View Single Post
Old Oct 9th, 2012, 8:25:18 PM   #388
melvni
is a Contributor to Smogon
 
melvni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 869
Default

So, I don't have the right to vote on Garchomp and Sand Veil's fate, but I noticed that one of the options on the list is to ban all evasion abilities under evasion clause. I'm just wondering if such an extension of the clause would be applied retroactively to past gen tiers, as, if it did, it would effectively soft ban ADV and DPP Cacturne, ADV and DPP Sandslash, DPP Glaceon, and DPP Froslass (along with DPP Garchomp in Ubers if the clause extension applies there). I know that it a lot of people didn't want to do Sand Veil + Sand Stream because it was only had the advantage of saving two moves on one Pokemon's NU sets, but I'd hate to see at least four or five Pokemon across two generations banned if it wasn't necessary.

Not saying that it's not something that could be the right call anyway (and I'll admit few people probably still play those gens), but I'd much rather just see Sand Veil and Snow Cloak banned outright or Evasion Clause changed to something like Fifth Gen Evasion Clause + or something.

Also if we're banning evasion abilities under Evasion Clause we should totally ban Tangled Feet too. /not serious, I know it sucks

Edit: @Below I appreciate that. I wasn't aware whether changes to the meanings of Clauses that applied across generations were affected if they were changed. The only difference between just banning the two abilities as uncompetitive and banning them under Evasion Clause is the potential for fallout across previous gen tiers, which if what you are saying is true isn't a problem.

Also, I'm really not seeing how a post like this would have made more sense in the previous gen subforums (unless you were reading it as a potential start to a discussion about banning Sand Veil and Snow Cloak there too, which wasn't my intention). I was trying to point out that (though this might have been a mistaken view of the situation) a change to the evasion clause would affect previous generations if cross generational clauses worked like I thought they did, which would seem relevant if they did work that way.

Last edited by melvni; Oct 10th, 2012 at 2:36:21 AM.
melvni is offline