In the thread titled "Kage's Version C Command List Errata," Myke asked for input that I feel warrants a separate thread, rather than going too far off-topic in the Kage one. It stemmed from Myke's response to questions I had asked concerning what specific functions for reversals would justify separate entries on the command lists. Those not interested in reading posts about move lists should not bother reading further. For convenience, the pertinent parts of the discussion are reposted here in quote form: <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr> So do they distinguish between Inashis/reversals that are limb (right/left) specific? Yes. For example the same High Punch reversal animation can be seen on both high and mid punches, depending on the attack being reversed, but the reversal will only be listed once. Even though the commands are different (b+P+K vs. db+P+K)? That just seems plain wrong to me... Yes. The first two reversal entries for Akira looks like this in the White Book: (name :: command) Gaimonchouchuu :: (right HMP) b (or db) P+K Youhou :: (left HMP) b (or db) P+K However, in the Blue Book, they're listed separately: (name :: command :: notes) <HP Reversal> Gaimonchouchuu :: b P+K :: right HP <HP Reversal> Youhou :: b P+K :: left HP <MP Reversal> Gaimonchouchuu :: db P+K :: right MP <MP Reversal> Youhou :: db P+K :: left MP I take it you still do not consider a limb-specific distinction in attacks to be a functional difference, right? Not when the only difference between a limb-specific reversal was the animation. However, since it was brought up in this thread, certain reversal animations can lead to guaranteed followups, so I'm prepared to re-do the reversals on the VFDC command lists. Should I list them as they appear in the White Book or Blue Book? (FYI, the Black Book is the same as the White Book.) Your suggestion is closest to the Blue Book representation. So, I'm inclined to reorganise the Reversal sections according to the Blue Book. <hr></blockquote> Myke: As you note, I clearly prefer the Blue Book method (in general) to that of the White Book, including moving information on what can be reversed (for reversal move entries) from the Rev column into the notes, as is done with sabakis. The White Book's approach is confusing and misleading; it conflates what should be kept distinct. A phrase like "(right HMP) b (or db) P+K" wrongly implies it makes no difference whether b+P+K or db+P+K is input, and that HP and MP are indistinguishable for reversal purposes. Only the final effect is -- but not what the player needs to do. The reason I conditionally say that I prefer the Blue Book "in general," is that not having seen it, I don't know what specific moves it includes separately, and I don't favor slavishly including or excluding a move simply because some book does. This is the one major point that you and I have disagreed on in past discussions. I would add that I have never argued for including separate entries based simply on animation. In all the cases in which I've mentioned animation differences, it's because I've felt they had an effect on possible game play. Your willingness to change the way reversals are formatted is IMHO highly commendable. It demonstrates that you are still open-minded enough to accept ways to make the lists more useful, even in some instances when it goes against what you've previously advocated. With that in mind, and in the spirit of open discussion: <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr> If you (or anyone) have any other ideas, I'd like to hear them. <hr></blockquote> Okay. I think this might be a good time to ask you to reconsider some of the other things you have rejected in the past. There are certain moves besides reversals that you have declined to include on the lists based on tradition or what the White/Blue/Black Books exclude. I think any move, not just a reversal, which has a distinct animation that clearly has different follow-up possibilities, should be listed. For instance, I've never understood (from a practical point of view) why you rebuffed including Sarah's (backturned) uf+P Moonsault, which very clearly is a distinct move. The logic of including separate listings for B+P or F+P or "(near)" versions of punches (other than those with frame stat differences) while excluding Lion's P+K+G also escapes me. You frequently use the defense that certain moves belong in character-specific guides/FAQs. As I've already pointed out to SummErs, this too optimistically assumes such a guide/FAQ will ever be written, and further yet, that the author will include the information. Past history does not favor these assumptions. In any case, no real harm comes from including such moves. If anything, it can become a selling point: "VFDC is the place to find the most accurate and complete move lists!" The logic for excluding them because they might appear elsewhere is also faulty for other reasons. Analogously, why bother including sabaki information on the lists, when there already is a separate sabaki chart for that purpose? One glaring omission from the lists is rising attacks. Omitting them while including pounces and hops is mind boggingly inconsistent. BTW, to avoid any misunderstandings, let me unequivocally state I do not support including listing so called modified moves resulting from the use of crouch dashes. They are more the result of technique than distinctiveness. I've also never understood why you steadfastly refuse to allow information on which moves cause crouch staggers. This is at least as important as guard staggers, crumbles, and slams. If it's a matter of doing the research, well, I am always willing. Thanks for providing me the opportunity to express my views. Myke, you continue to do an exceptional and often thankless job in administering this board. I thank you with appreciation for that as well.