Entry Hazards - Are They Broken?

[TyranitarTerror]

Entry hazards are not broken. If you choose the right Pokemon the damage they do is negligible. Though they are a nice thing to have they do not make or break games except under extreme circumstances. I do not usually find myself setting up rocks even though I have the option unless I really see them as important.
It is through my experience that I do not see hazards as anything close to being broken.

 

[MMII]

You're devaluing how crippling WoW, and, to a lesser extent, toxic are. It's easy to say "there are so many ways to stop those status moves," but it's vague and doesn't support your point well. "the other player can switch mons for free" is, for the most part, a terrible exaggeration. Switching in against a Jellicent using WoW is not "switching in for free"

To be honest, I don't like imagining a hazardless metagame because of how horribly unbalanced and ridiculous it would be. For this reason, my posts/tone have been short and I still don't feel like going into more depth on this as theorymoning this fictional metagame is a waste of time to me. So you'll have to excuse me if I remain vague, I'm just trying to explain the overall outcome of such a change to save time and effort.

Basically, the problem is that Stall would be completely reliant on some form of passive damage (all that would be left would be poison/burn/Toxic) to make any difference what so ever as just walling a mon means nothing without it. This severely limits the tools at their disposal while offensive teams still have all of the ridiculously powerful attacks. Again, there are many, many ways to deal with status (yes, I'm staying vague but you know them all I'm sure) which means that the wall trying to spread the needed status move has to find a way to deal with almost every possible way the other team can stop it. This just simply far too much. In your example of a bulky water beating Poison Heal Gliscor, what can it do about that partner Celebi? (or Scizor, or Breloom, or Refresh Latias...) Things get even further complicated when you factor in the possibility of the offensive mon having a recovery move. Now only Toxic has any chance of getting that thing out of the way. Stall can't exist without hazards. (look at RBY)

okay i voted the third option not cause i necessarily think rocks are "broken" and we can't really do anything about them anyways (besides flat out ban which kinda sucks) but because i think they're way too common and have become basically an integral part of our metagame.

i think rocks are really obnoxious to deal with, whenever they're up as a player i get more nervous and switching is physically painful just cause i don't like seeing my landorus go from "not ohkod by +2 luke espeed" range to "easily ohkod" range...

i mean there's a billion examples but the point is rocks super nerfs any sort of defensive team and gives offense a huge edge.

i guess what i'm saying is what yee says in his last paragraph, rocks are excessive. if they only did 12.5% like 1 layer of spikes does upon entry, but to everything, i think i would be ok with that, but since it's a rock-type move and they deal damage based n that i think it kinda kills the viability of a ton of stuff.

This is a terrible argument. I know this isn't the official debating thread or anything but I'd really like to have this persistent logical error killed by adding it into our personal, Pokemon based fallacies as the "Overcentralization" fallacy.

For those of you who haven't read it yet, jrrrrrrr's post about this very subject many years ago is very enlightening and shows just how long this flawed thinking has been around. "Overcentralization" doesn't mean anything more (at least, in the way the fictional term has been used) than that a particular element in the metagame is common and has an overall larger effect than other elements. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not that element is ban worthy as it fails to describe whether the effect it has is negative or positive. For example, switching is THE most important element in battles to the point that entire playstyles and terms for them are born to describe the way the team uses and reacts to this in battle. Every team and every player in the history of Pokemon has used attempted to profit from this in the most efficient way possible. Following the "Overcentralization" fallacy, this means that we should ban switching from Pokemon.

"Overcentralization" doesn't even have any relation to the characteristics of a desirable Pokemon metagame that serve as the only ground rules we have managed to lay thus far. Variety may at first appear to be an element that overcentralization contradicts, however, this is again not true and simply misleading. "Overcentralization" doesn't include any details on whether or not there are a variety of methods to abuse and defend against the labeled element. Something that is "overcentralizing" could very well directly encourage the use of a variety of different tatics as a result of the widespread effect it has on the metagame.

Anyways, enough on that pet peeve of mine. On to your other arguments.

Rocks being "obnoxious" to deal with doesn't really say much about it being an unwanted element. They are intentionally made to be a drawback to switching which I feel is a necessary element to a balanced metagame as I described in my earlier post.

Stealth Rock doesn't inherently nerf or buff any particular playstyle. They only decrease the viability certain Pokemon. It's just an unhappy coincidence that many potential defensive Pokemon are the ones who suffer from its discrimination.

