BH Balanced Hackmons Suspects and Bans Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the points you listed in post 203, Primordial sea can also be stopped with Core Enforcer. Though its users, such as Mega Scizor, Ferrothorn and Kyogre, are usually more bulky than WB users. I find that PS is used more defensively than offensively to check Fire moves such as on Scizor and Ferrothorn. Water Bubble is used more offensively to wallbreak.
 
I would like to talk about Water Bubble, the current hurricane storm BH is under.

Pros:
  • Absurdly High Power for Water Type Moves
  • Immunity to Burn
  • Half Damage to Fire Attacks
Cons:
  • (Theoretically) limited to a few users
  • One argument that is used for the Water Bubble ban is that by forcing people to run Water Absorb/Desolate Land users, that shows how centralizing it is. I don't agree here for sevral reasons:
    • Water Absorb / Desolate Land have seen use on Primal Groudon when it was legal, and in general checks several Primal Kyogre variants including PH and more
    • Water Absorb was also used previously for weather setter Palkia with specs, which led me to list a waterfall of discussion points between the two
      • Water Bubble vs Primordial Sea: can work in rain, resistant to Fire even when Desolate Land is set, Immune to burn, can also work in Rain (niche)
      • Primordial Sea vs Water Bubble: can cancel out Desolate Land, negates fire moves completely
      • Damage Difference: (assuming Specs)
        Primordial Seas: +1 252+ SpA Kyogre-Primal Steam Eruption vs. 248 HP / 8 SpD Giratina: 241-284 (47.9 - 56.4%)
        +1 252+ SpA Water Bubble Kyogre-Primal Steam Eruption vs. 248 HP / 8 SpD Giratina: 322-378 (64 - 75.1%)
        Damage Difference of at best around 28%, at worst around only 8%
      • can work in rain (thanks urkerab, I almost forgot that)
  • Extremely difficult to Imposter Proof (not a chief reason to keep it, but it is a discussion point)
Pros against these Cons:
  • Water Bubble can make use of Core Enforcer to eliminate most of its switch ins which it can afford since it does not need to run Specs), making its pool of counters even smaller
I surfed this thread a bit more and am still in the boat of ideally having a suspect, if only for the sake of principle but I am fairly sure that will result in Ban and will take up more time. So I've once again left the decision upto you all to hopefully make a whirlpool of discussion about my talking points, and decide if we should suspect it or get rid of it immediately, similar to the Comatose decision.

The puns...they burn
 
The puns...they burn

You could say that they're... Scalding.


...edit: Oh, right Suspect thread, so gotta be a little more on-topic. I feel Palkia having 4x resist is fairly well worth mentioning as a Con. It's not a common Pokemon but, if push came to shove, it can check WB without relying on abilities or having lop-sided defenses. Unless I'm missing something, it's the only viable Pokemon that can though.
 
I would like to talk about Water Bubble, the current hurricane storm BH is under.

Pros:
  • Absurdly High Power for Water Type Moves
  • Immunity to Burn
  • Half Damage to Fire Attacks
Cons:
  • (Theoretically) limited to a few users
  • One argument that is used for the Water Bubble ban is that by forcing people to run Water Absorb/Desolate Land users, that shows how centralizing it is. I don't agree here for sevral reasons:
    • Water Absorb / Desolate Land have seen use on Primal Groudon when it was legal, and in general checks several Primal Kyogre variants including PH and more
    • Water Absorb was also used previously for weather setter Palkia with specs, which got me almost a waterfall of other discussion points
      • Water Bubble vs Primordial Sea: can work in rain, resistant to Fire even when Desolate Land is set, Immune to burn, can also work in Rain (niche)
      • Primordial Sea vs Water Bubble: can cancel out Desolate Land, negates fire moves completely
      • Damage Difference: (assuming Specs)
        Primordial Seas: +1 252+ SpA Kyogre-Primal Steam Eruption vs. 248 HP / 8 SpD Giratina: 241-284 (47.9 - 56.4%)
        +1 252+ SpA Water Bubble Kyogre-Primal Steam Eruption vs. 248 HP / 8 SpD Giratina: 322-378 (64 - 75.1%)
        Damage Difference of at best around 28%, at worst around only 8%
      • can work in rain (thanks urkerab, I almost forgot that)
  • Extremely difficult to Imposter Proof (not a chief reason to keep it, but it is a discussion point)
Pros against these Cons:
  • Water Bubble can make use of Core Enforcer to eliminate most of its switch ins which it can afford since it does not need to run Specs), making its pool of counters even smaller
-----MY COMMENT-----------

This is a big, big, ENORMOUS point: Most, if not all WB checks rely on their Ability to deal with water bubble, as the only x4 water resist that is viable here is Palkia, that is maimed by Core Enforcer anyways. Water Absorb? Core Enforced. Regenerator? Core Enforced. Imposter? Core Enforced. Niche Water Absorb Fairy? Gastro Acid is here for those as well; this does require prediction from the wb user, but it is very difficult not to switch in your only check into a potential nuke, after all; also, your own calc is astounding, given a Giratina with HP investment is definitely into 2HKO range with WB Steam Eruption. Origin Pulse 2HKO's max sdef gira imo, but i am on mobile, and cannot calc, and ashgren spout is stupid as well, given the extreme power of 150 and the sanic speed tier.

--/MY COMMENT-------- (i messed up, i'll fix later.)


I surfed this thread a bit more and am still in the boat of ideally having a suspect, if only for the sake of principle but I am fairly sure that will result in Ban and will take up more time. So I've once again left the decision upto you all to hopefully make a whirlpool of discussion about my talking points, and decide if we should suspect it or get rid of it immediately, similar to the Comatose decision.

 
On a different topic, why do we have an ability clause E4 Flint?
As I understand your banning philosophy is minimalist, that is, you want to ban as little as possible to achieve a balanced metagame

"We want to remove as few things as possible to solve a problem we are facing in the meta, by banning the exact source of the problem through discussion."

If you don't want to lift the limit to 6, why not 3?

The only abilities I could even see being benefited are:
Regenerator
Innards Out
Illusion
Poison Heal
Sturdy?
Dazzling
Ates
Fur Coat



I'll go over each of these fairly sparingly.
Regenerator: is good but it never was super overpowered, I wouldn't see that much of a problem dealing with three.
Innards Out: This is probably the only one that would be a problem, but as it is likely it will get banned or limited very soon.
Illusion: Is fun as hell to play against or use (for me). Triple illusion would require an enormous amount of skill (I've tried double illusion somewhat successfully and you literally have to plan every play and only coordinate switches that puts the mon you want in the last slot.) This is actually part of the reason I want this restriction lifted.
Poison Heal: This would be a huge problem in gen6 as PH is a defensive and offensive ability with enormous potential and few checks, but now in gen 7 if only 1 mon on the opposing team has core enforcer that eliminates AT LEAST! half of your switchins. It is possible that some1 will run 3 poison heal xerneas/audino or something, but I find the possiblity of that team being "undefeatable" highly unlikely. Additionally the advent of spectral thief nerfs PH's setup power. Along with that their are some risks incurred by Merciless on niche toxic spike teams. Overall I don't see dealing with 3 PH mons a huge problem.
Sturdy: I... I mean i guess you could run 3 shedinjas but... why? Like moongeist.
Dazzling: This looks like a problem until you realize that with dazzling+psychic surge+queenly majesty you already have the potential for 6 mons with basically the same ability anyway.
-Ates: Incurs the same problem as dazzling, there are enough -ates to run 6 anyway and running the same -ate multiple times is not competitive as your coverage is too limited. Also we could institute a limit clause like in gen 6.
Fur Coat: lulz triple fur coat. Diancie used Boomburst! rip fur coat :(

All other abilities I can think of don't play well off each other and leave your team with large defensive/offensive gaps and therefore are largely not usable.

Yeah so if you guys can think of anything I missed that would be great!
Can we please lift this clause E4 and liberate BH from the sadness that is no triple illusion teams.
 
On a different topic, why do we have an ability clause E4 Flint?
As I understand your banning philosophy is minimalist, that is, you want to ban as little as possible to achieve a balanced metagame

"We want to remove as few things as possible to solve a problem we are facing in the meta, by banning the exact source of the problem through discussion."

If you don't want to lift the limit to 6, why not 3?

The only abilities I could even see being benefited are:
Regenerator
Innards Out
Illusion
Poison Heal
Sturdy?
Dazzling
Ates
Fur Coat



I'll go over each of these fairly sparingly.
Regenerator: is good but it never was super overpowered, I wouldn't see that much of a problem dealing with three.
Innards Out: This is probably the only one that would be a problem, but as it is likely it will get banned or limited very soon.
Illusion: Is fun as hell to play against or use (for me). Triple illusion would require an enormous amount of skill (I've tried double illusion somewhat successfully and you literally have to plan every play and only coordinate switches that puts the mon you want in the last slot.) This is actually part of the reason I want this restriction lifted.
Poison Heal: This would be a huge problem in gen6 as PH is a defensive and offensive ability with enormous potential and few checks, but now in gen 7 if only 1 mon on the opposing team has core enforcer that eliminates AT LEAST! half of your switchins. It is possible that some1 will run 3 poison heal xerneas/audino or something, but I find the possiblity of that team being "undefeatable" highly unlikely. Additionally the advent of spectral thief nerfs PH's setup power. Along with that their are some risks incurred by Merciless on niche toxic spike teams. Overall I don't see dealing with 3 PH mons a huge problem.
Sturdy: I... I mean i guess you could run 3 shedinjas but... why? Like moongeist.
Dazzling: This looks like a problem until you realize that with dazzling+psychic surge+queenly majesty you already have the potential for 6 mons with basically the same ability anyway.
-Ates: Incurs the same problem as dazzling, there are enough -ates to run 6 anyway and running the same -ate multiple times is not competitive as your coverage is too limited. Also we could institute a limit clause like in gen 6.
Fur Coat: lulz triple fur coat. Diancie used Boomburst! rip fur coat :(

All other abilities I can think of don't play well off each other and leave your team with large defensive/offensive gaps and therefore are largely not usable.

Yeah so if you guys can think of anything I missed that would be great!
Can we please lift this clause E4 and liberate BH from the sadness that is no triple illusion teams.

Fair thing to discuss, but ideally (I'm not sure if this is actually the way it's currently being implemented) Dazzling and -Ates will be restricted to function as opposed to just name, similar to the -ate clause of last generation. For example, because Dazzling and QM are the exact same thing, you can't bypass the ability clause and have more than 2 of Dazzling and / or QM. Psychic Surge I think is probably different, but that doesn't matter as much I agree, because nobody is going to run 2 Dazzlings and 2 Psychic Surges. At least not until people realize that Sash Smash is still good.

-Ates of course should fall under the same clause; no more than 2 of any -ate abilities allowed per team. Unless that was not the intention of the ability clause?

EDIT: That is not the way it works right now, as I've just confirmed. But that's the way it should work. QM and Dazzling should be considered the same
 
Yeah, Dazzling/QM, Moldy/Turboblaze/Terravolt, Battle/Shell armor, Insomnia/Vital Spirit, and whatever identicals I'm forgetting, should all be treated the same. Especially the first two sets.

...also, I just realized we don't have -ate clause this generation. Well then...


ShedMiddleFinga Ability clause is in place to stop bullcrap like this team from existing: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/ability-clause-pls-a-balanced-hackmons-team.3504605/

(Note the mention of going "22-3" was a much, much more impressive record at the time than it is today. CH still had its own ladder, so our current low ladder pretty much didn't exist yet. Once you hit ~1200, you were battling good players fairly regularly unless you were on at odd hours, in which case you were waiting an hour for a match.)

That specific team might not be so amazing in the current meta, but there's plenty of new stuff to abuse (5 Water Bubble + Imposter anyone?). And, I can tell you from experience that 4-6 of something can just steamroll its counters unless the opponent has 4+ counters, at which point your opponent's team loses to pretty much everything else.
 
Last edited:
You misunderstand me Rumors. My main aim is to get the clause to 3 not 6 because I realize at 6 of the same ability annoying troll things start happening, but I feel like my analysis is fairly accurate. I'm not sure about innards, but there is a history of clauses before so I see no problem with an -ate clause or a poison heal clause if these prove to powerful. Also, has anyone actually played anyone using two ates :/
 
Fair thing to discuss, but ideally (I'm not sure if this is actually the way it's currently being implemented) Dazzling and -Ates will be restricted to function as opposed to just name, similar to the -ate clause of last generation. For example, because Dazzling and QM are the exact same thing, you can't bypass the ability clause and have more than 2 of Dazzling and / or QM. Psychic Surge I think is probably different, but that doesn't matter as much I agree, because nobody is going to run 2 Dazzlings and 2 Psychic Surges. At least not until people realize that Sash Smash is still good.

-Ates of course should fall under the same clause; no more than 2 of any -ate abilities allowed per team. Unless that was not the intention of the ability clause?

EDIT: That is not the way it works right now, as I've just confirmed. But that's the way it should work. QM and Dazzling should be considered the same
Why would the -ates be grouped together? That's like saying you shouldn't be able to have 2 water absorb+2 volt absorb, or not being able to run sap sipper+storm drain multiple times. Direct clones are more reasonable, but I'd still vote against grouping them together. At the very least, where do you draw the line on similarity? Should Multiscale be the same as Shadow Sheild, even though the latter protects from mold breaker? What about Water Bubble and heatproof; the former outclasses the latter. Heck, if someone has a strategy that involves limber+comatose why shouldn't they be allowed to use it?
 
Last edited:
You misunderstand me Rumors. My main aim is to get the clause to 3 not 6 because I realize at 6 of the same ability annoying troll things start happening, but I feel like my analysis is fairly accurate. I'm not sure about innards, but there is a history of clauses before so I see no problem with an -ate clause or a poison heal clause if these prove to powerful. Also, has anyone actually played anyone using two ates :/

Missed that bit. Well, it's worth mentioning when ability clause was voted on, both a limit of 1 and 3 was shot down pretty hard in favor of 2. I'd have to go do some serious digging to recall what the reasons behind most people going for 2 was.
 
And, I can tell you from experience that 4-6 of something can just steamroll its counters unless the opponent has 4+ counters, at which point your opponent's team loses to pretty much everything else.
That applies more to species clause than ability clause as far as I know (bar water bubble). PH is the main example of ability spam because it can be used on anything, but you won't have the same answers to PH xern than you have to Ttar of Kyogre. Meanwhile you can run 5 Groudon just fine and do pretty much the same thing with every single one of them even if they have different abilities (adapt / tinted / Tough Claws / Desoland / Technician....) or hell just look at deo spam.

It's also a bit weird to assume that if the opponent has 4+ counters to the same thing, than his team is bad. But a team that has 5 times the same thing would be good. Again the really only good example of ability spam is PH but BH can be used on offensive mon, defensive mon, special mon and phisical mon. So really you can have 6 PH mons that fill different roles. But you're Giratina isn't gonna benefit much if you were running say, mono sheer force or mono adapt. And your mmy isn't gonna benefit much from mono magic bounce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
If you have looked at my history I'm in general a strong proponent of 1-ability clause, not only in BH but in other oms such as AAA. When beginning gen 7 BH I considered changing ability clause to 1 but I really didn't have a reason to do so other than I think it is better in principle, because the tools are available to counteract the negatives of allowing two of the same ability. The original reason it was put in place was because of PH and sometimes Imposter spam though right now I presume people would be somewhat displeased to run into teams of Innards Out mons..


As QT stated ates are different in that they are conceptually the same but have much different tangible effects, which is why the ate clause was in addition to the ability clause. There's not really a clear cut answer on when we should have such specialized clauses or not e.g. You can run a team of "mold breakers" if you wish, so I've kept it free to be assessed on a case by case basis.

If needed I can explain in more detail, but since I'm onnmobile and since there are other issues the answer really is "if it ain't broke"
 
Last edited:
If you have looked at my history I'm in general a strong proponent of 1-ability clause, not only in BH but in other oms such as AAA. When beginning gen 7 BH I considered changing ability clause to 1 but I really didn't have a reason to do so other than I think it is better in principle, because the tools are available to counteract the negatives of allowing two of the same ability. The original reason it was put in place was because of PH and sometimes Imposter spam though right now I presume people would be somewhat displeased to run into teams of Innards Out mons..

Rip my hopes and dreams

Like I said, Innards out is definitely a problem and we probably should either limit it or ban it before any move is made to increase the ability limit. But idk if poison heal will be a problem. Almost nobody is using it now, it has new checks, and it was always inherently weak to trapping entrainment. Basically the main thing it did- set up, it now can't do because spectral. Defensively their are problems with poisoning three of your mons, especially if they aren't fairy.
 
Rip my hopes and dreams

Like I said, Innards out is definitely a problem and we probably should either limit it or ban it before any move is made to increase the ability limit. But idk if poison heal will be a problem. Almost nobody is using it now, it has new checks, and it was always inherently weak to trapping entrainment. Basically the main thing it did- set up, it now can't do because spectral. Defensively their are problems with poisoning three of your mons, especially if they aren't fairy.

1. Is the first line an allusion to Undertale?
2. I agree with innards out probably being suspected, as it often leads to easy 1v1 trades (similar to the argument made for banning Gengarite in ubers).
3. Another thing to watch out for is cloned abilities (turboblaze, mold breaker) or more commonly (queenly majesty, dazzling). This could be used to get around ability clause.
 
That applies more to species clause than ability clause as far as I know (bar water bubble). PH is the main example of ability spam because it can be used on anything, but you won't have the same answers to PH xern than you have to Ttar of Kyogre. Meanwhile you can run 5 Groudon just fine and do pretty much the same thing with every single one of them even if they have different abilities (adapt / tinted / Tough Claws / Desoland / Technician....) or hell just look at deo spam.

It's also a bit weird to assume that if the opponent has 4+ counters to the same thing, than his team is bad. But a team that has 5 times the same thing would be good. Again the really only good example of ability spam is PH but BH can be used on offensive mon, defensive mon, special mon and phisical mon. So really you can have 6 PH mons that fill different roles. But you're Giratina isn't gonna benefit much if you were running say, mono sheer force or mono adapt. And your mmy isn't gonna benefit much from mono magic bounce.


Well, yes and no, it depends on the ability. For example, five or six Aerilate Mega-Rayquaza are going to break through your checks and counters eventually and then shred whatever can't stand up to them. Six Imposters will wreck a team that doesn't have an Imposter-immune Pokemon, and even then can still do so if they still have enough of the right items (like two or three Plates). On the other hand, six Magic Bouncers is going to do little but piss off pure-stall teams.

Meanwhile, other teams are overly pressured to deal with this stuff. As I learned with my mono-PH team, you need more than a couple of checks/counters to deal with six of them. The same was starting to crop up before -ate clause last generation with -ates, since you were starting run into stuff like 4 -ates + 2 Imposter teams. If you brought enough specialized checks to deal with them, you'd have far less room to deal with everything else, making it extremely hard to deal with the spam teams and regular teams.

Or just look at CFZs. CFZ spam > normal teams > anti-CFZ teams > CFZ spam


As for species clause, is it worth mentioning I was a proponent of it when that was voted on? And still am? I think it was shot down on a ratio of roughly 3 to 1 though. ...funny enough, we probably wouldn't have had to have needed the GKR suspect with species clause.
 
IMO species clause is never necessary. Well I know some people are traumatized by my 5 Chansey team but the more 'mon of the same kind you have in your team, the weaker you become against superior typings.

Innards Out and Spam team is one of the stuff that entertains me the most in BH. And it might end up putting people under extreme stress but I wouldn't say it is unhealthy for the meta.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts on innards out from ladder memeing yesterday.

Innards out is something with the power to force you to throw something away. I was at the point where I was against a Blissey, which I expected to just be an Innards Out switch, and had to decide what I wanted to throw away because I couldn't just sit there and PP stall it (since Anchor Shot would kill, and it can just switch out). Turns out, it wasn't actually Innards Out, but just the presence of Blissey on the field made me have to decide what I want to die. An ability alone should not force you to decide on what you want dead, or to run stupidly weak hitters. Forcing someone to sacrifice something should not be the job of a "wall".

IMO species clause is never necessary. Well I know some people are traumatized by my 5 Chansey team but the more 'mon of the same kind you have in your team, the weaker you become against superior typings.

Innards Out and Spam team is one of the stuff that entertains me the most in BH. And it might end up putting people under extreme stress but I wouldn't say it is unhealthy for the meta.
Innards out spam will force people without HO teams to PP stall each Chansey without making an attack. It will force people to run stupid gimmicks to deal with the fact that they can't kill 5 Chanseys without everything having at least one damaging move. Running an Aegislash that has 4 status moves should not be punished that badly. It is extremely unhealthy to have a team that wins by the user clicking the next pokekmon and throwing out moves.
 
Can I make a suggestion? Can we stop saying things like:

(Note the mention of going "22-3" was a much, much more impressive record at the time than it is today. CH still had its own ladder, so our current low ladder pretty much didn't exist yet. Once you hit ~1200, you were battling good players fairly regularly unless you were on at odd hours, in which case you were waiting an hour for a match.)

I saw something like this on the WB suspect page too. I mean, I can go 30-0 fairly consistently with a lot of memey things and it really fails to prove anything except for that I can go 30-0. It really doesn't have any bearing at all on the alleged brokeness of the ability you are talking about.
And because all of you missed it
My main aim is to get the clause to 3 not 6 because I realize at 6 of the same ability annoying troll things start happening, but I feel like my analysis is fairly accurate. I'm not sure about innards, but there is a history of clauses before so I see no problem with an -ate clause or a poison heal clause if these prove to powerful
I think we can lift it to 3 with relatively no consequences as long as Innards out has at least a clause, and if it proves too powerful (which I doubt for the reasons I outlined earlier) Poison heal too.
 
Can I make a suggestion? Can we stop saying things like:



I saw something like this on the WB suspect page too. I mean, I can go 30-0 fairly consistently with a lot of memey things and it really fails to prove anything except for that I can go 30-0. It really doesn't have any bearing at all on the alleged brokeness of the ability you are talking about.
And because all of you missed it

I think we can lift it to 3 with relatively no consequences as long as Innards out has at least a clause, and if it proves too powerful (which I doubt for the reasons I outlined earlier) Poison heal too.

I don't get it. You want to expand a clause that no one really has a problem with, and then account for that by adding in one and maybe two more increasingly complex clauses? I also believe that the further we get away from 1, the more arbitrary and unnecessary this clause becomes.

This whole thing feels like changing something just for the sake of changing it; I don't see a way in which the BH metagame would be improved by moving from 2 to 3. In my mind, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

edit: Flint already said "if it ain't broke" lol, didn't even see that
 
IMO species clause is never necessary. Well I know some people are traumatized by my 5 Chansey team but the more 'mon of the same kind you have in your team, the weaker you become against superior typings.

To be fair, species clause would shut down a lot of bullcrap strategies, like 4-6 Assistdon teams, P. Ogre Spam, Chansey spam, etc. While I think they still would be ban worthy, CFZs would have been a little more managable if you couldn't use multiple Deo-A. If I remember, the biggest arguement against Species clause was it'd hurt double Imposter. (I think that came up against 1-ability-limit clause too.)

However, I do feel, if it happened now, a species clause vote would fail since I doubt most people would want it, so I don't exactly feel the need to push for it.


I saw something like this on the WB suspect page too. I mean, I can go 30-0 fairly consistently with a lot of memey things and it really fails to prove anything except for that I can go 30-0. It really doesn't have any bearing at all on the alleged brokeness of the ability you are talking about.
And because all of you missed it.

Yeah, it's less impressive now on the WB suspect. To clarify on me using that record in that old post, the ladder was a much different scene then. Classic Hackmons was still around, so all of the less skilled players were playing that. So imagine, if after winning 2 or 3 games, your next opponent was the person who was in the top 10 on the ladder. And so was your next. And your next. And then an alt of someone on the top 10. And so forth. The average skill level of your opponent back then was miles higher than it is today, so it was extremely hard to have a winning streak. Combined less active ladder meant it was harder to do battles (getting 10 a day was a feat) and 1500 rating was near the top, whereas today it's around mid-ladder at best, and the playing field was muuuuuch harder to make headway into if you weren't a good player using a good team. When I started in Gen V, I think it took me a couple of months to break 1300 when I started getting serious about the tier because Adrian and Flint kept bashing my teams' heads in.


So yeah... someone would probably need like a 50-0 win streak or more to be impressive these days.
 
I guess that is true and I am fairly resigned now to the fact that I'm fighting a losing battle, but I never really let small things like that stop me.
I just wanted to make a triple regn and a triple illusion team and was slightly irritated that I couldn't have one. That's pretty much the extent of my motives.

I would def support a 2 mon species clause but not 1, and also rumors, the point i was making about the winstreak isnt about the difficulty of obtaining it but the fact that it doesnt prove crap. And yes, I have gone 50-0 several times in gen 6 and once gen 7, so it isn't like i don't. understand the difficulty of a streak like that, . Just dont think its really a good argument unless the person posting it has almost 0 chanse of obtaining that streak without (insert broken ability)
 
dual mon is something absolutly normal.
triple mon is usually stall teams like triple tina or dino.
quad mon is mostly primals.
quin mon is Deo-A or MMY.
hexa mon is usually M-Ray or Chansey.

I build all my Gen 7 teams 2-2-1-1 format.
Spec clause is absolutly unneeded.

Im ok with ability clause 2, it both limits and gives freedom at once.
The only time it annoyed me was with my mono Zekrom team in gen 6, on a medicore poke you will have 1 good moveset.

Personally i have no problem with ability clause 3, heck i played Pokemon Online BH before and they had no ability clause at all.

Only point is if your triple pair beats my triple pair, you have half won the match simple by that,
f.e P-Don vs M-ttar, Kyrem-B vs M-Ray, Deo-A vs M-Gengar etc...
I know you called for ability clause 3 but in the end you will use the same ability on the same pokes.
No skill and predictions will overcome such a disadvantage, leading to strong centralisation.

sample teams for ShedMiddleFinga meta;
3 Innhards out Chansey + 3 Magic Guard M-Ttar.
3 Imposter Chansey + 3 Sturdy Shedinja
3 Prankster M-Gyrados + 3 Unaware M-Audino
3 Magic Guard MMX + 3 Contrary M Ray
3 Water Bubble Kyogre + 3 Fur Coat Palkia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top