The move "Feint" and its usefulness/practicality

[Alysanne]

I never claimed to be good at JAA rules. You're the one who equates it to 2v2 play, by your own admission.

Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

You're right about overpowered Pokémon being average against other overpowered Pokémon. But Ludicolo isn't Über. It's no surprise that Mewtwo blew right through its considerable Sp Defense. Since you're advocating this position, I assume you're also a fan of Übers in 1v1? If not, what's the difference?

Ludicolo is underpowered in OU. That does not mean it is bad in Ubers where:
1. It has Kyogre to aid it.
2. Leech Seed is leeching much more life on average than it is OU.

Ubers is the metagame where OU pokemon (essentially just bad ubers) suck, and UU pokemon can shine.


I rarely play 1v1 of any sort.

It's not my fault that you consider JAA to be standard 2v2. People can play Über 2v2 if they want, but saying it's the de facto standard is strange. We have tiers in 1v1 for a reason: to avoid centralization of the metagame. Tiers in 2v2 are really no different.

... IT MOST CERTAINLY IS YOUR FAULT. Seriously though, where did that come from?

And OU isn't centralized around a select few pokemon?

 

[Footnote]

Sorry. I didn't mean to make this so personal. Anyhow, I'm not saying that the standard tier doesn't have its own problems, but to say that UU Pokémon have more of a chance to shine in Übers seems an oversimplification. Certain Pokémon (like Shedinja, Ludicolo, etc) may do well in 2v2 because of the specific Übers that exist, but it's still an environment that's more constricting than standard play, not less.

Anyhow, I guess we've tangented enough. Sorry to turn this thread into more of a Protect/tier discussion. The only way to truly find out what's effective is to actually create an environment and have a bunch of people play in it. Until more people play 2v2, it's hard to truly determine what's useful.

 

[Pokézoni]

But JAA did exactly that... it was pretty much a large scale testing of the Uber 2v2 teir, modded by Nintendo, of which Protect is EXTREMELY valuable... and yes, on almost every pokemon.

As you have to outpredict which pokemon is using Protect, and which one is using an attack, or risk spreading your attacks too thin, or not using Protect yourself and risk getting thunder'd or EQ'd.... or worse a'sploded on...

Quite frankly, with the number of Ubers introduced in the last 2 gens, I don't see too much centralizing of the metagame around only a select few...

...if people want to play OU/Standard, it should be because they want to play with OU/Standard pokemon... just like people who'd want to play UU, or NU.... certainly not for lack of diversity.

 

[Deck Knight]

Way to not even think at all, Deck Knight.

The point of Feint isn't the damage - it's strategic. Saying it's useless because it only does 50BP is like saying Knock Off is useless because it's only 20BP or whatever, when the latter is obviously an excellent move.

As far as Feint goes, the general idea is that, if a Pokemon is using Protect, it's trying to avoid Surf/Earthquake/Explosion/Discharge used by its partner, or possible something used by the Feinter's partner. When you use Feint, they've not only wasted a turn, they're a sitting duck for whatever is coming next.

Feint is usefull for strategy like Splash is useful for PP stalling.

Unlike Knock Off, Feint doesn't have the effect of crippling some opponents by disabling thier item.

Unlike Knock Off, Feint constitutes a free switch-in.

Unlike Knock Off, Feint is utterly useless if your opponents have moves other than Protect.

Knock Off has one of the best effects in the game to make up for its crappy Base Power. Hell, the Base Power is actually a bonus because it makes Knock-Off Taunt-Proof.

Feint, on the other hand, deals shit damage even when you properly predict Protect. The pokemon that learn it almost always have better options or already suffer from four-moveslot syndrome.

Let me illustrate:

The strongest user of Feint is CB Medicham. Lets assume you have a 2vs2 battle against Weezing and Metagross. You predict one of them is going to go BOOM, causing the other to Protect. So what do you do?

You could Psycho Cut Weezing, probably KO'ing it and hoping Metagross used Protect.

You could Fire Punch Metagross, KO'ing it and hoping Weezing uses Protect.

Of you could use Feint and get blown to bits either way every time, since your mighty CB Feint does 17% Max to Groos (min/min) and 26% Max(321 HP/max) to Weezing.

Feint has no strategic purpose until the Protecting pokemon is at or near 10% HP. Feint is useless in regular battles and too weak to be worth anything in 2vs2. Feint would be strategic if it had a 100% flinch chance like Fake Out, thus rendering a protecting pokemon helpless, but it can't do that either. The Protecting pokemon still avoids the hit from Explosion/Discharge/Earthquake/whatever, meaning the Feinter likely just got smashed for a lot more damage then they dealt to the Protector. GJ dealing 40% to Swampert, Groos just owned you and your partner with Explosion.

The point is, Feint does miniscule damage even to Protecting pokemon. It relies on the prediction of ONE SINGLE MOVE. It leaves its user wide open for attacks.

That is why Feint seriously needs a Base Power boost at least. There is nothing "Strategic" about using up a moveslot that only aids you when your opponent is at low HP, amd is using Protect to try and abuse Leftovers or Leech Seed recovery, and them barely beats out that Leftovers/Seed Recovery. Medicham is the most extreme example, and it doesn't even have room for Feint. The only thing I might see using it is Flygon, and Flygon is substantially less powerful.

I can think of no use for Feint when the pokemon using it would be more versatile and powerful if they were just SPAMMing powerful attacks.

Feint is, in short: high risk, low reward.

On that note, Users of Feint:

Raichu
Hitmonlee
Hitmonchan
Heracross
Hitmontop
Medicham
Flygon(from Trapinch)
Infernape
Lucario
Gallade
Pinsir
Yanmega
Gliscor
Blaziken
Toxicroak

Wow, Feint would have been a lot better if it were Fighting type, LOL. The only Steel type on this list is Lucario, whose defenses are very meh. Gliscor has the best defenses and is immune to EQ at least. Hitmontop has Intimidate.

Otherwise, none of these match Yoshi Kings Rock/Steel/Ghost type wishes on the first page.

 

[Panick]

I'd feel pretty good about sacrificing my Lucario to kill my opponent's Mewtwo.

 

[Deck Knight]

I'd feel pretty good about sacrificing my Lucario to kill my opponent's Mewtwo.

Yes, because Mewtwo is going to use Protect instead of Flamethrower/FB. Or better yet, Recover in your face.

How do you plan to get Mewtwo down to 15% to hit it with 319 (17%/350) Atk Feint? (That was min/min Mewtwo btw.) Do you want to roll the dice twice and pray it tries to Protect again?

Why not just save yourself the trouble and use Extremespeed. You don't have to pray for Mewtwo to use Protect instead of wasting you or Recovering.

I contend there is no situation to use Feint over any other move. Feint is simply too weak to do anything to the general users of Protect.

 

[Footnote]

But JAA did exactly that... it was pretty much a large scale testing of the Uber 2v2 teir, modded by Nintendo, of which Protect is EXTREMELY valuable... and yes, on almost every pokemon.

I was actually referring to Feint here, not Protect. I know Protect can be very valuable on the right Pokémon in 2v2 and that this has been proven to be the case. I was more referring to the fact that the same testing has yet to be done for the new 2v2 moves like Feint.

I'd also like to note that in the JAA final that Alysanne was kind enough to link me to, Protect wasn't even used once. If it's so crucial on every Pokémon, why did the two best players not utilise it?

 

[leafgreen386]

@Deck Knight: I think your misconception on what feint actually DOES is the problem here. It doesn't just damage your foe through a protect. It eliminates the protect entirely and leaves it open to other attacks.

Feint: Is a 50 BP Fighting-type move that smashes through the Pokemon's Protect/Detect, making it vulnerable to other attacks in a 2v2 setting. The Protect/Detect that was smashed still counts as a use of Protect, so the second use of Protect/Detect/Endure only has a 50% chance of success even if the first one was smashed.

 

[Alysanne]

I'd feel pretty good about sacrificing my Lucario to kill my opponent's Mewtwo.

First things first. You'd have to be an idiot to use Lucario in a meta that Mewtwo is legal in. Period.

Like I've said before, a 0-for-1 trade is almost always better than a 1-for-2 trade.

I'd also like to note that in the JAA final that Alysanne was kind enough to link me to, Protect wasn't even used once. If it's so crucial on every Pokémon, why did the two best players not utilise it?

My point was more along the lines of "the person that lost would have won if he'd used Protect". :P


Deck Knight pretty much sums up the usefulness of Feint with:

Let me illustrate:

The strongest user of Feint is CB Medicham. Lets assume you have a 2vs2 battle against Weezing and Metagross. You predict one of them is going to go BOOM, causing the other to Protect. So what do you do?

You could Psycho Cut Weezing, probably KO'ing it and hoping Metagross used Protect.

You could Fire Punch Metagross, KO'ing it and hoping Weezing uses Protect.

Of you could use Feint and get blown to bits either way every time, since your mighty CB Feint does 17% Max to Groos (min/min) and 26% Max(321 HP/max) to Weezing.

Feint has no strategic purpose until the Protecting pokemon is at or near 10% HP. Feint is useless in regular battles and too weak to be worth anything in 2vs2. Feint would be strategic if it had a 100% flinch chance like Fake Out, thus rendering a protecting pokemon helpless, but it can't do that either. The Protecting pokemon still avoids the hit from Explosion/Discharge/Earthquake/whatever, meaning the Feinter likely just got smashed for a lot more damage then they dealt to the Protector. GJ dealing 40% to Swampert, Groos just owned you and your partner with Explosion.

Although it needs to be pointed out that the (ex)Protector is taking Explosion damage as well. Or does the priority modifier actually fuck Feint up making it hit before they Protect, and not canceling it?

 

[Panick]

First things first. You'd have to be an idiot to use Lucario in a meta that Mewtwo is legal in. Period.

Not really. If Mewtwo tries to kill Lucario, then Lucario has done it's job of preventing a Protect, meaning Mewtwo can get hit by Explosion, or any other attack. Only (big) risk is Mewtwo killing the exploder before it does its job (which probably won't be a problem if it has Focus Sash/is Metagross.)

Edit: Deck Knight doesn't even know what Feint does.

 

[Alysanne]

Not really. If Mewtwo tries to kill Lucario, then Lucario has done it's job of preventing a Protect, meaning Mewtwo can get hit by Explosion, or any other attack. Only (big) risk is Mewtwo killing the exploder before it does its job (which probably won't be a problem if it has Focus Sash/is Metagross.)

Edit: Deck Knight doesn't even know what Feint does.

Wait, so the scenario is:

Yours: Lucario and Exploder

vs

Mewtwo and XXX

?

So you are going to:

Lucario uses Feint on Mewtwo.
Exploder Explodes.

Assuming both opposing pokemon use Protect.

That's a 2-for-1 trade. Not in your favor.

 

[Deck Knight]

Ah, so Feint does prevent Protect from working in 2vs2. Fighting type is also nice.

That makes Feint less useless. It still relies entirely on predicting Protect, and therefore is still high risk, low reward. Useful if you want to kill one specific pokemon a round in 2vs2, but again leaves one or both of your pokemon susceptible to enemy attacks.

 

[Panick]

Wait, so the scenario is:

Yours: Lucario and Exploder

vs

Mewtwo and XXX

?

So you are going to:

Lucario uses Feint on Mewtwo.
Exploder Explodes.

Assuming both opposing pokemon use Protect.

That's a 2-for-1 trade. Not in your favor.

Also assumes Lucario doesn't survive, and I'd argue that sometimes it is in your favor. It's largely team specific.

 

[Footnote]

Like I've said before, a 0-for-1 trade is almost always better than a 1-for-2 trade.

I'd argue the opposite. Earlier in this thread, you argued that a 0-for-1 trade is better than a 1-for-2 trade except for the case in which the opponent only has 2 Pokémon left. Let's take a look at other situations:

You have 6 and they have 6:
After Protected Explosion: You have 6 and they have 5
After Feinted/Protected Exploson: You have 5 and they have 4

It doesn't take a mathematician to tell that, all else being equal, 5/4 is a ratio more in your favor than 6/5.

You have 3 and they have 3:
After Protected Explosion: You have 3 and they have 2
After Feinted/Protected Exploson: You have 2 and they have 1

This is even better. You can double-team their last Pokémon immediately.

There are still situations in which double-Protect is better, like when you only have 2 Pokémon left and they have 3:

You have 2 and they have 3:
After Protected Explosion: You have 2 and they have 2
After Feinted/Protected Exploson: You have 1 and they have 2

Now you're getting double-teamed. So, which option is better is situational, but I believe that there are many times when Feint is the better option.

Ah, so Feint does prevent Protect from working in 2vs2. Fighting type is also nice.

That makes Feint less useless. It still relies entirely on predicting Protect, and therefore is still high risk, low reward. Useful if you want to kill one specific pokemon a round in 2vs2, but again leaves one or both of your pokemon susceptible to enemy attacks.

Feint is actually a Normal-type move. I've checked in-game.

My point was more along the lines of "the person that lost would have won if he'd used Protect". :P

:) Noted. However, my argument is this: This was the final, right?. So, it's reasonable to assume that the two best players didn't feel that Protect was all that crucial. They managed to win all their other matches with that same team. Their other Pokémon might have had Protect, but they might not have.

 

[Alysanne]

I'd argue the opposite. Earlier in this thread, you argued that a 0-for-1 trade is better than a 1-for-2 trade except for the case in which the opponent only has 2 Pokémon left. Let's take a look at other situations:

You have 6 and they have 6:
After Protected Explosion: You have 6 and they have 5
After Feinted/Protected Exploson: You have 5 and they have 4

It doesn't take a mathematician to tell that, all else being equal, 5/4 is a ratio more in your favor than 6/5.

You have 3 and they have 3:
After Protected Explosion: You have 3 and they have 2
After Feinted/Protected Exploson: You have 2 and they have 1

This is even better. You can double-team their last Pokémon immediately.

There are still situations in which double-Protect is better, like when you only have 2 Pokémon left and they have 3:

You have 2 and they have 3:
After Protected Explosion: You have 2 and they have 2
After Feinted/Protected Exploson: You have 1 and they have 2

Now you're getting double-teamed. So, which option is better is situational, but I believe that there are many times when Feint is the better option.



Feint is actually a Normal-type move. I've checked in-game.

It doesn't really work that way though because all else will not be equal. What if you lose the only pokemon that can effectively deal with pokemon X on your opponent's team? Not to mention that your leading two pokemon generally have the most synergy with each other and losing one breaks the "combo".

Even if math is against it, I would rather the score be 6-5 than 5-4 because my team is still operating at 100% power and versatility.

EDIT:

Noted. However, my argument is this: This was the final, right?. So, it's reasonable to assume that the two best players didn't feel that Protect was all that crucial. They managed to win all their other matches with that same team. Their other Pokémon might have had protect, but they might not have.

I think that was a regionals final not an actual final Finals. Whatever it was, it's proof that Ubers 2v2 has evolved a lot or rather, skarm wasn't there to Selfdestruct Snorlax on them. http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9901
The first turn mass Protect with skarm's Snorlax Selfdestructing never fails to crack me up.

NINJA EDIT: I just realized where I recognized the name MJLORNIR. It's one of the people playing in the finals' Kyogre. Probably the one we're talking about which would make that the final Finals.

 

[Footnote]

It doesn't really work that way though because all else will not be equal. What if you lose the only pokemon that can effectively deal with pokemon X on your opponent's team? Not to mention that your leading two pokemon generally have the most synergy with each other and losing one breaks the "combo".

Even if math is against it, I would rather the score be 6-5 than 5-4 because my team is still operating at 100% power and versatility.

You have a point, but it works the other way too. There is a chance that you'll lose a Pokémon that can deal effectively with your opponent's team, but the chance for them is just as bad, if not worse. They're losing two Pokémon. Their ability to deal with your team is hampered even more. This isn't 1v1. Having your six Pokémon planned out to be able to switch in and counter every threat doesn't work. Therefore, sacrificing Pokémon stings much less.

All things may not always be equal, but over time, they will be. There will be more times it's useful than it isn't. So says the law of large numbers (more or less).

Also, if you can't handle losing one of your first two Pokémon, your team needs better overall synergy.

 

[Alysanne]

You have a point, but it works the other way too. There is a chance that you'll lose a Pokémon that can deal effectively with your opponent's team, but the chance for them is just as bad, if not worse. They're losing two Pokémon. Their ability to deal with your team is hampered even more. This isn't 1v1. Having your six Pokémon planned out to be able to switch in and counter every threat doesn't work. Therefore, sacrificing Pokémon stings much less.

All things may not always be equal, but over time, they will be. There will be more times it's useful than it isn't. So says the law of large numbers (more or less).

Also, if you can't handle losing one of your first two Pokémon, your team needs better overall synergy.

*shrugs* It really just boils down to playing style. I prefer playing conservatively and only going kamikaze if it's for the win.

Not to mention the risk of Feint doing absolutely nothing if they don't use Protect. That's what really kills it, in my opinion.

 

[Big Bayou]

This topic is getting pretty sad but as an enthusiastic 2v2 player I'll post my thoughts anyway.

Feint was definitely a cool idea for a move as anything to break up the Protect craps shoots in 2v2 is a good thing in my book. It's also cool that it's priority modifier is +2, meaning that it goes BEFORE Fake Out and the Quick Attack clones. But unfortunately there are several problems with Feint that really limit its potential.

1. You can't Feint+Explode effectively because the Feinter will also be killed in the Explosion as there are no Ghost-type Feinters. The argument that "Oh, but if your Feinter is getting low on health you can Feint+Explode and sacrifice a doomed Pokemon!" is stupid too because in 2v2 things don't exactly get "whittled down" to low health; when something goes down it goes down fast.

2. You can't Feint+Earthquake, Feint+Surf, or Feint+[Any move that will inflict respectable damage] as most Pokemon that learn Feint are not immune to anything. The ones that are immune to ground (Flygon, Yanmega, Gligar) have horrible typing for 2v2 and will be 1HKO'd by far too many things.

3. You can't stop Endure with Feint. (To my knowledge)

4. Imprison exists, and completely outclasses Feint as far as continuously restricting the use of Protect goes.

5. You can't hit Ghost with Feint.

6. There are no *outstanding* Feinters. Most on the list do not lend themselves to 2v2 very well. Their resistances are scant (most are Fighting types) and their speeds are neither very high nor very low (for Trick Room), meaning that outside the turns that Feint is used, they will almost always be outsped.

 

[Footnote]

This topic is getting pretty sad but as an enthusiastic 2v2 player I'll post my thoughts anyway.

Feint was definitely a cool idea for a move as anything to break up the Protect craps shoots in 2v2 is a good thing in my book. It's also cool that it's priority modifier is +2, meaning that it goes BEFORE Fake Out and the Quick Attack clones. But unfortunately there are several problems with Feint that really limit its potential.

1. You can't Feint+Explode effectively because the Feinter will also be killed in the Explosion as there are no Ghost-type Feinters. The argument that "Oh, but if your Feinter is getting low on health you can Feint+Explode and sacrifice a doomed Pokemon!" is stupid too because in 2v2 things don't exactly get "whittled down" to low health; when something goes down it goes down fast.

2. You can't Feint+Earthquake, Feint+Surf, or Feint+[Any move that will inflict respectable damage] as most Pokemon that learn Feint are not immune to anything. The ones that are immune to ground (Flygon, Yanmega, Gligar) have horrible typing for 2v2 and will be 1HKO'd by far too many things.

3. You can't stop Endure with Feint. (To my knowledge)

4. Imprison exists, and completely outclasses Feint as far as continuously restricting the use of Protect goes.

5. You can't hit Ghost with Feint.

6. There are no *outstanding* Feinters. Most on the list do not lend themselves to 2v2 very well. Their resistances are scant (most are Fighting types) and their speeds are neither very high nor very low (for Trick Room), meaning that outside the turns that Feint is used, they will almost always be outsped.

I think you've got a lot of good points here. I'll adress the ones I think need addressing.

1. I certainly would not advocate using Feint with one Pokémon and Exploding with the other. If anything, Feint would be used for predicted Explosions from your opponent.

2. You don't have to use Feint for multi-target attacks. If you really need to KO a specific opponent that you think might Protect, you can just Feint with one Pokémon and use a targeted attack with the other. If the Pokémon with Feint doesn't have much else to do during that round, I'd consider it a legitimate use.

3. I think you're right about this. But you can't sweep a team with Endure/Reversal in 2v2, either.

4. I agree with you here. Imprison does Feint's job better, and to both opponents to boot. The only caveat is that Feint has a priority modifier and Imprison doesn't. So, Feint can be used in emergency situations. Also, Imprison won't help against Detect, rare though it may be.

5. True. Ghosts are immune. Of course, in the Explosion case, Ghosts won't be using Protect anyway. You could use Foresight or Odor Sleuth instead, but that's another discussion.

6. I have to completely disagree with this. Just as an example, consider this:

Hitmontop @ Intimidate
Fake Out
Feint
Mach Punch
Helping Hand

Voilà: a terrific support Pokémon. Intimidate and Fake Out help you set up any sort of hard-hitting partner. Helping Hand gives your partner's attacks extra punch and Feint makes sure that they hit through Protect and Detect when they need to. Mach Punch for STAB damage. The damaging attacks are all weak, but they allow you to completely eschew Speed. With all those extra EVs, you can make Hitmontop into quite the tank.

 

[Alysanne]

Even if you use Feint to "double target" (I think that's what you meant about Feint + targeted attack), keep in mind the reason to double attack is to cause more damage. Feint has a terrible base power rating so doesn't consistently accomplish the "One Turn KO" that you'll be looking for.

Imprison users are typically pretty bulky (like Bronzong).

 

[Mr.E]

Ludicolo is underpowered in OU.

What? Ludicolo can play in standards just fine.

Sorry guys. ;(

 

[Footnote]

Even if you use Feint to "double target" (I think that's what you meant about Feint + targeted attack), keep in mind the reason to double attack is to cause more damage. Feint has a terrible base power rating so doesn't consistently accomplish the "One Turn KO" that you'll be looking for.

Imprison users are typically pretty bulky (like Bronzong).

As you say, focus fire is typically used to deal more damage. However, I've been in a lot of situations where it's very important that one particular attack go through. Feint ensures that that attack cannot be blocked. If your attack would OHKO without the extra damage and you want to make sure something dies, Feint is your insurance policy.

How often this situation actually arises is hard to determine without actually trying it out. I don't yet have a Pokémon with Feint, but once I do I'll see if I ever end up using it.

Imprison users are typically pretty bulky and slow. My point is that if you think your opponent is going to Earthquake/Explode/Surf/etc and you don't already have Imprison active, you can't do anything.

 

[Alysanne]

The main Imprison users that I can see being popular are Dusknoir and Bronzong. They can both survive Explosion, Earthquake, and Surf, with a Fake Out lead to support them. They can also pull through if you partner them with a fast Light Screen/Reflect user.

 

[Footnote]

The main Imprison users that I can see being popular are Dusknoir and Bronzong. They can both survive Explosion, Earthquake, and Surf, with a Fake Out lead to support them. They can also pull through if you partner them with a fast Light Screen/Reflect user.

Yes, but we're talking about two different things here. I'm not talking about saving the Pokémon using Imprison or Feint. I'm talking about making sure that Explosion/Earthquake/Surf damages their partner. With Imprison, you can't use it fast enough to stop their partner from Protecting unless you've already put it up earlier in the battle. With Feint, you get the priority modifier and break through Protect. Imprison is better as long as you have it active already. But if it works like it did in Advance, new opponents coming in after Imprison must be re-Imprisoned. If their partner explodes before you can use Imprison again, you're out of luck.

So again, it depends on the situation. There are a lot of situations in which I'd rather have Feint.

 

[Alysanne]

Yes, but we're talking about two different things here. I'm not talking about saving the Pokémon using Imprison or Feint. I'm talking about making sure that Explosion/Earthquake/Surf damages their partner. With Imprison, you can't use it fast enough to stop their partner from Protecting unless you've already put it up earlier in the battle. With Feint, you get the priority modifier and break through Protect. Imprison is better as long as you have it active already. But if it works like it did in Advance, new opponents coming in after Imprison must be re-Imprisoned. If their partner explodes before you can use Imprison again, you're out of luck.

So again, it depends on the situation. There are a lot of situations in which I'd rather have Feint.

The point of Imprison is for it to start being active on Turn 2 (or the end of Turn 1 if you want to be technical), and preventing the opponent from Protecting and using moves that could be hurtful to you (Ice Beam and such).

So yeah, a very different use than Feint.