I want to highlight this part of ausma's post again as I think its relevant to the current discussion. Pokemon using tera to power up existing coverage options is different because often times they will be running these moves anyway (Tera Ice tusk to power up Ice spinner, Tera ground Kyurem to power up earth power, etc.)
-
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.
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
And was it not an intentional choice for those pokemon to be included in the pokedex in generation 9 with tera available?? Gamefreak's design intentions have little bearing on how Smogon elects to conduct tiering in the context of its own metagames. Smogon has its own tiering principles specifically to inform how to approach cases like this and not defer to subjective perspectives of what pokemon "should" do, especially when those perspectives contradict the reality of current OU metagame.
Finchinator vs OU forum, circa 2025. Colorized.
A substantial portion of fully evolved users. I have said this in every post and maintain it. We aren’t close to that. This isn’t me trying to be snarky so much as reaffirm what the framework, which is in the OP of the PR thread and my original post, alludes to. Feel free to refer to that for clarity.
If it would help people for me to go relevant line-by-line of the framework and explain how I construe it, let me know and I will happily provide a breakdown when I am home from work tonight.
So if we have to ban 1/3 of the tier over its, that is better than banning a cheese option? I really don't understand this way of thinking. The primary argument of the pro tera blast crowd is that banning it will decrease the number of options, when it reality it will increase it. Again think the beginning of ausma's post also applies here, as it emphasizes the inherently broken nature of tera blast.
I would assume we are not banning 1/3 of the tier over Tera Blast, because Tera Blast doesn't even break 1/3 of the 'mons that use it, let alone the tier. If you want to make the point that a "significant portion" of the tier is broken (read: not 3 or 4 already-contentious OU mons), be my guest, but until that is proven this is just a faulty line of thinking.
- Light Clay received significant support on a previous survey.
- Manaphy received a higher score than Ursaluna-Bloodmoon in a survey.
- Gouging Fire (banned with >90% supermajority) received 8 total write ins on a survey, less than Ghold or Tera, only two months before it received a 4.2 from OLT qualifiers.
- Gliscor went from a 2.21 (Qualified) to 3.99 over the course of a single month, back when surveys were every 2 weeks.
- Sneasler received less qualified support on a survey than Iron Valiant or Garg.
Public sentiment is extremely volatile and we have seen massive shifts in the perceptions of certain elements - often over the span of a few weeks - due to the discovery of new sets or just general tier progression. While survey scores are a valuable piece of evidence, they should not be used as a primary argument for how actionable a particular element might be.
While I do agree that the popular support against tera blast is not there right now, history has shown that these things can change at any point.
The last month or two has seen a significant amount of new Tera Blast technology, as leng's excellent post indicated (especially breakers such as Ceruledge, Torn-T, Rilla, Enam, Scizor, Sandy Shocks, or LOrb Pult, which are far more uncompetitive than the standard setup/coverage sweepers like Nite). We should wait until the end of OLT, which is a competitive environment that results in significant meta development, instead of trying to force a conclusion now.
Just to be clear he said 1/3 of all fully evolved pokemon lol not just the 30 some pokemon of OU.
I really doubt 1/3 of all fully evolved pokemon would be problematic with baton pass.
This is actually a really strong point I somehow completely missed lmao. Baton pass wasn't broken on every pokemon it got, hell many pokemon would simply like to use it for dry passing. I could see mola running it over flip turn as an easy example.
The policy argument is lost frame 1 unless you compare to Baton Pass or through the lens of uncompetitive rather than broken. Regieleki, Espathra, and the handful of other edge cases simply cannot meet the policy threshold for a move ban in the vein of Last Respects or Shed Tail.
I did consider this and was thinking about it from the pro-ban perspective. I know we tend to not consider what the meta would look like after another pokemon is banned when it comes to discussions like this, but it is an interesting thought exercise. Say we ban the 3 guys being talked about right now (Kyurem, Dragonite, Kingambit). Are there broken pokemon that rise to the top? Probably. Will they exploit tera blast? Quite possibly. But then we ban them. Is there a ceiling to how many pokemon are broken with tera blast?
But honestly thinking about it, i tended to lean towards the answer "yes". I mean you can run a lot of pokemon with tera blast that arent top 10 in usage, but those sets are much more limited. Would I say Iron moth is unbeatable with like a tera ground? Not really. Scizor going like tera electric or whatever? No either. I think some of the arguments you could make that would be convincing is if some of these pokemon were broken or at least problematic with tera. I'm here to be convinced otherwise though.
Don't bring up sleep ban around me I'm still salty that went through...
I've been lurking quite a bit in this thread and the PR thread as I usually do so I'll put my thoughts here on Tera Blast, trying to be as good faith and objective as possible.
