Fish!

[COalex]

I simplified and condensed this stuff to be shorter, so please read it through!

For those who don't know, Fish is an aggro-control deck in MTG based around disrupting your opponent's gameplan as much as possible. Now, you might wonder how this translates into Pokemon, especially in the hyperoffensive Diamond and Pearl metagame, but bear with me.

Now, in Vintage, where Fish is played, there are many decks that can win by their second turn, or lock the opponent out of the game early on. Fish can't do these things. All Fish has are some small creatures and some counterspells, with few draw spells and almost no ways to stop a swarm of goblins. So how does Fish remain Tier One and put up consistent wins at high-level tournaments?

Every single one of Fish's offensive cards also disrupts its opponent. Meddling Mage isn't just a creature, it also stops your opponent's most powerful spell. Brainstorm doesn't just find you more threats, it also can dig for a counterspell. Force of Will isn't just a counterspell, it's motherfucking Force of Will.

In this sense, it translates perfectly into Pokemon. Tyranitar doesn't just sweep, it also sets up Sandstorm. Skarmory doesn't just set up Spikes, it also phazes out a dangerous Curselax. You get the idea; each pokemon would also have an offensive role and a defensive role. Don't just attack, make it diffucult for your opponent to retaliate through your disruption. In D/P, all the good teams are focused on setting up and executing one specific strategy, and often won't have a backup plan if you stop them from setting up a Togekiss sweep, or keep them from laying three layers of Spikes, or Knock Off all the CBs from a CB team. For this reason I consider a Fish team viable in D/P.

The canidates I see for disruption include: Knock Off, Trick, Thief, Torment, Imprison, Taunt, Thunder Wave, Will-o-Wisp, Hypnosis, Spikes, and Stealth Rock. Yes, I consider Stealth Rock to be disruption. Anything that limits the amount of times I'm going to have to take a hit from Specsmence is good for me.

I'd like your input on a few things:

What are your opinions on a team primarily focused on disruption? What do you think its weaknesses are? What do you think the most disrupting moves are and what pokemon would you recommend?

So even if you hate my guts and think that any Pokemon strategy based around disrupting the opponent rather than setting up a gameplan is doomed to failure, don't just ignore the topic; say so! Hearing people criticize the strategy is much more constructive than hearing people agree! (although definitely post if you like it)

 

[leafgreen386]

I think a lot of teams already do this. Every team is built around stopping your opponent from sweeping, while setting up a sweep yourself. Essentially, the team you're proposing would stop your opponent from sweeping, but.... would not set up a sweep for yourself? That's called stall. It's been around since gsc. But even then, stall teams have a cleaner.

 

[CardRaider]

Encore definitely qualifies as a disruptive move.

 

[COalex]

I think a lot of teams already do this. Every team is built around stopping your opponent from sweeping

I had linked to the previous ten RMTs from the RMT forum, as well as listing what defense/disruption each team carried, and then Firefox crashed on me. Goddamn Firefox.

Basically, there was one person using Taunt, almost everybody using either Spikes or Stealth Rock, a couple people using Status, and one person with a six-sweeper team.

So no, I don't see anything backing up your claim. Sorry.

Essentially, the team you're proposing would stop your opponent from sweeping, but.... would not set up a sweep for yourself?

Because I believe that I'll have a much better chance of sweeping once I've already dealt with everything my opponent has to offer. Wouldn't you feel more secure going for the DDDos sweep after not only seeing the opponent's entire team but also after sleeping/Knocking Off relevant items/ Paralyzing anything threatening?

Encore definitely qualifies as a disruptive move.

I agree.

 

[Kevin_Raven]

First of all...

Goddamn Firefox.

Blasphemy!

Basically, there was one person using Taunt, almost everybody using either Spikes or Stealth Rock, a couple people using Status, and one person with a six-sweeper team.

So no, I don't see anything backing up your claim. Sorry.

Posts on RMT are not necessarily a good indication of what good players are using on wifi, so you can't really prove or disprove the claim in that manner.

From what I've read, it seems that a lot of teams -do- use the disabling tactics you've described, but they don't really make it a focus of the team's strategy. If a team were to focus heavily on these tactics like you've proposed, I imagine a lot of people would predict that it would be unable to stand up in a metagame that focuses, as you know, on incredibly powerful, hard-hitting pokemon. Now, this may or may not be the case, but the only way to really know would be to test it out and try such a team.

As predicted on this often-linked article on Sirlin, strategies tend to evolve when top-tier players find an 'unbeatable' strategy, then later find a counter to it, then a counter to the counter is found... etc. Unless D/P is just irrevocably in favor of monstrous attacker/sweepers, there probably is a strategy, such as disabling, that will slowly phase out and render the current strategy obsolete, just as current strategies have more or less made stalling obsolete.

Of course, I'm no pro, and I'm just speculating - that's my two cents.

 

[COalex]

From what I've read, it seems that a lot of teams -do- use the disabling tactics you've described, but they don't really make it a focus of the team's strategy.

links pls

If a team were to focus heavily on these tactics like you've proposed, I imagine a lot of people would predict that it would be unable to stand up in a metagame that focuses, as you know, on incredibly powerful, hard-hitting pokemon. Now, this may or may not be the case, but the only way to really know would be to test it out and try such a team.

Agreeing completely; CBers have no disruptable setup and often require heavily defense-oriented walls in order to stop. The best way to not fold to a single blow against CB teams is generally Knock Off, Thief, Trick (With Black Steel Orb attached), Torment, and immunities (Gengar is immune to Fighting, Normal, and Ground, which often compose half to three quarters of a CBers movepool). As of right now, I think Skarmory is very useful for his typing and Stealth Rock.

 

[ToP]

If you're going to draw any analogies from Magic, you need to use The Clock.

 

[Kevin_Raven]

links pls

I'm going mainly on movesets that I've seen on the D/P Analysis board and the general discussions in the Stark Mountain Board.
Some examples:
Taunt Gyarados
Trickspecs Alakazam
Anything with stealth rock
Gengar, as you mentioned, also is given hypnosis/will-o-wisp

just to name a few. Thief, Knock off, Torment, and Imprison I haven't seen promoted very much, I imagine you would see these dismissed as 'novelty' on paper, but you never know until you try.

I was thinking, you could consider Counter/Mirror Coat/Metal Burst to be disruptive moves - there's nothing more disruptive than having a CB earthquake countered back in your face at 2x damage. It's a shame Metal Burst only goes to two pokemon whose typing is so terrible that they're hardly even usable (Bastiodon/Aggron). Maybe we'll be seeing a lot more counter/mirror coat use once the third game comes out (which will presumably have a counter/mc tutor)

 

[plust]

LOL @ FISH BEING TIER ONE/ANYONE WANNA BUY MY MANA DRAINS

I think you'd be hard pressed to implement a truly Fishlike strategy into Pokemon, especially given the increased offensiveness of the metagame. Not every pokemon can be a threat and a disruption piece, some of your pokemon are going to need to be for sweeping.

I think the discussion here lies in the realization that even the most offensive teams need disruption. Interactivity is key. Back in pre-rot extended, there were a ton of viable decks. So many, in fact, that it was impossible to counter all of them. The most succesful decks were the ones which carried disruption in order to "interact" with the other player, lest he develop his strategy unmolested (ie be allowed to setup). A really good Flores article alludes me right now.

Also, I think you're viewing disruption in far too narrow a mindset (ie moves that don't do damage to a pokemon). I think something as simple as switching into a counter so that the opposing pokemon can't set up is easily one of the most important aspects of "disruption" in pokemon.

 

[COalex]

LOL @ FISH BEING TIER ONE/ANYONE WANNA BUY MY MANA DRAINS

Say what you like, UWB Fish hates out everything post-FS. And I'll buy your Mana Drains, thanks =)

I think you'd be hard pressed to implement a truly Fishlike strategy into Pokemon, especially given the increased offensiveness of the metagame. Not every pokemon can be a threat and a disruption piece, some of your pokemon are going to need to be for sweeping.

Many good pokes can be a threat and disruption, even if it isn't apparent at first. For example, Substitute on McGar is a disruption move because it stops Blissey from using Thunder Wave, wheras Sub on Druidcruel is just a replacement for prediction. Stealth Rock is also disruption, because it sets a limit on the amount of times Specsmence and Gyarados can come in. In these two cases, Substitute aids your McGar in sweeping, and Stealth Rock damages the opponent's team. Also, Taunting your opponent's healing is offensive because it makes your damage stick.

I think the discussion here lies in the realization that even the most offensive teams need disruption. Interactivity is key. Back in pre-rot extended, there were a ton of viable decks. So many, in fact, that it was impossible to counter all of them. The most succesful decks were the ones which carried disruption in order to "interact" with the other player, lest he develop his strategy unmolested (ie be allowed to setup). A really good Flores article alludes me right now.

That syndrome exists in current Extended and even Vintage, too; since there are too many decks to prepare for each of them, blanket disruption will always be better than a specific counter, no matter how strong it is. Of course, this means nothing when it comes to sideboarding and Mind's Desire can bring in four Sphere of Law in response to RDW's Pyrostatic Pillars, but the concept holds; Thunder Wave is always useful and therefore makes the cut, even though HP Grass is devastating against Swampert.

Building on what you said: An aggressive deck will lose to a combo deck if the aggressive deck does not force the opponent to interact with it. Likewise, a strong team will still lose to a synergistic team such as TSS if it doesn't disrupt what the other team is trying to set up. In this case, if you don't stop TSS from setting up the Sand and the Spikes you're going to take a ton of damage throughout the game, but if you force TSS to play on your level by Knocking Off its leftovers and Taunting its Spikes, it's just a bad stall team with a huge weakness to water.

At its core, that's really what Fish is; a fair deck that wins by forcing everyone else to play by the rules.

Also, I think you're viewing disruption in far too narrow a mindset (ie moves that don't do damage to a pokemon). I think something as simple as switching into a counter so that the opposing pokemon can't set up is easily one of the most important aspects of "disruption" in pokemon.

That's very true, and I would agree completely with you if you weren't talking about D/P where some pokemon don't have counters that you can switch in, so you damn well better have something that can stop them on every single one of your pokemon lest they use it as an oppurtunity to set up.