Slim Man, when I mean uncompetitive, I mean luck-oriented; the control of the match is out of player's hands. I did not use uncompetitive to describe shitty strategies or Pokemon.
Sand Veil is a shitty strategy on shitty Pokemon. Garchomp is the only exception to that rule.
Therefore, I can assume that you don't use "uncompetitive" to describe Sand Veil.
But if you don't find Sand Veil to be "uncompetitive", then why do you suggest we ban it?
Pocket said:
However, I do agree with you. The complex ban may most likely NOT deal with the root of the problem. As long as Sand Veil exists, Garchomp can abuse the sandstorm invoked by the opponent's Ttars. It does limit Garchomp's usage considerably though, since one cannot use Ttar in tandem with Garchomp, but the hax bs will most likely to arise. The complex ban may be insufficient.
See, this is what I don't like about it.
Complex bans should be used very sparingly (if at all), IMO. So I feel that if one were to be implemented, it should fix the whole problem, not a part of it (so that it would be worth the consequences of using another one).
Therefore, I think it would be unwise to do a complex ban with Sand Veil at this time.
Pocket said:
Nkululeko, I agree to an extent to your rational on soft bans on abilities. However, if you read Chou Toshio's link about banning stuff for uncompetitive reasons I believe you would at least understand the logic of my suggestion. It is so blatantly apparent that the uncompetitive nature of Sand Veil and its exploitation are the main issues, not Garchomp. Arguably, Garchomp would not be on the headlights if it wasn't for the blatant abuse of Sand Veil with Substitue.
But the thing is, going by Chou Toshio's logic, how do we know that Garchomp isn't in the headlights under category B, for being a bad ass?
I'd like to consider a Pokemon as two things: a sprite/pokedex #/movepool/stats/typing being one of the two, and an ability being the other. This is consistent with Smogon's bans so far, as we've banned one or the other, but not both (and hopefully never will, that's just way too complex).
Now, if Garchomp is falls under Chou Toshio's category B, then we should ban the sprite/pokedex #/movepool/stats/typing. AKA we should ban Garchomp. Sand Veil may be what makes it too bad ass, but it would be Snad Veil helping Garchomp get there, not Sand Veil itself.
But if Garchomp falls under Chou Toshio's category A, then we should ban Sand Veil. Because no sprite/pokedex #/movepool/stats/typing can ever make a Pokemon "uncompetitive" (barring Double Team/Minimize, but we already banned them). Only an ability can do that. Only abilities introduce luck. Therefore, it would be Sand Veil by itself which puts Garchomp into category A, so we would ban Sand Veil.
The problem is, how do we know which of the two categories Garchomp fits under? It's almost impossible to tell. That's why I would suggest taking the safest route with the least repercussions, which is banning Garchomp.
An additional problem with banning Sand Veil would be that, traditionally, we only ban abilities when they break everything which has them (see: Moody). Sand Veil introduces luck on everything which has it, but it does not break everything which has it. Therefore, I think that based on precedent, an ability ban would be unwarranted on Sand Veil.
And to Slim Man and Nkululeko regarding nerfing Pokemon
This is quite different from the nerf of Blaziken without Speed Boost. Mainly because I am suggesting a blanket ban on the Ability itself, with no Pokemon-specific conditions (ie, I am not requesting a ban on Sand Veil Garchomp, but a ban on Sand Veil itself). Like I said, this Ability is comparable to Moody, vesting any Pokemon possessing it with an upper hand in luck. The fault is not on the Pokemon, but on the Ability.
Read what I said above, please, because it pretty much covers this, too.
And concerning Complex bans as NERFS:
I consider calling a STRATEGY as being nerfed is ridiculous. Heavy Offense is a strategy, and we have effectively "nerfed" it by banning the overpowered Sweepers in Round 1, such as Deoxys-A and Darkrai. Why did we nerf heavy offense? Because those Pokemon were overpowered. It was not our intent to nerf Heavy Offense, but naturally there are consequences to balancing out the metagame.
It's true what you say, every ban nerfs something, no matter how small of a nerf it is.
However, I prefer simple "nerfs" to complex "nerfs".
This is for reasons which I think I've discussed before, but maybe not, but I'm too tired to post them right now. I'll do it tomorrow.
Why did we decide on Aldaron's Proposal? Because at that time, Swift Swim + Drizzle was the main overpowered element. Yes we nerfed Rain Offense, because we imposed restrictions on the overpowered element. What's wrong with that? We could not justify the ban on Drizzle, because the direct effects of invoking Perma-Rain (Water boost, Fire damage control, 100% accurate Thunder / Hurricanes) was not decisively supported as being overpowered. Aldaron's Proposal allowed to isolate the broken element of Rain Offense, providing us an opportunity to test Drizzle by itself. Nominations of Drizzle at Round 4 indicates that Rain Offense in general may be overpowering, but we could not have justified such a decision without going through Aldaron's Proposal.
It's true that Aldaron's Proposal allowed us to determine that Drizzle is what's absurd, and not just the Swift Swimmers. However, a Drizzle ban would effectively repeal the proposal, leaving us with no more complex bans. Even if Drizzle doesn't get banned, there seems to be support for re-visiting the Proposal anyway. That is the difference between this and other complex bans. It allowed us time to do what we needed. And then we can just fix it.
But with complex bans involving Sand Veil (or other, similar complex bans), there's nothing broken. We're not buying ourselves time, or figuring out a problem. We'd be trying to form a solution, which does not imply that it would be short-term. I believe that complex bans should be avoided, but temporary ones will at least be gone. Permanent complex bans simply create precedent for other things (like Blaziken+Blaze, which I personally find to be ridiculous), and they needlessly complicate our ruleset. Just ban what's broken. If you don't know what's broken, then use a temporary one to find out. I can't think of a situation in which a permanent complex ban would ever be necessary.
Pocket said:
Okay, so maybe Mamoswine is safe. However, wouldn't Rough Skin Garchomp not have access to Outrage (an Egg move)?
Well, assuming that Garchomp is released like normal, and not as an event, the it would still have access to Outrage. It would, however, lose Stealth Rock and Aqua Tail, and some other unimportant moves.
