Perhaps it is time you all got over your "counter" mentality.

[Tangerine]

I vowed that I'll never post again, but at this point I can't stop myself from lurking, so I really felt like I needed to post something like this.

Here's the thing.

Pokemon doesn't need perfect counters.

And it is quite likely that when you are playing your opponent that your "counter" to a given Pokemon will not be a perfect counter.

The second your mentality is to simply "counter" your opponent, then you have already lost - you are playing your opponent's game, not your own.

But yet everytime I look at a tier thread I see the reasoning that a Pokemon needs perfect counters within the tier for it to be viable.

Who gives a damn, really? This just means the following

1) You are reacting to your opponent. Your moves SOLELY depends on your opponent. This means that you are one step behind your opponent, or at the very best, you will on the same step. If you are running a team full of counters - you will have no strategy - your free turns gained from "countering" a threat will go to waste. Meaning - you should have a plan. Why does thunderwaving shit to death help you? Is it because you want to set up that Rhyperior in the end for the sweep? Go ahead. but if you're just countering, and trying to hit the next Pokemon - you will get outstalled, you will be outpowered eventually by sheer offense teams. See Point #2.

2) Most people stuck in this mentality ends up with horrendous teams with too little offense. The best strategy within this mentality is to either a) use a counter of a specific common threat and use that opportunity to baton pass or b) slowly whittle down certain threats until your own sweepers finally get a chance to sweep. The issue being is that you will either get overwhelmed by a full offensive team, and a full stall team WILL whittle you out. Wanna see an example of such a team? http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41872

3) Means that your teams will tend to be stuck in the concept of "roles" - meaning that you think "You HAVE to counter a threat" if you don't want to lose. I do admit that the site has MIGHT have that kind of mentality - especially in the RMT forums where "you are 6-0'd by ttar" is common - but note Surgo's thread in the RMT forums - you are not going to counter everything. The point is to execute your own strategy and live with it. Execute YOUR strategy, and pick the Pokemon that best achieve this. Sure, you might need to "cover" certain threats - but you will likely find ways around it anyway (IE you are not Gyarados weak if Gyarados can never set up on you, or if you have a plan to play around with it) Roles should not just be made of the counters you wish to use, but it should also support your team.

So what SHOULD you do? How SHOULD you build teams? The goal of synergy is to have a way out of every situation feasible - and this includes more than counters - and the team with "better synergy" will work together to work "around" certain other threats. Why do you think revenge killers are actually useful, such as scarftran? Why do you think offensive teams rely so much on resistances?

this is why having a "perfect counter" to garchomp isn't necessary as long as you find ways to "deal with it". Same with all of the arbitrary UU discussions that I keep seeing. If it's so much trouble - find ways around it. I'm sure you guys are all creative minds, especially since many of you have this fascinating obsession for gimmicks without learning how to play the game first. Garchomp outrages and takes down your cresselia? Okay now you have a free turn to use to 1) Take down Garchomp or 2) set something up. How about instead of complaining that Pokemon X is broken, learn to use the free turns that Pokemon X gives you by taking down your Pokemon?

To everyone using suicide leads - you might want to factor in WHY it might be useful for you to use such a lead. Why bother with a suicide lead when the rest of the team are heavy tanks that can switch in for free turns anyway? Why bother trying to deal with a suicide lead if your team doesnt give a damn about Stealth Rock? Why COMPLAIN that Stealth Rock ruins the metagame?

The point of the game is to make the best out of the situation. Only in the most extreme cases (IE Garchomp, Deoxys E) will things be "tested". We are playing Pokemon - not "Pokemon according to user X's whim".

In the end - why is that there is this prevailing mentality that you MUST be able to deal with every situation perfectly in some static, restrictive way when there are other ways around? Garchomp giving you trouble? Have a team that can smack it around and never let it "set up" or that is faster than it. Mixape giving you issue? Create a situation where it cannot use CC and switch in your scarf heatran. Once you grasp long term thinking you will realize that you can have a good chance of winning with random combinations of teams as long as you're doing.

tldr - the point is that Pokemon is more about than countering, there are more ways to play it without having to utilize a perfect counter. And even if you use a perfect counter - if you can't use the free turns well, then what's the point really? You are trying to win - make every free turn count, make every Pokemon count. If you're going for a perfect counter approach it is quite likely you will never reach that point considering you can't counter every threat anyway, and people WILL run odd moves/EVs that will throw your "counters" off anyway. Ever hear of lures?

