Another problem, Aldarons proposal was specifically meant to be a one time occurrence, and not to set a precedent. Users have attempted to use that same logic several times with OU nominations and have been shut down each time.
And I'd hate to pound this emphasis into the ground again, but this really affects only one Pokemon. There has to be some pretty darned good excuse as to why we should go this far to preserve Froslass and prohibit other Pokemon who aren't nearly as effective with this ability.i find it interesting that starraptor is once again in the bl.... that guy is a beast... this place is littered with legendaries and staraptor gets banned... Just goes to show u how powerful he is...
One problem... snow cloak + snow warning isnt the same as doubling speed, and gaining another stab boost on water attacks.
Is UU really Hail-dominated? According to August stats, Abomasnow is at around 7%. The latest stats for DPPt OU have Tyranitar sitting at ~19%, but no one ever said that DPPt OU was dominated by Sand.
Once again, I find it ironic that people arguing for a "simpler" ban of just Froslass seem to forget the simple purpose of banning in the first place: to remove only what is broken.
PK Gaming said:I'm agreeing with Heysup, sure we can ban Froslass, Mamo(?), Rotom and a couple other hail abusers, or we can cut to the source and ban hail as a whole. The latter is a lot easier / less messy / more ideal.
Pocket, I understand your good intentions, and I agree with you to one point. Why do you only want to stop froslass from abusing free hax but allow glaceon to still? (beartic is shit). Glaceon is a legit hail support pokemon (at least from my success of using her), and wish protect, heal bell, etc sets benefit a lot from free misses. I've fought hail teams before with glaceon and have been stalled to death on last pokemon against glaceon because it kept using wish protect and hail hax misses.
On a semi-related note I'm curious to hear why anyone thinks sand is broken or even deserving of suspect. ?_? I haven't noticed anything overwhelming about it besides good players using it.
Then you should be agreeing with me that Frosslass + Snow Warning is the best course of action, and then banning Froslass. Snow Cloak + Snow Warning is restricting non-broken threats unnecessarily; you're removing MORE than what is broken.
I think you misunderstood Heysup. From what I understand, he wants to keep Hail and complex ban to keep Froslass in UU (but out of Hail).
If you guys are serious about Froslass + Snow Warning, surely you recognize the amount of scenarios this can extend to? Pokemon + team member, sweeper + spikes, Stoutland + Sand, etc. We wouldn't be thinking about this if something like this didn't already happen in OU (which is the entire reason it's relevant; the idea of complex banning is out there and it's not going away). We don't have to handle everything the way OU did, but in order to keep the state of competitive Pokemon as healthy as possible, I'd really rather we keep complex banning from taking flagship as an optimal method of balance this gen.
I'm not sure I understand how that makes it flawed, you basically repeated what I said. To clarify, it's simply to ban what is in fact broken. If Froslass is broken in hail, ban Froslass + Snow Warning. If Hail is broken as a strategy ban Abomasnow (/ Snover).
Heysup what if Froslass is broken only inside of Hail?
Blaziken and Garchomp were also broken only inside their respective weathers.Did we make a complex ban?
Also i don't really get why you say that the comparison is not valid.I know that OU and UU are not the same but some principles stay the same.If in one tier we didn't make a complex ban but instead we banned the whole pokemon,because it was broke only inside its respective weather,i don't see how we can make the opposite action in another tier for a similar case and not be called hypocrites.
In both situations we have pokes that become broken under the right WEATHER support!
Finally banning Snow Cloak + Snow Warning is a no,'cause it is too much trouble to save only one pokemon,where aldaron's proposal saved entire playstyles!
Heysup said:We need to understand the difference between following a precedent (being able to combo ban) and something a slippery slope fallacy ("oh no we'll start banning Pokemon with certain EVs and then probably nick names too!!!!! and then after that the world will end")
First of all banning Blaziken wasn't hypocritical.I'm only responding to this because you seem to be talking to me specifically but everything has been said already. You can choose to disagree or (as in most cases) just ignore it.
UU and OU do not follow the same process (until possibly the admins make an umbrella policy about the suspect testing). Last gen showed that sometimes the best decisions aren't always made in OU and we are not obligated to follow their precedents. With Blaziken, banning the whole Pokemon was hypocritical when you consider that they made another decision that completely contradicts it (Drizzle + swift swim). We can logically only follow one of those precedents anyway since they are, in fact, contradictory on the surface (I don't know the exact situation, I can only perceive). The only umbrella rule is that we should ban what's broken, no more and no less.
Another problem is that you somehow, despite all that's been said, still think that there have been similar cases, to Froslass in Hail. There have not been any simply for the reason that they are in two completely different environments.
We need to understand the difference between following a precedent (being able to combo ban) and something being a slippery slope fallacy ("oh no we'll start banning Pokemon with certain EVs and then probably nick names too!!!!! and then after that the world will end")