Concerning Command List Revisions

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.

 

I'm not myke (thank god, otherwise...the whole site would be in the shits by now)

I'll answer for the sheer fun of it /versus/images/icons/laugh.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

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

<hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't consider it misleading...it's quite clear in Japanese..i suppose the msg got lost during translation.


<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

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.

<hr></blockquote>

Did u know..Jacky has two different back fist attacks while he is Turned around while crouching?

1st is the normal backfist that can be continued with the canned P,P sequences.

2nd backfist is a normal hit that causes the opponent to fall immediately, with no possible follow ups at all. ( Jacky gets up, swings his fist, then takes a step backwards)

I found out abt this a few months ago. Yet I have always kept mum abt it. it's like, what's the point? Sure it'll make the movelist complete...but it doesn't do anything else, does it?
It belongs to a FAQ..just like Sarah's back turned moonsault...because as u stated urself, """They are more the result of technique than distinctiveness."""



<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Analogously, why bother including sabaki information on the lists, when there already is a separate sabaki chart for that purpose?

<hr></blockquote>

I always felt they were two different documents. One tells the players what the sabaki moves are..the other 'educate' the players what a sabak move is...quite vital to have the document there if u ask me.


<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

One glaring omission from the lists is rising attacks.

<hr></blockquote>

At the risk of being rude, but isn't this supposed to be at least, common sense? Every person I introduced VF to knew immediately the way to execute a rising attack without any coaching from me, but they were totally clueless as to the command for executing a pounce or a stomp.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

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

<hr></blockquote>

I do agree that certain moves belong to specific character guides. Because it is impossible for the movelist to explain the moves in detail.

Regarding the FAQ, I'm not being optimistic, rather I am trying to be realistic. I hope u will understand that while writing a faq is no easy feat, it is even harder when it comes to writing a VF FAQ. VF FAQ has always been one where the author takes quite a while to write it...only because there are so much info. It took them 6 months to release the Blue book, both white books, 7 months to released the DVD strategy. The guys are written by players such as Kyasao, bun bun maru and co. It's their job to play the game to death, yet it also took them such a long time....while I wished I had such a job, I don't...so I cannot pump out info as fast as I would have wanted to.

As to ur concerns with info being ommitted, that's why I always keep looking for new info to add to whatever doc I have done for my friends...

And realistically, the quality of the info is often judged by the reader. For example, after learning abt the wall trick from Kyasao in the blue book, I've been having alot of fun doing wall tricks with Jacky, Pai and Kage. The timing in nailing an opponent with a wall kick, or baiting them into attack->use to wall to do a suprise exchange is something that gives me great satisfaction. Yet I have been called 'crazy' by Gaigin players for using such a tactic. But with my Japanese and Hong kong friends, we found the tactic to be quite a good one.


Whatever moves listed or explained in there is up to the reader to decide for himself/herself. Having all info in a FAQ does not make it a 'complete' nor does it make it any better.
Having any info omitted doesn't make it 'less complete'...nor does it makes it an bad FAQ.

If any info is indeed omitted(preferbly not), it is the players responsibilities to go find out for himself/herself. Shouldn't bank all ur hopes on a FAQ.

FWIW, even the blue book doesn't go into extreme details abt the use of moves. Instead, it focuses alot on battle winning moves, theories, abit of psychological explanations on how opponents might behave after a certain scenario etc etc etc.

Ah ...3 a.m
I have to sleep
must sleep
must sleep
must sleep
must sleep

 

ah yes..I should stop this habit of posting at 3.am in the morning...

crikey..
talk abt incoherent~

 

I am not myke (thank god, otherwise...the whole site would be in the shits by now)

How Myke does such an amazing job and still lead his “normal†life is beyond me. I suspect it takes its toll. We all owe him a continuing debt of gratitude.

I wouldn't consider it misleading...it's quite clear in Japanese..i suppose the msg got lost during translation.

My comment is of course based on how the translated format would work here. From what I’ve seen, the Blue Book’s approach would make a better and more useful fit, IMHO. The White Book’s method would more likely cause a fit… /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

Did u know..Jacky has two different back fist attacks while he is Turned around while crouching?

1st is the normal backfist that can be continued with the canned P,P sequences.

2nd backfist is a normal hit that causes the opponent to fall immediately, with no possible follow ups at all. ( Jacky gets up, swings his fist, then takes a step backwards)

VF4 is not accessible to me until tonight, and so anything I say right now is from memory and checking the move lists. The short answer to your question is no, I didn’t know this, and you have no idea how excited I am to learn about it! You may not understand my fascination with the move system, which is separate from my fascination with playing the game per se, but I digest this kind of information with relish and find it delicious. Frankly, I haven’t played Jacky very much as of yet, and so know little about him to begin with, but I was under the impression that if he was back turned and crouching, then pressing P would not result in a high attacking backfist (or Turn Knuckle as it’s known here), but rather would give the low attacking Turn Slant Back Knuckle (or low backfist). Certainly reading the move list would lead one to believe this, since that is what is listed for the command d+P under Back Turned Attacks. Assuming you are correct (which I will check tonight when I get back to my game /versus/images/icons/smile.gif), then this just reaffirms a previously expressed concern of mine. The current notational method for comands is ambiguous and can be misleading when it comes to certain moves, such as those with a “d†input where this means (depending on the move) “do from crouching only†or “tap in the down direction from standing†or that you may do either. It has each of these meanings for different moves. This doesn’t seem to bother anyone but me, so it’s not going to change. If it were my move list, I would "correct" this, but it isn’t, so I accept and appreciate what is here, and annotate a printed out personal copy accordingly.

I found out abt this a few months ago. Yet I have always kept mum abt it. it's like, what's the point? Sure it'll make the movelist complete...but it doesn't do anything else, does it?

How would you know that? It’s information. Information is not knowledge. It doesn’t answer questions like how or why, only the who, what, when, where types of questions. If you provide the information, someone else more creative or interested may discover something about the move that you failed to notice. I am also not sure I follow your logic about completeness. Now I don’t think the move list would be “complete†solely by its addition, but nitpicking aside, it is incomplete without it; what is wrong with making the move list more complete? A move list is not a requirement, but if we are going to have one in the first place, why shouldn’t we endeavor to make it as complete and accurate as feasible? Otherwise any bunch of random symbols could serve. Maybe it’s a matter of values; my value system guides my belief that if you take on the task of doing something, you should do it as well as you can. BTW, potential problems also go deeper than the use of wrong information directly coming from the inaccurate data. What I mean is that even the accurate stuff gets affected and becomes less useful, because when people encounter any errors at all, it may cause the rest of the list to lose credibility as well. Even if everything else on the list is accurate, one doesn’t know this, and this leads to hesitancy. There was a recent Jeffry thread by Aeon in which this was illustrated; he asked a question about low kicks and was referred by someone to the move lists; he responded by saying he had found some obvious errors in Jeffry’s move list, and implied as a result he didn’t trust the rest of the site’s move lists. An analogy is when you catch someone lying, you suspect them even when they tell the truth.

It belongs to a FAQ..just like Sarah's back turned moonsault...because as u stated urself, """They are more the result of technique than distinctiveness."

No, I disagree strongly. If the two versions of the move do different things, this is a distinction, not a technique issue. You say one version of the Turn Knuckle knocks down and one allows combo continuations? Then, assuming this difference isn’t due to something systemic like an MC, they are different moves, and both should be listed. Similarly, the back turned uf+P Moonsault I refer to is different than the “normal" one, which is input with the command ub+P instead. As I pointed out in the Sarah move list thread, the PS2’s Command Training mode does not accept the uf+P “version†as a Moonsault, but does accept the ub+P one, so even the game considers them separate moves. What I meant with technique, was that in the case of say, Akira’s double palm, the move requires it be done from a crouch. How you get there is irrelevant (from a command point of view, not from a tactical point of view). Using a crouch dash to do this, instead of just going into a stationary crouch for a sufficient number of frames, is a technique. So a modified double palm is still a double palm, resulting from a specialized technique; it’s not a separate move. It belongs only in a guide, not on a move list.

BTW, since you have already mentioned the two backfist moves, would you care to share what the conditions are for the unique knockdown non-comboing version to come out? Please?

Analogously, why bother including sabaki information on the lists, when there already is a separate sabaki chart for that purpose?



I always felt they were two different documents. One tells the players what the sabaki moves are..the other 'educate' the players what a sabak move is...quite vital to have the document there if u ask me.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. And that is exactly the point I was trying to make. It was an analogy for why I believe moves should not be omitted from a move list with the excuse that they can be included in a guide. Paraphrasing you, a move list and a guide are two different documents. One tells the player what moves there are, and the other educates them on how to use the moves. Whether you realize it or not, you solidified my argument for me. /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

One glaring omission from the lists is rising attacks.

At the risk of being rude, but isn't this supposed to be at least, common sense? Every person I introduced VF to knew immediately the way to execute a rising attack without any coaching from me, but they were totally clueless as to the command for executing a pounce or a stomp.

Again, I strongly disagree. Aside from the simple fact that one may do either a low rising attack or a midlevel one, there are at least five/six ways to do a rising attack that are generally within the control of the player and that can affect the attack which comes out: Staying in place and rising immediately; staying in place and rising with a delay; rolling into/out of the screen; and rolling away from the opponent. Each can each lead to different types of rising attacks. The type of rising attack that will appear will also be affected by which of four positions your character is lying in with respect to the opponent, based on whether your character is face down or face up, and whether it’s his/her feet or head that is closest to the opponent. Depending on whether you consider rolling in or out of the screen a distinction (they both always result in the same type of attack after the roll), that gives you 32~40 different possibilities, hardly serviced by common sense alone. And there is more to a move list than showing commands. For instance, knowing which rising attack variations can be reversed, or which can be evaded. A rhetorical question: Do they all do the same damage? In VF3, Lion had a rising attack that did double damage. Is it still in VF4?

BTW, my comparison with pounces and stomps was not on ease of implementation, but on relevance of the attacks. Rising attacks are at least as important as pounces/stomps, and more important than back turned attacks for characters like Akira/Jeffry, or wall attacks in general, none of which are omitted. Also, using your argument about common sense: Any person introduced to VF4 can very quickly figure out (without any help), how to execute a punch (just press P), and how to execute a "near" version of it (get close to the opponent), a F+P version (just hold forward), and a B+P version. Common sense is more than sufficient for these. So, if your argument is to be accepted, why bother listing all four (assuming as in Sarah's case there are no frame stat differences given)? The only feeble answer anyone can give is that it’s the way the books have it. Fine. But is it more relevant than other information that is excluded? Clearly, the variation in rising attacks is more critical and harder to accrue information on. And also consider this: Many characters such as Sarah have their B+P punch listed, presumably because it’s a stationary version of the punch. Now Lion can’t do a B+P punch; inputting B+P gives his b+P move. But inputting P+K+G gives Lion a stationary punch, which is even more distinct from his normal P than Sarah’s B+P is from her normal P (Lion can’t go into Px combos from the P+K+G). So why is Sarah’s B+P and (near) P and even F+P worthy of separate listings as moves, but not Lion’s P+K+G (and perhaps the P+K+G of other characters, and Pai’s P+K, etc.)?

I do agree that certain moves belong to specific character guides. Because it is impossible for the movelist to explain the moves in detail.

I agree, but this is true for all moves, and as I’ve already argued with the sabaki chart/move list comparison, there is a need for inclusion in both specific guides and on move lists, since as you remind us, they are for different purposes.

Regarding the FAQ, I'm not being optimistic, rather I am trying to be realistic. I hope u will understand that while writing a faq is no easy feat, it is even harder when it comes to writing a VF FAQ. VF FAQ has always been one where the author takes quite a while to write it...only because there are so much info. It took them 6 months to release the Blue book, both white books, 7 months to released the DVD strategy. The guys are written by players such as Kyasao, bun bun maru and co. It's their job to play the game to death, yet it also took them such a long time....while I wished I had such a job, I don't...so I cannot pump out info as fast as I would have wanted to.

I understood all this when I made my comment, and is once again actually a corroboration of what I am saying. Writing VF4 FAQs is a difficult and lengthy process. In the interim, why not be able to at least access a relatively complete catalogue of moves from a command list, instead of having to wait for a hypothetical FAQ, which is such a time-consuming exercise that it may never even appear? I am not criticizing people for not writing FAQs; it’s not easy to write a decent one that is more than a glorified move list (as most of the ones already published are). I am being realistic, efficient, and practical. It takes far less time to make an entry on a good move list than it does to write a good FAQ/guide. Having some information is better than having none at all.

As to ur concerns with info being ommitted, that's why I always keep looking for new info to add to whatever doc I have done for my friends...

Can I be one of your “friends� I mean, I’d like to see those docs… /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

And realistically, the quality of the info is often judged by the reader.

It’s ALWAYS judged by the reader. Quality is an attribute that is based on the customer/consumer’s perception. The producer produces, and the consumer/customer uses and judges. But this is not the place to get into a lecture on “total quality,†supplier-customer chains, or customer psychology. I'll just say that I am posting from the perspective of a "reader..."

For example, after learning abt the wall trick from Kyasao in the blue book, I've been having alot of fun doing wall tricks with Jacky, Pai and Kage. The timing in nailing an opponent with a wall kick, or baiting them into attack->use to wall to do a suprise exchange is something that gives me great satisfaction. Yet I have been called 'crazy' by Gaigin players for using such a tactic. But with my Japanese and Hong kong friends, we found the tactic to be quite a good one.

I have no idea what wall trick you are talking about. Sounds very interesting. Can you enlighten me?

Whatever moves listed or explained in there is up to the reader to decide for himself/herself.

No, it's up to the writer, otherwise the moves I want to see included here would be. /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

Having all info in a FAQ does not make it a 'complete' nor does it make it any better.
Having any info omitted doesn't make it 'less complete'...nor does it makes it an bad FAQ.

Depends. You have to decide the purpose of the document first. What is the purpose of the command lists? And is it an appropriate purpose? Should it be changed? What is the vision of its creator for its use? How well does this meet the requirements, needs, wants, desires, and values of its intended and/or potential customers? What is the tradeoff in benefits vs. costs? Etc. In general, I don’t see how including more information in a FAQ or on a move list is bad though. The presenter just has to be skilled enough to avoid the appearance of clutter. A good writer/chart maker can usually do that. I do agree that quality is not automatically based on (relative) completeness; but it can be a critical attribute. Again, it depends on purpose and need.

If any info is indeed omitted(preferbly not), it is the players responsibilities to go find out for himself/herself. Shouldn't bank all ur hopes on a FAQ.

I obviously agree. Remember, I am the one who is attempting to check out for myself every move in the game and provide feedback for the command lists. But I appreciate any and all information on them that others can provide. The less time I waste “discovering†what is already known, the more time I can make available to discover something truly new.

FWIW, even the blue book doesn't go into extreme details abt the use of moves. Instead, it focuses alot on battle winning moves, theories, abit of psychological explanations on how opponents might behave after a certain scenario etc etc etc.

And if only someone could be kind enough to translate and post a series of articles from the Blue Book…

Anyway, thanks for your insightful (and not incite full) response SummErs.

 

BTW, since you have already mentioned the two backfist moves, would you care to share what the conditions are for the unique knockdown non-comboing version to come out? Please?

Never mind -- I tested it. This is definitely a missing move from the command list; it's not just that it knocks down and won't combo into Px, it also does 20 damage, twice as much as a normal Jacky Turn Knuckle. I also found a third variation that won't combo either, but does only the normal 10 damage. I will be posting these two moves immediately in the Jacky errata thread. Thanks.

 

A correction: I had written in response to SummErs:
Now Lion can’t do a B+P punch; inputting B+P gives his b+P move. But inputting P+K+G gives Lion a stationary punch, which is even more distinct from his normal P than Sarah’s B+P is from her normal P (Lion can’t go into Px combos from the P+K+G). So why is Sarah’s B+P and (near) P and even F+P worthy of separate listings as moves, but not Lion’s P+K+G (and perhaps the P+K+G of other characters, and Pai’s P+K, etc.)?
All the references to Lion should have been to Lau. It's too late to edit the post, hence this correction...

 

Now that this thread has been moved into the Site Updates forum, I feel less guilty about adding some additional thoughts and making another extensive post on what most site visitors find to be a topic not worth the time spent on it. /versus/images/icons/smile.gif This makes posting it less distractive and easier to ignore. Getting on with it:

One thing being overlooked concerning character guide/FAQ writers: They may look to the command list as the primary source for the moves to include in their guides/FAQs, so leaving any off could lead to their not being documented anywhere. As I noted in the Akira errata thread, ReCharredSigh’s Akira FAQ overlooked Akira’s excellent and important P+K punch variation. Would this have occurred if it had been listed on the Command List? Arguing for excluding moves because they belong in guides/FAQs while leaving them out of guides/FAQs because they are not documented on move lists is a circular self-reinforcing flaw.

May I make an analogy with dictionaries? No two are alike. Some are labeled “unabridged.†They are of course not truly unabridged [complete], since language constantly evolves; but they strive to be as unabridged as is possible, and are the most complete of the class of books called dictionaries. Given the vastly smaller scope of VF4 moves, being “unabridged†is a much easier task for a command list. I argue such a more “unabridged†move list is a fitting one for a site like VFDC, which seeks prominence as the premier English language VF forum. As I keep reiterating, I don’t see the harm in making additions, but I do see the potential harm in making omissions. I recognize most of the experienced players here probably only use the lists to compare frame stat advantages, so that much of what I advocate they find trivial or pointless. Let me try using the dictionary analogy again. Most people use dictionaries to get definitions or to check spelling. The better dictionaries, however, can be used to find word origins, dates words were first recorded, the part of speech the word represents, etc. In other words, they serve supplementary purposes and provide information other than the main ones, ones that the average user could care less about, but which are appreciated by word aficionados. I see the same for the VFDC command lists. There are quite a few posters that come to VFDC to find out about Kumite items (much to the understandable distress of traditional VF disciples), so that they can collect them. Well, some of us (me, anyway) might like to collect moves. So why not provide us with a source that attempts to be complete, while still providing what the more conservative posters are interested in?

I see the discussion actually involving several different types of omissions. First are those moves with different functions that are lumped together into one move because they use the same command. As an example, one could simply list Pai’s df+P+K as her midlevel Inashi, and leave it at that. Technically, the list would not be incomplete even if separate mentions of MP, MK, SK, KN, and EL Inashi-reversals aren’t made. The only problem is a loss of information, a loss that I think would be unfortunate, but some may see as irrelevant. If the move list maker decides to sort out the bundled moves, then the next question is how far to go. Should limb specific variations of Pai's MK Inashi-reversals that lead to unique animations/follow-ups be listed separately? I have voted yes. Should a reversal that affects different reversal classes, but with the same effects on all of them, be broken down into separate listings? The discussion on Kage’s [JS] P+K+G reversal vs SK and MK attacks is one such example. Surprisingly, I have so far been inclined to see this last separation as unnecessary, while Myke currently favors it.

A second type of “omission†is the decision not to make separate entries of combo sequences that end with the same move(s). An example is the listing of Lau/Pai’s P/PP/PPP(hit)K+G combos (and the analogous d+K+G ones) as one entry. Although I would personally list these separately, I admit there is no real harm done by not doing so (though it is curious that Jeffry’s KK(hit)d>f+P+G and K(hit)d>f+P+G get separate listings). At least they ARE listed, so I have no compelling reason to argue with the decision, other than a purely aesthetic one. A related example (and one I do agree with) is the relegating of alternative Px sequences and the like into the notes column. This documents their existence, without cluttering up the move lists. Again, aesthetics is the guide.

The third type are those that someone such as I believe are clearly separate moves from any listed , and that their omission is an error based on an incorrect belief that they are just variations of an already listed move. The primary example for me has been Sarah’s back turned uf+P Moonsault, which IS a different move than her normal one. I noticed the other day that Sarah even makes a different noise when executing it. Maybe she's trying to call our attention to something? /versus/images/icons/smile.gif I suspect that subjective familiarity or disinterest has a bearing on such judgments, hence Yupa’s stated decision to include the move in VP, or Myke’s similar decision to include Jacky’s iaigeri. Similarly with Jacky’s back turned [from crouching] P that SummErs had decided wasn’t worthy of comment.

A fourth type are those moves we all agree are variations of listed moves, but with some salient specialized characteristic which does or does not distinguish them. The main examples are the Punch/Kick variations. Summarizing, some trivial variations get listed (B+P and F+P and near/far P; F+K), while other seemingly more distinctive variations (P+K+G or P+K punch variations with built-in G-cancel/non-comboing properties) get excluded. Sarah's [omitted] back turned P+K even has the special ability to be used from a crouching position. Including these amounts to about one or two additional moves per character, not a number likely to cause clutter or confusion, just information and consistency.

Last are those intentionally omitted, such as rising attacks, presumably because of tradition, or the work involved in compiling them. I can only express dismay at this while offering to help catalogue them if that's what is needed.

I’ve enjoyed writing this, at the risk of boring the many, while hopefully stimulating the pertinent few.