Scald

Kink

www.soundcloud.com/keylontix
is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#51
Perhaps Robert hasn't backed up the point in the first part of his post too well, but I think his second paragraph makes a lot of sense. What he says is that it's all good talking in theory about how moves like Body Slam, Lava Plume and Thunder are similar to Scald, but in practice Scald is a lot more worthy of a ban because it has a much more of a concrete impact on the metagame.

Scald is always going to be in the backs of a player's mind when building a team because nearly every single Water-type Pokemon is going to carry that move. There is only one Pokemon in OU (both BW and ORAS) that uses Lava Plume effectively, and that is Heatran. Furthermore, Scald hits the only type immune to it super effectively. The same can't be said of Lava Plume. Finch summed it up really well on the previous page - "It gets less distribution among Fire-types, is often not used in favour of alternatives (like Fire Blast), and doesn't have the same niche as a Water-type move inflicting a burn". It's really no comparison; Scald has way more of an impact on the metagame than Lava Plume does. Regarding Body Slam, there is also only one Pokemon in OU that commonly uses it, and that is Jirachi. Body Slam also has terrible coverage and power, and so has pretty much no use outside of the 30% chance of paralysis. Scald has excellent distribution, decent power boosted by STAB, and can even be boosted by Rain. Not much comparison here either.

Lava Plume and Body Slam are not a big deal not because of immunities or how many Fire-types there are, but it's simply because there are 2 Pokemon in the whole of BW and ORAS OU that commonly carry those moves. Even if you look at ORAS UU, the only Pokemon that uses Body Slam is Snorlax, and there are absolutely none that use Lava Plume. Scald is used by nearly every single Water-type out there. Even not keeping in mind the other factors I mentioned, isn't it reasonable to say that it has a far bigger impact than the other two moves simply because of its sheer usage? And once you consider the points that do make Scald superior, you can see why it's considered more ban-worthy than other similar moves.

Also, I think people are vastly overrating how easily Scald is to take in practice, even by Natural Cure and Heal Bell users. If Pokemon having such abilities and moves get burned by Scald, they are still put under significant pressure. The likes of Celebi and Starmie can be weakened to the point that the burn could potentially put them in range of a KO, or it could force them to Recover which results in a loss of momentum. For Heal Bell users too, Pokemon like Chansey and Blissey are so passive offensively as it is, and taking up a turn to use Heal Bell can again prove quite detrimental in terms of momentum. As for Water Absorb users, there are none that are actually in the OU tier in ORAS which says a lot about their usage.

Really, it just comes down to how crippling people assess Scald and its secondary effect to be in the tier in question. Looking at posts from other tiers, RU and NU players don't really feel it's broken at all. However in UU, and maybe in ORAS and BW OU as well, Scald is surely significant enough to be controversial. radiant also brought up a good point in that banning Scald would not make most bulky Water-types any less viable due to their access to Surf. It isn't much of an argument for banning Scald in itself, but it's definitely something to keep in mind if any tiering action is going to be considered.
That's my entire point, I do not think Surf is a reasonable substitute in a tier where each typing has its own bag of tricks.
 

IronBullet

Astronomy Domine
is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis an official Team Rateris a Battle Server Administratoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administratoris a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
RMT Co-Leader
#52
That's my entire point, I do not think Surf is a reasonable substitute in a tier where each typing has its own bag of tricks.
Actually, it is. Bulky Waters have been a staple for teams throughout the years, even before Scald was introduced. Their viability is not tied to Scald; their consistently high usage is due to their excellent defensive typing, solid stats and access to a reliable STAB move, whether it be Surf or Scald. If Surf has been good enough for bulky Waters from generations 1 to 4, I can't see why it would cease to be an option in 5 and 6 even with the slight 5 point reduction in power.

Let's talk specifically about ORAS UU, because that's the tier your argument is based on. Do you really think Swampert will become any less viable if Scald is banned? It's not one of the premier bulky waters in the tier because of Scald; this is because of its amazing Water/Ground typing which allows it to counter various top threats like Mega Aerodactyl, Darmanitan, Entei, Cobalion, Tyrantrum, etc. regardless or whether it gets lucky with a Scald burn or not. You said it yourself, it's Swampert's perfect stat distribution and movepool that makes it a threat. It doesn't have to rely on Scald at all to do its job.

Next, you say that Empoleon needs Scald to pressure offensive teams. It really doesn't; Empoleon's high Special Attack combined with a decently powered STAB move is enough pressure in itself. The pressure that you're referring to is what is actually making Scald unhealthy. The fact that common offensive switch-ins to Scald, such as Haxorus and Machamp, which would be perfectly good switch-ins to Empoleon otherwise, are afraid to come in due to the chance of a burn is what makes Scald overpowering. Situations shouldn't arise where Pokemon who would otherwise beat Empoleon comfortably are afraid of switching in due to the burn chance. This makes bulky Waters overpowering in that they can simply sit there and spam Scald, because anything that switches in, however reliable, has a chance of being crippled. In an ideal metagame, Fighting-types such as Machamp should be able to come in and take advantage of Empoleon because that's what the correct competitive play is. Scald is not encouraging good plays, it's creating unhealthy situations. Do you think Tentacruel vs Empoleon stall wars are good situations?

I'm going to quote Bad Ass's post here, because I think it's the best argument against banning Scald in this thread. "I believe that the best counter-argument for keeping Scald free is that a player may choose to maximize his odds by maneuvering himself into a position where he can throw out more Scalds for free. If, for example, the opponent was extremely susceptible to your Choice Scarf Latios once you scald burned his ferrothorn, the Latios user would play better by attempting to get his starmie in a position where it can throw out a free scald into the ferrothorn. This is a legitimate use of Scald and in my opinion, one thing that Scald's detractors often leave out of the discussion: Its power to reward skill in breaking (usually balance) teams." This can very easily be applied to UU as well. "If, for example, the opponent was extremely susceptible to your Mega Aerodactyl once your Scald burned his Slowking, the Mega Aerodactyl user would play better by attempting to get his Suicune in a position where it can throw out a free Scald onto the Slowking." There are so many Pokemon that can take advantage of Scald like that, and there have been so many games in the past that have hinged on situations like this.

