I glossed over the reason for STag in my statement about BP. Because someone would have made Wobb work, or Gothorita, or whatever, so to avoid furthering the problem, the core of the problem was removed from the game. Since apparently it needs to be repeated, complex should only be done when they need to be. Dizzle alone is not broken, Politoed with Drizzle is not broken, a lone swift swimmer is not broken, Drizzle toed + a swift swimmer however was. Because Drizzle is not broken and Toed is not broken, but the combo between two seperate entities was, one of the few complex bans we have ever pushed was created. That wasn't a precedent, it was an exception. If King's shield proved broken on another mon, there would be no argument on what should be done, but we all know it isn't. So why entertain it? The answer is easy "so we can keep Aegi". That isn't how this works.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
On The Radar
- Thread starter kumiko
- Start date
- Status
I glossed over the reason for STag in my statement about BP. Because someone would have made Wobb work, or Gothorita, or whatever, so to avoid furthering the problem, the core of the problem was removed from the game. Since apparently it needs to be repeated, complex should only be done when they need to be. Dizzle alone is not broken, Politoed with Drizzle is not broken, a lone swift swimmer is not broken, Drizzle toed + a swift swimmer however was. Because Drizzle is not broken and Toed is not broken, but the combo between two seperate entities was, one of the few complex bans we have ever pushed was created. That wasn't a precedent, it was an exception. If King's shield proved broken on another mon, there would be no argument on what should be done, but we all know it isn't. So why entertain it? The answer is easy "so we can keep Aegi". That isn't how this works.
Yeah Arena Trap is something that I would like to see suspected and debated. In 6v6 singles Pokemon, switching is the most important mechanic. It's basically at the heart of every expression of skill there is in the game. Switching into the right Pokemon and correctly predicting what Pokemon the opponent will switch into is like THE WHOLE GAME. Having a Pokemon that can just stop that is so remarkably broken, that it needs to be otherwise worthless for it to be fair. Well, Dugtrio's utterly laughable attack stat in previous generations was just enough to keep it at that level, but now, with 20 more points in the stat, it may have crossed a threshold like Gothitelle apparently had.
I said it was for a useful middle ground that has absolutely 0 consequences nor does it break any rules or set a "precedent" when implimented, the 50/50s aspect of Aegislash is one of the primarily arguments people say that they want to ban Aegislash because despite of all the useful mons that to be honest aren't really present to do offensively and the fact that Aegislash handles a lot of these mons without too much strain on teambuilding is that Kings Shield severely opens up the game to 50/50s rather than skill and reduces the amount of checks Aegislash has to deal with. For reasons stated previously, Aegislash becomes much more manageable and the access to checks open up. It's not necessary in my eyes as Aegislash has plenty of metagame relevant checks that can abuse Aegislash while Aegislash has major cons that doesn't make him broken and impossible to use nor even hard to pack answers for, but it is admittedly fairly taxing and so a blanket ban on Kings Shield reasonably breaks through one key point for justifying a ban because it removes 50/50s from the entire equation.
Also, if Kings Shield was given to anyone but Aegislash and that Pokemon had a shred of defense honestly it would be pretty dumb. The move as a whole does produce a lot of 50/50s due to the sheer nature of a -2 Attack Drop and would promote something similar, but that's neither here or there and tbh it goes into pure theorymonning. Also Drizzle is flat out banned in lower tiers but Politoed is still allowed.
Also, if Kings Shield was given to anyone but Aegislash and that Pokemon had a shred of defense honestly it would be pretty dumb. The move as a whole does produce a lot of 50/50s due to the sheer nature of a -2 Attack Drop and would promote something similar, but that's neither here or there and tbh it goes into pure theorymonning. Also Drizzle is flat out banned in lower tiers but Politoed is still allowed.
Last edited:
i wouldn't mind testing a ban on KS, but that's simply because it provides an extra data point to prove/disprove how much of a deal it would be, and until there's some practical examples of what would happen i'd rather not try and say if it's a good or bad idea.
i also really don't see how this would "set precedent", because as UltiMario already pointed out, the current precedent is absolutely all over the place. machoke being banned and not dynamic punch in ORAS PU is used as an example of "if the ability/move is only broken on a specific pokemon, ban that pokemon", but then we still have shadow tag where the ability that was fine on everything but one pokemon was banned. i mean, i'd prefer some consistency in decision-making, but i'm also not going to lie and say there has been any here, and if this is the path we're going down, we might as well explore the options available
i also really don't see how this would "set precedent", because as UltiMario already pointed out, the current precedent is absolutely all over the place. machoke being banned and not dynamic punch in ORAS PU is used as an example of "if the ability/move is only broken on a specific pokemon, ban that pokemon", but then we still have shadow tag where the ability that was fine on everything but one pokemon was banned. i mean, i'd prefer some consistency in decision-making, but i'm also not going to lie and say there has been any here, and if this is the path we're going down, we might as well explore the options available
What exactly would change with the removal of King's Shield? The only thing that would occur is that people would use Protect instead. That's just treating a symptom, not the source itself.QuickBH said:
Special Attackers could care LESS about an Attack drop, and they usually don't carry a contact move on them because it is hypocritical to their role. Yet, said special attackers are unable to check Aegislash, even if it didn't carry King's Shield. Its everything else that is the problem; King's Shield is just another neat trick up its sleeve to make it even more insurmountable. It stats allow it to take almost any attack it is hit with, and hit back thrice-fold. Its typing makes types and strategies that would work on almost any other Pokemon ineffective and counter-intuitive. Its coverage allows to hit damn near anything unresisted. Doing a ban on King's Shield would be outright foolish, as it solves no problem towards the meta.
aegis can't switch back into shield form once in sword form without king shield so yes its removal would significantly hinder aegis' effectiveness. Protect leaves you stuck in sword form lol.
Last edited:
Again, the problem comes in catering to a mon to allow it to stay in the tier. We can do the same thing with every Uber if we try hard enough (~whoo~ strawmen), which is why complex bans have such a stigma.
