BW Reuniclus

[Bughouse]

Just saying a 30% chance of a positive effect and a 30% chance of a negative effect are not comparable. Focus Blast works as expected the large majority of times.

Scald's comparisons are things like Lava Plume, Iron Head, and Body Slam.

In any case I don't think any are fairly bannable in just about any conceivable situation.

If you wanna talk about a game breaking move, item, etc look no farther than LC with Knock Off, Berry Juice (often with Sturdy), and Eviolite. The large majority of LC players just consider these to be part of strategy. Other tiers could really learn from LC's willingness to suspect anything, yet that they haven't exactly banned any of it.

 

[Celestavian]

Knock Off is LC is a necessary evil, because without it, Berry Juice and Eviolite would become broken with no way to remove them besides Trick, which is why we keep it around. Banning Knock Off would make LC a lot worse, so it stays regardless of how powerful it is. Scald, on the other hand, is not like that at all. Nothing major (as far as I know) is being kept in check by a 30% chance to ruin any physical attacker it hits with no real downside to using it over Surf besides a slight drop in power.

Edit @ below: The difference is in that you, the recipient of the negative effect of the move, are choosing to use Focus Blast, while your opponent, the recipient of the bad effect of Scald, are not choosing for you to use it. Yeah, there are no other options besides HP Fighting so you are "forced" to use it, but it is still you choosing it. Would you really rather have a 0% chance to hit Tyranitar as Alakazam if Focus Blast is banned, as opposed to that 70%? It is a risk that the user of the move accepts when putting it on their Pokemon. Scald, however, is not like that. Your opponent doesn't choose to have a 30% chance to have their physical attacker ruined, it is forced upon them by their opponent's decision.

 

[Lavos]

Just saying a 30% chance of a positive effect and a 30% chance of a negative effect are not comparable. Focus Blast works as expected the large majority of times. Scald's comparisons are things like Lava Plume, Iron Head, and Body Slam.

I expected that to be the first response to my post. I can see where you're coming from but I'm inclined to disagree. If I'm using Scald and I roll an important burn, that's a 30% chance that I hit for a swing in my favor. If I'm using Focus Blast and I roll an important miss, that's a 30% chance that I hit for a swing in my opponent's favor. The swing is in the opposite direction, but it's still a swing, and it's still the same percentage. Lava Plume, Iron Head, Body Slam, etc. are also comparable, but less prevalent and less impactful than Focus Blast, at least in the metagame I'm most familiar with (BW OU). Thus, I used the example that I did to compare two seemingly very different moves and show how they could both fall under the slippery slope of move bans. Feel free to apply the same logic of Scald to the other moves you listed, though. It still makes perfect sense.

Edit @ below: The difference is in that you, the recipient of the negative effect of the move, are choosing to use Focus Blast, while your opponent, the recipient of the bad effect of Scald, are not choosing for you to use it. Yeah, there are no other options besides HP Fighting so you are "forced" to use it, but it is still you choosing it. Would you really rather have a 0% chance to hit Tyranitar as Alakazam if Focus Blast is banned, as opposed to that 70%? It is a risk that the user of the move accepts when putting it on their Pokemon. Scald, however, is not like that. Your opponent doesn't choose to have a 30% chance to have their physical attacker ruined, it is forced upon them by their opponent's decision.

You're splitting hairs. The exact same argument which you made for Focus Blast (I'm choosing to use it, but not really because it's the best option and the next best one sucks) applies directly to Scald as well. Of course I'm choosing to use Scald on my Tentacruel, because Surf isn't going to damage Ferrothorn either but it also doesn't get to potentially burn it. I'm essentially forced, and if my opponent has any metagame knowledge whatsoever then he can reasonably assume that I have it. Gambling on Scald burns and Focus Misses are the exact same thing, whether it's me or my opponent that does it is irrelevant.

 

[Celestavian]

The problem is, when faced with a game-changing situation, relying on Scald's 30% chance to win is much different than relying on Focus Blast's 70% chance to win. A 30% chance is exactly the same as Fissure and Sheer Cold and what-not, and those were banned for being too luck-based. I am absolutely not equating Scald with Sheer Cold, as that would be idiotic, but they do share in common that they can swing games entirely on luck, although Sheer Cold's distinction is that it's entire purpose is for luck-based cheesing. Scald still has utility as a damage option, although you could argue that it's only purpose is for lucky burns since otherwise Surf would always be superior. Whether it's Scald or Sheer Cold, relying on a 30% chance to win is not competitive. Neither is relying on a 30% miss from Focus Blast, but the relevance is entirely in who is using it which you are ignoring. When a Focus Blast user maneuvers themselves to a situation where Focus Blast will decide the game, they have given themselves a 70% chance to win, while a Scald user who does the same has given themselves a 30% chance to win. Focus Blast has a much higher percentage to go in the favor of the user of the move, and when coupled with the lack of other options, it ceases to be a roll of the dice and instead becomes a risk that the user must take to win the game most of the time. Scald, like Sheer Cold, is a move that is only used because it has a 30% chance to give you a big advantage, because there are other, more powerful options out there that you could be using instead.

You are only looking at the percent chances here for the secondary effects to happen, and not win rate for each move for the user. The opponent has no control over Focus Blast being used or not, so their win chance is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the user of these two moves are, in a game-changing situation, relying on either a 30% or 70% win rate. Both are better than a 0% chance to win than if one were using Surf over Scald or HP Fighting over Focus Blast (assuming HP Fighting is incapable of making the OHKO). However, one of our main ideals in competitive Pokemon is trying to create a metagame where the better player wins most often. Is the better player the one who gave themselves a 30% win chance for the game, or the one who gave themselves 70%?

 

[Aldaron]

The problem is, when faced with a game-changing situation, relying on Scald's 30% chance to win is much different than relying on Focus Blast's 70% chance to win. A 30% chance is exactly the same as Fissure and Sheer Cold and what-not, and those were banned for being too luck-based. I am absolutely not equating Scald with Sheer Cold, as that would be idiotic, but they do share in common that they can swing games entirely on luck, although Sheer Cold's distinction is that it's entire purpose is for luck-based cheesing. Scald still has utility as a damage option, although you could argue that it's only purpose is for lucky burns since otherwise Surf would always be superior. Whether it's Scald or Sheer Cold, relying on a 30% chance to win is not competitive. Neither is relying on a 30% miss from Focus Blast, but the relevance is entirely in who is using it which you are ignoring. When a Focus Blast user maneuvers themselves to a situation where Focus Blast will decide the game, they have given themselves a 70% chance to win, while a Scald user who does the same has given themselves a 30% chance to win. Focus Blast has a much higher percentage to go in the favor of the user of the move, and when coupled with the lack of other options, it ceases to be a roll of the dice and instead becomes a risk that the user must take to win the game most of the time. Scald, like Sheer Cold, is a move that is only used because it has a 30% chance to give you a big advantage, because there are other, more powerful options out there that you could be using instead.

You are only looking at the percent chances here for the secondary effects to happen, and not win rate for each move for the user. The opponent has no control over Focus Blast being used or not, so their win chance is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the user of these two moves are, in a game-changing situation, relying on either a 30% or 70% win rate. Both are better than a 0% chance to win than if one were using Surf over Scald or HP Fighting over Focus Blast (assuming HP Fighting is incapable of making the OHKO). However, one of our main ideals in competitive Pokemon is trying to create a metagame where the better player wins most often. Is the better player the one who gave themselves a 30% win chance for the game, or the one who gave themselves 70%?

I liked this post as I mostly agree with its contents, but I do want to point out one assumption you make that might alter at the very least how you come to some of your conclusions (well more questions at the end).

Namely, in this use-case (Pokemon, and let's say the BW OU metagame specifically), the "Is the better player the one who gave themselves a 30% win chance for the game, or the one who gave themselves 70%" is a bit misleading because it isn't simply a 1 time occurrence. For example, the most commonly stated example: Scald Tentacruel vs. Ferrothorn (or Scald Keldeo vs Latis or something) The Scald user generally isn't banking on a 1 time Scald usage; he is banking on using Scald multiple times on the Ferrothorn switch in.

The 70 / 30 line is actually SUPER interesting in terms of setting subjective lines for how much is skill and not because of how you are actually on the higher percentage side if you expect a 30% probability event to happen at least once if you do it twice (1 - (1 - .3)^2 = 51% chance to happen at least once)

 

[Slimmer]

I completely understand the ban Scald argument since it's a pretty stupid move that doesn't allow any physical attacker to do something vs majority of water mons (I've even seen Scald AV Azumarill in order to burn Scizors who try to setup on it), but I'm wondering "exactly why do you think Scald is uncompetitive?" It seems that the more logical answer is "it's a water move that has a 30% chance to burn so most of its resistor could get crippled (ferrothorn, other waters etc) and only type can't be burned is weak to water (Fire)".

