There's still a difference between banning a form and banning a move. Form banning should not be put in the same category as banning Dragon Ascent Quaza, or Electro Shot Arch, Rage Fist Ape, or other combinations from the past such as Sand Stream + Exc, which would be the exact complications we want to avoid by not opening the complex bans Pandora's Box. Any form change that buffs stats should be free game and tiered differently (so not Ogerpon), even if Clauses need to be implemented. By splitting these qualitatively different situations into 2 categories we avoid entering the complex bans discussion, because, frankly, I don't want to see "true" complex bans either.
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
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
I would like to extend my full support for both a Roaring Moon test and a Terapagos Tera Clause.
To be completely honest, I assumed that a Roaring Moon suspect would happen after the TB test and I’m sorta surprised it took this long for a conversation to open up about this. Hoping that the suspect lasts longer than the Volcarona suspect though to give the meta a little more time to adapt to its presence.
Base Terapagos should be free. I think it’s pretty to clear to people just how nice it would be to have this pokemon and its tools in this tier. It provides us with a reliable spinner, with utility options in Roar and Toxic and offensive potential in Calm Mind/Meteor Beam and many coverage moves to choose from. The issue with Terapagos is one of policy. I don’t want to turn this into a policy post, but as time goes on and as gamefreak releases more and more generational mechanics, it’s an uphill battle to revise tiering policy to work for every upcoming gimmick. We really have no idea what policy nukes are in store for us in future generations. We should adapt and be flexible when it makes sense to, just as OU did for the Tera Blast suspect earlier this year.
To be completely honest, I assumed that a Roaring Moon suspect would happen after the TB test and I’m sorta surprised it took this long for a conversation to open up about this. Hoping that the suspect lasts longer than the Volcarona suspect though to give the meta a little more time to adapt to its presence.
Base Terapagos should be free. I think it’s pretty to clear to people just how nice it would be to have this pokemon and its tools in this tier. It provides us with a reliable spinner, with utility options in Roar and Toxic and offensive potential in Calm Mind/Meteor Beam and many coverage moves to choose from. The issue with Terapagos is one of policy. I don’t want to turn this into a policy post, but as time goes on and as gamefreak releases more and more generational mechanics, it’s an uphill battle to revise tiering policy to work for every upcoming gimmick. We really have no idea what policy nukes are in store for us in future generations. We should adapt and be flexible when it makes sense to, just as OU did for the Tera Blast suspect earlier this year.
If Rayquaza was allowed in gens 6/7 (and natdex ubers), then so should Terapagos. It's a 1-1 situation where a Pokemon has a unique form (changing both stats and ability, like a mega evolution) only accessible through a unique interaction with a mechanic, and without a specific item attached to it.
I see people say Mega Ray is not a valid precedent, but... why exactly? Can we get some actual reasoning for this beyond parroting what was said by (if I remember correctly) a former ubers tier leader?
Sure, one tier is OU and the other is Ubers. So are we now implying ubers are free to enact complex bans now? Free calyrex shadow but it can no longer use astral barrage? No, ubers is generally more lax with bans but they still have to follow the same fundamental guidelines as the other tiers.
And does this mean when Mega Rayquaza returns, we will never get to use Rayquaza again? Lol absolutely not, the people would riot. I'm pretty sure the ubers tier will still be keeping Mega Ray clause (as natdex ubers currently does), so let's not pretend it's some outdated tiering policy.
Just free Terapagos already. Smogon bureaucracy is hilarious.
I see people say Mega Ray is not a valid precedent, but... why exactly? Can we get some actual reasoning for this beyond parroting what was said by (if I remember correctly) a former ubers tier leader?
Sure, one tier is OU and the other is Ubers. So are we now implying ubers are free to enact complex bans now? Free calyrex shadow but it can no longer use astral barrage? No, ubers is generally more lax with bans but they still have to follow the same fundamental guidelines as the other tiers.
And does this mean when Mega Rayquaza returns, we will never get to use Rayquaza again? Lol absolutely not, the people would riot. I'm pretty sure the ubers tier will still be keeping Mega Ray clause (as natdex ubers currently does), so let's not pretend it's some outdated tiering policy.
Just free Terapagos already. Smogon bureaucracy is hilarious.
Last edited:
I support a Roaring Moon retest and an eventual Tera Blast retest.
The former is simple. It’s been a long time and Tera Blast is currently banned, so a lot has changed. Roaring Moon was always controversial, so giving it another shot with no suspects on the immediate horizon makes sense. I’m not sold on it being balanced now at all and the bar to unban it will naturally be high, but cannot hurt to try.
The latter is just a matter of balance. I voted for Tera Blast to stay before and I still do not think it was broken. I wish the result was different and I enjoyed it as a tool in the metagame back then. This would likely be at least a couple more months down the line rather than immediate.
The former is simple. It’s been a long time and Tera Blast is currently banned, so a lot has changed. Roaring Moon was always controversial, so giving it another shot with no suspects on the immediate horizon makes sense. I’m not sold on it being balanced now at all and the bar to unban it will naturally be high, but cannot hurt to try.
The latter is just a matter of balance. I voted for Tera Blast to stay before and I still do not think it was broken. I wish the result was different and I enjoyed it as a tool in the metagame back then. This would likely be at least a couple more months down the line rather than immediate.
So I'll make a stupid question: What about Gouging Fire? I wasn't playing OU when it got added, but to me it looks like a other bulky DD sweeper that abused TB Fairy to get past Ting-Lu, just like Dragonite and Roaring Moon.
Gouger had many other sets that didn,t use Tera Blast. In fact, Band Gouger in Sun 2HKOs the whole tier except Ballon Heatran. The only somewhat valid reason to retest Gouger would have been Volcarona returning to OU. Fortunately, it didn,t happen, so Gouger is certainly not needed down here.
I mean, it's not like sun is the best archetype in the game, and I personally think that we should have taken more time to decide the result of the Volc suspect, but thx anyways for the clarification
I do love hummoring the terapagose complex ban as much as the next guy but like the more I think about it the more I realise that unless a dractic solution is proposed then it really can't work.
Like if you were asking just me the solution is simple. We make use of the fact that this is an unnoficial simmulator to change the way terapogos tera works in ou to juat function like a regular tera where you get to pick one of the 19 types for your tera no tera stella form change, it can still tera stella it would just be a normal tera stella like any other mon.
From a coding implimentation standpoint this would be fairly trivial to do. However I know that people get very defensive when its suggested that we don't have to play by pure cartridge rules and the rule that we should is self impossed. I know that what I'm suggesting isn't popular and many players not just council members, hold cartridge accuracy to the upmost importance.
My point is that without doing something drastic like this then I dont see how a terapagos complex implimentation would even work. I feel the option that most people bring up, that being to just ban it from using it tera stellar form without any compensation. This is one of those ideas that sounds valid until you really think about it then you realise how flawed an idea it is. Cause like how would it even work? Would terapogos tera icon just be grayed out and usuable? Like even if tera wasn't used by you and terapagos is your last mon you still can't tera it? Like are are we really ok with having a mon in gen 9 that literally can't use the tera mechanic, ya know the mechanic that the gen was built around?
Not only would this feel weird and like a slap in the face to those using terapagos it also would lead to some weird balence fuckery. Like for example it would actually would be optimal that if you have to sack a mon you should sack your terapagos over other mons because your other mons can still use tera late game for a match up flip or extra damage at a crucial game winning moment, meanwhile terapagos can't engage with the tera mechanic at all in this hypothetical.
I really can't think of a third option way of implementing terapagos while banning its stellar form. So since these are the only two options and we aren't gonna impliment either, terapgos has to stay banned even if it would be a positive addition to OU.
Like if you were asking just me the solution is simple. We make use of the fact that this is an unnoficial simmulator to change the way terapogos tera works in ou to juat function like a regular tera where you get to pick one of the 19 types for your tera no tera stella form change, it can still tera stella it would just be a normal tera stella like any other mon.
From a coding implimentation standpoint this would be fairly trivial to do. However I know that people get very defensive when its suggested that we don't have to play by pure cartridge rules and the rule that we should is self impossed. I know that what I'm suggesting isn't popular and many players not just council members, hold cartridge accuracy to the upmost importance.
My point is that without doing something drastic like this then I dont see how a terapagos complex implimentation would even work. I feel the option that most people bring up, that being to just ban it from using it tera stellar form without any compensation. This is one of those ideas that sounds valid until you really think about it then you realise how flawed an idea it is. Cause like how would it even work? Would terapogos tera icon just be grayed out and usuable? Like even if tera wasn't used by you and terapagos is your last mon you still can't tera it? Like are are we really ok with having a mon in gen 9 that literally can't use the tera mechanic, ya know the mechanic that the gen was built around?
Not only would this feel weird and like a slap in the face to those using terapagos it also would lead to some weird balence fuckery. Like for example it would actually would be optimal that if you have to sack a mon you should sack your terapagos over other mons because your other mons can still use tera late game for a match up flip or extra damage at a crucial game winning moment, meanwhile terapagos can't engage with the tera mechanic at all in this hypothetical.
I really can't think of a third option way of implementing terapagos while banning its stellar form. So since these are the only two options and we aren't gonna impliment either, terapgos has to stay banned even if it would be a positive addition to OU.
What if we ban tera stellar entirely? It is only broken on Terapagos and as far as I can tell the only users of tera stellar are either unviable in OU or use other tera types more. Technically we wouldn't lose anything of value by banning it. I can see the issue of it being considering banning something just to ban it since nothing besides Terapagos is even broken with it but I think considering the positives unbanning Terapagos could bring to the tier it could be worth it? Does anything even care enough about tera stellar in the lower tiers to where banning it would be an issue? I definitely think this is more of a policy thing than anything else.
This has collateral, small as it is. Users like Serperior and Enamorus would be unduly hit. IIRC even Zamazenta has used Stellar every once in a while. I really do think the only sensible way to go about freeing Terapagos, if that avenue were actually taken, would be an implementation exactly like Mega Ray in ubers, fundamentally a gentleman's agreement to not click the Mechanic button while using that Pokemon.
Do Serperior and Enamorus actually use tera stellar now that tblast is banned ?
Yknow, I may be Stupid. But I'm sure there still are niche use cases of Tera Stellar of AoA builds other than Zamazenta, and killing all of this solely to free Terapagos seems silly when a Clause/Gentlemen's Agreement has absolutely zero collateral instead.
You're thinking about this backwards: Gouging Fire MAKES Sun the best archetype because its Sun + Proto (and potentially DD/CB) boosted nukes are unreasonable to respond to as an offensive option in the OU landscape. It's similar (if more extreme) in nature to Archaludon's absolutely perfect Rain synergy taking the archetype from the mid state it exists in to the most dominant style when it was OU.
-------
On the matter of Roaring Moon, my question is why it was the Ban elected to Suspect-down. Reactions to the current Meta sound mixed at least, not necessarily without room to improve at least, but I'm curious what Roaring Moon brings that led to it standing out as the option discussed by the council and getting enough traction to warrant disclosure to the Forum. OU still seems packed with very powerful and shaping threats, but none that we consider valid to act on (i.e. excluding things with multiple survived/repeat outcome suspects like Kyurem and Volcarona). I guess I'd rephrase to ask if Roaring Moon has a hypothesis to test, or is just the most immediate option we can justify acting on to take a shot in the dark.
-------
(For the record: if the verdict is non-negotiably going to remain Terapagos-Tera and Stellar cannot be handled or discussed separately, I still stand by the below rambling as a sort of Devil's Advocate/Talking point about tiering policy since I inevitably expect Gamefreak to continue creating weird mon cases like this going forward as they have since Gen 7)
Also, since there was no explicit shoot-down of the subject, I want to say that Terapagos-Terastal vs Stellar is a valid consideration for separate tiering. Virtually all of Smogon's tiering rules are gentlemen's agreements at the team building stage, and while it's fair to note that Rayquaza was a break in precedent by taking place in battle, it ultimately still does not require any modification of the game state to achieve. The idea itself is not hard for a layman to follow ("Terapagos-Ste is an Uber Pokemon"), in the same light as banning an individual Pokemon ("Annihilape is Uber") or item ("X Gem is Uber"), even if supposing we have to specify it as "Terapagos Stellar Clause" in the ruleset.
Distinguishing between the Mega vs the Mega Stone as the compared precedent feels missing the forest for the trees: if the concern about "Complex Bans" is for making it hard for players to comprehend or track, I covered that concern above with the result being identical ("The Mega is not allowed in a tier even if the base form is") and easily summarized; if the concern is slippery slope of trying to allow Pokemon into a tier with a handicap, Terapagos-Stellar clearly functions differently from other standard Pokemon under Terastalization (including having a distinct name, BST change, and a rigid interaction with the mechanic due to being Stellar locked), so the ban can not be equated or equivocated to "Terapagos-Tera with a move/stat handicap" the way that "Annihilape without Tera" or "Archaludon without Electro Beam" might be argued as removing a piece to preserve a Pokemon. It is very clearly not using the generic version of the Mechanic despite consuming the same "allotment" for itself. We do not count Roaring Moon as "Roaring Moon-Fairy" when it uses Fairy Tera because the underlying Pokemon is not altered, fixed, or unique to the same extent as Stellar Terapagos.
If anything, an OU Terapagos-Stellar is almost an identically functioning case to Ubers Mega Ray with even less opportunity cost: a form change that requires no significant investment to have as an option (Rayquaza is going to want Dragon Ascent regardless of the Mega option) from itself or any teammates, with a base form that is a perfectly reasonable presence overshadowed by specifically the "Super" form being unequivocally better than everything else such that nothing competing for the mechanic will see play while it is present. Aside from the absence of an item, how does Mega Rayquaza's ban differ from, say, OU's Mega Lucario ban IN SPIRIT? The resulting ban scenario remains "we want specifically the form given by this mechanic to not be accessible in the tier, without removing the base version," mainly distinguished by Rayquaza's abilty to hold items (which only affects its Power but changes nothing in the comparison since every Stone Mega is identical on the item slot, so it never defined a single set) and Ubers' higher tolerance for power and centralization (which speaks more to the intensity/threshold of a problem element than the methodology or principle behind a Ban compared to OU).
Unironically, yes. All discussion in favor of a Terapagos drop/clause is on the premise that Terapagos without being able to Tera into its Stellar form or ANY form would be a beneficial presence in the OU tier, its problematic interaction coming from how overwhelming specifically the Stellar form was. The hypothetical game scenario of losing because you can't use Terapagos Stellar-Tera is irrelevant because by the same clause this hypothetical runs on, the player KNOWS Terapagos cannot use their Tera and would neither build their team nor conduct their in-battle actions around that being an option, any more than someone building a team centered around Mega Mawile in a tier where Mega Mawile/Mawilite is banned. If the player did not use Tera at an earlier point such that they have it while Terapagos is the only mon left, despite knowing when they fielded the team that Terapagos-Stellar is not a permitted option, they are playing poorly or handicapping themselves throughout the rest of the match with their other 5 Pokemon, given Terapagos does not come with any opportunity cost when played without Stellar (compare even the idea of multiple Megas or Z-Crystals penalizing the unused Holders).
I don't understand what is "weird balence fuckery" about a mon playing by pre-agreed rules; the equivalent of how this reads to me is finding it odd that a Soccer/Football player (who is not the goalie) cannot pick up the ball with their hands to prevent the opponents from scoring: they physically could, but the rules forbid it from fair play.
As I already stated, all of Smogon's bans are functionally agreement to a ruleset without any tech-based enforcement behind it on the official software (the cartridge accuracy is not just a point of pride, it's a "Rule 0" to tiering around a Pokemon Generation instead of making our own battle system variant as several OM Smogon hosts do). An additional agreement of "Terapagos cannot click Tera->Stellar" is no more outlandish than us barring players from being able to put Pheromosa or Genesect onto a team meant for an OU format battle, enforced by preventing the selection on the simulator for simplicity but fully replicable by choice in a SV battle. Similarly on the "mechanic that the gen was built around" point, I talked at length about how Terapagos-Stellar is functionally a Mega Evolution that takes the Tera Slot moreso than standard Terastalization.
That is fair (and I actually didn't know Zamazenta sometimes uses tera stellar though it makes sense) but I feel like the positive impacts Terapagos can bring to the tier could be worth it.
Reading both of these posts made me remember that Terapagos can't actually tera into any type besides stellar which does raise an unfortunate dilemma. If Terapagos were unbanned on the condition that it can't tera and everything else can wouldn't that be unfair? The main difference between this and Mega Rayquaza is that with the latter, it was the only pokemon that could mega evolve in that way and even if that wasn't true, not every pokemon can mega evolve. On the contrary, everything that is legal in OU can tera while Terapagos wouldn't be allowed to due to its only tera type being banned. So the real question is if Terapagos has an unfair disadvantage, does it matter? Do we care if one pokemon can't tera but everything else can? I think there are enough advantages to dropping Terapagos that it doesn't matter, at least imo. However, this is a question that must be answered first before we even think about discussing the actual logistics.
Off the topic of Pagos, has anyone explored this mon yet?
Yharim (Empoleon) @ Heavy-Duty Boots
Ability: Competitive
Tera Type: Grass
EVs: 252 HP / 4 SpA / 252 SpD
Calm Nature
- Knock Off
- Roost
- Flash Cannon
- Ice Beam
I've been playing on ladder with this guy, and I think that this is a fantastic source of role compression for a team. It completely blanks Wake and Prim, along with helping to check other stuff like Enam and Clef. As a Knock user, it punishes most of the common absorbers and even serves as a semi-Dengolike defog blocker agaisnt Corv.
Yharim (Empoleon) @ Heavy-Duty Boots
Ability: Competitive
Tera Type: Grass
EVs: 252 HP / 4 SpA / 252 SpD
Calm Nature
- Knock Off
- Roost
- Flash Cannon
- Ice Beam
I've been playing on ladder with this guy, and I think that this is a fantastic source of role compression for a team. It completely blanks Wake and Prim, along with helping to check other stuff like Enam and Clef. As a Knock user, it punishes most of the common absorbers and even serves as a semi-Dengolike defog blocker agaisnt Corv.
As a fence sitter, Moon test seems like it would be better prospect after a Clay test.
Terapagos test would be amazing but it also just seems a bit too late for it at this point + it depends on how much we wanna bend the general rules. We kinda did that with Tera Blast and we are already seeing calls to resuspect the move.
Terapagos test would be amazing but it also just seems a bit too late for it at this point + it depends on how much we wanna bend the general rules. We kinda did that with Tera Blast and we are already seeing calls to resuspect the move.
Last I used this mon, it was with Shuca Berry + Rocks on Bulky offense which performed quite solidly. Trades nicely into opposing Grounds, and can annoy Pokemon like Kyurem, Enamorus, and a few others. Main issue is that this Pokemon has 4MSS.
tbh ur a massive larper but I'll respond anyways because I planned on posting here earlier.
took so long writing this that they put 2 more posts each less sensical then the last :sob:
for the record, I see this as a great step in the right way. I'm glad we finally have a chance to bring moon home
Why Light Clay is Busted as Shit and Should Get Got:
Screens has recently become one of the best team structures in the meta because of the realization of Zamazenta Screens. A lot of mons thats have become extremely strong offensively are buffed tenfold by screens. For example Cresselia only became strong after it was used on zamazenta screens. Ogerpon can use moves like trailblaze with its big bulk to get enough to sweep games. Kingambit doesn't need shuca berry or leftovers but still benefits from the ladder. This gives more space for you to run things like lum or even black glasses.
Deo Vs Za and Other Screens Setters:
The reason that deo screens was balanced, was because deo could only really get in 1-2 times per game and set up like on average 3 screens total over the course of a game. Zamazenta gets almost double that. Excluding dauntless shield, za takes around 1.5 times less then deo does from a hit. Zama also scares out a lot more mons. It gives you a baseline kingambit check and also you get a positive matchup and stop samurott-hisui from setting up hazards on lead which is amazing.
Interactions That Light Clay Flips (no tera needed)
To save time, because you could obviously do this for every mon, I'll just do this for ceru, gambit, bolt, and woger. Ofc there are 100 different sets for each check so it might not be perfect but the idea stays the same.
:ceruledge: Now Beats:
:great_tusk:
:ogerpon_wellspring:
:raging_bolt:
:Darkrai:
:gliscor: (no toxic)
:raging_bolt: Now Beats
:kyurem:
:great_tusk:
:gliscor: (no toxic)
:slowking_galar:
:landorus_therian:
:ogerpon_wellspring: Now Beats: (depends on set but assuming the most common on screens which is trailblaze play rough ivy)
:Dragonite:
:raging_bolt:
:hydrapple:
:iron_valiant:
:iron_moth:
:ogerpon:
:Zapdos:
:kyurem: (even scarfed)
:kingambit:
:kingambit: Now Beats:
:dragonite:
:enamorus:
:iron_treads:
:samurott_hisui:
:garchomp:
:walking_wake: (spatk booster)
This is awful reasoning I hate to say. Your argument doesn't give any reasons saying why we shouldn't ban screens because its not strong, your argument is just that they will still find usage in different ho teams. Which isn't really true. Cresselia webs isn't real and all three of these mons listed best archetypes are all screens. You mention spike stack, offense spam, and webs which have specific mons that are strong on each.
The awful part about screens it that its the best offense archetype pretty much for every offense mon. For example, theres tons of mons that are the best/primarily used on screens. Gliscor is amazing on screens as you don't need protect and can just use agility instead. Rillaboom is great because of gettrain healing and not having to worry about the lorb recoil as much. Cresselia is just insane on screens with the extra bulk.
I've made my opinion very clear about Terapagos and Roaring Moon but i'll say it again briefly.
Moon's best set was tera fairy and tera blast is no long in the tier.
Terapagos and terapagos stellar are LITTERALLY two different mons even marked as different versions on ps. Should we ban all the Ogerpons and G8 Urshifu Rapid? Ignoring that arguement theres just no reason to keep Terapagos locked up. It provides insane amounts of benefits for the tier and so much utility pretty pretty please let him come home.
the only reason to keep him banned has been "smogon tiering policy and thats just how smogon works". This website is 20 years old and currently at an all time low of users. I think thats decent enough to change the policy up.
Moon's best set was tera fairy and tera blast is no long in the tier.
Terapagos and terapagos stellar are LITTERALLY two different mons even marked as different versions on ps. Should we ban all the Ogerpons and G8 Urshifu Rapid? Ignoring that arguement theres just no reason to keep Terapagos locked up. It provides insane amounts of benefits for the tier and so much utility pretty pretty please let him come home.
the only reason to keep him banned has been "smogon tiering policy and thats just how smogon works". This website is 20 years old and currently at an all time low of users. I think thats decent enough to change the policy up.
Talking about tera blast unban/retest.
I don't see a clear reason at all why we should do this. As someone who used tera blast all the time to try doing creative/insane strategies and was very against ban, I have loved not having to worry about tera blast. Mainly responding to Mimikyu Stardust.
You mention Cresselia like 10 times during this message. I don't understand why at all. Tera blast fighting is the only possible option I could see for tera blast but that wouldn't be good and would just be a cheese pick. What options would you suggest because im very confused why you kept bringing it up.
I don't see a clear reason at all why we should do this. As someone who used tera blast all the time to try doing creative/insane strategies and was very against ban, I have loved not having to worry about tera blast. Mainly responding to Mimikyu Stardust.
First of all, are we really using "more fun" as a reason? This is legit what goobius ceaser did back during the tera blast test and got ratioed by loor to hell and back.
You mention Cresselia like 10 times during this message. I don't understand why at all. Tera blast fighting is the only possible option I could see for tera blast but that wouldn't be good and would just be a cheese pick. What options would you suggest because im very confused why you kept bringing it up.
You also use the tera blast retest as an excuse to keep rmoon locked up because of the chance of a tblast retest which is extremely strange logic.
Tera blast was banned because of mons like this and the unpredictable nature of it. You also exclude like 80% of the mons that used tera blast which were already amazing sweepers. Ceru, Rilla, Bolt, Dnite, Rai, KG, Dnite, Kyu have all become a lot weaker, and the randomnesss has decreased greatly. This is objectively untrue.
name calling people who wanted tb banned lazy is extremely funny because its a dumb argument, objectively untrue and you've legit been using prime pult for I think almost 3 years at this point. thats a bit ironic.
Caveat to everything I am about to say: I am not a Policy TD. Everything to follow are my non-expert thoughts, not as a TD. I like to think that I have a pretty good understanding of the arguments that have gone down in the Policy forum in the past and of why decisions have gone one way or another, but do not count on me as an expert or even a particularly valuable judge of *why* tiering policy should be one way or another.
None of this applies to a Roaring Moon unban, which is a pretty simple assessment of whether it's still broken without Tera Blast. But re: Terapagos unban, this is probably not the place to make this post because any change on Terapagos's OU status would need to happen in the Policy Review forum, but I'll make it here in case any OU Forum regulars are not sure why certain possible tiering actions are currently not available to the OU Council. Maybe this is getting a bit into nitpick territory, but I feel like referring to everything that's not a simple Pokemon ban as a "complex" ban is obscuring major differences and major reasons why people might be open to one but not the other. (and to be honest I think this is probably a blindspot in the tiering policy, there's a mention of ban complexity and why it's avoided but there really isn't detail on different kinds of complex bans) so here goes a non-rigourous taxonomy of "non-simple bans":
What was the point of all this? It's to say that these are very different kinds of bans and the reason people oppose them are very different. Like, not as a matter of obsession with tiering policy minutiae, but just in terms of how Smogon tiering should work on principle. People oppose a hypothetical Archaludon + Electroshot ban because that would entail intentionally nerfing Archaludon to make it just weak enough to be unbanned to OU, and doing so sets precedent to reevaluate the entire Ubers tier in this way. People oppose a flat Electroshot ban because it's obviously not broken, Archaludon is just strong enough on rain with it to be broken; after all, Meteor Beam isn't broken (there's probably room to argue that if its distribution wasn't limited, Electroshot would enable enough Pokemon to become destructive forces that push rain over the edge to justify a ban, and I don't think that hypothetical is obviously wrong or obviously right. Obviously different case from DPP Iron Head, though).
These are completely different reasons than the ones that would lead someone to oppose a Terapagos unban (you don't really need to agree with the tiering principle that restrictions on the teambuilder level are preferable, but that's how it goes). It wouldn't be selectively nerfing Terapagos any more than banning Mega Metagross selectively nerfs Metagross, but that's not the issue. The issue is that it's a ban that's impossible to implement in the teambuilder, so it would have to happen by blocking the Tera button on Terapagos specifically in-battle (or by awarding anyone who clicks Tera with their Terapagos an immediate game loss; probably shouldn't have to explain why that's a bad idea).
So if someone asks "are you, personally, open to complex bans?" I'd say, well, depends. Do you mean taking away Ubers' signature moves to free them in OU? No, on principle I think that's revolting, should never be entertained. Do you mean a DPP Snow Warning + Snow Cloak complex ban so that Spike lead Froslass doesn't need to be entirely nuked from the tier as collateral? Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Do you mean freeing Terapagos and preventing it from using Tera (which is different from restricting Tera on any other mon because no other mon adds a bunch of stats when it clicks Tera, this is obviously a unique case)? I don't really have a problem with it on principle, honestly. So anyway, if any of you have ever thought "Smogon hates complex bans because all the admins go to sleep with a copy of the tiering policy under their pillows", here's my slightly more common-sense rationale
None of this applies to a Roaring Moon unban, which is a pretty simple assessment of whether it's still broken without Tera Blast. But re: Terapagos unban, this is probably not the place to make this post because any change on Terapagos's OU status would need to happen in the Policy Review forum, but I'll make it here in case any OU Forum regulars are not sure why certain possible tiering actions are currently not available to the OU Council. Maybe this is getting a bit into nitpick territory, but I feel like referring to everything that's not a simple Pokemon ban as a "complex" ban is obscuring major differences and major reasons why people might be open to one but not the other. (and to be honest I think this is probably a blindspot in the tiering policy, there's a mention of ban complexity and why it's avoided but there really isn't detail on different kinds of complex bans) so here goes a non-rigourous taxonomy of "non-simple bans":
Basically, was the Last Respects ban a complex ban? The argument (and I can't remember who made this in policy) basically goes like "OU has a banlist, which is the Ubers tier. Every pure Pokemon ban is a simple one because it doesn't add any new rules to the ruleset, it just adds another mon to the banlist. Any non-Pokemon ban is complex because it requires adding a new rule to the OU ruleset." The updated tiering policy allows these, with certain criteria on when such bans are justified compared to Pokemon bans (most recently applied during the Tera Blast ban). These have been embedded into the standard ruleset for a long time, in the form of the OHKO move ban and the Moody ban.
So are these complex bans? Well, they're more complex than simple Pokemon bans (hence why there are specific burdens of proof they have to meet that simple Pokemon bans aren't subject to), but they're allowed! And they're less complex than several other kinds of bans.
So are these complex bans? Well, they're more complex than simple Pokemon bans (hence why there are specific burdens of proof they have to meet that simple Pokemon bans aren't subject to), but they're allowed! And they're less complex than several other kinds of bans.
This is probably what most people think of when they hear "complex ban." This sort of ban has, in the past, been widely mocked. The most famous representative of this sort is probably the hypothetical "Blaziken + Speed Boost," which would be a ruleset-imposed nerf of a by-consensus broken element (Blaziken) by selectively taking away its access to a non-broken element (Speed Boost) that pushes it over the edge. If you pay attention to arguments particularly on DPP/BW tiering policy, you might notice that some corners of the site very much want bans of this sort, with Jirachi + Iron Head in DPP and Excadrill + Sand Force being examples I've seen. Some SV stakeholders (prominently including lax, iirc) have pushed for an Archaludon + Electroshot ban, which would fall into this category.
Without weighing in too heavily on this topic, allowing said bans would, in theory, allow for the entirety of the Ubers tier to be revisited for conditional unbans. Could Zamazenta-C be a healthy addition to OU with Iron Defense banned? Complex bans of this sort would fundamentally change the entire way tiering on the site works.
There's no ambiguity as to whether or not these are complex bans, but the important thing to take away here is that the argument against these isn't "complex bans bad ruleset simplicity good." I actually think there are some reasons that complex bans can be fine! It's that now every single ban has to entertain even more conflicting proposals of "is there an alternate path to improving the meta by removing this combination or that combination of elements."
Without weighing in too heavily on this topic, allowing said bans would, in theory, allow for the entirety of the Ubers tier to be revisited for conditional unbans. Could Zamazenta-C be a healthy addition to OU with Iron Defense banned? Complex bans of this sort would fundamentally change the entire way tiering on the site works.
There's no ambiguity as to whether or not these are complex bans, but the important thing to take away here is that the argument against these isn't "complex bans bad ruleset simplicity good." I actually think there are some reasons that complex bans can be fine! It's that now every single ban has to entertain even more conflicting proposals of "is there an alternate path to improving the meta by removing this combination or that combination of elements."
I use this category to highlight that there is a lot of ambiguity as to whether or not non-Pokemon elements should be banned. Personally, I apply to my own thinking the principle of "if tiering will just be a constant game of whack-a-mole with the latest abuser as long as the non-Pokemon element remains unbanned, then target the non-Pokemon element". Different people have different thresholds; seems like the official threshold is 2 abusers (why Shed Tail wasn't banned until Orthworm was ruled broken), different people disagree with that.
However, what will occasionally get proposed are "simple non-Pokemon bans" that serve the same purpose as the aforementioned Blaziken + Speed Boost ban, to selectively ban a Pokemon by banning a single element of it. See: proposed bans of Sand Force in BW and Iron Head in DPP. These are the source of some heated policy forum arguments. Basically, I would argue that a hypothetical Electroshot ban would fall here, on the basis that it's not different enough from Meteor Beam to be ruled broken while the latter isn't. An Electroshot ban would be the way to nerf Archaludon enough to bring it back to OU without explicitly using a complex ban, and since it's exclusive to Archaludon, there's no collateral.
For what it's worth, I think the reason that Heat Rock/Damp Rock rarely get targeted, and the issue that Light Clay has, is that they kinda fall into this category. Generally the order of operations here goes abuser ban -> setter ban -> weather ban, with common elements among abusers fitting in there somewhere. Banning the weather stones, likewise banning Light Clay doesn't actually remove a broken element at all, it aims to nerf the field effect just enough to be not broken. It's imprecise and requires a lot more guesswork.
I'll also point out that opponents of the Tera Blast ban, and this is the reason that it took so long to happen, hold that Tera Blast was never broken, people just didn't have the appetite to ban its broken abusers (which, by the end, was basically just Dragonite at the time of the suspect test). Proponents of the test argued that, no, it wasn't just Dragonite (or Nite + Gambit + Kyurem), it was that Tera Blast generally buffed offensive threats and increased the variance in the tier to detrimental effect. I've always been a little skeptical of this idea. To this end, I agree with Mimikyu Stardust, although I don't really agree that cheeselord shitters having access to a move to blast past their counters was a particularly good thing for the meta. Would have been in favour of a Dnite suspect, though.
However, what will occasionally get proposed are "simple non-Pokemon bans" that serve the same purpose as the aforementioned Blaziken + Speed Boost ban, to selectively ban a Pokemon by banning a single element of it. See: proposed bans of Sand Force in BW and Iron Head in DPP. These are the source of some heated policy forum arguments. Basically, I would argue that a hypothetical Electroshot ban would fall here, on the basis that it's not different enough from Meteor Beam to be ruled broken while the latter isn't. An Electroshot ban would be the way to nerf Archaludon enough to bring it back to OU without explicitly using a complex ban, and since it's exclusive to Archaludon, there's no collateral.
For what it's worth, I think the reason that Heat Rock/Damp Rock rarely get targeted, and the issue that Light Clay has, is that they kinda fall into this category. Generally the order of operations here goes abuser ban -> setter ban -> weather ban, with common elements among abusers fitting in there somewhere. Banning the weather stones, likewise banning Light Clay doesn't actually remove a broken element at all, it aims to nerf the field effect just enough to be not broken. It's imprecise and requires a lot more guesswork.
I'll also point out that opponents of the Tera Blast ban, and this is the reason that it took so long to happen, hold that Tera Blast was never broken, people just didn't have the appetite to ban its broken abusers (which, by the end, was basically just Dragonite at the time of the suspect test). Proponents of the test argued that, no, it wasn't just Dragonite (or Nite + Gambit + Kyurem), it was that Tera Blast generally buffed offensive threats and increased the variance in the tier to detrimental effect. I've always been a little skeptical of this idea. To this end, I agree with Mimikyu Stardust, although I don't really agree that cheeselord shitters having access to a move to blast past their counters was a particularly good thing for the meta. Would have been in favour of a Dnite suspect, though.
Think of the historical Aldaron's Proposal (Drizzle + Swift Swim in BW) or various Baton Pass restrictions (Swords Dance + Baton Pass). To my knowledge, nobody advocates for these outside of Baton Pass, and I'm not going to reiterate the ongoing debates here. Not relevant here
Think Mega Evolution. In order to Mega Evolve, the Pokemon needs to hold the appropriate Mega Stone. As such, a ban on, for instance, Mega Metagross can be implemented either as a ban on base Metagross, a ban on the item Metagrossite, or an in-battle restriction on the player's ability to Mega Evolve Metagross. From what I know, Mega Evolutions are actually a weird case where the teambuilder actually applies the ban as a complex Pokemon + item restriction, but the principle for why this kind of ban has always been okay, at least, is that it's possible to do it as just an item ban. The same principle applies to Battle Bond on Greninja.
Now, note that this route was available in the case of ORAS Mega Rayquaza, and it notably was NOT the route that was taken. Rayquaza could have been banned, so could Dragon Ascent. We'll mention this again later.
Now, note that this route was available in the case of ORAS Mega Rayquaza, and it notably was NOT the route that was taken. Rayquaza could have been banned, so could Dragon Ascent. We'll mention this again later.
This is a whole different kind of complexity. Policy has previously made the distinction that Pokemon can differ in form by whether there's a base stat change. This was brought up as a way to distinguish Terapagos-Stellar from Ogerpon-Hearthflame-Tera, and presumably as a result of this debate, such language is not really in the updated tiering policy. Rather, what currently matters in terms of tiering policy is that for both forms, a ban cannot be implemented purely on the level of the teambuilder/team validator. Instead, any ban that targets those forms can either be implemented in the form of a teambuilder ban on the base form or a restriction on the player's in-game actions.
There is, however, precedent for said bans. The obvious one is the Dynamax ban, which, from what I understand, is a ban that can only be implemented by restricting both players from clicking the Dynamax button (which is most simply done by removing the button altogether). The same is true of a hypothetical Tera ban.
These are blanket bans that aren't conditional on gamestates, however. One proposed implementation of a cartridge-replicable Sleep Clause, for tiers like RBY OU that don't want to outright ban sleep moves, would be to prevent the player from selecting a sleep move while a Pokemon on the other team is asleep. This change has some defenders, at this point not enough. A hypothetical Terapagos-Stellar ban would fall into this category, which prevents a player from clicking the Tera button specifically with Terapagos. The ORAS Mega Rayquaza ban fits in this category, and not everyone is happy with the official policy position that this cannot be used as precedent (personally, I feel like it's very simple to just take the position of "the Mega Ray ban was a mistake, policy-wise, and it only exists now because it's grandfathered in")
As a side note, in retrospect I think it's kinda crazy that the Tera Captain proposal was ever entertained as acceptable policy (same with the restriction to same-type Tera but idr if that ever made it into the vote). Tera Preview at least has precedent in official Nintendo tournaments.
There is, however, precedent for said bans. The obvious one is the Dynamax ban, which, from what I understand, is a ban that can only be implemented by restricting both players from clicking the Dynamax button (which is most simply done by removing the button altogether). The same is true of a hypothetical Tera ban.
These are blanket bans that aren't conditional on gamestates, however. One proposed implementation of a cartridge-replicable Sleep Clause, for tiers like RBY OU that don't want to outright ban sleep moves, would be to prevent the player from selecting a sleep move while a Pokemon on the other team is asleep. This change has some defenders, at this point not enough. A hypothetical Terapagos-Stellar ban would fall into this category, which prevents a player from clicking the Tera button specifically with Terapagos. The ORAS Mega Rayquaza ban fits in this category, and not everyone is happy with the official policy position that this cannot be used as precedent (personally, I feel like it's very simple to just take the position of "the Mega Ray ban was a mistake, policy-wise, and it only exists now because it's grandfathered in")
As a side note, in retrospect I think it's kinda crazy that the Tera Captain proposal was ever entertained as acceptable policy (same with the restriction to same-type Tera but idr if that ever made it into the vote). Tera Preview at least has precedent in official Nintendo tournaments.
What was the point of all this? It's to say that these are very different kinds of bans and the reason people oppose them are very different. Like, not as a matter of obsession with tiering policy minutiae, but just in terms of how Smogon tiering should work on principle. People oppose a hypothetical Archaludon + Electroshot ban because that would entail intentionally nerfing Archaludon to make it just weak enough to be unbanned to OU, and doing so sets precedent to reevaluate the entire Ubers tier in this way. People oppose a flat Electroshot ban because it's obviously not broken, Archaludon is just strong enough on rain with it to be broken; after all, Meteor Beam isn't broken (there's probably room to argue that if its distribution wasn't limited, Electroshot would enable enough Pokemon to become destructive forces that push rain over the edge to justify a ban, and I don't think that hypothetical is obviously wrong or obviously right. Obviously different case from DPP Iron Head, though).
These are completely different reasons than the ones that would lead someone to oppose a Terapagos unban (you don't really need to agree with the tiering principle that restrictions on the teambuilder level are preferable, but that's how it goes). It wouldn't be selectively nerfing Terapagos any more than banning Mega Metagross selectively nerfs Metagross, but that's not the issue. The issue is that it's a ban that's impossible to implement in the teambuilder, so it would have to happen by blocking the Tera button on Terapagos specifically in-battle (or by awarding anyone who clicks Tera with their Terapagos an immediate game loss; probably shouldn't have to explain why that's a bad idea).