The fact that we need to cater to said (single) mon to keep it in OU is more than enough to let you know that the problem is Aegislash as a whole.
The fact that we need to cater to said (single) mon to keep it in OU is more than enough to let you know that the problem is Aegislash as a whole.
If we're nerfing aegislash for the sake of 50/50s, can we ban double switching, baneful bunker, and sucker punch? No? Then ban aegislash.
50/50s isn't an issue exclusive to aegislash or king's shield. Aegislash isn't broke due to king's shield alone (give it to smeargle, is he broken now? No) its broken due to a full package.. amazing stats + centralization + versitility (want to get into the "what counters" aegislash discussion? Its not a fun one lemme tell you.)
If you ban sacred sword, now aegislash has a massive list of counters, he's balanced.
Ban iron head, now he lacks coverage, balanced.
Ban shadow ball, now physical tanks can come in.
Ban king's shield, now he can't be two mons at once effectively.
You see the pattern? You can take one element away from it, and boom fixed.. but the exact issue is just all elements in one. What's next, we'll take an element away from xerneas so it drops OU? Its not how the tiering system works or should work. Dynamic punch is an RNG based move that even smeargle could luck his way up the ladder if he really wanted to... KS? Smeargle can't do jack with it and it's not RNG based, there fore its a skill to play with and around like sucker punch, and thus the move isn't broken on all mons.
Granted, I was depressed when aegislash was banned in X/Y but after seeing him in this gen 7 meta, this is twice as bad not going to lie... there is just another whole generation of mons for him to hold back since then. Unless powercreep is stronger than I thought, there isn't much of a new toy to counter him with since then, and the one debatable counter from gen 6 (bisharp) was nerfed as well (sucker punch + knock off BP nerf). Do i actually think aegislash in general still needs banned?... I really don't want to answer that cause I'll have personal bias for wanting him back since X/Y but in reality, I see the restriction he's causing for others, even if it doesn't affect me and if I personally enjoy a stagnant meta.
50/50s isn't an issue exclusive to aegislash or king's shield. Aegislash isn't broke due to king's shield alone (give it to smeargle, is he broken now? No) its broken due to a full package.. amazing stats + centralization + versitility (want to get into the "what counters" aegislash discussion? Its not a fun one lemme tell you.)
If you ban sacred sword, now aegislash has a massive list of counters, he's balanced.
Ban iron head, now he lacks coverage, balanced.
Ban shadow ball, now physical tanks can come in.
Ban king's shield, now he can't be two mons at once effectively.
You see the pattern? You can take one element away from it, and boom fixed.. but the exact issue is just all elements in one. What's next, we'll take an element away from xerneas so it drops OU? Its not how the tiering system works or should work. Dynamic punch is an RNG based move that even smeargle could luck his way up the ladder if he really wanted to... KS? Smeargle can't do jack with it and it's not RNG based, there fore its a skill to play with and around like sucker punch, and thus the move isn't broken on all mons.
Granted, I was depressed when aegislash was banned in X/Y but after seeing him in this gen 7 meta, this is twice as bad not going to lie... there is just another whole generation of mons for him to hold back since then. Unless powercreep is stronger than I thought, there isn't much of a new toy to counter him with since then, and the one debatable counter from gen 6 (bisharp) was nerfed as well (sucker punch + knock off BP nerf). Do i actually think aegislash in general still needs banned?... I really don't want to answer that cause I'll have personal bias for wanting him back since X/Y but in reality, I see the restriction he's causing for others, even if it doesn't affect me and if I personally enjoy a stagnant meta.
Last edited:
At this point, it doesn't really matter, as Aegislash is probably going to be banned again. But I'll express my opinion on the subject.
I personally see Pheramosa and Aegislash as "the unstoppable force" and "the immovable object" respectively. And although they CAN be taken down through very specific Pokemon, they are able to beat far too many Pokemon in the tier with their respective strategies. In general, I would want both of them quickbanned, but if an order had to be chosen, I would say Pheramosa then Aegislash.
I don't think any others deserve quickbans currently, as removing these two would give the meta time to rebalance and see what is still too powerful.
I personally see Pheramosa and Aegislash as "the unstoppable force" and "the immovable object" respectively. And although they CAN be taken down through very specific Pokemon, they are able to beat far too many Pokemon in the tier with their respective strategies. In general, I would want both of them quickbanned, but if an order had to be chosen, I would say Pheramosa then Aegislash.
I don't think any others deserve quickbans currently, as removing these two would give the meta time to rebalance and see what is still too powerful.
This comes down to your stance on the current criteria for broken, and is highly subjective, really. Personal stance is that is should not be banned, especially not quickbanned. Yes, the risk vs. reward for using this is staggering, yes, it has a multitude of viable sets all with their own merits on specific teams, and yes, it will adapt to almost any metagame trends that rise to alleviate its presence. With regards to "centralisation and reduction of viablility of X/Y/Z", forces of high centralisation are a necessity in games such as this, as are superglue pivots, and most importantly: diversity is not good for this game. The seemingly (by the Smogon zeitgeist) stifling effects that Aegislash has on a metagame can be interpreted (and should be interpreted so in a game such as this, especially in singles) as positives. Unless people are up for another round of OR/AS match-up issues, then either a hell of a lot of subsequent bans need to take place, or Aegislash needs to stay.
I want to highlight these two posts because I think it's a really relevant point that needs to be stressed.
A lot of people are using this recurring point that 'Aegislash is bad/unhealthy for the meta, and it needs to be banned so that the meta is free to develop. Aegislash has a negative effect on viability, etc.' People seem to just agree with this and take it as a given, but I want to challenge this.
Why does the meta need to be sans-Aegislash? Why is it seen as valid to ban it so that other mons can flourish? "The meta is better off without Aegislash" sounds like a grass is greener fallacy.
Zygarde-C had to go because 90% of the metagame couldn't touch it. Aegislash doesn't fulfill the same uber specification. It's a defensive pivot, not an unstoppable wall.
Maybe the meta is better with Aegislash's influence. Gen 7 has introduced even more threats to prepare for. If the meta becomes too diverse and matchup-based, and this is seen as a bad thing, does that make Aegislash a necessary evil?
These opinions are understandable, as the entire Pokemon competitive metagame is based around the spreading of new ideas, and the various ways that other Pokemon can check them. That, personally is what I enjoy about this competitive community. The amount of freedom that we are given and the ability to make almost any Pokemon viable (unlike the Smash community).November Blue said:
For Aegislash, however, I can't help but disagree. There are, in-fact, too many advantages for this Pokemon that most Pokemon in OU cannot fix. This Pokemon is too good against too many Pokemon, and there are too few who counter it. Should a single pokemon limit the evolution of the meta? No, no Pokemon has that right.
Why? Because so far there's almost no Fighting pokemon that are not UBs and some Keldeo, there are no Psychic types not named Hoopa-U or Tapu-lele (and even those are rare-ish) and no Faerie types that are not a Tapu or Magearna, even the king of ORAS Clefable has seen a lot less usage even when it was probably the best check to Zygarde Complete.
Almost completely removing three types means that everything that all those pokemon could check before are free to go rampart. We are already seeing it with people calling for a suspect on Toxapex even though 3/4s of all Psychics could counter it without breaking a sweat.
Its really preference, some people want to wake up tomorrow and see a new set be invented, or they have to think outside the box because a random threat emerged and they need to rework their team around it so its not the same team.
With Aegislash around, there never is any of that.. you wake up tomorrow and you see Aegislash. A pokemon suddenly becomes meta and then you question what you can use on your team for it, its Aegislash. Suddenly your team is lack luster and outdated and you need to fix it.. throw Aegislash on it fixed. Its a bit dramatized, but Aegislash is almost a priority pick, not because its broken or unfair, but because its just too good to pass up, it makes life easier and while it might not make other's lives nessecarily harder, it makes pokemon who are in Aegislash's shadow outclassed and makes players forced to use Aegislash over them. Its not an unfair mon in my eyes, I don't feel like we should restrict aegislash for the sake of making hawlucha and mega medicham playable, that doesn't feel like a good reason to ban balanced for balanced, but its a huge difference if you do enjoy seeing hawlucha and medicham along with several other mons instead of just keep one in the tier.
So honestly, while an Aegislash meta might be perfectly balanced, and I can say I find Aegislash to be a fair pokemon and a meta that I wake up tomorrow to being the same feels fair to me if I went on a vacation or something, but it gets stale for those who play repetitively. Teams look copy and pasted. It just feels more of a "meta slave" meta rather than an innovative one.
Its pretty much down to this, are you going to keep the game the same, or change it. Sometimes it's better off the same, sometimes its a terrible idea to change it (like riot "fixing" the jungle). Sometimes new doors and windows just open and things get much better when its changed.
Aegislash ban = new opportunities to see what could be or couldn't viable.
Aegislash staying = a stagnant meta that may forever stay in a balanced state, raising a lot of "what ifs".
I think the thing around Aegislash stifling creativity is almost tantamount to the way that Ubers building worked last gen. in which P-Groudon + Xerneas meant most teams followed the same team structure. As mentioned before, teams seem to revolve around either winning with your Aegislash, or overloading their Aegislash for your win condition.
I don't think it's necessarily broken as it isn't that hard to beat, but the fact that you're put at a disadvantage for not using it makes it way too overcentralising. I get that the idea of having a 'freer' metagame without Aegis is a subjective point of view, but I think I speak for most people where I say that I'd rather a metagame that allowed 20 more mons to flourish than one which caters to keeping one incredibly strong mon. It's already pointed out that Latios is down to 1% usage (obviously also in part to new toy syndrome, and Genesect/Phero severely denying its viability) and that's for a mon which was an absolute staple last generation and even has been buffed, in OU, thanks to the nerf of Soul Dew.
Because of this, I think Aegis is causing the metagame to go stale, it won't develop and will be so much harder to find creative sets, and some great mons will be left by the wayside because of it.
P.S Fuck Pheromosa
I don't think it's necessarily broken as it isn't that hard to beat, but the fact that you're put at a disadvantage for not using it makes it way too overcentralising. I get that the idea of having a 'freer' metagame without Aegis is a subjective point of view, but I think I speak for most people where I say that I'd rather a metagame that allowed 20 more mons to flourish than one which caters to keeping one incredibly strong mon. It's already pointed out that Latios is down to 1% usage (obviously also in part to new toy syndrome, and Genesect/Phero severely denying its viability) and that's for a mon which was an absolute staple last generation and even has been buffed, in OU, thanks to the nerf of Soul Dew.
Because of this, I think Aegis is causing the metagame to go stale, it won't develop and will be so much harder to find creative sets, and some great mons will be left by the wayside because of it.
P.S Fuck Pheromosa
After reading more and more of both sides regarding Aegislash, I still feel a suspect over a quick-ban is preferable.
I really would enjoy seeing the metagame with a King's Shield-less Aegislash, so I'd love to see that be an option.
I understand the calls for a less centralised meta where more 'mons can be viable and to an extent I agree. Where my opinion differs, however, is that banning Aegislash is the ideal way to do this because we haven't explored every option.
I understand we avoid maintaining situations where broken-checks-broken so removing Aegislash and the powerful things it kept in check seems to way to go but for all we know a King's Shield-less Aegislash could provide just as much diversity. For example, something could be just a tiny bit too much for OU and need to be banned if Aegislash is gone but could be perfectly fine with King's Shield-less Aegislash in the tier.
My point being we should consider diversity in both directions when discussing things like this and I'd just think it's worth seeing what that could bring. Even if it lets us put Aegislash to bed for good, it will still be worthwhile.
I really would enjoy seeing the metagame with a King's Shield-less Aegislash, so I'd love to see that be an option.
I understand the calls for a less centralised meta where more 'mons can be viable and to an extent I agree. Where my opinion differs, however, is that banning Aegislash is the ideal way to do this because we haven't explored every option.
I understand we avoid maintaining situations where broken-checks-broken so removing Aegislash and the powerful things it kept in check seems to way to go but for all we know a King's Shield-less Aegislash could provide just as much diversity. For example, something could be just a tiny bit too much for OU and need to be banned if Aegislash is gone but could be perfectly fine with King's Shield-less Aegislash in the tier.
My point being we should consider diversity in both directions when discussing things like this and I'd just think it's worth seeing what that could bring. Even if it lets us put Aegislash to bed for good, it will still be worthwhile.
I'd like to bring up a 'mon that's found its way onto my personal radar, both from my use and from seeing it used against me and elsewhere: Porygon-Z. This pokemon is an absolutely deadly mid or lategame sweeper, although honestly with the current state of the meta I've gone up against a fair few teams where I could simply lead PZ and claim my 6-0. The primary set that's being used consists of Thunderbolt/Ice Beam/Shadow Ball or Recover/Conversion with Normalium-Z. Z-Conversion allows Porygon-Z to boost all its stats with one move, a la Ancient Power, and also converts it to the Electric type, allowing it to spam relentless Adaptability +1 Thunderbolts capable of feats like KO-ing Tapu Koko through its resistance to Electric, while carrying Ice Beam for most Ground-types and Shadow Ball for Aegislash and everything else. This is by no means its only option, as it can run a set with Shadow Ball/Tri Attack/Ice Beam targeting a different set of resistances, and can even run Psyshock as its first slot to allow it to break past Chansey, who would otherwise wall it without the use of Nasty Plot. After a Z-Conversion, max speed Porygon-Z hits 459 Speed, a benchmark allowing it to surpass the entire unboosted metagame, as well as scarfers that are themselves below the 90 speed benchmark. In addition, gaining +1 to its defenses makes Porygon-Z surprisingly difficult to revenge kill, almost requiring a scarfed Ground-type such as Landorus-T and Garchomp to defeat. Even very powerful attacks like Scarf Latios's Draco Meteor fail to deal even 70% to Porygon-Z after a Conversion boost.
I don't believe Porygon-Z should be the first pokemon to be looked at for a quickban by any means. There is certainly counterplay to it, as it needs to find a window to set up its Conversion; however, 85/70/75 should not be underestimated as bulk for its ability to take one hit, and neither Normal nor Electric offers many weaknesses to attack. It also struggles to break through stall without using uncommon sets that damage its stellar performance against more offensive teams. However, I believe that Porygon-Z is a very dangerous offensive threat that should be kept in mind as the meta develops, should a lack of additional counterplay arise to handle it.
People are talking about Duggy but let's remember that we've got precedent from RS that Duggy being on par with the rest of the tier isn't a problem as long as we don't have Pokemon that have a single digit number of total checks and counters. We've also learned from ORAS than even having a single Pokemon in the tier that is extremely difficult to check or counter, or as a result of its existence makes its playstyle extremely difficult to check or counter, can make Pokemon with Sub-400 BST borderline broken if they have a trapping ability.
We can design the metagame to our own preference. We could opt to push the meta in its current direction, where extremely broken checks extremely broken to the point it actually suppresses Dugtrio from seeing play because there's enough broken stuff to check other broken stuff. We could opt to entirely ban everything that pushes the meta, leaving trappers in an average state. We could opt to let a little bit of the broken stay, but drop the trappers because the current balance of broken is too delicate to have trappers in play.
The one thing we don't need to do is say that "everything deserves a fair chance at a suspect" and in the same breath spit at Shadow Tag (or trapping in general) in disgust as if it's some sort of broken force that surpasses MRay. We twisted our tongues and tore up a decade of precedent in order to effectively say "Sableye + Gothitelle is broken in the ORAS OU metagame, but Gothitelle isn't individually broken and we want to give Sableye a second chance" and so we did. We gave Sableye a second chance. We still banned it. We don't even have evidence that Sab + Stag is broken in SMOU and there is no known compelling reason to ban Stag other than Sab, at least not from XYOU and back, we'd need to allow Stag to disprove this. There is also no precedent that would imply that if Sab + Stag was broken in the SMOU meta, that Stag was the unhealthy aspect of the duo and not Sableye (we only have precedent against it, even if that precedent is mostly invalid from being set in a different generation).
tl;dr- People need to stop viewing trapping as pure cancer when we barely banned it in ORAS as an edge case suspect to keep a broken pokemon in a tier for a few months.
We can design the metagame to our own preference. We could opt to push the meta in its current direction, where extremely broken checks extremely broken to the point it actually suppresses Dugtrio from seeing play because there's enough broken stuff to check other broken stuff. We could opt to entirely ban everything that pushes the meta, leaving trappers in an average state. We could opt to let a little bit of the broken stay, but drop the trappers because the current balance of broken is too delicate to have trappers in play.
The one thing we don't need to do is say that "everything deserves a fair chance at a suspect" and in the same breath spit at Shadow Tag (or trapping in general) in disgust as if it's some sort of broken force that surpasses MRay. We twisted our tongues and tore up a decade of precedent in order to effectively say "Sableye + Gothitelle is broken in the ORAS OU metagame, but Gothitelle isn't individually broken and we want to give Sableye a second chance" and so we did. We gave Sableye a second chance. We still banned it. We don't even have evidence that Sab + Stag is broken in SMOU and there is no known compelling reason to ban Stag other than Sab, at least not from XYOU and back, we'd need to allow Stag to disprove this. There is also no precedent that would imply that if Sab + Stag was broken in the SMOU meta, that Stag was the unhealthy aspect of the duo and not Sableye (we only have precedent against it, even if that precedent is mostly invalid from being set in a different generation).
tl;dr- People need to stop viewing trapping as pure cancer when we barely banned it in ORAS as an edge case suspect to keep a broken pokemon in a tier for a few months.
Everything that can be said about what's currently "on the radar" has pretty much been said, so I'm not gonna bother repeating anything.
I do, however, have a question for the OU council (and tiering leaders for other tiers:) what is the policy on Z-moves going to be?
There hasn't been a lot of discussion on these, but I think they're going to have a major impact on the metagame. It's something to think of for long-term but it'd be good to have a plan.
At the moment there's two good Z-move sets (Z-Rain Dance Manaphy and Z-conversion Porygon-2) that have gotten some attention, but I'm not convinced either is overpowered, nor do I believe there exists any other Z-move set at this time that is suspect worthy or even particularly prominent.
However, I think there's a high probability that Z-moves will push some pokemon over the edge, pokemon that would otherwise not be broken or even particularly amazing. Unlike Megastones, Z-crystals function on all pokemon that have a corresponding move for that crystal, so banning the crystal would be very unwise (in the same way banning Speed Boost because of Blaziken would be, but on an even greater scale.)
There are a few ways I can see Z-moves becoming a problem (please note I'm not claiming any example sets I mention are overpowering, or even particularly good, I just want to argue that the potential for pokemon becoming too much based on the wide variety of Z-moves is there. using some example sets.)
Boosting Sets. Some of these have already gotten attention, and I mentioned two already. Z-splash and Z-celebrate/happy hour/etc. are obviously the strongest, while not having the best distribution, but I see potential for the more mundane Z-boosters to push some pokemon over the edge. For example:
But a far more problematic one is Rockium-Z Aegislash, who can use Continental Crush (200 BP with Head Smash) to OHKO Mandibuzz and Mantine without the massive recoil damage, who would otherwise be very strong checks to aegis. It's so strong that Mandibuzz has a chance to be OHKOed after rocks (Mantine is always OHKOed) even with no attack investment. Shadowball combined with Continental Crush is also enough to KO Toxapex with the right EV spread.
Now, Aegislash is already a ridiculously strong pokemon, and I think lure sets like these just make it go from arguably way too strong to definitely way too strong. But Aegislash is not the only pokemon capable of running sets like these, especially since many mediocre moves are boosted to very strong ones when used as Z-moves. Just a few I can think of right now:
Nukes. Sometimes, Z-moves give a pokemon just enough power to muscle past its conventional checks, whether it be a STAB or a coverage move. This is especially true of set-up sweepers.
Going back to Aegislash, Toxapex is a good answer which can take even LO Shadowballs, but Shadowball followed up by Z-Shadowball almost always KO's after rocks. Hippowdon is always KOed by this, and 252/252+ Celesteela also has a chance to die after SR.
But other than brokesword, more pokemon can do this:
-----------------
So I'm not claiming these have no downsides. They take up your item slot, and can only be used once per battle. Still, I think they're gonna have a large impact on the meta, as a lot of games are won just by removing one certain pokemon from the opponent's team. It's also entirely possibly that some pokemon's Z-sets will be too much just on their own (Manaphy certainly comes to mind, between the Z-RD and Z-Ice sets.)
It's impossible to tell at this point what will or won't be broken with the addition of Z-moves, but I think some thought should be put into the following questions:
What happens if a previously balanced pokemon becomes over-the-top by running Z-sets? This is something I definitely think is going to happen eventually. I think it's agreed that we can't ban a Z-crystal or Z-move when it's only broken on one/few pokemon, but at the same time it would be a shame to lose an OU staple because of this new mechanic, especially ones that keep many other pokemon in check (without being overcentralizing, that is.)
What happens if a move with low distribution is too strong as a Z-move? For example: in the event that Porygon-Z's Z-conversion set is found to be too strong in whatever tier, would P-Z, Conversion, or Z-Conversion be banned?
If a Z-move is inherently too strong, would it be banned, or would the most potent users of it be banned? I think Hyper Beam and Giga Impact are candidates, they hit very hard with no drawback (sans the item and moveslot,) have very good neutral coverage, and are given to virtually every pokemon. However, if they're only broken when used on a few specific sets on, say, a dozen pokemon, and fine on the other hundreds of pokemon, what gets banned?
If a Z-move is banned, would the combination of that move and its Z-crystal be banned, or would using it in battle be banned? Say for whatever reason that Z-Bulk Up is too strong on nearly anything that gets it. Bulk Up still has competitive use, unlike things like Splash or Celebrate, and conceivably one could want to run a set that includes Bulk Up and another Z-fighting move. Would this be accommodated?
That's all I can think of right now. There's certainly gonna be some decisions that have to be made.
I do, however, have a question for the OU council (and tiering leaders for other tiers:) what is the policy on Z-moves going to be?
There hasn't been a lot of discussion on these, but I think they're going to have a major impact on the metagame. It's something to think of for long-term but it'd be good to have a plan.
At the moment there's two good Z-move sets (Z-Rain Dance Manaphy and Z-conversion Porygon-2) that have gotten some attention, but I'm not convinced either is overpowered, nor do I believe there exists any other Z-move set at this time that is suspect worthy or even particularly prominent.
However, I think there's a high probability that Z-moves will push some pokemon over the edge, pokemon that would otherwise not be broken or even particularly amazing. Unlike Megastones, Z-crystals function on all pokemon that have a corresponding move for that crystal, so banning the crystal would be very unwise (in the same way banning Speed Boost because of Blaziken would be, but on an even greater scale.)
There are a few ways I can see Z-moves becoming a problem (please note I'm not claiming any example sets I mention are overpowering, or even particularly good, I just want to argue that the potential for pokemon becoming too much based on the wide variety of Z-moves is there. using some example sets.)
Boosting Sets. Some of these have already gotten attention, and I mentioned two already. Z-splash and Z-celebrate/happy hour/etc. are obviously the strongest, while not having the best distribution, but I see potential for the more mundane Z-boosters to push some pokemon over the edge. For example:
- Hoopa-U, if it isn't already too strong, can now run a Rock Polish-esque set with Z-Snatch.
- Z-Electric Terrain might push a strong but not overpowering pokemon, Xurkitree, over the edge.
- Latios gets Nasty Plot through Z-Heal Block, and both Latis get it through Z-Psycho Shift, which could make them too good against more defensive teams; both also get Z-trick for a RP set.
- Z-gravity might make Landorus-I too much as well.
- Z-weathers have incredibly wide distribution, and could become a problem, especially with water and fire types, many of whom get Rain Dance or Sunny Day.
But a far more problematic one is Rockium-Z Aegislash, who can use Continental Crush (200 BP with Head Smash) to OHKO Mandibuzz and Mantine without the massive recoil damage, who would otherwise be very strong checks to aegis. It's so strong that Mandibuzz has a chance to be OHKOed after rocks (Mantine is always OHKOed) even with no attack investment. Shadowball combined with Continental Crush is also enough to KO Toxapex with the right EV spread.
Now, Aegislash is already a ridiculously strong pokemon, and I think lure sets like these just make it go from arguably way too strong to definitely way too strong. But Aegislash is not the only pokemon capable of running sets like these, especially since many mediocre moves are boosted to very strong ones when used as Z-moves. Just a few I can think of right now:
- Z-Bounce (160 BP Flying) Azumarill can OHKO Mega Venusaur after some chip damage, and with Z-Dig it can OHKO Toxapex.
- Kingdra also gets bounce, and can lure grass types this way as well; Draco Meteor+Z-Bounce KO's some of rain's hardest answers, such as Mega Venusaur, Amoonguss, and AV Tangrowth, after a small amount of chip damage.
- Hyper Beam and Giga Impact have almost universal distribution, and become very strong 200 BP moves (with no recharge IIRC) with good neutral coverage that can act as lures on a lot of pokemon. For example, +2 Z-Hyper Beam allows Serperior to reliably break past Mega Venusaur. NP Thundurus is often strapped for coverage as it can't simultaneously run Grass Knot, Psychic, HP Ice, HP Flying, Focus Blast, etc. all at the same time, but +2 Z-Hyper Beam ruins most of its checks, OHKOing or very nearly OHKOing all of Lando-T, Mega Venusaur, Latias, Hippowdon, and more; Thunderbolt and Z-Hyper Beam also have a chance to beat Unaware Clefable after rocks. Toxapex is a very strong answer to CM Keldeo, but only needs a bit of chip damage to be KOed by +1 Z-Hyper Beam; many other Keldeo answers also die to this.
- Pokemon with wide movepools, like Jirachi, Mew,and Tyranitar, can potentially run a lot of lure sets, as weak moves become very strong moves when used as a Z-move
Nukes. Sometimes, Z-moves give a pokemon just enough power to muscle past its conventional checks, whether it be a STAB or a coverage move. This is especially true of set-up sweepers.
Going back to Aegislash, Toxapex is a good answer which can take even LO Shadowballs, but Shadowball followed up by Z-Shadowball almost always KO's after rocks. Hippowdon is always KOed by this, and 252/252+ Celesteela also has a chance to die after SR.
But other than brokesword, more pokemon can do this:
- Azumarill can check Garchomp by surviving an unboosted Earthquake and KOing with Play Rough, but Garchomp can OHKO with Z-Earthquake. Earthquake followed up by Z-Earthquake is also enough to take out Unaware Quagsire and Clefable, who would otherwise counter SD sets; +2 Z-Earthquake OHKOs basically anything that doesn't resist.
- Aegislash cannot check Tapu Lele if it's running Z-Shadowball, as Terrain boosted Psychic combined with Z-Shadowball usually OHKO's. This is also true of Jirachi.
- Manaphy no longer needs to run Psychic for Mega Venusaur, nor HP Fire for Ferrothorn; +3 Z-Ice Beam very nearly OHKO's both of them. I actually can't think of anything that would counter TG+RD+Z-Icium Manaphy, except SDef Unaware Clefable and Unaware Pyukumuku.
- Talonflame has fallen from grace, but with its high speed and Z-Brave Bird, it may still have a niche. Almost nothing can take an SD-boosed Z-Brave Bird: 252/240+ Lando-T has a small chance to die from health after rocks, Slowbro is OHKOed, p. much everything that doesn't resist just dies.
-----------------
So I'm not claiming these have no downsides. They take up your item slot, and can only be used once per battle. Still, I think they're gonna have a large impact on the meta, as a lot of games are won just by removing one certain pokemon from the opponent's team. It's also entirely possibly that some pokemon's Z-sets will be too much just on their own (Manaphy certainly comes to mind, between the Z-RD and Z-Ice sets.)
It's impossible to tell at this point what will or won't be broken with the addition of Z-moves, but I think some thought should be put into the following questions:
What happens if a previously balanced pokemon becomes over-the-top by running Z-sets? This is something I definitely think is going to happen eventually. I think it's agreed that we can't ban a Z-crystal or Z-move when it's only broken on one/few pokemon, but at the same time it would be a shame to lose an OU staple because of this new mechanic, especially ones that keep many other pokemon in check (without being overcentralizing, that is.)
What happens if a move with low distribution is too strong as a Z-move? For example: in the event that Porygon-Z's Z-conversion set is found to be too strong in whatever tier, would P-Z, Conversion, or Z-Conversion be banned?
If a Z-move is inherently too strong, would it be banned, or would the most potent users of it be banned? I think Hyper Beam and Giga Impact are candidates, they hit very hard with no drawback (sans the item and moveslot,) have very good neutral coverage, and are given to virtually every pokemon. However, if they're only broken when used on a few specific sets on, say, a dozen pokemon, and fine on the other hundreds of pokemon, what gets banned?
