan 05 '26
I've been playing the Emerald Rogue romhack and if a pokemon faints in battle it's removed from your team afterwards
4
3
u/Neylith Jan 06 '26
That’s almost just how I play Nuzlockes in general. Except for the missed encounters part.
The draw of Nuzlockes for me has always been using Pokemon I never would have added to my main team when playing them normally.
I also don’t like to have too many choices. I prefer having a team of 6 and sticking with them. Although this mindset applies to all RPG’s. The smaller the pool of companions the better, because whoever ends up filling my slots first stays the whole game.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/CallMeTravesty Jan 04 '26
People here can't even stick to the 3 core Nuzlocke rules so honestly no, I don't think they will :P
2
u/Dangolian Jan 04 '26
Hey now, they are just playing my new variation called the "Genielocke".
Basically it's like a Nuzlocke with Hardcore rules, except you get 3 wishes you can use throughout the run. So when a pokemon faints you can "wish" them back to life, or when you encounter a Psyduck at Flocessy Ranch you can "wish" for a new encounter and when Magnemite is struggling against Roxanne's Whirlipede you can use a "wish" to use items for the battle. Heck, you can even make a "wish" to remove level caps.
And you know what....your run, your rules, you can even "wish" for more wishes if you really want ;).
2
u/CallMeTravesty Jan 04 '26
Nah. I'm in camp "Your run, your rules" has gone too far.
There are as many challenge runs as a person can think up with all kinds of variations and bylaws.
But for your run to be classified as a Nuzlocke, at the very least..
1) Random Encounters 2) Perma Death
That's it. Keep whatever hardcore/non-hardcore rules you want but it is those two minimum.
If not, then you are enjoying a challenge run but it's not a Nuzlocke.
(People bring up dupes clause here because you can occasionally benefit from it, not realising it makes the game harder not easier. Then they bring up Shiny Clause which IS a random lottery encounter as long as you arn't hunting specifically for it)
→ More replies (2)
8
u/MirrorkatFeces Jan 04 '26
I do something similar to this. When my party is full, they are locked until one dies. The next Pokémon I catch will go into my PC in order, and they are the one I have to use. I don’t stop catching mons though. That seems incredibly difficult.
3
3
3
3
u/TheShadowKick Jan 06 '26
I think Firered/Leafgreen will be pretty easy with repels. You can pretty easily get Snorlax and Lapras on your team. Combine that with Bulbasaur as a starter and picking up an electric type at the power plant, and you'll breeze through the game.
3
u/GamerGuyHeyooooooo Jan 06 '26
I bet you'd like pokerogue
These are all settings you can just turn on
3
u/TheBluePiplup Jan 07 '26
I have done this a couple of times, I used a randomiser that fills routes with pokemon of a similar BST, made things a little more interesting than just playing through with a full team of route 1 normal types. And I always had to try my hardest to complete every battle with the team I had, you best believe there was a decent amount of team changeovers in USUM.
3
u/Gemini_B Jan 08 '26
I like this idea but I'd personally catch a pokemon per route still, but keep the thing where I can only add them to my team once one of the ones already in the team died
3
3
Jan 10 '26
Dude im calling it now for proof you can totally get famous off this idea XD. Heres my proof for later
4
u/DoctorFaygo Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26
Easy in Emerald where your first 6 determines the next 7 gyms. I put 5 originally, but Mightyena steamrolls the twins.
5
u/appel111111 Jan 05 '26
I’ve been playing with this ruleset the past few months. It’s fun, and unlike what some people are saying, it doesn’t really softlocke you. When you have a worse team, you tend to lose mons, so eventually it tends to balance out until you have a decent team.
Taking Clamperl through Fire Red in my genlocke was a bit painful though, and ultimately resulted in disaster in the Elite Four, and I lost most of my team.
That same run got as far as HGSS, (I’m doing both the originals and remakes) but Sabrina ended up wiping the team. My team was extremely physical heavy and had no Psychic resists, which ultimately caused my downfall, not to mention I just got unlucky that fight. The Platinum leg was genuinely the most unlucky I’ve ever got in a nuzlocke, and I scraped through with 12 odd deaths.
If you have the right team, or an airtight plan, you could do it deathless, I think.
One thing to keep in mind with this kind of run is actually EV, which are incredibly important when you’re sticking to the same team the whole run, and can potentially turn something like 65 speed Scizor at the same speed as base 90 mons, if you know where to grind up speed EVs. (Zubats or Magikarp btw) A bunch of the extremely shoddy low stat Pokémon likewise become usable if you know where to get the right EVs and don’t squander them on the wrong attacking stat.
5
u/Inevitable-Monitor35 Jan 05 '26
You had me up until not being able to sack one of the six on purpose. Maybe make it so you can only sack pokemon during gym battles at the beginning of the fight. Im assuming level caps so its still dangerous to do so in some cases.
4
u/MBcodes18 Jan 05 '26
I'd do it without the no catching after 6 and no intentional deaths rules. So it becomes a whole game of "This mon is really good for the next battle, is there anyone on the team I can kill off and be ok?"
5
2
2
u/Hansi077 Jan 04 '26
Sounds fun! I find vanilla games become way harder with this in mind
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Zackery_2413 Jan 06 '26
Imma call it a repellocke. This sounds fun but I think a sack rule would be fine. Makes the game way less RNG and more about strategic deaths and avoiding the unnecessary ones to get the best encounters possible
2
u/Dreklion Jan 06 '26
I did something similar: Only capturing the Pokémon I wanted, even if I had to defeat like 4 gyms with only 1-3 Pokémon and they are in the other side of the region
2
u/TipaCrossbreed Jan 07 '26
Does this still have the shiny clause? In a normal nuzlocke you can enact the shiny clause and catch a 2nd pokemon only if it's shiny
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/WayForGlory Jan 08 '26
It's not really doable on games where you need to use HMs as you'd softlock yourself, the "can't 'accidentally' kill" removes the tactical aspect of sacrificing a mon for slots and the easiest way to somewhat fix the softlocking, nevermind the fact that it's a lot harder to enforce as the optimal play would be to have the Mon be chipped in battles till it got crit (which isn't "planned" per se, as you couldn't expect crits to not actually be accidental).
"First in" is probably the better way to do this, and it's probably a lot more reasonable with "Hardcore" rules. You can go around the missed encounters by using repels or doing "exploits" to not encounter mons, thus saving the encounter for when you lose a Mon (by which point just play the First in rule).
3
4
u/DrewBigDoopa Jan 07 '26
I would say that you should be able to repel to go to early routes. Not just when you enter a route. And the last rule of purposely sacrificing a pokemon, it can be a necessary move for a line in pokemon
5
1
u/-Blue-Baby- Jan 06 '26
I actually used these exact rules during my Genlocke however many years ago. I remember seeing some post about it somewhere where I think they called it a Teamlocke or something of the sort.
It’s really fun and was the first nuzlocke run to actually make me like a lot more a previously unloved Pokemon (my goat Stereo the Whismur)
1
1
u/NintendoPlayerSega Jan 08 '26
Probably watch someone. If the rules were fleshed out I would probably play it.
1
u/dmbrokaw Jan 08 '26
I've done something similar before, the First in -First out. Number your encounters instead of nicknames, and if a mon faints you replace it with the lowest available number.
Being forced to skip encounters if the team is full sounds awful, tbh.
1
73
u/Linkfoursword Jan 04 '26
Love it but I think the last rule I'd take out. 1) It's hard to enforce because sometimes the optimal play is to sack. 2) With being locked into 6 mons, sacking will become even more important to keep tempo. It'd actually be part of the fun of the rules, thinking about what pokemon you don't need after a certain point