-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Gen 3 ban required
- Thread starter Smurf.
- Start date
dom
Banned deucer.
i agree, even though i don't play adv. this kinda bums me out though.
I thought Gengar, Forretress plus Venusaur were enough vs Cacturne. Well, it's true isn't it?
The problem is that you can miss, i guess
It should be banned under evasion clause as is. Why these things weren't permeated through generations when we introduced the evasion clause baffles me, but yeah - no need to throw luck into an otherwise great generation, I don't think anyone enjoys playing it and it's purely unfair for the same reason SV is banned in later generations.
It isn't supposed to 1hko anything, the moveset used is actually Substitute + Leech Seed + Protect lol. As in DPP and BW, Sand Veil should be banned in this generation too.
Foggi
Banned deucer.
Actually the most common moveset does not run protect, it runs seed sub hp dark spikes/needle arm
Isn't the most common moveset but it's used. And even lacking of Protect it's still luck based and it's trash.
i do agree with teal6
sand veil was deemed uncompetitive and banned under evasion clause in the others perma sand enviroments (dpp bw); i fail to see why is not in adv as well considering is mechanically the same
changing the abusers that's about it, chomp / glisc in bw / dpp, cactus here; the not so good abuser does not exclude from the above
sand veil was deemed uncompetitive and banned under evasion clause in the others perma sand enviroments (dpp bw); i fail to see why is not in adv as well considering is mechanically the same
changing the abusers that's about it, chomp / glisc in bw / dpp, cactus here; the not so good abuser does not exclude from the above
u cant compare bw chomp or dpp gliscor to cacturne tho. they have much better stats, better moverpool -sword dance mainly, which made them rly difficult to deal with- (also cacturne is dugtrio bait, and spikes bait if it doesnt run hp fire and ofc taunt bait).
cacturne's bad speed stats also lets it make effective only vs fatter build, while gliscor and chomp were much more threatening in general. i can see the reasons why some ppl want it to be banned (its extremely annoying and can turn games in luck fest) but i dont think its relevant enough to deserve a ban
cacturne's bad speed stats also lets it make effective only vs fatter build, while gliscor and chomp were much more threatening in general. i can see the reasons why some ppl want it to be banned (its extremely annoying and can turn games in luck fest) but i dont think its relevant enough to deserve a ban
I don't think a tier that's still part of major tournaments (SPL, WCOP) should have any annoying dumb luck mechanics in it. As long as ADV OU is a major tour format, we should attempt to keep it as "fair" (in quotes, because it is this awful game) as possible, no? No one really wants to lose a tournament battle because they just can't hit Cacturne in the Sand. Idk if anyone has lost in SPL/WCOP/Classic/whatever due solely to Sand Veil, but why leave it in there until someone does? DPP and BW has already established that Sand Veil is dumb luck and kicked it; there's nothing special about ADV that really changes that.
And I don't think banning Sand Veil has any negative consequences associated with it, especially if we extend the DPP Evasion Abilities idea of not banning Sand Veil in the lower tiers due to the fact that the lower tiers are unofficial. Cacturne can still do its thing in NU/UU, where there are no Sand Stream setters that would make it uncompetitive.
How many people were using Cacturne in OU in tours anyway? There were 2 Cacturne used in ADV OU in all SPL 7 (once in Week 6 and once in Week 9), and it didn't see any usage at all in WCOP. Sure, you're theoretically missing out on a Spiker in OU, but most of the time Skarmory or Forretress does that job anyway. If you want a Spiker that's not Steel type, you have Cloyster. Or Omastar or Glalie—and all of those are tiered with or above Cacturne, so it's not like it's a reach to say they're replacements, since you're going down to NU for Cacturne anyway.
Basically, the collateral damage (losing a Spiker for OU) isn't that bad, and you make a tournament format less theoretically haxable.