My worry is that "it can burn so its uncompetitive" argument could be applied with extremely subjectivity on moves like Iron Head, Lava Plume, Body Slam for the same reason, or even to moves like U-Turn or Volt Switch because "they are too stupid and easy to use, you can just spam turn and gaining benefit by the situation" (which is an argument brought in order to ban Scald) etc.

Yeah a lot of moves, even abilities (Serene Grace, Flame Body, Sheer Force, Tough Claws etc) are so stupid and way far too easy to use without drawbacks but do they make the game worse or even unplayable? Or you just don't like them? There's a huge difference in this, because Swagger made the game unplayable for real since Prankster+Swagger spam is nowise skillful and it can even win a game just by clicking Swagger. Does clicking Scald mindless let you win a game? I guess not; it can decide the entire game in certain situations but there are many ways to avoid that it could happen (status absorbers, heal bell, special-based mons, Rest, even Guts). This is the difference between suspecting moves like Swagger and moves like Scald (which, I repeat, seems more despised rather than else and I don't think a move should be banned just because you don't like it).

And no, you can't compare Scald to OHKO Moves since the latter ones were not banned for just "luck-basing" but for the effect they bring (OHKO) which was considered "broken" (what do you switch into Sheer Cold? omgsturdyspam). Also consider that if an OHKO move misses you have just wasted a turn (you are actually relying on luck in this case), while Scald is just a normal water move with a 30% addictional effect so I don't see that "relying" on a burn as an uncompetitive thing but just a side effect as many other moves have.

In spite of this, I'm not saying Scald shouldn't be suspected; I think we can try the move-less metagame in some way (ladder/live tours?) and then draw conclusions. I don't exclude the idea that a Scald-less (or Spikes-less) metagame could be better but we can't actually assume it without trying. Just I don't want that these potential suspects could open the doors to that "slippery slope" which could suspect every move with particular side effect just because some famous and estimated players got haxed/pissed off by these or they just don't like them. So, in shorts, if we have to suspect moves do this like it's an exception or anyway do this in a sensitive way.

 

[MikeDawg]

I completely understand the ban Scald argument since it's a pretty stupid move that doesn't allow any physical attacker to do something vs majority of water mons (I've even seen Scald AV Azumarill in order to burn Scizors who try to setup on it), but I'm wondering "exactly why do you think Scald is uncompetitive?" It seems that the more logical answer is "it's a water move that has a 30% chance to burn so most of its resistor could get crippled (ferrothorn, other waters etc) and only type can't be burned is weak to water (Fire)".

My worry is that "it can burn so its uncompetitive" argument could be applied with extremely subjectivity on moves like Iron Head, Lava Plume, Body Slam for the same reason, or even to moves like U-Turn or Volt Switch because "they are too stupid and easy to use, you can just spam turn and gaining benefit by the situation" (which is an argument brought in order to ban Scald) etc.

Yeah a lot of moves, even abilities (Serene Grace, Flame Body, Sheer Force, Tough Claws etc) are so stupid and way far too easy to use without drawbacks but do they make the game worse or even unplayable? Or you just don't like them? There's a huge difference in this, because Swagger made the game unplayable for real since Prankster+Swagger spam is nowise skillful and it can even win a game just clicking Swagger. Does clicking Scald mindless let you win a game? I guess not; it can decide the entire game in certain situations but there are many ways to avoid that it could happen (status absorbers, heal bell, special-based mons, Rest, even Guts). This is the difference between suspecting moves like Swagger and moves like Scald (which, I repeat, seems more despised rather than else and I don't think a move should be banned just because you don't like it).

And no, you can't compare Scald to OHKO Moves since the latter ones were not banned for just "luck-basing" but for the effect they bring (OHKO) which was considered "broken" (what do you switch into Sheer Cold? omgsturdyspam). Also consider that if an OHKO move misses you have just wasted a turn (you are actually relying on luck in this case), while Scald is just a normal water move with a 30% addictional effect so I don't see that "relying" on a burn as an uncompetitive thing but just a side effect as many other moves have.