In my opinion, an ideal metagame would have Tera Blast banned. Not for the reason of unbanning other Pokemon, but to help with threat saturation by reducing the high variance in options Pokemon have especially through Tera Blast. By reducing the amount of super high variance you make the game more competitive as more outcomes become manageable so long as you are skilled enough. However, per the tiering rules bans are done for three reasons
1. Over-Powered or Fundamentally broken, think SD Arceus Normal or on a lesser scale Annilape.
2. Uncompetitive/RNG, this is pretty simple to define, Kings Rock and Sand Veil is a good example
3. Unhealthy-ness, this is decently vague but its things that do not add to the game in a beneficial way that can or should be realistically limited. For example Sleep, and Shadow Tag fit this description. You can argue Sleep is both unhealthy and uncompetitive though, and Shadow Tag being Over-Powered too as not every ban is just 1 of the 3 reasons.
However this is mainly for Pokemon, moves are a bit of a more special case and are much more strict for tiering. The reason for this is deter Tiering to be move based, where you balance Pokemon by banning moves which can quickly become a slippery slope.
Looking at this it's obvious Tera Blast isn't Over-Powered, and it's certainly not RNG functionally speaking so you'd be arguing on it's healthiness for the game along with how realistic limiting Tera Blast is and the universalness of its unhealthy effect.
First, the reason why limitation is a factor is you can't just ban every little thing that goes against smogon principles because of logistics, how can you ban Paralysis without banning every secondary effect that can cause it? In the case of Tera Blast you can logistically ban it with no issue.
Second is Tera Blast unhealthy for the metagame and assuming so how unhealthy is it? Defining unhealthy for a meta is what smogon tiering values in the metagame and this is a case by case basis. For example Trapping in LC is deemed not that unhealthy as a concept due to the offensive nature of the tier. In the case of SV OU it is not a crazy claim to make that SV prides itself on it's offensive diversity and freedom. Tera Blast is a move that exemplifies this no matter which way you look at it, and while I and a lot of others find Tera Blast to push the limits and borders into 'Unfair' or 'not very competitive', Tera Blast has just enough leeway in terms of risk reward, and predictability that it is not objectively unfair. Tera Blast also fits very nicely into the confines of what the Tier is currently, and the tier has to offer and generally speaking what the playerbase wants in the tier. Would removing Tera Blast make games more competitive? I would say 99-1 odds yes. But unfortounately Tera Blast has just enough leeway that I cannot say it's strictly uncompetitive. Do I think removing Tera Blast would make the SV OU metagame more enjoyable or interesting especially for defensive play? Yes I'd once again say 99-1 odds of me being correct, but Tera Blast is a literal physical representation of high variance divsersity and offensive freedom. Even if it goes a little over the edge who's to say that's just how the tier is rather than a problem that needs to be solved? see the issue. Tera Blast is the literal philosophy of this tier, so again the reasoning of it'll make the meta improve cannot be used effectively.
And as a final nail in the coffin, moves are tiered very strictly and you're gonna need a damn good reason to convince tiering admins to ban a not universally broken move. Tera Blast isn't univerally broken so I don't think this needs further explanation.
I think it's safe to say that this is an ideals vs truth situation, Reshiram vs Zekrom if you will. Quite literally.
In my opinion it's very difficult to have a good faith argument that Tera Blast is good for the game besides further enforcing a questionable status quo. However with the ruling set in place on how to tier, Tera Blast action just doesn't make much sense either. It boils down to do you prefer following the rules and listening to the truth on Tera blast or do you want to create an ideal sv ou even if you trample over a few rules for a desired outcome. Personally I'm the latter but this is an opinion. For me I think when we can make the game better in a non intrusive way we should do so. Yet I can 100% see why people are against Tera Blast action, especially TL's. Unless we wanna shake up the status quo of tiering as well as what SV OU should be (which im all for changing sv OU lol) then I don't think Tera Blast action will become a thing or make too much logistical sense given current tiering standards.
I'm for Tera Blast ban, team zekrom (ideals) and thanks for the transparent discussion council/TL's.
In my opinion, an ideal metagame would have Tera Blast banned. Not for the reason of unbanning other Pokemon, but to help with threat saturation by reducing the high variance in options Pokemon have especially through Tera Blast. By reducing the amount of super high variance you make the game more competitive as more outcomes become manageable so long as you are skilled enough. However, per the tiering rules bans are done for three reasons
1. Over-Powered or Fundamentally broken, think SD Arceus Normal or on a lesser scale Annilape.
2. Uncompetitive/RNG, this is pretty simple to define, Kings Rock and Sand Veil is a good example
3. Unhealthy-ness, this is decently vague but its things that do not add to the game in a beneficial way that can or should be realistically limited. For example Sleep, and Shadow Tag fit this description. You can argue Sleep is both unhealthy and uncompetitive though, and Shadow Tag being Over-Powered too as not every ban is just 1 of the 3 reasons.
However this is mainly for Pokemon, moves are a bit of a more special case and are much more strict for tiering. The reason for this is deter Tiering to be move based, where you balance Pokemon by banning moves which can quickly become a slippery slope.
Looking at this it's obvious Tera Blast isn't Over-Powered, and it's certainly not RNG functionally speaking so you'd be arguing on it's healthiness for the game along with how realistic limiting Tera Blast is and the universalness of its unhealthy effect.
First, the reason why limitation is a factor is you can't just ban every little thing that goes against smogon principles because of logistics, how can you ban Paralysis without banning every secondary effect that can cause it? In the case of Tera Blast you can logistically ban it with no issue.
Second is Tera Blast unhealthy for the metagame and assuming so how unhealthy is it? Defining unhealthy for a meta is what smogon tiering values in the metagame and this is a case by case basis. For example Trapping in LC is deemed not that unhealthy as a concept due to the offensive nature of the tier. In the case of SV OU it is not a crazy claim to make that SV prides itself on it's offensive diversity and freedom. Tera Blast is a move that exemplifies this no matter which way you look at it, and while I and a lot of others find Tera Blast to push the limits and borders into 'Unfair' or 'not very competitive', Tera Blast has just enough leeway in terms of risk reward, and predictability that it is not objectively unfair. Tera Blast also fits very nicely into the confines of what the Tier is currently, and the tier has to offer and generally speaking what the playerbase wants in the tier. Would removing Tera Blast make games more competitive? I would say 99-1 odds yes. But unfortounately Tera Blast has just enough leeway that I cannot say it's strictly uncompetitive. Do I think removing Tera Blast would make the SV OU metagame more enjoyable or interesting especially for defensive play? Yes I'd once again say 99-1 odds of me being correct, but Tera Blast is a literal physical representation of high variance divsersity and offensive freedom. Even if it goes a little over the edge who's to say that's just how the tier is rather than a problem that needs to be solved? see the issue. Tera Blast is the literal philosophy of this tier, so again the reasoning of it'll make the meta improve cannot be used effectively.
And as a final nail in the coffin, moves are tiered very strictly and you're gonna need a damn good reason to convince tiering admins to ban a not universally broken move. Tera Blast isn't univerally broken so I don't think this needs further explanation.
I think it's safe to say that this is an ideals vs truth situation, Reshiram vs Zekrom if you will. Quite literally.
In my opinion it's very difficult to have a good faith argument that Tera Blast is good for the game besides further enforcing a questionable status quo. However with the ruling set in place on how to tier, Tera Blast action just doesn't make much sense either. It boils down to do you prefer following the rules and listening to the truth on Tera blast or do you want to create an ideal sv ou even if you trample over a few rules for a desired outcome. Personally I'm the latter but this is an opinion. For me I think when we can make the game better in a non intrusive way we should do so. Yet I can 100% see why people are against Tera Blast action, especially TL's. Unless we wanna shake up the status quo of tiering as well as what SV OU should be (which im all for changing sv OU lol) then I don't think Tera Blast action will become a thing or make too much logistical sense given current tiering standards.
I'm for Tera Blast ban, team zekrom (ideals) and thanks for the transparent discussion council/TL's.
Last edited:
Just $0.02 from a perpetual lurker…
Following both this thread and the policy review one, it generally feels like many on the pro-ban side are arguing on the case of it being unhealthy while many on the anti-ban side are arguing on the case of it being not broken.
Whenever the two sides of a ban argument feel like they’re just talking at each other, I’ve noticed this difference of condition has been pretty common (and I’ve seen just as many anti-ban ‘it may be a little broken, but it’s not unhealthy’ arguments over the years too — that’s the ‘we need it to check ABZ’ thing).
I’m not sure this post is helpful to any one side, but it might be worth at least thinking about whether or not you and the person opposite you are really having the same debate. That’s probably how different perspectives can be ant least understood by everyone, even if you still don’t agree.
Otherwise, thanks for the great discussion in both threads. I think there’s been lots of good points from both sides.
Following both this thread and the policy review one, it generally feels like many on the pro-ban side are arguing on the case of it being unhealthy while many on the anti-ban side are arguing on the case of it being not broken.
Whenever the two sides of a ban argument feel like they’re just talking at each other, I’ve noticed this difference of condition has been pretty common (and I’ve seen just as many anti-ban ‘it may be a little broken, but it’s not unhealthy’ arguments over the years too — that’s the ‘we need it to check ABZ’ thing).
I’m not sure this post is helpful to any one side, but it might be worth at least thinking about whether or not you and the person opposite you are really having the same debate. That’s probably how different perspectives can be ant least understood by everyone, even if you still don’t agree.
Otherwise, thanks for the great discussion in both threads. I think there’s been lots of good points from both sides.
Yes.
From the other thread:
Back when full pass was legal, there were hundreds of permutations of baton pass teams which really only had 2-3 Pokemon as staples.
There is a theoretical world where virtually any Pokemon with Baton Pass + certain boosting moves is broken in context with the support of the abuser and supporter, which tends to be the constant.
You would see the entire Eevee evolution line banned initially, but there would be similarly effective iterations found out within hours. Pokemon with Soundproof or high speed stats would quickly get targeted, too. It would just be years of fighting this strategy through slow moving tiering, which was patched by the move ban.
An infamous PO and PS ladder player named Dennis, who eventually played some tournaments and had some Smogon presence, frequently peaked ladder and dominated even prepared opponents with countless forms of Baton Pass. He was even able to beat most Roar/Whirlwind users and play around Encore at times. This was before Haze Toxapex existed, but this basically ruined the format when you ran into it.
In short, you can easily make an argument a substantial amount of Baton Pass users would be broken if it played out — you can also make the argument Baton Pass is uncompetitive given how it totally fucked the game. The comparison to Tera Blast is a non-starter and anyone who played back then when the movement began can attest to that.
It would just take dozens of cycles of bans and so much metagame collateral that it was stopped prior to with proactive tiering. Anyone who played CG during generation six (or even parts of five) will understand the terror and the amount of completely derailed games to this. I still remember the anger I felt when I saw certain Baton Pass usernames pop up on my screen lmao and then similar strategies surfaced in older generations, causing them to act as well.
Tera Blast is not in the same stratosphere as Baton Pass.
Amen. For those of you who never experienced the cancer on the meta that was Baton Pass, here's a snippet from the archives. Tera Blast isn't remotely as corrosive as Baton Pass was.
i'm not super invested in tera blast specifically but i think the burden of proof being asked to ban it its completely ridiculous. like, are we really suggesting that even if EIGHT whole pokemon were banned for tera blast sets it still wouldn't get touched? why even have move bans at that point?
also i think the baton pass comparison is a bit flawed given that mons weren't banned to keep it, rather it was just constantly given new elaborate restrictions. hard to say if it would have been different if they did just ban the best stat passers/receivers, though.
also i think the baton pass comparison is a bit flawed given that mons weren't banned to keep it, rather it was just constantly given new elaborate restrictions. hard to say if it would have been different if they did just ban the best stat passers/receivers, though.
In the way we saw BP legal in gen 7 before the outright ban, where you could only pass speed by itself without any other stat boosts and could only use one baton pass user on a team, you could very well argue that baton pass wouldn't fit the criteria the speed boost passers should be banned instead.
But that is assuming we already did the prior tiering where we jumped through hoops to try to salvage baton pass with complex rules, which would be against tiering policy, baton pass is absolutely banworthy when you can chain and pass as many stats as you want.
But that is assuming we already did the prior tiering where we jumped through hoops to try to salvage baton pass with complex rules, which would be against tiering policy, baton pass is absolutely banworthy when you can chain and pass as many stats as you want.
I dont know if 8 is a good number or not, but currently only 2 Mons are banned specifically due to Tera Blast: Regieleki and Volcarona. The move influenced the outcome of Espathra, Gouger and Moon (especially the former), but all of them were very likely to get banned even if Tera Blast never existed. Out of the current OU Mons that are discussed for a Ban, Waterpon and Gliscor dont use Tera Blast. Dragonite uses it sometimes, but lets be real, almost no one wants Nite banned with or without Tera Blast. That leaves Kyurem, which does abuse the move well, but at least for me, the only reason to Ban Kyurem is because of Sub + Protect set, which is very consistent at getting multiple freezes on a single game.
So, I dont see enough Mons that become broken or competitive with Tera Blast. Last Respects had 100% of fully evolved users being broken, Shed Tail at the time too (I disagree with Orthworm being uncompetitive and Sceptile never had the chance to prove its innocence but I can see why the conclussion was reached), Baton Pass (which I personally would 100% unrestrict, but am the only one at that) too was deemed problematic in a lot of Mons. There is 0 similarity in numbers or percentage in Tera Blast's case.
I am not really sure about jumping into the tera blast discussion at the moment due to me not knowing how I feel about it but I did want to at least address this comment because it is not true. There are plenty of people who think Dragonite is at least very problematic because of tera/tera blast. I feel like the reason there aren't more people complaining about Dragonite or calling for a suspect is because Dragonite is very connected to tera blast which is one of if not the biggest topics of discussion post Roaring Moon. I believe if the tera blast discussion thread doesn't lead to a tera blast suspect or said suspect doesn't result in a tera blast ban there will be a substantial increase in calls for a Dragonite suspect.
Given that Finch and leng loi are the only SPL players to make a post either here or in the Policy thread and the only other tournament players to post did so in favour of Tera Blast (in conjunction with the middling survey results) it does seem like the proposal is dead in the water so there isn't much to add here, but I did want to make a quick reply to a couple things that I bolded.
"Would the meta be better if we make this tiering action" isn't and shouldn't be the standard. The disconnect between people who think it should be and those who think it shouldn't comes up over and over (there are multiple policy threads every year arguing this point). It's partially an issue of introducing a more nebulous and subjective question than "yes/no: is this thing broken/uncompetitive/unhealthy", it's partially an issue that the long-term effects of tiering action are really unpredictable when more will follow (and you also don't want to laser-focus on the short-term), but mostly the issue is that if this is the standard, then tiering for every tier becomes a game of whack-a-mole where anything and everything is potentially fair game.
Like, if this is your standard then there's a whole pile of options at your disposal if you want to reduce threat saturation and matchup variance, from banning as many cheese sweepers as you can to banning/nerfing cheesy mechanics to just making a list of the top 5-10 offensive threats in the meta and then arguing about which combination of those bans would result in the "best" meta. Like, yeah, you could probably get a less threat-saturated meta by banning like Bolt, Moth, Deoxys, maybe throw in a few cheesers like Latias/Hawlucha/Blaziken or something, but it's just an absolute mess of a process that can never possibly end because if you're constantly trying to answer the question of "would this change make the meta better" with everything on the table then you then have to constantly examine everything.
And more than that, this is an issue that you have to deal with much more when you're examining in terms of "unhealthy" rather than "broken" because the latter is a higher and clearer bar to pass. The examples that I just gave earlier aren't serious possibilities for good reason, because no one thinks they're broken (uhhh maybe some people think Bolt is broken idk the consensus doesn't), but if rather than broken pieces of the meta you're looking for "strong elements in an oversaturated meta that you can target while minimizing collateral" then there's no reason that they and many others can't be targets. The tiering policy is written with this in mind; conceiving a Tera Blast ban campaign around an argument that it's unhealthy is going to be an uphill battle because bans based on unhealthiness are meant to be a "break glass in case of emergency" option, that's built into the policy framework itself. If you think that this is an emergency, that SV OU is in such an unhealthy state that it necessitates this, then that's fine, you're allowed to believe that! But if that's your basis then it makes sense that this proposal seems dead in the water because a qualified score in enjoyment and competitiveness on the last survey of around 7/10 each sure doesn't indicate that the consensus is that this is a meta in a state of emergency.
Anyway, I'll throw in one last point. "In my opinion it's very difficult to have a good faith argument that Tera Blast is good for the game" doesn't matter, because it doesn't need to be proven to be good for the game, and people who think it is don't need to defend their position, they just need to rebut arguments that it's bad for the game. I think your post focuses too much on the "I think the meta would be better without Tera Blast", which is valid, but for the majority who think the meta's in a reasonable state now I don't think it's that persuasive. I don't think this is just a you problem, either; leng loi's original post is reasonable but in order to buy that Tera Blast's the logical target as opposed to Dragonite and Kyurem you have to accept her argument that Enam/Rillaboom/Scizor/Ceruledge make the meta worse through their use of Tera Blast (and also, implicitly, that this isn't just an issue of their specific traits that make them uniquely suited to abusing Tera Blast and that more will continue to pop up in problematic ways if you just stamp them out specifically). If you don't find them unhealthy, or you do find them unhealthy but don't think it makes sense to target "maybe problematic but clearly not broken" options with tiering action, I just don't think any of the pro-ban arguments have done a good job actually selling anyone on the idea that those other Tera Blast abusers are problematic. I used to be more open to a Tera Blast ban, but I'm at a point now where if Kyurem and Dragonite are broken with Tera Blast then they should just be banned, and I don't really buy the threat of whack-a-mole tiering process like with Baton Pass/Shed Tail because we're yet to see anything that hasn't already been a dominant threat without Tera Blast cross that line with it (except for Eleki, the mon balanced entirely around only having electric moves).
Last edited:
Using your own criteria, Tera itself is unhealthy.I've been lurking quite a bit in this thread and the PR thread as I usually do so I'll put my thoughts here on Tera Blast, trying to be as good faith and objective as possible.