Wheee, random midnight rants.


---------------------------

Okay, I guess I "owe" you guys a response clarifying stuff considering the "uproar" this thread has created!!!! (And again, this is partly my fault for making this thread while I was half asleep in about 15~ minutes)

I'm utterly amused by everyone claiming that somewhere I have claimed "counters shouldn't be used/countering sucks". Go read my posts. I don't think I have ever made a claim like that! All I have mentioned is "there is more to Pokemon than countering" and that "Pokemon does not NEED perfect counters".

The counter definition I am using is Jumpman's definition - which is "being able to switch in repeatedly". This is the definition of a "counter" that aldaron called archaic.

Pokemon does NOT need this definition of a counter. My claim is that the having "no perfect counters" (perfect counter implying jumpman's definition - counter just being something that can switch in)

This really just is a deeper explanation to Surgo's RMT sticky - about instead of building your team around counters - build your team around a strategy. Sure, you can counter, but make sure you pick your counter so that it helps your team in a more effect manner than "hey I'm just going to deal with threat X" This is why I called chrisisme and skiddle on not understanding my point (although yes, my point was... rather poorly worded) considering it was a step beyond sending out your jumpluffs against Garchomps. Jumpluff comes out against Garchomp, but now what does it do for your team?

The fact that people are so worried about losing their Pokemon to Garchomp shows that people are indeed stuck in this mentality. Sure, Garchomp took down one of your Pokemon, but then again, you are taking Garchomp down the next turn, aren't you? The point is that losing a Pokemon to Garchomp should not affect your long term strategy - if you have one in the first place anyway. Pokemon is about seizing up your situation, finding the best moves to deal with the situation and how that affects your long term strategy.

This is why there has been such a shitstorm of arguments regarding Garchomp is uber - many users simply stop their argument from "Garchomp has no counters", and people who think differently say "so what? You can deal with it. It is not the end of the world". This is why I argue that "No counters" should not be an argument - since in the end people are arguing "no counters" is simply saying "it is unreasonable to deal with Garchomp" (which of course, supporting arguments showing why it is unreasonable). This is why the Garchomp debate threads never ended up going ANYWHERE and we had to resort to such a subjective voting scheme - because the wording of your very arguments threw everything off.

Now, I do apologize for the previous post I have made in this thread that was condescending to SubVersion and jrrrrrr - especially since the fault is mine for not clarifying the OP to begin with. But my point still stands - Pokemon is not a game of putting each other in check through counters, but using these checks to gain an advantage for your team. Of course, this may be common sense, but this "common" sense has been nonexistent in many people's arguments.

Basically - play the game you are meant to play - don't try to twist "Pokemon" into a "Game of Counters and Checks" unless you have a pretty good reason for it. Competitive play is making the best out of every situation with regards to ingame play. In my view, many people want things banned only because they want it gone for their own personal gratification - without giving a coherent reason why they want it gone. This isn't ADV anymore - this is DP.

[Chou Toshio]

@rant about "counters" being an out-dated idea--

Yeah I agree but, don't people already know this? Anyone with a brain who has been around for the last couple of months should know this already . . .

[Tangerine]

Originally Posted by Fat ChouToshio

@rant about "counters" being an out-dated idea--

Yeah I agree but, don't people already know this? Anyone with a brain who has been around for the last couple of months should know this already . . .

have you checked the UU discussion thread

[Aldaron*]

ChouToshio, I think you mean to say the good players know this.

As I am sure you are aware of, there are a lot more average to bad players than good players.

I agree with this entirely, though I probably would have used a much more negative tone and emphasized the concept of beating a Pokemon versus countering it.

Counters are earnestly such an archaic concept. Does Choice Scarf Heatran counter Lucario? Certainly not.

Do I feel safe against Lucario with a Choice Scarf Heatran on my team? Absolutely.

Anyway, good job getting this out there. Hopefully some newer players will take this and focus on simply beating threats as opposed to discarding potential choices for their teams simply because they do not adhere to the rule of "must be able to switch in repeatedly and post immediate threat."

[Aeroblacktyl]

While true, counters are not obsolete, especially if you plan on using a stall team.

[Chou Toshio]

Meh, ok point taken. I halfway feel like you can't get rid of the idiocy anyway, but halfway wish that people would wise up to these kind of common-sense things before posting.

@Aldoran though-- I don't you're ever going to change the ratio of good players to average-bad players (note, I am an "average" player).

[Goodbar]

As a slightly above average player I agree with this, I've found you can ruin a team if you get too frustrated at its performance to the point were you start to remove things and replace them with "counters for X". I dunno about the top players but it seems to me it takes a bit of time and practice to get a feel for a team.

[Tangerine]

Meh, ok point taken. I halfway feel like you can't get rid of the idiocy anyway, but halfway wish that people would wise up to these kind of common-sense things before posting.

Here's the thing.

People are stupid.

You know what is the epitome of stupidity?

Thinking that you understand something when you don't.

So you want to know the only way you're going to get rid of stupid people in this forum? It definitely isn't just "infracting more". If you want Stark to be more intelligent, then go make more threads, write articles, about the game.

While true, counters are not obsolete, especially if you plan on using a stall team.

yes but the audience for this thread probably can't run a stall team if their lives depended on it.

[cim]

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

You know what is the epitome of stupidity? Ooh, ooh! Is it me? Is it me!

Originally Posted by Fat TangerMEAN!

this is why having a "perfect counter" to garchomp isn't necessary as long as you find ways to "deal with it". Same with all of the arbitrary UU discussions that I keep seeing. If it's so much trouble - find ways around it. I'm sure you guys are all creative minds, especially since many of you have this fascinating obsession for gimmicks without learning how to play the game first. Garchomp outrages and takes down your cresselia? Okay now you can switch in your Metagross and Agility up. How about instead of complaining that Pokemon X is broken, learn to use the free turns that Pokemon X gives you by taking down your Pokemon?

Thank you, Tangerine. Thank you.

Of the 40 or so Pokémon in OU, how many actually HAVE perfect counters? Not a lot. Seriously, if anyone's not convinced that countering everything is a stupid, pointless task, run down the list of OU threats and name a Pokémon that will 100% counter everything that Pokémon can do. You'll even see not-very-versitale Pokémon like Heracross have no "true" counters (no, Gliscor can be OHKOed by a Swords Dance Facade with Toxic / Flame Orb).

Even ignoring how few Pokémon have 100% counters, everything Tangerine said is right. You guys (and me sometimes, I'll bite) seem to have this idea too that no one will ever switch or something. This is precisely why Cresselia isn't all that useful. Sure you can Ice Beam Garchomp away, but what happens if it switches? What can Cresselia do anticipating that switch? Reflect?

[david stone]

I was expecting this to be about something else that annoys me a lot.

You don't need to counter everything a Pokemon can possibly do with a single Pokemon. The absence of a Pokemon that can take on absolutely everything another Pokemon can do with little or no threat to itself does not mean that the Pokemon is uncounterable, or that the Pokemon is Uber / BL / Limbo.

[gorm]

100% agree but yeah kinda old news or something. offensive teams have shown us that its about doing your own thing and not stopping your opponent. decent stall teams arent about countering everything, they're about getting the game in your favor through stall. they're rare but they exist ;D

revenge killers are important in today's metagame i guess but not really relevant to this.

rmts are annoying in that way =|

[Bourbon]

I'm pretty sure everyone gave up on "countering" stuff a long time ago. Nowdays you've got to make sure your strategy is successful while your opponent's is not.

My team has like, no clear cut counter for anything. It's just a bunch of guys thrown together with some handy resistances. You know how I deal with Suicune? I stall it to death with Jumpluff. I kill Gyarados by Stone Edging it with my own Gyarados, and if that doesn't work, my Fake Out Weavile or my Scarftran comes in to take care of it. Lucario is easy too. Barring occasional misses with Stone Edge, Sleep Power, Fire Blast, etc, my team never comes across any problems. I usually win the game with 3-4 pokemon left over.

Anyways Tangerine, I think the reason people complain about Garchomp so much is that it can run one simple set and still rape everything. Stuff like Lucario are only hard to counter because they are unpredictable. Standard SD Lucario is countered by Gliscor, all the time. Garchomp has no counter at all.

Anyways, I agree, the time for countering is over. Pokemon is a team game. If your team as a whole can handle a pokemon, you shouldn't have a problem with it. Who cares if Gyarados can OHKO everything after a DD? It's not going to set up on anything, and if you keep the pressure on your opponent, they'll never have a chance to execute their strategy. Offense is the new defense.

[SubVersion]

While I agree that a team should never focus primarily on packing itself with "counters", I don't think the "time for countering" is over, as skiddle put it. Just look at the impact Porygon2 has on the Suspect ladder, easily countering Gyarados, Salamence, Heatran, etc. To say that using Porygon2 to stop that metagame's most potent threats is "an outdated strategy" is totally wrong, in my opinion.

Plus Tangerine there's some stuff in your first post that's just silly, such as:

Garchomp giving you trouble? Have a team that can smack it around and never let it "set up" or that is faster than it.

When only one Pokemon is actually capable of both outrunning it and KO'ing it through Yache before getting KO'd itself? And that Pokemon can't switch in until you've let something die?

this is why having a "perfect counter" to garchomp isn't necessary as long as you find ways to "deal with it"... Garchomp outrages and takes down your cresselia? Okay now you can switch in your Metagross and Agility up. How about instead of complaining that Pokemon X is broken, learn to use the free turns that Pokemon X gives you by taking down your Pokemon?

Okay so basically your advice here is "let Garchomp kill stuff and then try and salvage something from the wreckage". Okay, so let's say my Metagross is the standard Agility set with MM/EQ/Agility/Thunderpunch. My opponent just switches in Gliscor and I've got to switch out. So I let Garchomp kill something so I can set up, but end up with no advantage gained at all and one Pokemon down. And you can't say "Well wear Gliscor down first!", because my opponent gets to choose when Garchomp comes in and when he gets that kill, the only way I can avoid giving him free switches into Chomp is if I refrain from actually killing his Pokemon and... Well, you can see where this is going. Tbh I think this particular point is pretty bad advice.

Not to turn this into a Garchomp discussion (they're rather pointless at this stage, what with the voting and all) but your tone throughout that entire post is needlessly condescending and I don't think it's warranted, especially when some of your points aren't particularly good (regardless of your overall argument being pretty much valid).

[Moniker]

I think there was a thread about this very topic not a month or two back. In any case, I fully agree. Most people (the good ones, at least) seem to be in agreement that overloading your team with "counters" against specific pokemon leaves it vulnerable to a well-constructed team; namely, one built with a strategy in mind.

Besides, the metagame is beginning to grow again. The use of Garchomp has significantly decreased, helping further the creation of actual teams, not six counters with Baton Pass.

[jrrrrrrr]

Originally Posted by Fat Chris is me

Thank you, Tangerine. Thank you.

Of the 40 or so Pokémon in OU, how many actually HAVE perfect counters? Not a lot. Seriously, if anyone's not convinced that countering everything is a stupid, pointless task, run down the list of OU threats and name a Pokémon that will 100% counter everything that Pokémon can do. You'll even see not-very-versitale Pokémon like Heracross have no "true" counters (no, Gliscor can be OHKOed by a Swords Dance Facade with Toxic / Flame Orb).

Ok if you want to play theorymon about counters, Gliscor has the same base Speed as Heracross and can easily OHKO with STAB Aerial Ace. Or it could run a Choice Scarf and OHKO! Or better yet, Salamence! Or even better YET we could use Hidden Power [Flying] Gengar who is immune to 2 of your 3 attacks and 4x resists the other!

