Are situational/gimick sets worth it?

[Tracker]

Recently, I've been trying out some new sets, some of them that I made up on Wi-Fi. Most of them were really situational (garchomp that counters cresselia). The situations they were designed for didn't come up at all.

My point is are these sets really worth it. I've been seeing people post about sets being "too situational". Just how situational can sets get before they are obsolete?

 

[Lawman]

Gimmicky sets are for uncommon situations. Standard sets are for Standard situations. If 5/6 pokemon on your team can handle Standard situations but are ruined by one uncommon one, use the last pokemon as a gimmicky set =P

 

[da gold sun]

IMO it depends mainly on what the pokemon can counter.
Typical people use Choice Specs Heatran to sweep. Would Heatran change function in using novelty Choice Band set (135 SAtk vs 90 Atk)? No, it'd still be a sweeper. It can still counter fire types with ease, coming in on a predicted fire move and threatening CBed Earthquake or Explosion. However, Heatran loses it's ability as a Weezing counter due to the fact that Weezing is a physical tank and won't take too much at all from Heatrans now physical attacks, as opposed to when a non-phyiscal Heatran could OHKO easily with a STAB fire move. However, it can still counter Azelf and Specs Mence well, although it cannot boost a move that can threaten it much other than STAB CB Iron Head or Explosion. However, this is one example (and I said CB Heatran because I wanna use it, and no one else has ever mentioned it to my knowledge).

On the other hand, the Counter Weavile holding Focus Sash can greatly hamper Weaviles ability to revenge kill. The strategy involves getting Weavile down to 1 HP and hopefully OHKOing the opponent with Counter. However, with residual damage everywhere, chances are Weavile isn't coming back to kill that nasty SD Garchomp, as your Weavile will die the second it comes in, due to any form of Spikes or Sandstorm. Therefore it cannot counter dragons nearly as well with the gimmicky (yet cool) Counter-Sash set.

That's my two cents.

Edit: Lawman makes a good point, and I must add that if you do indeed have 5/6 pokemon that can already handle common situations, your final slot is open for creativity to handle things you cannot handle, but are more rare. This can be what makes the game very fun.

Edit 2: I forgot to add the importance that a gimmicky set could indeed become a standard. I mean, look at Chain Chomp. He was sorta gimmicky in attempt to take out all of his intended counters. He worked so well that it became a top tier counter for many things. If you stray away from the norm and try to counter what your pokemon cannot, then you may have just made a gamebreaking set there.

 

[Lawman]

I mean, I got swept by a Gyarados with Toxic before. Some wierd sets can end up really ruining some teams, while being ruined by others. By diverging from the norm, its essentially a coinflip.

 

[Chou Toshio]

A situational set can be good if you're good at creating the situation. For instance, a scarf Salamence that kills garchomp because garchomp was attacking your metagross . . . if you are good at making a weird situation for your weird pokemon, it can work.

 

[teekay]

Edit 2: I forgot to add the importance that a gimmicky set could indeed become a standard. I mean, look at Chain Chomp. He was sorta gimmicky in attempt to take out all of his intended counters. He worked so well that it became a top tier counter for many things. If you stray away from the norm and try to counter what your pokemon cannot, then you may have just made a gamebreaking set there.

But chain chomp really isn't gimmicky at all. He's not exclusive to a particular situation. He is designed to handle almost any standard Garchomp counter, which virtually every serious team packs. So his usefulness is not relegated to an uncommon scenario.

I think the answer to this question is simple. If we understand "gimmick" sets to be ones that are only effective under certain non-standard conditions, then they are effective exactly as much as that non-standard condition occurs. This is why people say "too gimmicky," because if a Pokemon is relying on an uncommon situation to be effective then you will lose more often than win with it. Don't forget that even with a relatively bad team you will win sometimes. The extreme of a "gimmick" set is a Furret whose only move is tackle. The uncommon scenario in which it is effective is when it is up against a slower Pokemon with 1 HP and that's your opponent's last Pokemon. From there, you want to try to get things that are effective against as many more scenarios than that as possible, and hence the OU of certain Pokemon and sets.

 

[Twilight :)]

Well, if you're going to use a gimmicky set for the sake of being unique or original, then no. If you're going to use it for a specific reason or you think it truly has potential, then why not?

