Not necessarily, since you are considering that Z has the same weight for X and Y. It would (isnt, but would) be possible that Z has so much importante to Y that it makes it outclass X.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
np: LC - Tiny Dancer (VOTE HERE)
- Thread starter Dubulous
- Start date
- Status
Crux
Banned deucer.
This is untrue, in most cases Oran Berry outclasses Evo Stone on Zuruggu in terms of survivability, so using Zuruggu is broken (if you want to look at it that way) because it is Zuruggu, not because it can hold Evo Stone
Just a question, what were the results of the last banning period? I never saw them, I just occasionally try to use a Pokemon and find out that it's banned.
Also, hopping on the Inconsistent bandwagon, if only because it removes skill from both sides of the match. I mean nobody wants to be forced to use Perish Song in LC.
edit: never mind, found it.
Also, hopping on the Inconsistent bandwagon, if only because it removes skill from both sides of the match. I mean nobody wants to be forced to use Perish Song in LC.
edit: never mind, found it.
(since I can't bold this due it not being a nomination)Oran Berry generally outclasses Evo Stone on most offensive Pokemon. Please realize that before continuing. I'm not sure about stall, since I never use it, but I'm sure Eo will know which is better(I think its Evo Stone?) so ask him!
Anyway, I haven't laddered as of yet in LC(timezone LAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEE), but the Inconsistent stories in LC are really credible. But also realize that Inconsistent is far riskier in LC because unlike OU, the mons that get it cannot necessarily take some weak hit and remain alive while hoping for boosts(+ if you're fast enough(and a bit lucky), you can use a Sub Breaker to beat past Inconsistent(Rock Blast cleans Snorunt outright, and Bullet Seed should let you kill Remoraid, Bidoof requires a specific Sub Breaker with STAB boosts etc.), unless they get seriously bs hax(which is probably due to PO's weird RNG, but that's an entirely different topic altogether).
Anyway, I haven't laddered as of yet in LC(timezone LAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEE), but the Inconsistent stories in LC are really credible. But also realize that Inconsistent is far riskier in LC because unlike OU, the mons that get it cannot necessarily take some weak hit and remain alive while hoping for boosts(+ if you're fast enough(and a bit lucky), you can use a Sub Breaker to beat past Inconsistent(Rock Blast cleans Snorunt outright, and Bullet Seed should let you kill Remoraid, Bidoof requires a specific Sub Breaker with STAB boosts etc.), unless they get seriously bs hax(which is probably due to PO's weird RNG, but that's an entirely different topic altogether).
Inconsistent
This simply takes the "skill" aspect out of battling, unless you call alternating between Protect and Substitute "skill". Inconsistent is like being able to get any boost in addition to your standard move; call it Speed Boost on crack. If there is a chance of raising Evasion, then IMO it conflicts with Evasion Clause and should not be allowed. For consistency's sake, Acupressure should also be banned for anyone out there that's going to go "OMG why the hell did you ban inconsistent because it gives evasion and not acupressure".
This simply takes the "skill" aspect out of battling, unless you call alternating between Protect and Substitute "skill". Inconsistent is like being able to get any boost in addition to your standard move; call it Speed Boost on crack. If there is a chance of raising Evasion, then IMO it conflicts with Evasion Clause and should not be allowed. For consistency's sake, Acupressure should also be banned for anyone out there that's going to go "OMG why the hell did you ban inconsistent because it gives evasion and not acupressure".
Acupressure is entirely different from Inconsistent, and it wouldn't be inconsistent of us to only ban Inconsistent.
Since when can you use Acupressure and Sub/Protect in one turn? Or attack and use Acupressure in one turn?
A rule of thumb that I follow is that any poke without recovery is generally better off with Oran Berry, but pokes with recovery should run Evolution Stone. Also, I think on pokemon with a high HP stat, Evolution Stone is better.
The reasoning for this is that for pokes without recovery, usually 10 extra HP points offers them more defenses than a boost to Def/SpDef. On pokemon WITH recovery though, they don't need any extra HP (because they can gain back HP through either Roost/etc or Leech Seed or Drain Punch...), so the boost to defenses is better. Oran always did clash with recovery moves anyways.
There are other reasons to run Evolution Stone, like if you want to survive certain hits. I run Evolution Stone on Wynaut partially because it allows it to better take on Meditite (although I suppose with Oran Berry Counter and Mirror Coat would do more damage).
Also agreeing with SlimMan that Acupressure and Inconsistent are pretty different.
After playing some Inconsistant LC battles, I have to say that Inconsistant definitely needs to be claused. NOT BANNED, just claused. Abilities and moves, should be claused, as they have been. Banning integral parts of the game is unprecedented and should not be considered, just to be clear, I am proposing Inconsistancy Clause...or something like it, where the luck-based ability is not allowed to be used while the clause is in effect.
I've noticed people complaining about Iron Head and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak being unchecked while this is being so discussed. In supporting my clause proposal, I will address these statements. If you're not interested in my basis of comparing Inconsistent to already-existing abilities, skip to the recap and read from there.
The logic behind this clause is going something like this. Consider a Sub/Protect Inconsistancy user. On turn one, there is a 1/7 (14%, roughly) chance that it will get an Evasion boost, a 28% chance it will get an Evasion OR Speed boost, etc. Compare this to other abilities/moves such as Iron Head, or Snow Cloak, which are luck based. People hate these abilites for good reason. On turn one, there is a 60% chance for Iron Head to flinch you outright (from Rachi), and a 20% (with a standard, 100% accurate move) chance for your attack to miss. We will compare these three cases over seven turns, the amount of time the average Sub/Protect user has to make or break their game.
Now, over time, the chance for Iron Head to flinch GOES DOWN, statistically, as per: .6^7 (.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6) = .02799, or 2.8% chance that you will be unable to connect all seven turns. When you look at that, Iron Head is pretty non-threatening. It's in no way a complete shut down like people complain it is unless your foe gets hax, and the odds of your Stone Edge or Overheat (or even Air Slash) missing are far better than the odds of Iron Head screwing you over.
Snow Cloak is the opposite way: It has a 80% chance to not activate in any given turn. That means, .8^7 = .209715, or there is a 21% chance that you will hit seven times in a row. Of course, that number is generally meaningless, since if you attack continually, your foe will only get five (maybe six) meaningful turns to try to avoid you, as Protecting while attempting to Snow Cloak is redundant, and will not be considered. The chance of their not dodging a move is a more reasonable 32.77%. What this means: if you miss a Sub-Thunder Wave-Confuse Ray Froslass, it's not hax, it's just the math working out properly.
Now, Snow Cloak/Sand Veil is pretty annoying data to look at for the competitive mindset--far worse than Iron Head, since that's a set move with a set power dealing set damage, which you can mitigate. On the flip side, Snow cloak will dodge ANY move (bar 101 accuracy), which can mean a lot more in some cases than others, as anyone who's ever had a Stone Edge miss Gyarados while it's Dragon Dancing can tell you. A Snow Cloak miss could mean one more meaningless Ice Beam or Ice Shard coming your way, or it could mean the difference between getting swept by a Pokemon your only counter to is being destroyed, or even full spikes getting set down by Froslass (in OU, so not relevant, but the point of potential changing depending on the situation still stands).
Still, if you're that Swinub or Kumasyun weak that they're sweeping you, it could (and should) be argued it's your team's fault. That is one other major difference: Snow Cloak doesn't give the Pokemon any super powers, just a small chance to dodge. So, not really ban material. Even being fully abused, it's still not that likely to pull out a win, especially if you bring along something with a priority move to deal a killing blow before the Snow Cloak user can put up another sub. Remember: Those numbers up there are OPTIMAL conditions. Every turn the foe doesn't get another chance is another pretty hefty chunk of their calculations cut off, down to a minimal 20% chance to win if they're trying to avoid an OHKO with the ability. Additionally, removing Hail removes the ability's usefulness altogether! So, you do not have to resort to Aerial Ace or Faint Attack to hit these guys, you can just use Poliwag or Vulpix. That is what differentiates Snow Cloak from Inconsistant, as I will now demonstrate.
To recap:
Iron Head differs from Inconsistency in that
Now, Inconsistancy has a 42% chance per turn of bestowing a beneficial effect: 14% for Evasion, Speed, and to one of the two defenses, as we know. Past turn 1, the chance drops to 28%, as getting a drop in one of those once it's been boosted sort of nullifies the benefit in the first place. So, over seven turns, there is a 56% chance turn 1 that a positive boost will not occur, and 72% chance per the next six turns. Thus:
.56*(.72)^6 = 7.8%
There is a very, very small percentage chance that if you do not have a tactic specifically to counter Inconsistant users, they will screw themselves in terms of useful boosts, over seven turns. Do remember, this is the OPTIMAL case: they may be weak enough after this time that they will not be able to clean-sweep you, you may hit through their evasion boosts regardless, or they could get beneficial boosts in an area which no longer matters past the first boost (+2 Speed or +6 speed, who cares, once you're faster it doesn't really matter).
The main reason that this is so deadly is once they've started shrugging off and avoiding your attacks, they will probably systematically boost up to +6 Atk/SpAtk and destroy you. Once they get those evasion or defense boosts, YOU'RE the one relying on hax to save your ass, unless you have something with Clear Smog or Roar that can hit past evasion boosts and take things like Bidoof's +3 Return, or Remoraid's +5 Surf. While there's definitely not a 92.2% chance every Inconsistent user will sweep you, do you really want a 70%, 50%, or even 40% chance that the opponent will be able to get into a situation where the math SUPPORTS them getting a no-risk +6 across the board, and you're the one trying to get lucky and hope they get several drops in a row? That completely destroys the concept of a competitive battle. It should be skill based, not "hope one of my three inconsistent Pokemon gets a boost and sweeps". And that will doubtless be the case if we do not clause it.
And if you need any further proof, I got up to #22 on LC ladder using an Inconsistent team. Anyone who knows my typical LC performance should be able to tell you that is unholy and wrong.
tl;dr Support an Inconsistancy Clause
I've noticed people complaining about Iron Head and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak being unchecked while this is being so discussed. In supporting my clause proposal, I will address these statements. If you're not interested in my basis of comparing Inconsistent to already-existing abilities, skip to the recap and read from there.
The logic behind this clause is going something like this. Consider a Sub/Protect Inconsistancy user. On turn one, there is a 1/7 (14%, roughly) chance that it will get an Evasion boost, a 28% chance it will get an Evasion OR Speed boost, etc. Compare this to other abilities/moves such as Iron Head, or Snow Cloak, which are luck based. People hate these abilites for good reason. On turn one, there is a 60% chance for Iron Head to flinch you outright (from Rachi), and a 20% (with a standard, 100% accurate move) chance for your attack to miss. We will compare these three cases over seven turns, the amount of time the average Sub/Protect user has to make or break their game.
Now, over time, the chance for Iron Head to flinch GOES DOWN, statistically, as per: .6^7 (.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6*.6) = .02799, or 2.8% chance that you will be unable to connect all seven turns. When you look at that, Iron Head is pretty non-threatening. It's in no way a complete shut down like people complain it is unless your foe gets hax, and the odds of your Stone Edge or Overheat (or even Air Slash) missing are far better than the odds of Iron Head screwing you over.
Snow Cloak is the opposite way: It has a 80% chance to not activate in any given turn. That means, .8^7 = .209715, or there is a 21% chance that you will hit seven times in a row. Of course, that number is generally meaningless, since if you attack continually, your foe will only get five (maybe six) meaningful turns to try to avoid you, as Protecting while attempting to Snow Cloak is redundant, and will not be considered. The chance of their not dodging a move is a more reasonable 32.77%. What this means: if you miss a Sub-Thunder Wave-Confuse Ray Froslass, it's not hax, it's just the math working out properly.
Now, Snow Cloak/Sand Veil is pretty annoying data to look at for the competitive mindset--far worse than Iron Head, since that's a set move with a set power dealing set damage, which you can mitigate. On the flip side, Snow cloak will dodge ANY move (bar 101 accuracy), which can mean a lot more in some cases than others, as anyone who's ever had a Stone Edge miss Gyarados while it's Dragon Dancing can tell you. A Snow Cloak miss could mean one more meaningless Ice Beam or Ice Shard coming your way, or it could mean the difference between getting swept by a Pokemon your only counter to is being destroyed, or even full spikes getting set down by Froslass (in OU, so not relevant, but the point of potential changing depending on the situation still stands).
Still, if you're that Swinub or Kumasyun weak that they're sweeping you, it could (and should) be argued it's your team's fault. That is one other major difference: Snow Cloak doesn't give the Pokemon any super powers, just a small chance to dodge. So, not really ban material. Even being fully abused, it's still not that likely to pull out a win, especially if you bring along something with a priority move to deal a killing blow before the Snow Cloak user can put up another sub. Remember: Those numbers up there are OPTIMAL conditions. Every turn the foe doesn't get another chance is another pretty hefty chunk of their calculations cut off, down to a minimal 20% chance to win if they're trying to avoid an OHKO with the ability. Additionally, removing Hail removes the ability's usefulness altogether! So, you do not have to resort to Aerial Ace or Faint Attack to hit these guys, you can just use Poliwag or Vulpix. That is what differentiates Snow Cloak from Inconsistant, as I will now demonstrate.
To recap:
Iron Head differs from Inconsistency in that
- odds go down over time, not up.
- it is opponent input that you can mitigate directly through teambuilding and/or prediction: use Magnezone or Tran with Lefties!
- it can be countered 100% by certain Pokemon, no luck involved
- these Pokemon with this ability are not necessarily capable of sweeping teams unopposed, simply because they have a small evasion boost.
- counters to these abilities are priority moves or tactics that will have a place on your team otherwise (ie. Scarf Machop, Vacuum Wave Croagunk, Elekid)
Now, Inconsistancy has a 42% chance per turn of bestowing a beneficial effect: 14% for Evasion, Speed, and to one of the two defenses, as we know. Past turn 1, the chance drops to 28%, as getting a drop in one of those once it's been boosted sort of nullifies the benefit in the first place. So, over seven turns, there is a 56% chance turn 1 that a positive boost will not occur, and 72% chance per the next six turns. Thus:
.56*(.72)^6 = 7.8%
There is a very, very small percentage chance that if you do not have a tactic specifically to counter Inconsistant users, they will screw themselves in terms of useful boosts, over seven turns. Do remember, this is the OPTIMAL case: they may be weak enough after this time that they will not be able to clean-sweep you, you may hit through their evasion boosts regardless, or they could get beneficial boosts in an area which no longer matters past the first boost (+2 Speed or +6 speed, who cares, once you're faster it doesn't really matter).
The main reason that this is so deadly is once they've started shrugging off and avoiding your attacks, they will probably systematically boost up to +6 Atk/SpAtk and destroy you. Once they get those evasion or defense boosts, YOU'RE the one relying on hax to save your ass, unless you have something with Clear Smog or Roar that can hit past evasion boosts and take things like Bidoof's +3 Return, or Remoraid's +5 Surf. While there's definitely not a 92.2% chance every Inconsistent user will sweep you, do you really want a 70%, 50%, or even 40% chance that the opponent will be able to get into a situation where the math SUPPORTS them getting a no-risk +6 across the board, and you're the one trying to get lucky and hope they get several drops in a row? That completely destroys the concept of a competitive battle. It should be skill based, not "hope one of my three inconsistent Pokemon gets a boost and sweeps". And that will doubtless be the case if we do not clause it.
And if you need any further proof, I got up to #22 on LC ladder using an Inconsistent team. Anyone who knows my typical LC performance should be able to tell you that is unholy and wrong.
tl;dr Support an Inconsistancy Clause
Of course they're different. iirc I pointed that out in the Inconsistent thread. I'm just saying that because some people in that thread were bitching about how they both can give evasion boosts, etc. etc.
Crux
Banned deucer.
I fail to see the difference between the banning of Inconsistent and the enforcement of your proposed clause. Both stop Inconsistent from being used in standard play, so what's the point?
Crux
Banned deucer.
Inconsistent boosts a stat by 2 stages every turn, for free, without requiring a move slot (which is what makes it differ from Acupressure). Regardless of evasion, this is broken, factoring in the fact that there is a 1/7 chance to boost evasion, it is very broken.
Evasion boosting moves are banned to begin with, and these only boost evasion by 1 stage and require a move slot. Inconsistent boosts any stat (including evasion) by 2 and has literally no downside or limiting factor.
Inconsitent takes the metagame away from a focus on skill and centralizes it around luck. With Inconsistent, more often than not, it does not matter how well a player plays, it matters whether or not the opponent receives and evasion boost, centralizing the game around luck.
I don't think we want this, and I am nominating Inconsistent as a suspect.
On a side note, it probably isn't my place to say this but I would personally be in favor of the ability Inconsistent just receiving a blanket ban. All the Pokemon who receive Inconsistent are usable without it, although they are not necessarily gamebreaking Pokemon. The thing that breaks them is the ability, and it doesn't really make sense to ban all three of those Pokemon rather than the thing that breaks them. Additionally, a blanket ban on the ability would stop further issues in the event that the 3rd game of the B/W series gives more Pokemon the ability.
Why should we remove the whole Pokemon given that they do have their respective niches (Remoraid with Hustle, Bidoof as a BP receiver with Simple and Snorunt in Hail) rather than just remove what makes them broken?
Evasion boosting moves are banned to begin with, and these only boost evasion by 1 stage and require a move slot. Inconsistent boosts any stat (including evasion) by 2 and has literally no downside or limiting factor.
Inconsitent takes the metagame away from a focus on skill and centralizes it around luck. With Inconsistent, more often than not, it does not matter how well a player plays, it matters whether or not the opponent receives and evasion boost, centralizing the game around luck.
I don't think we want this, and I am nominating Inconsistent as a suspect.
On a side note, it probably isn't my place to say this but I would personally be in favor of the ability Inconsistent just receiving a blanket ban. All the Pokemon who receive Inconsistent are usable without it, although they are not necessarily gamebreaking Pokemon. The thing that breaks them is the ability, and it doesn't really make sense to ban all three of those Pokemon rather than the thing that breaks them. Additionally, a blanket ban on the ability would stop further issues in the event that the 3rd game of the B/W series gives more Pokemon the ability.
Why should we remove the whole Pokemon given that they do have their respective niches (Remoraid with Hustle, Bidoof as a BP receiver with Simple and Snorunt in Hail) rather than just remove what makes them broken?
It's the principle of the matter. We don't "ban" sleep moves from being used to affect more than one Pokemon, as that would involve changing the game's mechanics themselves. We simply have Sleep Clause, to say anyone who does so, auto-loses. In the same way, we don't ban Inconsistent from existing, we simply clause it so that if you have it as your Pokemon's ability and it activates, you lose.
...Why can't we just ban Inconsistent of being used (as in, brought into battle and activating - which will happen unless you get hit by Gastro Acid or something) then?
Stop the discussion of however an "inconsistent clause" would be implemented. That's happening in PR between users who have been specifically chosen to discuss such things. If you have something to say on the matter but can't post there, pm a user who CAN with your ideas and have them posted.
Thanks.
Thanks.
I'm staying away from Inconsistent for the moment... I don't really feel qualified to say anything about that, so I hope no one minds me bringing up Evo Stone Zuruggu again. :0
For me, this is mainly to see whether Zuruggu or Evo Stone is more broken; however, I don't know if I want to nominate Evo Stone yet, I'm still thinking on it. Any thoughts on what I'm getting at here...?
I just find myself wondering if it's the Evo Stone that breaks Zuruggu, or if Zuruggu himself really is broken regardless of the item's existence. I was thinking that maybe what we should do is pose a temporary ban on the Stone to note its impact (or lack thereof) on new threats and boons to preexisting threats. For instance, I have little doubt that MH Taunt Murkrow is banned either way, but Evo Stone just makes him even better... Zuruggu, though, I'm not as sure of, I just find myself wondering if he'll last as long without it, as Evo Stone doesn't quite offer the same type of boost as Oran Berry and Life Orb do (read: Evo Stone is better on him).
For me, this is mainly to see whether Zuruggu or Evo Stone is more broken; however, I don't know if I want to nominate Evo Stone yet, I'm still thinking on it. Any thoughts on what I'm getting at here...?
The thing is, if our objective is to create the most diverse metagame possible, Evolution Stone is a tremendous help in that matter. There are only a few pokemon who are broken with Evolution Stone, Zuruggu leading the charge, with in my opinion, Gligar being a close second. So even if it is the item that makes them broken, as opposed to their own merits, banning Evolution Stone just to make those few pokemon not-broken seems like a poor choice (considering how many more pokemon and play-styles become viable due to it). Keep in mind, this only applies if we are indeed looking for a more diverse metagame.
I do like your idea of a suspect test for Evolution Stone though, it seems cool to test out the two different metagames. Usually I'd be against something like this, but Evolution Stone has such a huge impact on the meta, that it only seems fair.
I do like your idea of a suspect test for Evolution Stone though, it seems cool to test out the two different metagames. Usually I'd be against something like this, but Evolution Stone has such a huge impact on the meta, that it only seems fair.
Zuruggu is broken either way.
Banning a few of the best little cup pokemon just to make Evolution Stone not-broken seems like a poor choice to me (considering how big of an impact those pokemon have on the metagame). I'd rather not have an ubers list of 10+ pokemon in a meta with only about 120 or so pokemon (guesstimate), when only about 30-40 (I'm being generous) are viable. I would argue that the non-evo stone metagame is even less offensive than the one with evolution stone in it, simply because you can't set up as easily. And the fact that only a few pokemon are broken with it... Barboach with screens and an Evo Stone is hard to kill, it can get +2 easily (grass types are nonexistent in LC remember) and sweep half your team. Besides, whether or not you have an evolution stone, it doesn't change the fact that if you predict wrong nothing can counter a meditite or murkrow (that is commonly used at least, there are no common rock types in LC, except those which don't resist brave bird/heat wave), so they would still wind up banned anyways, so Evo Stone doesn't help keep them in the meta.
Outside of that, I enjoy the stone-less meta a lot more than the one with (hyper offense is a ton of fun) and I'd rather have the more fun metagame any day.
Banning a few of the best little cup pokemon just to make Evolution Stone not-broken seems like a poor choice to me (considering how big of an impact those pokemon have on the metagame). I'd rather not have an ubers list of 10+ pokemon in a meta with only about 120 or so pokemon (guesstimate), when only about 30-40 (I'm being generous) are viable. I would argue that the non-evo stone metagame is even less offensive than the one with evolution stone in it, simply because you can't set up as easily. And the fact that only a few pokemon are broken with it... Barboach with screens and an Evo Stone is hard to kill, it can get +2 easily (grass types are nonexistent in LC remember) and sweep half your team. Besides, whether or not you have an evolution stone, it doesn't change the fact that if you predict wrong nothing can counter a meditite or murkrow (that is commonly used at least, there are no common rock types in LC, except those which don't resist brave bird/heat wave), so they would still wind up banned anyways, so Evo Stone doesn't help keep them in the meta.
Outside of that, I enjoy the stone-less meta a lot more than the one with (hyper offense is a ton of fun) and I'd rather have the more fun metagame any day.
I agree with your first statement and I am a huge proponent for diversity... However, you understand my reasoning, right? I actually do not want to see the Evo Stone banned, I would merely nominate it to test the impact of certain accusedly-broken Pokemon (namely, Zuruggu).
But how do you know that? :0 Is there some Evo Stone-less variant of the LC metagame that can be played right now? :\ Until we eliminate Evo Stone from the equation, you can't possibly know that Zuruggu is broken either way. Refusing to run Evo Stone on your regular Zuruggu sets doesn't help, as Ziggy still has to contend with LC tanks that run it, so that's not an accurate reading on it. (Of course, if he still performs well regardless, then... maybe that's a sign that he is broken.)
If, after testing, we find that Zuruggu is still broken, then we can ban him, maybe bring Evo Stone back for another test without him in the metagame. If he's not broken with it, maybe it should be considered for Uber. Until we test it, we really don't know. :0
So I guess I've made up my mind, then. I would like to nominate Evo Stone for suspect.
EDIT: Oops, wait, we're not nominating stuff yet are we? :0 ...err... I was just... being forcefully declarative then....? =___='
nominations are cool. voting is gonna start in a few days.
for the record, i don't know that it's broken. it's simply a hunch, based on the fact that it is still pretty damn bulky and has dd and huge attack, ect. Also, the fact that there are so many top tier fighting types make it even more difficult to counter, which is another big issue with it... but it's simply my opinion that it'll be broken either way.
for the record, i don't know that it's broken. it's simply a hunch, based on the fact that it is still pretty damn bulky and has dd and huge attack, ect. Also, the fact that there are so many top tier fighting types make it even more difficult to counter, which is another big issue with it... but it's simply my opinion that it'll be broken either way.
- Status