A radical proposal regarding Trick

The addition of the move 'Trick' to the movepools of several Pokemon was one of the biggest changes made to the metagame as a result of the release of Pokemon Platinum. Beforehand, the only Pokemon that you may occasionally have seen in OU carrying the move was Alakazam. Alakazam's relative rarity and few other distinguishing features other than Trick over the much more popular Azelf made Trick relatively easy to predict and prepare against accordingly. However, now, a large number of top-tier OU threats have recieved the move. The fact that these Pokemon have much more diverse movepools than the aforementioned Alakazam that allow them to distinguish themselves in the OU tier whether or not they are using Trick makes it much harder to switch in some form of check to said Pokemon without risking being crippled by some undesirable item. The fact that these Pokemon are also seen considerably more than Alakazam was before Platinum was introcuced also makes it considerably more threatening.

For reference, here are probably the only Pokemon who you will commonly see in the OU tier who have the option of carrying the move, and the percentage of the time which they carry it.

#10 Gengar: 20%
#11 Metagross: 17.2%
#13 Bronzong: 12.5%
#14: Celebi: <8.7%
#15 Jirachi: 35.1%
#16 Azelf: 9.2%
#17 Starmie: 11.6%
#27 Rotom-H: 41.9%
#37 Cresselia: 11.2%

If playing the suspect ladder, Latias is the most notable user of the move Trick, however it is used so rarely as to not come up on the list of commonly used moves. As you can see, these new threats have large enough movepools to be threatening without necessarily using the move Trick. (Alternatively, it could be interpreted that Trick isn't considered useful, though I'm sure most people that have played with and against Trick that this is not the case) However, despite this, I don't need to tell you that Trick is capable of ruining a large number of switch-ins into each of these Pokemon with very little difficulty- I'm sure you've experienced it yourself. It is particularly damaging to full-blown stall teams; locking any form of wall into one move is going to cause an awful lot of problems, as they cannot heal themselves or set up anything without making themselves total set-up bait.

One of the main things that is necessary to prove to make something like what I am proposing feasible is that Trick is any more problematic than any other move that these Pokemon can use to severely damage their counters. 'Sure, Trick lets Gengar beat Blissey, but so does Focus Punch!' 'Metagross can Thunderpunch/Hidden Power Fire Skarmory, it doesn't need Trick to beat it!' Whilst this is certainly true to an extent, it doesn't take into account the fact that Trick is capable of hurting pretty much anything that switches in that doesn't have a very similar or the same item. For example, whilst Metagross would theoretically need Grass Knot, Thunderpunch and Ice Punch to get around Swampert, Skarmory and Gliscor, Tricking a Choice item allows it to beat any of these Pokemon with minimal need for prediction as well as used moveslosts. At the very least, it wil make it harder for them to set up on you or heal themselves, allowing you to kill them much more easily. This is obviously more of a problem for stall teams, where nothing likes Choice items at all, so 'prediction' goes out of the window.

The reason I made this thread was to discuss the potential effects and problems that may arise as a result of a 'Trick clause'. Personally, I'm thinking something like this;

'Only one Pokemon on either team may have used the moves 'Trick' or 'Switcheroo' in order to swap their items. In the case of both Pokemon recieving the same item after the use of the move, or the move fails due to the ability 'Sticky Hold', the clause is not activated and so the moves may be used again. After the Pokemon that recieved an item from Trick has fainted, the other player is free to use Trick again.

I have no doubt that several people will believe that this is a stupid idea that is even less workable than testing Stealth Rock. I know for a fact that several people found the concept of banning the move entirely hilarious, after Obi mocked someone's reasoning for banning Stealth Rock by applying his reasoning to Trick. However, I would note that there is actually a precedent for clausing a move or a group of moves like I am proposing here, in the widely-accepted Sleep Clause, as well as Item Clause which I believe was proposed to be tested by Tangerine as a standard clause in order to reduce the dominance of offensive teams as well as the power of Trick. There is no precedent for banning a move entirely, and I would not support such a move with regards to Trick, as I believe it is a very valuable move that allows some Pokemon to get past others that they didn't have a chance of doing otherwise.

In conclusion, I know that I'm not the only person who has had trouble dealing with the significant increase in the usage of the move 'Trick', despite having changed my team extensively in an attempt to fix it. I would also encourage people to approach this idea with an open mind, and not to just dismiss it as 'just another ban/clause/etc', which I am sure is what will be many people's general attitude to this idea otherwise.

This makes more sense than "playing without Stealth Rock to see if it is broken" and I wouldn't complain if it were implemented. I think this would solve a lot of problems people have with Trick and generally lead to a healthier metagame, so it's definitely worth consideration.

Have you played a lot since they fixed the Trick glitch that makes it so if you get a Choice item back you can't switch moves? People probably are still thinking about that or something when they think of Trick, and that drawback is really important.

In conclusion, I'm not sure. I think Trick is being Wobbufetted by people, not being used on more than one guy out of "honor" or some bullshit, because personally I'm not sure if it's broken since "it's not bothered me that much".

It would be easier / "more fair" if it were just "Only one Pokémon per team is allowed to carry the move Trick", I guess, because then there's no incentive to use Sticky Hold to block Trick. I guess it's the same kind of thing with Insomnia / Hypnosis, though, so maybe your wording is better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't rotom get trick before platinum, so all platinum did was give it the forms?

This is like trying to limit the amount of Earthquake (most used move) or Explosion (most deadly move) on a team. It just doesn't work. Like, why? It's not messing things up badly from what I see.

In a nut shell, isn't it a bit early to be calling this kind of stuff? Sure, it's causes problems, but you have to adjust. Like with all Platinum changes. The metagame is everchanging and can shift, and this is one of those "shifts." I see no serious reasoning behind calling for this, not to mention that there are plenty of things on the agenda already as it is.

This i feel is an excellent proposal and as you say would probably undoubtedly lead to a happier healthier metagame. I have seen teams with three trickers on and then three set ups although this is a ridiculous example. I also feel that if a trick clause was implemented then diversity of teams would increase and people would have to think a lot harder before choosing what they wanted as their tricker. Overall increasing the efectiveness of the move when used correctly.

My position on this is the same as my position on Articanus' "OHKO clause" he proposed in Policy Review -- it's nothing more than an excuse to change game mechanics by attaching it to the word "clause."

There is no precedent for actually changing game mechanics without "Nintendo's good word," even if we're doing it under the guise of a "clause." Both Sleep and Item clauses have been implemented by Nintendo/Gamefreak before in some way or another, as has, to my understanding, Species clause. The OHKO and Evasion clauses (which we're testing anyway) are essentially just move bans that happen to apply in Ubers; if anything, that would lead me to believe that a Trick ban would be more justified than a "clause," but only if I actually had a reason to believe that Trick is "too good" in the first place, which I don't.


Also, just pointing out that the clause's description doesn't make explicit mention that you can "only use Trick once," just that "one Pokemon may use it" (though it later implies that the former is the case, it wasn't that clear to me at first).

Blame Game said:

My position on this is the same as my position on Articanus' "OHKO clause" he proposed in Policy Review -- it's nothing more than an excuse to change game mechanics by attaching it to the word "clause."

There is no precedent for actually changing game mechanics without "Nintendo's good word," even if we're doing it under the guise of a "clause." Both Sleep and Item clauses have been implemented by Nintendo/Gamefreak before in some way or another, as has, to my understanding, Species clause. The OHKO and Evasion clauses (which we're testing anyway) are essentially just move bans that happen to apply in Ubers; if anything, that would lead me to believe that a Trick ban would be more justified than a "clause," but only if I actually had a reason to believe that Trick is "too good" in the first place, which I don't.


Also, just pointing out that the clause's description doesn't make explicit mention that you can "only use Trick once," just that "one Pokemon may use it" (though it later implies that the former is the case, it wasn't that clear to me at first).

Click to expand...

That "if nintendo did it we can change them" thing is BS to me, honestly. Sleep Clause's current implementation combined with the Rotom alt formes is not playable on any system, and considering "spam sleep and hope it's Natural Cure" is a legitamite strategy, we're changing a game mechanic we can't actually play. I don't see how "Nintendo did it in a game without Rotom-A!" makes it okay to change in server.

That being said, I'm sure we could do it the Obi way and make it "If you trick twice you lose" I guess.

Chris is me said:

"Only one Pokémon per team is allowed to carry the move Trick"

Click to expand...

I prefer this type of clause. Once a Pokémon uses Trick, you know none of the others will use it. As well, it gives the Tricker some freedom to Trick away undesirable items - if the OP's definition were applied, teams could assign one non-Choiced attacker an item like Toxic Orb and use it as trick fodder, knowing Trick is a once-per-battle event.

I assume the goal of the Trick clause is to curb Trick abuse, not neuter the move itself.

Chris is me said:

That "if nintendo did it we can change them" thing is BS to me, honestly. Sleep Clause's current implementation combined with the Rotom alt formes is not playable on any system, and considering "spam sleep and hope it's Natural Cure" is a legitamite strategy, we're changing a game mechanic we can't actually play. I don't see how "Nintendo did it in a game without Rotom-A!" makes it okay to change in server.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the exact differences are between Nintendo's implementation of Sleep Clause and Shoddy's, but either way that would be something for us to correct (if the differences are even at all relevant), not use as an excuse to pull something completely out of the air like a Trick clause.

Let's play with trick a while now that it works correctly before jumping into declaring it broken.

I really don't like this idea. Next you'd be limiting the amount of explosion users. And explosion is a much deadlier move, pretty much a guaranteed ohko, unlike trick. Besides, having more than one tricker on a team doesn't work well anyways, as you can just switch out your first pokemon that got tricked.

This is crazy. Don't like the game, make your own.

I agree with Veedrock, TESTING a game without a Pokemon or even a game making something like Sleep Clause is one thing. Sleep pretty much guarentees that a Pokemon is going to die if not put to sleep by something pathetic like a Butterfree.

Trick? So you get a different item, so what? So I can only use one move. Blissey is still going to wall Special Attackers or switch out against physical attackers. Many times I find my Pokemon dieing right after It's been tricked. The Azelf tricks its Scarf, but I still wall it: so it explodes. In comes a Machamp, which Blissey is now faster than I am going to die anyway so at least a get of a nice T-Wave first.

Even more times I find myself taking advantage of Trick. Oh no! My DD Gyarados has a Scarf! ... ... Wow, I just took half the foes team out with my fast Waterfalls. Guess he didn't prepare for a Scarfed Gyara, or a Scarf Tyranitar.

Like Veedrock said, this is like limiting the amount of Earthquakes or Explosions because you don't like the move.

TESTING a Stealth Rock-less metagame is different, as it doesn't just affect 1 Pokemon like Trick... it affects every Pokemon on your team (if used against you).

EDIT: Yo PooP, Trick doesn't mess anyone up. Just bring in your own Scarfer, a Gastrodon, or someone who can take advantage of trick. Very easy, unless using a Stall Team that lacks such a trick taker.

Sorry but I don't see this getting very far.

I highly recommend people prove that something is actually "broken" and not "annoying" before recommending a rule or a clause regarding it.

While I appreciate the effort put into the OP of this thread, I'm afraid it is a little misguided.