Originally Posted by Fat Chris is me

Even ignoring how few Pokémon have 100% counters, everything Tangerine said is right. You guys (and me sometimes, I'll bite) seem to have this idea too that no one will ever switch or something. This is precisely why Cresselia isn't all that useful. Sure you can Ice Beam Garchomp away, but what happens if it switches? What can Cresselia do anticipating that switch? Reflect?

I would say that forcing Garchomp to switch is pretty useful. I would say that putting Reflects up is pretty useful. It could also run a myriad of other moves. I'm not really sure what youre even trying to say here other than "Defensive poekmon like Cress are bad because your opponent can just switch" which is obviously wrong.

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

Pokemon doesn't need perfect counters.

Well, the obvious reply is "how do you know what a Pokemon doesn't need?" Even if they don't NEED a perfect counter, its still kinda funny that Garchomp is the only OU pokemon without one =\

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

And it is quite likely that when you are playing your opponent that your "counter" to a given Pokemon will not be a perfect counter.

It doesn't matter if its a perfect counter to every set the pokemon can run or not. The only thing that matters about the countering argument is that there is a counter to the moveset that you are running. Who cares if my opponent is all 4x Grass weak, that team could still counter my Breloom as long as I'm not running Seed Bomb. "no perfect counters" isn't the argument, "no counters at ALL" is. Stop misrepresenting the argument against Garchomp.

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

The second your mentality is to simply "counter" your opponent, then you have already lost - you are playing your opponent's game, not your own.

I really disagree with this. When you are using a Wobbuffet, you have to take an attack before you can Encore/Counter/Coat it. Does that mean that Wobbuffet is a bad pokemon because it has to react to the opponent? Well maybe we should just send it back to OU!

You are for some reason assuming that countering a pokemon can't be used in an offensive way, to gain free turns in the long run- another strike against Garchomp for removing options by being uncounterable and making the game too one-dimensional. If I bring Vaporeon into Gyarados, thats pretty much a free Wish! Who cares if I am using turns if the turns are forcing my opponent to do the exact same thing or get KOd?

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

But yet everytime I look at a tier thread I see the reasoning that a Pokemon needs perfect counters within the tier for it to be viable.

I agree with this statement but not with how you got to it. Having perfect counters isn't a requirement, its how well the Pokemon can use that fact to its advantage that makes the "no counters" argument viable or inviable.

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

Who gives a damn, really? This just means the following

1) You are reacting to your opponent. Your moves SOLELY depends on your opponent. This means that you are one step behind your opponent, or at the very best, you will on the same step. If you are running a team full of counters - you will have no strategy - your free turns gained from "countering" a threat will go to waste.

Again, is Wobbuffet a bad pokemon because it has to react to the opponent? I don't think there is any problem with reacting to your opponents moves. A lot of the time, reacting to your opponent's moves will be beneficial. Your lead Salamence is out against my Breloom, so I go to Heatran to take the Fire Blast. I reacted to my opponent and now I am much better off because of it. Does this mean I have no strategy? Does this mean I'm on the same step as my opponent? (answer: actually it means I'm a step ahead). The free turn I used to counter a threat put me at an advantage, which according to you is not possible.

I really don't think that your first point here is accurate at all. I would say that it takes MORE skill and strategy to react to your opponent, ala running a stall-type team, or even using the reactions to your offensive advantage (resistance based offense).

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

2) Most people stuck in this mentality ends up with horrendous teams with too little offense. The best strategy within this mentality is to either a) use a counter of a specific common threat and use that opportunity to baton pass or b) slowly whittle down certain threats until your own sweepers finally get a chance to sweep. The issue being is that you will either get overwhelmed by a full offensive team, and a full stall team WILL whittle you out.

Again, "too little offense" is up to the user of the team. I'm not sure where you're finding all of this data about which teams are more useful and which strategies are good, but can you let some of us in on it? As far as I know, the strength of a team relies completely on how you play it. A team that is great when used by someone like JabbaFat suddenly looks dismal when I'm behind the wheel. Either way, we still can't counter Garchomp...so does that mean the team is bad? Garchomp takes advantage of every chance it gets no matter who is using the opposing team. Saying that one style of team will always lose to a certain other kind of team is just silly and irresponsible if youre trying to make a serious claim.

And besides, wouldn't aiming to counter threats be extremely beneficial to a team with "too little offense"?...stopping your opponent from sweeping you and getting a few shots in here and there etc

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

3) Means that your teams will tend to be stuck in the concept of "roles" - meaning that you think "You HAVE to counter a threat" if you don't want to lose. I do admit that the site has MIGHT have that kind of mentality - especially in the RMT forums where "you are 6-0'd by ttar" is common - but note Surgo's thread in the RMT forums - you are not going to counter everything. The point is to execute your own strategy and live with it. Execute YOUR strategy, and pick the Pokemon that best achieve this. Sure, you might need to "cover" certain threats - but you will likely find ways around it anyway (IE you are not Gyarados weak if Gyarados can never set up on you, or if you have a plan to play around with it)

Again, for some reason you are assuming that roles are a bad thing, and that pokemon can't do multiple things at once. I use my Forretress as Weavile switch-in #1 and as a Spiker, Spinner, Dragon resist etc etc. Every pokemon on a team has roles, even if it's just "P.Sweeper #1".

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

Why do you think offensive teams rely so much on resistances?

I think that's because they want to counter threats.

Originally Posted by Fat Tangerine

this is why having a "perfect counter" to garchomp isn't necessary as long as you find ways to "deal with it". Same with all of the arbitrary UU discussions that I keep seeing. If it's so much trouble - find ways around it. I'm sure you guys are all creative minds, especially since many of you have this fascinating obsession for gimmicks without learning how to play the game first. Garchomp outrages and takes down your cresselia? Okay now you can switch in your Metagross and Agility up. How about instead of complaining that Pokemon X is broken, learn to use the free turns that Pokemon X gives you by taking down your Pokemon?

If you can find a way to deal with a pokemon without having a counter for that set, that's great and you should be commended. Even if you go by your own logic here, the fact that Garchomp has no counters is made even more devastating to every type of team because what if it ISNT stuck in Outrage? Now you have a useless pokemon waiting to get OHKOd.

Garchomp has no counters, yet it forces switches with its amazing typing and moves and stats (I really doubt youre leaving your 100% RestTalk Heatran in when my last pokemon is Flareon). This means that Garchomp is very likely to give free turns to its user. If having free turns is as devastating as you're saying it is....wouldn't that mean that Garchomp is overpowered?

I think you're just assuming way too much about something that actually helps the "garchomp is uber" effort in the long run (at least in the way you described it). The mentality isn't that there is no way around things like chomp, its that the methods of doing it are extremely unreasonable to force upon the player.

[Tangerine]

loling at skiddle. "yeah okay whatever"

When only one Pokemon is actually capable of both outrunning it and KO'ing it through Yache before getting KO'd itself? And that Pokemon can't switch in until you've let something die?

Oh no, the 4x Weak must mean you MUST use an ice attack to take down Garchomp. Shit, two hits to kill a Pokemon? THIS IS GAMEBREAKING STRATEGY, RIGHT HERE.

... seriously. You learn to "deal with it". You learn to deal with the pieces of the game, instead of trying old methods trying to deal with it.

Okay so basically your advice here is "let Garchomp kill stuff and then try and salvage something from the wreckage". Okay, so let's say my Metagross is the standard Agility set with MM/EQ/Agility/Thunderpunch. My opponent just switches in Gliscor and I've got to switch out. So I let Garchomp kill something so I can set up, but end up with no advantage gained at all and one Pokemon down. And you can't say "Well wear Gliscor down first!", because my opponent gets to choose when Garchomp comes in and when he gets that kill, the only way I can avoid giving him free switches into Chomp is if I refrain from actually killing his Pokemon and... Well, you can see where this is going. Tbh I think this particular point is pretty bad advice.

"Theorymon says this is bad advice"

You make the best decision according to your situation.

Now, for you, mr j7r.

I really disagree with this. When you are using a Wobbuffet, you have to take an attack before you can Encore/Counter/Coat it. Does that mean that Wobbuffet is a bad pokemon because it has to react to the opponent? Well maybe we should just send it back to OU!

Again, is Wobbuffet a bad pokemon because it has to react to the opponent? I don't think there is any problem with reacting to your opponents moves. A lot of the time, reacting to your opponent's moves will be beneficial. Your lead Salamence is out against my Breloom, so I go to Heatran to take the Fire Blast. I reacted to my opponent and now I am much better off because of it. Does this mean I have no strategy? Does this mean I'm on the same step as my opponent? (answer: actually it means I'm a step ahead). The free turn I used to counter a threat put me at an advantage, which according to you is not possible.

I really don't think that your first point here is accurate at all. I would say that it takes MORE skill and strategy to react to your opponent, ala running a stall-type team, or even using the reactions to your offensive advantage (resistance based offense).

Really? Wobbuffet was broken because of its ability to take the game back into the wobbuffet's user's control the second it came into play. Wobbuffet does not "react" to your opponent - the opponent has to "react" to Wobbuffet the second it comes into play - I'm pretty sure people have commented on this on the old wobbuffet thread. The point is wobbuffet creates free turns for any Pokemon in your party, not just the Pokemon currently in play, that was what was deemed "dangerous". If you think switching in Wobbuffet means "you are a step behind" then maybe you yourself are a little behind in terms of arguments

Now, for your other "points". I would bother addressing them if you haven't already corrupted with your ideology about how every "theory" about the damn game must support the fact that Garchomp is uber - there really isn't a point in "debating" with you considering I have already pointed out to you many times that you lost objectivity, and thus, the "right" to be taken seriously in threads such as this. What you are doing right now is overcomplicating my points more than it needs to be.

Nice attempt to turn this into a "Garchomp" debate, btw. Come back when you are ready to see the game seriously. I mean when you say shit like

"no perfect counters" isn't the argument, "no counters at ALL" is. Stop misrepresenting the argument against Garchomp.

"Fuck Yache Chomp has no fucking counters! Run for it!"

What you essentially just said is "Once Garchomp comes into play, it is gg". And I'm pretty damn sure this isn't true. And you act like you ALWAYS have to sacrifice two Pokemon for it - funny, I've taken Garchomp with only sacrificing one, or even less! - sacrificing Pokemon X so my other Pokemon can kill it! Sacrificing one of my Pokemon for one of theirs? If this is a bad trade, then why the hell would people go out of the way for suicide leads?

Now, I assumed that you would be rational and not claim that nothing can EVER switch into Garchomp so it can kill it the next turn - which is why I even assumed perfect counter - which WOULD be the rational argument. If a stupid berry is enough to throw you off your horses and make you start whining about how Pokemon X is broken then honestly I wonder how you obtained your reputation as such a good player.

The point is this - you make the best choices based on any situation. If this means feeding a Pokemon to Garchomp so your next Poke can nail it, so be it. If this means that setting up SR and sacrificing your lead is the best decision, then so be it. If this means exploding on Garchomp or any threat you can't deal with, so be it. Why do you assume that your Pokemon must SURVIVE (aka must be a 100% COUNTER) the encounter when you can use it to kill the other? The point of the game is to win, aka to checkmake, not to constantly put people in check over and over again.

Even if they don't NEED a perfect counter, its still kinda funny that Garchomp is the only OU pokemon without one =\

Interesting implication there! Why bother bringing up that fact if it won't be an "argument" to your great cause of banning Garchomp?

etc etc etc. Is everything about Garchomp to you? Then why haven't you found ways to work around the fact that Garchomp is there, instead of thinking of it like this God Piece that wrecks the entire game? What do you do when there is something so big that one Pokemon can't handle? That's right. You use two.

