Garchomp and Sand Veil Discussion

[DTC]

Actually Water Absorb does kind of suck on Cacturne because Cacturne is a terrible switch to most Water-types and it doesn't do well against most of them 1 on 1. Most of them can outspeed and OHKO Cacturne with their super effective move. There are only a few situations where Water Absorb is useful: a) being able to Sucker Punch Samurott without being hit by Aqua Jet b) switch into a Water-type attack then switch right back out to get some health and c) for not getting fucked over by the occasional Scald from Frillish / Alomomola. I'd rather use Bullet Seed and/or Encore than Water Absorb. However, the loss of these two moves isn't that bad for Cacturne; it will make it slightly worse, but not that much. Cacturne is perfectly fine without those two moves. I'm speaking from plenty of experience here.

Anyways, I'm personally enjoying the Garchomp meta so far. Right now I'm using an offensive Stealth Rock set of Stealth Rock / Outrage / Earthquake / Fire Blast @ Life Orb on a sun team. It's pretty good and performs exactly like I want it to be. The team I'm using in the Garchomp playtest is actually pretty Garchomp weak itself but I've little trouble with it so far. Garchamp is a bit underwelming but it's still the fantastic Pokemon it always was.

 

[xenu]

This is the statement that should be central to the debate. Some would agree that it is broken; others would say its effect ends at frustrating or haxy - akin to the exhaustingly aforementioned example of Jirachi. Paraflinchers certainly aren't the most fun to play against, but bans don't occur because we don't like a certain strategy. Just because battles have been turned around by the ability itself doesn't mean that it is inherently broken. If it were, then Serene Grace (which has turned many lost battles around for me and my opponents) would be banned as well.

when you consider a pokemon as offensively volatile as garchomp, that one sand veil miss can pretty much cost you the game. any ability that limits the possibility of counterplay should not be found in a balanced meta.

 

[G-Von]

...Huh? It's defenses suck, yeah. So it can't take strong water-type attacks. So Water Absorb is helpful. The "defenses suck" statement makes Water Absorb more viable, not less. Cacturne would remain a perfectly viable NU Pokémon. It loses out on Bullet Seed and Encore, but in exchange for Water Absorb (which is superior, of course, in NU), these moves aren't such a horrible loss.

The thing is Cacturne cannot take a hit at all. I'm sure resisted hits have a chance to OHKO him in NU because his defenses and HP are that poor. Don't forget, he has 6 weaknesses so besides psychic and water moves, Cacturne can't switch into anything. I can see a Scarfed variant being somewhat viable but that's it because of it's (I think?) unique Dark/Grass STAB moves.

 

[Zacchaeus]

The thing is Cacturne cannot take a hit at all. I'm sure resisted hits have a chance to OHKO him in NU because his defenses and HP are that poor. Don't forget, he has 6 weaknesses so besides psychic and water moves, Cacturne can't switch into anything. I can see a Scarfed variant being somewhat viable but that's it because of it's (I think?) unique Dark/Grass STAB moves.

Shiftry shares the typing. But the thing about Cacturne is that when it does get a chance to come in and set up a Swords Dance or Substitute, it can be quite threatening. Relevant to Sand Veil is Substitute which provides Cacturne with some stalling capability or just haxing in general. Water Absorb removes the Sandstorm immunity which is a cool feature for a Grass-type and allows Cacturne to gain HP in Sandstorm with Leftovers behind a Substitute. A +2 Sucker Punch or Bullet Seed/Seed Bomb can be surprisingly threatening and the Grass STAB is good for taking out Ground or Rock types prevalent in Sandstorm

 

[SpecsX]

I can't see Scarfed working at all in OU, as it SubSD Cacturne is probably its only viable set. Anyhow, should Sand Veil be banned, I think that the most logical ban would be Sand Veil+Sand Stream, as Pokemon+Ability bans would likely complicate teiring significantly.

 

[DTC]

Choice Scarf Cacturne is mediocre because to make the best use out of it, you need to switch moves often (Substitute / Swords Dance / Sucker Punch / Spikes / Encore / etc). It also has Sucker Punch if you want to hit first. I think we've talked enough about Cacturne; it's a good Pokemon in NU because it's one of the few with Spikes, it's not that stellar in the upper tiers, it's quite versatile, it needs to switch moves often, and it will get slightly nerfed if Sand Veil is banned but not by much.

I honestly think that Rough Skin is better on Garchomp than Sand Veil, unless you're using Garchomp in the sand with Substitute + Swords Dance. You can't guarantee that sand is up and you can't guarantee that your opponent misses. That extra 12.5% is really useful sometimes, especially when something is trying to check Garchomp and they end up losing because that extra 12.5% is just enough damage to allow Garchomp to KO it.

 

[Schpoonman]

G-Von, I think that when Garchomp was banned in BW1, there wasn't any talk of a complex ban, which is now a discussion point in BW2. However, Smogon still wants to avoid a complex ban, which is why they're now talking about Sand Veil instead of Garchomp.

That being said, I like Sand Stream+Sand Veil. It follows precedent, Swift Swim+Drizzle being banned, doesn't punish players in lower tiers where Sand Veil lets them use egg moves (Cacturne is an excellent example keep bringing up), and would potentially let us reintroduce Garchomp, which would diversify the metagame a little more.

 

[Camisado]

If Cacturne was noteworthy, it would of been brought up outside of this thread a long time ago.

Besides, why does a OU ban have to affect other tiers? Didn't RU ban all weather or something?

 

[verbatim]

In adherence to the concept of usage based tiers, every ban or implementation in a particular tier will affect itself and every tier below it. RU's bans do not effect OU because they are below it on the metaphorical totem poll of the tiering system.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Statistically, that's 10% of the games that would come down to a Draco Meteor hit, which is precisely what is supposed to happen. If you're got the game "in the bag" but you're relying on a 90% hit to win, you've only gotten a 90% win so far. You should win 90% of the time in this case, not 100%.

Premise 1: If you use a strategy with a 90% success rate, you deserve to win 90% of the time.
Premise 2: If you use a strategy with a 90% success rate over the course of many games, you will win 90% of the time.
Conclusion: If you use a strategy with a 90% success rate over the course of many games, you will win as often as you deserve to.

This is my logic. Do you have anything to indicate a flaw either with a premise or with the conclusion?

Okay, so let me look at it this way:

You have outplayed your opponent to the point where it is your weakened Starmie vs. Sand Veil Gliscor in the sand. They only have Gliscor left. You have Ice Beam, so you can just go for it. You deserve the win because you have them in a situation where they can't do anything about Starmie killing their Gliscor...... But Ice Beam misses and Gliscor kills your weakened Starmie.

In my mind, I view misses as part of the RNG, which is independent of whether or not a player deserved to win. That is why I believe saying someone didn't deserve to win because they missed is absurd.

 

[Woodchuck]

There is no such thing as "deserving" a win. At all. The only indication of who was the better player is, in the end, whoever won the battle. Luck is an issue, yes, but that's why evasion clause exists and Sand Veil is being suspect tested. From what I can tell, the only absurd claim is here:

What about all those games you had in the bag, but then you lose because your Latios's Draco Meteor missed.

As Thorhammer said, you "deserve" to win 90% of the games that rely on Draco Meteor hitting. You can't say "well if it had played out in such and such way I would have won"; that is a futile argument. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. You can argue that the existence of Sand Veil removes skill from the game, and that is a less ridiculous claim than saying that luck-based items/abilities should be removed because they take away allegedly "deserved" wins. Thorhammer never said that you didn't "deserve" to win because you missed; he's saying that there's no reason you should "deserve" to win at all.

However, it is important to note the difference between missing a Draco Meteor and missing against a Sand Veil Pokemon. If you run Draco Meteor, you are making that choice knowing that you are going to miss 10% of the time, and it can potential lose you games. You are completely responsible for this. However, if you miss against a Sand Veil Pokemon while using a 100% accurate move, then it's not really your 'fault', because you have no control over what the opponent runs. This, in my opinion, is the issue with Sand Veil.

 

[SpecsX]

Sand Veil hax may not be the reason you lost the game, but if comes down 1v1 and you attack with Surf (which you CHOSE over Hydro Pump SPECIFICALLY so you wouldn't lose to an unfortunate miss), and Sand Veil essentially chooses for you. You end up using H-pump anyway (and a weaker H-pump, mind you). Power vs Accuracy. You chose accuracy, and now you've lost both, and not by your choice either.

 

[Thorhammer]

Okay, so let me look at it this way:

You have outplayed your opponent to the point where it is your weakened Starmie vs. Sand Veil Gliscor in the sand. They only have Gliscor left. You have Ice Beam, so you can just go for it. You deserve the win because you have them in a situation where they can't do anything about Starmie killing their Gliscor...... But Ice Beam misses and Gliscor kills your weakened Starmie.

In my mind, I view misses as part of the RNG, which is independent of whether or not a player deserved to win. That is why I believe saying someone didn't deserve to win because they missed is absurd.

What that boils down to is that you used a strategy with an 80% success rate, and therefore you should (and will) win with that strategy 80% of the time. As I covered in the "proof" I proposed. All you did was change around the words.

Suppose the move in question was Sing. If I were to hit the enemy with Sing, I would win, and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it - just as in your example. That obviously does not mean I should expect to win 100% of the time on a 55% chance, just as no one deserves to win 100% of the time on an 80% chance.

 

[SpecsX]

But you don't CHOOSE the 80% chance. If you use inaccurate moves, you go into a battle accepting the fact that you may well miss. If you use 100% accurate moves, you expect them to hit. Sand Veil means that you aren't using accurate moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with an 80% success rate, your opponent lowered your accuracy passively and increased their chances to win an encounter they would otherwise lose, with little trouble.

 

[verbatim]

But you don't CHOOSESand Veil means that you aren't using accurate moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with an 80% success rate, your opponent lowered your accuracy and increased their chances to gain an advantage.

How is this different from an opponent chancing the Freeze in an Ice Beam, or using confusion inducing techniques. Luck is an important part of competitive pokemon, and should not be the grounds for the removal of something unless it is consistently capable of reducing matches to coin flips that drastically favor the invoker of said event (hi Moody). Wether or not Sand Veil Garchomp fulfills this criterion is the topic of this thread, not semantics regarding the functioning of moves.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

How is this different from an opponent chancing the Freeze in an Ice Beam, or using confusion inducing techniques. Luck is an important part of competitive pokemon, and should not be the grounds for the removal of something unless it is consistently capable of reducing matches to coin flips that drastically favor the invoker of said event (hi Moody). Wether or not Sand Veil Garchomp fulfills this criterion is the topic of this thread, not semantics regarding the functioning of moves.

To get an Ice Beam freeze, you have to continue going for Ice Beam; To get Sand Veil misses, Sand just has to be up - That's all. This makes it much easier to gain the benefits of luck when using Sand Veil. That's the difference

 

[Thorhammer]

But you don't CHOOSE the 80% chance. If you use inaccurate moves, you go into a battle accepting the fact that you may well miss. If you use 100% accurate moves, you expect them to hit. Sand Veil means that you aren't using accurate moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with an 80% success rate, your opponent lowered your accuracy and increased their chances to gain an advantage.

But you don't CHOOSE the 3HKO. If you use weak moves, you go into battle accepting the fact that you may well not OHKO. If you use high-power moves, you expect them to OHKO. High defenses mean you aren't using powerful moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy that would 3HKO that enemy, your opponent lowered your power and increased their longevity to give them an advantage.

I guess this is the sort of argument we can make now that your opponents can't make their own choices to get an advantage, huh? Ban high defenses!

 

[Showsni]

But you don't CHOOSE the 80% chance. If you use inaccurate moves, you go into a battle accepting the fact that you may well miss. If you use 100% accurate moves, you expect them to hit. Sand Veil means that you aren't using accurate moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with an 80% success rate, your opponent lowered your accuracy and increased their chances to gain an advantage.

Isn't the opponent making choices to gain an advantage kind of the entire game? I mean, you could rewrite your post to say something like:

"If you use status moves, you expect them to effect your opponent. Taunt means that you aren't using effective moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with a 0% success rate, your opponent prevented you from using status moves and increased their chances to gain an advantage."

Consider a Gliscor with Swagger, for instance. He's just lowered all your moves to 50% accuracy!

The question isn't about whether the Gliscor user is picking choices for you; the entirety of Pokémon is about your opponent trying to pick choices for you, and you trying to stop them. The problem here is that Sand Veil is an always on buff that needs no set up (or very easy set up) and can't be easily mitigated other than using Swift or what have you which is unviable.

If the only way to set up sand was via the move Sandstorm, I'm sure Sand Veil would be much less of a talking point that it is now. Would anyone bother to use it on Gliscor?

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

But you don't CHOOSE the 3HKO. If you use weak moves, you go into battle accepting the fact that you may well not OHKO. If you use high-power moves, you expect them to OHKO. High defenses mean you aren't using powerful moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy that would 3HKO that enemy, your opponent lowered your power and increased their longevity to give them an advantage.

I guess this is the sort of argument we can make now that your opponents can't make their own choices to get an advantage, huh? Ban high defenses!

This argument is retarded. If the opposing Pokemon can wall your high-powered move, you know what you do? You switch to something that can beat it. Against Sand Veil? You have no weather on your team? Fuck, can't really do anything about that then.

 

[alexwolf]

Isn't the opponent making choices to gain an advantage kind of the entire game? I mean, you could rewrite your post to say something like:

"If you use status moves, you expect them to effect your opponent. Taunt means that you aren't using effective moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with a 0% success rate, your opponent prevented you from using status moves and increased their chances to gain an advantage."

Consider a Gliscor with Swagger, for instance. He's just lowered all your moves to 50% accuracy!

The question isn't about whether the Gliscor user is picking choices for you; the entirety of Pokémon is about your opponent trying to pick choices for you, and you trying to stop them. The problem here is that Sand Veil is an always on buff that needs no set up (or very easy set up) and can't be easily mitigated other than using Swift or what have you which is unviable.

If the only way to set up sand was via the move Sandstorm, I'm sure Sand Veil would be much less of a talking point that it is now. Would anyone bother to use it on Gliscor?

As Showsni said, every factor in the game is about making choices. But Sand Veil is bad for the meta, because it has no viable counters, which means that you cannot prevent it with standard methods, exept from changing the weather (which is diffuclt to do against most Sand Veil abusers such as Gliscor, Garchomp and Cacturne, because they threaten to ohko Ninetales and Politoed).

 

[SpecsX]

Isn't the opponent making choices to gain an advantage kind of the entire game? I mean, you could rewrite your post to say something like:

"If you use status moves, you expect them to effect your opponent. Taunt means that you aren't using effective moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy with a 0% success rate, your opponent prevented you from using status moves and increased their chances to gain an advantage."

Consider a Gliscor with Swagger, for instance. He's just lowered all your moves to 50% accuracy!

The question isn't about whether the Gliscor user is picking choices for you; the entirety of Pokémon is about your opponent trying to pick choices for you, and you trying to stop them. The problem here is that Sand Veil is an always on buff that needs no set up (or very easy set up) and can't be easily mitigated other than using Swift or what have you which is unviable.

If the only way to set up sand was via the move Sandstorm, I'm sure Sand Veil would be much less of a talking point that it is now. Would anyone bother to use it on Gliscor?

You are correct, my phrasing was poorly done, but I didn't want to come across as "LOL SAND VEIL IS ANNOYING AZ FUCK"(which it is, but that's hardly an argument.)

If the only way to set up sand was via the move Sandstorm, I'm sure Sand Veil would be much less of a talking point that it is now. Would anyone bother to use it on Gliscor?

If you could only set up Sandstorm via the move, this discussion wouldn't exist. Garchomp would likely not be banned, and neither would Excadrill. People would likely whine about Rain more(and indeed, RAIN might be banned!)

But you don't CHOOSE the 3HKO. If you use weak moves, you go into battle accepting the fact that you may well not OHKO. If you use high-power moves, you expect them to OHKO. High defenses mean you aren't using powerful moves whether or not you chose them. You didn't use a strategy that would 3HKO that enemy, your opponent lowered your power and increased their longevity to give them an advantage.

I guess this is the sort of argument we can make now that your opponents can't make their own choices to get an advantage, huh? Ban high defenses!

How would the opponent lower your power by having high base stats? This post is almost as bad some of the ones I've posted. High defenses don't change the power of moves. Sand Veil changes the accuracy, and in some cases, the viability, of moves, with little to no setup.

 

[shrang]

There is no such thing as "deserving" a win. At all. The only indication of who was the better player is, in the end, whoever won the battle.

This. Seriously, I'd even go as far as to say that if you lost due to a crucial Sand Veil miss, it is either due to 1) you didn't have a back-up plan or 2) the game was never yours to begin with, because fate/God/Lady Luck or whatever you believe in deemed that you were not to win that game anyway.

 

[Stone RG]

Guys, i just laddered some hours on the PO ladder with a new account with a SubSD Gliscor. I have some things to say:

Im tired of this bullshit being talked, i just got top 10 with the use of ONLY hax, im so mad, now i know how you guys feel because Sand Veil is definitely unhealthy for our metagame, you cannot stop your opponent from abbusing it and you are given set-up turns for free, since there's always a chance for your opponent to miss, i cant even imagine what chomp would do with this. I just saw how you can turn an easy 6-0 to a 1-0 on your favor, because Sand Veil, as i said always gives you an opportunity to remedy your mistakes as long as your opponent doesn't have an always-hitting move (which is idiotic in the OU tier).

To make my point, i agree with all of you that say that Sand Veil is unhealthy for the meta (really, someone that has felt hax so bad like me starts realizing your opponent's frustration).

 

[Thorhammer]

The significance of "a chance" depends on what that chance is.

However, with repeated Substitutes, that chance really does add up to a lot. That, I think, is the important point and the legitimate argument against Sand Veil.

 

[Stratos]

I didn't choose for my opponent to use scald instead of hpump on his starmie and burn my ferrothorn

I didn't choose for my opponent to flinch me with iron head

I didn't choose for my opponent to run a volcarona, which my team is weak to.

Fact is, you don't choose anything your opponent does. What makes sand veil any different on this principle? You get choices and your opponent gets choices; the goal of the game is to make your choices beat his. You may not have chosen to miss with that Ice Beam, but your opponent DID choose to run a Sand Veil Gliscor, in the knowledge that it could potentially save his game. Stop whining that you can't control all the hax. Your opponent is a person too, and they also want to control all the hax. Neither of you can, that's the nature of the game. I feel that every person who whines about "deserving a win" is just as guilty as the rest of us as doing a little jig in their chair when the opponent's stone edge misses for game, and is either a) a big fricking hypocrite who can go die or b) forgetting that their opponent is one of those people, too.

Now if we want to debate like big boys about whether sand veil, like moody, makes the meta grossly uncompetitive, to the point that the most solid strategies aren't the most likely to win the most often, then please, let us continue. But please, let's not let this debate devolve into what the last two pages were.