Ladder Almost Any Ability

[Lcass4919]

Guess will leave some opinions over here:

Adaptability:
Adaptability is undoubtedly one of the best abilities to chose in AAA atm besides Gale Wings and Poison Heal. it has been the reason for many of the previous bans such as Mamoswine, Terrakion, and mostly the case for Bisharp and Keldeo (even though they still are able to run other effective abilities). This ability really creates a next level of power for most mons, due to them being able to spam there powerful STABs which sometimes have unresisted coverage. I feel like this ability has been overlooked for the longest time, and has a great correlation between the reason why most of the mons have gotten banned. I think this is the ability besides Gale Wings, which makes the meta heavily influenced by offense, as finding defensive answers to these mons abusing this ability is hard to come by. The ability clause has alleviated this a bit, but I still feel that the amount of power this ability brings to numerous mons is quite overwhelming, and should at least be considered for a suspect test.

So looking at the ban list if Adaptability would get banned, here is what I think could get retested:

: Still broken with abilities like Sheer Force and Gale Wings

: Still broken with any ability really

: ^

: ^

: I am still not sure. Tough Claws might be a little hard to deal with, but we still have powerful -ate abusers and Sheer Force users that would dish out more damage.

: Same as Bisharp. Primordial Sea/Drizzle might still be annoying to face, but the rise of more Desolate Land mons may make it manageable. It is also weak to Gale Wings, and rise in usage in Latios and Skymin

: Sturdinja is stupid

: Now that the Baton Clause has been nerfed again. Smeargle may actually be fine in the meta. Although Prankster Sleep would still be really annoying.

: I think Terrakion could possibly be retested. Could still use Sheer Force and Tough Claws, but stuff like Skarmory and Doublade still deal with it.

: Refrigerate still broken.

: Refrigerate for Mamo might also be too much, but low speed and defenses might alleviate that, due to highly offensive meta.

tl;dr Ban Adaptability, retest Keldeo, Bisharp, Mamoswine, Terrakion and Prankster Smeargle

you know each one of these opinions have been mentioned already. bisharp, terrakion, keldeo, all broke down stall WAY easier then other adaptability sweepers do, while also not being scared of offense AT ALL. Bisharp ONLY needs dark aura to do this, adaptability was NOT the reason bisharp was banned. same with terrakion and keld. they were HUGE contributors, but not the MAIN reasons. prankster smeargle was unbanned already, we let it back in, then immidiately removed it due to it still completely crapping on most offensive teams (or so i was told).

yes, adaptability is a good ability, and yes, it makes some pokemon super scary, but it is NOT banworthy in the community eyes. the pokemon however, are, due to each of their capabilities with VARIOUS ABILITIES, able to break down stall EASILY. i literally 6-0ed klang(pretty much the best staller in the tier, fun fact, im the reason he ran kee berry skarm) with a dark aura bisharp. DARK AURA. and as a supporter of mamo unban, adapt was only 50% reasoning for its unban. weavile never used adapt from my memory, so i agree no suspect. terrakion again, adapt was only like...50% of the reason it got banned, and if adapt was banned, tough claws (it spammed CC way more then stone edge), scrappy, and tinted lens would STILL push it over the edge. keldeo with PH, Primal seas, and whatnot would also push it to be very good.

HOWEVER. maybe im wrong. maybe adapt should go, and each SHOULD be retested (other then weav and bisharp as both proven to be too much with other abilities.) id be willing to "temporarily ban adaptability and unban ___ each week." but the problem is the other council members disagree. so, yeah.

 

[Snaquaza]

you know each one of these opinions have been mentioned already. bisharp, terrakion, keldeo, all broke down stall WAY easier then other adaptability sweepers do, while also not being scared of offense AT ALL. Bisharp ONLY needs dark aura to do this, adaptability was NOT the reason bisharp was banned. same with terrakion and keld. they were HUGE contributors, but not the MAIN reasons. prankster smeargle was unbanned already, we let it back in, then immidiately removed it due to it still completely crapping on most offensive teams (or so i was told).

yes, adaptability is a good ability, and yes, it makes some pokemon super scary, but it is NOT banworthy in the community eyes. the pokemon however, are, due to each of their capabilities with VARIOUS ABILITIES, able to break down stall EASILY. i literally 6-0ed klang(pretty much the best staller in the tier, fun fact, im the reason he ran kee berry skarm) with a dark aura bisharp. DARK AURA. and as a supporter of mamo unban, adapt was only 50% reasoning for its unban. weavile never used adapt from my memory, so i agree no suspect. terrakion again, adapt was only like...50% of the reason it got banned, and if adapt was banned, tough claws (it spammed CC way more then stone edge), scrappy, and tinted lens would STILL push it over the edge. keldeo with PH, Primal seas, and whatnot would also push it to be very good.

HOWEVER. maybe im wrong. maybe adapt should go, and each SHOULD be retested (other then weav and bisharp as both proven to be too much with other abilities.) id be willing to "temporarily ban adaptability and unban ___ each week." but the problem is the other council members disagree. so, yeah.

Sure, they were not the only reason, which is why I didn't want to unban Bisharp, as Tough Claws is the same (Dark Aura is inferior). However, on Terrakion I feel like you're wrong. Adaptability was certainly the ability that made it too good, as it boosts both of its STABs which have incredibly coverage together. Sure it can run Scrappy or Tough Claws, or some niche ability. However, Scrappy is a bit of a niche ability to hit Doublade, but doesn't do that much otherwise. Tough Claws gets you a really strong Close Combat, but your coverage is a little lacking, and is thus totally inferior to Adaptability, especially since its main coverage Earthquake isn't boosted either. These abilities all seem managable, and are all inferior to Tough Claws. The fact that you say that other abilities made it OP as well is kind of strange, since nearly all Pokemon here can run multiple abilities viably, however usually there are only a few which makes them OP, which is Adaptability with Terrakion. I don't feel like Keldeo should be unbanned either as Primordial Sea seems terrifying, that said, it does show that, because Adaptability was another broken ability on Keldeo, that it did make another Pokemon OP.

I think I gave my opinion on Smeargle already.

Also, the council is outdated honestly. aesf quit, Pagoose in September, Adrian Marin only just returned. Then there's you, jeran, motherlove (who hasn't been in Smogon in a week) and Kl4ng, who I'd like to give his opinion on this, as it has gotten a lot of support.

PS: I'd appreciate LESS USE of CAPS and BOLD, they are unneeded in that post and they make it chaotic.