So essentially, skiddle, jrrrrr, SubVersion, chrisisme, "thanks for missing the point and arguing about something arbitrary", something that stark users seem to do very very often! Perhaps all of you "claiming" that "everyone knows this" - that's nice, everyone knew this the second Surgo made his thread, but judging by all of the posts half of you churn out when discussing the metagame, you guys really don't "know" it. What good is knowledge you can't apply to your arguments? Nothing. Makes you wonder why I made my decision not to post here anymore huh? (aka you are free to respond, but don't expect a response back - I am done)

[Aeroblacktyl]

Funny how first lines like "Gliscor has same speed as Heracross" kind of makes reading the rest of the posts moot.

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm loving this thread.

I stopped worrying about specific counters ages ago, and since then my new teams have been wildly successful compared to my old ones. I tend to worry about general concepts such as status, but I try to play around it for the most part and I don't think my win rate has suffered too much for it.

Summary: Tangerine's right.

[misdreavus79]

In other words, stop worrying about RMT threads. Just go out there and do you.

Right?

[blasphemy1]

I don't have a mindset where I try to counter everything possible, but I typically try and create teams where I can outspeed those threats and 2HKO them. Examples of these threats are Garchomp, who Infernape can weaken with HP Ice or Close Combat, then my LO Gengar can finish it off with a Shadow Ball or HP Ice.

People are talking about "yeah, everyone knows this already", well then why and the hell is Garchomp getting banned? All you need are a few powerful choice scarfers and a pokemon who naturally outspeeds it and can deal ~50% with their STAB move. Shit, I have gone as far as using Choice Scarf Glaceon, who can OHKO with a STAB Ice Beam while not being OHKOed by any of Chomp's unboosted attacks.

EDIT: I wish I could get on Shoddy but those assholes banned me because someone made another account on my IP.

[ViVi]

yay guys lets all use Garchomp on every team we make since there isnt any way to really deal with it, and hope that our Garchomp > the other dudes Garchomp!!

Thank you Tangerine for enlightening us once again!!

Some Pokemon that are capable of of wreaking that level of chaos on a team need a counter, or to be banned to uberdom.

[Cynthia]

The argument that 'Garchomp is balanced because you can use one too' is horrible. You can use that to place any Pokemon in any tier.

On the issue of defensive Pokemon, don't underestimate their usefulness. The thing is, most defensive Pokemon have status or support moves that help the team and make switches difficult. Skarm has SR/Spikes, Blissey has TWave/SR/toxic, Cress can also Twave or Toxic etc. It's hard to switch your sweeper in when they might be paraluzed on the switch.

[blasphemy1]

What is your justification for mocking?

Anyways, there are plenty of solid threats that can beat the shit outta Garchomp. Basically anything with a choice scarf can put a serious dent into Garchomp, allowing your base 105+ speed poke to finish it off. CB Weavile even beats it, Ice Sharding Scarfers for the OHKO, and Ice Punching Yache variants for a OHKO. Choice Scarf Machamp can DynamicPunch it, then Gengar can Shadow Ball, and Garchomp might hurt itself. Choice Scarf Heracross can Close Combat and Infernape can finish it off. Technitop can Fake Out, Mach Punch, then Azelf can finish it off. There are way too many scenarios to get around Garchomp, and basically every team should be able to get around it without building itself around countering it. Palkia, yes, I can understand why that would be Uber, as essentially no pokemon can easily counter it even in Ubers, but Garchomp? I think the people who want Garchomp banned are just sour at their experiences. If you can't manage to get around Garchomp, you either have poor team building skills or you are just incompetent.

EDIT: However, I agree that defensive pokemon can be amazing. Having 3 layers of spikes up, Stealth Rock, and Toxic Spikes means things with a lot of speed but lacking in power(Raikou) can sweep more easily.

[Kittymew]

Cynthia speaks the truth. This is the kind of design decision that, in the real world of game development, gets you called into the boss' office for a "wtf you doin'?" meeting.

Garchomp always being a one-for-one is what makes it unbalanced. How often is Garchomp not going to make its value (one Pokemon) back, in terms of damage output? Statistically almost never. Garchomp is going to take something out, almost every time. If this is not what you people consider bad balance, then I think you guys need to start admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Show ya moves!]

Countering is still very important. If you can counter your opponent then you should be able to beat him. Just make sure to have a strategy of your own too.