Again, it's all very good in theory to say that we can use Natural Cure users and Heal Bell users to neuter Scald, but my point from my previous post stands because it's not that easy to take in practice. If Pokemon having such abilities and moves get burned by Scald, they are still put under significant pressure. The likes of Shaymin and Roserade can be weakened to the point that the burn could potentially put them in range of a KO, or it could force them to recover health which results in a loss of momentum. For Heal Bell users too, Pokemon like Blissey and Florges are quite passive offensively as it is, taking up a turn to use Heal Bell can again prove quite detrimental in terms of momentum.

Removing Scald will not make Water-types too tame. It simply makes them a lot less overwhelming, and in my opinion it makes them more balanced. The metagame hasn't developed to take Scald better, Scald has just always been in the tier which is why it seems this way. Alomomola, with a horrendous base 40 Special Attack, should not be able to beat DD Salamence in an ideal competitive situation, but is able to simply due to the burn chance. With Surf, Water-types will still be able to do all the jobs they are meant to do. They can still wall and check top threats thanks to their natural bulk and defensive typing, Pokemon like Swampert, Seismitoad, Tentacruel, and Empoleon will still find the same opportunities to come in and support their team, Vaporeon and Alomomola can still support their team with Wish or Heal Bell, and Suicune can still wall every single physical attacker under the sun with Surf. The luck that Scald brings into nearly every game outweighs whatever positive impact it has. It is very common for a player to use Scald in desperation as a last-ditch attempt to try and change the tide of the game. Such a play brings no skill to to the game at all, and should not be rewarded in any competitive sense. Removing it will make the tier a lot healthier.
 
Last edited:
#53
There is no 'should'. Why 'should’ machamp be able to switch into empoleon? Because you think so? Machamp could switch into empoleon. Now machamp can't switch into empoleon, because it got a new move. 'Should' is arbitrary and opinionated, and it means absolutely nothing.

As a physically offensive steel/psychic, Metagross perhaps 'should' have mega slowbro as a switchin ('should' because typing and stat distribution). But guess what? Grass knot mothafucker ~ as a result, it can't always switch in, and that 'should', means nothing
 
#54
There is no 'should'. Why 'should’ machamp be able to switch into empoleon? Because you think so? Machamp could switch into empoleon. Now machamp can't switch into empoleon, because it got a new move. 'Should' is arbitrary and opinionated, and it means absolutely nothing.

As a physically offensive steel/psychic, Metagross perhaps 'should' have mega slowbro as a switchin ('should' because typing and stat distribution). But guess what? Grass knot mothafucker ~ as a result, it can't always switch in, and that 'should', means nothing
The reason people are saying "should" is because water type pokemon are overwhelming and overpowering with the move Scald factored in. It is not that "a fighting type should be able to beat a steel type every time", but rather that we simply do not have enough reliable switchins to most water types. I know this has been stated a million times in this thread, but I will state it again because some people aren't quite getting a major argument of the pro-ban side: Scald inhibits counterplay to an unhealthy degree.
 

IronBullet

Astronomy Domine
is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis an official Team Rateris a Battle Server Administratoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administratoris a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
RMT Co-Leader
#55
I'm talking in direct response to what Kink said on the previous page. He said "I don't feel that scoring a burn on a Machamp is broken if the Machamp wanted a free switch-in for a free Dynamic Punch which is also arguably cheap". Now, if the opposing team has a Machamp and Empoleon is currently out on the field, the player using Empoleon would naturally be wary of Machamp. However due to Scald's burn chance, the Machamp user will be reluctant to switch it in. So Empoleon can just sit there and mindlessly spam Scald, while the opponent has to take a risk in order to get Machamp in. This is what I mean by an unhealthy situation, as it doesn't encourage good plays. The opponent 'should' be able send Machamp in on Empoleon relatively freely, but can't. Moves that have similar effects, like Lava Plume and Body Slam, simply can't be compared due to reasons that have already been discussed here and elsewhere in this thread in a lot of detail.

The Metagross-Slowbro example also can't really compare to this because, well, how many Metagross actually run Grass Knot? You will be dedicating an entire moveslot to a move that may or may not come in handy in a match. Scald is used on nearly every single Water-type out there. An example like this, or any example using a Pokemon's niche coverage moves as an argument, has nowhere near the same level of impact as it doesn't create these situations with the same regularity that Scald does.
 
#56
I'm in full agreement that scald should be banned and that the fact that it DOES remove so many possible switchins is indeed what makes it so unhealthy. That being said, any arguments that are founded on arbitrary claims (particularly those that argue some kind of inherent characteristic) are completely flawed. That's all that I meant to point out.

Also, pretty sure that grass knotknot+hammer arm Metagross is (or at least was) pretty standard. But, again, that wasn't to argue against scald. It was brought up to argue against universal 'shoulds'.
 
#57
While many have argued that Scald is uncompetitive due to its 30% side effect I would argue that it's the exact same thing as we've seen in previous generations and see with other pokemon examples in ORAS right now. My first example is with something like Bisharp versus Stall. Skarmory for whatever reason is incapacitated, leaving Quagsire as the best and only response available. Quagsire comes in and takes a Knock Off leaving at a low percentage of HP where it is forced to recover or else it would be too low to take on anything else when it is needed. Knowing this, the Bisharp player clicks Iron Head reasoning that there is a low probability of retaliation during that turn and a 30% flinch chance will turn the game on its head. This may seem like begging for "hax" but when you do this multiple times your chance of actually succeeding goes up tremendously. My other example is with Snorlax in UU. In UU, Snorlax commonly spams Body Slam early game to try and paralyze the Mienshao's and Heracross's of the world since once the paralysis happens they are unable to check Snorlax in the future. Snorlax is fishing for a paralysis the same way that Suicune is fishing for a burn. Both of these status conditions are extremely debilitating. While everyone pretty much universally hates Scald, I actually enjoy having the move in the game. Common uses of Scald for me include burning fat walls like Porygon2 (UU example) which actually opens up teambuilding for me. For example, being able to burn Porygon makes it so other things aside from Fighting-types can break through. The same side effect is strapped to Sludge Bomb. So while Scald has certain limiting factors, such as being forced to carry various Natural Cure users, Special Attacking Grass types, Water Absorb/Dry Skin users, Special Attacking Dragons, etc. it also has positives by allowing different team structures that struggle with certain pokemon a little more leeway the same way that Snorlax spamming Body Slam does.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
RU Co-Leader
#58
Overall, Scald is just uncompetitive, and it's somewhat controlling Pokemon at the moment (for example, UU). I'd love to see Pokemon without Scald tbh, as I think it would easily make it a more fun and fair environment to play in.
Not to single you out, as some people are bordering on doing the same (although they elaborated on why they thought scald was uncompetitive a little more), but if uncompetitive is going to be the next buzzword can we at least preface it with some sort of definition in our posts? At this point pretty much everyone is using uncompetitive to mean whatever they want it to, which makes it pretty much meaningless. I know there is a thread on uncompetitive vs competitive in PR that shrang made (which people should read if they have ~30 minutes to spare, as the thread has some interesting thoughts), but I think trying to come up with at least some common definition would be useful at this point, for the purposes of this thread.

In my previous post itt, I argued that to be uncompetitive, the thing in question has to do more than just introduce luck into the game (ie Poison Jab, Thunder Wave etc.). I think everyone is in agreement about this fact (hence the rock slide jokes o_o). I also, very briefly, touched on the role I feel the retention of autonomy of decision making plays in whether something is or is not uncompetitive. I would argue, that an uncompetitive aspect of the game, is one which removes the value placed on decision making in determining the outcome of the match. Previous bans which fall in this category include: Swagger (50% chance to generate a free turn), Moody (over the long term, as evasion boosts stack, it generates a crap ton of free turns), Evasion Clause (the former except the abuser has more control on its outcome), and possibly Shadow Tag ban in UU (removes the ability to switch out, which literally removes autonomy of decision making from opponent) (this one is arguably just broken and not uncompetitive). As I have demonstrated, this definition of uncompetitive largely falls in line with past tiering decisions of Smogon. Scald, on the other hand, does not remove autonomy from the opponent, sure the opponent must weigh risk reward carefully, and evaluate whether or not risking a scald burn is worth it, but Scald isn't really generating free turns, it's simply creating a situation in which weighing whether or not you can afford being burned becomes important. Now you might be saying, "OHKO clause," but aside from the 30% chance, OHKO and scald are also p different. OHKO has a much greater reward for connecting than Scald does for burning, and it has much less viable counter play (there are far fewer viable Sturdy (if there are even any) mons than there are viable Magic Guard, Special Regen, and Water Absorb mons, + just special attackers that while they dislike residual damage aren't affected by the attack drop). The other thing with OHKO is that switch or no switch if a mon gets hit by OHKO move (barring sturdy), it's dead, where as with scald, even mons that are susceptible to burns aren't necessarily useless (ie special attackers). So while it's true that OHKO moves do not fit into the definition of uncompetitive I just proposed, however, it would qualify as unhealthy (to the extent it is broken) given the combination of introduction of luck into the game combined with the fact that it has almost 0 viable counter play. I agree Scald introduces luck into the game (which is not enough to be uncompetitive by itself), but I provided 2 examples in my previous post where the amount of viable counter play, or lack of viable scald abusers means scald isn't so unhealthy that it warrants a ban (RU and NU respectively). This is why I do not support a blanket ban on scald across all tiers, and I do believe that if scald is determined to be an issue in a specific tier, then a suspect test would be the appropriate way to go about it, not by a ruling handed down by any SS member or TL. The only thing that worries me, is that based on this thread, and the use of "uncompetitive" as used by some itt (note I do only mean some, some of the pro ban arguments were not based on uncompetitiveness, or they actually bothered to come up with a definition for uncompetitive beyond "introduces luck", or "I don't like it"), is that people's decision would be made based on an emotional reaction to getting burned by scald, rather than a rational evaluation of the meta game's ability to adequately deal with scald.

This might also have belonged in Ginku's thread about tiering philosophy (which people should also read, cause interesting), but I feel like it fits nicely on here as well.

This was a bitch to type on a phone, sorry for any typos.

Edit: to clarify cause I got on a pretty large tagent, my main points were the following: buzzwords are bad, I don't think scald fits the mold of "uncompetitive" when uncompetitive is sufficiently defined, and having some definition of uncompetitive would be nice, but since we don't defining it in your arguments is almost as good.
 
Last edited:
#59
I think that many of the posters (despite shaping their posts to match meaningless buzzwords) would actually like to argue that scald is legitimately broken. Personally, the 30% burn doesn't cut it for me whatsoever in defining it as 'uncompetitive' when we have far more outright haxy things floating around the meta. However, reshape that to imply that '30% burn + se against fire + high bp + ubiquitous + good offensive typing + too spammable + relatively few casualties in banning it given surf' makes it universally overpowered, and I can get on board.
 

Freeroamer

The greatest story of them all.
#60
While I get your post, you're still trying to define uncompetitive in a purely "haxy" sense when as far as I'm concerned, uncompetitive has always been taken to mean that there is extremely limited / specific counterplay to a given element such that in preparing for it you're restricting teambuilding to an extreme degree or you're downright losing to it. That was always the sense I got from the reasoning used to nerf Baton Pass as an "uncompetitive" strategy as well as Swagger.

Like I say, I agree with the rest of your post because I believe that Scald's ability to inhibit counterplay as has best been explained by countless others including yourself throughout this thread is broken, but that point just stood out to me like a sore thumb. :/ Perhaps another thread for defining uncompetitive and other such buzzwords could be somewhere lol
 

jpw234

Catastrophic Event Specialist
#61
Okay, so it seems the consensus is that the problem with Scald is that there is limited counterplay. Here are, in my view, viable ORAS OU methods of switching into/countering Scald, in or above the UU tier, with particularly good/common Pokemon in bold:

Strong answers (reliable, self-sufficient counters, multiple times over the course of the game):
Water Absorb/Dry Skin pokemon: Jellicent, Seismitoad, Toxicroak
Resists/bulky Pokemon with Natural Cure: Starmie, Celebi, Roserade, Chansey, Blissey
Bulky Magic Guard pokemon: Clefable, Reuniclus
Resists with methods of removing status: RD Manaphy, CroCune, Refresh Mega-Altaria, CM Mega-Lati@s, RestTalk Mega-Amphy, CroBro

Decent answers (work once or twice on their own, or reliable with support via Wishpass/HW/cleric, or consistently reliable but only on defensive Scald users):
Offensive Magic Guard pokemon: Alakazam
Immune to burn and not weak to Scald: Charizard-X
Bulky Guts: Conkeldurr, Heracross (pre-mega or scarf/band)
Self-status pokemon that aren't weak to Scald: Poison Heal Breloom
Non-resists with methods of removing status: Heal Bell Clefable, Heal Bell Sylveon, Cleric Mew, Heal Bell Mega-Altaria
Bulky resists paired with a cleric: Tentacruel, Empoleon, Ferrothorn, Rotom-W, Chesnaught, Mega-Venusaur, Slowbro, Slowking, Goodra, Roost Lati@s
Offensive resists that don't care about burn and don't take other chip damage: Keldeo, Manaphy, non-LO Serperior (particularly Giga Drain), Mega-Blastoise, scarf Hydreigon, Mega-Sceptile, Dragalge

Weak answers (require significant support, or can only be relied on to work once, or only viable on defensive Scald users):
Offensive resists that don't care about burn but do take other chip damage: LO Lati@s, LO Hydreigon, Analytic Starmie, SpA Kyu-B
Bulky resists not paired with a cleric: c/p above list of bulky resists
Reasonably bulky neutral mons that don't care about burn and don't take other chip damage: AV Torn-T, AV Raikou, Mega-Gardevoir
Self-status pokemon weak to Scald: Gliscor
Offensive resists with Lum Berry: Dragonite, Garchomp

"Cross your fingers" switch-ins (only work once and you're relying on the 70% chance not to burn):
Offensive resists that are crippled by burn: Azumarill, Gyarados (mega or no), Feraligatr, Breloom, Mega-Sharpedo, Mega-Altaria, Weavile, Dragonite


Looking at that list, stall is going to have one of the strong answers or 2 of the decent answers no matter what. Balanced should absolutely not struggle to fit one strong answer or multiple decent answers onto a team, and if they choose to use only one decent answer, they may be pressured by Scald. Offense should absolutely not struggle to fit one decent answer or multiple weak answers onto a team, and if they use less, they may be pressured by Scald burns.

Given this amount of counterplay combined with the fact that offense is inherently weak to chip damage and as such have to expect that they will have fewer switch-ins to a move like Scald, I fail to see how people can argue that Scald is broken. Just about every poster has said that there is not enough counterplay to Scald, but a cursory analysis raises the question: how much counterplay is enough? Why are the tools available not good enough? What would constitute "sufficient counterplay" to Scald?

Edit: Also, note that the above is presuming that Scald is going to burn. If your opponent uses Scald twice, 49% of the time, your weak answer (say AV Torn-T) is just gonna tank it and not even have to worry about the burn, so it's served as a strong answer for that game. Basically, conditional on the burn rolls, Pokemon could move up, but they can't move down, so the given list is "worst-case".
 
Last edited:
#62
It's nice, because a lot of those don't care about keldeo's secret sword either. And they mostly have reliable recovery. There's definitely counterplay, and the scald user trying to minimize counterplay is just as legitimate a strategy as trying to wear down <insert mon>'s counters, even if it is banking on a timely burn (which is not a problem until they successfully outmeneuver the multiple scald counters).
 
#63
uh... that list is really really really flawed. i saw RestTalk Ampharos as a non bolded mon, so i'm only gonna comment on bolded ones.
starmie: ok, starmie is a good spinner and keldeo counter.

celebi: shit mon. the current metagame fucks it incredibly hard (both zards, metagross, altaria, torn-t, talon, weavile, etc), it has little use outside of hard countering keld. it literally had 23% average win in the live tour statistics just so you can have an idea how bad it is rofl.

mguard clefable: takes like 50% from specs keldeo's scald, let alone hydro pump;

rd manaphy: rd is not always seen on mana, and it gets 2HKOed by +1 secret sword

crocune: uu pkmn, takes 40% from secret sword, and is forced to rest in order to cure burn

alakazam: loses sash. if LO, gets OHKOed by keldeo's scald as well

charizard-x: read clefable

heal bell sylveon/clefable: are forced to give up a turn (thus giving a literal free switch for anything) and waste a heal bell pp

resists paired with a cleric: clerics are really uncommon, and the extra damage is still crippling, and the clerics can be easily pressured (read the item above)

av torn-t: gets significantly easier to wear down after burnt, u-turn and knock off damage are halved

av raikou: completely fucked by extra damage since it's vulnerable to every hazard and lacks recovery.

