Why is this the stance just now, though? No one complained about Sand Veil being "uncompetetive" last gen when Gliscor ran it, and that could have meant the difference between a successful Baton Pass or a crucial last-minute Roost. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but it seems like this was just swept under the "let's ban what we can while we can" mindset that seems to be taking over, to an extent at least.
The "uncompetitive" reasoning only goes so far, IMO. Inconsistent made it to the point where it was little more than RNG vs RNG, but such was not the case with Brightpowder / Lax Incense, and now Sand Veil, as they do not consistently (no pun intended) create an uncompetitive environment. This is even more applicable to evasion items, where you give up an item that does give you consistent results. But then, I don't care about those items either way since I would never use them regardless.
The return of Garchomp is probably the reason people are thinking of it. While the issue is not limited to Garchomp, it brings the issue to our attention better than Gliscor ever could.
There's also the matter of other bans. Previously, we only had Pokemon bans, with the exception of certain clauses that were considered relatively static and unchangeable, and had never referred to abilities. As a result, while Sand Veil
was brought up in that time, it was always ignored.
However, now, it's a different story. We banned an ability Round 1, and an ability + ability combination Round 2. Both provide means that could be used to actually address Sand Veil and Snow Cloak as a whole. So now that the ban is being suggested again, we actually have a way that we could go about making it happen.
As for your other argument, that doesn't seem to be the case. 85% of the voters clearly felt that Brightpowder / Lax Incense fell under the bounds of being uncompetitive, and in voting to ban it, defined it as uncompetitive. While there may be some dispute as to what exactly qualifies as uncompetitive and what does not, it's clear that officially, Brightpowder / Lax Incense are among that which is uncompetitive. We must proceed according to this official definition until there is sufficient cause to overrule it and change it with a new vote, which doesn't seem like it could plausibly happen for quite some time.
I feel that any Luck that serves no other purpose but to create luck (so evasion moves, which only create a new dice roll are bad, flamethrower burns aren't bad, since flamethrower has a non-hax purpose) are uncompetitive.
Banning Sand Veil/ Snow Cloak last gen would have resulted in the bans of some pokemon. This gen that is not the case- well, some would still be soft banned, but the DW holds the promise that they will get another ability (although when is uncertain). I wouldn't mind banning the abilities on all pokemon who currently have another ability, but leaving it unbanned on chomp (and whoever else is currently stuck in that situation).
I would even accept an "if it has to" compromise: Chomp, if it ran Outrage/EQ/FB/SD would be forced to run Rough Skin since it is legal with it (once DW chomp is released) but if chomp ran SR/DragonTail/EQ/Whatever-it's-last-move-usually-is , it would be allowed to run Sand Veil because it has to in order to be able to run SR. This would also apply to pokes with unreleased DW abilties; since it's not legal with the DW ability yet, it gets to run the evasion one.
That could be interesting to consider. Something along the lines of this?
Sand Veil and Snow Cloak are banned on all Pokemon if they have the capability to select another ability without changing any other aspect of their set.
I don't think that would be the best way of dealing with this, but it would certainly be a good way - if it gets accepted. The biggest issue is that unlike Sand Veil + Sand Stream, there's absolutely no precedent in past bans, not even a precedent for which the applicability is disputable and needs to be settled. Therefore, it, too, should be discussed in PR so an official decision can be made.
---
So it seems to me that with all this talk of complex bans, there is always the worry of a slippery slope. I believe this should allow us to prevent that slippery slope before it ever happens.
I propose that PR make an official poll regarding what sorts of complex bans voters would ever be willing to consider allowing, in any form, assuming it would have no impact on the others. It should ask about these five topics:
Complex bans involving Pokemon
Complex bans involving abilities
Complex bans involving items
Complex bans involving moves
complex bans involving stats
I think it can safely be assumed that the lower two on that list, and probably even the lower three, will all be rejected by a spectacular majority, perhaps even 100% of the voters. If it happens this way, and yet the first, second, or both options are not rejected, then we will know that we can have some freedom to try out different sorts of complex bans involving Pokemon and/or abilities when appropriate without risking spillover into the other categories, which have the potential for far more complexity than we could ever handle properly.
There are some issues, though. Speaking personally (although I have no capability to vote in any of these polls), I think that certain bans involving combinations of Pokemon and abilities in different ways could have potential, but banning combinations of Pokemon on a single team is not something we want to start messing with. I suppose a decision with regard to matters such as that could be made later?
But this is all just ideas at this stage, and I should probably find a better place for them.