And I don't think banning Sand Veil has any negative consequences associated with it, especially if we extend the DPP Evasion Abilities idea of not banning Sand Veil in the lower tiers due to the fact that the lower tiers are unofficial. Cacturne can still do its thing in NU/UU, where there are no Sand Stream setters that would make it uncompetitive.
How many people were using Cacturne in OU in tours anyway? There were 2 Cacturne used in ADV OU in all SPL 7 (once in Week 6 and once in Week 9), and it didn't see any usage at all in WCOP. Sure, you're theoretically missing out on a Spiker in OU, but most of the time Skarmory or Forretress does that job anyway. If you want a Spiker that's not Steel type, you have Cloyster. Or Omastar or Glalie—and all of those are tiered with or above Cacturne, so it's not like it's a reach to say they're replacements, since you're going down to NU for Cacturne anyway.
Basically, the collateral damage (losing a Spiker for OU) isn't that bad, and you make a tournament format less theoretically haxable.
Your post is just utterly and completely wrong, and this is why:
Sand veil gliscor and and snow cloak froslass were banned from dpp because of their evasion ability in weather, turning games into complete luckfucks. Outcomes of games were being decided in favour of a player for no other reason other than dumb luck. The base stat of the mon in question is totally irrelevant to the matter.
The ability itself is what is uncompetitive, not Cacturne, so all you people who premise their entire argument on "Cacturne is not that great a mon" - please exit this thread. I don't see it as giving preferential treatment to Cacturne, but removing uncompetitiveness generally because Sand Veil <anything> is arguably uncompetitive. Yes, Cacturne is better than them all (usually), but they are all equally 'uncompetitive'.
Ask Golden Sun i dodged 4 Flygon EQs with a mistake SV dugtrio and beat him 1v1 one time.
ofc u gotta consider the ability alongside the pkmn, i am not saying sand veil doesnt make some games luck fest (again, vs. fast mons cacturne isnt helped by sand veil anyways, unless u dodge several times in a row, which is unlikely even for sand veil) but cacturne is a mediocre mon (usage stats speak for themselves) which is setup bait for lot of things (faster sub mons, taunt users, spikers if not hp fire etc, u all know that) and overrated by many.
i see sand veil as a bad ability too for the healthiness of the game but cacturne and the other mons that get it in adv are just not too much relevant in the metagame, u can ban it if u want (and id agree), what im saying is that i dont think its necessary
dpp gliscor and bw chomp were a completely different matter and if u consider cacturne better than em then idk
i see sand veil as a bad ability too for the healthiness of the game but cacturne and the other mons that get it in adv are just not too much relevant in the metagame, u can ban it if u want (and id agree), what im saying is that i dont think its necessary
dpp gliscor and bw chomp were a completely different matter and if u consider cacturne better than em then idk
Last edited:
I recognise how annoying is to face a set up Cacturne in sand. But being annoying doesnt mean its broken. Confusion, all sub seeding pokemon, rock slide chain flinching or paralysis chain turn miss are equally annoying but not ban worthy because in the long turn they're also unreliable to depend on. If sand veil is bannable in ADV we may as well then also ban swagger, leech seed, baton pass chains especially with smeargle ingrain and the list goes on. Its been open and like that since the beginning.
Billy Shatner, the player that abuses 2x sand veil in the video link you posted is also getting stomped in other games by playing suboptimal pokemon like cacnea as much as he lucks people out.
CZ's team on the otherhand is much better structured and is favored by the metagame atm, sand veil is just the cherry on top on the cake. (Setting up on Celebi, absence of Rest talk Zapdos favors leech seed spams as you get more PP and a pokemon less to worry about walling you, ect)
I agree to an extend that clauses that were checked and banned in next generations need to be checked if they could also be applied in the previous ones if anything. Without this meaning that being broken somewhere is also broken everywhere. You need to consider a lot of variables such as which pokemon can do it, what counters it, how often does it cause a different game result and so on. Comparing Garchomp DPP and Cacturne ADV is like comparing an apple with a strawberry. At least both can be eaten, right? I personally don't think Cacturne itself and only, is worthy of a ban. Despite never using Caturne before myself, I did play against a lot of them in the ladder lately without having many troubles with full OU teams.