In my opinion, an ideal metagame would have Tera Blast banned. Not for the reason of unbanning other Pokemon, but to help with threat saturation by reducing the high variance in options Pokemon have especially through Tera Blast. By reducing the amount of super high variance you make the game more competitive as more outcomes become manageable so long as you are skilled enough. However, per the tiering rules bans are done for three reasons
1. Over-Powered or Fundamentally broken, think SD Arceus Normal or on a lesser scale Annilape.
2. Uncompetitive/RNG, this is pretty simple to define, Kings Rock and Sand Veil is a good example
3. Unhealthy-ness, this is decently vague but its things that do not add to the game in a beneficial way that can or should be realistically limited. For example Sleep, and Shadow Tag fit this description. You can argue Sleep is both unhealthy and uncompetitive though, and Shadow Tag being Over-Powered too as not every ban is just 1 of the 3 reasons.
However this is mainly for Pokemon, moves are a bit of a more special case and are much more strict for tiering. The reason for this is deter Tiering to be move based, where you balance Pokemon by banning moves which can quickly become a slippery slope.
Looking at this it's obvious Tera Blast isn't Over-Powered, and it's certainly not RNG functionally speaking so you'd be arguing on it's healthiness for the game along with how realistic limiting Tera Blast is and the universalness of its unhealthy effect.
First, the reason why limitation is a factor is you can't just ban every little thing that goes against smogon principles because of logistics, how can you ban Paralysis without banning every secondary effect that can cause it? In the case of Tera Blast you can logistically ban it with no issue.
Second is Tera Blast unhealthy for the metagame and assuming so how unhealthy is it? Defining unhealthy for a meta is what smogon tiering values in the metagame and this is a case by case basis. For example Trapping in LC is deemed not that unhealthy as a concept due to the offensive nature of the tier. In the case of SV OU it is not a crazy claim to make that SV prides itself on it's offensive diversity and freedom. Tera Blast is a move that exemplifies this no matter which way you look at it, and while I and a lot of others find Tera Blast to push the limits and borders into 'Unfair' or 'not very competitive', Tera Blast has just enough leeway in terms of risk reward, and predictability that it is not objectively unfair. Tera Blast also fits very nicely into the confines of what the Tier is currently, and the tier has to offer and generally speaking what the playerbase wants in the tier. Would removing Tera Blast make games more competitive? I would say 99-1 odds yes. But unfortounately Tera Blast has just enough leeway that I cannot say it's strictly uncompetitive. Do I think removing Tera Blast would make the SV OU metagame more enjoyable or interesting especially for defensive play? Yes I'd once again say 99-1 odds of me being correct, but Tera Blast is a literal physical representation of high variance divsersity and offensive freedom. Even if it goes a little over the edge who's to say that's just how the tier is rather than a problem that needs to be solved? see the issue. Tera Blast is the literal philosophy of this tier, so again the reasoning of it'll make the meta improve cannot be used effectively.
And as a final nail in the coffin, moves are tiered very strictly and you're gonna need a damn good reason to convince tiering admins to ban a not universally broken move. Tera Blast isn't univerally broken so I don't think this needs further explanation.
I think it's safe to say that this is an ideals vs truth situation, Reshiram vs Zekrom if you will. Quite literally.
In my opinion it's very difficult to have a good faith argument that Tera Blast is good for the game besides further enforcing a questionable status quo. However with the ruling set in place on how to tier, Tera Blast action just doesn't make much sense either. It boils down to do you prefer following the rules and listening to the truth on Tera blast or do you want to create an ideal sv ou even if you trample over a few rules for a desired outcome. Personally I'm the latter but this is an opinion. For me I think when we can make the game better in a non intrusive way we should do so. Yet I can 100% see why people are against Tera Blast action, especially TL's. Unless we wanna shake up the status quo of tiering as well as what SV OU should be (which im all for changing sv OU lol) then I don't think Tera Blast action will become a thing or make too much logistical sense given current tiering standards.
I'm for Tera Blast ban, team zekrom (ideals) and thanks for the transparent discussion council/TL's.
"By reducing the amount of super high variance you make the game more competitive as more outcomes become manageable so long as you are skilled enough."
Tera is a banana split sundae, and TB is the cherry on top.
Posts like these, to me, sound like, "I don't like bananas, take that cherry off!"
Like, just take a single step back and look at what you're actually saying.
We've all agreed by now that Tera isn't broken, or at least not broken enough to ban, but there are definitely some unhealthy aspects to it. Mapping the end game and win conditions is a joke in SV, compared to metas without Tera.
Removing TB would not make the game more competitive nor more enjoyable. There are plenty of good faith arguments that TB is good for the game. No TB skews the Tera mechanic towards more defensive play in the worst possible way.
I've posted this before, but a good place to wrap your mind around this would be the interaction between Ting-Lu and Raging Bolt. Without TB, Bolt can not really touch Ting, but Ting can obviously handle Bolt. Even if Bolt goes to a defensive Tera like Flying, all that does is prolong the inevitable. That's one less breaker, one less way for your team to handle the fat cow.
No TB cripples wall-breaking capabilities.
You're trying to remove Jenga pieces without looking at the actual stability of the tower.
Think of how many times TB has let your muscle past an annoying mon.
I've gotten past so many obnoxious mons like Glowking and Pech via TB Ground Moth.
Which leads me to the next point.
No TB makes top threats even better.
Not only do the bulky mons get better, offensive mons now have less to worry about.
Tusk vs Gambit. The Gambit can Tera Fairy all day to avoid a KO, but can't do much back without TB.
Fallen 5 Iron Head + Sucker only does about 75% to Tusk
Headlong is a clean 2hko on Gambit
TB Fairy is a OHKO on Tusk
What is the point of saving your Tera for the end game when the outcome is the exact same.
Think about the banana sundae and cherry analogy.
Why is it okay that Zama can Tera-Fire, avoiding Wisp and Flame Body, removing a crucial Fairy weakness, but it's a problem when Val goes Tera-Ground and uses TB to even the playing field?
You don't like the sundae, whether you realize it or not.
TB is simply a tool that is needed within the Tera framework to stop offensive threats from having less counters, and to stop defensive walls from being unbreakable.
There is no good faith argument that TB is broken, just like there is no true argument that tera is broken. It's a silly gimmick that wrecks havoc on a meta, but it doesn't do enough damage to be technically considered broken.
But this isn't a status quo issue, we're not keeping TB over a technicality; removing it would skew the meta in a way you and others don't fully realize, and I don't think you would actually enjoy that meta or find it more competitive.
There are some smart cookies at GF. When creating this mechanic, they realized the points I'm making.
Either eat what's on the plate or not- taking the cherry off just makes the sundae a little worse.
Tera is a plague upon OU, I agree - however, it's been established that no further action will be taken on it. Now the focus has been shifted onto whether or not Tera Blast's removal is a good or a bad thing outside of Terastallization's brokenness as a whole. I would personally support a second test, but now with people learning to tolerate it there's practically no chance it gets removed.
Let's steer the conversation back to Tera Blast: the Tera suspect showed there wasn't anywhere near enough support for an outright Tera ban, and the following surveys showed there wasn't enough support for even a suspect. The time for action has sailed, and let's focus back on the actual topic at hand.
Um what lol? There was a suspect test that fundamentally was designed in a way where Tera being banned was as unlikely as possible and even with that it BARELY was not banned or limited in any with a 59.25% margin. In a suspect test designed for it to stay as much as possible because of there being multiple different votes weighted via rank. It is objectively true that Tera is very controversial and likely should have gotten more community input and that the test favored Tera to stay, acting like it's been dealt with no issues and everyone's in agreeance is insane especially when the numbers literally say the opposite is insane... it's an objective truth that more people wanted it banned lol? Also in my post I literally proved that Tera Blast isn't unhealthy ?_? u took a random quote from the beginning that's not relevant to my unhealthy talking points near the end
??????????????
Tera with Tblast makes Tera a defensive mechanic? How is this the case when Stall is dogshit and majority tera applications are either same type boost or a Defensive Tera to allow for sweeping. Using Tera Bug Raging Bolt to better sweep as you can get situational kills on key checks while sweeping through the rest, is more of an offensive Tera than a defensive one? Like if I tera Steel Iron Valiant and Click CM to tank Sludge Bomb That's both offensive and defensive but primarily offensive because I can win the game outright off of it. Tera is a very VERY offensive mechanic with or without Tera Blast, also even if you remove Tera Blast stall and fat balance doesn't magically become too good let alone the best playstyle (not saying you said that). To sit there and be paranoid about a shit archetype like stall or a very difficult archetype to play like fat balance, in a meta where offensive pressure is the easiest it's ever been is insane. This is like saying Alomomola without Ogerpon-Wellspring would be too overpowered as if Alomomola doesn't already have half the tier naturally check or counter it.
Your Raging Bolt thing is also pretty funny, for one specs bolt chips down Ting-Lu pretty quickly. For two Ting Lu has other ways to be broken through like hazard pressure or special spam with things like Bolt + Gholdengo to quickly chip it down, and even your example doesn't make sense because Ting-lu never beats Tera Flying Raging Bolt because Bolt dpulses down Ting-Lu over time. There's so many ways to beat Ting-Lu without Tera Blast for your Raging Bolt that you just pretend doesn't exist lol. Raging Bolt doesn't run Tblast all the time and people are doing just fine on top ladder and tour doing exactly what I just said. The tier has such an abundance of offensive methods to break through shit, Stall and heavy defensive reliance is still trash even if you don't have tera blast on your team lmao.
This part I really don't get, if theres no tera blast then you just plan your endgame different ?_?
Why are you using an example of tusk vs gambit endgame and going "well if no tera blast then the offensive mon tusk wins, but without tblast then the offensive mon gambit wins theres no difference!" for 1 Tusk is infinitely more defensive than Great Tusk idk why this is your go to for why offensive mons get buffed lol. For 2...so? Offense vs offense doesn't change much besides how you plan endgames because tera blast rarely matters as much banned or not. Whys this an issue? Tera Blast being banned doesnt make top offensive threats better it just changes endgames in offense vs offense I don't really get this point tbh.
"Why is it okay that Zama can Tera-Fire, avoiding Wisp and Flame Body, removing a crucial Fairy weakness, but it's a problem when Val goes Tera-Ground and uses TB to even the playing field?" ok 2 things
1. Using Tera Blast to get Surprise OHKO's on answers while also having unbeatable coverage is far far more easy to snowball with, than using a Tera + setup move to get 1 or 2 turns of momentum.
2. There is fundamentally more counterplay to a Pokemons type changing than a Pokemon gaining surprise coverage, because a well built team can generally handle all type changes well. If zama goes from Fighting to Fire now it's your water type that has to deal with it and not the fairy. There is fundamentally more ways for it to be handled. Do you know how I know this is true? Because Tera Blast is a rare move, 90% of teams don't use Tera Blast and the odds that a tera blast is going to beat the specific tera type a Pokemon became is even lower. The argument that you need tera blast to beat an offensive Pokemon from Tera-ing into another type is insane when you realized this is almost never the case ever in actual gameplay. Show me the tour replay of this happening in the past month lol.
"and to stop defensive walls from being unbreakable." Stall is bad.
please.
please stop acting like stall or even just corv + ting lu cannot be stopped. Did terrible in wcop and has quite literally 0 usage in ladder outside of 1 guy who just mu farms people who don't prep for stall cus stall is non-existant on ladder so why bother.
this narrative makes no sense.
Whew. Sheesh even.
Bro thinks he proved an opinion... followed up by denying the outcome of multiple votes.
Tera vote is a dead subject, obviously. If Tera was broken and most ppl wanted it gone, it would be.
Lots of question marks but not lots of comprehension- Tera adds variance, you claim reducing variance makes the game more competitive. Why are we spamming ???????? over that clear connection
The Tera offensive/defensive spectrum is Venn diagram and an entirely different, complex conversation you and I aren't going to have.
I didn't say the meta would devolve into a defensive, slow metagame lol, it would just make the meta less enjoyable.
Parroting the "Stall and Balance are unplayable" narrative is tiresome though. Again though, that's another convo I don't care to engage with you on.
Why am I responding to claims that Bolt has the advantage in a Ting-Lu MU.... there's so much to unpack in a house that is too small, gonna keep it pushing king mb.
The point is that no TB will drastically shift the entire meta in pernicious ways. If the Gambit player is smart enough to position themselves for that scenario, smart enough to sit on their Tera Fairy Gambit, why are they being punished because Gambit doesn't have Fairy coverage? If it was Val vs Darkrai, and Rai goes Tera-Psn it can just Sludge Bomb, so no TB just forces weird interactions. How you play an endgame can and will change without TB.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The argument that mons use TB to beat offensive mons that have used Tera is not insane.
Again though, your own logic defeats your point. "It's rare, it never happens, show me a tour replay!" Like bro is this Schrodinger's Tera Blast? Both this terrible blight on the meta and somehow also a meaningless, rare thing we can get rid of without any consequence.
Personally, I like using Scarf Tera-Stellar Enam to revenge things like Fire/Steel Zama or post-Tera Woger.
Taking away options and variance does not magically make a metagame more competitive.
Squawk, stall bad, squawk
Again, trying to strawman my point about defensive cores getting a better without TB into "stall will be OP" is actually insane lol
If anyone should stop pretending, it's you. It's very clear you do not like Tera and think it should be banned. You're trying to chip away at Tera and mold it so you like it a little better, but framing it as you caring about the health of the meta. I also don't like Tera, but I know removing TB is just pure cope. That's like if we allowed D-Max last gen, and then years into the meta we were like wait, maybe banning Max Airstream will make everything better! It wouldn't, it would just be weird.
Tera is tera, good or bad. If mons are broken using the gimmick ban the mon. Simple.
When everyone voted for Tera, we knew it would cause us to lose mons. Players consistently decided to have less mons over getting rid of Tera. That ship has sailed. We can't go back for Leki bro, he's gone. We threw Volc overboard. It's over.
Many bits of this comment are laced with a somewhat patronizing and rude tone that isn’t helping the rest of your argument especially when you’re outright refusing to honestly engage in certain parts of their comment, or certain arguments in general.
Maybe don’t make comments like “to stop defensive walls from being unbreakable” when talking about how TB is supposedly needed? It’s hard not to get the impression when you make remarks like this.