Gen 6 np: XY Ubers Shadow Tag Suspect Test - Stuck In The Middle With You

[shrang]

1) Realistic - actually, Double Team gives you quite a significant chance of cheesing your opponents. It's even more of a chance than Sand Veil and we all know that was banned for being "uncompetitive". Any sweeper like GeoXern to MMY with enough coverage can easily make do with Double Team (and they ALL have it) and take a dump on their counter if the RNG goes right for them (and if you're as lucky as I am, you'll know what happens when my opponents even get 1 DT up). Anyway, enough about Evasion. Like I said, it's a problem in and of itself, so combining it with S-tag just complicates the argument.
2) Sleep + Tag - If you read the linked post that I put up in my previous post (and Melee's reasoning of why we banned sleep), you'll find what I mean by Sleep Clause and how it works. Before, we never had a sleep move with a trapping ability so we never had to consider it. However, now that we do, you can consider that we now have a loophole in the clause because it's allowing sleep to operate in its "uncompetitive" way rather than "controlled" under Sleep Clause. Note Shadow Tag is still not the root cause of this issue, it's still sleep. We can close this loophole by tightening Sleep clause itself, or you can introduce a whole new ban that bans S-tag that isn't uncompetitive. Personally, I'd tighten Sleep Clause itself to include S-tag. Like I said, it's basically the same as adding Sand Veil/Snow Cloak/evasion items to Evasion Clause last gen. It's not a complex ban if you see it as "Sleep Clause exists to stop sleep from 'taking away autonomy' for most of the game, and these are done by ways of 1) preventing multiple Pokemon being slept, and 2) preventing Pokemon from being slept when they have no way to switch".

So it's not killing 2 birds with 1 stone (where did the 3rd bird come from, is it supposed to be S-tag). For Evasion, you're not killing anything by banning S-tag (except S-tag itself which arguably doesn't need to be killed), and you may kill the bird known as Sleep + trapping, but in the wake you also killed a few other things while you killed that bird.

 

[Jibaku]

Quick notes because I have no intentions of locking myself in this discussion.
1) Sand Veil is a passive. Double Team is an active
2) 3rd stone would be solving whatever issues shadow tag might cause outside of sleep/evasion abuse.
3) The line between "complex" and "extension" is rather thin actually and on second thought this Sleep + Tag combination that could work assuming Tag is proven to not cause significant game health issues otherwise.
4) EDIT: Just so I'm clear, my point assumes a case where shadow tag causes significant problems but is not enough to make it bannable without these abuse cases. Add in these cases and shadow tag becomes the ban of choice.

 

[shrang]

Just about complex banning and Sleep Clause - If you think about it, Sleep Clause is a complex ban already. If we wanted straight bans we'd have just gone straight for sleep as a whole.

Regardless, we've gone off-track again. We're not here to argue Sleep vs S-tag or Evasion vs S-tag, we're here to argue whether Shadow Tag (and only Shadow Tag) is uncompetitive or not.

 

[MMII]

What I really would like to see is an argument from the pro-ban side minus all the fluff and irrelevant bs before voting begins; i.e. the closest an argument about Tag can get to a mathematical proof. Its not too hard to transfer concise thoughts from sentences to bulletpoint steps in a logical series of progression.

Since nobody else has stepped up...

Givens

Concerning Shadow Tag:
A) Shadow Tag removes switching
B) Shadow Tag is not a gimmick
C) Shadow Tag is very effective in the current Ubers metagame
D) Shadow Tag, when used successfully, largely impacts the direction of the game state towards the favor of the abusing player
E) Shadow Tag is not 100% avoidable, it is also extremely difficult and blind to avoid it in the cases that it is

notes

I'm using gimmick properly here. In other words, it's not a strategy that only succeeds due to surprise. It works even when the opponent is wary and informed.

Concerning related:
F) Ubers is a tournament metagame
G) The notions of "checks" and "counters" are built upon the concept of switching
H) Competition: a contest between rivals
I) A person is manifested (within the context of a battle) by the choices they make

notes

Interesting choices
According to Sid Meier, a [good] game is a series of interesting choices. In an interesting choice, no single option is clearly better than the other options, the options are not equally attractive, and the player must be able to make an informed choice. (Rollings & Morris 2000, p. 38.)
See fun.
source

Teambuilding is exempt from I due to the impersonal aspect of it. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that but I probably do for some. So for those who have never been in a tournament before, it's perfectly okay to use somebody else's teams. Yes, people will still think you are good: see aim. However, it is not okay to let somebody else play for you. That is called ghosting and everybody will think you are bad if you need to be ghosted. Rest should be self explanatory.

Conclusions

1) Under the assumption of B, we can claim that every game has the possibility of Shadow Tag trap scenarios taking place (this is applying to before team preview)
2) Under the assumption of A and G, we can claim that Shadow Tag lacks counterplay
3) Under the assumption of B, C and 2, we can claim that every tournament viable team is vulnerable to Shadow Tag exploits
4) Under the assumption of F, we can claim that Ubers must not contain elements that break competition
5) Under the assumption of 2, 3, and I, we can claim that, during Tag Trap scenarios, one player is not present in the game
6) Under the assumption of 5, we can claim that there is a break in interaction between the two players
7) Under the assumption of 6, H, and I, we can claim that there is a break in competition
8) Under the assumption of 1 and 7, we can claim that claim that Shadow Tag potentially breaks competition in every game
9) Under the assumption of D, and E, we can claim that even small number of turns can have equal or greater value to a larger remainder
10) Under the assumption of 4, 8, and 9, we can claim that Shadow Tag should not be allowed in the Ubers metagame

Notes

1 is applied to before team preview because fair tournament play assumes you don't know the opposing player's team before they bring it.

Okay, damn, that wasn't as simple as I expected. May be some typos with letters/numbers someplace cause I had forgotten some premises and had to edit everything. Hopefully, it's still understandable and clarifies the position for you.

Also, some humorous things I wanted to note about the last few pages:
-The double standard on the effectiveness of 60%
-Randoms telling the guy who built Ubers's tiering philosophy that he doesn't know what he's talking about

edit: Here's an upside-down tree for those who it may help.

 

[shrang]

stuff

Okay, it's good you broke this down into dot points so it's rather easy to break down. Consider this a summary rebuttal to all the pro-ban points. Forgive me if I didn't address any specific ones if it's not summarised in Melee's post already.

Firstly, you included this very important assumption in here which is highly questionable:

Teambuilding is exempt from I due to the impersonal aspect of it. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that but I probably do for some. So for those who have never been in a tournament before, it's perfectly okay to use somebody else's teams. Yes, people will still think you are good: see aim. However, it is not okay to let somebody else play for you. That is called ghosting and everybody will think you are bad if you need to be ghosted. Rest should be self explanatory.

It's perfectly okay to "team steal", but that does not make it exempt from I because it is still your choice that you picked the team. It's like if you go onto a workplace using someone else's toolbox. If you have all the tools for the job, fine. If you don't, it's not the fault of the job because you lack the tools for it, but it is ultimately yours, because you're the one who ultimately chose the tools for the job. Back to a Pokemon example, you can steal something like Level 56's team or Pistolero's team which are quite weak to GeoXern and get swept by it. It's not the fault of GeoXern, but yours because you chose that team. Again, we can argue whether those individual teams are good or bad, tournament-worthy or not until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that teambuilding is your responsibility and is your choice, and if you have a team that doesn't have usable answers against S-tag, you bear the responsibility and you alone.

Okay, now with that in mind, let's look at your points. I'm not going to quote them here because that's just going to make my job here even more tedious than it already is.

A): Fine
B): Yes, it's not a gimmick. However, I would like to make a very key distinction between "not being surprised" and "being unprepared". One can be fully aware of the threat that S-tag is and choose to be relatively unprepared for it to focus on other things (I could have sworn you made a post about that somewhere, I'll need to go and find it when I have the time). There's also a difference between "well-prepared" and "totally immune".
C) Fine
D) Yes, but don't mix up "largely impacts the direction" and "causation".
E) Fine
F) This discourse is going to come up time and again. I'll concede that Ubers is a tournament metagame now, but fundamentally, that's never been its purpose. The metagame has been balanced and popular enough for so long that it was acceptable and competitive enough to be a tournament metagame, but it doesn't change what Ubers was originally made for. To answer Dice's question, if it were really up to that choice (dropping Ubers from tourneys or banning stuff like S-tag), I'd much rather Ubers get struck off the tournaments list (if it was "uncompetitive" enough) rather than ban things that so questionable. Again, you might think KFC would ultimately taste better if it had beef in its menu, but I'm more concerned that KFC stays with chicken.
G) Fine, although don't forget teambuilding, as I have highlighted above
H) Not a very specific definition at all that doesn't actually say anything. A Shadow Tag filled game or even something stupid like SwagPlay or Moody is still a "contest between rivals". Not a major thing, but something that I'll touch on when you reference this definition.
I) Yes, but refer to the above regarding teambuilding.

Your conclusions:
1) Fine
2) Not true. There's a difference between checks/counters as we traditionally associate to it and a "counterplay". Like I mentioned above, teambuilding options are available. Also, like I've mentioned on numerous occasions before, you have the means to avoid being trapped S-tag for every turn before the turn you get trapped. They might be unreliable double switching and what not, but the fact of the matter remains that the choice was made by you and your opponent. The game is perfectly within the control of human players. S-tag is an endpoint. "Counterplay" is available on every turn except the ones you are trapped, and even when you are trapped, you may still have counterplay available if you've made the proper teambuilding adjustments or win a Taunt/Destiny Bond 50/50 or something. Again the difference of this 50/50 is that it's player dependent, unlike the other 50/50s like Swagger which are player independent.
3) Point (2) is false, so this point is false too. Even if it were true, so what?
4) True-ish. Again, refer to what I refer to be the "purpose" of what Ubers is supposed to be and the difference to what it presently is.
5) (2) and (3) are false and (I) is not completely true either if you see the bit on teambuilding. The conclusion is not completely wrong though, I'll give you that. It could be true if the opponent has not made preparations for them to escape being trapped. Even so, it doesn't mean that just because there is a break in interaction of the game in this aspect means there is a causative element to the result of the game.
6) See (5)
7) See (5) and (6) are not entirely true. (H) is also a vague definition which you can't draw any conclusions from. This makes this conclusion quite dodgy. Again, you hate it by now, but I'll just direct you to the definition that you elected to use in this thread AND your earlier post in the Gengarite thread:

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions--and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.

As demonstrated by Evasion Clause testing, philosophy alone is not enough to ban an element from Ubers. There needs to be a practical application of this broken element that shows it does have an actual, realistic impact on the metagame.

So, the extent of the "break in competition" as you call it has to be measured and not just a yes/no question. This is important because your later points refer directly to this.

8) See (7)
9) I'll make one simple yet important adjustment to make the statement true:

Under the assumption of D, and E, we can claim that even small number of turns can sometimes have equal or greater value to a larger remainder

10) Big problems:
- (8) is not entirely true, which IMO was the really major part of the 3 points
- Even if all (4), (8) and (9) are completely true, this is a big conclusion to make and you really need more reasoning. Again, refer to the definition of "uncompetitive" that you elected to use. It explicitly calls for a degree on which your points needs to fulfill. Again, we have plenty of things in the metagame fulfill points (4), (8) and (9) that we are perfectly fine with, for example Arena Trap/Magnet Pull, phazing moves, Evasion, even controlled Sleep. These are not red herrings because they tell us that we are able to tolerate things that fulfill points (4), (8) and (9) to a certain level and therefore should be factored into any discussion.
- So basically your whole flowchart (not withstanding all the flaws that I've pointed out above) still only address part 1 of your uncompetitive definition, which is what it does, but little to address part 2 of the definition, which is the degree in which "limits competition".

 

[Nightmare]

This is a post I had meant to bring up a few times before but forgot to every time. I don't know a lot of the things you are bringing up cause they seem awfully old so if you could clarify thatd be hot. What is ubers JAA? Another ban in the official circuits? Does that mean Tag was banned in VGC before? Wasn't Lefties Wobb banned in gen 3 cause of the infinite struggle wars that two Wobbs could get trapped into?

Journey Across America was the ubers VGC tournament in 2006. Yes, Shadow Tag was banned for two reasons for there:

1. Nothing at the time could OHKO Wobbuffet, so it was an instant kill when it came out usually.
2. It could sweep a lot of things with Leftovers
3. I am "not sure" of the two Wobbs thing honestly if that was the reason. It's not like Wobb can kill anything anyway, even without Leftovers. The time limit would still expire.

Sorry for being late, but thought I'd explain that. Yes, it was an official ban. Just for some food for thought.

-James

 

[Karxrida]

Journey Across America was the ubers VGC tournament in 2006. Yes, Shadow Tag was banned for two reasons for there:

1. Nothing at the time could OHKO Wobbuffet, so it was an instant kill when it came out usually.
2. It could sweep a lot of things with Leftovers
3. I am "not sure" of the two Wobbs thing honestly if that was the reason. It's not like Wobb can kill anything anyway, even without Leftovers. The time limit would still expire.

Sorry for being late, but thought I'd explain that. Yes, it was an official ban. Just for some food for thought.

-James

From my understanding, it was only banned because of the potential for endless Wobbuffet vs. Wobbuffet fights. I highly doubt they knew enough to actually run damage calcs to see if anything could OHKO it (we're talking about TPCi, right?).

 

[Jibaku]

Nightmare, I was at the JAA and Shadow Tag was not banned if I can recall correctly.

However, Wobb + Lefties was banned instead, due to it being an endless face off.

btw hi

EDIT:
"o Players may not use a Wobbuffet holding the Leftovers item."

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthrea...b42afef849918931612e8d8f7&p=809822#post809822

 

[MMII]

There's an insistence on a false characterization of myself that is really starting to annoy me so I'm going to briefly respond to shrang concerning that point. (and will probably drop a few other sentences just so the post is complete)

What I'm referring to, btw, is the stuff written on conclusion 7.

First of all, where did you pull me hating that definition from? Where have I ever made such a statement? You are trying to paint me as backpedaling on things I haven't. That and the fact your claim of this completely hinges on not actually reading what I wrote is what I actually hate here. In other words, you are trying to make me look retarded using an argument that makes you look retarded if the reader actually pays attention to what you quote.

So let's recap your argument to make sure I'm not misportraying it. You've accepted that Tag trap scenarios are uncompetitive. However, your concern is that it doesn't do so to the proper degree. To justify this, you quote the definition I've been using and quote an earlier post I made on Evasion that talk about the existence of said degree. Correct?

So since your new argument is that Tag isn't uncompetitive enough, let's actually look at what you are quoting. Thing is, I didn't just say there was a degree. I even gave exactly what that degree is and you have yet to object to what I said it was in the many times you quoted that bit. What did I describe that degree as? I said an element needs to have "actual, realistic impact on the metagame". You know what actual and realist mean right? It means none of that bullshit theorymoning that you were doing in your exchange with Jibaku on a metagame that you don't even take seriously. FYI, evasion is a shitty strategy that doesn't work without the support of other [arguably] uncompetitive elements. I'm not going to bothering explaining why that is because there's a whole suspect thread that explains it and Jibaku already touched on it. There's no realistic or actual impact that Evasion has on the metagame. It's balls and, with a spirit of pragmatism, doesn't need to be banned. Shadow Tag does have a realistic and actual impact on the metagame. That should be beyond obvious given the fact it's widely known by now that two of its abusers are two of the best Pokemon in the metagame. What's even more annoying about the fact that you completely ignored this part of my post is that you also brought up this argument in response to a post that had explicitly talked about the impact Tag has on the metagame.

Assorted notes:
-I never denied that there's choices made in putting together or even just choosing a team that is already built. What I did claim was that teambuilding is impersonal.
-That's great you consider Ubers to be primarily a novelty metagame, more power to you. However, you also have 0 authority to decide if it actually is or not. The one guy who does have that authority chose the opposite. So the claim that Ubers is a tournament metagame stands.
-Read the definition of choice that I applied before you throw the word around and apply it to places it doesn't fit.
-How can you claim falling victim to Shadow Tag doesn't cause an ultimate result when you don't even play the metagame? I'm sorry, but if you are going to make such a claim it needs to not be based on empty authority and have actual evidence to back it up. This applies to a few other places now that I think about it.
-Adding "sometimes" is unnecessary. "Can" already implies possibility without claiming certainty. "Sometimes" implies a certain frequency which you, again, have no credentials to be claiming without evidence.

 

[shrang]

There's an insistence on a false characterization of myself that is really starting to annoy me so I'm going to briefly respond to shrang concerning that point. (and will probably drop a few other sentences just so the post is complete)

What I'm referring to, btw, is the stuff written on conclusion 7.

First of all, where did you pull me hating that definition from? Where have I ever made such a statement? You are trying to paint me as backpedaling on things I haven't. That and the fact your claim of this completely hinges on not actually reading what I wrote is what I actually hate here. In other words, you are trying to make me look retarded using an argument that makes you look retarded if the reader actually pays attention to what you quote.

I could have sworn that you were starting to get annoyed at me using the Ubers definition last time we talked on IRC about the when I put that post up this post. I can't remember exactly what was said and I don't know how to pull up conversations in IRC so if I got the wrong impression from you, then I apologise. Although, this doesn't change the fact that in the definition itself, it specifically mentions that it has to be "take autonomy away to a certain degree". Even if I misrepresented what you said in that PM, it really doesn't matter. The fact that you'd much rather ban on the fact that "taking autonomy" alone (and this is definitely something I remember you saying in our PM), which you've clearly outlined in your massive flowchart disregards that part of the definition which you yourself have elected to use. I may have misrepresented your attitude toward the definition, but it still doesn't change the fact that you haven't really addressed a half of the "uncompetitive" definition (at least not in your flowchart, and anything else that you may have said previously, I've addressed).

So let's recap your argument to make sure I'm not misportraying it. You've accepted that Tag trap scenarios are uncompetitive (1). However, your concern is that it doesn't do so to the proper degree. To justify this, you quote the definition I've been using and quote an earlier post I made on Evasion that talk about the existence of said degree. Correct?

So since your new argument is that Tag isn't uncompetitive enough, let's actually look at what you are quoting. Thing is, I didn't just say there was a degree. I even gave exactly what that degree is and you have yet to object to what I said it was in the many times you quoted that bit. What did I describe that degree as? I said an element needs to have "actual, realistic impact on the metagame". You know what actual and realist mean right? (2) It means none of that bullshit theorymoning that you were doing in your exchange with Jibaku on a metagame that you don't even take seriously. FYI, evasion is a shitty strategy that doesn't work without the support of other [arguably] uncompetitive elements. I'm not going to bothering explaining why that is because there's a whole suspect thread that explains it and Jibaku already touched on it. There's no realistic or actual impact that Evasion has on the metagame. It's balls and, with a spirit of pragmatism, doesn't need to be banned. Shadow Tag does have a realistic and actual impact on the metagame. That should be beyond obvious given the fact it's widely known by now that two of its abusers are two of the best Pokemon in the metagame. What's even more annoying about the fact that you completely ignored this part of my post is that you also brought up this argument in response to a post that had explicitly talked about the impact Tag has on the metagame.

Regarding Evasion - Actually, if you have the kind of luck that I do, then you'll know that Evasion is a bs strategy that has arguably been more damaging than S-tag. Try telling me that when I miss everything even when Evasion isn't even used. I also find it ironic that you accuse me for not knowing my shit when you're basing your observation on tournament matches where by your own accounts, is rare, while dismissing my experiences, even though it's mostly on the ladder, where I do see Evasion and lose to shit players because of it. Again those are things we see differently, and I'm not here to debate whether S-tag or Evasion is more uncompetitive. That's not why we are here.

My opinion doesn't seem to matter though, since you don't believe I play the metagame seriously. Seriously, I'm noticing a trend with you and other pro-ban users whenever you get pissed off with what I'm saying, you like to point out the fact that I don't play the metagame seriously. It's a nice fine way to dismiss someone else's opinion when you find debating to be inconvenient. Who are you to judge that I don't play the metagame seriously? Do you think just because I elect not to play in tournaments and mess around with nonsense teams means that I don't play the metagame seriously? Because that's a very prejudiced view. Sure, I've not been as involved as I used to be in XY than in previous metagames but to say I don't take shit seriously is frankly bullshit. I'm an Ubers player just like you, nothing less, nothing more. Even if I were a total noob using 3 starters + Pikachu + Mewtwo or something like that, any valid point that comes up is still valid and cannot be invalidated by the pure fact that I'm a noob who's probably playing the first few games of my life.

Also, don't chide me for lack of evidence. The onus of proof is on you, the pro-banner to supply the relevant evidence, and it is the onus on me to examine that evidence. The last bit of "evidence" you provided (the edgar replay) was so poorly presented that you started censoring people (myself included) for "going off-topic" aka deconstructing the replay when you're the one who presented it in the first place. Now if we were having an Evasion retest, then yes, I would be the one attempting to supply the evidence and you the one deconstructing my evidence, but that's not what we're doing, isn't it?

Bold point 1: And you're accusing me of misrepresenting someone's ideas. When did I ever say that trap scenarios are uncompetitive? Sure, I did say that in a post before but I clarified myself in another post later. I said I agreed that S-tag takes away autonomy. I guess that's what you meant since you equate uncompetitve proper with "taking away autonomy", but again, I'd point to that definition again and remind you that there's a condition attached.

Bold point 2: Actually, what DOES actual and realistic impact mean? What does it mean in this context? Don't point to dictionary definitions because they don't apply to such a specific setting. A lot of things have actual and realistic, and arguably uncompetitive (by what you meant in your flow chart) impacts on the game. Where do you draw the line? You've said many things in this thread, but I don't think I've seen you make one mention of what this level actually is. I've seen more posts discounting the need for an actual degree rather than draw the line and say "this is uncompetitive, this is not". I have seen many examples, sure, and I've addressed those examples, and I've even given you examples of my own for you to think about.

Also, I quoted your post from the previous thread because like you said, you actually attempted to assigned a degree label to what you meant as uncompetitive. Regardless of how specific "actual and realistic" means (see the paragraph just above), you at least attempted to assign a value to what you meant by uncompetitive. This doesn't seem to be happening now, as evident by your latest posts. I don't know if you've changed your mind or whatever, but it would have been more fruitful to have at least discussed and placed a more specific value (not literally a number, but conditions) on what you meant by "actual and realistic". At least there could have been a debate. Sure, you might think I answered my own question, but I'm just reminding you what you said back in the last thread because it was important.

Assorted notes:
-I never denied that there's choices made in putting together or even just choosing a team that is already built. What I did claim was that teambuilding is impersonal.

Yet you were willing to disregard teambuilding from "I) A person is manifested (within the context of a battle) by the choices they make"? Seems like a stretch.

-That's great you consider Ubers to be primarily a novelty metagame, more power to you. However, you also have 0 authority to decide if it actually is or not. The one guy who does have that authority chose the opposite. So the claim that Ubers is a tournament metagame stands.

Yes, I know. I'm merely lamenting that the one guy who does have the authority chose to forget where Ubers comes from and why it exists (Well maybe not "chose to forget" but maybe "chose not to see it as a priority"). Just like how many Americans are lamenting the takeover of their democracy by corporate and military interests, but that's a story for another day. I also didn't claim it was primarily a novelty either. If we can have both S-tag and Ubers as a tournament metagame that would be great. However, if push comes to shove, I'd like to see Ubers remain what it was made to be rather than what we want it to be.

-Read the definition of choice that I applied before you throw the word around and apply it to places it doesn't fit.

Really? Like I said, the definition you supplied has a very specific clause on "degree on which it can be considered competitive" and you haven't actually made specific what that degree is (at least not in the flowchart above or from anything I recall recently).

-How can you claim falling victim to Shadow Tag doesn't cause an ultimate result when you don't even play the metagame? I'm sorry, but if you are going to make such a claim it needs to not be based on empty authority and have actual evidence to back it up. This applies to a few other places now that I think about it.

Oh so now you've gone from "I don't play seriously" to "I don't even play". Just fantastic. Next you're going to claim I've never played Pokemon.

You made claims about the meta in contradiction to mine without any evidence. I don't care what position I hold, you still can't make baseless claims. Read my post more carefully and actually think about what I'm trying to convey instead of just jumping straight to the keyboard. Everything is already there. ~MM2

^ I could say about you, too, lol. Also, I have plenty of evidence. I'm sharing with you my experiences of playing the game, just like you are yours. I guess it's only a lack of evidence and experience when you try to dismiss them on the arrogant and prejudiced assumption that I don't play. ~shrang

 

[Majickary]

Can the pro-ban camp please explain this objection because I haven't seen anything at all addressing it:

1) STag has been around for a while. It's actually been nerfed recently to allow ghost types to switch out of it. Why ban only now? If the argument is that all the STaggers sucked dick in the past, that's not true since Wobbuffett was a legitimate threat since it was introduced.