Billy Shatner, the player that abuses 2x sand veil in the video link you posted is also getting stomped in other games by playing suboptimal pokemon like cacnea as much as he lucks people out.
CZ's team on the otherhand is much better structured and is favored by the metagame atm, sand veil is just the cherry on top on the cake. (Setting up on Celebi, absence of Rest talk Zapdos favors leech seed spams as you get more PP and a pokemon less to worry about walling you, ect)
I agree to an extend that clauses that were checked and banned in next generations need to be checked if they could also be applied in the previous ones if anything. Without this meaning that being broken somewhere is also broken everywhere. You need to consider a lot of variables such as which pokemon can do it, what counters it, how often does it cause a different game result and so on. Comparing Garchomp DPP and Cacturne ADV is like comparing an apple with a strawberry. At least both can be eaten, right? I personally don't think Cacturne itself and only, is worthy of a ban. Despite never using Caturne before myself, I did play against a lot of them in the ladder lately without having many troubles with full OU teams.
Once again people are being confused by something thats really quite simple. The ability sand veil itself is what is uncompetitive, not Cacturne.
I have yet to see one convincing rebuttal against the bolded statement.
I am pretty sure his point doesn't have anything to do with being broken, but rather, being uncompetitive, which is also a very valid reason to ban something in first place. It doesn't really matter how viable something is if it implies luck-based decisions and takes away the needed skill to win a standard game. I see Sand Veil Cacturne in the same vein as of stuff like Foul Play + Swagger that has been banned on many other standard metagames. The way you mentioned that ''this cacturne dude is losing loads of games'' isn't a reliable argument not to ban a Pokemon or an Item since it doesn't clarify the fact he is relying on a mechanic that is out of reach for the players from both sides. This strategy provides him a braindead way to win games that is impossible for the opposing side to take over the situation due to RNG possibly dictacting the outcome of every turn.
While you can certainly make a good argument for it, context is also important for an ability if you're going to call it uncompetitive. For example, if Wonder Guard was on stuff other than Shedinja you might be able to make an argument for uncompetitiveness due to the ability to "just win" in certain contexts (for example a pokemon with more than 1 HP and access to Rest would be flat out capable of winning whenever the opponent ran out of super effective moves), but since Shedinja itself has shortcomings that outweigh Wonder Guard's arguable uncompetitiveness it's not really something you can suggest be banned without being laughed at.
I don't have any real personal opinion on whether or not SV should be banned in ADV, but if Cacturne is the best user of SV and Cacturne isn't uncompetitive then you can probably make a fairly convincing argument that SV isn't uncompetitive enough to be banned.
But wonder guard isn't on anything other than shedinja.. so I'm not sure how thats relevant?
Let's compare apples with apples for a change. Sand Veil, Moody, Evasion Clause, Swagger. Why are these all banned? Because they introduce a blind and skilless luck component into the game, which by nature is inherently uncompetitive. This isn't a case of Arceus having wonderguard; that is an entirely different issue (and thus completely irrelevant to the topic at hand).
ADV should not be any different, and the bans made in future gens should be retrospectively backdated to past gens too. Simple as that.
If theres an intelligent argument for having such an uncompetitive ability in ADV, that isnt "Cacturne is bad" or "I secretly use cacturne on ladder and don't want my undeserved wins taken away", i'd really like to hear it.
Best one I can make is that the users of Sand Veil are underwhelming enough overall while still providing a valuable niche on those that have Sand Veil as their only ability that it's not worth banning due to lack of overall impact weighed vs the collateral.
Of course this is a subjective argument so naturally it's not really particularly convincing, but it's the best I can come up with.
(On a different note, the wonder guard thing was an example of looking at an ability in a vacuum vs in practice, maybe that got a bit muddled. Sorry about that.)
Couldn't you say the same thing about Cacturne in BW. Yet when I try find a game:
Your team was rejected for the following reasons: - Cacturne's ability Sand Veil is banned by Evasion Abilities Clause.
Clearly there was a reason why only SV + garchomp was not complex banned, and sand veil as a whole was.
EDIT: Also note that froslass was banned from dpp despite having only one ability and not being problematic at all.
Last edited:
nothing will ever change the fact that the same bullshit mechanisms that allow bw sv chomp and glisc to be broken still apply to adv cacturne.
It does not fucking matter that Cacturne is a big steaming pile of shit, it's still uncompetitive because of the element of extreme luck it brings to the game.
Someone getting past 1500's on the showdown adv ladder with a cacnea sv team should tell you how fucking retarded this is.
It does not fucking matter that Cacturne is a big steaming pile of shit, it's still uncompetitive because of the element of extreme luck it brings to the game.
Someone getting past 1500's on the showdown adv ladder with a cacnea sv team should tell you how fucking retarded this is.
I still think evasion abilities in DPP should've been complex claused (no autoweather + evasion on the same team) rather than flat out banned. I also still think transitivity is important for our tiering and find it bizarre that Sandslash and Glaceon are legal in NU but banned from OU. The only reason I haven't been vocal about it is that I don't think they should've been banned to begin with.
On a related tangent, Sand Stream is far more broken than Sand Veil and its removal would result in fewer de facto bans (and no transitivity breaking). SV is only busted when SS has been activated; no one would care about it if you needed to waste a moveslot on Sand Storm to gain the perk for 5 turns (or 8 if you give up the item slot as well). The constant Lefties recovery of GSC flipped into a constant loss of health to sand, and its been a huge factor in ramping up the offensive nature of OU in later gens (seriously, think about how much total damage it does in every game, and without even using a move to make it happen.) It's why Ttar sat in S-Rank for 3 gens (and is still A+, but SS is no longer permanent).
Considering either alternative, banning SV is just odd to me. For the actual topic of ADV, my line of thought is the same. Extending Evasion Clause to prevent using Cact + TTar on the same team is sensible; possibly giving an opposing Cact increased evasion should just be seen as a drawback to using Ttar. Cact and a bunch of other random things getting the boot is unnecessarily extreme, though (and especially weird compared to banning just the #1 mon that's also causing the only actual issues with the ability).
On a related tangent, Sand Stream is far more broken than Sand Veil and its removal would result in fewer de facto bans (and no transitivity breaking). SV is only busted when SS has been activated; no one would care about it if you needed to waste a moveslot on Sand Storm to gain the perk for 5 turns (or 8 if you give up the item slot as well). The constant Lefties recovery of GSC flipped into a constant loss of health to sand, and its been a huge factor in ramping up the offensive nature of OU in later gens (seriously, think about how much total damage it does in every game, and without even using a move to make it happen.) It's why Ttar sat in S-Rank for 3 gens (and is still A+, but SS is no longer permanent).
Considering either alternative, banning SV is just odd to me. For the actual topic of ADV, my line of thought is the same. Extending Evasion Clause to prevent using Cact + TTar on the same team is sensible; possibly giving an opposing Cact increased evasion should just be seen as a drawback to using Ttar. Cact and a bunch of other random things getting the boot is unnecessarily extreme, though (and especially weird compared to banning just the #1 mon that's also causing the only actual issues with the ability).
I disagree with this. Mechanics, Pokemon, moves, abilities, items, etc. all change with each generation. If something that wasn't problematic for generations is suddenly being abused in the current one, why would we need to retroactively "fix" what used to be acceptable? Take Swagger, for example. It's been claused out for the past two gens, but that was never even considered during GSC - DPP. In this case, Prankster's what pushed it over the edge. This sort of thing should always be case-by-case.
Last edited: