Great idea. I have to say though that I feel that if the focus here is teambuilding, just listing out every mon under every role might not be the way to go. Rather we can begin with a given role and build around the mons in that role before moving on to another. Something along the lines of cooperative role-based core building.
For example, wallbreakers work well with pivots. List out some wallbreakers; Mega Medicham, Kyurem-B, Mega Mawile etc. and then list out pivots which pair well with them respectively along with reasoning as to why. Something like
As mentioned in the OP, some roles listed are irrelevant with respect to viability, at least to be included for standard reference . As for the relevant ones, I'm sure most of us can immediately list out the small pool of viable Defoggers and are aware that Excadrill and arguably Starmie are the only competitively viable spinners. Though other lists may not always be pre-loaded in the back of our minds, it often just takes a little bit of digging before they are found.
Anyway what my take here is that categorization, though a convenient reference, has no role in conception and formulation which together shape the heart of teambuilding.
If we build complementary role combinations step by step, we need not worry about what belongs to a role until we need something from that role, in which case we can begin elaborate brainstorming to possibly even find great and creative niches which we otherwise might not have if we just used a list which we mass loaded at the beginning.
I don't know how much sense I make because I'm relatively new here and haven't participated in any such threads, though interested in doing so. I just came across this and didn't think categorization, especially at the initial stage, is necessary.
For example, wallbreakers work well with pivots. List out some wallbreakers; Mega Medicham, Kyurem-B, Mega Mawile etc. and then list out pivots which pair well with them respectively along with reasoning as to why. Something like
- Raikou pairs well with Medicham and Heracross by forcing out their flying type checks and pivoting off a slower mon. Also obtains a great advantage against SkarmChans cores.
- SubPass Celebi can successfully get Mega Mawile behind a Sub thanks to great type synergy paired with Mawile's Intimidate especially in scenarios such as when Tyranitar switches in on the Sub turn for a trap attempt.
- Talonflame can U-Turn off a predicted Rotom switch to bring in Kyurem-B who can set a free Sub.
As mentioned in the OP, some roles listed are irrelevant with respect to viability, at least to be included for standard reference . As for the relevant ones, I'm sure most of us can immediately list out the small pool of viable Defoggers and are aware that Excadrill and arguably Starmie are the only competitively viable spinners. Though other lists may not always be pre-loaded in the back of our minds, it often just takes a little bit of digging before they are found.
Anyway what my take here is that categorization, though a convenient reference, has no role in conception and formulation which together shape the heart of teambuilding.
If we build complementary role combinations step by step, we need not worry about what belongs to a role until we need something from that role, in which case we can begin elaborate brainstorming to possibly even find great and creative niches which we otherwise might not have if we just used a list which we mass loaded at the beginning.
I don't know how much sense I make because I'm relatively new here and haven't participated in any such threads, though interested in doing so. I just came across this and didn't think categorization, especially at the initial stage, is necessary.
Last edited: