With the creation of this thread, and while browsing through the Dream World abilities, I had come up with a question I wanted to discuss:
Would it be acceptable to ban abilities on specific Pokemon as opposed to banning an ability or Pokemon outright within a metagame, where the Pokemon or ability by themselves would have otherwise not been suspect?
I feel this is important to discuss because not only might this become an important topic of discussion later when/if Pokemon that are already introduced and legal (i.e. Shandera) are released with a controversial ability that puts their tier placement in to question (i.e. Shadow Tag), it also poses relevant questions for the inverse effect in which an alternate ability available to a Pokemon gives it the chance to compete outside of the Uber tier.
The most obvious example would be Wobbuffet. Without the ability Shadow Tag, Wobbuffet would never have been placed in Ubers in Gev IV in the first place. Assuming Wobbuffet is banished to Ubers again, in the future Wobbuffet may be given Telepathy, and it could drop down to OU.
Other examples that can be considered are previous suspects such as Garchomp, who while it wasn't entirely regarded as suspect due to its ability Sand Veil by itself, could be considered tolerable without it and maintain OU status in Gen V if it were ever nominated to become a suspect again.
While it is true that theoretically we may never have Telepathy Wobuffet or Rough Skin Garchomp, I'd be interested in hearing everyones thoughts.
NOTE: Here are some presented arguments against the proposition, and my responses to them:
Would it be acceptable to ban abilities on specific Pokemon as opposed to banning an ability or Pokemon outright within a metagame, where the Pokemon or ability by themselves would have otherwise not been suspect?
I feel this is important to discuss because not only might this become an important topic of discussion later when/if Pokemon that are already introduced and legal (i.e. Shandera) are released with a controversial ability that puts their tier placement in to question (i.e. Shadow Tag), it also poses relevant questions for the inverse effect in which an alternate ability available to a Pokemon gives it the chance to compete outside of the Uber tier.
The most obvious example would be Wobbuffet. Without the ability Shadow Tag, Wobbuffet would never have been placed in Ubers in Gev IV in the first place. Assuming Wobbuffet is banished to Ubers again, in the future Wobbuffet may be given Telepathy, and it could drop down to OU.
Other examples that can be considered are previous suspects such as Garchomp, who while it wasn't entirely regarded as suspect due to its ability Sand Veil by itself, could be considered tolerable without it and maintain OU status in Gen V if it were ever nominated to become a suspect again.
While it is true that theoretically we may never have Telepathy Wobuffet or Rough Skin Garchomp, I'd be interested in hearing everyones thoughts.
NOTE: Here are some presented arguments against the proposition, and my responses to them:
Banning an ability or item is targeted towards making a Pokemon fit a certain tier ("Gen IV Salamence would be OU without Outrage!"), which is unacceptable because if you do that, you're going in with the a priori assumption that said Pokemon deserves to be in a certain tier, it just isn't because of a fixable oversight.
What you end up doing is changing Pokemon to fit the metagame rather than changing the metagame to fit the Pokemon.
Ulevo said:But this is something we've arguably done in the past.
We tested Deoxys-S in OU because we believed it deserved a chance to prove its worth in the OU tier.
For you to adequately support your claim, you'd have to prove what sufficient difference there is between Deoxys-S and say, Doexys-A by comparison to Shadow Tag Wobuffet and Telepathy Wobuffet.
Sprites mean absolutely nothing, competitively speaking. With that fact out of the way, the only difference provided between the two examples is stats, and abilities; both of which are an integral part of the Pokemon itself. If you suggest that in order to deal with Wobuffet, we would need to completely ban the Pokemon itself rather than treat Shadow Tag Wobuffet and Telepathy Wobuffet as alternate forms of the same Pokemon (which they are, there is no difference), then I would push for the complete exclusion of Deoxys (all forms) in the OU tier unless all of them prove to not fit the characteristics of an Uber.
EDIT: Ultimately, if you wanted to prevent a slippery slope from progressing anywhere with regards to regulating other aspects of a Pokemon separately from the whole Pokemon itself, implement a policy along the lines of:
Pokemon with alternate abilities are recognized and treated as alternate forms of the same Pokemon. Therefore, under the premise that a Pokemon is characterized as Uber due to an ability, that form of the Pokemon may be excluded from OU play.
It's really that simple.
Yeah, yeah, this is a slippery slope argument... but that exact same logic can be applied to Pokemon missing certain moves, Pokemon with certain EV spreads, or even Pokemon at certain levels once you open a door that's wider than "ban or allow" on each individual Pokemon. A Pokemon with a different ability is as much a "different forme" as a Pokemon with a different nature, held item, stat spread, or level, and there's no clear way to distinguish what is and isn't a different forme using your logic.
I like our current logic better in this regard, it makes things simpler and if the blowup of the last few days has taught us anything, removing ambiguity from the rules can result in disastrous, nightmarishly long debates.
Ulevo said:No, they are not the same. Garchomp with Outrage and Garchomp without Outrage because we choose to ban Outrage + Garchomp are not alternate forms of the same Pokemon, they are the same Pokemon. Within that example, we are just artificially creating differentiations that are not already in place by what the cartridge provides us, and aren't tangible within the code. The exact same applies for EVs and items.
What you're declaring as "the same" and "not the same" is completely arbitrary. Garchomp with Sand Veil and Garchomp without Sand Veil (assuming a second ability existed) is really as much of a choice / forme as Garchomp with or without Outrage. They are both options that the same "base Pokemon" have. How is an ability no less artificial than a move choice, EV, or item? All you have been doing is declaring that to be so.
My definition: An alternate form is a Pokemon with the same national dex number but a different typing and/or base stat distribution (i.e. non user-modifiable properties). Abilities are user-modifiable via breeding, RNG, etc but base stats and typing are for the most part set in stone.
Ulevo said:No, it isn't.
Deoxys-A and Deoxys-S both have the exact same move pool, therefore they both have access to the same choice of moves. Banning Taunt on Deoxys-A but not Deoxys-S does not create a new alternate form because we are artificially creating differences between the Pokemon ourselves when they otherwise would have been the same entity. However, they are different forms because they have two entirely different base stat distributions, which when given a particular form, cannot be modified by the player whatsoever. I as a player can modify the base stat distribution by changing the form, but I cannot change, say, Doexy-S base stat distribution specifically. That is beyond my capabilities as a player in the cartridge.
With that in mind, Garchomp with Sand Veil and Garchomp without Sand Veil both have access to the exact same move pool. The only differentiation is they have two completely different abilities, which again cannot be excluded or modified separately in the same vein that Deoxys formes can't manipulate base stat distribution. Choosing between abilities is akin to choosing between different forms, or rather, different stat distributions between the Deoxys, while sharing the same move pool.
Like base stat distributions, you cannot manipulate abilities (manipulating breeding to ensure which ability you obtained is no different than touching a specific rock in DPPt to ensure you have whatever form of Deoxys you want, and thus any stat distribution you want.)
You can however manipulate the move set. If I want to exclude the move Psychic from either Deoxys form, I have that ability as a player to choose that, provided a ban or rule does not prevent me from doing so. And it is this "player freedom" that ultimately leads to slipper slope bans and complex policies.
EDIT: Also, I would like to add to this, since I thought of another appropriate example.
To expand on the fact that banning moves and banning Pokemon with particular abilities are not the same thing, I'd also like to point to the different Rotom forms in Gen IV (when they still shared the same type.)
The only thing that separated these forms from each other (aside from the completely irrelevant sprite) was their exclusive moves: Overheat, Air Slash, Blizzard, Leaf Storm, Hydro Pump.
If we were to ban say, Overheat on Rotom-H and Hydro Pump on Rotom-W, they would not become the same entity, because we would be artificially imposing that similarity. The fact is that we have no way of changing the game code to prevent Rotom-H from learning Overheat, and vice versa; it's integrated in to their move pool, and cannot be altered. We can choose to not use the move, of course. But that is identical to choosing a different form, or even a different item or trait, which as I pointed out, is not the same thing.
I'm not against blanket ability bans but I am against banning <ability> only on <pokemon> because it makes the rules way too complicated. New players shouldn't need to consult a spreadsheet to play competitively.
Ulevo said:Please let me know if you feel that this defines a "spreadsheet":
Smogon Policy said:Pokemon with alternate abilities are recognized and treated as alternate forms of the same Pokemon. Therefore, under the premise that a Pokemon is characterized as Uber due to an ability, that form of the Pokemon may be excluded from OU play.
Ban List (Example):
Pokemon:
Arceus
Dialga
Giratina
Giratina-o
Groudon
Ho-Oh
Kyogre
Lugia
Mewtwo
Palkia
Rayquaza
Reshiram
Wobuffet (Shadow Tag)
Zekrom
Items:
Soul Dew
Clauses:
Sleep Clause
Species Clause
OHKO Clause
Evasion Clause (Includes Sand Veil/Snow Cloak)
The policy that I created regarding this proposition to consider Pokemon with alternate abilities as alternate forms of a Pokemon would of course be included with the original Smogon Policy.
The ban list is an example ban list, with the only modification being that Wobuffet is banned with the ability Shadow Tag only, and everything else would be arguably the same.
I can't predict the metagame and any future bans we may need to discuss regarding individual Pokemon, but the only abilities that I feel are even a concern (and please, if anyone can add otherwise, speak up now) is Shadow Tag on Wobbufet (Dream World Shandera is underwhelming by comparsion) and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak, which are just a round about way of avoiding the Evasion Clause nearly everyone voted in a poll against, which could be just included in a blanket ban (since Garchomp and other Pokemon who have said abilities may get their secondary Dream World abilities in the future, we can include bans on these two abilities in a blanket ban with Evasion Clause later when we are able.)
Please explain to me how this is complicated, difficult to understand, and is otherwise non user friendly?