Hi everyone. New to posting in Policy Review, but I don't know a better place to put this and people on Discord seemed to agree that this would be the right location.
This is a really minor detail, but I'm wondering if the ban on +1 Evasion Z-moves could be shifted from the teambuilder to an in-battle restriction of some sort.
The list of +1 Evasion Z-moves is as follows: Z-Camouflage, Z-Detect, Z-Flash, Z-Kinesis, Z-Lucky Chant, Z-Magnet Rise, Z-Sand Attack, Z-Smokescreen. Currently, these moves are banned in such a way that putting, for instance, in the most relevant example, Electrium Z and Magnet Rise on the same set will prevent it from being usable in any format with Evasion Clause implemented. This seems fine at first, but it completely prevents the use of a set like the following:
Magnezone @ Electrium Z
- Thunder
- Magnet Rise
The OU analysis has a set for Magnezone containing Magnet Rise, so this isn't all that farfetched, even if it seems suboptimal. A player might have legitimate reasons for wanting to use both Z-Thunder (Gigavolt Havoc) and regular Magnet Rise, but find themselves unable to, in spite of the fact that they could use such a set on cartridge, even playing with anti-evasion rules.
Another example:
Klinklang @ Electrium Z
- Wild Charge
- Magnet Rise
Last generation's Klinklang NU analysis listed Wild Charge in the "Moves" section of a set containing Magnet Rise, so this is perhaps even more reasonable. This generation, it might find itself using Electrium Z to defeat bulky Water-types. (Believe it or not, this is actually a set I wanted to use in the 1v1 OM, which was what prompted this post.)
Thus, I don't have a specific solution in mind, but maybe simply preventing users from clicking on Z-Magnet Rise with an in-battle explanation as to why would do the trick.
***
There's also a greater debate to be had about whether these +1 Evasion Z-moves that come at the cost of a Z-move slot should be allowed in standard formats, but I'm not here to start that conversation, unless people really want to talk about it. Just hoping to clean up some collateral damage.
EDIT: The discussion is underway. Seems people do want to talk about this, too. Fine by me.
This is a really minor detail, but I'm wondering if the ban on +1 Evasion Z-moves could be shifted from the teambuilder to an in-battle restriction of some sort.
The list of +1 Evasion Z-moves is as follows: Z-Camouflage, Z-Detect, Z-Flash, Z-Kinesis, Z-Lucky Chant, Z-Magnet Rise, Z-Sand Attack, Z-Smokescreen. Currently, these moves are banned in such a way that putting, for instance, in the most relevant example, Electrium Z and Magnet Rise on the same set will prevent it from being usable in any format with Evasion Clause implemented. This seems fine at first, but it completely prevents the use of a set like the following:
Magnezone @ Electrium Z
- Thunder
- Magnet Rise
The OU analysis has a set for Magnezone containing Magnet Rise, so this isn't all that farfetched, even if it seems suboptimal. A player might have legitimate reasons for wanting to use both Z-Thunder (Gigavolt Havoc) and regular Magnet Rise, but find themselves unable to, in spite of the fact that they could use such a set on cartridge, even playing with anti-evasion rules.
Another example:
Klinklang @ Electrium Z
- Wild Charge
- Magnet Rise
Last generation's Klinklang NU analysis listed Wild Charge in the "Moves" section of a set containing Magnet Rise, so this is perhaps even more reasonable. This generation, it might find itself using Electrium Z to defeat bulky Water-types. (Believe it or not, this is actually a set I wanted to use in the 1v1 OM, which was what prompted this post.)
Thus, I don't have a specific solution in mind, but maybe simply preventing users from clicking on Z-Magnet Rise with an in-battle explanation as to why would do the trick.
***
There's also a greater debate to be had about whether these +1 Evasion Z-moves that come at the cost of a Z-move slot should be allowed in standard formats, but I'm not here to start that conversation, unless people really want to talk about it. Just hoping to clean up some collateral damage.
EDIT: The discussion is underway. Seems people do want to talk about this, too. Fine by me.
Last edited: