How should Zamazenta-C be tiered? (RESOLVED)

[Jordy]

I'm sure that anyone who's been keeping track of discussion in the OU subforum has seen how much Zamazenta and Zamazenta-C have been getting discussed recently. This discussion has really taken off because of a video made by blunder, to the point where just about any other discussion is being drowned out. This is fine and all, but there's one thing that hasn't properly been defined and that's whether Zamazenta-C should be tiered seperately from Zamazenta or not.

I talked with Hogg about it, and he wanted to see a PR thread about the issue at the very least, so here it is. Please do take note that this is not the place to discuss whether Zamazenta-C should be unbanned from Ubers or not; this thread merely focuses around whether Zamazenta-C should be tiered seperately.

Why should Zamazenta-C be tiered seperately?

• There is precedent for Pokemon that change typing/stats/abilities because of a held item being tiered seperately. Good examples are Silvally formes, Giratina-O, and the age old Arceus-Bug discussion.

Why should Zamazenta-C not be tiered seperately?

• Unbanning Zamazenta-C but not Zamazenta could also be read like "Zamazenta may be used, but only if it is holding a Rusted Shield", which can be understood as a complex ban. This is sort of similar to Mega Evolutions. An example is Mega Garchomp being OU by technicality because allowing it in UU would also allow Garchomp (OU by usage) into UU.

From what I'm able to tell, these are the main forms of precedent that we can work off when it comes to this, and it's what people from both sides have been citing the most. What are your thoughts?

--

Personally, I find the latter argument to be flawed within the context here, because you do not start off with Mega Garchomp, you start off with Garchomp. You do, however, start off with Zamazenta-C, so it's actually closer to Silvally, Giratina, and Arceus. I think that tiering Zamazenta-C seperately from Zamazenta makes more sense based on precedent from Silvally.

 

[Eve]

Not got much to say, but that's largely because I see this as a really simple question to answer- if we follow precedent, Zamazenta-C should be allowed to be tiered separately from Zamazenta.

Why should Zamazenta-C not be tiered seperately?

• Unbanning Zamazenta-C but not Zamazenta could also be read like "Zamazenta may be used, but only if it is holding a Rusted Shield", which can be understood as a complex ban. This is sort of similar to Mega Evolutions. An example is Mega Garchomp being OU by technicality because allowing it in UU would also allow Garchomp (OU by usage) into UU.

I didn't see anybody complaining about Silvally only being allowed in PU if using specific memories, so I don't see any merit to this line of reasoning. As you said, there is no access to regular Zamazenta gained through allowing Zamazenta-C. I personally think the mon would probably be broken in OU seeing as it invalidates huge portions of the offensive metagame while also being good offensively itself, but if we follow precedent there's no reason it couldn't be tiered differently.

 

[ausma]

Hey, I wanted to thank you guys for bringing this to discussion! I definitely agree that this is a bit of an awkward case, and one that I think needs a bit of looking into since there's evidence from both ends of the spectrum. I believe that precedents that have been set in the past make this circumstance a bit more clear, and are things we can reliably turn to.

Personally, I think that Zamazenta-C, although it can be compared to other Pokemon in some cases, should be tiered differently, primarily because it is active on switch-in. Unlike with Mega Evolutions, when Zamazenta, Giratina, or any Silvally/Arceus form hold a particular item, they don their respective forms immediately, whereas with Mega Evolutions, you can bide your time as long as you wish before mega evolving your Pokemon. For that reason, I think comparing Zamazenta-C more to Giratina-O or the Arceus/Silvally forms holds a bit more water, especially if it can ultimately add something new to the tier without having to force us to hedge through awkward policies.

As Eve said as well, people for the most part are not conflicted with each Silvally form being tiered differently, especially with this auto form switch-in precedent in mind. They operate entirely as different Pokemon without eliciting the slippery slope of pre-mega Pokemon (which otherwise would be a complex ban), and I think there wouldn't necessarily be any confusion between the two so long as this precedent and what outlines said precedent is made clear, so there aren't future arguments regarding potential complex bans where there shouldn't be any.

 

[Expulso]

Unbanning Zamazenta-C but not Zamazenta could also be read like "Zamazenta may be used, but only if it is holding a Rusted Shield", which can be understood as a complex ban.

I don't think that this logic applies. This wording implies that tiering them separately would make Zamazenta legal if it is holding one particular item. However, you wouldn't be using Zamazenta in that case; you would be using Zamazenta-Crowned. Zamazenta would always be illegal, and Zamazenta-Crowned would always be legal.

Tiering them separately seems like the obvious answer here.

 

[Zneon]

I don't really have that much to add to the OP, I do 100% agree that Zamazenta-C should be tiered separately.

I feel Zamazenta-C is much closer to Arceus / Silvally forms than it is with Mega Chomp. Reason being is that you are always going to start with Zamazenta-C when you come in with it assuming it has the Rusted Shield equipped, whereas with Mega Garchomp you have to start of as regular Garchomp before activating the mega stone, which is why it didn't drop to UU since you would have to drop an otherwise OU Pokemon to UU just to make Mega Garchomp usable. Whereas with Zamazenta-C you don't, neither with the Silvallys, yet they all are tiered differently.

I highly support it being tiered separately.

 

[Katy]

This is a tough and weird case simultaniously to be quite frankly, but I think Zamazenta and Zamazenta-C should be tiered differently in this case, as it meets similar requirements as the Silvally-formes in the lower tiers; they are different Pokemon in that case. I also strongly agree with Expulsos Post as this seems the most logical way to do so. Tiering them seperately is the best option in this case, as it is done with the different formes of Silvally.

 

[Slimmer]

Zamazenta-C has no technical difference with Giratina-O since:
- Zamazenta and Zamazenta-C have different stats, as Giratina and Giratina-O;
- Zamazenta-C and Giratina-O can be used only when they hold their peculiar item.

I think the "Why should Zamazenta-C not be tiered seperately?" whole point makes no sense, try to read it switching "Zamazenta" with "Giratina" and you already screwed the pooch. Mega Evolutions can just be not triggered all the time to bypass the "technical ban" of the base form, which you can't do with those Legendaries Pokémon discussed. Therefore, it sounds to me there are no reasons to not tier Zamazenta and Zamazenta-C separately.

(I don't play CG OU nor Ubers so I'm not discussing whether Zamazenta-C should be unbanned or not, this is just a technical discussion on separate forms tiering)

 

[Plague von Karma]

I don't think I have much to add, other than what Eve and Ausma have said, but I'll give my opinion. Feel free to ignore me.

There doesn't seem to be any reason as to why Zamazenta-C can't be something you can tier differently. We already tier Silvally's forms individually, which essentially follow the same rules as Zamazenta; you can't Knock Off the Rusted Shield, and it enters the battle in the Crowned form. In fact, the normal Silvally is currently PUBL, but one form is tiered in PU: Silvally-Poison. In addition, many others are simply Untiered, making them legal for use in PU as well. So overall, this isn't exactly an uncommon or even abnormal occurrence, it's just a bit different context-wise.

Also, remember when Giratina-O was OU for that one April Fools day? That was sick.

 

[N_Mareanie]

I just want to interfere with this discussion to say I do 100% support the fact of tiering Zamazenta and Zamazenta-Crowned seperately. Initially when I watched blunder's video, I did think it would be a complex ban due to this reasoning:

Unbanning Zamazenta-C but not Zamazenta could also be read like "Zamazenta may be used, but only if it is holding a Rusted Shield", which can be understood as a complex ban. This is sort of similar to Mega Evolutions. An example is Mega Garchomp being OU by technicality because allowing it in UU would also allow Garchomp (OU by usage) into UU.

However, it's obvious this argument is very much flawed. As stated in the same post, Arceus & Silvally Formes and Giratina & Giratina-Origin are also all tiered seperately. This is of course because they start off with their actual different form in battle, unlike Mega evolution, which start off with their base form in battle.

Because of this, I see no reason to not tier Zamazenta and Zamazenta-Crowned seperately (same goes for Zacian and Zacian-Crowned of course), and considering I see no one else disagree or even have a solid argument against this, I think this particular discussion should end asap unless someone else somehow thinks of a good argument against? Would love to see someone try.

#FREETHEDOGGO

 

[PK Gaming]

There's precedent and sufficiently good arguments to go ahead and do this imo

And now would probably be the best time to do it given the state of the tier

Ideally after the next ban wave

 

[Hogg]

I know this has only been open for a few days, but given the minimal pushback and based on discussions with Marty and others on the back end, I think it's safe to go ahead and move forward with a decision here. Moving forward, Zamazenta-C and Zamazenta WILL be tiered separately. This follows similar precedents such as Giratina and Giratina-O, as well as the Silvally formes. (This decision also applies to Zacian and other similar item-locked formes.)

Please note that the fact that Zamazenta's base forme and crowned forme are tiered separately is not in any way a suggestion or obligation that OU or any other tiers need to consider unbanning or suspecting them. That is a wholly separate discussion that should be taken up first by the appropriate tiering councils. Both crowned and normal formes will remain in Ubers unless OU tests and unbans one or both. Also, while it wasn't under discussion here, it's worth reiterating that being item-locked alone is not enough to be considered a separate forme; as is always the case, there must be a difference in typing or stats to be tiered separately. This decision does not, for example, mean that genesect's formes will start being tiered separately.