I don't want to take a hit from Rhydon. My Exeggutor does not want to be damaged or paralyzed any more than he has to. I want to make it hard as hell for Rhydon to press anything. I don't want to give up any momentum. And most importantly, I don't have to. I'm not compelled in anyway to thunderbolt or drillpeck Rhydon, unless I've lost. To bring out Zapdos in the midgame would be great if team preview were a thing. We could use our pokemon more dynamically. But it's not a thing in gen 1 ou, which means that midgame Zapdos is arbitrarily risky given that it simply need not come out in the midgame. We are not compelled to make that play. Zapdos is perfectly happy to not make that play, no matter how tantalizing it might look.
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
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.
-
Get your votes in for the 2025 Smog Awards!
OU RBY OU Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Enigami
- Start date
I just want to outline that giving Rhydon entry points has varying degrees of how bad it is -> it's obviously good to be able to bring zapdos in midgame, presuming no rhydon, and some teams are way more okay with the rhydon actually coming in. So the expected value of sending zap out is still good because if there's no rhydon it's good and if there is rhydon it's not so bad. The main critique not encompassed by this is that if you don't reveal zapdos, the opponent is more likely to sacrifice their rhydon, but this has some arbitrary value to it that I think decreases in a tournament setting
Here is a series of premises that I believe to be plainly true:
1. There exist midgame situations where getting Zapdos in will press your advantage way more strongly than anything else IF they don't have Rhydon.
2. You can sometimes infer from early revealed information that seeing a Rhydon behind is less likely than normal.
3. There will be game situations where you are simply going to lose if you keep playing without your Zapdos at all (falling behind from early luck / bad match ups / bad reads / similar)
Any combination of 1+2, 1+3, or 2+3 verifying in the same game is likely good enough cause to full send your Zapdos in the spot where it can break the game open and simply accepting defeat in the event they have a Rhydon, in exchange of drastically raising your win chances in the event that they don't, and this will result in an overall increase in your expected winrate in the long run.
This is what people say when they recommend bringing Zapdos out in the midgame. I don't think anyone is blindly recommending full sending Zapdos in the midgame always. Rather they are saying that IF you find that spot to double switch it on a low HP Exeggutor or Cloyster or sleeping Snorlax etc; and the balance of "how likely am I to win if they have Rhydon" x "how likely am I to win if I keep playing without using my Zapdos at all" leans in favor of pulling the gamble; then you need to keep your eyes peeled and squeeze all the win% possible out of these spots, otherwise you are wasting some of Zapdos's potential.
1. There exist midgame situations where getting Zapdos in will press your advantage way more strongly than anything else IF they don't have Rhydon.
2. You can sometimes infer from early revealed information that seeing a Rhydon behind is less likely than normal.
3. There will be game situations where you are simply going to lose if you keep playing without your Zapdos at all (falling behind from early luck / bad match ups / bad reads / similar)
Any combination of 1+2, 1+3, or 2+3 verifying in the same game is likely good enough cause to full send your Zapdos in the spot where it can break the game open and simply accepting defeat in the event they have a Rhydon, in exchange of drastically raising your win chances in the event that they don't, and this will result in an overall increase in your expected winrate in the long run.
This is what people say when they recommend bringing Zapdos out in the midgame. I don't think anyone is blindly recommending full sending Zapdos in the midgame always. Rather they are saying that IF you find that spot to double switch it on a low HP Exeggutor or Cloyster or sleeping Snorlax etc; and the balance of "how likely am I to win if they have Rhydon" x "how likely am I to win if I keep playing without using my Zapdos at all" leans in favor of pulling the gamble; then you need to keep your eyes peeled and squeeze all the win% possible out of these spots, otherwise you are wasting some of Zapdos's potential.
Approaching this game with such an inflexible mindset is perhaps not the most conducive to long-term success, especially regarding one of the most potent breakers around. The point is that there is a legitimate time and place when mid game Zapdos is far superior to end game Zapdos for the purpose of achieving the win.
Of course it varies from player to player, but on average Rhydon is going to be sitting around ~30% usage, so about 70% of the time, there won’t be a Rhydon. Many times you’ll have to ask yourself if the reward is worth the risk, and quite frequently the answer can be yes, especially if you are able to mitigate how bad seeing a Rhydon is at that current point in the game. And, like Amaranth said, there’s lots of potential information you could extract from your opponent’s team to change the weights of Rhydon likelihood; the mid-game can mean a lot of different points throughout a game, it’s not necessarily the immediate post-opener turns. You do have time to gather information.
I will say this is also assuming one cannot use both mid-game and end-game Zapdos within the same battle. The moniker of “mid-game Zapdos” does not necessarily require it to be fully used and then die or experience some other form of great reduction of usefulness in the mid-game. It can be perfectly acceptable to send it out once or twice to force something out or try to soften things up before bailing out and just sitting there until the end of the game, daring the opponent to try to accommodate for it without messing up in some way. The loss of information advantage on your end can of course hurt your Zapdos’s chances of winning, but this is far from meaning they still aren’t generally good in a non-Rhydon matchup and the opponent very possibly could have already been playing in a way to accommodate the matchup depending on what they’ve gleaned from you and your team throughout the battle and scouting related things.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I believe this issue should be approached with more nuance than you seem to give it. None of us deny the isolated strength of end-game Zapdos either. Forgive me if I am incorrect about any of my perceptions on your stance.
Of course it varies from player to player, but on average Rhydon is going to be sitting around ~30% usage, so about 70% of the time, there won’t be a Rhydon. Many times you’ll have to ask yourself if the reward is worth the risk, and quite frequently the answer can be yes, especially if you are able to mitigate how bad seeing a Rhydon is at that current point in the game. And, like Amaranth said, there’s lots of potential information you could extract from your opponent’s team to change the weights of Rhydon likelihood; the mid-game can mean a lot of different points throughout a game, it’s not necessarily the immediate post-opener turns. You do have time to gather information.
I will say this is also assuming one cannot use both mid-game and end-game Zapdos within the same battle. The moniker of “mid-game Zapdos” does not necessarily require it to be fully used and then die or experience some other form of great reduction of usefulness in the mid-game. It can be perfectly acceptable to send it out once or twice to force something out or try to soften things up before bailing out and just sitting there until the end of the game, daring the opponent to try to accommodate for it without messing up in some way. The loss of information advantage on your end can of course hurt your Zapdos’s chances of winning, but this is far from meaning they still aren’t generally good in a non-Rhydon matchup and the opponent very possibly could have already been playing in a way to accommodate the matchup depending on what they’ve gleaned from you and your team throughout the battle and scouting related things.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I believe this issue should be approached with more nuance than you seem to give it. None of us deny the isolated strength of end-game Zapdos either. Forgive me if I am incorrect about any of my perceptions on your stance.
Last edited:
What does it mean, literally speaking, for Zapdos to be the best comeback pokemon in the game? It has been said of Zapdos by some, but what does that actually mean? It means the pokemon with the highest chance to overcome the highest amount of obstacles. In any game in which it is said that X character has great comeback ability, that is what is meant. So, what happens when you take a pokemon that can overcome (just using an arbitrary number) 6 challegning obstacles and reduce the amount of obstacles it needs to overcome to 2? It becomes a nuclear weapon.
What is the most important part of the game? Obviously the end game. It is the only part of the game that you need to win. Losing the early game means that your opponent has the advantage going into the mid game. Losing the mid game means your opponent has the advantage going into the end game. Losing the end game means you lose the game. And of course, winning the end game, despite winning or losing in the early or mid game, means you win the game. What should one take away from this? You should always be thinking about the end game at every turn. Whenever I come back from a long break, my first rusty loss is almost always due to playing through the motions while forgetting to stay conscious of this.
The old anti Zapdos argument that if one ran into a Rhydon, "You're forced into a 5 vs 6 situation," was never true. Nor is it true that if the Rhydon player knows what he is doing, we are actually playing a 5 vs 5. I said that for the sake of simplification. You're actually always playing a 6 vs 6. What the past anti Zapdos haters didn't understand was a concept called "Potential Energy." If a country with nuclear weapons goes to war with a country without nuclear weapons, the country without nuclear weapons uses their fullest potential in the war, whereas the nuclear armed country goes to war without their best weapon. They are playing, as the old Zapdos haters would say, a 5 vs 6. Even if the nuclear country starts to seemingly be put on the back foot, everyone knows what the end game has in store if they are forced to use their best weapon. Those nuclear weapons which they can potentially use are their real power.
Rhydon teams absolutely do not make up in the mid game for the power that Zapdos brings in the end game.