Melee Mewtwo said early in the thread that we only ban things that are relevant to the metagame yet Wobb has had an Ubers analysis page all the way since RS, and has even been tiered as "Uber" in several generations, so it has to have been relevant, and yet it (or STag) was never banned. If STag is inherently uncompetitive, why is it only being tested now?

 

[ApplepieFTW]

Hello, I would like to say something about your post as I hope I could change your view from providing not only wrong, but also irrelevant points to one that takes the effects of stag into consideration when deciding whether or not shadow tag is uncompetitive. Hopefully you will come to the only logical conclusion (shadow tag is uncompetitive). I'll do this by responding to the different parts of your post.

Sure shadowtag is hard to prepare for so if you dont have a pursuit user/kill the gengar before it MEvos/kill the wobbofet by out playing it then you are going to inevitably get into 50/50s and this is a problem many users seem to have with shadow tag the fact that it creates 50/50s where "Bad" players can beat out "good" players therefore making it uncompetitive. However the thing that needs to be remembered about 50/50s is that they are in your favour just as much as they are in their favour so in the end it comes down to who can make the best play.
If your opponent has played safely all game then you can be pretty sure he will go for taunt before d-bond (etc) or maybe he will go for d-bond first you have to be able to predict correctly if you want to come out best in the situation and that is what pokemon is all about predicting what your opponent is most likely to do and chosing the action that will result in the best set of probabilities for you. There are many more 50/50s in pokemon outside of the ones shadow tag creates.

Like you said in the first half of this part, these shadow tag 50/50's, that I like to call "negative 50/50's", aren't actually equal/real 50/50's because the stag-user has an advantage. Lets imagine this situation. You are player X. Player X has a team that consist of Pursuit Scizor and Arceus-Grass. Your opponent, player Y, has a team of scarf kyogre and mega gengar. Their kyogre is in against your scizor. Kyogre is a big threat to your team and it is likely to sweep you if it werent for your arceus grass. You also need your scizor to, lets say, check your opponents xerneas. Now in this scizor vs kyogre scenario, switching in arceus grass seems like a good play, but as you realise, your opponent has a mega gengar. This should make you hesitant to switch in your check to his win condition, but at the same time you need your scizor too. A 50/50, you may say. And at first sight it is one too, 1. switch to arceus on a surf, 2. stay in with scizor as player Y switches to gengar (win) 3. switch to arceus and get trapped by gengar 4. stay in with scizor on a surf (lose). The big difference with a regular 50/50 is (lets imaggine mgar didnt have shadow tag, but flower gift instead) that, if you get it wrong, you cannot correct it; your arceus is trapped. If shadow tag wouldnt affect the situation, you could simply switch out your arceus grass and go into a pokemon that can deal with mgar, but alas, you cannot. This is the negative part of the 50/50, you can't correct it, and cant adequately respond to the situation at hand. This is what people mean when they say stag removes autonomy, and takes the game out of the player's hands. And even if you get the 50/50 correct and switch in arceus grass on kyogre, do you realise what happens next turn? Your opponent has a free switch right back to mega gengar, so the same scenario happens again. If you stay in with your scizor, to trap it (which in your words is 'outplaying' the gengar, and by doing that you limit its ability to be an uncompetitive element), its not like you gain much either. Yeah, maybe you can trap it and then you have prevented it from trapping your arceus in the future, but its not like that is at all relevant to shadow tag as an uncompetitive element. Your scizor is still trapped, you can't switch out to save it for later so you can check the xerneas. I would like to, but stag takes away this option.
Also you say that if I outplay the gengar, or kill it before it has the chance to do anything, I have successfully outplayed it and have limited its ability to affect the game. This is not true. Alright, so lets say we are in a deoxys-a vs mega gengar scenario. You would click psycho boost, kill mgar, and walk away with a smile. I would do the same, I'm trapped after all, I don't have much choice, as it is my best play. But what if I need my deoxys for later in the game to, lets say, finish off a weakened xerneas and ekiller? If I kill the gengar maybe my opponent would come in and eliminate my deoxys with a pursuit scizor, so I can't use it later in the game. If I werent trapped, I could forsee this situation and prevent this from happening, but I am trapped and do not have this choice. Even if I don't need deoxys, the gengar could just switch out. Pursuiting doesn't really matter either, because even IF you eliminate it, the stag user has likely already done its job trough abusing its uncompetitive ability.

Okay want to keep this relatively to the point.
The ubers tier is full of semi-broken and absolutely powerful pokemon you have things like scarf kyogre, geo xern, Mm2, Choice Band Ho-oh et al. In teambuilding for the ubers tier you have to be concious of all the threats and create a team that can take on these threats. One such threat are shadow tag users, the can have a wide variety of roles such as gothitelle trapping support mons and setting up cms, wobbufet trapping and killing offensive threats and Mega Gengar doing a bit of both. Shadowtag is a very notable ability in the fact that it prevents one of the most basic actions of the game: Switching (unless you are a ghost or have shed shell). So obviously if you do not prepare for the threats and you leave in the wrong mon at the wrong time you can get set up on, or lose a crucial check or even have a powerful offensive threat be taken out.

So what you are saying here is that you can prepare for shadow tag. And I mean this is true, if you look at some of the top-tier teams one thing they all have in common (or likely have) is a reduced weakness to stag, however there are no teams (that are competitively viable) that do not get affected by shadow tag. Sure, you might run only things that outspeed mega gengar on an hyper offense team, or only run pokemon that gothitelle cant trap, or even a combination of those and say you have 'beaten' shadow tag as a whole. This might be true to an extent, but still not really as, in the end, you still are trapped. But the main issue I have with this argument is that its saying like "if I run only mons that bet it, stag isn't uncompetitive!". If I would run a team that is stockpile own tempo numel/roost magic bounce xatu/unaware quagsire there wouldn't be a single thing swagger teams would be able to do to me. Numel doesn't get affected by swagger/twave, xatu bounces it back and quag prevents a ditto sweep. Does running these mons on my team enable me to deal with swagger? Yes. Does it make swagger ANY less uncompetitive? No. Just because I 'prepare' for it doesn't mean 1) I can do so with tournament-viable mons and 2) doesn't mean swagger is not uncompetitive all of the sudden in any other matchup. These two things combined make this argument moot.
"Shadowtag is a very notable ability in the fact that it prevents one of the most basic actions of the game: Switching" Glad you said this :]

Now with all this being said shadow tag is a huge threat and it can be hard to play around, and it does tend to slightly favour the stag user in the 50/50s so they arent exactly even however it is important to remember that YOU CAN USE SHADOW TAG AS WELL. Sure this will centralise the meta alot more but ubers is a heavily centralised meta nayway with only a handful of pokemon being viable. Personally i rarely have trouble against the main shadow tag users

Oh god. Because I can use swagger, does that make it less uncompetitive, or even any less problematic? No. If I use shadow tag and my opponent too, all that happens is that we are both having to endure the uncompetitive elements of shadow tag, it doesn't change anything about the mechanics. "You can use it too" is never a valid argument btw.

• Wobbufet- I can play around and make predictions on the counter/mirror coat or encore
• Gothitelle- Can be extremely dangerous if it comes in on a suppourtceus, klefki, lugia etc. But it is not as bulky as you tend to think and can be worn down by hazards and attacks
• Mega Gengar- Obviously the scariest Stag threat i usually dont let if mevo for free and just outplay my opponent by doubling into a check

1. How you play around wobbufet and its shenanigans doesn't matter when discussing uncompetitiveness, because in the end your're still trapped and the same problems I described earlier still come into play
2. Gothitelle is hella bulky fyi, and your method of 'playing around it' isn't reliable when facing any decent player, but once again, it doesn't actually matter.
3. You can't just use "I outplay it" as an argument for everything, and you can't really use it as an argument in the first place. "dont let if mevo for free", in the first part of this post I explained why the is basicly flawed, and this doesnt account for an already evolved gengar. As I described in the second part, there is no way you can run 6 mons that all kill gengar before it evolves while still having a viable team. If you can manage, please show me. This "doubling into a check" (before it evolves of course) is not only pretty risky, but once again, a method of playing around it that doesn't account for the uncompetitive elements stag brings.

tl;dr

• Play around it - Not relevant, this point is moot.
  
• You can use it as well - Not relevant, this point is moot.
  
