Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Asylum_Rhapsody
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what bmb just said that he wants?
|
There's a difference between not being used on the same set and differing how something plays. Take Porygon-Z or Honchkrow. Both have several applicable abilities that can be used on the same set. But you'll play Scarf Pory-Z differently if it has Adaptability than if it has Download, and MoxieKrow differently that Insomnia Krow. The former case decides how you plan on using the pokemon- and against what. Your opponent's lack of knowledge as to which you're using in the latter case (exactly as many people want in CAP 4) causes them to take into account the risk and reward of each situation. If you go for the sleep move on an Insomnia Krow, you might just be screwed. But if you attack into a Sucker Punch from Moxie Krow, or switch the wrong thing into a Brave Bird/coverage move, it gets a free attack boost and now has the chance to wreck your team. It's an issue of considering the worst case scenario and the best; in other words risk and reward.
No Guard doesn't do this. A bad move to take for CAP 4 is bad regardless of No Guard; a Fire Blast has an 85% chance to KO it anyways (with average stats), and 80% for Stone Edge. These are bad chances for anyone considering risk and reward, so it's a bad move regardless of No Guard. It does nothing to encourage risk vs. reward here. So the other side, offensively: still not risky. Sure, it removes luck and opens up our coverage options, but very slightly so. We can give it accurate moves if this is what you want out of No Guard, but it seems just a jumping off point to abuse a good ability without improving on the concept we have, or alternatively an inherently bad choice. We can do better than that.