 

[Klang]

Also, the policy on -ates is atrocious. For some reason Aerilate got banned because it made Dragonite OP, and arguably Noivern. However, Refrigerate didn't get banned when it made Weavile OP and arguably Mamoswine. On paper, they're all equally threatening (honestly, I view Flying, Fairy and Ice as about equal offensive types), while two of the three got good users. On this basis it's strange that one did get banned, because it made two Pokemon OP, while another didn't. This leads to strange situations, for example that -Ate + Extreme Speed users can't use Aerilate, but can use Refrigerate and Pixilate, when you could argue that they are equal to each other on them. I'd prefer all three of them getting banned, as they buff a few specific Pokemon which get access to good Normal-type moves and not to equal moves of the typing it changes to. I want Pixilate to be banned as well, on the base that if you keep it, you still promote the inequality, since besides a few Pokemon, Refrigerate and Aerilate aren't necessarily OP either, as the three abilities are pretty much equal to each other on the average user. That said, there are two reasons that I'd want them all to get banned. The first of them is that I prefer the ability getting banned over the Pokemon, as having a specific additional ability banlist and Pokemon banlist is annoying for new users, as while the ability one is unavoidable, the Pokemon one is for many of the banned Pokemon, and they will understand that Regigigas, Slaking, etc. are OP, but I feel that it's better to keep it short for convenience. The other reason is that I feel that the offensive metagame (obviously not stall) is a lot of priority spam, which seems to be unhealthy for the metagame. The moment two offensive teams face each other, there's a good chance that the one with more, powerful priority will win, as offensive teams are unlikely to be able to take repeating strong hits. I feel like it's able to be handled right now, but the option to lessen it is good. Obviously, this would lead to Weavile being able to be unbanned, as both of its strong abilities: Refrigerate and Adaptability would be banned.

Aerilate was banned because:

• It had more than one broken user, making it the simpler ban (Dragonite, Noivern).
• In addition to the above bans, many other Aerilate Pokemon stood out as potentially/probably broken, due to the fact that Flying-types are simply far better offensively than Ice and Fairy-types. Landorus-T, Landorus, Thundurus, Salamence, and Gyarados were all extremely deadly when equipped with the ability, and were some of the metagame's most deadly wallbreakers.
• Flying is a fantastic offensive typing, even to the point that OU has (or had at one point, idk I don't keep up with OU) had a playstyle that centered around spamming Flying-type attacks: Birdpspam.

Refrigerate only meets the fantastic offensive type reason (Mamo was fine the Refrigerate), while Pixilate meets none of these ban reasons since it's only a decent attacking type and Fairy-types in general are pretty weak individually. Both of these abilities are only really used by Extremespeed users at the moment, and they're not broken in the slightest due to the fact that they lack STAB. Tough Claws is more popular for Extremespeed users nowadays anyway.

I'll start with Smeargle as it is the less powerful one. I've always felt the old Prankster + Smeargle ban was a bit premature and didn't really account for it much besides theorymonning. Statistically, Smeargle is an extremely powerful Pokemon, but it obviously gets an enormous movepool, encompassing every move excluding Chatter and Struggle. This led people to think that it could be too good at leading mostly, but also at providing a safety net to most things, having Prankster Spore and Destiny Bond.

Smeargle still has the same problems as it always has. It has no offensive presence, so its easily taken advantage of when it has used Spore on something. Even Spore is able to be countered, as Grass-types (you can use Dark Void but accuracy) and especially Magic Bounce Pokemon have a field day against Smeargle. Actually, Magic Guard invalidates everything non-Mold Breaker Smeargle does, completely. Anyway, obviously, Smeargle would function as a good lead, being comparable to Deoxys-S, which trades Spore for offensive presence. However, once it has set the hazards, hazard removers can switch in for free, and even if you dont' have one, you can limit it to two hazards by just switching something in and KOing it. Neither Spore nor Destiny Bond should be a problem either, as we already have Prankster Spore users, and I feel an utility check would actually be good for the metagame, as it prevents random set-up sweepers from sweeping you, while Destiny Bond is a generally niche option, that can let you KO something, but if you mispredict it can let something set up. So, it's easy to take advantage of.

Smeargle was originally banned when no Baton Pass clause was around, because its QuickPass sets were completely impossible to deal with for the most part. Now with the Baton Pass clause is implemented, I wouldn't be completely opposed to retesting Smeargle, but I still think it would be fairly broken since teams lacking Magic Bounce would always need to sleep fodder something and deal with at least 2 or 3 layers of hazards after that.

First off, a lot of Pokemon have been banned because Adaptability was too strong on them. Mamoswine, Terrakion, Bisharp and Weavile all got banned because of this, or partially because of this ability. Additionally, in the current metagame Latios is a small problem as well with its hugely powerful STAB moves, while pretty much everything with a good dual STAB can abuse it. The banning of Adaptability wouldn't really hurt the metagame either. Besides it making it a bit harder to break stall, because you have hugely powerful moves, it doesn't really have any good effect on the metagame, as it basically lets Pokemon stay the same, while only making them stronger. In return for this, we can unban Mamoswine and Terrakion, and have less problems with it on other Pokemon in the future.

I'll discuss this briefly, as the removal of Adaptability would easily allow Mamoswine and Terrakion to be unbanned already, but they don't seem like they would be overpowered in the current metagame. Mamoswine was banned on the premise that it could break stall easily, which doesn't seem to be true. Although it'd definitely be a threat, so are many Pokemon in the metagame. Stall also has Pokemon like Skarmory and Cresselia which can avoid the 2HKO (but barely). I agree that this would still make it too strong, but stall can easily use this metagame to beat it more easily. Suicune can run Poison Heal to avoid the 2HKO when used together with Protect, while stall teams that find themselves weak to Mamoswine can use Thick Fat, Delta Stream and Levitate to get specific resistances. This is likely to be useful in general, because if you can't handle Mamoswine well, chances are that you're weak to other Ground- or Ice-types. Finally, while Mamoswine has great STAB coverage, if it mispredicts when something like Suicune comes it, it will be forced out, so stall can also handle it this way, although its trickier. So in general, I wouldn't say Mamoswine is too good against stall, especially when you compare it to other wallbreakers like Adaptability Latios, but also things like Pangoro (read previous paragraph s_s).

Versus offense it's the general slow strong threat, with only Ice Shard differentiating it. I have no idea how it could be OP this way, as Ice Shard is weaker than most Refrigerate ESpeed users, and they can't outprioritize those. Balance is pretty much the same, as although they'll have some walls (often Suicune which doesn't mind Mamo as much) they will have something to revenge kill it or pressure it.

Terrakion is a bit more threatening due to its speed tier, so I could see it still being broken, but with how common Doublade is in the current metagame, which walls it and turns it into setup bait, it would often be turned into a liability. Although I won't argue for this too much, since it still has a decent speed tier vs offense, great STABs besides Doublade and the ability to set up with Swords Dance.

Basically early on in the metagame there were 2 routes that AAA could go in - we had a small pool of Pokemon broken with Adapt / Tough Claws and we had to make a decision as to whether we should go through with Pokemon bans to preserve the ability for other Pokemon, or ban Adapt / Tough Claws and keep these Pokemon. We chose the former route.

I've been contemplating about reversing this and going through with an Adaptability ban for some time actually, though Mamoswine would probably be the only unban here since Bisharp literally gets the same offensive boost with Tough Claws, Keldeo was broken with a slew of other abilities, and Terrakion was also very dangerous with other abilities as well, Scrappy, Defiant, Tough Claws, and Illusion being examples.