 

[Urza]

furret with just tackle isn't gimmicky though. it's just stupid. a gimmick is something that sticks out, is usually kind of flashy, gets attention. but also has a specific purpose. i think a better example is zap cannon forretress. it seems insane to use a special attack on a pokemon with base 60, but it has its use because of that pokemon's usual counters. even though it can do it, most people will not seriously expect it, not enough to change their counters for it.

anyway, just my two cents.

 

[teekay]

As far as I'm aware the only reason to use zap cannon on foretress is Gyarados. I'm pretty sure nobody would bother otherwise. The thing is, Gyarados is one of the absolute most used Pokemon in the game, so putting zap cannon on Forry is hardly a bit more gimmicky than putting, for example, crunch on Garchomp to take out Cresselia, or bite on Gyarados to take out Starmie. You won't use it as often as you'd likely use some other move, but if the opponent's only counter is that one Pokemon, you've got an effective win. It's just that usually it WON'T be. Or in other words zap cannon on Forry DOESN'T seem insane, not by a long shot. Is draco meteor on Garchomp insane? Of course not. The reason why it's not insane is because it is useful in a significant number of common situations.

Furret with only tackle is indeed a gimmicky set. The "gimmick" is that any Pokemon slower than Furret, without a priority move, and with only 1 HP, and not a ghost, and no opportunity to switch out (i.e. it's the last pokemon), will die to it. This is not that different from zap cannon Forretress only in ZP Forry's case the situations in which it has a use are drastically increased, though still not as common as the situations in which explosion or earthquake has a use.

 

[Twilight :)]

Furret with only tackle is indeed a gimmicky set. The "gimmick" is that any Pokemon slower than Furret, without a priority move, and with only 1 HP, and not a ghost, and no opportunity to switch out (i.e. it's the last pokemon), will die to it. This is not that different from zap cannon Forretress only in ZP Forry's case the situations in which it has a use are drastically increased, though still not as common as the situations in which explosion or earthquake has a use.

So you're saying someone using Tackle over Quick Attack is more gimmicky than it is just stupid?

 

[teekay]

I don't think I said that. I'm not sure I would say it's even stupid, mostly I'd just say it's completely ineffective because the number of situations in which it's effective is so low that it will virtually never do any good. I have a hard time believing that a person who uses it is stupid for doing so, though. Stupidity mostly has to do with things that aren't Pokemon.

 

[Twilight :)]

I don't think I said that. I'm not sure I would say it's even stupid, mostly I'd just say it's completely ineffective because the number of situations in which it's effective is so low that it will virtually never do any good. I have a hard time believing that a person who uses it is stupid for doing so, though. Stupidity mostly has to do with things that aren't Pokemon.

You're kind of drifting away from what you originally replyed to. The guy said that a Furret with only Tackle is stupid, and you reply with something that Quick Attack obviously does better, thus it's stupidity over gimmick.

 

[sweeper]

uncanny sets can really screw someone if they arent expecting it, try mixing your pokes and your pokes can work marvels especially if opponents cant figure out what your up to

 

[teekay]

You're kind of drifting away from what you originally replyed to. The guy said that a Furret with only Tackle is stupid, and you reply with something that Quick Attack obviously does better, thus it's stupidity over gimmick.

No, that's the whole point. When people say a set is "gimmicky" they mean it's so "innovative" that it is useful only in a handful of specific circumstances, and the thing that's bad about it is that other things would be useful much more often, so competitively there's no reason to use the gimmick over the strategy. I think this is generally playing on the negative sense of the word "gimmick."

Tackle would be more gimmicky than quick attack because it is even MORE specific to a given set of circumstances. However, maybe you're right that quick attack would be better since there isn't really any concievable situation where tackle would be superior to quick attack, whereas most "gimmick" sets that people actually do try to use have the occasional circumstance in which nothing else does it better (though I am being charitable with that assumption). So if you want substitute quick attack in for tackle in my original argument, it doesn't really make much difference.

 

[Syberia]

I've used a Careful, max Sp. Def Rhyperior with Substitute and Swords Dance to counter the ever-popular Blissey and Cresselia before. Turns out if that thing comes in on one of the two and gets set up, it can do some serious damage to a team before it goes down.

 

[Goodbar]

I think as long as the gimmick poke is somewhat useful after the surprise is revealed, its worth using.

 

[Shinryu]

I think it largely depends on your team. Some might need an oddball set to cover bases, some might not.

 

[shadydentist]

I use a weezing in my team exclusively to counter gyarados, whom the rest of my team is weak to. Team coherency is key.

 

[cim]

It depends ENTIRELY on the set. It's like saying "Are sweeper sets worth it?"

However, I've been noticing that a lot of gimmicks in this gen just plain suck. Sure, there's Chain Chomp, which is decent, and Return-Z and stuff, but stuff like SpecialGyara (by the way, the -Dos suffix is reserved for Zapdos, and if I catch anyone posting a gimmick Gyarados set ending in just Dos I will hunt them down and rip their DS into shreds) and overly specific counters fail about as much as Nosepass did in Advance: all the time.

The problem with a specific surprise counter is that even if it does work, you've just prepared a potentially deadly sweeper to take out a whopping 1 Pokémon. If you pull it off and it's good, everyone knows about it. If it's bad, you'll end up sucking at every team without that Pokémon.

The exception to this rule is if something is so ridiculously OU and powerful that it's impossible to win without directly addressing in on every sweeper (read: Blissey) walled by it. Cresselia as Garchomp counter might be enough to warrant Crunch... if it did more than STAB Outrage, which it, uh, ties (80*2 = 120 * 1.5 right?). So even here you should be reasonable.

My point is that surprise value is, you guessed it, unreliable. Why would you want to focus on getting an "a-ha!" KO on one thing (ohai Ground-80 Berry Natural Gift Skarmory, did you know how useless you are 99% of the time?) when you could be doing what you do best? If you're doing what you do best and can't handle a trouble Pokémon, fix your team.

 

[Blue Harvest]

Situational movesets are simply for winning via "shock and awe". Once the secret is out, your team will most likely suck and die unless you do significant damage.

 

[Amandabynes]

I would say gimmick sets are worth using if your team needs one.

 

[Rodger]

I think thats a tricky question, personally, depending on how you want to define 'worth it'.

Competitively, they won't be worth it very often. There are exceptions, of course. da gold sun mentioned CB Heatran. A while back I actually used something of the sort in the form of a 'mixed' set. Ran Iron Head, Earthquake, Explosion, and Overheat. It actually got a decent amount of KO's, surprising common switchins like Blissey with what could often be a 2HKO in the form of Iron Head. Then, later, when they realize what you're running and bring in the likes of Skarmory it can eat an Overheat instead. Explosion, needless to say, hurts like a bitch and has brought down beasts like Hippowdon and Cresselia. Though most of the fame on that team went to a CounterWishBliss with Toxic Spikes support. That thing got more KO's than any Blissey should ever get and once caused a guy to forfeit after losing his CBHeracross, AgiliGross, and Specs Alakazam to it. To be fair the Heracross had been weakened to a point where Protect killed it beforehand courtesy of poison.

While competitively not often worth it, gimmick sets can often be VERY fun to use and thus worth it in that sense. A recent team I used, in fact, consisted of (and I'm not joking) Luvdisc, Pikachu, Phione, Shuckle, Bastiodon, and Regigigas. Needless to say, it didn't win often. In fact, it won a whole one match. Had a few close ones though like when it was down to my Luvdisc and Regigigas against a Garchomp and Skarmory. Spikes/Stealth Rocks did me in eventually but it'd have had to be the most fun I've ever had losing. Pikachu claimed the lives of several Breloom who, for reasons unknown to me, thought that they could outspeed and sleep me. The players must have existed in a world where 70 is greater than 90...

 

[SNX7]

I don't really think about gimmick sets anymore. When I'm building a team, I think about what I need, and what I already have on my team. If I need a specific job done (or a specific support move) I'll look up what can learn it / do it on Serebii, and fill the slot with the pokmon that fits my team best.

 

[ToF]

In my opinion, gimmick sets are only worth it if they fill a specific hole in a team. Having a gimmick set just to use for laughs is pointless. I simply look at my team's parts and look at what needs to be filled/fixed. If a gimmick set is required that fits the hole well, I will use it. Otherwise, they are left for simply shits and giggles.

 

[Drakhun]

Gimmicky sets are worth it if they work, as others have said. A good gimmick set can fill up a hole in a team quite well. On one team I used Ariados for trap passing (to counter bliss, sticking it in with a sub-puncher), as a Breloom counter (Insomnia + 4x resists = good), and to get a priority move on my team (shadow sneak). That ariados worked well on shoddy, and I'll probably breed one up sometime.

If a set works well, that's all that matters. Gimmicky sets are great to fill in those odd holes and niche purposes that you need, and surprise kills are nice when they take counters off guard (hitting a special wall with a physical attack or visa-versa).