Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Lets talk about the bans people put on the Pokemon games

Status
Not open for further replies.
vaporeon said:
Well I don't see why they would ban OHKO's anyway reading that. I like OKHO attacks because they can get you out of anything that you cant kill ( My Articuno against a wall with it's low attack stats). See, I abuse Double Team and OHKO's regardless of what others say and I am still a good player.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the reason you're good is because you rely on those attacks, whereas I'm good because I find ways around those attacks, and don't rely on one or two attacks, I employ a variety of attacks that cover multiple grounds. My Infernape's got the advantage over seven different types, including two of it's weaknesses, plus a good Attack booster. That's a more unique and lesser used moveset and strategy then loading up on DTs and flinging a bunch of OHKOs, hoping to god one hits.

Adam Garcia said:
the reason people "ban" double team and other evasion raising moves is becuase they dont want every single game to take 30+mins. Evasion Raising moves bore the games =/.
Click to expand...

That is a very good reason to ban them. They do drag on the battle way too long, unless used by a really strong mon, in which case, why even bother when you can just nail the enemy till he's down.

vaporeon said:
I don't think it bores the game. Some Pokemon were meant to have it and others weren't even though every Pokemon can learn it. It is a good move and there is no proof the it disrupts the metagame other then back in the RBY world a Chansey with Minimize was broken because Swift was the only attack that never miss. If a match takes 30 mins, oh well, just have counters for it just like you have counters for every thing else.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true, you can just have counters, but would you enojy watching two people flinging attack after attack at each other with no effect for half an hour? I certainly wouldn't. I want to see some really unique strategies and techniques I've never seen before, from which I can learn and then adapt my team to counter from the millions of idiots who copy them shortly thereafter.
 
One woefully inept and patently stupid quote from Smogon:

So why do we need to go farther into introducing luck into the game?
Click to expand...

Nobody's bloody "introducing" anything. Double Team and OHKOs aren't bloody outside the game in its pure form, asking to be let in by the players. Pokémon's luck is what it is. What he's really trying to say is, "So why do we need to allow as much luck as Gamefreak intended?"

Which... really ties in with the fact that the "competetive" battling community for Pokémon DiaPer is completely immature. "I don't like these moves," or, "I don't want to be using these Pokémon." Suck it the heck up and deal with the fact that competetive battling means using some Pokémon and not others.

In the TCG, nobody goes to a tournament with a janky deck and expects to beat the first-tier decks. In SSBM, nobody plays a bottom-tier character and expects to beat the high-tier characters. Nobody tries to force the game so that anything can win. People accept that some things are just better than others, and either incorporate counters into their playing, plan a strategy that's simply better, or they go for blind luck either in not playing against them or winning regardless. In any case, it's generally accepted that you might have to play with characters or cards that you don't necessarily want to, but that you have to in order to win.

Yet in the DiaPer video games, it seems people would rather try and warp the metagame so that they like everything instead of accepting that Double Team is not a cancer unto the game, but a perfectly counterable part of it.

I'm still not over being amused at the sheer double standard of accepting that you can OHKO someone with damage all fine and dandy, but do it with a dedicated OHKO attack and you're lacking in all forms of skill and should be dragged out into the street and shot for desecrating the sanctity of Smogon's game of pure skill called Pokémon.

I say "Smogon's" game because they sure as **** aren't playing the actual game of Pokémon created by Gamefreak.
 
I've been wondering about the "self-KO" clause. What if your last Pokemon is a Driftblim (for some reason) with Aftermath with very low HP and your opponent's last Pokemon has all physical contact moves with very low HP as well? I mean, that can draw the game as well.
 
My gut instinct would be to say that Smogon's divine mandate would be to say that the Driftblim controller "loses."
 
Two main things.

First, I am actually understanding them on the OHKO moves a bit. That quote I mentioned took note of the fact that most Sturdy Pokemon are weak to normal attacks from the OHKO using Pokemon, and thus are less of a counter than standard type advantages. The problem they have with that is then that any other Pokemon that could be sent out can be OHKOed with a "coin flip," something that can't happen otherwise.

