Seems that there are a lot of people who are leaning towards the situation where CAP4 will have no hard counters, only situational checks. But I'm afraid I want to disagree here, on the basis of a few arguments.
The first, and lesser argument, is that we've already done it once in Krilowatt, sometimes referred to as Brokenwatt. Granted, CAP4 won't be an exact clone given the difference in STAB typing already, but I think going this route gives us less of an opportunity to explore the balance between risk and reward. Should we walk this path, when we see a finished CAP4 on the opposing game field, it's us who take more risks by deciding who to switch in against the CAP4. The CAP4 player simply bluffs, which is more of a luck gamble to me - less subtle, less eminent long-term effects. What's stopping us, then, from playing against CAP4 the way we played against Krilowatt?
Secondly, having a hard counter - even if just one - can really force a CAP4 player to assess risks much better than if there are none. The way a SD Scizor plays off against an opposing Magnezone, a battler will attempt to minimize risks via face-off tactics and teambuilding around CAP4. In effect, we'll be studying the risks present in more facets of competitive battling, be it teambuilding, on-the-field strategies, and turn-by-turn prediction. I really feel that having a direct method to shut CAP4 down will provide us with a better platform on which to explore our concept.
<Birkal> if pwnemon was my little brother, I would beat some sense into him
<Birkal> and then take him out for tea and scones
<Birkal> and then we'd talk ASB and grow facial hair together
<Birkal> like proper brothers
ASB Player | ASB Ref