One of the key aspects of Pokemon is the fact that certain elements (such as types) have different pros and cons than others. Without this, we would have a completely different game. Pokemon that are Stealth Rock weak could have other advantages that outweigh the disadvantage of this curse to their typing. (Volcarona, Dragonite, etc.)

Basically, SR being so important in the metagame is a necessary evil to retain better balance. That's really what it comes down to.

SR is just necessary, it is by no means "evil". You might want to reword this. :P

in other words, "it's broken but it keeps broken things in check so let's keep it"

god forbid we actually ban things!

Okay, I'm going to use your post to address this silly idea that we should ban rocks or something of the sort cause "we don't keep broken things to check other broken things". (not sure if this is your actual position but it seems to imply it and it answers to a part I wanted to quote myself)

The problem I have with this statement is that it falsely assumes that Stealth Rock is a broken element. Just because potentially Ubers Pokemon are kept OU because of its presence doesn't mean we should ban SR so that they can be in their "rightful" tiers. Steel types prevent many Dragons from moving into the Ubers tier so following this logic would mean that Steel types should be banned as well as whatever is broken without it.

I realize that this could just be more of a # of uncompromising spinners problem, but I find it much easier in DPP / BW than ADV to just play out a game with the knowledge that the one team will die whether or not one had a specific set of plans. This is due to more than just the addition of SR of course, but I would say SR is a huge factor of the more effortless crumble of teams.

Ultimately, this comes down to a personal preference on whether or not we want to have the game naturally lead to a conclusion that the player must prevent (their team crumbling) or to have the game require the other player to actually push for the conclusion (what ADV seems to be). Both have their pros and cons that makes it difficult to really choose between the two. However, since Smogon aims to make the least amount of bans possible this means that we are stuck (ignore the negative connotation of the word, it's not intended) with the former as the latter isn't sufficient justification to ban the key element (Stealth Rock).

 

[Curtains]

I actually could totally see this deserving a suspect test.

That would probably be the biggest waste of time this gen. Are people really that upset they can't use articuno and moltres? I find it convient that players bring up pokemon that take the most from SR and make them seem like they would even stand a chance in OU. I will bring up volcarona again... Volcarona is very useful it can boost its stats quickly and has very good coverage moves. What do articuno and moltres bring to the table? Moltres has bad coverage moves and is weak to the most common types in the game. it is basically zapdos with a worse STAB move. Yeah it can run hurricane but then its other stab is basically useless. Articuno is more interesting but it is 100% outclassed by kyruem-b. Its ice stab isnt really hurting the metagame too much. So all in all these pokemon are not even worth trying to spin for. SR speeds up the game quite a bit. It adds an additional strategy to the game that keeps it fresh. I literally cannot find a good reason to suspect or ban it other than having a few below average gimmicky pokemon come up to OU. Also there will be another 2-4 rounds of suspect test banning things that become too strong without SR. Besides.. If SR was so dominating where are all the stall teams that just roar/whirlwind everyone to death? Is it overpowered? Sure... But so is drizzle and drought and all the dozens of other pokemon without SR on the field. Not to mention the clusterfuck of focus sash spam that would happen if SR+ hazards were to be banned. Not worth it. the polls speak for themselves.

To me banning SR would be like banning castling in chess....

 

[dcae]

Yeah banworthiness has nothing to do with the immediate effect on the meta. And as Lady Alex just said, I don't even think this is the case. IMO, the reason why there's so much controversy on this is because it hasnt been questioned, and is SO broken that it is ubiquitous to the point of defining the metagame, at which point of course we dont see anything wrong with this. I actually could totally see this deserving a suspect test.

This is well put. Stealth Rock is present on 99% of teams, has made stuff less viable, has brought a couple stuff up. It is pretty broken imo to use one move that will permanently pepper the field with stuff that take a chunk of health out of each poke every time it switches, most notably stuff like Mence and Volca. A suspect test could very well be justified. I don't recall any move ever making such an impact on pokemon ever.

 

[UltiMario]

I believe that even after DNite and Volc bans, the metagame would still be worse off than the current metagame. I can't even imagine what havoc Mence could wreck in a metagame where he doesn't have to worry about SR. I feel that the long term effects of a balanced SR metagame would require even more bans, possibly of Mence, Thundurus, and even Kyu-B. Lando-I and Keldeo might even end up getting the axe in the long run because of how an SR ban would require banning a lot of the Pokemon that contribute to the metagame's power creep, and they'd stand out to be far too strong compared to everything else available. I can't see anything else but those 7 going to Ubers from an SR ban. That's 8 bans to make the metagame potentially more balanced. That's a bit excessive, especially considering our banlist already. I know metagame comes first, but there has to be some line that has to be drawn when it comes to excessive bans vs achieving metagame balance.

