Banning Pokemon & Ability combinations:

[matty]

Why? They obviously put the ability in the game to give players a choice. Gamefreak never would ban the ability (because they would never give the ability in the first place) from that Pokemon. We can't just arbitrarily ban a ability cause we hate it and turn around and say "it has another ability, lets use that".

Their ban list for tournaments isn't built around abilities, its built around Pokemon. This is a weak argument, but holds true.

 

[Ulevo]

Why? They obviously put the ability in the game to give players a choice. Gamefreak never would ban the ability (because they would never give the ability in the first place) from that Pokemon. We can't just arbitrarily ban a ability cause we hate it and turn around and say "it has another ability, lets use that".

Their ban list for tournaments isn't built around abilities, its built around Pokemon. This is a weak argument, but holds true.

We're not discussing VGC, but singles on a simulator. We cannot assume what Game Freak's intentions are, nor should we abide said assumed intentions.

We ban Pokemon, abilities, moves, items or otherwise because it is detrimental to the competitive environment we play in, and not for any other reason. Otherwise we would have played with no sleep clause at all every generation when there wasn't a console version to simulate, under the assumption that Game Freak didn't include it because "that's not how we want you to play your Pokemon."

 

[matty]

What abilites, moves and items (barring Soul Dew in OU tests, Berry Juice in LC presumably) have we banned? So far we've only banned Pokemon.

And you are basically supporting my argument. We changed sleep clause because it was detrimental to "competitive" Pokemon. We voted and decided accordingly to ban it. Why is banning abilities vs banning an actually Pokemon detrimental? It makes much more sense to just do away with a Pokemon than tinker with what we think is viable. Just axe the entire thing. The "Keep it Simple Stupid" quote comes to mind. When we start trying to change many variables in the equation of whether something is Uber or not, then we just lead to huge headaches.

Basically, there needs to be a vote on this issue as well if we want to be consistent with the other decisions we've made. It is pointless to argue, just see what everyone thinks.

And ya that GF ban list thing was dumb, shouldn't have brought that up. The only point I'm trying to make is that they don't ban abilities, only Pokemon.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Why are splitting hairs on this issue? Abilities are a component of the Pokemon. If we are trying to "follow" game mechanics as everyone keeps alluding to in every PR thread lately (but everyone voted against as seen in this thread), then we should never consider banning an ability.

You all need to get your shit straight. It seems as if many of you just arbitrarily decide which mechanics we can change and which ones we can't. I suppose that is why we have votes on a majority of these things. Unfortunately this topic lacks that and probably needs this option added.

What does banning an ability have to do with changing mechanics? How is it any different than banning a move (ohko/evasion moves) or banning a Pokemon itself. If a Pokemon has two abilities and we you can only use Rough Skin Garchomp how in the world is that changing a mechanic.

With that out of the way after reading Phil's post I'm still not entirely sold on nitpicking abilities off of specific Pokemon even if we pretty much "pledge" that we're going to stop there. There seems to be no logic behind just nitpicking abilities and leaving it there. I mean if that were the way we to go I would be fine with it, it just sits better with me banning an ability itself rather than an ability + Pokemon combination.

If the ability itself isn't broken, but a Pokemon with that ability is broken while other Pokemon with the same ability aren't broken I think the Pokemon itself is the problem and should be banned. It's the same as looking at some moves. Kingdra with Draco Meteor isn't broken, but Draco Meteor is one of the things that pushed both Latios and Latios over the line into uber. There's no reason to nitpick there and take Draco Meteor away from lati@s and leave it on Kingdra. But that's the approach some people in this topic want to take with abilities.

There are cases you can argue that something is broken even if it doesn't push every mon into ubers that has it though. Shadow Tag you could argue is broken because of how it prevents the opponent from doing the most important thing in pokemon: switching. Sand veil/snow cloak you could argue are broken because they modify evasion which as well all know is not a good thing! It just seems silly to nitpick things when you can just say one or the other is broken. I guess what I'm trying to say is just because something doesn't make every Pokemon that has it Uber, it may still be broken in terms of it's utility/smogon philosophy and we should approach abilities that way rather than attacking combinations.

 

[Ulevo]

What abilites, moves and items (barring Soul Dew in OU tests, Berry Juice in LC presumably) have we banned? So far we've only banned Pokemon.

You can't exclude examples to support your argument. Those items are all I need to prove my point. Just because we haven't banned abilities yet does not me we cannot do so.

And ya that GF ban list thing was dumb, shouldn't have brought that up. The only point I'm trying to make is that they don't ban abilities.

And the only point that I am making is that we shouldn't care. Disregarding VGC, what Game Freak bans or does not ban is irrelevant.

 

[Firestorm]

We're not discussing VGC, but singles on a simulator. We cannot assume what Game Freak's intentions are, nor should we abide said assumed intentions.

We ban Pokemon, abilities, moves, items or otherwise because it is detrimental to the competitive environment we play in, and not for any other reason. Otherwise we would have played with no sleep clause at all every generation when there wasn't a console version to simulate, under the assumption that Game Freak didn't include it because "that's not how we want you to play your Pokemon."

Yet everyone voted against using game mechanics precisely so they could guess about Game Freak's intentions with regards to what is and isn't a glitch.

matty, banning an ability is not changing a mechanic. However, Erazor and SDS are right in that this is only going to lead to people tinkering with Pokemon until we balance it. The more I read Policy Review, the more I think it should be a sub-forum of Create-A-Pokemon.

 

[Ulevo]

Yet everyone voted against using game mechanics precisely so they could guess about Game Freak's intentions with regards to what is and isn't a glitch.

Since when?

We do not need to come to a conclusion as to whether or not Acid Rain is a glitch in order to determine whether or not it should be included in our simulator. People voted against using strict adherence to game mechanics because if something needs to be altered in order to preserve competitive play (Sleep Clause), the majority felt it should be done so.

 

[Firestorm]

I don't usually like forwarding PMs to PR so as not to cause a fuss, but this is from someone I was going to nominate but couldn't due to signups being closed and it make all the arguments I'm thinking but didn't want to type up:

I’m sorry to bother you like this again, however, this needs addressing.

The argument for banning something with the two requirements is what I call a “complex ban”. An example of a complex ban is banning Salamence with Overconfident, as there are two requirements. Smogon has undergone a policy of “simple bans”, where only one requirement is met. An example is banning Rayquaza from OU. Smogon has never undergone complex bans before, and there are a few good reasons for this - although they obviously were not apparent to some.

Firstly, complex bans go against our current tier system. The basis of Uber/ OU/ UU/ NU is to differentiate or categorise Pokémon. Essentially what a complex ban does is try to remove an aspect or component of a Pokémon that is “broken” or makes the Pokémon broken. This does not follow differentiation of Pokémon through tiers. It completely goes against tiering logic.

Secondly, complex bans do or will create what has been dubbed a “slippery slope”. Banning a component like an ability on a specific Pokémon is no different to banning a move on a specific Pokémon. Even a limit to “Pokémon and their abilities” all being different creates another ~ 1000 Pokémon to tier. A policy of complex bans that does not extend to movepools, even stats, is not universally inclusive, nor fair. If we include every variable in a Pokémon, there are millions of combinations (you previously mentioned this).

I think it’s apparent that the proposed “complex bans” have some pretty major logical and practical flaws.

I would also like to express how difficult it is to measure any individual component or aspect outside of the Pokémon that has it. It is impossible to prove that an ability or move is broken. The closest thing to a test would involve hacking the suspect aspect onto a “dummy” or level 1 Pokémon and seeing if it was broken. This is not only rather inconsistent, but it is not a fair test. For example, when testing drought even using a level 1 Groudon brings in additional uses - e.g. Death fodder - that are not components of the aspect being tested. It’s impossible to logically justify a ban on anything other than a Pokémon (or form* perhaps).

*For me, there is a clear difference between Deoxys forms and randomly creating forms like “wobbuffet with shadow tag, wobbuffet with telepathy”. A general rule of thumb could be if Game Freak coded it differently, e.g. a different sprite. However, I see how that rule can be controversial. Defining forms is not completely relevant.

Finally, I would like to mention another perspective outside of the policy makers. Say someone new to Pokémon comes in and tries to learn about competitive Pokémon. They have to learn the basic mechanics, then there are tiers, then there are clauses, then there are illegal movepools, so on. It is already quite complex. Add on “you can’t use X on Y” is just unintelligent, overcomplicated. It deters people from playing Pokémon. It does make the metagame seem too complex and specialised. I would be bold enough to say that it could even make Pokémon less competitive, and more about “trying to get Arceus and Rayquaza into OU”. I know we stray from Game Freak’s policies, but there are reasons why Game Freak introduced Pokémon bans in VCG. Game Freak probably had similar debates on what to limit players too, and so their conclusion is somewhat relevant, although I understand any insubordination to what Game Freak decides.

Call it conservative, but I see any limitations outside of clauses or Pokémon bans unnecessary and illogical.

I really want to stress the complication part. Let's stop creating barriers to entry, shall we? I like running Pokemon tournaments off Smogon. I like using Smogon rules as a standard. If we honestly go down the route it seems like Gen 5 rules are going to do, I'm not going to do that. Stop exclusively catering to the top 5% of existing battlers and start realizing that there is going to be a huge influx of users who will be looking at competitive battling for the first time when Black & White are released in English - just like there was when Diamond and Pearl were released in English (/me looks at his own join date)

 

[mtr]

If you want to blanket ban an ability or item, well, that's up for debate. I really don't have one view on that or another.

But usually, banning an ability or item is targeted towards making a Pokemon fit a certain tier ("Gen IV Salamence would be OU without Outrage!"), which is unacceptable because if you do that, you're going in with the a priori assumption that said Pokemon deserves to be in a certain tier, it just isn't because of a fixable oversight.

What you end up doing is changing Pokemon to fit the metagame rather than changing the metagame to fit the Pokemon.

 

[Ice-eyes]

I think in this case the slippery slope argument is (for once) actually viable because even if we aren't going to do things like, 'don't ban Garchomp if it isn't Sand Veil and doesn't have Swords Dance or a Jolly nature', those things will be discussed. Continuously. For the rest of the generation. I think it would be better to either blanket ban abilities - as we have with certain items, and certain moves - or just ban specific pokemon than to open up that whole can of worms.

 

[Ulevo]

If you want to blanket ban an ability or item, well, that's up for debate. I really don't have one view on that or another.

But usually, banning an ability or item is targeted towards making a Pokemon fit a certain tier ("Gen IV Salamence would be OU without Outrage!"), which is unacceptable because if you do that, you're going in with the a priori assumption that said Pokemon deserves to be in a certain tier, it just isn't because of a fixable oversight.

What you end up doing is changing Pokemon to fit the metagame rather than changing the metagame to fit the Pokemon.

But this is something we've arguably done in the past.

We tested Deoxys-S in OU because we believed it deserved a chance to prove its worth in the OU tier.

For you to adequately support your claim, you'd have to prove what sufficient difference there is between Deoxys-S and say, Doexys-A by comparison to Shadow Tag Wobuffet and Telepathy Wobuffet.

Sprites mean absolutely nothing, competitively speaking. With that fact out of the way, the only difference provided between the two examples is stats, and abilities; both of which are an integral part of the Pokemon itself. If you suggest that in order to deal with Wobuffet, we would need to completely ban the Pokemon itself rather than treat Shadow Tag Wobuffet and Telepathy Wobuffet as alternate forms of the same Pokemon (which they are, there is no difference), then I would push for the complete exclusion of Deoxys (all forms) in the OU tier unless all of them prove to not fit the characteristics of an Uber.

EDIT: Ultimately, if you wanted to prevent a slippery slope from progressing anywhere with regards to regulating other aspects of a Pokemon separately from the whole Pokemon itself, implement a policy along the lines of:

Pokemon with alternate abilities are recognized and treated as alternate forms of the same Pokemon. Therefore, under the premise that a Pokemon is characterized as Uber due to an ability, that form of the Pokemon may be excluded from OU play.

It's really that simple.

 

[cim]

Pokemon with alternate abilities are recognized and treated as alternate forms of the same Pokemon. Therefore, under the premise that a Pokemon is characterized as Uber due to an ability, that form of the Pokemon may be excluded from OU play.

Yeah, yeah, this is a slippery slope argument... but that exact same logic can be applied to Pokemon missing certain moves, Pokemon with certain EV spreads, or even Pokemon at certain levels once you open a door that's wider than "ban or allow" on each individual Pokemon. A Pokemon with a different ability is as much a "different forme" as a Pokemon with a different nature, held item, stat spread, or level, and there's no clear way to distinguish what is and isn't a different forme using your logic.

I like our current logic better in this regard, it makes things simpler and if the blowup of the last few days has taught us anything, removing ambiguity from the rules can result in disastrous, nightmarishly long debates.

 

[Ulevo]

Yeah, yeah, this is a slippery slope argument... but that exact same logic can be applied to Pokemon missing certain moves, Pokemon with certain EV spreads, or even Pokemon at certain levels once you open a door that's wider than "ban or allow" on each individual Pokemon. A Pokemon with a different ability is as much a "different forme" as a Pokemon with a different nature, held item, stat spread, or level, and there's no clear way to distinguish what is and isn't a different forme using your logic.

No, they are not the same. Garchomp with Outrage and Garchomp without Outrage because we choose to ban Outrage + Garchomp are not alternate forms of the same Pokemon, they are the same Pokemon. Within that example, we are just artificially creating differentiations that are not already in place by what the cartridge provides us, and aren't tangible within the code. The exact same applies for EVs and items.

I like our current logic better in this regard, it makes things simpler and if the blowup of the last few days has taught us anything, removing ambiguity from the rules can result in disastrous, nightmarishly long debates.

Uh, what logic, exactly? That the term "alternate form" should only be applicable to Pokemon that have alternate sprites? Even though they have no competitive relevance whatsoever? Or am I missing a piece of the puzzle here?

While I agree with you 100% that removing ambiguity from the rules is of utmost importance, the fact is that there is nothing ambiguous about this. It's quite clear and concise, and you're choosing to make an example out of it with fallacious logic, which anyone could really do with any policy.

 

[cim]

No, they are not the same. Garchomp with Outrage and Garchomp without Outrage because we choose to ban Outrage + Garchomp are not alternate forms of the same Pokemon, they are the same Pokemon. Within that example, we are just artificially creating differentiations that are not already in place by what the cartridge provides us, and aren't tangible within the code. The exact same applies for EVs and items.

What you're declaring as "the same" and "not the same" is completely arbitrary. Garchomp with Sand Veil and Garchomp without Sand Veil (assuming a second ability existed) is really as much of a choice / forme as Garchomp with or without Outrage. They are both options that the same "base Pokemon" have. How is an ability no less artificial than a move choice, EV, or item? All you have been doing is declaring that to be so.

Uh, what logic, exactly? That the term "alternate form" should only be applicable to Pokemon that have alternate sprites? Even though they have no competitive relevance whatsoever? Or am I missing a piece of the puzzle here?

My definition: An alternate form is a Pokemon with the same national dex number but a different typing and/or base stat distribution (i.e. non user-modifiable properties). Abilities are user-modifiable via breeding, RNG, etc but base stats and typing are for the most part set in stone.

 

[Ulevo]

What you're declaring as "the same" and "not the same" is completely arbitrary. Garchomp with Sand Veil and Garchomp without Sand Veil (assuming a second ability existed) is really as much of a choice / forme as Garchomp with or without Outrage. They are both options that the same "base Pokemon" have. How is an ability no less artificial than a move choice, EV, or item? All you have been doing is declaring that to be so.

No, it isn't.

Deoxys-A and Deoxys-S both have the exact same move pool, therefore they both have access to the same choice of moves. Banning Taunt on Deoxys-A but not Deoxys-S does not create a new alternate form because we are artificially creating differences between the Pokemon ourselves when they otherwise would have been the same entity. However, they are different forms because they have two entirely different base stat distributions, which when given a particular form, cannot be modified by the player whatsoever. I as a player can modify the base stat distribution by changing the form, but I cannot change, say, Doexy-S base stat distribution specifically. That is beyond my capabilities as a player in the cartridge.

With that in mind, Garchomp with Sand Veil and Garchomp without Sand Veil both have access to the exact same move pool. The only differentiation is they have two completely different abilities, which again cannot be excluded or modified separately in the same vein that Deoxys formes can't manipulate base stat distribution. Choosing between abilities is akin to choosing between different forms, or rather, different stat distributions between the Deoxys, while sharing the same move pool.

Like base stat distributions, you cannot manipulate abilities (manipulating breeding to ensure which ability you obtained is no different than touching a specific rock in DPPt to ensure you have whatever form of Deoxys you want, and thus any stat distribution you want.)

You can however manipulate the move set. If I want to exclude the move Psychic from either Deoxys form, I have that ability as a player to choose that, provided a ban or rule does not prevent me from doing so. And it is this "player freedom" that ultimately leads to slipper slope bans and complex policies.

EDIT: Also, I would like to add to this, since I thought of another appropriate example.

To expand on the fact that banning moves and banning Pokemon with particular abilities are not the same thing, I'd also like to point to the different Rotom forms in Gen IV (when they still shared the same type.)

The only thing that separated these forms from each other (aside from the completely irrelevant sprite) was their exclusive moves: Overheat, Air Slash, Blizzard, Leaf Storm, Hydro Pump.

If we were to ban say, Overheat on Rotom-H and Hydro Pump on Rotom-W, they would not become the same entity, because we would be artificially imposing that similarity. The fact is that we have no way of changing the game code to prevent Rotom-H from learning Overheat, and vice versa; it's integrated in to their move pool, and cannot be altered. We can choose to not use the move, of course. But that is identical to choosing a different form, or even a different item or trait, which as I pointed out, is not the same thing.

 

[Heysup]

Why are splitting hairs on this issue? Abilities are a component of the Pokemon. If we are trying to "follow" game mechanics as everyone keeps alluding to in every PR thread lately (but everyone voted against as seen in this thread), then we should never consider banning an ability.

You all need to get your shit straight. It seems as if many of you just arbitrarily decide which mechanics we can change and which ones we can't. I suppose that is why we have votes on a majority of these things. Unfortunately this topic lacks that and probably needs this option added.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but this post really bugged me.

You're accusing people of having illogical reasoning with illogical reasoning yourself. You're arguing against a fact. The fact is that we are not changing the mechanics of the game by banning abilities. You can pick the ability in game. There is nothing being changed from in-game to metagame. In fact, adding a rule is never changing the mechanics of the game. It is just that, adding a rule. We choose the rules. This is no different then not allowing OHKO moves, Evasion moves, and the like.

 

[the_artic_one]

I'm not against blanket ability bans but I am against banning <ability> only on <pokemon> because it makes the rules way too complicated. New players shouldn't need to consult a spreadsheet to play competitively.

 

[Ulevo]

I'm not against blanket ability bans but I am against banning <ability> only on <pokemon> because it makes the rules way too complicated. New players shouldn't need to consult a spreadsheet to play competitively.

I am finding this fallacy to be redundant in it's repetition, so I'm going to reply to this too.

Please let me know if you feel that this defines a "spreadsheet":

Pokemon with alternate abilities are recognized and treated as alternate forms of the same Pokemon. Therefore, under the premise that a Pokemon is characterized as Uber due to an ability, that form of the Pokemon may be excluded from OU play.

Ban List (Example):

Pokemon:

Arceus
Dialga
Giratina
Giratina-o
Groudon
Ho-Oh
Kyogre
Lugia
Mewtwo
Palkia
Rayquaza
Reshiram
Wobuffet (Shadow Tag)
Zekrom

Items:

Soul Dew

Clauses:

Sleep Clause
Species Clause
OHKO Clause
Evasion Clause (Includes Sand Veil/Snow Cloak)

The policy that I created regarding this proposition to consider Pokemon with alternate abilities as alternate forms of a Pokemon would of course be included with the original Smogon Policy.

The ban list is an example ban list, with the only modification being that Wobuffet is banned with the ability Shadow Tag only, and everything else would be arguably the same.

I can't predict the metagame and any future bans we may need to discuss regarding individual Pokemon, but the only abilities that I feel are even a concern (and please, if anyone can add otherwise, speak up now) is Shadow Tag on Wobbufet (Dream World Shandera is underwhelming by comparsion) and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak, which are just a round about way of avoiding the Evasion Clause nearly everyone voted in a poll against, which could be just included in a blanket ban (since Garchomp and other Pokemon who have said abilities may get their secondary Dream World abilities in the future, we can include bans on these two abilities in a blanket ban with Evasion Clause later when we are able.)

Please explain to me how this is complicated, difficult to understand, and is otherwise non user friendly?

 

[the_artic_one]

But if we consider all abilities as alternate formes then doesn't that mean we have to tier all of them separately? Does that make effect spore breloom allowed in UU since only poison heal breloom is OU? Hustle Togekiss?

That's where things get complicated.

 

[Ulevo]

But if we consider all abilities as alternate formes then doesn't that mean we have to tier all of them separately? Does that make effect spore breloom allowed in UU since only poison heal breloom is OU? Hustle Togekiss?

That's where things get complicated.

Much the same way that we tiered all of the separate Rotom forms together in DPPt, we can operate under the same premise. There isn't any need to make it more complicated then that.

 

[the_artic_one]

Then why are we tiering wobuffet and shaymin formes separately if we're not tiering breloom formes separately? What is the line for which formes are tiered together and which are not?

 

[Ulevo]

Then why are we tiering wobuffet and shaymin formes separately if we're not tiering breloom formes separately? What is the line for which formes are tiered together and which are not?

The Rotom forms were all tiered together with no underlying difference to their type or base stat distribution, the only other factors that a player cannot be manipulated by a player in the cartridge. Deoxys and Shaymin's forms are tiered on the basis that they have different types and different base stat distributions entirely.

 

[the_artic_one]

So what's the basis for tiering wobuffet formes differently but not breloom formes?

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

1: What makes an ability different from a move in this case? Rotom formes differ only insofar as they have a different sprite and learn a different move (but have the same ability, typing, stats, and vast majority of moves), yet they're obviously "different forms", so making the distinction that abilities delineate a form yet moves don't is questionable at best.

2: What advantage does this have? A metagame where Wobbuffet is blanket banned is competitively identical to one in which Shadow Tag Wobbuffet is banned, because Telepathy Wobbuffet is so useless that it wouldn't even see use in NU. It seems like there's a lot of wangling required to create a metagame that doesn't have any significant competitive advantage.

3: Why are we "tailor-making Pokemon for OU" in the first place? Banning any part of a Pokemon in order to make it fit into OU gives the implication that specific Pokemon are "meant to be in OU", which isn't how tiering works. On top of that, why do we need to edit Pokemon to make them acceptable in OU?

On the whole, why should we be complicating things for a negligible gain, when we can just have a simple banlist that achieves basically the same thing?

 

[Ulevo]

So what's the basis for tiering wobuffet formes differently but not breloom formes?

Wobuffet with Shadow Tag is (presumably) Uber, while both Breloom forms are not.

By banning Wobuffet, we're not effectively tiering it. We're excluding it from OU. The fact that Ubers happens to have its own metagame is another issue entirely.

1: What makes an ability different from a move in this case? Rotom formes differ only insofar as they have a different sprite and learn a different move (but have the same ability, typing, stats, and vast majority of moves), yet they're obviously "different forms", so making the distinction that abilities delineate a form yet moves don't is questionable at best.

I am not saying I agree with the fact that Rotom was not tiered separately. I am saying it is a viable option for Pokemon who's only notable distinction is separate abilities, as it has proved to work in the past.

2: What advantage does this have? A metagame where Wobbuffet is blanket banned is competitively identical to one in which Shadow Tag Wobbuffet is banned, because Telepathy Wobbuffet is so useless that it wouldn't even see use in NU. It seems like there's a lot of wangling required to create a metagame that doesn't have any significant competitive advantage.

While I disagree that a lot of wangling is required, to be completely honest with you, I am only promoting this because I see no logical opposition. However, while I'd prefer we didn't shaft specific Pokemon simply because a majority "doesn't care", I'd be perfectly fine with a simple blanket ban on Wobuffet and a blanket ban on the Snow Cloak/Sand Veil abilities.

3: Why are we "tailor-making Pokemon for OU" in the first place? Banning any part of a Pokemon in order to make it fit into OU gives the implication that specific Pokemon are "meant to be in OU", which isn't how tiering works. On top of that, why do we need to edit Pokemon to make them acceptable in OU?

We're not editing Pokemon by banning Pokemon with specific abilities. We're excluding them.

Secondly, I already covered this point on "tailor-making Pokemon for OU". We've been doing this the moment we decided Deoxys-S might be acceptable for OU, but all other forms should stay banned.

On the whole, why should we be complicating things for a negligible gain, when we can just have a simple banlist that achieves basically the same thing?

Again, I already confronted this point. There really is nothing complicated about this. I will agree with you that the current gain would be negligible, but I didn't see anyone opposing the idea of unbanning Wynaut in OU for Gen IV when it was discussed, and that is arguably more insignificant. This could also have an effect on how we deal with future suspects down the road, should something catch our attention, or should something new be introduced in the third instalment of Gen V.