Whether or not you can bring Zapdos out in the mid game doesn't really matter. I've already said that can work. In the same way putting earthquake on reflect lax can work. The question is whether or not you should be doing that. This is not a univariate analysis. Yes, Rhydon is one variable (and an important one!) to take into consideration when determining whether or not Zapdos should be a primarily mid game or end game pokemon. But, even if Golem and Rhydon didn't exist, Zapdos would still be best situated in the end game given your other options (or at least the other options you should have) in the mid game. There are exceptions to rules. This goes without say.
Here's the thing: I have played the way you guys have played. You can't tell me anything new. I've played Zapdos a lot. Years ago, I was playing like you guys. The difference here is that I'm, to my great surprise, early to something new. And I'm talking to people who just have not seen the light yet but will. I'm not sure why I'm early, but it probably has to do with Chanseyless. I just so happen to be the first to learn to play Zapdos in its optimal form with Chanseyless. There probably was something (something which I have not thoroughly analyzed) about the old meta game which incentivized us to play Zapdos a certain way. But it's over.
Edit: probably the most obvious change is that you have new options in the mid game.
What is the most important part of the game? Obviously the end game. It is the only part of the game that you need to win. Losing the early game means that your opponent has the advantage going into the mid game. Losing the mid game means your opponent has the advantage going into the end game. Losing the end game means you lose the game. And of course, winning the end game, despite winning or losing in the early or mid game, means you win the game. What should one take away from this? You should always be thinking about the end game at every turn. Whenever I come back from a long break, my first rusty loss is almost always due to playing through the motions while forgetting to stay conscious of this.
The old anti Zapdos argument that if one ran into a Rhydon, "You're forced into a 5 vs 6 situation," was never true. Nor is it true that if the Rhydon player knows what he is doing, we are actually playing a 5 vs 5. I said that for the sake of simplification. You're actually always playing a 6 vs 6. What the past anti Zapdos haters didn't understand was a concept called "Potential Energy." If a country with nuclear weapons goes to war with a country without nuclear weapons, the country without nuclear weapons uses their fullest potential in the war, whereas the nuclear armed country goes to war without their best weapon. They are playing, as the old Zapdos haters would say, a 5 vs 6. Even if the nuclear country starts to seemingly be put on the back foot, everyone knows what the end game has in store if they are forced to use their best weapon. Those nuclear weapons which they can potentially use are their real power.
Rhydon teams absolutely do not make up in the mid game for the power that Zapdos brings in the end game.
Whether or not you can bring Zapdos out in the mid game doesn't really matter. I've already said that can work. In the same way putting earthquake on reflect lax can work. The question is whether or not you should be doing that. This is not a univariate analysis. Yes, Rhydon is one variable (and an important one!) to take into consideration when determining whether or not Zapdos should be a primarily mid game or end game pokemon. But, even if Golem and Rhydon didn't exist, Zapdos would still be best situated in the end game given your other options (or at least the other options you should have) in the mid game. There are exceptions to rules. This goes without say.
Here's the thing: I have played the way you guys have played. You can't tell me anything new. I've played Zapdos a lot. Years ago, I was playing like you guys. The difference here is that I'm, to my great surprise, early to something new. And I'm talking to people who just have not seen the light yet but will. I'm not sure why I'm early, but it probably has to do with Chanseyless. I just so happen to be the first to learn to play Zapdos in its optimal form with Chanseyless. There probably was something (something which I have not thoroughly analyzed) about the old meta game which incentivized us to play Zapdos a certain way. But it's over.
Edit: probably the most obvious change is that you have new options in the mid game.
Last edited:
we have reached the stage of discussion where the only thing left to say is: team pastes + replays of such teams vs. strong players please
Recently I've been experimenting with dropping Tauros after skimming through some old RBY invitational replays and seeing McMeghan drop it quite a bit. LNumbers did the same recently in his rising stars win, and it made me wonder if there was anything to going Taurosless (were their results just from them just being better or Taurosless bringing an actual advantage)? If nothing else such experiments could lead me to ideas that enable tauros lead, which is very tempting in how anti meta it is into the Jynx epidemic.
Speaking of Tauros lead, I decided to start there because I had experimented with it before, and being prepared to sack Tauros to sleep does kind of make you play Taurosless, similar to how Chansey lead was a precursor to Chanseyless, so I decided to go back and see what I learned there.
This was the Tauros lead team I wound up being the most happy with in my experiments. I was delighted to see Serpi bring the same team w1 of SPL, because his had BB Chansey, which was the same as mine (accidentally remaking the wheel I think means you're finally understanding the tier somewhat). In games where Tauros got slept, getting sleep myself felt very whatever, because without Tauros you lose a lot of the pressure to abuse those free turns, so I preferred the boltbeam coverage + throwing out wave. Don also allowed me to drop boom on egg (main boom targets I find tend to be Zap and Chansey, which Don is usually trying to murder), so I could afford drain or normal coverage to pressure paralyzed targets. I could potentially even run all three because with Mie + Chansey in the back, I have enough wave coverage to run sleep 3 attacks egg.
This seemed to be the main advantage afforded by Tauros in the lead slot (other than the good Jynx matchup). I could potentially run a para heavy game and bust through stuff with 3 attacks egg in a way a normal don team couldn't. Then I could use sleep as a late game tool to gain an advantage in the endgame instead of an early means of pressure.
This seemed to be the idea with the McMeghan lap team (untitled 3). Sing cray Lap + stun psy beam/drain boom egg puts a lot of pressure on paralyzed pokemon. I took those ideas to the Tauros lead Don team with Zam lead (best para spreading lead there is + more consistent matchups, and beam egg bones Jynx anyway). I suppose this is also the idea full wrap operates under as well, where you para first and mostly use sleep at the end of the game to get a numbers advantage in the absence of having your own Tauros.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how much of a meme this is, despite the tests on ladder going pretty well. I will say that the surprise factor is very real when your opponent is preparing for Tauros and suddenly a Lap/Don shows up and turns the tables on their normals/Zap/parad Mie or whatever. The hostile sleepers can also put the opponent in a really bad spot when they're not expecting it, and unlike wrap, it's less immediately clear what your plan is because your team looks way more standard.
Whether it's better than simple cheese though I don't really know. I will say that I suspect the teams feel more robust than they are because Tauros doesn't have much defensive utility, so any weaknesses are less "on paper" and require more experience and experimentation to feel in how the offensive pressure drops. I suspect I will miss Tauros' talents the more I test these, but for the moment the teams feel surprisingly okay. I'll try playing around with them more, but thought I'd share in case anyone else has some insight.
(also, Bro is a big omission here, but I felt other pokemon that enable egg to break through parad pokemon would add another angle of justification beyond "it's a Bro instead of a Tauros!" So I haven't quite tested those yet).
Speaking of Tauros lead, I decided to start there because I had experimented with it before, and being prepared to sack Tauros to sleep does kind of make you play Taurosless, similar to how Chansey lead was a precursor to Chanseyless, so I decided to go back and see what I learned there.
This was the Tauros lead team I wound up being the most happy with in my experiments. I was delighted to see Serpi bring the same team w1 of SPL, because his had BB Chansey, which was the same as mine (accidentally remaking the wheel I think means you're finally understanding the tier somewhat). In games where Tauros got slept, getting sleep myself felt very whatever, because without Tauros you lose a lot of the pressure to abuse those free turns, so I preferred the boltbeam coverage + throwing out wave. Don also allowed me to drop boom on egg (main boom targets I find tend to be Zap and Chansey, which Don is usually trying to murder), so I could afford drain or normal coverage to pressure paralyzed targets. I could potentially even run all three because with Mie + Chansey in the back, I have enough wave coverage to run sleep 3 attacks egg.
This seemed to be the main advantage afforded by Tauros in the lead slot (other than the good Jynx matchup). I could potentially run a para heavy game and bust through stuff with 3 attacks egg in a way a normal don team couldn't. Then I could use sleep as a late game tool to gain an advantage in the endgame instead of an early means of pressure.
This seemed to be the idea with the McMeghan lap team (untitled 3). Sing cray Lap + stun psy beam/drain boom egg puts a lot of pressure on paralyzed pokemon. I took those ideas to the Tauros lead Don team with Zam lead (best para spreading lead there is + more consistent matchups, and beam egg bones Jynx anyway). I suppose this is also the idea full wrap operates under as well, where you para first and mostly use sleep at the end of the game to get a numbers advantage in the absence of having your own Tauros.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how much of a meme this is, despite the tests on ladder going pretty well. I will say that the surprise factor is very real when your opponent is preparing for Tauros and suddenly a Lap/Don shows up and turns the tables on their normals/Zap/parad Mie or whatever. The hostile sleepers can also put the opponent in a really bad spot when they're not expecting it, and unlike wrap, it's less immediately clear what your plan is because your team looks way more standard.
Whether it's better than simple cheese though I don't really know. I will say that I suspect the teams feel more robust than they are because Tauros doesn't have much defensive utility, so any weaknesses are less "on paper" and require more experience and experimentation to feel in how the offensive pressure drops. I suspect I will miss Tauros' talents the more I test these, but for the moment the teams feel surprisingly okay. I'll try playing around with them more, but thought I'd share in case anyone else has some insight.
(also, Bro is a big omission here, but I felt other pokemon that enable egg to break through parad pokemon would add another angle of justification beyond "it's a Bro instead of a Tauros!" So I haven't quite tested those yet).
have my bullleads as a reward for your curiosity dangerk1d
https://pokepast.es/5641fec2d8489714
https://pokepast.es/7eac492f2fa15306
https://pokepast.es/35f089e03604d613 / https://pokepast.es/25c035b344a35e9c
https://pokepast.es/5210cfc723b92ff7
https://pokepast.es/5641fec2d8489714
https://pokepast.es/7eac492f2fa15306
https://pokepast.es/35f089e03604d613 / https://pokepast.es/25c035b344a35e9c
https://pokepast.es/5210cfc723b92ff7
Likely have done more Bull less or Bull lead than most over the past few years so pretty versed in how to leverage the lack of it. Surprise factor is certainly a consideration.
But aside from the obvious drawbacks think there are slightly more benefits than people generally credit it.
Defensively you can now cover for additional threats, so you could be more resistant to taking a freeze, or stronger vs stuff like Zap, Don, Cloy, or Psys depending on how you fill the team out.
But offensively, think it's less about surprise and more about 'changing the point of your attack.' So you're targeting their build and the predisposition to fit pieces in to handle Tauros, that a different pick could exploit easier. So for a few examples, maybe they run an excess of back Mie - a different 6th choice like Jolt, Venu/Vic (if surfbolt) Bro (if psyblizz) could take over where Bull could struggle. Or they go heavy on mons with good 1v1s with Bull like Cloy or Cuno that say a Lap could farm. Or you go all in on Wrap Spam to further try and exploit the slower Don, Egg, Chansey type brings.
Losing Tauros' ability to be a wrecking ball, make plays, confirm kos, and punish sleep is a big loss but other tools do compensate somewhat. Then there's the aspect of not having to get HBeam mind games right, or face the annoying volatility of a Bull war. Surely you still want the security of having Tauros the vast majority of times, but variety and unpredictability are nice tools for you to weaponise, plus there are certain games when Bull can thud into a brick wall, say matches when opponent seems to get Limber Mie.
For a recent SPL example: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen1ou-904294
Not a bad demonstration as Nicole's team here aggressively trades down to get to the favourable endgame Mie on Tauros. Unpara'd Mie manages to lock it down for her, where instead Jolt or Bro (assuming blizz) would have more potential to win this cleanly for Sceptross.
Problem is you can't guarantee when those games will occur, but there's the same issue with regular scouting decisions. Sets often just go chaotic and devolve from best laid plans. So my two cents - we should all take more risks occasionally.
But aside from the obvious drawbacks think there are slightly more benefits than people generally credit it.
Defensively you can now cover for additional threats, so you could be more resistant to taking a freeze, or stronger vs stuff like Zap, Don, Cloy, or Psys depending on how you fill the team out.
But offensively, think it's less about surprise and more about 'changing the point of your attack.' So you're targeting their build and the predisposition to fit pieces in to handle Tauros, that a different pick could exploit easier. So for a few examples, maybe they run an excess of back Mie - a different 6th choice like Jolt, Venu/Vic (if surfbolt) Bro (if psyblizz) could take over where Bull could struggle. Or they go heavy on mons with good 1v1s with Bull like Cloy or Cuno that say a Lap could farm. Or you go all in on Wrap Spam to further try and exploit the slower Don, Egg, Chansey type brings.
Losing Tauros' ability to be a wrecking ball, make plays, confirm kos, and punish sleep is a big loss but other tools do compensate somewhat. Then there's the aspect of not having to get HBeam mind games right, or face the annoying volatility of a Bull war. Surely you still want the security of having Tauros the vast majority of times, but variety and unpredictability are nice tools for you to weaponise, plus there are certain games when Bull can thud into a brick wall, say matches when opponent seems to get Limber Mie.
For a recent SPL example: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen1ou-904294
Not a bad demonstration as Nicole's team here aggressively trades down to get to the favourable endgame Mie on Tauros. Unpara'd Mie manages to lock it down for her, where instead Jolt or Bro (assuming blizz) would have more potential to win this cleanly for Sceptross.
Problem is you can't guarantee when those games will occur, but there's the same issue with regular scouting decisions. Sets often just go chaotic and devolve from best laid plans. So my two cents - we should all take more risks occasionally.
This is a nice succinct way to put it (I probably overemphasized surprise too much). Kind of what I was trying to say with how I felt a para first game plan and saving sleep for the endgame felt like a better approach.
And it honestly did feel quite a bit better than I expected! It was nice to have such streamlined lead openings without worrying about blocking sleep forever (egg/lap pressure felt very strong). Where I was at a loss was where this approach would be better than the traditional Tauros way, which is probably why I was drawn to rhydon (hard for those teams to be good into gar/Jynx otherwise). Amaranth's teams also mostly feature rhydon, which seem to corroborate that idea. I'll have to look at some of the options you mentioned like bro/jolt/venu/vic as well, because I think that opens up more opportunities to push this idea from "serviceable" into teams that actually exploit a specific weakness.
One more thing (thinking out loud): with reflectless lax rising in usage, I find my tauros' are increasingly entering lines where they trade with lax 1 for 1 (hard to avoid with how strong lax boom is). Perhaps against a player who often pulls these lines, I could drop Tauros and try and do better with something else.
Edit: regarding the Tauros lax trade, I realize I could just switch back into something else, but I kind of hate how toothless that feels, and the reward is so enormous (especially if they lack boom). Overall it's a trade I'm happy taking much of the time, because at worst you trade and at best they die, whereas running to lax or something puts you back in a neutral position if they don't pull the trigger. Against a player that often uses boomlax in that way though, there may be a more consistent advantage than getting the right read. Or maybe it's just a line I keep track of in their scout and play accordingly, rather than build accordingly. In any case I'm getting off topic : /
Last edited:
hey, so in playing nintendo cup 97 recently i've come to gain respect for two things - lapras and lead tauros. i figured since bull lead is the current topic of discussion i'd drop this; https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen1ou-2534930862-gnixi6gqg36u4488xbs7pjdnavop26kpw
bull can put in SERIOUS work, and when he crits it really puts the opponent in a pinch like he does here, critting zap and cloy. i know i got some pretty crazy luck with the ros/lap double crits but i feel the positioning of my switches really kept the pressure on my opp. lapras is a nice glue here that threatens their eggy+cloy+don+bro core simultaneously which was nice, tho i would like to hear more experienced players thoughts on this battle bc of the team they ran (it's a unique team structure) and like i said before i got blessed by rngesus
bull can put in SERIOUS work, and when he crits it really puts the opponent in a pinch like he does here, critting zap and cloy. i know i got some pretty crazy luck with the ros/lap double crits but i feel the positioning of my switches really kept the pressure on my opp. lapras is a nice glue here that threatens their eggy+cloy+don+bro core simultaneously which was nice, tho i would like to hear more experienced players thoughts on this battle bc of the team they ran (it's a unique team structure) and like i said before i got blessed by rngesus
i wouldnt normally make a comment like this but: when you crit every move it's easy to make anything look good
the zapdos/tauros t1 was pretty whatever (if anything you got unlucky cuz you had 30% para odds + higher crit chance and ended up with 1 crit each), but after that you stole nearly the whole cloyster with hb crit, then the whole exeggutor and the whole slowbro with *highly* unlikely lapras crits lol. i don't think you can take away much from this game other than "critting is good" and, at absolute most, "lapras is good vs chanseyless" (which is pretty standard knowledge)
you can't really carry over much from nc97 because blizzards are so insanely gamechanging there and not nearly as much here
Last edited:
Thanks! In hindsight I really should have considered that LOL. I suppose it would've been better to say I have a newfound appreciation for Lapras ( which isn't as good as it is in NC 97 ( who would've guessed LOLZ ) but has its merits ) and a respect for lead Tauros. Always appreciate your replies to my stuff Amaranth.