So if someone asks "are you, personally, open to complex bans?" I'd say, well, depends. Do you mean taking away Ubers' signature moves to free them in OU? No, on principle I think that's revolting, should never be entertained. Do you mean a DPP Snow Warning + Snow Cloak complex ban so that Spike lead Froslass doesn't need to be entirely nuked from the tier as collateral? Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Do you mean freeing Terapagos and preventing it from using Tera (which is different from restricting Tera on any other mon because no other mon adds a bunch of stats when it clicks Tera, this is obviously a unique case)? I don't really have a problem with it on principle, honestly. So anyway, if any of you have ever thought "Smogon hates complex bans because all the admins go to sleep with a copy of the tiering policy under their pillows", here's my slightly more common-sense rationale
Last edited:
Honestly with the discussion of mons to suspect/retest I wanna give one of my opinions on the mons being unbanned. This can be a long list, but I haven't played the metagame in quite a while, and I may not play this metagame again.
:cresselia: - Yeah, no lmao cress is completely fine. Idk how people even see this mon and say "it's broken" taunt and encore not only completely ruin this thing, but it also checks a good amount of mons. Zama, dnite, non-knock tusk, clefable, tera poison do a great job at checking rilla too etc. It can be annoying but I think it is completely fine. I wouldn't ban it.
:light-clay: - I've been on the ban train for this thing since forever, and a ban on light clay would be great for the tier. Not only would it make of the best teamstyles (screens) easier to deal with, but it also nerfs some mons that are made better by screens much easier to deal with. If I were to suspect an item that has been on the radar for a long while now, I say this is one of the first things to deal with.
:terapagos: (tera clause) - This mon would be a genuinely great addition to the tier. Not only does it give us a reliable spinner (like cala said), but it also gives us a great utility mon with toxic and roar alongside cm sets/power herb meteor beam sets. It also has an excellent movepool in aura sphere, earth power, flamethrower, dazzling gleam, ice beam etc. If we should have any tiering action, this is the mon we should unban.
On the topics of a tera blast retest/unban, I an very mixed on this; I think mons that were made much worse by the tera blast ban (dnite, serp, thundy-t, kingambit, sandy shocks) Dnite gets to be the best mon in the tier again lmao! TB Flying and Earthquake pretty much shreds the entire OU tier aside from corviknight and zapdos (zapdos 2hkod by +1 ice spinner). Serp gets coverage for grounds again alongside thundy-t with tb ice and fairy coming back. Kingambit also gets to magically beat zamazenta again, and oh sandy shocks has ice-type coverage again to hit grounds for se. I think with tera blast being unbanned regieleki gets instabanned again with volcarona and moon staying in ubers. The main thing with this move though is most tb mons are the chosen tera user on most teams, and tera blast adds a move to let setup sweepers do sweeps that usually never happen, like dd kyu getting a ground move without relying on earth power, iron moth can hit heatran and ceru again. I was DnB on tera blast and didn't mind it, but Idk if this move should come back.
Now, I people it's time to let people know that I am one of the few people that do NOT think moon deserves to be freed.
tl;dr Cress is completely fine, I wouldn't ban it. Please ban light clay, free terapagos, very mixed on a tb retest. Don't unban moon.
:cresselia: - Yeah, no lmao cress is completely fine. Idk how people even see this mon and say "it's broken" taunt and encore not only completely ruin this thing, but it also checks a good amount of mons. Zama, dnite, non-knock tusk, clefable, tera poison do a great job at checking rilla too etc. It can be annoying but I think it is completely fine. I wouldn't ban it.
:light-clay: - I've been on the ban train for this thing since forever, and a ban on light clay would be great for the tier. Not only would it make of the best teamstyles (screens) easier to deal with, but it also nerfs some mons that are made better by screens much easier to deal with. If I were to suspect an item that has been on the radar for a long while now, I say this is one of the first things to deal with.
:terapagos: (tera clause) - This mon would be a genuinely great addition to the tier. Not only does it give us a reliable spinner (like cala said), but it also gives us a great utility mon with toxic and roar alongside cm sets/power herb meteor beam sets. It also has an excellent movepool in aura sphere, earth power, flamethrower, dazzling gleam, ice beam etc. If we should have any tiering action, this is the mon we should unban.
On the topics of a tera blast retest/unban, I an very mixed on this; I think mons that were made much worse by the tera blast ban (dnite, serp, thundy-t, kingambit, sandy shocks) Dnite gets to be the best mon in the tier again lmao! TB Flying and Earthquake pretty much shreds the entire OU tier aside from corviknight and zapdos (zapdos 2hkod by +1 ice spinner). Serp gets coverage for grounds again alongside thundy-t with tb ice and fairy coming back. Kingambit also gets to magically beat zamazenta again, and oh sandy shocks has ice-type coverage again to hit grounds for se. I think with tera blast being unbanned regieleki gets instabanned again with volcarona and moon staying in ubers. The main thing with this move though is most tb mons are the chosen tera user on most teams, and tera blast adds a move to let setup sweepers do sweeps that usually never happen, like dd kyu getting a ground move without relying on earth power, iron moth can hit heatran and ceru again. I was DnB on tera blast and didn't mind it, but Idk if this move should come back.
Now, I people it's time to let people know that I am one of the few people that do NOT think moon deserves to be freed.
tl;dr Cress is completely fine, I wouldn't ban it. Please ban light clay, free terapagos, very mixed on a tb retest. Don't unban moon.
Last edited:
There was a long period of peace and quiet since the tera blast ban and for a good reason; the meta game is far less bitchable with it gone.
Volc test was a disappointment but it cannot be denied, its been a fucking night and day improvement since the TB ban and the calling for removal of mons has basically been shut down, I check the thread every couple of weeks and it feels like its just actual discussion not "get fucking rid of X or Y" lately... uh fucking mission accomplished??? We'll be echo chambering for bans on dragonite, kingambit, kyurem, etc all over again. I could only ask for a removal of the tera mechanic in its entirety but that option was non-negotiable after tera's original test, so the idea of anyone wanting to buff it again is completely insane to me. Its a terrible fucking game mechanic that shouldn't be in a competitive setting, a poker game has less guessing and gambling than fucking figuring out what tera blast is going to delete your sole win con or answer to these threats.
Roaring moon deserves a test, but the results will probably be the same as volcaronas assuming we wouldn't let volc back in again either (everyone just hates volc, its early gen dominance poisoned the well on its reputation even if it was not nearly as bad in the retest). Moon and Volc retest would've been easier if (big if) light clay was removed first to eliminate one of the frustrating ways they could setup but the chronological order of retest and suspects has been fucked all generation, especially since a lot of it was too much versatility in threats and you could ban dragonite and suddenly you can focus on dealing with volc or moon, the tier becomes less egregious over having to focus on 5 different dictators and removing any one of them relieves the pressure of the others.
Test moon because its fair to do so since its been waiting since the TB ban and the main reason it wasn't being begged for is people really thought volc would come back and when that didn't work out off the reasoning 'we don't want to shake up the meta so soon after TB', there was no way in hell moon would, maybe if volc waited this long too it'd be different but it was largely agreed volc had a better chance than moon which was why it was first to begin with.
I have no opinion on terapagos cause it was made clear like a full tera ban that it was non-negotiable, wouldn't give a shit if there was a complex ban for it but it does feel like playing favorites when you could also ban volcarona/dragonite/moon/espathra/etc from having a tera button as well... or everything but SV OU is prioritizing 4fun by keeping it.
Either way, if there was any particular version of SV OU that gets completely locked in and never given test again, what we have today would be likely the safest version bar a light clay removal which whether I agree with it or not I think is still not going to be missed and be a net positive overall if it was removed. Retention is never going to last forever if players are getting bored of the literal longest wait between generations, it doesn't signal patching the game nothing is wrong with it.
Volc test was a disappointment but it cannot be denied, its been a fucking night and day improvement since the TB ban and the calling for removal of mons has basically been shut down, I check the thread every couple of weeks and it feels like its just actual discussion not "get fucking rid of X or Y" lately... uh fucking mission accomplished??? We'll be echo chambering for bans on dragonite, kingambit, kyurem, etc all over again. I could only ask for a removal of the tera mechanic in its entirety but that option was non-negotiable after tera's original test, so the idea of anyone wanting to buff it again is completely insane to me. Its a terrible fucking game mechanic that shouldn't be in a competitive setting, a poker game has less guessing and gambling than fucking figuring out what tera blast is going to delete your sole win con or answer to these threats.
Roaring moon deserves a test, but the results will probably be the same as volcaronas assuming we wouldn't let volc back in again either (everyone just hates volc, its early gen dominance poisoned the well on its reputation even if it was not nearly as bad in the retest). Moon and Volc retest would've been easier if (big if) light clay was removed first to eliminate one of the frustrating ways they could setup but the chronological order of retest and suspects has been fucked all generation, especially since a lot of it was too much versatility in threats and you could ban dragonite and suddenly you can focus on dealing with volc or moon, the tier becomes less egregious over having to focus on 5 different dictators and removing any one of them relieves the pressure of the others.
Test moon because its fair to do so since its been waiting since the TB ban and the main reason it wasn't being begged for is people really thought volc would come back and when that didn't work out off the reasoning 'we don't want to shake up the meta so soon after TB', there was no way in hell moon would, maybe if volc waited this long too it'd be different but it was largely agreed volc had a better chance than moon which was why it was first to begin with.
I have no opinion on terapagos cause it was made clear like a full tera ban that it was non-negotiable, wouldn't give a shit if there was a complex ban for it but it does feel like playing favorites when you could also ban volcarona/dragonite/moon/espathra/etc from having a tera button as well... or everything but SV OU is prioritizing 4fun by keeping it.
Either way, if there was any particular version of SV OU that gets completely locked in and never given test again, what we have today would be likely the safest version bar a light clay removal which whether I agree with it or not I think is still not going to be missed and be a net positive overall if it was removed. Retention is never going to last forever if players are getting bored of the literal longest wait between generations, it doesn't signal patching the game nothing is wrong with it.
Last edited:
This was an incredible breakdown. (and happy birthday!) I think that this portion in particular highlights a notion I’ve been trying to put into words for almost a decade of ban discussions, and I have to thank you for that.
I think—to mirror the sentiment of Laximus’ post earlier—it is time for a major reexamination of or at least some introspection on how we interpret tiering policy.
Terapogos seems to both be a special mechanical case that is a low risk, easily justifiable addendum to traditional tiering policy and also an unban with a potentially significant positive effect on the metagame. It seems quite simple to me, given there is adequate precedent for similar form bans and given that Turtle is the only thing that can do what it does.
As for tera blast ban… I will have to think about whether a potential re-test is worthwhile. I was against the ban initially and am still against the ban now, but I do wonder if our time would be better spent on other considerations. I figure that a re-test should probably come before we re-test Moon again, just so we don’t have to do the confusing thing of banning moon again after it is potentially legalized.
Last edited:
Respectfully; I'm just curious what your reasoning would be for 'matter of balance'?
The pokemon that are currently top threats are able to sustain a position of 'strong but not immediately ban worthy' after essentially years of calling for them to be banned. The instant TB comes back you would have to ban dragonite, its not even an argument, dragonite would need to be gone within a month and I know you know this based off the surveys happening throughout that entire period and the hesitation for dragonite's test being that it'd be a huge time sink having to ban it and then subsequently whatever pops up as the next tera problem child, and then retest when tera blast would evidently be banned anyways. Regieleki would be quickbanned the same patch that tera blast ice comes back, kingambit and kyurem's frustration would go up even more, and you'd end up with extra unforeseen consequences like tera blast fighting cresselia cheesing past its current checks as an already solid pokemon. The fact we can discuss moon/volc as potential drops (and I know volc is still plausible, you even voiced it was fine, its just really difficult to unban something painted as 'annoying', half those do not ban arguments were basically 'don't shake up the game its fine as is' & 'i never liked it, don't care') and unban mons like regieleki should be a good indicator for just how comfortable the game is now, even if drops rarely or never happen it sure beats wanting to ban what we do have which would always be a higher priority than drops.
There will also just be 100s of pages of SV OU players indecisively arguing non-stop on what the 'issue' is (ban dragonite, warping the tier! no ban tera blast, too cheese! no ban kyurem, matchup flipper! no ban light clay, sleeper broken! no ban kingambit, he's an asshole! no ban gholdengo fuck billionaires! no ban screens, light clay isn't enough! no retest volc to check kyurem, valiant, zama, & cress! no ban wogre, gave me a shower! no do anything, its been 6 months of excuses not to do anything!) when that stalement is why the tier was originally losing retention to begin with cause the game had to change and surveys weren't letting that happen with such split votes on all of them trying to reach a common goal which was finally achieved.
'Balance' just seems like a wrong choice of wording or if you think having tera blast somehow 'stabilizes' the meta in a healthy matter which I just cannot see at all? What is TB objectively doing positive other than making the tier more random and versatile to an unhealthy degree? If there are pokemon that do need looked at, its a lot easier to look at them off their available toolset rather than factoring in they can be cheesed by random tera lure sets or have access to 120 BP special/physical omni coverage and in theory have 0 counters.
Last edited:
Honestly, i know its not really in the spirit of Smogon, but Tera Blast might be more fair if the tera types of opposing Pokémon were displayed. I'm not an OU pro obviously, but I think part of what made Tera so cool in VGC was that you knew what you could be up against in terms of Tera, so you could play around it.