Edit: Actually, I have a better idea. How about a SR + DNite + Volc ban tourney? That'd be interesting, it'd get us the info we're looking for on an SRless metagame, AND not a waste of time for the suspect testing process.

 

[ElectivireRocks]

Entry hazards are not broken. If you choose the right Pokemon the damage they do is negligible.

"Blaziken/Excadrill/whatever is not broken. If you choose the right pokemon you can easily KO it before it KOs you"

 

[Lady Alex]

Okay, I'm going to use your post to address this silly idea that we should ban rocks or something of the sort cause "we don't keep broken things to check other broken things". (not sure if this is your actual position but it seems to imply it and it answers to a part I wanted to quote myself)

The first problem with this statement is that it falsely assumes that Stealth Rock is a broken element. Just because potentially Ubers Pokemon are kept OU because of its presence doesn't mean we should ban SR so that they can be in their "rightful" tiers. Steel types prevent many Dragons from moving into the Ubers tier so following this logic would mean that Steel types should be banned as well as whatever is broken without it.

You're missing the point completely. We wouldn't be banning Stealth Rock so that certain pokemon would be in their "rightful tiers." Those pokemon would have nothing to do with banning SR. We would be banning it if it's found to be broken in its own right, having more negative than positive impact on the metagame. The analogy that steel types should be banned to prevent some dragons from being uber isn't following the line of reasoning of BKC's post at all.

 

[MMII]

Yes, you could say that the number of Pokemon that are unviable in OU because a Steel type walls them [SR cripples them] is having a more negative impact than the otherwise broken Dragon types. [Volcarona/Dnite] (which we would just ban after banning Steel types)

 

[yee]

It's painful for me to see people misunderstanding BKC again, so just to make 100% sure ya'll are on the right page, he's responding to a different post that already assumes SR is broken. That post (as all of the ones BKC responds to like that) however also implies that the broken move should be kept just because it keeps other things from being broken, which is a ridiculous idea for someone who thinks the move is broken.

 

[Kidogo]

Totally agreeing with Lady Alex, the point of the argument is just that making dnite and volc broken is no reason NOT to ban SR if we find it broken.

Ultimario that's fine theorymonning but really irrelevant to whether or not it should be banned. It may be that it will make a ton of mons broken, but that again doesnt really matter. I personally think it would be a better process to first ban SR and then see what warrants a ban (assuming it was concluded we should try this out).

Like dcae said, SR's impact on the meta is just way way way too much. Seriously, the fact that it is often considered favorable to sac a mon to get SR up and prevent the opponent from doing so is scary. And guys, spinners are so outclassed by spinblocking capabilities atm; defensive spinners are walled hard by jellicent, and starmie is easily pursuit-trappable and still cant really get past jelli...and even when it does, it promptly is OHKOed by scarftar.

Curtains, you seem to be missing the point. I'm not claiming that moltres and articuno are as good as volc; on the contrary, the fact that volc has survived in OU despite the presence of SR demonstrates how potent it is. All I'm saying is that SR is so damn ubiquitous that stuff like moltres doesnt even have a chance. And moltres would totally have a chance--it's like a zapdos that doesn't get walled by steels. In fact, it would be one of the premier checks to SF landy...if not for SR of course. And part of what makes SR so overpowered imo is that you don't have to build a team around it--just sac a mon to get it up turn 1, and then watch as all your attacks effectively do 12 or 25% more damage. And what's so wrong with making sash a more viable item? Finally, the whole point of this thread is to question this--and for a while at the beginning of the thread, no one was answering anything close to affirmative. Now we have 1/4 saying SR is broken--doesnt seem unreasonable at all to me that this should be up for questioning.

I'm definitely getting more and more convinced that this merits a test--there is a reason SR is considered "standard battle conditions".

 

[Curtains]

Curtains, you seem to be missing the point. I'm not claiming that moltres and articuno are as good as volc; on the contrary, the fact that volc has survived in OU despite the presence of SR demonstrates how potent it is. All I'm saying is that SR is so damn ubiquitous that stuff like moltres doesnt even have a chance. And moltres would totally have a chance--it's like a zapdos that doesn't get walled by steels. In fact, it would be one of the premier checks to SF landy...if not for SR of course. And part of what makes SR so overpowered imo is that you don't have to build a team around it--just sac a mon to get it up turn 1, and then watch as all your attacks effectively do 12 or 25% more damage. And what's so wrong with making sash a more viable item? Finally, the whole point of this thread is to question this--and for a while at the beginning of the thread, no one was answering anything close to affirmative. Now we have 1/4 saying SR is broken--doesnt seem unreasonable at all to me that this should be up for questioning.

I'm definitely getting more and more convinced that this merits a test--there is a reason SR is considered "standard battle conditions".

Since when does every pokemon have to have a chance? Pokemon were outright banned at the start of BW. They didn't get much of a chance. The fact is that if pokemon that were SR weak were capable in OU then they would be OU. Players would do the same song and dance of bringing a xatu or a spinner to try to get it in safely. The problem I am finding with your argument is that you really aren't explaining the benefits of SR vs the benefits without SR. Yes moves will do more on the switch in. But what about if you are not switching? You aren't taking damage... Take LO for instance.... You get 10% off but you get a stronger move.... SR is the same thing... You get a small piece of health took from you depending on your typing with the benefit of being able to switch in.

The benefits of SR being gone is that stronger pokemon become even stronger... You have pokemon like gyarados that is now able to set up on more pokemon in the rain with ease. Now it can just run lum berry and hope you don't have a scarfed rotom or your rotom is weak enough to KO. Defensive pokemon would be outright forced out of the metagame because they can't do anything with sweepers that they can't even 2-3hko. Movesets would be opened up to allow more annoying moves like Thunder wave. Focus sash becomes one of the most used items by far in a SR less metagame. Pokemon like focus sash landorus-i is guaranteed a RP at full health. You can simply have 3-4 focus sash sweepers and some defensive mons and be successful. Substitute pokemon become more common without SR. Pokemon like Sub tornadus, volcarona (yes this would be possible) or sub zapdos can freely come in without taking a penalty. Gimmicky Pokemon like L2 probopass and other L2 annoyers become harder to beat because they can't be KOed on the switch in unless you have spikes. Spikes would also soar in usage. Making custap berry skarmory/forretress a universal hazard setter. Since spikes are going to be the primary hazard most ground pokemon are now going to have trouble beating the pokemon in the air.

All in all banning SR is taking away from the game. No matter how overpowered it is it is necessary to hold down the power creep and keep the game fast paced and skill based.

 

[Lady Alex]

All in all banning SR is taking away from the game. No matter how overpowered it is it is necessary to hold down the power creep and keep the game fast paced and skill based.

You completely take away your entire argument with this statement alone. If it is overpowered, it is suspect worthy. It doesn't matter how the metagame after it is affected. Stop making the argument that SR is necessary because it checks other things. That is simply not the way we approach what we ban vs what we don't ban.

 

[youngjake93]

Just had to post to say it isn't just "aww you can't use Moltres or Articuno boohoo".
All variations of hail teams suck because of SR. That's several playstyles, not just 1 or 2 mons. Sun offense is limited basically to Venusaur, who can take a hit after SR. Choiced fire types in sun have nothing on choiced water types in rain because of SR(and a few other reasons, but mainly that).
Now to talk about individual mons. Firstly, in the abscense of rocks, Moltres is an amazing toxistaller due to sky drop, roost, fire blast and perfect stats. Yanmega becomes a go-to revenge killer with life orb+speed boost beating out choice scarf usually or a sweet sweeper with tinted lens. Chandelure gets to be a ridiculous specs user coming in repeatedly on immunities/resists w/o worryin about rocks and blasting things with 145 special attack. Weavile could probably reach OU as it already sees some use there. Cryogonal wouldn't be such a retarded option as a spinner and could be a legitimate special wall. Scyther might see niche use as a faster Scizor. Walls without reliably recover in general would see more use as their number of switch ins wouldn't be so limited.
There are a whole lot of changes other than 'bye volc, hai moltres'

So yes it changes a lot. Is it broken? Yes. Every argument pro-SR so far has been "well if you choose from the 20 pokemon it doesn't affect so bad, then no problem". A single-turn set up that stays the whole match, completely destroys some mons and in loads of situations turns 3hkos into 2hkos is definitely broken considering the crappy distribution of rapid spin and how hard it is to even get the opportunity to spin in a match.