Second, I found it interesting you brought up SSBM. It seems like they are talking less about "high tier vs. low tier" and more like "introducing items into the game." While I noted the differences in that topic, what would you think of that?
 
Marril said:
Nobody's bloody "introducing" anything. Double Team and OHKOs aren't bloody outside the game in its pure form, asking to be let in by the players. Pokémon's luck is what it is. What he's really trying to say is, "So why do we need to allow as much luck as Gamefreak intended?"

Which... really ties in with the fact that the "competetive" battling community for Pokémon DiaPer is completely immature. "I don't like these moves," or, "I don't want to be using these Pokémon." Suck it the heck up and deal with the fact that competetive battling means using some Pokémon and not others.
Click to expand...
These two paragraphs contradict each other pretty hard. You say that double team and such are not "outside" the game asking to be let in, but neither are legendaries. On the same principle that you want to allow all moves to be used because the game was designed with the intention of every move being used then so was the game designed so that all pokemon could be used. Seeing as it's obvious that some pokemon will be restricted because they disbar far too many strategies so very well should double team be restricted because it disbars too many strategies -- and not because it "adds" luck to the game.
 
I'm not seeing the contradiction. Legendaries aren't "outside" the game either, but the game itself bans them from some places that Double Team is allowed in (e.g. Battle Tower), and Nintendo as the game's distributor holds the right to ban certain things from official tournaments. Smogon holds no such authority.
 
Marril said:
I'm not seeing the contradiction. Legendaries aren't "outside" the game either, but the game itself bans them from some places that Double Team is allowed in (e.g. Battle Tower), and Nintendo as the game's distributor holds the right to ban certain things from official tournaments. Smogon holds no such authority.
Click to expand...

They do when it's their tournaments that are being held. For anyone else's tournament, including Nintendo's, you're absolutely right, no authority whatsoever.

For the question that Shadow Togetic brought up, I have an answer. Because Aftermath is an uncontrollable effect which no one can change, in that situation I would not declare the Drifblim loser on Suicide Clause. Instead, I would call knockout by Aftermath as not counting because the last consciously decided knockout was by the Machamp (we're just using Machamp as an example here) wielder, thus making him the winner. Simple, no?
 
It is just like in Yu-Gi-Oh when they ban their cards for being tournaments for being to broken, and the players have no say in that because they did not make the game. So who are you to say what should not be allowed in the game. Only Nintendo can do that.
 
Nintendo doesn't make Pokémon. Gamefreak does.

And as far as I'm concerned, if Gamefreak were to say, "don't use Double Team in link battles," I'd not even question it. Their game, their rules. This applies to a lesser extent to Nintendo; while they don't make the game, they distribute it. They have some manner of authority over it.

It's just like the TCG—when you're in your house, you can play with whatever rules you like and your opponent agrees to. If you want fifteen prizes a side, you can have fifteen prizes a side. If you want a 100-card deck, you can have a 100-card deck. If you want to ignore the Supporter rule, you can ignore the Supporter rule. But if you do any of those things, you're not really playing Pokémon anymore—you're playing a derivative of Pokémon that looks and feels quite similar, but isn't Pokémon. You can even get tournaments together where people follow these rules, but you can't do it in sanctioned events. In sanctioned events, it's the POP rulings or you're out. The same holds true for amateur tournaments held in DiaPer. Smogon can do the equivalent of running a 100-card deck with 15 prizes a side ignoring the Supporter rule by banning Double Team, OHKOs, and so on, but they aren't really playing what's sanctioned if it's a hard ban. They aren't really playing Pokémon as long as they're making up new rules to suit themselves.
 
Marril said:
I'm not seeing the contradiction. Legendaries aren't "outside" the game either, but the game itself bans them from some places that Double Team is allowed in (e.g. Battle Tower), and Nintendo as the game's distributor holds the right to ban certain things from official tournaments. Smogon holds no such authority.
Click to expand...
Of course, the Battle tower also restricts you to three pokemon (two in 2v2) and bans pokemon not on a game-breaking but a storyline continuum basis. We don't follow those rules.
So then Nintendo also holds the authority to ban moves, no?

That would mean that Smogon is not playing by sanctioned rules if Smogon didn't mandate in their tournaments that it's either everything goes or 3v3 and rather arbitrary banned pokemon.
 
So then to be called "sanctioned playing" you can't just pick out the part of the rules that you like. It's not sanctioned playing if you use battle tower rules (IE pokemon bans) and cut out the whole three pokemon aspect of it, just like you can't call your tournament sanctioned by having a 60-card deck but 59 prizes because you followed the half of the rules that you agreed with. Because I'm sure that's not going to happen you can't call your pokemon bans sanctioned but then turn around and say that move bans are unsanctioned.
 
vaporeon said:
It is just like in Yu-Gi-Oh when they ban their cards for being tournaments for being to broken, and the players have no say in that because they did not make the game. So who are you to say what should not be allowed in the game. Only Nintendo can do that.
Click to expand...
And If I'm playing in a tournament that Nintendo or Gamefreak is hosting, then I will follow the rules that they have set without question and with complete obedience, but if I'm making a tournament, which I am hosting, and I am giving you a prize that quite frankly I don't even have to offer, I could just as easily say "you can join my tournament and play for the fun of it, but there are no prizes", then I wouldn't care if a bunch of higher ups from Gamefreak logged on and told me to change the rules, I';d just tell them "join or get out". Big newsflash for you. Humans have free will. Little present from the Gods, and this isn't a toaster, it's not something to be left in the box sitting in the cupboard, you don't have to conform to Gamefreak's rules or Smogon's rules or anyone else's rules so long as you're the one in charge.
 
If I could be directed to somewhere where I could read up on the sanctioned Double Team and OHKO bannings, then it'd be appreciated.
 
Marril said:
If I could be directed to somewhere where I could read up on the sanctioned Double Team and OHKO bannings, then it'd be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that it's not unsanctioned, I'm arguing that it's no more unsanctioned than the banning of legendaries without abiding by the rest of the rules that Game Freak associated with the banning of said legendaries.
 
If I could be directed to somewhere where I could read up on where I said that I said I used nonsanctioned bannings, then it'd be appreciated.

EDIT: And, since I realized like way later that this isn't as clear as I'd hoped, I was asking for where I said that I was using just an arbitrary list of rules instead of Stadium clauses and current bannings.
 
Last edited:
Marril said:
Nintendo doesn't make Pokémon. Gamefreak does.

And as far as I'm concerned, if Gamefreak were to say, "don't use Double Team in link battles," I'd not even question it. Their game, their rules. This applies to a lesser extent to Nintendo; while they don't make the game, they distribute it. They have some manner of authority over it.

It's just like the TCG—when you're in your house, you can play with whatever rules you like and your opponent agrees to. If you want fifteen prizes a side, you can have fifteen prizes a side. If you want a 100-card deck, you can have a 100-card deck. If you want to ignore the Supporter rule, you can ignore the Supporter rule. But if you do any of those things, you're not really playing Pokémon anymore—you're playing a derivative of Pokémon that looks and feels quite similar, but isn't Pokémon. You can even get tournaments together where people follow these rules, but you can't do it in sanctioned events. In sanctioned events, it's the POP rulings or you're out. The same holds true for amateur tournaments held in DiaPer. Smogon can do the equivalent of running a 100-card deck with 15 prizes a side ignoring the Supporter rule by banning Double Team, OHKOs, and so on, but they aren't really playing what's sanctioned if it's a hard ban. They aren't really playing Pokémon as long as they're making up new rules to suit themselves.
Click to expand...


well said marril
 
You said about... ten posts ago, and I quote: "...deal with the fact that competetive battling means using some Pokémon and not others". Sure it does, but you can't exactly take a holier-than-thou attitude by saying that your game remains the "sanctioned" game when you do this, because it's not. You're still modifying the rules (by taking out pokemon) just as much (if not more than) as someone who says "you can't use these moves" in a way that makes your ruleset "unsantctioned". You're restricting gameplay. Do I disagree with banning legendaries? No, but I'm aware of the fact that I'm playing a modified form of the game when I say "okay we're going to have a game, but don't use any legendaries". Quite frankly I don't think you should be criticising Smogon for playing a modified format when you're essentially in favour of "Smogon lite".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top