• 50/50s are part of the game - See the first paragraph

So yeah, Shadow Tag: Ban

PS: You should read this post by Melee Mewtwo

 

[ApplepieFTW]

Can the pro-ban camp please explain this objection because I haven't seen anything at all addressing it:

1) STag has been around for a while. It's actually been nerfed recently to allow ghost types to switch out of it. Why ban only now? If the argument is that all the STaggers sucked dick in the past, that's not true since Wobbuffett was a legitimate threat since it was introduced.

Melee Mewtwo said early in the thread that we only ban things that are relevant to the metagame yet Wobb has had an Ubers analysis page all the way since RS, and has even been tiered as "Uber" in several generations, so it has to have been relevant, and yet it (or STag) was never banned. If STag is inherently uncompetitive, why is it only being tested now?

This actually is not an argument pretty sure. I think melee said this in the gengarite suspect regarding stag as a whole (might be mistaken). It doesnt' matter WHY we are testing it. The tier-leader(s?) have decided shadow tag deserves to be suspected now. Just because they choose not to suspect it earlier, doesn't change how it affects the game now. If it is deemed uncompetitive now, its very likely it was the same in gen5, where the mechanics were basicly the same, and likely in gen4 too, where stag was just as, if not more, problematic. For what ever reason it wasn't tested back then, but it is being tested now, so it's our job to discuss why shadow tag is uncompetitive right here right now.

e: crux double post allowed?

 

[casklord]

Hello, I would like to say something about your post as I hope I could change your view from providing not only wrong, but also irrelevant points to one that takes the effects of stag into consideration when deciding whether or not shadow tag is uncompetitive. Hopefully you will come to the only logical conclusion (shadow tag is uncompetitive). I'll do this by responding to the different parts of your post.


Like you said in the first half of this part, these shadow tag 50/50's, that I like to call "negative 50/50's", aren't actually equal/real 50/50's because the stag-user has an advantage. Lets imagine this situation. You are player X. Player X has a team that consist of Pursuit Scizor and Arceus-Grass. Your opponent, player Y, has a team of scarf kyogre and mega gengar. Their kyogre is in against your scizor. Kyogre is a big threat to your team and it is likely to sweep you if it werent for your arceus grass. You also need your scizor to, lets say, check your opponents xerneas. Now in this scizor vs kyogre scenario, switching in arceus grass seems like a good play, but as you realise, your opponent has a mega gengar. This should make you hesitant to switch in your check to his win condition, but at the same time you need your scizor too. A 50/50, you may say. And at first sight it is one too, 1. switch to arceus on a surf, 2. stay in with scizor as player Y switches to gengar (win) 3. switch to arceus and get trapped by gengar 4. stay in with scizor on a surf (lose). The big difference with a regular 50/50 is (lets imaggine mgar didnt have shadow tag, but flower gift instead) that, if you get it wrong, you cannot correct it; your arceus is trapped. If shadow tag wouldnt affect the situation, you could simply switch out your arceus grass and go into a pokemon that can deal with mgar, but alas, you cannot. This is the negative part of the 50/50, you can't correct it, and cant adequately respond to the situation at hand. This is what people mean when they say stag removes autonomy, and takes the game out of the player's hands. And even if you get the 50/50 correct and switch in arceus grass on kyogre, do you realise what happens next turn? Your opponent has a free switch right back to mega gengar, so the same scenario happens again. If you stay in with your scizor, to trap it (which in your words is 'outplaying' the gengar, and by doing that you limit its ability to be an uncompetitive element), its not like you gain much either. Yeah, maybe you can trap it and then you have prevented it from trapping your arceus in the future, but its not like that is at all relevant to shadow tag as an uncompetitive element. Your scizor is still trapped, you can't switch out to save it for later so you can check the xerneas. I would like to, but stag takes away this option.
Also you say that if I outplay the gengar, or kill it before it has the chance to do anything, I have successfully outplayed it and have limited its ability to affect the game. This is not true. Alright, so lets say we are in a deoxys-a vs mega gengar scenario. You would click psycho boost, kill mgar, and walk away with a smile. I would do the same, I'm trapped after all, I don't have much choice, as it is my best play. But what if I need my deoxys for later in the game to, lets say, finish off a weakened xerneas and ekiller? If I kill the gengar maybe my opponent would come in and eliminate my deoxys with a pursuit scizor, so I can't use it later in the game. If I werent trapped, I could forsee this situation and prevent this from happening, but I am trapped and do not have this choice. Even if I don't need deoxys, the gengar could just switch out. Pursuiting doesn't really matter either, because even IF you eliminate it, the stag user has likely already done its job trough abusing its uncompetitive ability.


So what you are saying here is that you can prepare for shadow tag. And I mean this is true, if you look at some of the top-tier teams one thing they all have in common (or likely have) is a reduced weakness to stag, however there are no teams (that are competitively viable) that do not get affected by shadow tag. Sure, you might run only things that outspeed mega gengar on an hyper offense team, or only run pokemon that gothitelle cant trap, or even a combination of those and say you have 'beaten' shadow tag as a whole. This might be true to an extent, but still not really as, in the end, you still are trapped. But the main issue I have with this argument is that its saying like "if I run only mons that bet it, stag isn't uncompetitive!". If I would run a team that is stockpile own tempo numel/roost magic bounce xatu/unaware quagsire there wouldn't be a single thing swagger teams would be able to do to me. Numel doesn't get affected by swagger/twave, xatu bounces it back and quag prevents a ditto sweep. Does running these mons on my team enable me to deal with swagger? Yes. Does it make swagger ANY less uncompetitive? No. Just because I 'prepare' for it doesn't mean 1) I can do so with tournament-viable mons and 2) doesn't mean swagger is not uncompetitive all of the sudden in any other matchup. These two things combined make this argument moot.
"Shadowtag is a very notable ability in the fact that it prevents one of the most basic actions of the game: Switching" Glad you said this :]


Oh god. Because I can use swagger, does that make it less uncompetitive, or even any less problematic? No. If I use shadow tag and my opponent too, all that happens is that we are both having to endure the uncompetitive elements of shadow tag, it doesn't change anything about the mechanics. "You can use it too" is never a valid argument btw.

1. How you play around wobbufet and its shenanigans doesn't matter when discussing uncompetitiveness, because in the end your're still trapped and the same problems I described earlier still come into play
2. Gothitelle is hella bulky fyi, and your method of 'playing around it' isn't reliable when facing any decent player, but once again, it doesn't actually matter.
3. You can't just use "I outplay it" as an argument for everything, and you can't really use it as an argument in the first place. "dont let if mevo for free", in the first part of this post I explained why the is basicly flawed, and this doesnt account for an already evolved gengar. As I described in the second part, there is no way you can run 6 mons that all kill gengar before it evolves while still having a viable team. If you can manage, please show me. This "doubling into a check" (before it evolves of course) is not only pretty risky, but once again, a method of playing around it that doesn't account for the uncompetitive elements stag brings.

tl;dr

• Play around it - Not relevant, this point is moot.
  
• You can use it as well - Not relevant, this point is moot.
  
• 50/50s are part of the game - See the first paragraph

So yeah, Shadow Tag: Ban

PS: You should read this post by Melee Mewtwo

With your post i have decided to reconsider my position on shadow tag however I would like to raise some counterpoints.

Firstly I concede your point about you can use it too.

However the main reason I feel it shouldnt be banned is because I dont really feel it to be broken sure I play lower on the ladder (the highest I have reached is low 1500s) so I do not experience the high level (and probably ore skilled use) of shadow tag that you may have.

