Thread: Phaze Clause

Originally Posted by ChainReaction01

Not 100% true, it takes no skill or smarts whatsoever to get a sweep going using a Blaziken.

This doesn't really bother me, if it's implemented and people don't want to battle using it then they just don't turn it on.

I would agree with this if it wasn't for Gym Leaders being able to use it. Types with multiple passers would just wreak havoc with this clause on, which would make it more broken than it was before the clause was implemented.

Originally Posted by Captain Dude

Originally Posted by Roulette

I'm not sure how it's broken. They're guaranteed to go last, the damaging moves are nerfed by the small amount of mons that learn them, and the others can be taunted. Broken = not having a counter, and there are plenty of things that counter this problem. In no way does this warrant something as major as a clause being added. If you don't do enough to prevent being phazed out, then YOU aren't doing your job as a battler and didn't "outsmart" your opponent enough.

Let me get this straight.

Clause worthy = broken
broken = no counter

So you're telling me that accuracy and evasion are harder to counter than phazing? Please do explain.

Jolteon is one of the fastest mons in the game. It learns Sand Attack naturally. If you send it in against something slower, you can use Sand Attack first turn to get the acc down to 75% (on a 100% acc move, mind you). That kind of acc would be considered bad on most moves, and it's a 1/4 chance of missing. If you miss the first turn or even don't OHKO the Jolteon, that's even more opportunities to get your acc down. Then if you do manage to KO the Jolteon, the next mon that replaces it has an advantage because you still have Acc-2 or 3. You can switch out, but that in turn gives your opponent a chance to boost their stats.

As a Gym Leader, I would not want the Clause in effect, since that's how I personally stop stat ups a lot of the time. But yeah, I don't think it's that great of an idea in other gyms or battles either.

I would have to say no to having this clause. There are ways around phasing.

Maybe something that makes it so a basic is optional if it's chosen in DPPt? (and if that happens, then if the mon is refused it can't be brought into the battle later; you've already said you basically don't have it in the battle.) The only real problem I see is the DPPt issues with basics, and that would deal with that without utterly ruining the moves for strategic purposes.

Originally Posted by Captain Dude

Implying Accuracy and Evasion aren't more easily countered than phazing is. Not luck related? Is that serious? So its not luck if my Rotom-W gets dragged out against an Infernape? Its not bad luck if my permabasic gets dragged out?

Not only that, but you are so immature PichuBoy. God forbid someone tries to have an opinion, you people will just talk down to them. Great atmosphere for keeping members. Applaud yourself. But thats not just you, theres a ton of members like that.

You're talking to me about talking down to people having an opinion? The person that everyone hated for about 2 weeks FOR being vocal about their opinion? Do your research, please. I posted my immature side, then gave my serious points. What's the problem with that?

Accuracy and Evasion are less easily countered, because they have no drawback for the user. If you send out a fast mon, there is next to NOTHING the opponent can do to not guarantee an acc drop or eva boost, except for maybe Protect, but all that does is delay at best. Phasing has a low priority, so all it takes is for you to use some skill and predict they're going to phase, and Taunt them. Whereas, if you're hit by an Acc dropping move, or they raise their Eva, it's extremely hard to reverse it.

Anyway, I said that's why it's MOSTLY not based on bad luck. Even so, there's nothing stopping you switching back out again. Failing Taunt, possibly Torment to stop Dragon Tail spam? Teach them to your mons and Imprison? So many counters.

Originally Posted by Siless

Maybe something that makes it so a basic is optional if it's chosen in DPPt? (and if that happens, then if the mon is refused it can't be brought into the battle later; you've already said you basically don't have it in the battle.) The only real problem I see is the DPPt issues with basics, and that would deal with that without utterly ruining the moves for strategic purposes.

Yeah, if we ruled Basics out of being phazed out that would be fine. I think that's fair enough, since most basics have 0% chance of winning, while other Pokemon at least have a shot.

You're talking to me about talking down to people having an opinion? The person that everyone hated for about 2 weeks FOR being vocal about their opinion? Do your research, please. I posted my immature side, then gave my serious points. What's the problem with that?

In my head I just saw you do that thing where you sashay with your fingers in the shape of a 'Z'. It was the best moment of my day.

Uh, but seriously, let's just everybody chill out. This isn't a thread about that, it's about this clause, so erm. Yeah.

Anyways, I'm all for Siless' idea.

Originally Posted by Roulette

Originally Posted by ChainReaction01

Not 100% true, it takes no skill or smarts whatsoever to get a sweep going using a Blaziken.

This doesn't really bother me, if it's implemented and people don't want to battle using it then they just don't turn it on.

I would agree with this if it wasn't for Gym Leaders being able to use it. Types with multiple passers would just wreak havoc with this clause on, which would make it more broken than it was before the clause was implemented.

Originally Posted by Captain Dude

Originally Posted by Roulette

I'm not sure how it's broken. They're guaranteed to go last, the damaging moves are nerfed by the small amount of mons that learn them, and the others can be taunted. Broken = not having a counter, and there are plenty of things that counter this problem. In no way does this warrant something as major as a clause being added. If you don't do enough to prevent being phazed out, then YOU aren't doing your job as a battler and didn't "outsmart" your opponent enough.

Let me get this straight.

Clause worthy = broken
broken = no counter

So you're telling me that accuracy and evasion are harder to counter than phazing? Please do explain.

Jolteon is one of the fastest mons in the game. It learns Sand Attack naturally. If you send it in against something slower, you can use Sand Attack first turn to get the acc down to 75% (on a 100% acc move, mind you). That kind of acc would be considered bad on most moves, and it's a 1/4 chance of missing. If you miss the first turn or even don't OHKO the Jolteon, that's even more opportunities to get your acc down. Then if you do manage to KO the Jolteon, the next mon that replaces it has an advantage because you still have Acc-2 or 3. You can switch out, but that in turn gives your opponent a chance to boost their stats.

You're saying its deadly with fast pokemon. The amount of fast pokemon that learn Sand-Attack is less than the amount of pokemon that learn Dragon Tail and Circle Throw. (You brought up a point of these moves being relatively rare)

You can always Taunt, Sub, use one of the never miss moves. There's plenty of Pokemon with abilities related to accuracy.

I'm done arguing though, since no one else wants the clause.

I've always been favour of some way of protecting people from having basics dragged out in D/P rulesets, but I still wouldn't support a clause that totally bans the move, sorry.

The fact that they are a reduced priority makes them counterable. Roar and Whirlwind can be taunted. Dragon Tail and Vital Throw can be subbed against.