In spite of this, I'm not saying Scald shouldn't be suspected; I think we can try the move-less metagame in some way (ladder/live tours?) and then draw conclusions. I don't exclude the idea that a Scald-less (or Spikes-less) metagame could be better but we can't actually assume it without trying. Just I don't want that these potential suspects could open the doors to that "slippery slope" which could suspect every move with particular side effect just because some famous and estimated players got haxed/pissed off by these or they just don't like them. So, in shorts, if we have to suspect moves do this like it's an exception or anyway do this in a sensitive way.

I think that only body slam and lava plume actually fit into that category. every(?) pokemon that has these moves also has multiple moves of the same type but higher base power (flamethrower/fblast, return/double edge, surf/hydro pump). The higher bp power moves are lower accuracy, but that is just a risk/reward factor that the player must chose between. The choice between scald and surf, for example, is obvious. The only reason to use these lower base power moves is because of that 30% hax chance.

There is no iron head replacement (iron tail and meteor mash, but iron tail has crap accuracy, forcing a mediocre alternative, and meteor mash has low distribution).

The reason why these 3 (if we are looking at scald on the premise that it is useless hax, seems fair to look at the other two as well) moves are controversal is because there are many BETTER options that are only lacking in use because they dont have that luck factor that can change the game. "Fishing for a scald burn" should not be a legitimate and common strategy, imo.

Do we really lose anything by disposing of them? Nothing significant that i can note, since all of these superior alternatives exist (unless you think it's valuable for keldeo to be able to cripple venusaur/etc., though i think that using completely avoidable hax to do so is not the way to go about things). By getting rid of them, we eliminate a strong source of hax.

 

[Aldaron]

Note, I realize most of the following is about Scald and this is a Reuniclus topic, but I am merely providing examples that are easily explained via the Scald use-case; you can apply the concepts across the board regarding the RNG-specific elements or regarding the move-specific elements.

To follow up my last post, one could almost argue that if you can convince people that you will be using scald by the same thing more than one time per battle for a high percentage of battles, that playing for / assuming the scald burn is the more skillful play / strategy.

To demonstrate, if your tentacruel uses scald when it first comes out assuming whatever switchins (ferrro / latis / some random water that doesnt have water absorb) 1 time, the probability to burn is obviously 30%. twice? 51% to burn at least once. three times? ~66% to burn at least once. 4 times? ~75% to burn at least once.

The argument then, and this is for Scald specifically, isn't necessarily mainly the RNG element (though of course this will remain a part of it), but actually diving into Scald's specifics.

What makes Scald different from similar moves like Lava Plume? Well 1, distribution. There are a lot more OU viable Pokemon that can use Scald than Lava Plume. What else? Well, one less talked about feature (not sure why really) about Scald is that completely unlike Lava Plume in that there is the type immune to its secondary effect (Fire types for Burn) actually takes SE damage from the move, whereas for Lava Plume, you have all Fire types for choices to use for secondary effect immunity (whereas for scald it is just water absorbers). Second, the common context Scald is used. You will notice that Scald is used far more in Rain than Lava Plume is used in Sun, so Scald's "common usage" actually has its damage output as much higher than Lava Plume's.

Basically, you have to base your arguments in multiple areas, hitting RNG, hitting metagame health, hitting specific characteristics, emphasizing unique qualities that make it worse than peers.

Hazards are the same thing, but I don't necessarily want to open that can of worms (I will say that I have had very interesting conversations where the result of the conversation is SR is better for the metagame (in spite of its larger distribution and ease to set) than Spikes due to what the assumed commonality of SR does for the meta (keeping many things in check), and Spikes is more the problem than SR, but again, different convo for a different thread).

About Reuniclus...timeline wise, we are definitely doing it after this initial test. Whether or not we do it still has to be determined.

Before we get into whether its Reuniclus or hazards that is the problem, can I get a better idea of if a problem even exists? I'm having quite a few tournament players on both sides of this issue lol...so it's a bit hard to separate legitimate problem from sensationalism. ...

