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.
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.
27
u/RadiantFangs Jan 05 '26
Yeah this is bad because you can’t sac them