 

[Neon Kaiser]

I personally have to say I don't think Stealth Rock is broken. Yes, it is unfair to Pokemon weak to Rock, but does that mean it is broken and it should be banned? No, I think not. It is similar to other things; should physical moves be banned because it is unfair to Pokemon with low Defense? No.

It's obviously not as simple as that, but Pokemon are designed the way they are by GameFreak and if they have a 4x Rock weakness that just sucks. That's it. The same goes for Pokemon like Ariados, Flareon, Kingler. They have flaws that make them not really viable in OU, the same goes for the like of Moltres and Yanmega.

 

[Curtains]

You completely take away your entire argument with this statement alone. If it is overpowered, it is suspect worthy. It doesn't matter how the metagame after it is affected. Stop making the argument that SR is necessary because it checks other things. That is simply not the way we approach what we ban vs what we don't ban.

You are not understanding how much the game would change without SR. It is not like a pokemon where you can just take it away and be done with it. You possibly open up a hell of alot more problems that we will had ever had with weather. yes adv didnt have SR. But with so many obnoxiously strong things in 5th gen you can't just look at the current metagame and be blind to what it will be like after it is banned. In fact if the council does come to a suspect test then you have to have the suspect ladder without SR. On paper voters will think it is OP in this metagame but they won't like the metagame without it. That is the reason why drizzle is still not banned. Also I don't remember smogon ever removing a move from the metagame. So all the stuff about what makes a pokemon ban worthy goes out the window.

@lady alex... you aren't getting it. The entire meaning of the suspect test is to have a better metagame.

"If X is broken the metagame would be better." Of course players don't say that. But the entire reason why there is a suspect test is to have a positive impact on the metagame that encourages as much skill as possible. Whether or not players like to say it or not that is what this is. Players didn't like dealing with tornadus-t so it was banned. Players didnt like swift swim and drizzle on the same team so it got banned. If players see the adverse effects of a metagame without SR be greater than just keeping the status quo then players are not gonna ban it. SR is possibly the most clear cut things to argue about. I agree with your statement when it comes to pokemon but not with a move of this magnitude and strategic integration.

@youngjake93 yeah i forgot about those moves.... But those usually go under evasion and ohko clause. Not really an individual move has been banned yet.

 

[Lady Alex]

You are not understanding how much the game would change without SR. It is not like a pokemon where you can just take it away and be done with it. You possibly open up a hell of alot more problems that we will had ever had with weather. yes adv didnt have SR. But with so many obnoxiously strong things in 5th gen you can't just look at the current metagame and be blind to what it will be like after it is banned. In fact if the council does come to a suspect test then you have to have the suspect ladder without SR. On paper voters will think it is OP in this metagame but they won't like the metagame without it. That is the reason why drizzle is still not banned. Also I don't remember smogon ever removing a move from the metagame. So all the stuff about what makes a pokemon ban worthy goes out the window.

You're still going on about how we should keep SR, even if it's overpowered, because we don't know how the metagame will change which might make other things become broken. Stop. It's been explained over and over that this isn't a reason not to ban something. The fact that there has never been a move banned doesn't mean that the reasoning behind what makes a pokemon banworthy doesn't apply. If something in the metagame is broken, we ban it.

 

[youngjake93]

You're still going on about how we should keep SR, even if it's overpowered, because we don't know how the metagame will change which might make other things become broken. Stop. It's been explained over and over that this isn't a reason not to ban something. The fact that there has never been a move banned doesn't mean that the reasoning behind what makes a pokemon banworthy doesn't apply. If something in the metagame is broken, we ban it.

Also, double team has been banned. Sheer cold has been banned. Sky drop has been banned. Dark void has been banned. These don't all apply to OU, but some do.
Moves have been banned before lol

 

[Scorpiopt]

Stealth rock for me its broken on bug types and ice types there is no reason to be 2x effective against them

 

[Aerodactyl Legend]

Overpowered or Broken is too harsh a word to describe Stealth Rock (voted Other). While there's no denying that it has had the most impact on the game since its inception and the effects have been more negative than one would like, it's not an anti-competitive (or glitched up) move like the ones that have been banned. I will say this though. If I could go back and prevent a move from being created, it would be Stealth Rock (or at least tone down the damage it does).