I appreciate the effort you have made to correct my point of view and the in depth analysis of my reasoning. however i would like to firstly make it clear that the reason I don't feel shadow tag is uncompetitive is because with a variety of balance and HO teams I have simply not had problems with it. Now you're points are definately valid the 50/50s are skewed in the favour of the stag user however that is balanced out by the oppurtunity cost of using the stag user in the first place obviously there is no point in using one if it does not gain you an advantage. I beleive that this advantage in the 50/50s is balanced out by the fact that you are using it for a mon spot on your team. Obviously Mgar is a suppourt mon that can remove key checks to certain mons which is what makes it so good but the fact is that you can run multiple soft checks instead of one hard check to deal with this for example on fireburns spacejam team which i used alot both zekrom and arceus water can take on kyogre, roar xerneas and scizor are for geoxern, lando-t and arceus water can deal with CB Ho-oh and there are other threats I don't feel the need to go into. Now you do make logical points about how stag is good, REALLY good but I just dont feel like it is broken enough to ban it from the least banned (you know what i mean) official metagame in pokemon. The Kyogre arceus grass example you used is definately a relevant example of how gengar forces these 50/50s however this is exactly why I dont run forms like grass, that are weak to gengar, with my arecus water the 50/50 is wether i go for rain boosted judgement or will-o-wisp and wether he goes for taunt or destiny bond 99% of the time the gengar player will go for the taunt and I can hit it with the judgement because with stag players feel like they can follow a formula of taking out checks to win however if you play around their plays you can win. Obviously this comes back to your point about how I cant use "jus outplay him" as a reason for everything but that is honestly a large part of how I play I go for insanely risky plays because they are unpredictable, but I generally know when to go for the safe play when the balance of probabilities is against me or I become predictable in my undrpedictableness. Now alot of this only applies to me and not the rest of the users who are affected more by stag. but thats the exact thing I dont feel it is broken so I dont think it should be banned. If other majorities find it broken it will rightfully be banned. If you want to chat while I am on I would like to, just so I can be more clear on some of the things you are saying.

 

[shrang]

stuff

Just a couple of things:
- 50/50s: The main difference, IMO between S-tag 50/50s and the 50/50s of the actual things that we've banned, is that the 50/50 in S-tag is player dependent, while the other 50/50 is player independent. So in this case, it's more akin to the Specs Reshiram Blue Flare/Draco Meteor 50/50 that I've used previously. I'm just going to pretend it really is a 50/50 here instead of pretending you have a Ho-oh or something that you can switch in. I don't want start another debate about the viability of Reshiram or whatever because it's irrelevant, but I think you get the point here.
- Reciprocity: Yes, you can use Swagger too, but the difference is that two people can use Swagger against each other and it won't be the one who played Swagger better who wins. Swagger is again, player independent and relies on the RNG, which is inherently discriminatory. The one who wins an S-tag vs S-tag battle, on the other hand, would theoretically be the one who executes their strategy involving S-tag first, whatever that may be. This is player dependent, and the one who wins, is you could say, the one who outplayed the other.

 

[Majickary]

This actually is not an argument pretty sure. I think melee said this in the gengarite suspect regarding stag as a whole (might be mistaken). It doesnt' matter WHY we are testing it. The tier-leader(s?) have decided shadow tag deserves to be suspected now. Just because they choose not to suspect it earlier, doesn't change how it affects the game now. If it is deemed uncompetitive now, its very likely it was the same in gen5, where the mechanics were basicly the same, and likely in gen4 too, where stag was just as, if not more, problematic. For what ever reason it wasn't tested back then, but it is being tested now, so it's our job to discuss why shadow tag is uncompetitive right here right now.

e: crux double post allowed?

Um the problem is if STag has always been around but is only being suspected now it makes it seem like STag isn't the problem but rather Mega Gengar and Gothitelle are, and that matters because it becomes an argument for banning STag because its abusers are too strong not because of the mechanics, and if that is the argument then as long as the suspect is STag instead of Mega Gengar and Gothitelle the obvious vote is no ban.

Therefore for a ban vote to make sense to me I need to see an argument for why STag wasn't uncompetitive during gens 4 and 5. When I first mentioned it Melee Mewtwo was like "we don't ban things that are uncompetitive, we ban things that are uncompetitive AND relevant or it is pointless", implying that STag was uncompetitive but not banned because it was not relevant, yet Wobb was obviously relevant in previous gens and it wasn't banned, a logical contradiction.

 

[MMII]

Can the pro-ban camp please explain this objection because I haven't seen anything at all addressing it:



Melee Mewtwo said early in the thread that we only ban things that are relevant to the metagame yet Wobb has had an Ubers analysis page all the way since RS, and has even been tiered as "Uber" in several generations, so it has to have been relevant, and yet it (or STag) was never banned. If STag is inherently uncompetitive, why is it only being tested now?

Things change. Meta, players, perspective, understanding, abusers, everything. Context matters. That's the short of it. I can give a more detailed explanation via but I can't talk about before BW. There's not much point in discussing the matter since we are talking about the XY meta in this test. A shown by swagger, we can ban shit that folks didn't ban in previous gens.

 

[Majickary]

Things change. Meta, players, perspective, understanding, abusers, everything. Context matters. That's the short of it. I can give a more detailed explanation via but I can't talk about before BW. There's not much point in discussing the matter since we are talking about the XY meta in this test. A shown by swagger, we can ban shit that folks didn't ban in previous gens.

I would like the more detailed explanation since the Swagger non-ban in previous gens can be explained by the fact that the Prankster Swaggers all sucked dick back then so Swagger wasn't relevant. Gen 6 brought Klefki, making the strategy a relevant one. This same explanation does not apply to STag, since Wobb clearly didn't suck dick back then. If you can't comment about before BW, can someone pro-ban with knowledge of RS and DPP please comment, thanks.

Not true. Liepard and a few others were doing a lot of work with Swagger back in gen 5 as well. It just wasn't until a random beat stone_cold in an official XY tournament with it that people started to seriously consider banning Swagger. I'll send a PM about Tag when I get back. Would like to ask folks who may be interested in talking about this to not do so in this thread, as well. We don't need it derailed onto discussion of past gens. (tbh I might end up deleting this post. No time now to think about if I should or not, tho) ~MM2

 

[ApplepieFTW]

Just a couple of things:
- 50/50s: The main difference, IMO between S-tag 50/50s and the 50/50s of the actual things that we've banned, is that the 50/50 in S-tag is player dependent, while the other 50/50 is player independent. So in this case, it's more akin to the Specs Reshiram Blue Flare/Draco Meteor 50/50 that I've used previously. I'm just going to pretend it really is a 50/50 here instead of pretending you have a Ho-oh or something that you can switch in. I don't want start another debate about the viability of Reshiram or whatever because it's irrelevant, but I think you get the point here.
- Reciprocity: Yes, you can use Swagger too, but the difference is that two people can use Swagger against each other and it won't be the one who played Swagger better who wins. Swagger is again, player independent and relies on the RNG, which is inherently discriminatory. The one who wins an S-tag vs S-tag battle, on the other hand, would theoretically be the one who executes their strategy involving S-tag first, whatever that may be. This is player dependent, and the one who wins, is you could say, the one who outplayed the other.

-The things that set it apart from regular 50/50's are: a misplay is not able to be corrected, thus incredibly risky plays have to be made. because this has to be done, the victim is not only unable to equally compete, but also has a limited choice in its options he can make. if he fucks up, he cant do anything about it. if he wants to avoid fucking up, he likely has to end up sacking something as the stag-user can enforce the same situation again later on. You are correct when you say that this shadow tag scenario is indeed "controlled" by "both" players, but then again it sort of isn't because, and I'm sure you saw this one coming, the victim has its choice limited. Shadow tag is the external factor here, the thing that makes the matchup unfair and uncompetitive, even though more player skill is needed to properly execute it.
-While there are indeed 2 players making plays, you fail to realise something. With swagger, it comes down to just a coinflip in the code, autonomy is taken out of the game. With shadow tag the exact same happens, its just to create that situation and bit more manoeuvring is needed before the situation takes place. THAT part may involve equal skill, but during the part where a pokemon is trapped it's clear that its NOT completely dependent on the players, as the victim of stag is limited to such a degree that its harder (and in most cases impossible) to outplay the abuser of stag, and thus it is not equal competition and player skill is limited to the point where you can pretty much justify stag as an external factor that removes autonomy, it just does it in another way that swagger did but with the same result.

 

[Inflikted]

Just sharing my thoughts here before voting. First off, laddering was 100 % useless to form an opinion on this matter as I haven't faced a single Gothitelle in 63 games and 70% of games were against Deoxys + Ekiller HO. I was anti-ban during the last suspect test as I thought Shadow Tag only caused mindgames that are inherent to the game we play. But after watching tour matches where shadow tag had a big impact on the outcome of the games, i changed my mind.

The bare presence of a STag user on the opposing team influences the player's move, because he has to win some mindgames in order not to let his only check to a threat get trapped. But the mindgames will almost always be in favor of the Shadow Tag user, because if the opponent loses one 50/50, he most likely loses the game. On the other hand, the player that uses the trapper can often try again later if he loses the 50/50, depending on various factors. And here is where the uncompetitive side of Shadow Tag lies. Furthermore, in a tier where everything is overpowered and the big threats have a limited pool of checks, teambuilding is restricted and having multiple answers to threats can be problematic. So trapping the only check to a threat has a much bigger impact than what happens for example in OU, where the metagame is generally more unkind to most trappers, while in ubers Gengar and Goth can prey upon support Arceus and other defensive mons to open up a sweep (or set up and sweep on their own in goth's case) with incredible ease. I agree with the proposal of the ban.

 

[shrang]

-The things that set it apart from regular 50/50's are: a misplay is not able to be corrected, thus incredibly risky plays have to be made. because this has to be done, the victim is not only unable to equally compete, but also has a limited choice in its options he can make. if he fucks up, he cant do anything about it. if he wants to avoid fucking up, he likely has to end up sacking something as the stag-user can enforce the same situation again later on. You are correct when you say that this shadow tag scenario is indeed "controlled" by "both" players, but then again it sort of isn't because, and I'm sure you saw this one coming, the victim has its choice limited. Shadow tag is the external factor here, the thing that makes the matchup unfair and uncompetitive, even though more player skill is needed to properly execute it.
-While there are indeed 2 players making plays, you fail to realise something. With swagger, it comes down to just a coinflip in the code, autonomy is taken out of the game. With shadow tag the exact same happens, its just to create that situation and bit more manoeuvring is needed before the situation takes place. THAT part may involve equal skill, but during the part where a pokemon is trapped it's clear that its NOT completely dependent on the players, as the victim of stag is limited to such a degree that its harder (and in most cases impossible) to outplay the abuser of stag, and thus it is not equal competition and player skill is limited to the point where you can pretty much justify stag as an external factor that removes autonomy, it just does it in another way that swagger did but with the same result.

- 50/50: Does it matter that misplays cannot be corrected? I don't know about you, but there are plenty of 50/50s in the game where if you make the wrong choice that the "misplay" cannot be corrected. Let me just give you a handful of examples:

Scenarios:
1) You have a 50% Landorus-T (50% for some unspecified cause) in and a Clefable on your team and your opponent has a Choice Band Zekrom out (with a SD Groundceus and Palkia waiting in the wings). None of your other Pokemon can take either a CB Bolt Strike or Outrage to the face. Do you: Keep your 50% Landorus-T in to take the Outrage and die (predicting Bolt Strike), or bring in your Clefable to get killed by Bolt Strike (predicting Outrage)? If you predict wrongly, you are now extra weak to that Palkia or Groundceus and your wrong decision is irreversible.
2) Your opponent has a +2 Rayquaza out (and that's the only mon left), and you have a standard GeoXern out (at 100%) and a 20% death fodder of some sort (let's just say Kyogre) left in your team. If you kill the Rayquaza, you win. Basically, the 50/50 here is that you can death-fodder Kyogre to take the V-Create, then outspeed with Xern to revenge the Ray and win (since +2 ES can't kill a 100% Xern), or you can predict that your opponent will go for the ESpeed predicting you to death-fodder the Kyogre to preserve Ray's speed and stay in with Xern. You predict correctly, you win. Predict wrongly you lose.

You might say at least, for the second scenario that this is an end-game scenario and S-tag can be used at any point in the game. However, it could also happen in the early game and you just lost a Pokemon to SD Ray, something which could be significant to check threat whatever. I'm not even going to speculate what that threat or death-fodder is. The point here is that "Irreversible negative 50/50s" are everywhere in the game, it's not just S-tag that does it. Because we tolerate these negative 50/50s, why shouldn't we tolerate the negative 50/50s that S-tag brings? Like I said in the last thread, the only thing that's changed is the timing (S-tag is before the turn, all others are in the turn, which really amount to nothing important).

Also, as a side note, why are we so upset about a mechanic that punishes misplays/wrong choices? Shouldn't wrong choices be punished (because that's why they're wrong) through setting you back? Conversely, if you or your opponent makes a good/right choice, shouldn't they be rewarded? The metagame isn't there to hold your hand when you screw up, you know.

- Second part:

With shadow tag the exact same happens, its just to create that situation and bit more manoeuvring is needed before the situation takes place. THAT part may involve equal skill, but during the part where a pokemon is trapped it's clear that its NOT completely dependent on the players, as the victim of stag is limited to such a degree that its harder (and in most cases impossible) to outplay the abuser of stag, and thus it is not equal competition and player skill is limited to the point where you can pretty much justify stag as an external factor that removes autonomy

I bolded the part that's important. If it involves equal skill, why is it a problem? Sure, when you are trapped, your hand is forced, I get that. However, it is up to you the player to avoid a situation where your hand is forced. This doesn't just apply to S-tag, either. Just see the scenarios above, or the Scarf Zek vs RP Don/Ghostceus example I had a while back. There's a skill called "planning ahead", which I'm pretty sure you're familiar with and (hopefully) employ. If you've played chess before, it's kind of like walking into a fork where your opponent has you in check with their knight/horse and it's simultaneously threatening your queen. It's not the fork's fault because you lost your queen to it (the fork is merely a game mechanic), it's your fault for not seeing it coming and walking into such a trap.

 

[PISTOLERO]

Hello shrang, I would just like to fix something that you have said more than once which is not true.

Back to a Pokemon example, you can steal something like Level 56's team or Pistolero's team which are quite weak to GeoXern and get swept by it. It's not the fault of GeoXern, but yours because you chose that team. Again, we can argue whether those individual teams are good or bad, tournament-worthy or not until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that teambuilding is your responsibility and is your choice, and if you have a team that doesn't have usable answers against S-tag, you bear the responsibility and you alone.

If you take a closer look at my team, and also at Level 56's team, you will see that we are in fact not weak to Geomancy Xerneas like you say we are. Level 56's team is perhaps more up for debate as if he locks himself into something unfavourable with one of his two scarf users then he loses, but with my team:

If the opponent leads with Geomancy Xerneas against Scolipede, it will go like this:

Turn 1: Scolipede sets up Toxic Spikes! Xerneas goes for Geomancy and gets a +2 Speed boost! Scolipede gets a Speed Boost and now outspeeds Xerneas!
Turn 2: Scolipede sets up Spikes! Xerneas goes for Moonblast! Scolipede held on using its Focus Sash!
Turn 3: Scolipede uses Endeavor! Xerneas was brought down to 1HP! Xerneas used whatever! Scolipede fainted!

If it tries to mess around with Substitute, or attacking at different times, Scolipede has plenty of Endeavors, plenty of Spikes, has Pin Missile to finish off 1HP Xerneas, and will always outspeed Xerneas thanks to Speed Boost.

If Xerneas does not lead, then it will not sweep me under any circumstances. Let's go through the teammembers.

Scolipede leads so is not relevant.
Arceus will set up Swords Dance and then Extremespeed Xerneas. No free setup there.
Zekrom will be locked into Bolt Strike 95% of the time. No free setup there.
Gengar will slap Xerneas with Sludge Wave. No free setup there.
Darkrai can either slap Xerneas with a Life Orb Sludge Bomb or put it to sleep. No free setup there.
Landorus will slap it with a Life Orb Earthquake, or, if necessary, blow up in its face and kill it with Life Orb Explosion. No free setup there.

And this is not to mention TOXIC SPIKES, which will utterly ruin Xerneas. As Xerneas sets up Geomancy, it will take one round of Poison damage. This alongside either Spikes or Stealth Rock means Xerneas will be at 76% health at best after using Geomancy. It will take a hit during that setup turn, let's be generous and say it gets hit by Bolt Strike. It kills Zekrom, but has taken 1 round of Poison + 1 round of Spikes + 1 Bolt Strike + another round of Poison. It will then easily be in Extremespeed range. Geomancy Xerneas NEVER swept me, JJ or Dabroyo during our suspect laddering, not ONCE.

I know that so far this looks like a response to an RMT, but I am getting to a point. Geomancy Xerneas is something that a lot of HO turns lose to if it sets up freely, but I built my team so that there were several failsafes to beat Xerneas, so that I could not lose to it.

You are using my team and perhaps also Level 56's team in your comparisons falsely, as my team at least does not get swept by Xerneas at all.

The main thing you say is that

teambuilding is your responsibility and is your choice, and if you have a team that doesn't have usable answers against XYZ, then it's your own fault and your own problem.

Now, my team has several failsafes to stop a countersweep from Xerneas / Extremekiller / Blaziken / whatever. It is however weak to Scarf Xerneas, but that is not something I can do anything about, so I live with it because every team will have an inherent weakness, with most HO teams disliking Scarf Xerneas intensely.

If i built a team that let Xerneas set up for free on 5 out of 6 members, then consequently lost to Geomancy Xerneas, I would have no right to complain about losing to it. Likewise, if I bring Heatran + Ho-Oh as my answers to Xerneas and i get sniped by Focus Blast + Thunder, I'm not going to complain because I didn't adequately prepare for that variant of Xerneas.

The issue with Shadow Tag is that you can prepare for it all you like, you can pile on the Punishment Arceus-Grass, the Roar Dialga, the Pursuit Tyranitar, and be as prepared as you can be for Shadow Tag, and then STILL lose because your opponent brought Charm Gothitelle + HP Fire / Focus Blast Mega Gengar. Half of the time, the countermeasures taken by teams to stop themselves getting ripped apart by Shadow Tag users fail anyway, and THAT is the real issue here. If you build a stall team that has no Arceus-Grass, Palkia, Gastrodon or whatever, then you lose to Specs Kyogre, you cannot complain that Choice Specs Kyogre is uncompetitive, because your build is trash and you haven't taken into account one of the offensive threats in the tier, and losing is your own dumbass fault. This simply is not the same with Shadow Tag, we can argue for days and days about whether the answers to Shadow Tag are usable, whether Punishment Arceus is trash or not, whether Dragon Tail Palkia is trash or not, but EVEN IF YOU BRING THESE THINGS, YOU CAN STILL LOSE TO SHADOW TAG. It's not a question of being "restricted" in teambuilding, it's the fact that whatever you do you'll still get screwed by the opponent whether Arceus has Roar or not. This just exacarbates team matchup to a filthy degree.

 

[shrang]

stuff

Side note about how lead GeoXern makes your life pretty difficult (it's kind of off-topic so I'll put it in Hide tags):

Hide

Sub GeoXern's the one that you're relatively weak to. You have plenty of Endeavors, sure but Xern only needs one Sub to take a 1 HP Endeavor before sweeping. Here's how it goes - Xern Subs as you go for Spikes. It Subs again when you go for another Endeavor, getting it down to 50%. Now your full HP Scolipede has more HP than Xerneas so it wouldn't work any more. Now Xern can go for the Geomancy and eventually takes you down to 1 HP. Since you're faster, you would have to use Endeavor after it has taken you down to 1HP, which would mean that you break the Sub as it kills you. Now you don't have much to stop a +2 Xern sweep, Ekiller does 45% max with ES.

Regardless, your later arguments give me a way of explaining things better, actually. Let's just use this for a second:

If i built a team that let Xerneas set up for free on 5 out of 6 members, then consequently lost to Geomancy Xerneas, I would have no right to complain about losing to it.

That's right. You've made a team that has ways to deal with GeoXern that doesn't involve countering it, through the simple fact that even if Xerneas sets up and kills something (which isn't unlikely at all), that loss is not that significant. Now, when I say "being well prepared for S-tag", I mean just that, and this is why the strawman "forcing everyone to carry Shed Shell/Volt-turn/etc" and "find me a team that's totally immune to S-tag" counterarguments are so bad. The thing is, there's nothing inherently broken or uncompetitive about losing a Pokemon to Shadow Tag. I'll give you an example. I have a SpecsOgre, and you have a Mega Gengar out. Now, that SpecsOgre may pose a problem to your team, so you play it safe and Destiny Bond trap it. However, (and I'm going to go from anecdotal evidence here, namely mine) that SpecsOgre isn't REALLY a key defensive Pokemon for the most part. So, you can selectively take it out, and it's no big deal, just like a GeoXern might set up on one of your Pokemon and kill one Pokemon on your team, but you've made you team in a way that you can easily minimise that damage. The same thing applies to S-tag here. If your team is particularly weak to Kyogre and you really want to use Leftovers Palkia, well then you can consider giving it Dragon Tail to make it harder to trap. You can put Shed Shell on Blissey if you really need Blissey on your team. You only give those countermeasures to Pokemon that you really need S-tag to leave alone. S-tag may be highly efficient at taking out select Pokemon, but those select Pokemon may not be significant to the grand scheme of that game. You see where I'm getting at?

Likewise, if I bring Heatran + Ho-Oh as my answers to Xerneas and i get sniped by Focus Blast + Thunder, I'm not going to complain because I didn't adequately prepare for that variant of Xerneas.

The issue with Shadow Tag is that you can prepare for it all you like, you can pile on the Punishment Arceus-Grass, the Roar Dialga, the Pursuit Tyranitar, and be as prepared as you can be for Shadow Tag, and then STILL lose because your opponent brought Charm Gothitelle + HP Fire / Focus Blast Mega Gengar.

So you're saying, that it's the player's fault that they are swept by Xerneas because you didn't adequately prepare for one variant, but when Shadow Tag users do the same thing, it's a problem? I see a double standard here. That second scenario with Punishment Grassceus and the like obviously failed to prepare for some variants of Shadow Tag abuse. You can put this down to Shadow Tag having a lot of options, sure, but that fails to explain why you can't apply this logic to everything else in the game. I'm pretty sure if you built a team that countered all the common variants of GeoXern (for the sake of this argument let's just stick with the stock filler moves in Thunder/HP Fire/Focus Blast/Psyshock/Sub), you'd have a pretty overspecialised team that made you weak to something else too. Ditto for Ekiller and all its common variants (EQ/Overheat/Shadow Force and Claw/Refresh). The point is that you make educated guess (or sometimes even blind guesses) on what you're opponent is going to bring and you decided what would be best on your team, based on the probability of variants X (either from usage stats, tourney replays, experience or just speculation). If you failed to prepare for that variant, that's still your problem.

 

[MMII]

I'm pretty sure if you built a team that countered all the common variants of GeoXern (for the sake of this argument let's just stick with the stock filler moves in Thunder/HP Fire/Focus Blast/Psyshock/Sub), you'd have a pretty overspecialised team that made you weak to something else too. Ditto for Ekiller and all its common variants (EQ/Overheat/Shadow Force and Claw/Refresh). The point is that you make educated guess (or sometimes even blind guesses) on what you're opponent is going to bring and you decided what would be best on your team, based on the probability of variants X (either from usage stats, tourney replays, experience or just speculation). If you failed to prepare for that variant, that's still your problem.

This is a vague and false claim about the metagame. There are very many teams that can handle all these common variations of top threats easily. The issue with discussing Lustkia's team is that it's a suicide spikes concept, which is matchupy at best. These types of concepts also inherently focuses on momentum rather than conserving what isn't absolutely necessary to prevent a counter-sweep. Drawing parallels between player chosen sacrifices and opponent controlled removal is strained and misleading. There's plenty of better concepts to use that don't leave yourself susceptible to losing outright to just about anything short of a counterteam / tag involved bad matchup. You can also find teams built specifically around the concept of not having to make sacrifices in the most scenarios possible.

I give zero shits about what that bit of your post meant in terms of your argument with lustkia and I'm not at all interested in entering that discussion. I just dislike misinformation being spread as common sense.

 

[shrang]

This is a vague and false claim about the metagame. There are very many teams that can handle all these common variations of top threats easily. The issue with discussing Lustkia's team is that it's a suicide spikes concept, which is matchupy at best. These types of concepts also inherently focuses on momentum rather than conserving what isn't absolutely necessary to prevent a counter-sweep. Drawing parallels between player chosen sacrifices and opponent controlled removal is strained and misleading. There's plenty of better concepts to use that don't leave yourself susceptible to losing outright to just about anything short of a counterteam / tag involved bad matchup. You can also find teams built specifically around the concept of not having to make sacrifices in the most scenarios possible.

I give zero shits about what that bit of your post meant in terms of your argument with lustkia and I'm not at all interested in entering that discussion. I just dislike misinformation being spread as common sense.

Bold part: Um, when did I claim the contrary? I said, you can prepare for all the common variants of one Pokemon, but you will be left relatively weak to something else. I didn't say you can't prepare for them. Like Orch said before, you can give me pretty much any team, and I'll find you something that you're relatively weak to (that isn't really obscure or a gimmick).

That's exactly what I was claiming as false. Note the use of "easily", it's not so difficult to cover these variations that you are going to automatically make yourself weak to some other mon. (that isn't some strained, obscure gimmick) Most common variations of mons lose to a single threat except for one of the coverage moves, which can often lose to another mon you happen have on a team to deal with a different threat entirely. ~MM2