With the recent DNB verdict on toxtricity, the SV PU tier's next step is mostly unknown, with only some murmurs about Scrafty, but for the most part the playerbase won't find enough support for any other direction, as proven by a recent tiering survey. However, since the final wave of DLC in April, there has been one tiering "mistake" that should long be fixed. I hate to use the word mistake, it was the council and TLs being rightfully cautious in a turbulent early metagame with 50+ new pokemon. I think we should properly revisit the ban on damp rock.
We first and foremost tier Pokemon before non Pokemon elements. Non pokemon elements needing drastic reasonings to be considered, and while our reasoning were understandable and had some precedent, I think some additional context slipped through. The reasonings to ban damp rock currently stand on very flimsy ground, nowhere near drastic enough to warrant a ban that destroys the entire playstyle.
So. Lets first look at the ban. One thing that stands out is that Drednaw was voted on at the same time as damp rock. Drednaw was banned regardless of rain because of its Shell Smash sweeping potential, but it was also the main abuser of rain. No other rain abuser generated close to as much discussion. Rain was never given a fair chance to be tested without Drednaw. All the concerns regarding its competitiveness were purely theoretical, and done in a very early meta with a more naive understanding of the shaping tier. The circ*mstance of the damp rock ban were highly uncharitable to it. I admit I was part of the bandwagon at the time, but my understanding of the metagame has changed a so much, so regarding this I ask for some understanding.
What about the actual reasonings? The council usually lists Drednaw along with a few other rain abusers. At the time, we were cautious, and grasping for some short term solutions that would stabilize the meta. However, as mentioned previously - rain without drednaw is only known in theory. Additionally, as our meta progressed, I think it even became more adapted to the listed threats that appear in the council's reasonings. There were also some reasonings saying checking rain would make building awkward, but I don't think fitting a defensive tera water on a wall, amongst other ways to stifle hyper offensive teams is unreasonable at all. And other arguments like "too many sillies rn" don't hold weight anymore. As the only the only foreseeable tiering action in the future regard Scrafty, which is still at the murmurs stage.
Some rain abusers and setters include: Kingdra, Kilowattrel, Ludicolo, Floatzel, Poliwrath, Tauros-paldea-aqua, Inteleon, Tornadus, Grafaiai.
Now are any of these over the top with rain? Maybe? But I'm not convinced. And the few that might be broken, I'm ok with just banning individually. Killing the whole playstyle is unnecessary. These are not cornerstone mons, most of them are sitting in ZU and getting rid of them individually would most likely not have any negative effects on the rest of the metagame. We don't have drizzle in this tier. Setting up rain wastes a turn and then you still have to find a way to pivot these frail mons in to abuse the limited turns.
Now for some VR ranked mons that can counterplay rain. I will include common tera water stuff because tera water or dragon is a good tera type regardless of rain, proven by multiple metagames: Milotic, Bellibolt, Slowbro-galar, Arcanine (strong prio is scary for frail rain sweepers), Skuntank, Florges, Tauros-paldea-aqua, Gastrodon, Wo-chien, Bronzong, Tatsugiri, Ambipom, Decidueye, Goodra, Grimmsnarl: this is a lot of PU ranked mons and I'm not even going to explore below B+. So there are options. People saying they don't want to be forced to run X already get 6-0ed by Inteleon clicking hydro and not missing.
Tier leader's post regarding why damp rock was banned, and how it got approved.
Ishtar's intent is good here, but there are some things written that seem off. Firstly touching on something already previously touched on:
"Getting rid of mons like Kingdra, Kilowattrel, Tornadus, etc., for the sake of rain existing is even more damaging to all playstyles, creates a meta with much less individual variety, and inflates the PUBL list significantly for the sake of saving an archetype just cuz its "fun to play""
Torn and Kingdra are both ZU. Nobody is thinking about them. Getting rid of them would change absolutely nothing for most playstyles and I doubt diversity would be hampered. In fact, removing rain as a playstyle is more harmful than removing "fun to use" ZU pokemon. Also this post and a lot of our council reasonings are just slippery slope fallacy. It's unlikely all those mons would need a ban anyway.
And what precedent are we talking about exactly? Pellipper in UU? They elected to ban the pokemon, not the item or ability. NU who is having a PR thread? Older SV PU metas? If it's the older SV PU metas, I think the comparison is unfair. We had tier shifts every month, we had to stabilize things as fast as possible and avoid risk. Quick action and short term solutions were necessary because not all the DLC waves hit. Things are slower now. So I don't think the precedent argument stands on two legs.
I would like to give manual rain the fair chance that it never really got, and follow procedure properly. Ban individual elements based on their proven efficacy and not theorymon, and if it's way too many of them (whats our arbitrary number?) we can ban damp rock knowing fully well we've exhausted our other options and done everything we could to save the playstyle. Sooner rather than later, there will always be "another tour", after PUPL will be SCL then PUWC then circuit etc. delaying action.
ALSO BAN SCRAFTY
