Rejected Tradebacks in Gen 8 metagames

[DaWoblefet]

When Generations 1 & 2 were made available on the 3DS Virtual Console, support was added to be able to transfer Pokemon from those games to Pokemon Bank. One quirk of the transfer was that the Pokemon wee required to have their Hidden Abilities, if one was available. These Pokemon could be placed in Gen 7 games to learn new moves and battle with them there. Virtual Console Pokemon could later be transferred through Pokemon Home into Pokemon Sword/Shield, and could use VC-exclusive moves there. If these Pokemon are brought into Scarlet/Violet however, they will only have access to their Scarlet/Violet learnsets, though the information on what moves they previously had is retained in Pokemon Home. Because of the changes in Ability Patch in Scarlet/Violet, Pokemon with Hidden Abilities can change back to their regular Abilities, unlike in Gen 8. This means that you can change a Pokemon's Hidden Ability in Gen 9 and backport it through Pokemon Home back into Sword/Shield.

So, if you catch a Pokemon in the Virtual Console, then transfer via Poke Transporter to Pokemon Bank, then transfer to Pokemon Home, then bring it into Scarlet and Violet, its Hidden Ability can be changed back to a regular Ability, then transferred back to Pokemon Sword and Shield, still having access to its Virtual Console moves. I captured footage of the complete process, also showing a Pokemon like this can be used in online play with no issues.

tl;dr if a Pokemon can enter Gen 9, it is now possible to use their Virtual Console moves without being locked into a Hidden Ability in Gen 8.

Some examples of currently illegal sets that would be allowed with this change:

• Magic Guard Clefable with Teleport and Knock Off
• Curse on Technician Scizor, Pressure Suicune, or Huge Power Azumarill

Here's a list of all Pokemon affected by this (i.e. they or a pre-evolution are a Pokemon from Gen 1-2, obtainable in both Gen 8 and 9, have a distinct Hidden Ability, and actually learn VC moves). I don't have a list of all current Ability/moveset incompatibilities that would become newly usable if we allowed tradebacks. I also can't speculate about the metagame impact tradebacks could have across OU, Doubles OU, lower tiers, Little Cup, Anything Goes, etc.

List of affected Pokemon

Bulbasaur
Ivysaur
Venusaur
Charmander
Charmeleon
Charizard
Squirtle
Wartortle
Blastoise
Pikachu
Raichu
Sandshrew
Sandslash
Clefairy
Clefable
Vulpix
Ninetales
Jigglypuff
Wigglytuff
Oddish
Gloom
Vileplume
Diglett
Dugtrio
Meowth
Persian
Psyduck
Golduck
Growlithe
Arcanine
Poliwag
Poliwhirl
Poliwrath
Tentacool
Tentacruel
Slowpoke
Slowbro
Magnemite
Magneton
Shellder
Cloyster
Exeggcute
Exeggutor
Exeggutor-Alola
Hitmonlee
Hitmonchan
Rhyhorn
Rhydon
Chansey
Horsea
Seadra
Scyther
Electabuzz
Magmar
Tauros
Gyarados
Lapras
Eevee
Vaporeon
Jolteon
Flareon
Porygon
Snorlax
Articuno
Zapdos
Moltres
Dratini
Dragonair
Dragonite
Mewtwo
Hoothoot
Noctowl
Chinchou
Lanturn
Pichu
Cleffa
Igglybuff
Bellossom
Marill
Azumarill
Sudowoodo
Politoed
Wooper
Quagsire
Espeon
Umbreon
Slowking
Dunsparce
Qwilfish
Scizor
Heracross
Sneasel
Swinub
Piloswine
Delibird
Skarmory
Kingdra
Porygon2
Tyrogue
Hitmontop
Elekid
Magby
Blissey
Raikou
Entei
Suicune
Larvitar
Tyranitar
Lugia
Ho-Oh
Weavile
Magnezone
Rhyperior
Electivire
Magmortar
Leafeon
Glaceon
Mamoswine
Porygon-Z
Sylveon

Some notes

• Alolan Exeggutor can only get Exeggcute's VC moves, and then evolve in Gen 7. After that you can do tradebacks in Gen 9 to give it Frisk in Gen 8.
• Koffing, Weezing, and Galarian Weezing all could always use Levitate / Neutralizing Gas with VC moves, because they did not have Hidden Abilities and would be assigned Levitate on transfer as a regular Ability.
  • Pupitar might fall in the same boat, which means Tyranitar could have Sand Stream and any VC moves Pupitar has access to. I never bought GSC before the eShop closed so I can't test that.
• If Machamp were obtainable in SV right now, it'd be possible to tradeback a No Guard Fissure Machamp into Gen 8.

The policy question is whether or not these sort of "tradebacks" should be allowed in Generation 8 metagames. If we adopt precedent from Gen 1, it would seem that these tradebacks shouldn't be allowed. It'd probably be good to clarify if this applies to all metagames, or just some. I wouldn't be surprised if a policy decision for OU might not apply to Anything Goes, for example.

 

[pulsar512b]

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/pokemon-home-update-adds-ability-tradebacks-to-swsh.3727789/ The TLDR given by shiloh was:

linking this post here as well:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/on-rby-tradebacks-all-tiers.3718590/#post-9794634

tldr: ss is considered locked as of when sv locked, so these new legailities are not considered legal. if someone wants to make a ss “post-gen” / “tradebacks” meta at some point that can be explored, but these changes will not being going into effect now.

Otherwise, the OP TheMantyke posted this diagram that makes this matter very clear for anyone interested, and the thread has some old discussion that may be relevant here. AG arguably should allow these, but OU has already definitively been decided to stay as-is.

 

[TheMantyke]

Thanks for the ping, love me some Pokemon legality minuta

I think the OP covered most of the examples well, though there are also a handful of (mostly irrelevant) DW exclusive attacks and weird events that are also affected by the September Bank Update.

I don't play anything Gen 8 so I have no horse in the race of how formats decide if they want to use these or not. Mostly. I do feel whenever Machamp's next in a game with invertible ability patch, and there is a format where the amazing spectacle of a fully legal in-game Fissure No Guard Machamp is possible, we have a sacred duty to allow that hilarity in Gen 8 AG.

Maybe a little off topic but:

• Pupitar might fall in the same boat, which means Tyranitar could have Sand Stream and any VC moves Pupitar has access to. I never bought GSC before the eShop closed so I can't test that.

Ooh, that’s an interesting idea, given stuff like DW Duskulls never got the HA flag in Gen 5 and evolve into default ability Dusclops in Gen 6+. I went ahead and tested this; caught a Larvitar in Gen 2 and evolved it into Pupitar still within Gen 2. I then evolved it into Tyranitar in Gen 7. The Tyranitar had Unnerve once evolved. I reset my game and sent the dude up to Gen 8 and evolved again; did not expect it to change since the HA flags probably set on that Pokémon’s data on Gen 7 transfer. Still Unnerve.

Proof

 

[MeepBard]

i wouldn't use gen 1 tradebacks as precedent for this case, personally - the only reason gen 1 is played without tradebacks is because, like most archaic rulings, a few people from ancient times simply did not like the idea of playing with tradebacks, so it was banned without any sort of formal test, and like 200 years later it is far too late to go back on that decision now that RBY OU is in a healthy, stable spot.

i would like to bring up a post made by shiloh in a recent PR thread suggesting to legalize tradebacks in main RBY formats though as it seems to answer the main question asked in this thread:

while not formally stated anywhere since it hasnt really been something thats come up since rby until ss, the policy as it stands is that generations freeze once a new one drops. this is the easiest way to deal with tiering current generations and will lead to the least amount of confusion down the line. with the current dlc method we might continue seeing updates to mons as generations end and it doesnt make sense to have non-cg tiers continue to be updated in that way.

we have an easy way to say a generation is frozen and considered an old gen and it just makes the most sense to use that when it comes to tiering. while we do continue to tier old generation when they end now, this is meant to fix issues in the existing metagame and available pokemon, not deal with the repercussions of unpredictable changes caused by gamefreak years after the generation stopped being current. old gen tiering also should be used sparingly and when councils & communities can come to mutual agreement / understanding, and shouldnt be expanded to also dealing with new elements in old metagames.

tradeback tiers can exist and they should, but the policy as it stands is that generations end when the next ones come out, so rby / ss are going to stay frozen as they are for the forseeable future.

so the answer from the tiering admins seems to be that no, we cannot allow tradebacks in standard swsh formats as the generation is considered frozen. personally, i think this is silly and really arbitrary, if an update to the game we play with new, albeit minor content is added, why ban it?

and if you go down this line of thinking, what if an event is released for a "frozen" generation? do we not allow that event to be used in standard formats? quite a few competitively relevant generation 2 PCNY events were only distributed when ruby and sapphire had already been released in japan, including rapid spin golem, lovely kiss snorlax, hypnosis misdreavus, growth vaporeon/espeon/jolteon... should those all be banned too?

really, i just don't see a need for this sort of restriction. i can understand it for gen 1 because people enjoy playing gen 1 as is and it's been played as is for decades, but we have the rare opportunity here to actually test tradebacks as a standard format like rby should have been tested for all those years ago.

 

[Ortheore]

Seconding that rby should not be used as precedent. I believe rby excluding tradebacks is 100% due to inertia- we've played with an archaic ruleset for so long that substantial change gets rejected even if it's "correct".

I'd also discourage the idea of a game being "frozen", which is something that tends to come up in these discussions. It's clear that this is at odds with reality, as well as our general philosophy. Regarding the latter, we should allow players to have access to all valid options in order to craft the best possible strategies

As for a "frozen" metagame conflicting with reality, we can observe this with the recurring need to implement tiering measures to past gens. Moreover a just because a newer gen is released, that in theory shouldn't mean an older gen is treated any differently. It's still just as worthy of play, and its metagame will continue to evolve. Arbitrarily "freezing" it doesn't make sense in that context

 

[Karxrida]

Seconding that rby should not be used as precedent. I believe rby excluding tradebacks is 100% due to inertia- we've played with an archaic ruleset for so long that substantial change gets rejected even if it's "correct".

I'd also discourage the idea of a game being "frozen", which is something that tends to come up in these discussions. It's clear that this is at odds with reality, as well as our general philosophy. Regarding the latter, we should allow players to have access to all valid options in order to craft the best possible strategies

As for a "frozen" metagame conflicting with reality, we can observe this with the recurring need to implement tiering measures to past gens. Moreover a just because a newer gen is released, that in theory shouldn't mean an older gen is treated any differently. It's still just as worthy of play, and its metagame will continue to evolve. Arbitrarily "freezing" it doesn't make sense in that context

I've always found the "freezing" policy to be antithetical to the idea of a competitive game, if not outright lazy. Metas can still change and evolve even when the game is not current -- I've seen it happen in other gaming communities. Smogon is honestly kind of spoiled because the current generation playerbases have been consistently huge due to the popularity of Pokémon. I guess the idea of a smaller playerbase doing legwork to keep a tier running is just too much even though other, less prolific gaming communities function just fine? Plus we've ignored the policy a shitton of times anyway.

Unless you're playing old TCG formats where strict adherence to a hyper specific point in history is kind of the entire point (e.g. Goat Format Yu-Gi-Oh!), freezing is just a backwards mindset imo.

 

[BigFatMantis]

I’m hoping this topic doesn’t get lost, as I agree with the others that have posted here in that we don’t need to “freeze” a Gen that can be further developed with changes like these. The ones introduced here in SS are minor, but it’s possible for later games we get more things to use in previous generations and we ought to include whatever is playable. I don’t really know what a good argument for freezing really is, other than “we did it before” which hardly should matter in how we decide under different circumstances moving forward. If we all want to accept changes in newer generations that work for the previous, such as this example of SS, then we should welcome it and keep developing our metagames in real time instead of cryostasis. We have more than enough members of the community that can handle this sort of development, especially in these newer generations.

 

[pulsar512b]

I’m hoping this topic doesn’t get lost, as I agree with the others that have posted here in that we don’t need to “freeze” a Gen that can be further developed with changes like these. The ones introduced here in SS are minor, but it’s possible for later games we get more things to use in previous generations and we ought to include whatever is playable. I don’t really know what a good argument for freezing really is, other than “we did it before” which hardly should matter in how we decide under different circumstances moving forward. If we all want to accept changes in newer generations that work for the previous, such as this example of SS, then we should welcome it and keep developing our metagames in real time instead of cryostasis. We have more than enough members of the community that can handle this sort of development, especially in these newer generations.

in a similar vein, i'd like to ask that people here focus more on the principle of the matter rather than the specifics of the changes. personally i don't really give a shit about the changes they seem pretty minor. but the point isn't the exact changes the point is the principle of it.

i like locking down the tier personally still - i'll just quote some of shiloh's writing here

we have an easy way to say a generation is frozen and considered an old gen and it just makes the most sense to use that when it comes to tiering. while we do continue to tier old generation when they end now, this is meant to fix issues in the existing metagame and available pokemon, not deal with the repercussions of unpredictable changes caused by gamefreak years after the generation stopped being current. old gen tiering also should be used sparingly and when councils & communities can come to mutual agreement / understanding, and shouldnt be expanded to also dealing with new elements in old metagames.

 

[Lily]

As others have pointed out, this came up before in the SS forum and it was (informally) shot down, so I'm just gonna close this out with shiloh & the OGC's approval. You can read here for info on the decision; the TLDR is that while it's unlikely many/any of the SS tradebacks would really be noteworthy, Smogon elects to freeze tiers at the end of a generation in terms of legality. While tiering changes can still be made based on what was legal at that time, anything further is not on the table at this time save for new mechanics discoveries. Thanks for bringing up the topic!