 

[Tesung]

The difference between scald and focus blast isn't realy about likelihood of success or scald getting dmg anyways. The difference is that you choose to put focus blast on your team while scald is forced upon you. Not sure scald is broken, but giving people the choice to play a game where negative luck is unlikely is important. To draw an unnecessary and imperfect real life comparison, people should be allowed to
Gamble/play the lottery, but shouldn't be forced to risk their income because someone else wants to

 

[Lavos]

The problem is, when faced with a game-changing situation, relying on Scald's 30% chance to win is much different than relying on Focus Blast's 70% chance to win. A 30% chance is exactly the same as Fissure and Sheer Cold and what-not, and those were banned for being too luck-based. I am absolutely not equating Scald with Sheer Cold, as that would be idiotic, but they do share in common that they can swing games entirely on luck, although Sheer Cold's distinction is that it's entire purpose is for luck-based cheesing. Scald still has utility as a damage option, although you could argue that it's only purpose is for lucky burns since otherwise Surf would always be superior. Whether it's Scald or Sheer Cold, relying on a 30% chance to win is not competitive. Neither is relying on a 30% miss from Focus Blast, but the relevance is entirely in who is using it which you are ignoring. When a Focus Blast user maneuvers themselves to a situation where Focus Blast will decide the game, they have given themselves a 70% chance to win, while a Scald user who does the same has given themselves a 30% chance to win. Focus Blast has a much higher percentage to go in the favor of the user of the move, and when coupled with the lack of other options, it ceases to be a roll of the dice and instead becomes a risk that the user must take to win the game most of the time. Scald, like Sheer Cold, is a move that is only used because it has a 30% chance to give you a big advantage, because there are other, more powerful options out there that you could be using instead.

You are only looking at the percent chances here for the secondary effects to happen, and not win rate for each move for the user. The opponent has no control over Focus Blast being used or not, so their win chance is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the user of these two moves are, in a game-changing situation, relying on either a 30% or 70% win rate. Both are better than a 0% chance to win than if one were using Surf over Scald or HP Fighting over Focus Blast (assuming HP Fighting is incapable of making the OHKO). However, one of our main ideals in competitive Pokemon is trying to create a metagame where the better player wins most often. Is the better player the one who gave themselves a 30% win chance for the game, or the one who gave themselves 70%?

Yep this is absolutely correct. Did not expect my devil's advocate alter ego to get shut down so quickly. Tesung that's an apt irl comparison.

Aldaron in addition to asking whether it's Reuniclus or hazards or nothing which is probematic, also consider that Reun could be broken because it's immune to Spikes which are also broken. I know some people have this opinion, wouldn't want to leave them out of the conversation.

I think Reuniclus is the sole problem for reasons already addressed by BKC, Ojama, etc.

 

[The Grand Babido]

the first thing to make clear is that reuniclus, and to a lesser extent alakazam, are products of spikes itself. reuniclus' recent popularity came as a response to spikes, it came as a way to put pressure and capitalize on those passive sand teams that everyone hates to love. the ol' reliable. the sorta squad that usually only wins by setting hazards and swapping between counters all game, and gets lucked every third game cause it only attacks once every fifteen turns. this was after people realised that it is very easy to keep hazards up on your side of the field in this tier (and honestly in every BW tier... cause the spinners that would actually be 'good' in UU are used so much as mediocre spinners in OU that they become OU, and then UU takes the good RU spinners to become mediocre spinners in UU, and then it spirals downwards until you're left with NU who just has no spinners at all lol... but this is a weird tangent also indicating the power of spikes and the value of rapid spin).

anyway people realise that they can't spin if their opponent doesn't want them to, so they go two ways. they either create teams where the opponent does not get room to spike e.g. squads such as limitless' where skarmory is forced to phaze the threat immediately (this is why dd kingdra is bad in DP cause skarmory can spike then phaze it) and squads which have measures in place to prevent early hazards. alternatively they make squads where the team does not care about hazards in the long-run, and this is where reuniclus comes in. then more people realise that reuniclus' counters are the most spikes weak around and that by combining spikes and reuniclus, they can use their passive sand strat to win most games on autopilot and then when they go up against opposing passive sand squads, they can just bop out the reuniclus and sweep. however the problem comes when they come up against another passive sand reun team, but most people don't mind taking these games to an approx 50/50 reun battle given that they would have to sacrifice their team's ability to take on every other playstyle just to be able to force out reuniclus a few times a game. but a lot of the time in these match-ups, reuniclus will outlast this counter cause of spikes and so it will end up being a reuniclus battle anyway

the point i'm trying to make is that reuniclus' popularity stems from the power of spikes, and that reuniclus is not the problem but rather a response to it.

it is weird at just how under the radar the move has been for so long. i think its partially cause smog has been so set in its ways of banning pokemon rather than moves that most people did not even consider spikes as an issue. thinking back to all the past suspect threads, how many times have you read something along the lines of "but all it takes is SR+one layer for X to sweep most well constructed squads, and for this reason it is overpowered"?. we banned deoxys-d in BW and XY (even with defog) because of its ability to consistently set up SR+one layer. imagine how useless that big slab of do-nothing would be without the move, and its hard to believe that a pokemon that pathetic can be overpowered just cause of its ability to get up the layers. thinking about the comprehensive way in which deoxys-d (an otherwise pretty worthless pokemon) was banned speaks volumes about how (i'm gonna say it) broken spikes has been over at least the last two gens and how we've been dealing with it the wrong way for even longer

 

[Finchinator]

First and foremost, I'd like to comment on hazards (spikes, specifically) as they have been a major facet of discussion in this thread.

I feel like Spikes have became a vital part of pretty much every BW2 metagame (moreso than they were beforehand). Having played BW2 OU, UU, RU, and NU in the recent series of PLs and in other tournaments, I can say that Spikes seem even more important to have on or to rid from the field than ever as of late. I have two theories as to why this is: 1) the fact that generation six's Defog mechanics have made it harder to keep hazards up and thus when temporarily transitioning back to generation five, spikes' effect is emphasized (specifically when teambuilding) and/or 2) it is just a "coincidence" of sorts given various metagame trends making spikes increasingly effective. I feel like the former of the two aforementioned theories is more realistic and credible as past generations' metagames being effected after new generations are implemented as a byproduct of significant new generation changes from previous norms is a common occurrence while it would be an unlikely 'coincidence' for this to happen as it's not only BW2 OU being more spikes happy as of late, but other BW2 tiers ( especially NU , given the lack of spinners) have also been subject to this.

As for the prospect of this surge in Spikes' viability and effectiveness being potentially dealt with through a limitation or ban of this move, I am on the fence. Before I even consider if any tiering action is warranted or not given the effect of spikes on BW2 tiers, a red flag comes up in regards to how dealing with spikes would potentially set an arbitrary precedent of sorts. By this I mean that banning a move as a whole, which may not be necessary in this case despite it being a potential solution to the problem, is generally avoided in favor of banning a pokemon. If we were to ban spikes, it could easily lead to people advocating bans of other moves instead of the traditional approach of banning a pokemon (for example, banning V Create instead of Victini in UU could be argued when given our tiering system's history, banning Victini as a whole would be the proper line of action if it was deemed broken). This may be a bit of a slippery slope, but banning something like spikes would be hard to justify without provoking situations like the aforementioned regardless. If we were to do something like try to limit spikes to one layer (not advocating this, but somebody mentioned this in either this thread, an RoA thread, or a WCoP thread - cannot quite remember which or who), this would directly contradict the actual in game mechanics, which is a whole other can of worms that I think we should try our best to avoid as then, people could easily start to propose all sorts of manipulation a of game mechanics in order to fit the various metagames better than actual mechanics do. Furthermore, I am skeptical to even propose or advocate any tiering action on Spikes. With that being said, if this were to be overlooked, I would be in favor of a suspect of spikes in some way, shape, or form to at least test the waters with the potential end result of improving either the quality of BW2 tiers if spikes were deemed banworthy or deeming that spikes aren't broken and at least being content that they were given a suspect to test the brokenness.

Now I will transition into discussing Reuniclus, as an individual pokemon in the BW2 metagame, and if it is broken or not, in my opinion.

Reuniclus has two sets, both of which have their merits, but the bulky Calm Mind set warrants more attention when discussing if it is broken or not because while the Offensive Trick Toom variant can be potent (especially against offense), it is much easier to check (or "play around" given that TR puts it on a timer) and not as much of a threat to sweep any unprepared or underprepared team.

The following are what I deem to be fair checks or counters to standard CM Reuni (Psyshock, Focus Blast, Recover, and Calm Mind with HP and Defense invested in heavily) with the conditions for them to check Reuniclus in parenthesis immediately proceeding their mention: Jirachi (Wish CM, Trick Scarf, and Flinches - especially with paralysis from Body Slam, Thunder, or team support), Tyranitar (Chople with 88 attack EVs Adamant - or more - and Crunch or CB - switching in at the right time although it can probably live a +0 Focus from full or maybe after SR if it doesn't run too much speed instead of HP, but cannot calc because on phone and not too solid a check given that it is still a 50/50 with Crunch/Pursuit as Pursuit doesn't always 2HKO if it stays in), Scizor (Band, Roost SD, or offensive SD with a bug move; fun fact: scarf uturn does around half - maybe a bit more - to 252/252+ Reuniclus and when using Scarf Scizor as a check to Reuni late game, I have lost to it quite a few times as it Recovered after U-turn and CMd on other things while I couldn't switch around and back many times given hazards and focus blast damage on Scizor), Sableye (immune to both Psychic and Fighting types, carries taunt, and can damage progressively with Foul Play or Night Shade, so this is the hard counter to CM Reuniclus), Taunt users with Recovery and come in before Reuniclus boosts to the point where it can threaten the pokemon with Taunt+Recovery (Stallbreaker Mew, aforementioned Sableye, Jellicent, uncommon Taunt Gliscor although it has to be super careful here, etc.), Overpowering pokemon that don't take too much damage from Reuniclus (CB Dnite if it doesn't get recover stalled out + confused early because it's doing around 70, Dark Pulse Hydreigon - not a lure or a reliable check but Jirachee used this vs me recently and upon discussing it with him a bit after we played. we came up with a spread for 'new' meta Hydreigon which outpaces all non-Scarf Excadrill and uses the EVs that are leftover after speed investment and Timid nature to tank Focus Blast from +0 Reuni after SR and some other condition I cannot quite recall - either sand or LO - it was like 56 hp 20 SDef or something and I can dig up specifics when I get on home and check IRC logs later if I must, CB Metagross which I know Leftiez has messed around with a lot recently despite it not being common otherwise, the uncommon but godly CB Garchomp, aforementioned CB Tar, and various other things), and pokemon who can use Reuniclus' admittedly passive nature prior to being boosted to set up a counter-sweep against it (QD Volcarona can tank a +1 or maybe even +2 Psyshock depending on if Reuni is LO - which people like Peachy are using recently to win Reuni wars and do more damage - or not and how much HP investment Volc has while QDing or Bug Buzzing, aforementioned SD Scizor and Wish CM Jirachi, CM Roar Latias like the one SW used vs Lavos in BW Cup Semis, NP DarkPulse/ShadowBall Mew like the one SW used vs Jirachee in SPL despite it being very uncommon, etc.), and various miscellaneous things like putting it to sleep or encoring it being temporary answers to this permanent problem.

As you can see, there are a fair amount of checks/counters and means of getting around a CM Reunuclus sweep, especially if your team isn't too passive. I would argue that things like Volcarona, Kyurem-B, and some others have less checks than Reuniclus. HOWEVER, these pokemon lack a couple noteworthy merits which Reuniclus possesses such as Magic Gaurd, superb natural bulk, and having many opportunities to set up or free turns in general upon switching in. Given the above, counterplaying Reuniclus when using a standard bulky build (let's say something like Hippo + scarf tar + spikes from Ferro or Skarm + probably a Jellicent + bulky filler + something to get the team somewhere that could even be a Magic Gaurd Psychic itself or really any of the other various variants of bulky offense / semi-stall which people use often) very challenging if not impossible when a team is completely unprepared for it.

Now this is where I sort of come to an internal dispute over Reuniclus. One part of me wants to be pro-ban because it does consistently well against this developed standard widespread archetype and some other teams while the other part of me wants to say that people should actually prepare for Reuniclus like they would another prominent threat, like Keldeo, and bring at least one if not multiple stops to it regardless of the team/archetype. After thinking this through a bit more, reading this thread, and seeing things like the puush Ciele posted with Reuniclus' results in major BW2 tournament games recently, I am leaning towards the latter (people should adapt more to Reuniclus and having ways to beat it on all teams). I still wouldn't be opposed to a suspect at some point down the line, but I don't think it's immediately necessary, nor as urgent as some other posters say it is (everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, not saying that they are wrong or I am right, just stating my own opinion).

TL;DR: On the fence about Spikes but question the terms on which we could even suspect/ban it without straying from tiering policy and precedents. Leaning anti-ban on Reuniclus, but I don't feel too strongly and can be persuaded otherwise.

Sorry for any mistakes or typos as I'm typing this on my phone. Also, idk how much weight will be given to my opinion as I've only been a part of this subforum for like 18 hours, but I play BW2 a ton and have a lot of interest in the tier, so felt the need to leave my two cents.