If Adaptability goes I feel Tough Claws should go as well, however. Terrakion would probably no longer be broken, and a slew of other attackers, such as Tyranitar, Lucario, Pangoro, and Heracross which all make life very difficult for stall at the moment would be taken care of as well. Tough Claws is essentially much like Adaptability in that it provides a straight up power boost with no questions asked, and is very mindless in application.


EDIT: I put "not because" instead of "because" in my first sentence for some reason...

 

[Klang]

Also, and I felt this merited a seperate post, the council lineup has changed! Inactive members were removed and it is now a 5 man council instead of a 7 man one. The new members are myself and:

• Adrian Marin
• Lcass4919
• Snaquaza
• jeran

 

[Lcass4919]

i figure since majority of the council(4 to be exact) agrees to the suspecting of adapt(and potentially tough claws), i see no reason not to suspect them. also welcome to the council snaq, i see nothing wrong with adding you, considering your a good arguer, have a skill level that warrants being in the council, and a pretty chill guy overall. Good choice.

also the caps and bold is a force of habit. sorry lmao.

to be honest, i think maybe even retesting weavile could be looked into, as what made it broken before, was way back when the meta was focused around dnite spam, and how everything that beat dnite, was weak to weav, the meta has gotten a lot bulkier, and arised many potential checks to the refridgerated cat. scarf tini, Suicune, skarm, pixie entei, and whatnot. i think its deserving of a suspect to be honest. call me crazy, but...yeah.

 

[xJownage]

Ghoul King made a great post a while back about banning espeed in sketchmons, and quite frankly, we need a bit of what he said inserted into this conversation because I'm seeing a marked pattern here.

Your entire argument here, and in MnM, as well as that of every other person that has had this sentiment in my awareness, has been "multiple Pokemon had this feature and got banned, why not ban the feature?"

The problem is correlation is not causation. In MnM, we have three Pokemon bans: Dragonite, Lucario, and Cresselia. Cresselia was a nightmare with Sablenite -there was a phase there where people were trying to argue Sablenite should be banned, which was ridiculous, because Cresselia was the only Pokemon that was broken with it, or even anywhere close to it. You're essentially arguing that the MnM council should've barred eight Pokemon from -atespeed that are not broken with it to maybe unbreak two Pokemon. Why? Exactly how is this increasing diversity, to ban -atespeed rather than banning the two most problematic abusers?

Also note that the Dynamic Punch/Zap Cannon No Guard abuse shenanigans got those two moves banned in MnM, rather than the abusers (Way too many to name, but Mew was the most popular one) or Pidgeotite, which is a great Mega Stone but not broken or uncompetitive when you remove Dynamic Punch and Zap Cannon from the equation. It's only with those two moves that it becomes an uncounterable hax nightmare.

Arguing that "two Pokemon got banned whom ran Extreme Speed is proof that we should ban Extreme Speed" is faulty logic. It's treating correlation -two Pokemon share the two features of "brokenness" and "runs Extreme Speed"- as causation: "the brokenness is an exclusive property of them running Extreme Speed".

No. Full stop, no. If you want to actually support your position, explain what makes Extreme Speed fundamentally so broken it should be removed from the meta entirely, while also explaining, in detail, how Mega Pinsir and Diggersby are totally fine and not broken if you remove Extreme Speed, then feel free to go ahead with that plan. I'm open to being proven wrong, personally. (I extend this to the MnM examples, though take it to the MnM thread if you care to)

But if you're just going to throw around this "correlation=causation" thing, just stop talking. That's wrong, it's always going to be wrong, you should never use it as logic in anything ever, certainly not as part of an argument about competitive games.

This is perfectly applicable here: Correlation is not causation. I'm seeing all kinds of arguments on "what have we banned that would be balanced without adaptability?" which is the wrong way to look at whether or not to ban an ability. Those speculations should be left to just that - theorymonning what could be unbanned if this could happen, not being an actual argument.

How is banning one of the most splashable abilities in the metagame going to increase diversity? Why should we ban the ability just to unban 2 or 3 mons and take away the niche of dozens of others? I don't get it; there are no currently broken mons now due to espeed and the few that were broken with adapt often can use other abilities to similar success (only a couple aren't broken - Terrakion and MAYBE Mamoswine). Tough Claws is about a .03% power drop from Adaptability on those select mons. If you're concerned about the current dark type stallbreakers, pangoro and absol, you're completely missing your target; they both run tough claws on all sets because it boosts their coverage moves as well. If you're concerned about stall being too hard to use, don't blink; stall is still one of the best playstyles in this metagame and there is no reason to give it a boon and decrease offensive diversity when it's already a great playstyle.

Banning adaptability makes things harder on offense because it makes packing hard hitters that can work against stall much more difficult. Latios is amazing for offense, being able to defog and break down common walls with its sheer power. Having to use multiple mons or having a smaller pool of wallbreakers is just a further restriction on offense in a situation where it already struggles with stall without a dedicated stallbreaker. Again, I don't see where an Adaptability ban helps.

Just because there were several banned mons that abused adaptability doesn't mean we should ban adaptability, and that is a flimsy argument to begin with due to the low number of mons that were broken mostly due to adaptability (Terrakion is still really good with tough claws, although probably not banworthy). If you guys have another argument as to why adaptability should be banned, i'm all to hear it, but this "there are broken mons with adaptability so we should ban adaptability" bullshit is not an argument.

 

[Lcass4919]

Ghoul King made a great post a while back about banning espeed in sketchmons, and quite frankly, we need a bit of what he said inserted into this conversation because I'm seeing a marked pattern here.



This is perfectly applicable here: Correlation is not causation. I'm seeing all kinds of arguments on "what have we banned that would be balanced without adaptability?" which is the wrong way to look at whether or not to ban an ability. Those speculations should be left to just that - theorymonning what could be unbanned if this could happen, not being an actual argument.

How is banning one of the most splashable abilities in the metagame going to increase diversity? Why should we ban the ability just to unban 2 or 3 mons and take away the niche of dozens of others? I don't get it; there are no currently broken mons now due to espeed and the few that were broken with adapt often can use other abilities to similar success (only a couple aren't broken - Terrakion and MAYBE Mamoswine). Tough Claws is about a .03% power drop from Adaptability on those select mons. If you're concerned about the current dark type stallbreakers, pangoro and absol, you're completely missing your target; they both run tough claws on all sets because it boosts their coverage moves as well. If you're concerned about stall being too hard to use, don't blink; stall is still one of the best playstyles in this metagame and there is no reason to give it a boon and decrease offensive diversity when it's already a great playstyle.

Banning adaptability makes things harder on offense because it makes packing hard hitters that can work against stall much more difficult. Latios is amazing for offense, being able to defog and break down common walls with its sheer power. Having to use multiple mons or having a smaller pool of wallbreakers is just a further restriction on offense in a situation where it already struggles with stall without a dedicated stallbreaker. Again, I don't see where an Adaptability ban helps.

Just because there were several banned mons that abused adaptability doesn't mean we should ban adaptability, and that is a flimsy argument to begin with due to the low number of mons that were broken mostly due to adaptability (Terrakion is still really good with tough claws, although probably not banworthy). If you guys have another argument as to why adaptability should be banned, i'm all to hear it, but this "there are broken mons with adaptability so we should ban adaptability" bullshit is not an argument.

this argument is flawed still for the same argument im going to bring up here: what makes banning the pokemon any better if removing the ability makes the poke not broken? i dislike this argument because it treats "ban philosophy" as "only the pokemon can be banned!" back then i stated, banning philosiphy is based around "what side of the coin do you want to bet on" banning abilitys(moves on sketches part) or banning pokemon who have said abilities. of course, with the random "Extreme" cases thrown in. theres no "one side is better" and its entirely based on the councils decision on which side they prefer.

what makes this different from sketchmons, is that, well...we already went one direction with this, and clearly, its the better direction. as otherwise it would be a terrible meta with parental bond and protean flying around everywhere.

so i end my points with this: sure, "there are broken mons with adapt so we should ban adapt" might not be the best argument in the world..but neither is "terrakion,keld,bisharp and mamo are broken with adapt so we should ban terrakion,keld,bisharp and mamo" both are bad arguments, but both are the only choices we have. and we chose to rethink our option.

 

[xJownage]

this argument is flawed still for the same argument im going to bring up here: what makes banning the pokemon any better if removing the ability makes the poke not broken? i dislike this argument because it treats "ban philosophy" as "only the pokemon can be banned!" back then i stated, banning philosiphy is based around "what side of the coin do you want to bet on" banning abilitys(moves on sketches part) or banning pokemon who have said abilities. of course, with the random "Extreme" cases thrown in. theres no "one side is better" and its entirely based on the councils decision on which side they prefer.

what makes this different from sketchmons, is that, well...we already went one direction with this, and clearly, its the better direction. as otherwise it would be a terrible meta with parental bond and protean flying around everywhere.

so i end my points with this: sure, "there are broken mons with adapt so we should ban adapt" might not be the best argument in the world..but neither is "terrakion,keld,bisharp and mamo are broken with adapt so we should ban terrakion,keld,bisharp and mamo" both are bad arguments, but both are the only choices we have. and we chose to rethink our option.

The point I was making was a fundamental stance that explains past decisions as well. The banning of Aerilate outside the banning of Refrigerate is due to a fundamental difference in the cost of banning one against another. Aerilate had a small pool of viable abusers, and several of such abusers were hilariously broken and unhealthy, while refrigerate had just two users, which were both banned, at the cost of having those already very powerful mons (weavile and mamo were very good with adapt, while noivern and dnite are bad without aerilate) taken away. There really is nothing solely broken due to adaptability, and all of the mons that abused it were still overcentralizing whether or not they had adaptability (terrakion may not have been REALLY broken, but SD tinted lens is very potent), just like the case of refrigerate. Refrigerate's viability outside of the broken users consisted of refrigspeed, which isn't broken, and coverage, like thundurus, which was also not broken, and such abusers were healthy for the meta. Adaptability is in a similar vein, many good abusers that aren't broken.

My point is this: Why bother banning Adaptability for basically one mon (Terrakion, which would still wreck stall and balance with tinted lens, and the rest of the bans would likely stay banned) and take away a plethora of viable mons that aren't broken and make life easier for offense, an already tough playstyle to run? What's there to gain?

 

[Lcass4919]

The point I was making was a fundamental stance that explains past decisions as well. The banning of Aerilate outside the banning of Refrigerate is due to a fundamental difference in the cost of banning one against another. Aerilate had a small pool of viable abusers, and several of such abusers were hilariously broken and unhealthy, while refrigerate had just two users, which were both banned, at the cost of having those already very powerful mons (weavile and mamo were very good with adapt, while noivern and dnite are bad without aerilate) taken away. There really is nothing solely broken due to adaptability, and all of the mons that abused it were still overcentralizing whether or not they had adaptability (terrakion may not have been REALLY broken, but SD tinted lens is very potent), just like the case of refrigerate. Refrigerate's viability outside of the broken users consisted of refrigspeed, which isn't broken, and coverage, like thundurus, which was also not broken, and such abusers were healthy for the meta. Adaptability is in a similar vein, many good abusers that aren't broken.

My point is this: Why bother banning Adaptability for basically one mon (Terrakion, which would still wreck stall and balance with tinted lens, and the rest of the bans would likely stay banned) and take away a plethora of viable mons that aren't broken and make life easier for offense, an already tough playstyle to run? What's there to gain?

i get your point, and in some aspects you are correct. but in the long run, i can still throw that argument back at you. "why bother banning a pokemon to keep a few pokemon sets (out of the actual common users of adapt, skymin and latios are the only two real noteworthy ones alongside maybe a few oddballs) and take away otherwise perfectly tame pokemon that arent broken and make life easier for offense, an already tough playstyle to run by giving them more powerful users rather then more powerful attacks? whats there to gain?. i can literally quote your post word by word, and add MORE to it. like for example, offense appriciates having stronger pokemon who are viable, rather then an ability that makes otherwise mediocre ones usable. and adaptability allthough will nerf some pokemon heavily, all the "common adapt" users tend to use a different ability to the same and or BETTER success. adapt doesn't suddenly tear the meta in half if removed.

honestly, if you keep adapt, we are just going to ban skymin and latios next(both are extremely hard to wall, and can stand their own vs offense). so basically by keeping adapt in, your actually HURTING offense more then helping it. by removing adapt, we save 5 pokemon from OPness, while doing nothing more then nerfing ~10 pokemon, of which, half are still just as viable without adapt.

and lastly, fundamentals mean next to nothing in a council. if the community and council for the most part want it then who cares if we do it for personal taste if a majority agree with said personal taste. I mean, i get it, this is mostly opinionated decision making but seriously, bans are all made via opinions upon the council and community, and fundamentals although helpful are not required to make said decisions. if we want to unban 5 pokemon and remove an ability that we now think was the reason it made them all broken, then we can do that, and not have to focus around "this makes no sense and has no reason" because "the community and council all want this" is reason enough.

 

[xJownage]

If they want it for no good reason it's all for not. People hate talonflame, so we ban it? No. Don't juxtapose what everybody wants with what we actually do with analysis, that's just disrespectful to the integrity of the council and the people outside of it.

Anyways, Skymin hardly uses adaptability; it usually uses sheer force or serene grace. Regardless, Skymin is barely broken to begin with. Adaptability latios isn't that broken compared to tinted lens either.

We don't save 5 pokemon from being op, and we don't nerf ~10 mons which already have viability. This is just not true, you're making up an obscure example to prove a point right now and it's just wrong.

Remember that we don't need a reason NOT to ban adaptability, we need a reason TO ban adaptability. Right now, I still have no good reason. And like I said, so-and-so is broken with adapt is not an argument. If somebody who is markedly pro-ban can say something, please do so, but you have said that banning adapt isn't much of a help in the first place so I'm not really sure why you're arguing otherwise.

 

[xRoyUltra]

Prankster, of course.

How's Prankster Smeargle any better than Prankster Sableye?

 

[xJownage]

Smeargle can use literally any move. So spore, rocks, spikes, shell smash, baton pass, subseed, etc.

 

[thesecondbest]

If they want it for no good reason it's all for not. People hate talonflame, so we ban it? No. Don't juxtapose what everybody wants with what we actually do with analysis, that's just disrespectful to the integrity of the council and the people outside of it.

Anyways, Skymin hardly uses adaptability; it usually uses sheer force or serene grace. Regardless, Skymin is barely broken to begin with. Adaptability latios isn't that broken compared to tinted lens either.

We don't save 5 pokemon from being op, and we don't nerf ~10 mons which already have viability. This is just not true, you're making up an obscure example to prove a point right now and it's just wrong.

Remember that we don't need a reason NOT to ban adaptability, we need a reason TO ban adaptability. Right now, I still have no good reason. And like I said, so-and-so is broken with adapt is not an argument. If somebody who is markedly pro-ban can say something, please do so, but you have said that banning adapt isn't much of a help in the first place so I'm not really sure why you're arguing otherwise.

Which way simplifies the banlist and makes the meta more healthy? Banning adapt. Skymin and Latios are still crazy. You can ban those, then people will use other stuff etc. Imagine STABmons. There are soooo many normal types. You can't prepare for Ursaring and Kanga and Stoutland etc etc etc. Normal clause would fix it. But banning all three would too. Which is better? Normal Clause. (This is assuming they are actually broken, which they aren't, but I hope you get the point.) If TWave Calm Mind Clef is broken and TWave Klefki is broken and TWave Slowbro is broken and TWave Thundurus is broken, do you ban all of them or TWave? You can remove a broken strategy, increase Pokemon diversity, and make the banlist simpler. Or you can have an inherently flawed meta like BH where things like ate and PH run rampant. I think banning Adapt is strictly superior.

 

[Lcass4919]

If they want it for no good reason it's all for not. People hate talonflame, so we ban it? No. Don't juxtapose what everybody wants with what we actually do with analysis, that's just disrespectful to the integrity of the council and the people outside of it.

Anyways, Skymin hardly uses adaptability; it usually uses sheer force or serene grace. Regardless, Skymin is barely broken to begin with. Adaptability latios isn't that broken compared to tinted lens either.

We don't save 5 pokemon from being op, and we don't nerf ~10 mons which already have viability. This is just not true, you're making up an obscure example to prove a point right now and it's just wrong.

Remember that we don't need a reason NOT to ban adaptability, we need a reason TO ban adaptability. Right now, I still have no good reason. And like I said, so-and-so is broken with adapt is not an argument. If somebody who is markedly pro-ban can say something, please do so, but you have said that banning adapt isn't much of a help in the first place so I'm not really sure why you're arguing otherwise.

"Don't juxtapose what everybody wants with what we actually do with analysis, that's just disrespectful to the integrity of the council and the people outside of it." i fail to see how saying what people of the council/most of the community want to do is juxtapose. Were you not listening at ALL to the conversation above. 3 of the council members ALL shown interest in doing this(and one of them shown interest in the council chat fyi), this isnt juxtapose...this is fact. adapt is going to be suspected on a reversing. its not only what we want, its what we are DOING. the leader of AAA even said hes been considering reversing it. Plain and simple, if a council shows interest in doing something, and the community is the one pushing it to do so, then clearly, its going to happen. if you cant see why its broken, well i cant help you jownage. just realize your one of the minorities with that opinion. This isn't just MY opinion, its like...70% of the people in this conversation if not more. and just so you dont think im using another "obscure example" let me count them out for you. 4 of the council, vs you, which is already 80% thesecondbest which makes it 6/7 funbro which makes it 7/8. that is like...almost 90% on the first page. clearly, im not bullshitting this one.

and fine, if you want a more specific example of said obscure opinion..."we save keldeo, terrakion, mamoswine, and potentially bisharp from being op with adapt as ~90% of us feel is true as per my calculations of said percentage roughly based on this page, to slightly nerf pangoro, latios, shaymin, and other pokemon who kind of use adaptability on their movesets, as the 90% margin of people in this chat as per my calculations of said percentage roughly based on this page feel is true." better? or do i have to fucking spell it out for you jownage. because i really don't see how you arguing about this is going to change anything. because you got it wrong; we dont need to show you how its broken, you need to show the majority opinion how its NOT broken. because most of us disagree, you need to CONVINCE US otherwise, and not the other way around.

and my past opinion means nothing on the matter if ive changed said opinion, so i dont see why bringing it up proves anything.

 

[xJownage]

Okay wise guy, if you feel like I attacked you then too bad, I tried to be nice about this but apparently I can't.

I never said you were wrong about the people who agreed with you. Where the hell did you get that from? I said you were basically saying that if a group of people finds something annoying it deserves to be banned, which is disrespectful to everybody involved and does not happen. Things get banned because they are argued and agreed upon, not because people don't like them. If this is not true then I will honestly leave this community, but thankfully it's not.

You don't save Keldeo or Bisharp. You save terrakion, and MIGHT save mamoswine. Pangoro doesn't use adapt, it uses tough claws. Latios' tinted is as dangerous as adapt, since it literally requires a special wall to tank the hits. Skymin with serene grace is unhealthy as fuck for stall too, and it uses sheer force over adapt anyways.

You say i'm ignoring popular opinion. I'm not. I'm saying why popular opinion is wrong and looking for other justification for the message other than "no, this is the right opinion because people want it." In terms of actual argument, you are coming back to points that I have PROVEN WRONG and keep acting like they are undeniable facts, and the best address to my argument is "people think this" while the argument itself is PROVABLY WRONG and the only thing stopping it is ignorance. I'm sorry, if people can't see around their inane hatred for something and decide to ban it just off of that then I will kindly leave this community forever.

Oh, and we both know there are reasons for the potential banning of adaptability; the fact that when met with resistance people claim "majority rules" just means that it's a flimsy argument. If you don't have any other argument besides majority and whatever other bullshit you're spouting that I've already stated is just flat out wrong, then stop talking. All you did was attack me when I tried to prove you wrong and acted like majority made you right.

Hint: It doesn't.

Now stop being an asshole when I try to address the only valid arguments of the pro-banners and acting like the mere presence of their minds is argument enough. It might be argument enough for THEM to want it banned, but in any other case it is an utterly shitty argument. I don't want to be the bad guy here, but you're leaving me no choice and I find it pathetic. Respond with vehemence again. I DARE you. If you want to continue to make attacks at my opinion instead of trying to prove it wrong, then i'll kindly walk away from this argument knowing I won easily.

 

[Adrian Marin]

Does everyone notice a pattern here? The majority of our banlist consists of Pokemon that mainly used Tough Claws and/or Adaptability. I believe we can all agree that Tough Claws and Adaptability are unhealthy for the metagame; however, if you're still not convinced, even after reading earlier arguments conceived by other users, then I hope this post clears things up for you.

