OU What's the deal with Sand Attack.

[msoft j]

I really feel like this move negatively impacts the average player experience in ADV OU while adding effectively no positives in return.

In 80% of spots spots it seems like your only counterplay is to pray you don't miss, this is especially bad if you have a well positioned Roar user but miss the roar after the Sand Attack anyway.

If Double Team is banned, why not sand attack/flash etc?
(I know Double Team has higher distribution, but between Sand Attack, Flash, and Smokescreen, accuracy lowering moves probably come pretty close)

I wish I saved the replay, but I had a full health Roar Swampert and 3 healthy Mons lose my opponents last 2, a Sand Attack Ninjask and Marowak. I missed 2 roars in a row, my opponent even Sword Danced in my face after speed passing knowing if the roar connected it could have won me the game.

I didn't missplay, I had a a huge lead and a clear answer to Speed Pass Ninjask, but I lost anyway.

For arguments sake, let's say you mention that there are Pokemon that can phase out with Roar/Whirlwind, while also not having their accuracy lowered.

Great, the list of actual good Pokemon that can do this is... 1. (I checked clear body and roar as well.)

"But Skarm is really good! If you want to avoid Sand Attack Ninjask just run Skarm."

So in order to avoid this highly volatile and un-interactive strategy, I'm expected to run Skarm on every single team? Are auto-include Pokemon not something to avoid when currating a metagame? (Also, it's not uncommon to pair Sand Attack Ninjask with Magneton in order to counter it's one and only gauranteed counterplay.)

"What about Dynamic Punch, or Hypnosis?" You may mention, being a similarly high variance and RNG heavy strategy.

When you run Dynamic Punch or Hypnosis, you are spending your opportunity cost to run a risky strategy, you have to spend a move slot in order to engage in a high-risk high-reward strategy.

When you run Sand Attack, you are forcing your opponent into risk they did not sign up for, and it's this forced risk paired with a potentially huge, game ending punish that detracts from the competative experience.

I understand that Speed pass is being suspected right now, but it really feels like Sand Attack is a more pressing issue netagively impacting the average player experience.

Even ADV LITTLE CUP just recently banned accuracy lowering moves, and I think that's been on the ladder for about 6 days.
(Albiet due to it's relationship with Diglett, but you can argue similar with Ninjask)

Sorry for the big wall of text or if I'm coming off as a big whiny baby, but I cannot understand this move being legal for this long.

If you're a Sand Attack defender, please let me know what you believe Sand Attack brings to the competative OU experience, and how that outweighs the negatives.

thx 4 reading

 

[Bedal Roscoe]

That's not only Sand Attack, the problem is that damn Ninjask.

But if nobody wants to intent a tiering action on Ninjask or at least banning BP+Speed Boost (but standard SpeedPass is ok imo), then at least ban Sand Attack yeah (like Swagger just recently)

 

[BigFatMantis]

Well you see, once upon a time the People were asking for a Ninjask ban or suspect. They clamored for days - years even - until finally, one day… they got a SpeedPass suspect? The suspect failed, with a “promise” to revisit it in the future. Yet nothing was done to address what the people were calling for - an actual Ninjask suspect/vote/ban. And so the legend of extraordinary tiering reached a new level - perhaps one day the Ninjask suspect will occur, or perhaps we will get another not-exactly-it test that nobody asked for.

 

[Celdanami]

The difference between sand attack and double team is that 'player 2', or the recipient, can remove the debuff by switching out. This obviously benefits player 1, as they can pivot with BP to gain momentum, or set up further. Therefore the question becomes: Does the benefit of landing a move (phasing included) outweigh the consequences of potentially giving your opponent a free turn. You can make generalized claims about the RNG factor here, and many of them would be fair. However, there is great deal of counterplay, including the most common mon in the format that nearly always runs roar and cannot have its accuracy lowered: Skarmory. And that's not to mention moves such as haze, which cannot miss, aerial ace on mons like dug, or encore, etc. I would say that if you don't have at least one of these moves/mons on your team, then the issue lies in the builder, not in the strategy.

Aside from Ninjask (of which I am in total support of a complex ban, where Jask cannot legally use sand attack or mud-slap as this is evidentially uncompetitive and anti-fun), the only other real users of sand attack are the eevolutions, primarily Umbreon. Umbreon has already had so many elements of its kit limited and it is hardly a threat. If baton pass chains were a thing still, then maybe I could see the need for such a ban. But is curse-pass umbreon really such a threat? More to the point, if Umbreon wants to stack curse and pass it, it has far better options in its kit. That being said, I will admit that the current, albeit rare, strategy of 'pseudo-baton pass chains' that involve mons like jask, umbreon, and smeargle all using obnoxious moves to prevent counterplay are, well, obnoxious, and might deserve a complex ban that prevents the use of accuracy-lowering moves on more than one mon, or on a team with multiple BP users. This addresses the issue without striking down the viable and non-abusive uses of such moves.

I think that the risk management that these very niche sand attack strats (not including Jask), while potentially RNG heavy, create interesting decisions for players to make. I do understand that it doesn't feel great for the recipient when they are on the losing side of this RNG (or rather, failed to calculate the risk/reward correctly). While I'm in support of a complex ban for jask and accuracy lowering moves, I am weary to turn this into a tiering action situation. I believe that the current standard for tier editing goes too far, and requires too little justification. Blanket bans in situations where a single mon abuses a strat only serves to further limit the meta game and punish creative players. I do not support that kind of action. I think if we limit the discussion of banning accuracy moves to where they are actually and evidentially problematic, such as Jask and Smeargle, then players such as myself would be in support of the tiering action. I think the instinct to take these bans to their furthest, or 'most simple' extent is one of the reasons that they are always so contentious, and also part of why the jask/speed action did not go through.

Looking forward to seeing the community's thoughts here. Let's keep it respectful, even if there is disagreement.

 

[msoft j]

The difference between sand attack and double team is that 'player 2', or the recipient, can remove the debuff by switching out. This obviously benefits player 1, as they can pivot with BP to gain momentum, or set up further. Therefore the question becomes: Does the benefit of landing a move (phasing included) outweigh the consequences of potentially giving your opponent a free turn. You can make generalized claims about the RNG factor here, and many of them would be fair. However, there is great deal of counterplay, including the most common mon in the format that nearly always runs roar and cannot have its accuracy lowered: Skarmory. And that's not to mention moves such as haze, which cannot miss, aerial ace on mons like dug, or encore, etc. I would say that if you don't have at least one of these moves/mons on your team, then the issue lies in the builder, not in the strategy.

This is the issue though, I implore you to read my post again very carefully so you understand why I think Skarm existing does not make Sand Attack okay.

I had Roar Swampert, it had enough health to live an un-boosted double edge or Earthquake from Marowak. I had the counterplay to speed pass Ninjask.

Ninjask had already set up a sub, because I had already missed an ice beam off a sand attack so I couldn't break it, meaning it already had at least 1 speed boost at the time. (Didn't feel the need to mention that but I will now!)

Off that first miss alone, this means my opponent can bank on Speed Passing to Marowack WITH a sub up, unless I hit my next move.

All my other mons would've been outsped and one shot by the Marowack.

Like I said, I wish I saved the replay.

Considering the sub was already up, I could not pivot in any of my other options. In response to my switch, Ninjask can BP out, even if I break the sub, I cannot outspeed the Marowak.

Hitting the Roar was my only option.

I think that the risk management that these very niche sand attack strats (not including Jask), while potentially RNG heavy, create interesting decisions for players to make. I do understand that it doesn't feel great for the recipient when they are on the losing side of this RNG (or rather, failed to calculate the risk/reward correctly).

The decision making only gets less interesting when you add sand attack as a factor.

When you use sand attack, you aren't planning on responding to your opponents next action, you are planning for them to miss.

When you get hit by sand attack, especially in a do-or-die situation, there are so many spots whether your only option is to play into the RNG and hit. Let's not forget last-mon situations exist. You could have a full health Suicune last vs Ninjask and Marowack and very easily lose off 2-3 misses.



On the note of complex bans, I feel like it's incredibly easy to outright ban accuracy lowering moves without setting some evil precident. ADV LC just did it and I really doubt anyone will miss it there.

Any "Strategy" that would emerge around accuracy lowering, Ninjask banned or not, would be degenerate and un-competative. (In my opinion of course.)

 

[Celdanami]

I definitely think you raise some fair points, but realistically, many of the arguments you've made are why such a strategy would not be used in a competitive environment, and instead, are only used to employ very niche or creative strategies, such as boosting up a weak or unviable mon.

I am in total agreement that the mechanic can be abused, and some regulation might be worthwhile. In my opinion, the worst abuse of sand attack is the chain between ninjas and smeargle, and sometimes Umbreon. However, I've personally seen some pretty interesting and non-abusive uses of the move, in order to force a switch, or protect a cleric, or shut down a DD mon. But I am going to disagree with you that the decision making is less interesting (with the exception of Jask, fuck sand attack jask players).

I also think the LC comparison is like oranges and bananas. LC is a completely different environment where the loss of one turn is game ending.

 

[5imian]

New player coming in with the incredibly based take- ZacPZ and I have been trying to get Sand Attack banned for ages now (I think nearing 2 years for me) so don't get your hopes up, but it is just fundamentally an anti competitive tool and shouldn't be allowed

 

[Melanie goes boating]

Ban Sand Attack AND Ninjask. Enough of getting maliciously ignored by the evil-doing higher ups!

 

[DarthTyros]

Sand Attack is only problematic in the context of speed pass, where something like Ninjask/ Umbreon so on can get free substitutes and pass to the recipient. Teams without phase pressure teams with stat pass offensively to limit there opportunities but sand attack throws that principle out the window. I've said the past few months that speed pass on its own is fine but when it throws in these degenerate strategies alongside things like sleep and so on it becomes a problem. So the council could A: Do what it did last time and take action on speed itself to curb potential future abuses or B: Ban sand attack and confusion as a whole to preserve things like Salacc Vap/ DD Pass Smeargle/ Agility Pass Zapdos. Personally I'm all for option A but I know this topic is very divisive amongst the community and I don't expect everyone to agree with Option A.

 

[Olliert]

I'm not sure sand-attack is "more pressing" than speed pass, but I do agree that it seems strange to not just ban it. It's just obviously dumb. We never go into a new gen thinking "maybe we should unban double-team because there might be some legit strategies involving it which are less cheesy". It's the same deal with accuracy lowering moves, maybe there are some strategies which aren't cheesy (doubt it), but in any case they're just not worth preserving a dumb move, it's a simple ban also. To be honest I'm not sure why it's not just banned as default like double team etc. are.

Sand Attack is only problematic in the context of speed pass, where something like Ninjask/ Umbreon so on can get free substitutes and pass to the recipient.

Again, what exactly are the 'unproblematic' strategies that we could conceivably be saving by not banning it? Even if we banned ninjask and current use of sand-attack went way down, why are we preserving our option to consult further sand-attack strategies in the future should they arise? Why do we ever want to see a sand-attack strategy ever even if it's not broken/problematic? I just don't think there's much upside to keeping it (/accuracy lowering moves).

 

[DarthTyros]

Again, what exactly are the 'unproblematic' strategies that we could conceivably be saving by not banning it? Even if we banned ninjask and current use of sand-attack went way down, why are we preserving our option to consult further sand-attack strategies in the future should they arise? Why do we ever want to see a sand-attack strategy ever even if it's not broken/problematic? I just don't think there's much upside to keeping it (/accuracy lowering moves).
[/QUOTE]

The council has stood there ground on the issue, that rather then ban around preserving speed pass they Want deal with the issue directly. Alot of what said here is the primary issue, that sand attack and confusion Moves are used along with speed pass to enable luck based degenerate instant win situations. The members of the council have stated publicly that banning confusion as a whole (Swagger being an exception.) And Sand attack wouldn't be possible and that the only action that would ever be taken is speed pass. I have always been in the same camp as the council, that rather then beating around the bush the issue be dealt with directly. I've said numerous times that the collateral of speed isn't really that bad...at all. You would basically be banning Ninjask, Agility Pass Zapdos, Salac Pass Vaporeon (Which Sucks) and DD Pass Smeargle which also opens the door for degeneracy as much as Ninjask and Zapdos do! I will never understand why so many players will defend strategies that barely impact the meta to begin and would actively benefit the meta if it were gone. To be fair, we should have banned speed pass to begin with instead of being tangled in a web of smogon politics where the players get a win but the meta suffers because of hubris from the playerbase. If the council had more backbone, we could have quickbanned speed pass and some people would cry about it for a week or two then go back to watching spl or what have you. DPP did something similar with Frostlass and if a similar situation happened in dpp there would be zero discussion at all, they would have taken action immediately. The player base needs to accept that things will always be favored for the council and that's the way it is, either we deal with the problem there way or we don't deal with it at all.

 

[Bedal Roscoe]

Well your point is valid, but speedpass suspect did not get the (super)majority requirement. Pretty clear imo. It means that the ban was not obvious for a good amount of top players.

Regarding Ninjask alone, I'm pretty sure the majority threshold would have been reached, and by far.

 

[mkizzy]

I am pro-ban on Sand Attack and Flash. I believe it is uncompetitive and has no reedemable qualities in the context of ADV OU. I believe it should be purged from the tier whether it's in the form of a move ban, or if that is unpallatable to tiering leaders, perhaps amending evasion clause to include accuracy lowering moves that target the opponent.

Lets examine Smogon's official tiering policy framework, as I believe everyone posting in (and reading) this thread should have read this to have a clear understanding of how Smogon determines what constitutes changes to the status quo.

III.) The onus of providing justification is on the side changing the status quo.

• The status quo can be changed in certain cases, such as new game releases. This is the situation with Hoopa-U in ORAS, which started directly in OU, unlike other 680-BST legendaries, which start in Ubers and then potentially get suspected to drop to OU.
• If a proposal is made to ban or unban a Pokemon, ability, item, or move, the side suggesting this must demonstrate why this is necessary and how it affects the ladder and the tournament scene, as well as provide evidence for both

• I think the pro-ban argument needs to supply replays of sand-attack swinging games in an uninteractive/uncompetitive fashion. So I will provide those here as I come across them. I only have Roro replays from his recent post, as most high level tournaments outside of the Smogon sphere (Callous Invitational, ADV Revival) have already banned evasion lowering moves.
• https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2017792322
• https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2017792322
• https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2022903093?p2
• https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2024265563?p2

IV.) Probability management is a part of the game.

• This means we have to accept that moves have secondary effects, that moves can miss, that moves can critical hit, and that managing all these potential probability points is a part of skill.
• This does NOT mean that we will accept every probability factor introduced to the game. Evasion, OHKO moves, and Moody all affected the outcome "too much", and we removed them.
• "Too much" is if a particular factor has the more skilled player at a disadvantage a considerable amount of the time against a less skilled player, regardless of what they do.

V.) Team matchup management is a part of the game.

• This means we have to accept that it's possible we will be at an advantage or disadvantage from the very beginning.
• With optimal team building skills, the pool of options (Pokemon, moves, items) present in the tier should allow you to build teams addressing the different team archetypes at least decently and offer a solution in-battle to a large majority of the principle threats of the metagame.

• I find accuracy dropping moves such as Sand Attack violate the bolded statements. There are not viable solutions to counter-acting this in the builder without compromising yourself vs the rest of the metagame. Sand Attack introduces RNG well beyond our common acceptance level that we tolerate with sleep, paralysis, and secondary effects on moves such as flinch chance. Sand Attack muddies up the more "interactive" parts of the game and makes them more akin to coinflips than any other aspect of the tier. Your counter play is simply get good RNG.

However, I've personally seen some pretty interesting and non-abusive uses of the move, in order to force a switch, or protect a cleric, or shut down a DD mon.

Tiering policy is not concerned with preserving "interesting" strategies. Per Smogon,

Overall Goal and Purpose of Tiering Policy:
I.) To create a metagame that is conducive to the more "skilled" player winning over the less "skilled" player a majority of the time.
II.) To ensure that both our ladder and tournament crowds are catered to regarding I.)
III.) To ensure that actions are taken with appropriate and complete justification.

Keeping the most amount of viable strategies as humanly possible does not fall under this umbrella.

You may argue that this team only works because of Sand Attack/Confuse Ray Umbreon and would rather tackle that. First, this means we will have to ban more moves for the sake of preserving SpeedPass (at which point do we realize that the common link in all these bans is the speed passing?). Second, I will add that new variants of BP can just be built and abuse other moves. And while every ban will weaken the playstyle as a whole, it will still exist as long as SpeedPassing exists.

Now this is from the SpeedPass thread but I think responding is relevant here. What is inherently wrong with banning more moves? I do not think we should subscribe to the slippery slope argument in regards to "we will just ban baton pass later on anyways". If we get to that point we get to that point, that is the job of this community and the ADV OU Council, to tier it. I do not think we should take a "shortcut" to make less "work", even if we do ultimately end up at the same decision.

Screenshot

Someone had brought this screenshot to my attention but I could not find where the source of the conversation on discord. Any stance by the ADV Council or Smogon Tiering Council should probably be made public and not only spoken in discord circles. M Dragon Star SEA McMeghan can you explain if this stance is official and if so maybe just lock this thread?

 

[Star]

This was done to death in the BP thread and surrounding discussions so I’ll keep it brief.

It is an absolute position that we won’t be banning Sand Attack / Flash etc. These moves are objectively just awful outside of explicitly enabling Stat Passing and there’s a reason no official tier has ever touched them. As we went through a few times in the BP threads, potential tiering actions related to BP will only be aimed at the move itself and not surrounding elements.