 

[dcae]

I've noticed a lot of pro SR arguments have been based off theorymonning. Honestly that is wrong. No one can predict the outcomes of a ban until it has been tested. Therefore, theorymonning should not be used as evidence. So saying keep SR or Dragonite will be banned shouldn't be argument. Let's focus on the facts: Dragonite and Volca are great with Spin support. Does that mean they would be banned? No because we don't know. Is it a fact that many mons have been hurt drastically by SR? Yes, as evidenced by Moltres, Yanmega, stuff along those lines. If we are to have a comprehensive discussion, points should be based of cold hard proof, not theories.

 

[Halcyon.]

I've noticed a lot of pro SR arguments have been based off theorymonning. Honestly that is wrong. No one can predict the outcomes of a ban until it has been tested. Therefore, theorymonning should not be used as evidence. So saying keep SR or Dragonite will be banned shouldn't be argument. Let's focus on the facts: Dragonite and Volca are great with Spin support. Does that mean they would be banned? No because we don't know. Is it a fact that many mons have been hurt drastically by SR? Yes, as evidenced by Moltres, Yanmega, stuff along those lines. If we are to have a comprehensive discussion, points should be based of cold hard proof, not theories.

Saying Yanmega and Moltres would become OU viable is also Theorymoning (probably moreso than saying Dragonite or Volcarona would go Uber). Just thought I would point that out.

 

[Vemane]

I somewhat support the sr-brokeners, at least from a certain standpoint (though I voted for none of them as broken). SR does indeed keep pokes like Dragonite or Volcorona (but volc has more than sr to deal with tbh) in check, but then what about the teams that don't have sr/don't use it in that one battle for whatever reason? Are they now supposed to just be subject to these allegedly broken threats because they don't carry one move? That is where the "no broken things keeping other broken things in check" policy spawns from, because while there may be a poke to keep said broken things in check, not having that poke essentially means that it may as well not exist at all

 

[Tressed]

I really don't think that we can actually vote on this accurately. Fact is, there have been no bans on moves because they're too good. Never. All banned moves are banned because they are mechanically broken (Sky Drop) or they promote Luck>Skill (Double Team, Sheer Cold). Say what you like, but Stealth Rock has little to no effect on luck (turns crits from 2HKOs to 0HKOs?), and it doesn't have anything with it that breaks the game.
Now, if we do decide that Stealth Rock is broken, that will open a whole other can of worms if we decide it needs to be banned. Why not ban Earthquake, for example. 100 BP with 100% accuracy and one of the best offensive typings in the game is way too broken, right? I'm just saying, having tiers for moves is not a good idea.

 

[Lady Alex]

I really don't think that we can actually vote on this accurately. Fact is, there have been no bans on moves because they're too good. Never. All banned moves are banned because they are mechanically broken (Sky Drop) or they promote Luck>Skill (Double Team, Sheer Cold). Say what you like, but Stealth Rock has little to no effect on luck (turns crits from 2HKOs to 0HKOs?), and it doesn't have anything with it that breaks the game.
Now, if we do decide that Stealth Rock is broken, that will open a whole other can of worms if we decide it needs to be banned. Why not ban Earthquake, for example. 100 BP with 100% accuracy and one of the best offensive typings in the game is way too broken, right? I'm just saying, having tiers for moves is not a good idea.

Unlike Earthquake or any other move, Stealth Rock is used on nearly 100% of teams and is a necessity in order to have a successful team. It's complete ubiquity paired with the very few spinners (who mostly lose to Jellicent) we have are what arguably break it.

One of the pro-ban arguments for Excadrill was that having to pack Skarmory (who could actually sometimes lose) or Gliscor on every team in order to reliably deal with it was absurd. Similarly, why should we have to pack SR on every team in order to reliably succeed?

 

[Wizarus]

I can't see how SR can't be considered at least OP. It's obvious that it was meant to hit Flying types immune to Spikes, but it goes too far and hits everything else weak to rock. Nerfing pokemon simply because it's weak to a single type while those pokemon gain nothing positive against other entry hazards(Immune to Spikes/Toxic Spikes) is OP; it being stupid easy to set-up, and the wide distribution of the move is makes it even worse.

If it was considered broken, I have to agree with Lady Alex; not knowing how the metagame will turn out is not a reason why something should be kept in the game. If it's broken ban it. If other pokemon become broken because of the change, ban those pokemon as well. Keeping broken things in for the sake of balance is counter-productive.