When an archetype is balanced around counterplay against broken wallbreakers, it becomes impossible to play consistently. This is not ideal for the metagame, and it is widely agreed that wallbreakers should not be rewarded so easily just by clicking buttons mindlessly. Defeating a wall should take a bit more effort than using using absurdly powerful attacks without even having to set up hazards or cause prior damage. Breaking defensive cores should be executed through offensive pressure from the likes of Volt-turn Pokemon, offensive cores, and hazards. Wallbreakers are meant to break walls, yes, but having such an unhealthy advantage is detrimental to the metagame. Damage calculations showcasing the despicable might of Adaptability and Tough Claws Pokemon against bulky Pokemon are as follows:

Calcs

• 252+ Atk Life Orb Tough Claws Heracross Close Combat vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Diancie: 196-231 (64.4 - 75.9%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
  
• -1 252+ Atk Choice Band Tough Claws Heracross Close Combat vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Skarmory: 159-187 (47.6 - 55.9%) -- 25.8% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
  
• 252 Atk Choice Band Adaptability Honchkrow Brave Bird vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Suicune: 250-296 (61.8 - 73.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
  
• 252 SpA Life Orb Adaptability Latios Psyshock vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Sylveon: 216-255 (54.8 - 64.7%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
  
• 252 SpA Life Orb Adaptability Latios Draco Meteor vs. 252 HP / 44+ SpD Assault Vest Meloetta: 177-208 (43.8 - 51.4%) -- 6.6% chance to 2HKO - (Regenerator)
  
• 252 SpA Choice Specs Adaptability Latios Psyshock vs. 4 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 348-410 (54.2 - 63.8%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
  
• 252+ Atk Life Orb Tough Claws Lucario Close Combat vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Mew: 120-140 (29.7 - 34.6%) -- 11.2% chance to 3HKO
  
• 252+ Atk Life Orb Tough Claws Lucario Crunch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Mew: 213-252 (52.7 - 62.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
• +2 252+ Atk Life Orb Tough Claws Lucario Extreme Speed vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Victini: 291-343 (85.3 - 100.5%) -- 6.3% chance to OHKO

These calculations really astound me, especially since a lot of these "wallbreakers" pull their weight against offensive teams extremely easily. All of the listed Pokemon within the damage calculations either have good defensive utility or enough speed to outpace and pressure a lot of offensive Pokemon as well. Many defensive players are even forced to compromise their defensive backbone in favour of additional offensive presence in order to combat these Pokemon. This is unfair to the full stall archetype and I believe that every main playstyle deserves a combination of diversity and viability.

So I'm sure that we can all agree that...

• Tough Claws and Adaptability are unhealthy for stall while still having a decent matchup against the more offensive archetypes.
• These abilities are too simple and rewarding to be considered "fun" or "diverse."
• An archetype solely balanced around counterplay against these Pokemon isn't the type of balance we'd like to attain.
• Everyone should stop fighting each other ._.

DISCLAIMER:

Even if I mention and support stall in this post, none of my claims will be affected by my known bias towards the playstyle. All I really want is for this metagame to be balanced. I will only use commonly agreed concepts of what a "balanced metagame" should be like to support my claims. Don't attack my playstyle solely because I'm the stall guy, it is unfair and does nothing to logically support whomever it may concern's claims. At the least, I deserve counterarguments that are not personal or arbitrary.

 

[xJownage]

Adrian, the only concern I have is the presence of sheer force, tinted lens, and like abilities that can still break stall with manic efficiency if used properly. While we all can mostly agree that Tough Claws is less broken than Adaptability due to the lesser move distribution, most abilities are replacable, such as the aforementioned sheer force shaymin (or serene grace, which obliterates common stall builds), dark aura bisharp, etc. While we do eliminate some difficult to handle mons, we don't eliminate a fundamental issue - things that are very, very hard to counter consistently. This is inherent to a metagame like this anyways, and deviating from this is virtually impossible but would be easier to do by banning the abusers rather than the abilities. The list of viable stallbreakers is VERY long in this metagame, and many of them don't need sheer power to get rid of opponents.

 

[LightningLord2]

Another problem is how literally every offensive Pokémon can rely on these abilities to greatly deal more damage - they both boost stronger than Life Orb or Sheer Force do, Tough Claws can be run by virtually every physical sweeper sans Rock- and Ground-Types. Whereas Adaptability can easily be fit on every single offensive mon since they all run at least one STAB move. Other abilities like Analytic and Sheer Force are also rather splashable, but they can have fairly restrictive drawbacks at least.

 

[Ghoul King]

Personally, I've never understood why Aerilate got banned. It broke Dragonite, done. Noivern, though sort of neat, isn't actually all that good. It can't boost, it doesn't have enough raw firepower to break Special walls, its coverage is painfully bad, etc. Aerilate Noivern had utility in AAA back when it was OMotM in XY, but it just wasn't as impressive as people thought it was. Other Pokemon like Landorus-Therian certainly appreciate being able to gain an actual Flying STAB, but for most potential Aerilate users the payoff is sufficiently narrowly focused/low that it's not clear whether it's actually worth it. Aerilate Landorus-Therian, for instance, isn't necessarily better off against myriad Physical walls, such as Hippowdon, Skarmory, and Ferrothorn, all of which are more threatened by other Abilities. Flying types with Flying STAB already -like Skarmory- would often rather have Gale Wings. Etc. I always have been and always will be baffled by the decision to ban Aerilate when only one Pokemon was broken with it.

Adaptability... I don't have an informed opinion on its effect on AAA per se. It is an Ability I wish didn't exist, because functionally it removes a Pokemon's need to deploy coverage 99% of the time. After all, a resisted STAB is just as effective as a neutral off-STAB/a neutral STAB is just as effective as a super effective off-STAB, all else being equal. Breaking the hierarchy of super effective wins out over STAB and they both win out over a lack of either is just bad for the game, and this ends up showing through on individual Pokemon whom can functionally run off just twin STABs and skip coverage outright, freeing up moveslots for other stuff.

But as far as AAA goes, I dunno. Tough Claws is actually better for most Physical attackers than Adaptability, Sheer Force is arguably better for a lot of Special attackers than Adaptability (Special attacks very often have Sheer Forceable side effects, and in many cases you won't miss the 10% chance), etc. Banning Adaptability would have no real impact on a number of Pokemon that occasionally carry it, as they'd just shift to other, similar Abilities. Arguably it would be a rather pointless ban, especially since various Pokemon banned in part on the basis of Adaptability are still broken with other Abilities.

But I certainly won't cry if Adaptability is banned. I especially dislike how it shifts risk-reward assessment: even though Tough Claws is arguably better for a lot of Pokemon, it at least still requires the player -and therefore their opponent- use actual prediction to decide their optimal move, maintaining depth and skill. Adaptability means that it's all too easy to end up with a decision-making process of "Always click X STAB move against this enemy team, even if I expect them to switch in a resist or something".