mega garde: same as raikou

lati@s: much more crippled by burn than you think. watch tele vs bloo for last year's olt, where tele managed to defeat a latios with a sub cm keldeo because of a scald burn.

hydreigon: same as above, but cannot even dream of switching into keld because of secret sword.

dragonite: wastes multiscale by switching into scald, and might waste lum berry as well which sucks.

garchomp: this isnt a resist lol (and lum berry is rly rare on chomp nowadays).


so the answer is, no, scald does have limited counterplay. i cant tell if it's uncompetitive or not, but that's at least grounds for it to be banned under the condition it restricts teambuilding. yes, adding a scald counter probably makes your team shittier (especially if it's celebi). if aegislash was banned for having few counters, why cannot scald have the same destiny?
 

jpw234

Catastrophic Event Specialist
#64
uh... that list is really really really flawed. i saw RestTalk Ampharos as a non bolded mon, so i'm only gonna comment on bolded ones.
starmie: ok, starmie is a good spinner and keldeo counter.

celebi: shit mon. the current metagame fucks it incredibly hard (both zards, metagross, altaria, torn-t, talon, weavile, etc), it has little use outside of hard countering keld. it literally had 23% average win in the live tour statistics just so you can have an idea how bad it is rofl.

mguard clefable: takes like 50% from specs keldeo's scald, let alone hydro pump;

rd manaphy: rd is not always seen on mana, and it gets 2HKOed by +1 secret sword

crocune: uu pkmn, takes 40% from secret sword, and is forced to rest in order to cure burn

alakazam: loses sash. if LO, gets OHKOed by keldeo's scald as well

charizard-x: read clefable

heal bell sylveon/clefable: are forced to give up a turn (thus giving a literal free switch for anything) and waste a heal bell pp

resists paired with a cleric: clerics are really uncommon, and the extra damage is still crippling, and the clerics can be easily pressured (read the item above)

av torn-t: gets significantly easier to wear down after burnt, u-turn and knock off damage are halved

av raikou: completely fucked by extra damage since it's vulnerable to every hazard and lacks recovery.

mega garde: same as raikou

lati@s: much more crippled by burn than you think. watch tele vs bloo for last year's olt, where tele managed to defeat a latios with a sub cm keldeo because of a scald burn.

hydreigon: same as above, but cannot even dream of switching into keld because of secret sword.

dragonite: wastes multiscale by switching into scald, and might waste lum berry as well which sucks.

garchomp: this isnt a resist lol (and lum berry is rly rare on chomp nowadays).


so the answer is, no, scald does have limited counterplay. i cant tell if it's uncompetitive or not, but that's at least grounds for it to be banned under the condition it restricts teambuilding. yes, adding a scald counter probably makes your team shittier (especially if it's celebi). if aegislash was banned for having few counters, why cannot scald have the same destiny?
Lol. I'm not sure what game we're playing here, are we talking about Scald switch-ins or Keldeo switchins? Are you arguing that Scald is broken or that Keldeo is broken?

Ofc you completely gloss over half the mons on the list and completely ignore that for many of the mons you have beef about I specifically labeled them as being decent or weak switchins that require support. You also have presumed that every single one of the Pokemon is getting burned, which actually has only a 30% chance of occurring on any given Scald switch-in and can still be healed with cleric support. Finally, you're only talking about Keldeo, ignoring that many of the Pokemon listed are perfectly viable switch-ins to the majority of Scald users in the tier (which are mostly defensive) - e.g. Hydreigon, Lati@s, Suicune - if you want to make a case for Keldeo being banned, that's a separate discussion. And of course:

Given this amount of counterplay combined with the fact that offense is inherently weak to chip damage and as such have to expect that they will have fewer switch-ins to a move like Scald, I fail to see how people can argue that Scald is broken. Just about every poster has said that there is not enough counterplay to Scald, but a cursory analysis raises the question: how much counterplay is enough? Why are the tools available not good enough? What would constitute "sufficient counterplay" to Scald?
No responses...yes offense is weaker to Scald, this is a characteristic of offense (being vulnerable to chip damage and overcoming this weakness by maintaining momentum/pressuring opposing Scald users), so explain why having limited offensive Scald switch-ins is problematic; please explain what would constitute "enough counterplay" for Scald so we can have some basis for evaluating your completely unsubstantiated claims that "scald does have limited counterplay".

And finally, you're massively exaggerating the weaknesses to basically every single mon you talked about. Note that Celebi basically fucks every "problem" you named for it with Thunder Wave, you didn't even mention Mega-Altaria which is one of the best mons in the meta, pretend that Specs Keld invalidates several mons when it's the least common of the 3 usual Keld sets, you dismiss the largest section of viable counters (resists paired with cleric) by saying "clerics are uncommon" (well they should become more common if people desire reliable Scald switch-ins, this is not an unreasonable burden), and handwave basically everything else with "they can be pressured" when the whole purpose of offensive teams that you're complaining are weak to Scald is to put pressure on the opposing Scald users...
 
Last edited:
#65
Re: Scald

I don't think there's any real net benefit to keeping this move unbanned. It significantly enhances the disruption potential of the Pokemon who have it, and inherently promotes relying on probability (which is something we've explicitly tried to avoid with evasion/swagger clause.) Scald isn't strictly equivalent to evasion boosting moves/swagger, but it's arguably just as ruinous if not more considering there is 0 risk to using it. Double Team and the like leave the user open after use, but Scald functions as an attacking move on top of its burn chance. The Pokemon that use it get to apply their offensive pressure, and a burn chance on top of it. It is the definition of a stacked move. Lava Plume has been discussed to death so I don't really have much to add, but I think by now everyone should realize that it's nowhere near as ruinous as Scald in practice.