If a Z-move is banned, would the combination of that move and its Z-crystal be banned, or would using it in battle be banned? Say for whatever reason that Z-Bulk Up is too strong on nearly anything that gets it. Bulk Up still has competitive use, unlike things like Splash or Celebrate, and conceivably one could want to run a set that includes Bulk Up and another Z-fighting move. Would this be accommodated?
That's all I can think of right now. There's certainly gonna be some decisions that have to be made.
It really bugs me to see poeple actually pushing for an Aegislash quickban. It's like the worst thing council could do at this point.
I feel like most of poeple in this thread are looking at SM with ORAS glass, it looks like they lost their repair and they want them back, starting with an Aegislash departure. I've seen many overexaggerations about Aegislash and feel like poeple refuse to adapt to a new meta, just like when Aegislash was retested and rejected by a super majority in ORAS after being kicked out by a very slim margin.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really saying Aegislash shouldn't be banned although I'm fine with it staying around for reason stated previously (diversity in the meta is a bad thing at Pokémon, we saw it in ORAS and I personnally don't want to see an other meta like this), what I'm saying is that Aegislash needs to be suspected as the best Pokémon in the meta, just like Clefable and possibly many other mons should have been suspected back in ORAS but unfortunately didn't, but, at first we need to get rid of all the broken Pokémon that make Aegislash looking like an absolute need to every team (Pheromosa, Genesect, maybe some other) and then we would see if the meta still revolve around Aegislash and how it turns out because who knows, if Aegislash wasnt needed the check half the meta, maybe we wouldnt see it that much, and therefore wouldn't be a major problem.
It's not because X mons has always been OU that it has to be OU in every gen, if the meta turns out to be unfavorable to it, then "too bad" for it.
I feel like most of poeple in this thread are looking at SM with ORAS glass, it looks like they lost their repair and they want them back, starting with an Aegislash departure. I've seen many overexaggerations about Aegislash and feel like poeple refuse to adapt to a new meta, just like when Aegislash was retested and rejected by a super majority in ORAS after being kicked out by a very slim margin.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really saying Aegislash shouldn't be banned although I'm fine with it staying around for reason stated previously (diversity in the meta is a bad thing at Pokémon, we saw it in ORAS and I personnally don't want to see an other meta like this), what I'm saying is that Aegislash needs to be suspected as the best Pokémon in the meta, just like Clefable and possibly many other mons should have been suspected back in ORAS but unfortunately didn't, but, at first we need to get rid of all the broken Pokémon that make Aegislash looking like an absolute need to every team (Pheromosa, Genesect, maybe some other) and then we would see if the meta still revolve around Aegislash and how it turns out because who knows, if Aegislash wasnt needed the check half the meta, maybe we wouldnt see it that much, and therefore wouldn't be a major problem.
Last word on this, Aegislash doesn't deny creativity, it's not because the pool of "viable" mon is smaller that you can't be creative. You'll still be able to run sick moveset and the great mons you talk about will fell in lower tiers, they will find use in OU as they always did, they will just need more support, but that doesn't mean they'd be completely unplayable in OU.
It's not because X mons has always been OU that it has to be OU in every gen, if the meta turns out to be unfavorable to it, then "too bad" for it.
Z-move stuff is interesting actually, for policy purposes - the bans are gonna have to be either complex or blanket, there's no real middle ground. But I guess we'll jump that hurdle if we come to it.
On Aegislash - I'm pro suspect test since suspect tests are fairer and set better standards for us moving forward. Although, as [some user] said, if Aegislash was suspected 3 times in a row and banned each time with no real changes to it... Is there any point in ever re-testing it, say, in a hypothetical SM2 or DP remake meta? I doubt it. If it's suspected again and banned, it should stay banned for good *saving* some sort of direct nerf from GF or massive power creep.
I am 100% against a suspect test on Kings shield. It's entirely disingenuous. Of course we'll all prefer the meta without it, so the ban will get passed, but that isn't the point. It's a nerf masquerading as a ban, a foregone conclusion masquerading as proper suspect process. We could reach the exact same conclusions suspect testing Aegislash + Sacred Sword/Shadow Ball as mentioned, only with added complexity. If it (that is, King's shield) is even remotely likely to be banned there is no point whatsoever in suspect testing the move in the first place, don't go to the trouble of a test and just quickban it, backlash be dammed. It's a horrible standard to set for future suspect ladders.
On Aegislash - I'm pro suspect test since suspect tests are fairer and set better standards for us moving forward. Although, as [some user] said, if Aegislash was suspected 3 times in a row and banned each time with no real changes to it... Is there any point in ever re-testing it, say, in a hypothetical SM2 or DP remake meta? I doubt it. If it's suspected again and banned, it should stay banned for good *saving* some sort of direct nerf from GF or massive power creep.
I am 100% against a suspect test on Kings shield. It's entirely disingenuous. Of course we'll all prefer the meta without it, so the ban will get passed, but that isn't the point. It's a nerf masquerading as a ban, a foregone conclusion masquerading as proper suspect process. We could reach the exact same conclusions suspect testing Aegislash + Sacred Sword/Shadow Ball as mentioned, only with added complexity. If it (that is, King's shield) is even remotely likely to be banned there is no point whatsoever in suspect testing the move in the first place, don't go to the trouble of a test and just quickban it, backlash be dammed. It's a horrible standard to set for future suspect ladders.
Please for the love of God don't call a move ban a "complex" ban, complex ban is when you prevent 2 elements from being used at the same time (a.k.a Swift Swim + Drizzle), move bans, pokémon bans or abilities bans are simple bans, just because it's rarer for moves to be banned doesn't mean it is a complex ban!
By the way nerfing is WAY superior to banning, just saying, if this game was ours and we were not only meta-gaming I can assure you we would be doing nerfs all the time! Every competitive game in the world (bar TCGs for obvious reasons) is doing nerfs instead of banning, so yes every time we can "nerf" a poké without it being a complex ban or altering cartridge mechanics we should be doing exactly this.
By the way nerfing is WAY superior to banning, just saying, if this game was ours and we were not only meta-gaming I can assure you we would be doing nerfs all the time! Every competitive game in the world (bar TCGs for obvious reasons) is doing nerfs instead of banning, so yes every time we can "nerf" a poké without it being a complex ban or altering cartridge mechanics we should be doing exactly this.
And i think its more healty to the metagame, in the aegis case, since aegis have a unique type.
Last edited:
Considering King's Shield is a move exclusive to Ageislash [And Smergle] it dosen't really fall into the Swagger case of 'this is broken on pretty much anyone who gets it' because it's exclusive.
It's like the 'Ban Dark Void and free Darkrai' argument. King's Shield is an integral part of Ageislash, and if that's what makes Ageislash broken; it's still Ageislash that is broken and should be banned. Did Speed Boost get banned to free Blaziken? No, because Speed Boost isn't broken on Ninjask, Sharpedo, Scolipede and Yanmega.
The only time something that isn't a pokemon should be banned is when there are multiple abusers and the majority of said abusers are broken due to that factor; or it is inherently uncompetitive. See: Moody; which could let Bidoof sweep in Ubers and was massively uncompetitive reduceing games to coin tosses. Another example; Gen 5's DrizzleSwim ban; which probobly would have either seen the banning of an entire playstyle [Although I still think Drizzle should have been banned in Gen 5] or would have seen Kingdra; Ludicolo and Kabutops at least go to Ubers.
If King's Shield made 10 pokemon broken; then maybe you could make a case for banning it. But only Ageislash is broken. Hence; the problem is Ageislash. King's Shield cannot be proven to be the issue when no-one else gets it except Smergle.
I'm sure this discussion was done to death both in X/Y and ORAS' Ageislash tests. There isn't much point bringing it up again.
It's like the 'Ban Dark Void and free Darkrai' argument. King's Shield is an integral part of Ageislash, and if that's what makes Ageislash broken; it's still Ageislash that is broken and should be banned. Did Speed Boost get banned to free Blaziken? No, because Speed Boost isn't broken on Ninjask, Sharpedo, Scolipede and Yanmega.
The only time something that isn't a pokemon should be banned is when there are multiple abusers and the majority of said abusers are broken due to that factor; or it is inherently uncompetitive. See: Moody; which could let Bidoof sweep in Ubers and was massively uncompetitive reduceing games to coin tosses. Another example; Gen 5's DrizzleSwim ban; which probobly would have either seen the banning of an entire playstyle [Although I still think Drizzle should have been banned in Gen 5] or would have seen Kingdra; Ludicolo and Kabutops at least go to Ubers.
If King's Shield made 10 pokemon broken; then maybe you could make a case for banning it. But only Ageislash is broken. Hence; the problem is Ageislash. King's Shield cannot be proven to be the issue when no-one else gets it except Smergle.
I'm sure this discussion was done to death both in X/Y and ORAS' Ageislash tests. There isn't much point bringing it up again.
ftr precedents are really never established at all but banning king's shield sounds arbitrarily weird to me in general if we're looking at it from a stance based on precedent. note that i'm not arguing that aegislash may or may not be broken
what is the reason to ban the move(on its own)? because it's really good on aegislash? or is it because the move itself is uncompetitive/broken/unhealthy?
is king's shield uncompetitive? no, I don't think so. it doesn't seem to be particularly reliant on reducing an opposing player's action like thunder wave or etc might, it just creates situations that limit options. but that's not an inherently bad thing- trapping is a case that does this too.
is king's shield broken? no lol. it's not an extremely exceptional move that has raw stats to be unbalanced. protect with an attack drop if attacked with a contact move, but status moves can go through. on paper, it shouldn't be.
is king's shield unhealthy? probably not. it could be, but you can play around it. this definitely is defined on whether you consider 50/50 situations to be broken or not(sucker punch is definitely not broken for instance- should i attack? can i switch? should I call the bluff and use idk recover or somes?- it's similar with king's shield), or rather situations that limit or harm potential options as a whole. i don't think this is the case here either.
now that the move's established as not directly being broken, what is it used on that makes people consider this way?
the only two pokemon that learn the move are aegislash and smeargle. i'm really not going to explain that smeargle is probably not broken with king's shield(this is a bad way to look at it assuming it was needed to be banned, but we've already established that the move isn't really broken/unhealthy/uncompetitive on its own means)
if there's something that needs to be banned, it should be the abuser(being, aegislash, if you really think it's broken) and not move being abused. that's more streamlined of an option than just a direct blanket ban(over a move that doesn't seem to be broken as a whole)
what is the reason to ban the move(on its own)? because it's really good on aegislash? or is it because the move itself is uncompetitive/broken/unhealthy?
is king's shield uncompetitive? no, I don't think so. it doesn't seem to be particularly reliant on reducing an opposing player's action like thunder wave or etc might, it just creates situations that limit options. but that's not an inherently bad thing- trapping is a case that does this too.
is king's shield broken? no lol. it's not an extremely exceptional move that has raw stats to be unbalanced. protect with an attack drop if attacked with a contact move, but status moves can go through. on paper, it shouldn't be.
is king's shield unhealthy? probably not. it could be, but you can play around it. this definitely is defined on whether you consider 50/50 situations to be broken or not(sucker punch is definitely not broken for instance- should i attack? can i switch? should I call the bluff and use idk recover or somes?- it's similar with king's shield), or rather situations that limit or harm potential options as a whole. i don't think this is the case here either.
now that the move's established as not directly being broken, what is it used on that makes people consider this way?
the only two pokemon that learn the move are aegislash and smeargle. i'm really not going to explain that smeargle is probably not broken with king's shield(this is a bad way to look at it assuming it was needed to be banned, but we've already established that the move isn't really broken/unhealthy/uncompetitive on its own means)
if there's something that needs to be banned, it should be the abuser(being, aegislash, if you really think it's broken) and not move being abused. that's more streamlined of an option than just a direct blanket ban(over a move that doesn't seem to be broken as a whole)
Last edited:
- Status