I've seen people allude to Mega Lucario being "click Close Combat to win". The thing is, Mega Lucario at least has to pay attention to the possibility of a Ghost switch-in. (Though note that if it had Iron Head, the only reason it would ever use Crunch would be if Jellicent, regular Rotom, Chandelure, or Aegislash/Doublade was expected to switch in. Other Ghosts would take identical-or-better damage from Iron Head) Dark Adaptability users have to be faced with other a double Dark resist (Which in practice means Scrafty or Pangoro) or with something doubly weak to a relevant coverage move (eg Fire Punching a non-Flashfire/Primordial Sea Ferrothorn/Scizor/etc) to have any reason to not just spam Dark moves, and this is especially problematic in AAA from the fact that double weaknesses are often covered up. So a Dark Adaptability user only for-sure cares if Scrafty or Pangoro is on the enemy team, for potentially not wanting to spam Knock Off or whatever, since Fire Punching Ferrothorn may well be inferior to spamming Adaptability-boosted moves.

I think this dynamic is part of why Adaptability is a problem. It's not just that Adaptability users get that much more power to KO key walls/revengers/whatever, it's that they often simply opt out of the prediction game. You can't get deep into your opponent's head, anticipate their anticipation, and switch in your Fire resist to absorb the Fire Punch they intended to use on your Fire-vulnerable team member they expected you to switch in if, in actual fact, they should always use Knock Off no matter what you do. Prediction is useless in the face of various Adaptability abusers. Worse yet, this can lead into the movepool advantage I alluded to before: if all you need is your two STABs to maximize your effectiveness against the entire metagame, you should slot in setup and Thunder Wave or whatever you might have, where even a Tough Claws user would probably rather put in coverage, even though they hit just as hard as the Adaptability abuser with their STABS. Even for a Pokemon that is better with Tough Claws than Adaptability, like Pangoro, it still shifts movepool and prediction pressures around if you have have Adaptability rather than Tough Claws.

I have no particular opinion on the other topics being brought up here.

 

[Throbulator36]

I'm going to try to fix this argument.

1. Don't argue that the majority is right without proof(bandwagon fallacy)
2. Banning philosophy is not in any way related to gambling. It is making a decision based on principles, namely preserving the balance of a tier while trying to encourage a greater amount of freedom in teambuilding.
3. Weavile was banned after dnites influence had faded
4. Keldeo&co. Were banned due to being to flexible in their S-tier sets(they had no consistent counters) adapt doesn't change this
5. We need a reason TO ban adapt not to NOT ban it. Not only is this debate 101 but it also preserves the critical thinking involved in banning. Would it really benefit the meta to ban/unban something and can you prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt?

 

[Lcass4919]

I'm going to try to fix this argument.

1. Don't argue that the majority is right without proof(bandwagon fallacy)
2. Banning philosophy is not in any way related to gambling. It is making a decision based on principles, namely preserving the balance of a tier while trying to encourage a greater amount of freedom in teambuilding.
3. Weavile was banned after dnites influence had faded
4. Keldeo&co. Were banned due to being to flexible in their S-tier sets(they had no consistent counters) adapt doesn't change this
5. We need a reason TO ban adapt not to NOT ban it. Not only is this debate 101 but it also preserves the critical thinking involved in banning. Would it really benefit the meta to ban/unban something and can you prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt?

i was going to stop responding due to my previous message (looking back i did end up personally attacking jownage, so sorry for that lmao) however, i do feel like i worded things horribly in some of my text due to that outburst, so i will TRY to explain some things a bit better.

1) what i ment by majority wants it and blah blah blah, i meant that as in "plenty have given good arguments as is so i feel like with many people giving good opinions, its something to happen" and not "so many of us agree so its going to happen" what i meant by what i said was based on opinions given, and not bandwagoners who said "adapt sux get it out".
2) again, misinterpreting what i meant. but i don't blame you since i worded it terribly. banning is based on opinion. there is no "solid facts" on what is going to be banned as "fact" is impossible to achieve when using "opinions". and if plenty of people see why adapt should go, then in retrospect, it will be suspected. so technically, ban philosophy IS a gamble, because there is no technical "philosophy" to begin with. what IS broken? what IS overcentralizing? and before you answer me that, i shall ask whats different about hoopa, and mawile. why is one banworthy by breaking the entire stall meta, while one ISNT dispite doing it better? that's what i mean by a "gamble" things are broken as we SEE them being so. its a "gamble of opinion". this is why people like you and jownage can argue back on potential bans, because as you have a differing opinion, you can argue back. if it wasn't, this suspect would be over as it started.
3) are you sure? i remember weav being the first to be banned...then dnite came after, well, my point still stands. there are many checks that have arise in the current meta. and although im less considerate of its unban, i think a suspect on an unban is still justified.
4) yes adapt does, considering they were mostly banned due to adapt. as a council member, i kinda had to partake in our decision making...and read all the arguments...keldeo and co DID have other reasons to being banned, but adapt was like...most of the arguments out there for each ban, hence why so many people screamed at us for banning them. lmao.
5) this is basically pointing back to number 1 and 2, we have our reason. we have heard others cry out for this, giving plenty of reasons to do so. Klang wouldn't support something with no reasoning behind it. neither would snaq. its a different opinion. you disagree with our points, so you don't see any reason. so by constantly saying "we need an opinion to ban something" is kinda redundant when we have them. which is why i say, you should be proving to us adapt isn't the broken thing, as by telling us our opinions don't exist, gets YOU guys nowhere. and saying "many pokemon suck with adapt" gets you nowhere too, because similar pokemon suck with protean too. base it around the BEST abusers. and include the forbidden 4 in your arguments, and prove how each individually each should be remained banned. we HAVE a reason to ban it. you need to prove to us that THAT opinion is a incorrect one.

hopefully this makes a bit more sense now that im no longer steamed up.

 

[Throbulator36]

i was going to stop responding due to my previous message (looking back i did end up personally attacking jownage, so sorry for that lmao) however, i do feel like i worded things horribly in some of my text due to that outburst, so i will TRY to explain some things a bit better.

1) what i ment by majority wants it and blah blah blah, i meant that as in "plenty have given good arguments as is so i feel like with many people giving good opinions, its something to happen" and not "so many of us agree so its going to happen" what i meant by what i said was based on opinions given, and not bandwagoners who said "adapt sux get it out".
2) again, misinterpreting what i meant. but i don't blame you since i worded it terribly. banning is based on opinion. there is no "solid facts" on what is going to be banned as "fact" is impossible to achieve when using "opinions". and if plenty of people see why adapt should go, then in retrospect, it will be suspected. so technically, ban philosophy IS a gamble, because there is no technical "philosophy" to begin with. what IS broken? what IS overcentralizing? and before you answer me that, i shall ask whats different about hoopa, and mawile. why is one banworthy by breaking the entire stall meta, while one ISNT dispite doing it better? that's what i mean by a "gamble" things are broken as we SEE them being so. its a "gamble of opinion". this is why people like you and jownage can argue back on potential bans, because as you have a differing opinion, you can argue back. if it wasn't, this suspect would be over as it started.
3) are you sure? i remember weav being the first to be banned...then dnite came after, well, my point still stands. there are many checks that have arise in the current meta. and although im less considerate of its unban, i think a suspect on an unban is still justified.
4) yes adapt does, considering they were mostly banned due to adapt. as a council member, i kinda had to partake in our decision making...and read all the arguments...keldeo and co DID have other reasons to being banned, but adapt was like...most of the arguments out there for each ban, hence why so many people screamed at us for banning them. lmao.
5) this is basically pointing back to number 1 and 2, we have our reason. we have heard others cry out for this, giving plenty of reasons to do so. Klang wouldn't support something with no reasoning behind it. neither would snaq. its a different opinion. you disagree with our points, so you don't see any reason. so by constantly saying "we need an opinion to ban something" is kinda redundant when we have them. which is why i say, you should be proving to us adapt isn't the broken thing, as by telling us our opinions don't exist, gets YOU guys nowhere. and saying "many pokemon suck with adapt" gets you nowhere too, because similar pokemon suck with protean too. base it around the BEST abusers. and include the forbidden 4 in your arguments, and prove how each individually each should be remained banned. we HAVE a reason to ban it. you need to prove to us that THAT opinion is a incorrect one.

hopefully this makes a bit more sense now that im no longer steamed up.

I should say that I was (very)tired when making my post, so a few misinterpretations were inevitable. I also wasn't arguing for xJownage's position, but at the time I hadn't noticed any apparent flaws with his argument and probably won't look back.
Weavile was in fact not even (openly)considered for suspect until Monte's thread was almost closed.
What I meant was not that adapt wasn't the main set or a leading contributor to their ban, but that they most likely wouldn't be healthy if adapt didn't exist so you can't rely on that for an argument.
Before addressing that last bit I will say it's completely possible that Hoopa just isn't high enough of a priority for the OU council's list of potential suspects.

Yes, it is the duty of the one in the right to convince those who are wrong(pls note I'm not implying anything about this argument) of the truth. Both sides believe they are in the right and are arguing according to that belief; however, the actual burden is always placed on those trying to cause change in any debate(which is the main reason I was scrutinizing your side more).

 

[xJownage]

4) yes adapt does, considering they were mostly banned due to adapt. as a council member, i kinda had to partake in our decision making...and read all the arguments...keldeo and co DID have other reasons to being banned, but adapt was like...most of the arguments out there for each ban, hence why so many people screamed at us for banning them. lmao.

Uh...
Okay, first off, AGAIN, the potential brokenness of the suspects without adaptability is irrelevant, since you need to argue that adaptability is broken, not that we have a bunch of mons that are broken due to adaptability and therefore adaptability should be banned. Oh, this is not to mention that adaptability doesn't break keldeo and bisharp, in fact, it only broke Terrakion and maybe Mamoswine (where they wouldn't be broken without it).

We need to look at this from another perspective: Is adaptability breaking mons or are mons breaking adaptability? This is a very opinionated question, but looking at history, I believe mons are breaking adaptability. Why? Think about Bisharp and Keldeo, which have a myriad of sets and would definitely not be balanced in the wake of a adaptability ban. Think about everything except Terrakion, which runs other abilities to just as much success since they are good with mediocre abilities to begin with. Many things that are already strong are pushed over because of their outstanding positives and adaptability on top of that, not because adaptability makes their negatives just go away.

The perspective of this argument consists of that from a year ago (more or less), and I think all of us need to take a step back and rethink our approach to this topic.

 

[Lcass4919]

Uh...
Okay, first off, AGAIN, the potential brokenness of the suspects without adaptability is irrelevant, since you need to argue that adaptability is broken, not that we have a bunch of mons that are broken due to adaptability and therefore adaptability should be banned. Oh, this is not to mention that adaptability doesn't break keldeo and bisharp, in fact, it only broke Terrakion and maybe Mamoswine (where they wouldn't be broken without it).

We need to look at this from another perspective: Is adaptability breaking mons or are mons breaking adaptability? This is a very opinionated question, but looking at history, I believe mons are breaking adaptability. Why? Think about Bisharp and Keldeo, which have a myriad of sets and would definitely not be balanced in the wake of a adaptability ban. Think about everything except Terrakion, which runs other abilities to just as much success since they are good with mediocre abilities to begin with. Many things that are already strong are pushed over because of their outstanding positives and adaptability on top of that, not because adaptability makes their negatives just go away.

The perspective of this argument consists of that from a year ago (more or less), and I think all of us need to take a step back and rethink our approach to this topic.

realize i wasn't using that as a justification, i was responding to throb, who had just claimed adapt wasnt much of a reason it was originally banned, which is false, and was actually a big reason for said suspects. i wasn't implying anything but that. keldeo was banned MOSTLY due to adaptability. in fact, it was the reason. tinted lens was pointless considering its dual stabs hit for very good neutral coverage, drizzle was good, but adapt gave both its insane stabs insane power. bisharp was actually both adapt and tough claws, because it only needs dark moves to break 99% of stall teams, and perhaps throwing iron head on too for good measure. as i said, i 6-0ed klang with it, his best team, starting on turn 1. they might not have been the entire factor, but to say it wasn't a big reason is false.

i understand why you would bring up adapt "making mons stronger", and you make a valid point, but again, adapt was a huge factor for ALL of them. keldeo prefered adapt over tinted, ph, and even drizzle to an extent. and bisharp used adapt and tough claws (tough claws being something else klang was considering banning) bisharp really only needed its stabs to be good. but even so, with the adapt ban, i think it might be too much for the meta. keldeo however, i feel would deserve another chance. mamoswine...well...i dont have an opinion on considering i feel it wasnt banworthy to begin with, but refridge isnt nearly as scary on it as adapt, considering mamos real "claim to fame" was its boosted priority+strong dual coverage. with its priority being weakned, i feel like it would be pushed to being average.

honestly, for my own opinion on top of all the others, i think it would be a nice change to even see, if the forbidden 5 would be more manageable without adapt in the tier. i get banning things for a "new outlook" is frowned upon, but idk. if the 4 mons are still rediculously broken (ignoring weavile since i feel that deserves a seperate test altogeather) then we could just reverse the effect, and let all our doubts go to rest. i know its not common to do this, but we dont have a suspect ladder. and as a council member, i feel like a small change (banning adapt, unbanning the 4 mons) even for just 2 weeks would be enough to both gather valid results, while also not severely messing up the meta. perhaps we can ask TI to put up a temporary "adapt is banned due to AAA's suspect for 2 weeks" when people use adapt, so they would know "oh, adapt is banned for the timebeing, i better change my team up to accomadate that" is that too much to ask for? id like fellow council members alongside the community to give their opinion on this matter. Because i think being able to see both sides of the coin can help our overall decision greatly. and show us WHAT made WHAT broken. and give us "Clarification" on if the forbidden 4 should be allowed back.

 

[Adrian Marin]

It should be mentioned that Adaptability and Tough Claws can easily be abused on random mons. Not broken per se, but a little too unpredictable and still gives stall a myriad of issues. It isn't just Heracross and Latios, as Pangoro, Zygarde, etc can be equally hard to deal with for stall. We'd have to ban way too many Pokemon to balance out the metagame. I really think suspecting Adaptability is the right action, as it's a lot more simple and Adaptability does nothing good for the metagame. Just look at Kl4ng's arguments about its mindlessness and everything will make sense.