So I ask again, is there a good reason to keep this move unbanned? There's been too much focus on the immediate effects of Scald and not enough focus on the long term effects on Scald. Getting a burn on your opponents primary bulky water-type resist can easily swing the match at a later point in a match. That's why making a giant list of Pokemon who can reliably switch into Scald is an exercise in futility; Pokemon isn't played in a vacuum, the game state should always be considered. It's removal wouldn't even be cataclysmic; Pokemon who rely on it would go back to using Surf, and the beneficial effects would be immediate. No more having to dance around Scald; A bulky-water type resist could function as a bulky water-type resist without potential crippling itself for the rest of the match.

The only real downside to banning Scald will be the initial public outcry, but it's a minor concern at this point. Smogon can easily weather the damage.
 
Last edited:

YABO

King Turt
is a Tiering Contributoris a Community Contributor Alumnus
#66
So I ask again, is there a good reason to keep this move unbanned? There's been too much focus on the immediate effects of Scald and not enough focus on the long term effects on Scald. Getting a burn on your opponents primary bulky water-type resist can easily swing the match at a later point in a match. That's why making a giant list of Pokemon who can reliably switch into Scald is an exercise in futility; Pokemon isn't played in a vacuum, the game state should always be considered. It's removal wouldn't even be cataclysmic; Pokemon who rely on it would go back to using Surf, and the beneficial effects would be immediate. No more having to dance around Scald; A bulky-water type resist could function as a bulky water-type resist without potential crippling itself for the rest of the match.

The only real downside to banning Scald will be the initial public outcry, but it's a minor concern at this point. Smogon can easily weather the damage.
You can't just shift the burden of proof onto the wrong side like that. That defeats the entire purpose of your argument. Scald is a tool that every team should be prepared for the same way that every team should be prepared for any other threat in the metagame. It's a great move just as Body Slam, Thunder, Blizzard, and others have been throughout the generations. It's highly predictable and easily prepared for with both offensive and defensive archetypes.

In addition, it can be argued that Scald somewhat helps alleviate the omnipresent issue of "team matchup" this gen (a separate topic). What I mean is this (not the best example as OU isn't my primary tier). You have a Keldeo and your opponent has a venusaur. Your normal way of dealing with Venusaur involves using your Latios to threaten with Psyshock and KO. However, in this particular game, your opponent also has a Tyranitar, leaving you in a shitty position whenever Lati is in versus Venu. Instead, Keldeo can at some point in the game burn the Venu which can assist in your other pokemon like Bisharp being able to take it down. This can be seen as a positive use of the move by opening up team construction avenues and at least to some degree mitigating unwinnable matchups.

What I'm saying is that Scald is really fucking good. We know that. Despite this, it is easy to prepare for as some have shown with their comprehensive lists of Scald switch ins. Scald has yet to prove a definitive case in my eyes and has shown many positives in my experience. Again, the burden of proof lies on the ban side please don't try to spin it the other way around.
 

Freeroamer

The greatest story of them all.
#67
Couldn't that argument be twisted back to make sure your only check to a threat isn't pursuit weak as this is a common strategy in the OU metagame and in BW, KeldTar is nothing new, and Ik im never comfortable on teams where my only check to something is Pursuit weak cos it leaves me horrendously matchup prone like the very case you claim Scald alleviates...

Not just that, Scald can only be claimed to alleviate this matchup 30% of the time each individual time it's used, meaning that if we were to believe that it really is the defining factor at play here then essentially such matchups come down to whoever gets the favour from Lady Luck. That's never a positive as it reduces skill factor outside of what Bad Ass said so long ago with the player getting his mon able to fire off Scald the maximum amount of times to weigh the luck in their favour which hardly seems like a desirable way to decide a competitive game.

EDIT: for the below, if you're not well versed in OU which is fair enough, use an example from UU which I and a great many other players respect you for your prowess in, rather than using a shaky example from a tier you're not that known in :/
 
Last edited:

YABO

King Turt
is a Tiering Contributoris a Community Contributor Alumnus
#68
In addition, it can be argued that Scald somewhat helps alleviate the omnipresent issue of "team matchup" this gen (a separate topic). What I mean is this (not the best example as OU isn't my primary tier).
There are certainly more pertinent examples but that was the first that came to mind.
 

AM

Free Bloo
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
#69
The argument should be really how Scalds absence would make the meta-games better. Realistically a suspect test wouldn't show that because the suspect test process is pretty bad to show a substantial testing grounds due to the nature of suspect tests in general both what you see on the suspect ladder and the threads that follow with many misguided, misinformed, or exaggerated opinions under the guise of fact. There's a lot of luck factor involved in a game that a community tries to establish a totally competitive environment when plenty of game mechanics outside of Scald have costed games and would prove otherwise that the game's skill level only can reach a certain point before it generally hits its limit.

Broken and uncompetitive at this point is a highly subjective term and Scald isn't a black and white case as much as people think it is, as far as OU is concerned.
 
#70
You can't just shift the burden of proof onto the wrong side like that. That defeats the entire purpose of your argument. Scald is a tool that every team should be prepared for the same way that every team should be prepared for any other threat in the metagame.
No disrespect intended, but you have a profound misunderstanding of competitive Pokemon if you think Scald's predictability is a knock against it. Just about anyone who is remotely acquainted with standard competitive Pokemon is aware of the Pokemon that use Scald. But it's irrelevant. Knowing in advance about the Pokemon who use Scald doesn't really change anything. In addition, "Easily prepared" is a stretch considering we've gone over the fact that most hard checks outside of Natural Cure users are crippled after being burned. For the most part, the best defense against Scald is luck. That is not a good thing.

It's a great move just as Body Slam, Thunder, Blizzard, and others have been throughout the generations. It's highly predictable and easily prepared for with both offensive and defensive archetypes.
Scald is not at all comparable to any of the moves you've listed. It's disingenuous to try to paint them with the same brush. Even at their prime, none of those moves you've listed have enjoyed the sheer distribution or prominence that Scald has. (Also worth noting that 2/3rds of those moves you've listed have immunities)

In addition, it can be argued that Scald somewhat helps alleviate the omnipresent issue of "team matchup" this gen (a separate topic). What I mean is this (not the best example as OU isn't my primary tier). You have a Keldeo and your opponent has a venusaur. Your normal way of dealing with Venusaur involves using your Latios to threaten with Psyshock and KO. However, in this particular game, your opponent also has a Tyranitar, leaving you in a shitty position whenever Lati is in versus Venu. Instead, Keldeo can at some point in the game burn the Venu which can assist in your other pokemon like Bisharp being able to take it down. This can be seen as a positive use of the move by opening up team construction avenues and at least to some degree mitigating unwinnable matchups.
Your scenario is ridiculous. No really. You are using an incredible simple example to support your argument in the worst way possible. None of what you've described has convinced me that Scald is beneficial in any way. If anything, you've only just highlighted why Scald is hazardous in the first place. It gives a lucky player a disproportionate advantage, a means of mitigating player skill, not unlike evasion moves or swagger. Rather than having players engage each other in a game of wits, using everything at their disposal to overcome problematic Pokemon (ie: how we've played up until now) one player can outright bypass all of that by getting lucky with a Scald burn. There is nothing positive about relying on your Keldeo potentially burning Mega Venusaur to secure a victory at a later point in the match.

What I'm saying is that Scald is really fucking good. We know that. Despite this, it is easy to prepare for as some have shown with their comprehensive lists of Scald switch ins. Scald has yet to prove a definitive case in my eyes and has shown many positives in my experience. Again, the burden of proof lies on the ban side please don't try to spin it the other way around.
Several users have already given reasonable grounds for banning Scald. I am specifically asking for a legitimate reason it should stay in the metagame.
 

Pocket

be the upgraded version of me
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#71
I don't agree with people saying that there's no downsides to spamming Scald. Let's not ignore those tour battles in XY or ORAS where a Scald user, who thought Scald was the greatest move in the universe and spammed the move, was forced on the defensive, b/c it didn't inflict the timely burn. 70% of the time Scald is a weaker Surf, and spamming this can create free turns for the opponent. Sometimes a smart switch would have saved the game, but instead the momentum and match are lost b/c "spamming scald has no downsides." Counterplays and downsides to Scald exist obviously. Let's not deny this fact and blow this out of proportion.

Also Lava Plume, although not quite like Scald, was effective at burning Water-, Rock-, and Dragon-types, too (at least back in BW). This was mainly b/c the main user Heatran dgaf about opposing Fire-types, and can kill them with Earth Power. So no, you can't freely switch in a Fire-type against a Lava Plume Heatran. The major difference between Lava Plume and Scald is the latter's wide distribution.

In addition, now that perma Rain is out of the picture, Scald only has 80 BP, which is nothing to write home about in this current age. The fact that there is no cry for suspecting certain Scald users like Keldeo or Manaphy (AFAIK) is a clear indicator to me that the move isn't even potent enough to break its most powerful users, just a really annoying and good move.

Status conditions has always been a game changer. Nothing has changed since RBY that would change this fact. Many games have been won and lost by Dynamic Punch / Hurricane's confusion, Thunder's 21% paralysis, Ice Beam's 10% freeze, and Rock Slide's 27% flinch. I've been playing since RBY/GSC, where paralysis and sleep rolls were prevalent and even driving forces of these matches, arguably even more common and influential than burns inflicted by Scald. The player who has mitigated these chances and managed their risks and rewards best proved to be the victor, as he/she should.

I'm an old geezer, so I've accepted to "deal with it." Body Slams, Thunder Waves, Sleep Powders, and Rock Slides flying around? No problem, I can handle them to the best of my abilities. Losing some games to hax is part of Pokemon; the better player still wins more often than not.

However, we can now carve our own rules and say, "no I don't want to deal with this anymore." Is 30% chance of BURN (second worst status condition following poison) coming from a relatively weak Water-type move something that we cannot handle? That's quite disappointing to hear tbf.

PS - if Scald is banned, I assume Volcanion's Steam Eruption would be auto-banned in the future? It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
 
Last edited:

jpw234

Catastrophic Event Specialist
#72
Re: Scald

I don't think there's any real net benefit to keeping this move unbanned. It significantly enhances the disruption potential of the Pokemon who have it, and inherently promotes relying on probability (which is something we've explicitly tried to avoid with evasion/swagger clause.) Scald isn't strictly equivalent to evasion boosting moves/swagger, but it's arguably just as ruinous if not more considering there is 0 risk to using it. Double Team and the like leave the user open after use, but Scald functions as an attacking move on top of its burn chance. The Pokemon that use it get to apply their offensive pressure, and a burn chance on top of it. It is the definition of a stacked move. Lava Plume has been discussed to death so I don't really have much to add, but I think by now everyone should realize that it's nowhere near as ruinous as Scald in practice.
The issue with this approach is that there's not a reason to keep any individual move in the game. Moves are self-justifying, they exist a priori and we build a metagame around them. Asking "what does a move positively contribute" isn't a productive way of going about things, because I can't really think of anything that something like Body Slam "positively contributes" anymore than Scald "positively contributes" anything. Some moves are clearly negative (Swagger) and those can go, but asking for a justification for the presence of each move/Pokemon/ability seems like a backwards way of going about things.

So I ask again, is there a good reason to keep this move unbanned? There's been too much focus on the immediate effects of Scald and not enough focus on the long term effects on Scald. Getting a burn on your opponents primary bulky water-type resist can easily swing the match at a later point in a match. That's why making a giant list of Pokemon who can reliably switch into Scald is an exercise in futility; Pokemon isn't played in a vacuum, the game state should always be considered. It's removal wouldn't even be cataclysmic; Pokemon who rely on it would go back to using Surf, and the beneficial effects would be immediate. No more having to dance around Scald; A bulky-water type resist could function as a bulky water-type resist without potential crippling itself for the rest of the match.

The only real downside to banning Scald will be the initial public outcry, but it's a minor concern at this point. Smogon can easily weather the damage.
It turns out that the downside to the use of any move is the potential for a counter to that move to switchin and exploit it, so making a giant list of Pokemon who can reliably switch into Scald is not in fact futile, it serves as a demonstration that Scald is not simply "infinitely spammable" like people are making it out to be.
And what are these "beneficial effects"? I don't think that removing Scald would have beneficial or negative effects, it would just have effects like removing any other move would. Bulky waters would get worse and Ferrothorn/Tentacruel/Altaria/Dragonite would get better. Like that's true, but it doesn't seem immediately desirable or "better" to me in any way.
 
#73
Not sure where the sentiment that Scald has a downside came from, but it is incredibly off base

When a Pokemon opts to use Surf, they are doing 2 things
-They are (typically) threatening a Pokemon to switch out
-Applying offensive pressure

Scald is also able to do these things. In addition:
-There is a 30% chance of crippling any opposing Pokemon

Hence, it is myopic to claim that there is downside to using this move because it is able to perform its job perfectly. When you are using Scald, you are applying offensive pressure with a % chance of achieving a burn that could potentially change the tide of a given match. There is no opportunity cost to using this move, and it's inherently difficult to exploit due to it's burn chance. That's why, posting a list of switch-ins indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of why Scald is problematic. The issue at hand isn't the lack of switch-ins, it's the fact that virtually all of those switch-ins risks being crippled for the remainder off the match.

I'm not sure why people try to push this narrative that Scald can backfire on players, because it's simply not true. Top level players aren't dumb; they're using Scald exactly as intended, with the implicit expectation that it can burn opponents and potentially secure a win, which is why it's nearly exclusively used over Surf on competitive teams.

To me, Scald is an example of a move that is negative. Perhaps not as overt as evasion boosting moves or Swagger (though even Swagger took some time to get banned...), but Scald is just as problematic as those moves, but on a more subtle, insidious level. It is restrictive, pervasive and lazy—it rewards players who play safe and in a one dimensional manner (ie: opting to use Scald on the switch as a catch all option). The game would be much better if Scald wasn't around; the likes of Ferrothorn/staple grass-type would be a cold hard stop to Starmie/staple water-type without risking its usefulness in the long run. Water-types wouldn't have a hail mary option against sweepers. Players would no longer have the option of relying on Scald to ease prediction. They'd be forced to consider more options, rather than rely on the same optimal choice every time. All of that sounds very beneficial to me.
 
Last edited:
#74
I, again, have not been keeping up with this thread too well, but I saw PK Gaming had posted in it so obviously I had to come look.
In addition, it can be argued that Scald somewhat helps alleviate the omnipresent issue of "team matchup" this gen (a separate topic). What I mean is this (not the best example as OU isn't my primary tier). You have a Keldeo and your opponent has a venusaur. Your normal way of dealing with Venusaur involves using your Latios to threaten with Psyshock and KO. However, in this particular game, your opponent also has a Tyranitar, leaving you in a shitty position whenever Lati is in versus Venu. Instead, Keldeo can at some point in the game burn the Venu which can assist in your other pokemon like Bisharp being able to take it down. This can be seen as a positive use of the move by opening up team construction avenues and at least to some degree mitigating unwinnable matchups.
This snippet proves that Pursuit is broken--not that Scald is healthy. You have to rely on a Scald burn to help break down Mega Venusaur because your check to it cannot actually check it without dying or forcing you to make potentially sub-optimal plays at no expense to the opponent. Tyranitar doesn't even need to have Pursuit in this example to force you into trying to burn the Venusaur with Scald. Its very existence on the opposing team prevents the Latias user from ever getting a kill with it and likely to switch it in sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. How people see Pursuit as less problematic than Scald is beyond me.

On the topic of Scald itself, I'm not sure why the burden of proof is being pinned on the people against banning it. A person can be against banning Scald solely because they find it to be reasonable to handle. Maybe they've just adapted to how "broken" it is and don't see that adaptation as a bad thing. Whatever the reason, a move ban, especially one that has a luck factor involved, is incredibly subjective, even moreso than a Pokemon ban. Unlike Pokemon themselves, one move is just a small part of the many things that contribute to how well an individual Pokemon functions, and it's impossible to "prove" whether or not it is broken. This doesn't mean that there's no reason to debate the merits of banning Scald, but it does mean that it's up to the people who want it banned to "prove" why Scald is banned and not the people against it.
 
#75
The issue here is that for some reason, people feel that we don't have the right to arbitrarily ban Scald to make more enjoyable metagames.

In deciding whether to ban anything, I think we have two responsibilities. The first is to make the metas as fun as possible for the majority of the player base. We operate under the assumption that the desired metagame is both versatile and has skill as its primary determinant of success. If the majority dislikes dealing with Scald (as they obviously do), then that right there gives us a mandate to ban it.

On the other hand, we need to keep the metagames relatively close to cartridge play. If we change too much, we lose legitimacy and we lose players. It's worth noting that I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with changing the game's mechanics. Sleep Clause, for instance, when you get right down to it was implemented because it makes games more fun. Banning things for entirely subjective reasons is what we've always done, and more than that, it's the only way it can be done.

For me the question therefore is whether banning Scald, on top of our existing bans, will cause any significant number of players to lose respect for, or interest in, playing Smogon metagames. It's pretty obvious that banning Scald isn't going to have any appreciable effect. If we removed all secondary effects, and critical hits for good measure, things might be different. But all we're doing here is removing one move which has, due to its characteristics and ubiquity, a clearly negative impact on teambuilding and matchplay. This can only be a good thing.
 
Last edited: