Zarel said: Just to keep everyone updated:





The current leading idea is "only allow Gigantamaxing". Most of the worst Dynamax abusers don't have a Gigantamax version, so it has the potential to be a lot less broken, while still retaining this gen's gimmick in some usable form.





Feel free to discuss the "Gigantamax only" idea. Click to expand...

Martin said: It wouldn’t be a complex ban because there is an objective, official distinction that can be narrowed down to a single attribute of the Pokémon, and it’s very hard to dispute this regardless of whether you believe they’re broken or not. This same attribute means that there is one objective thing that can be handled separately if we decide one gmax is too much but not the others (we’d ban the flag that allows the transformation, just like we would with a mega stone or Batle Bond/Zen Mode). It’s a simple ban both in a world where Dynamax is legal and in a world where it is not. Click to expand...

First time posting here, please be gentle. :)I'm very much against this idea.Is Dynamax the problem, or are the Pokémon that use Dynamax the problem? I, and most people in this thread, believe that it's Dynamax as a core mechanic that is flawed.Without repeating too much, it allows sweepers to snowball through a team, makes turn-based strategies like Rain overly effective, and indirectly buffs Choice items to the point where holders are seen as overbearing and unfair. All of this has been covered by people with more eloquence and more competitive experience than I in posts above.Gigantamax holds almost all the benefits Dynamax does. Yes, GMax Lapras is unlikely to be tearing up the OU ladder, but by allowing Gigantamax users to exist under Smogon policy we'd be delegitimizing our own argument that Dynamax as a whole is the uncompetitive aspect, as opposed to Hawlucha, Gyarados, Ditto and any number of other arguably banworthy-under-Dynamax Pokémon. Allowing GMax Corviknight suggests that Dynamax isn't the issue, but rather, Max Airstream is, hence GMax Corviknight is fine. After all, that's the only degree of seperation between GMax and DMax Corviknight, while the latter would be banned under the proposed ruleset. But if that's true, why not allow every Dynamax user that lacks Flying-type coverage? Better yet, why not ban Max Airstream itself and allow the other moves? Yes, this is a complex ban, but much like warzoid I see Gigantamaxing itself as a complex ban; I don't see any justification for banning the Dynamax mechanic, but not if it's Gigantamax, with the distinction primarily being "Gigantamax Pokémon often, but not always, have a lower BST, and we can ban the exceptions".On top of this, the majority of Gigantamax users are also inherently uncompetitive. I'm not just referring to potentially banworthy ones like Gengar and Melmetal, but also to the likes of Grimmsnarl that induce a Yawn status, or Eevee inflicting infatuation. Even tamer ones, like Pikachu simply inducing Paralysis and Butterfree inducing, well, a random status, are centered around luck and outside of this luck element are no different from their Dynamax forms.To me, appeals to allow Gigantamax seem to be based around attempts to maintain a new gimmick by way of limiting its users to a convenient list provided by Game Freak. The issue is that some forms ARE (arguably) still overpowered, and the majority of the ones that aren't (or don't seem to be) offer virtually nothing unique or competitive to the table but instead just serve to add additional elements of luck to the game, with the only notable exception being Copperajah. Is a visual change and a Gravity effect instead of Psychic Terrain enough reason to allow GMax Orbeetle and maintain a ban on DMax Orbeetle? This is subjective, but personally I don't think so. This isn't even going into the potential issues that low tiers may face when the likes of Butterfree and maybe even Eevee are suddenly in a format where their stats become high enough to take advantage of their luck-centered mechanics.I believe I understand where you're coming from, but the objective, official distinction does not come in the form of an item or an ability, or anything, for a lack of a better term, "physical". I'm of the opinion that banning Gigantamax is more akin to banning the use of an event move on a Pokémon than it is to a banning a Mega Stone. You are banning a fundamental element of a Pokémon, removing something it can naturally do without any additional changes to its set. I understand that this is a grey area, with Mega Rayquaza as a notable example where we broke this precedent by banning it from Mega Evolving while at the same time allowing it to use Dragon Ascent, and it could also be argued that instead of an event move, the ability to Gigantamax is closer to an alternate ability à la Dream World... but Gigantamaxing isn't quite like anything we've seen before, and I think it's hard to make a conclusive argument for or against Gigantamax being an "objective, official distinction" in any legitimate sense, at least not in a clearly defined sense like you seem to be suggesting it is.