Baton Pass - its role in the metagame and possible solutions to nerf full Baton Pass chains

[Of Moose & Men]

That is the whole point. The point is not to stop baton pass, it has to be done less effective.

Right, so the most efficient and plausible solution would be to limit the amount of Pokemon you can have in a BP chain. Since, the Pokemon and abilities aren't broken outside of the cookie cutter BP team.

I have no idea what ure talking about. I didnt use that word at all and i have 1 of the biggest rights to post here, since ive been #1 with baton pass for a long time!

He quoted who he was talking to. . . Not sure why you took offense to that.

 

[matimooo]

That very thing can be said for everything in Ubers.

I know where you're coming from, but I believe we should be getting rid of anything broken at the root.
Many of gen 5's players agree that Drizzle's (and possibly Drought) presence ruined the metagame. It took forever to nerf. And people still have qualms with the result.

What you say of gen 5 is true, every team was a weather team back then. But they didnt ban using weathers in gen 6 anyway, they restricted it, to a not as dominating part of the game. Because banning magic bounce would do semi passing impossible and stall way too op. I feel like baton pass isnt an as big issue as the weathers in gen 5 and should therefore only be restricted.

 

[Agente X]

I feel that this thread is going in circles, without some sort of voting i think the same arguments are going to be discussed repeatedly. Not really know what is supposed to happen. All we have to do is opening the strategy to common solutions. Of course scolopide or baton pass aren't going to be banned, let's stop suggesting that. As I stated previously, three very plausible solutions have been offered and i think any one of them would work well. C'mon guys, let's move forward :).

Is it better to limit the number of baton passes? With even 3 pokes, the strategy will do the powerful things it already does, but it would be left open to a lot of answers that can be taken advantage of. I think 4 is enough but the issue of 4 or 3 is one worth discussing.

Is it better to ban ingrain on smeargle? That is the most elegant solution i have seen, the one I like the most. BP would still have the tools to defend itself but it would always have to exercise prediction and any good mind games or surprise factor will desestabilize it. In this case BP would still remain a strong option and would most probably defeat the unprepared. (talking about attaking the root of the problem ;) )

Is it better to ban magic bounce on espeon? That is a very hard hit for BP, as now they would be really open to most countermeasures. But it also affects teams that use espeon outside of BP, which are not negligible.

What do you guys think?

 

[biggy330]

What about banning baton passing to espeon? Its odd but would solve all the complaints about taunt and roar not working and would make baton pass players run a speedy taunter and pre predict

 

[Of Moose & Men]

I feel that this thread is going in circles, without some sort of voting i think the same arguments are going to be discussed repeatedly. Not really know what is supposed to happen. All we have to do is opening the strategy to common solutions. Of course scolopide or baton pass aren't going to be banned, let's stop suggesting that. As I stated previously, three very plausible solutions have been offered and i think any one of them would work well. C'mon guys, let's move forward :).

Is it better to limit the number of baton passes? With even 3 pokes, the strategy will do the powerful things it already does, but it would be left open to a lot of answers that can be taken advantage of. I think 4 is enough but the issue of 4 or 3 is one worth discussing.

Is it better to ban ingrain on smeargle? That is the most elegant solution i have seen, the one I like the most. BP would still have the tools to defend itself but it would always have to exercise prediction and any good mind games or surprise factor will desestabilize it. In this case BP would still remain a strong option and would most probably defeat the unprepared. (talking about attaking the root of the problem ;) )

Is it better to ban magic bounce on espeon? That is a very hard hit for BP, as now they would be really open to most countermeasures. But it also affects teams that use espeon outside of BP, which are not negligible.

What do you guys think?

The irony. . .

This has been conversed about numerous times.
Ingrain on Smeargle is not what makes the strategy broken, it makes it more difficult to handle. Other than that, Ingrain on Smeargle is not broken, even outside of BP chains.
And banning MB Espeon is plain pointless. Like ingrain Smeargle, it is not broken anywhere outside of BP chains, so why ban it?

The common consensus among everyone, even some anti-ban-ers, is to limit the amount of Pokemon capable of using BP on a team, since it doesn't get rid of something that doesn't need to go, and limits something that does.

BP chains don't win games because of one Pokemon, it's a combination of 6 Pokemon acting as one. . . So getting rid of one wouldn't stop the problem. . .

 

[Agente X]

The irony. . .

This has been conversed about numerous times.
Ingrain on Smeargle is not what makes the strategy broken, it makes it more difficult to handle. Other than that, Ingrain on Smeargle is not broken, even outside of BP chains.
And banning MB Espeon is plain pointless. Like ingrain Smeargle, it is not broken anywhere outside of BP chains, so why ban it?

The common consensus among everyone, even some anti-ban-ers, is to limit the amount of Pokemon capable of using BP on a team, since it doesn't get rid of something that doesn't need to go, and limits something that does.

BP chains don't win games because of one Pokemon, it's a combination of 6 Pokemon acting as one. . . So getting rid of one wouldn't stop the problem. . .

I really think that the fact that the strategy is very difficult to handle is part of what makes it broken. Since it was proposed, the idea (of banning ingrain on smeargle) wasn't to stop the team, just to make it maneagable and more interesting to play against. But then again, if that is not considered adequate for the majority that's allright. Let's focus then on the problem of limiting the number of baton passers.

 

[Jarrod]

I feel that this thread is going in circles, without some sort of voting i think the same arguments are going to be discussed repeatedly. Not really know what is supposed to happen. All we have to do is opening the strategy to common solutions. Of course scolopide or baton pass aren't going to be banned, let's stop suggesting that. As I stated previously, three very plausible solutions have been offered and i think any one of them would work well. C'mon guys, let's move forward :).

Is it better to limit the number of baton passes? With even 3 pokes, the strategy will do the powerful things it already does, but it would be left open to a lot of answers that can be taken advantage of. I think 4 is enough but the issue of 4 or 3 is one worth discussing.

Is it better to ban ingrain on smeargle? That is the most elegant solution i have seen, the one I like the most. BP would still have the tools to defend itself but it would always have to exercise prediction and any good mind games or surprise factor will desestabilize it. In this case BP would still remain a strong option and would most probably defeat the unprepared. (talking about attaking the root of the problem ;) )

Is it better to ban magic bounce on espeon? That is a very hard hit for BP, as now they would be really open to most countermeasures. But it also affects teams that use espeon outside of BP, which are not negligible.

What do you guys think?

First two solutions are reasonable, but the third is absolutely unjust. I'd equate it to banning Drizzle Politoed in Gen 5 - an ability goes to waste even when not used in an "overpowered" context (i.e. dual screens).

 

[Ninja Charizard]

I just had my first defeat against BP using my current team, the one I said had a 8-0 winning streak (not that this proves BP is broken or anything, just that there isn't a flawless counter against the entire team, which I have said before).

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-114655361

Anyway, the point of this post is, the winner did not use ingrain on smeargle, did not lead with Scolipede, and I managed to kill Espeon soon into the battle, which did not prevent him from winning because he managed to quickpass a def + speed boost into Sylveon and sweep my team.

So yeah, I highly doubt individual pokemon are making the chain overpowered (I don't think it's overpowered anyway but I have argued that enough already). If anything should be done, it's to limit the number of bp pokemon. That would be a definite nerf to bp, which would prevent the teams from replacing the banned pokemon with other options, and make it harder for the team to become overpowered again in future generations. That would also reduce the team's ability to make multiple bp chains in a match, which is possible for the many backup options that the 6-mon team provides.

 

[RevengeOfHiddenPower]

Edit two: And can't the proposed 'Baton Pass Clause' simply be changed to something like forfeiting the player when they 'Chain Pass'? It wouldn't interfere with mechanics that way, similar to disqualifying someone for repeatedly hitting below the waist.

Wait, what? That's even worse than simply blocking its selection! If we were to do this, we would also need to forfeit for Sleep Clause - remember, the Sleep Clause rule starts "you lose if..."

I'm not much of a fan of banning Ingrain on Smeargle. Limiting BP to 3 would serve the same purpose, as you would hardly want to use one of your three spots on Smeargle. I'll repeat what I've said: Either ban both 5 Baton Passers and Ingrain Smeargle or just ban 4 Baton Passers.

 

[Shoot For Zero]

Edit two: And can't the proposed 'Baton Pass Clause' simply be changed to something like forfeiting the player when they 'Chain Pass'? It wouldn't interfere with mechanics that way, similar to disqualifying someone for repeatedly hitting below the waist.

I think Baton Pass Clause could work like trying to switch-out a trapped Poke: The player tries to use BP on their passed-in Poke, and the sim says "Lolnope."

OR, it could work like Sleep Clause and BP would fail.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

I think Baton Pass Clause could work like trying to switch-out a trapped Poke: The player tries to use BP on their passed-in Poke, and the sim says "Lolnope."

OR, it could work like Sleep Clause and BP would fail.

Or, it could work like Species Clause and won't allow you to enter a battle if you have X Pokemon with BP.

 

[matimooo]

I feel that this thread is going in circles, without some sort of voting i think the same arguments are going to be discussed repeatedly. Not really know what is supposed to happen. All we have to do is opening the strategy to common solutions. Of course scolopide or baton pass aren't going to be banned, let's stop suggesting that. As I stated previously, three very plausible solutions have been offered and i think any one of them would work well. C'mon guys, let's move forward :).

Is it better to limit the number of baton passes? With even 3 pokes, the strategy will do the powerful things it already does, but it would be left open to a lot of answers that can be taken advantage of. I think 4 is enough but the issue of 4 or 3 is one worth discussing.

Is it better to ban ingrain on smeargle? That is the most elegant solution i have seen, the one I like the most. BP would still have the tools to defend itself but it would always have to exercise prediction and any good mind games or surprise factor will desestabilize it. In this case BP would still remain a strong option and would most probably defeat the unprepared. (talking about attaking the root of the problem ;) )

Is it better to ban magic bounce on espeon? That is a very hard hit for BP, as now they would be really open to most countermeasures. But it also affects teams that use espeon outside of BP, which are not negligible.

What do you guys think?

Ok, so its true that everything has been lade on the table, and voting is now necessary. I think that the only thing from those 3 options that could be considered is making a max number of baton passers in a team, even though i think that is unnecessary. Heres some things that doesnt solve the case well: banning magic bounce/espeon ( makes semi passing and espeon teambuilding impossible), banning scolipede (no reason to ban it, its ability cud be banned tho), baton pass in general (its an essential part of the game). Then ingrain, that u suggested, wont solve the problem at all. It will just do bp a little harder in terms of red card (easy to counter anyway) and bbird skarmory. The health can be gained by aqua ring anyway; the same problem that is now would still be there: only well prepared teams manage bp. Then again making a limit off baton passers would mean the whole playstyle to drop off, and as ive said before, stall will be very strong then, and people are gonna start hating it like they hate bp right now. So you have to think it like that too, if 1 thing goes away, other things get really op. There are many op things in the ou metagame right now, so a decreased baton pass is not such a big threat. Examples are deoxys-d, deoxys-s, thundurus, bisharp, knock off, medicham-mega (will get much better when no bp).

 

[matimooo]

What about banning baton passing to espeon? Its odd but would solve all the complaints about taunt and roar not working and would make baton pass players run a speedy taunter and pre predict

I hope u do realize that there is no baton pass when espeon goes...

 

[Shoot For Zero]

Or, it could work like Species Clause and won't allow you to enter a battle if you have X Pokemon with BP.

It's tough. I'd be fine with a cap, but we definitely need a vote. A vote on whether BP chains should retain a presence in the OU metagame (or simply be nerfed), then how to accomplish the first vote's result.

I believe whatever change occurs has already been stated in this thread.

 

[matimooo]

I really think that the fact that the strategy is very difficult to handle is part of what makes it broken. Since it was proposed, the idea (of banning ingrain on smeargle) wasn't to stop the team, just to make it maneagable and more interesting to play against. But then again, if that is not considered adequate for the majority that's allright. Let's focus then on the problem of limiting the number of baton passers.

Depends on what wants to be done. Looks like most people wanna get rid off bp completely; then it can be maxed to 3 or 4, but the whole playstyle will stop. This would allow semi passing to be done, but nb does it...

 

[WebBowser]

Banning.Ingrain smeargle nerf it enough, as I' m pretty sure many teams have some kind of phaser.
I posted another option a few pages back. It was to just ban Baton pass on Espeon if the team already has 2 users. Apparently that's to hard of a nerf.

So really limiting the the amount of users is alright. Why not just ban Speed boost Scol from baton pass teams. Zapados is still a viable option, so i've heard.

The problem still isn't in Scol tho. It's more so in Espeon(and smeargle to a lesser extent).
Honestly tho, I think Ingrain smeargle is a big enough nerf. I would say ban magic bounce Espeon but someone would complain(tho those who do cwould use Xatu).

Idk just my thoughts.

Also, banning iron defence on Scol, has some effect on the metagame, while limiting to 3-4 doesn't much.

And I seen your edit, I'm sorry to I'm just sick of people being rude to me on here.

Banning ingrain smeargle should be enough for stall and heavy defense teams to have a fair shot, as those teams are ones that rely on phazers to counter setup in the first place. However, ingrain smeargle has almost no bearing in the BP vs HO matchup, who very rarely pack phasers and rely on denying the opponent the opportunity to setup in the first place. The fact that scolo can outspeed and setup iron defense on an astonishing number of OU physical threats and live to pass to whoever is what is tipping full BP teams into "broken" territory.

As for the argument that banning iron-d on scoli has less effect on the metagame then limiting the number of BP users, I would like to offer this as a counter argument: If this proposal goes through, then full BP teams, as in teams with 6 BP users, are all dead, regardless of broken or unbroken.

For people still suggesting that limiting the number of BP users is the way to go, I am beginning to doubt whether or not it will work in the first place. If we were to limit the number of BPers to four, we will not change the fact that BP still has scoli, who can setup iron defense against virtually any non-flying physical threat in the game AND we still have smeargle, who only needs one free turn to completely negate passive damage WHILE making the entire team immune to phasing, which basically turns the team into stalls worst nightmare.

Replay evidence for why I believe smeargle is breaking BP versus stall

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-110739069 (sandstorm vs denis, this replay has been posted in this topic before)

During this replay, denis gets ingrain off early, which allowed his espeon to have roughly twice as many substitutes up while at the same time allowing both espeon and vaporeon to shrug off burn damage. Ingrain healing also made it nearly impossible for s-toss chansey to stop the boosting, as it was turning 4hkos into 5 or 6 hkos, which turned out to be super relevent in the endgame as it allowed sylv to get one more boost off and allowed espeon to live just long enough to take out chansey. Lastly, the early ingrain basically meant that denis feared NOTHING from sandstorm's skarm, who could've turned around the fight by threatening with whirlwind and using BB instead. This threat was not possible, however, due to ingrain smeargle.

TL;DR ingrain smeargle was the reason sandstorm lost this match, and that gives me reason to believe that banning ingrain smeargle will help stall fight BP more effectively with scald burns, s-toss, subs actually costing hp, and being able to threaten non-espeon opponents with whirlwind, giving stall more counterplay options.

Replay evidence why I believe iron defense scoli is breaking BP vs offensive teams

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-114265992 (Denis vs Reverb)

Yes I realize Denis lost this one, but only due to hax. Note how scoli was able to setup iron defense in front of LO Latios, a mon with a fairly powerful, super effective STAB that just happened to have the misfortune of hitting physically. Once he had the iron defense under his belt, he was able to take any physical option the enemy had off the table (as could be seen with the failure of physical thundy-I to do anything of note). No mon should be able to give his team that kind of support in front of a powerful super effective STAB like that. Therefore, I make my argument that iron defense scoli is OP versus offensive teams.

 

[Liarliarpantsonfire]

Replay evidence why I believe iron defense scoli is breaking BP vs offensive teams

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-114265992 (Denis vs Reverb)

Yes I realize Denis lost this one, but only due to hax. Note how scoli was able to setup iron defense in front of LO Latios, a mon with a fairly powerful, super effective STAB that just happened to have the misfortune of hitting physically. Once he had the iron defense under his belt, he was able to take any physical option the enemy had off the table (as could be seen with the failure of physical thundy-I to do anything of note). No mon should be able to give his team that kind of support in front of a powerful super effective STAB like that. Therefore, I make my argument that iron defense scoli is OP versus offensive teams.

One burn from Lava Plume was enough for his whole Baton Pass team to lose. Broken as hell? Yeah right.

That's not really what I want to point out though. If he had gone for Draco Meteor instead of Psyshock then Scolipede would be dead, quite simply as that. Ofcourse using physical attacks (or Psyshock for that matter) against something fast with Iron Defense generally isn't effective. That's common sense, nothing broken about it. The arguments for a ban should really improve in quality imo. I know it's really easy to stigmatize a playstyle like Baton Pass and to shout nonsense like BP winning before the match even started, or that all counters are useless/unviable. But that's not a way to form an argument, even when you hate Baton Pass teams with heart and soul.

 

[Aragorn the King]

I would just say ban the move altogether. It is incredibley frustrating with or without Unaware Quagsire. Say no to Baton 'Ass!

But that would disrupt viable play styles. The best option is the least intrusive one that still eliminates the problem.

EDIT: Liarliarpantsonfire
252 SpA Life Orb Latios Draco Meteor vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Scolipede: 251-296 (77.4 - 91.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
Draco wouldn't do it.

 

[WebBowser]

One burn from Lava Plume was enough for his whole Baton Pass team to lose. Broken as hell? Yeah right.

That's not really what I want to point out though. If he had gone for Draco Meteor instead of Psyshock then Scolipede would be dead, quite simply as that. Ofcourse using physical attacks (or Psyshock for that matter) against something fast with Iron Defense generally isn't effective. That's common sense, nothing broken about it. The arguments for a ban should really improve in quality imo. I know it's really easy to stigmatize a playstyle like Baton Pass and to shout nonsense like BP winning before the match even started, or that all counters are useless/unviable. But that's not a way to form an argument, even when you hate Baton Pass teams with heart and soul.

Normally, you would have a point. Being able to 2hko something is normally threatening enough to be "not setup bait". However, the amount scoli can do with a single free turn is far greater then the majority of mons that can take that LO draco meteor / psyshock. Scolo has the ability to give any ally a semi permanate reflect along with choice scarf without the locking for a single free turn. That's a huge amount of support for a mon capable of setting up said support in front of things like LO latios, mega heracross, virtually any terrakion set, non-taunt/roar ttar, and many others.

*edit*

also, it wasn't just a single burn. Heatran also got a ton of high rolls that were just enough to stop espeon from getting subs up.

 

[Awagarb]

I specifically stated these replays are not flawless gameplay on my part or my opponents

(All mistakes are my own.)

Let me guess, you will go back and edit that part too?

calling a move a mistake like a second Dragon Dance is entirely subjective.

Are you really saying that Dragon dancing against a baton passer that has higher speed, is spamming substitutes and has a Smeargle on his team is subjectively a mistake? He didnt even attack when he saw the intact substitute at the end of the turn, he dragon danced a third time!
The definition of "entirely subjective" is entirely subjective. Using your logic, one could even argue that using self-destruct against a ghost is not inherently a mistake because the opponent could have switched the ghost out for a frail sweeper. What can be objectively determined is the final outcome, where a boosted Char-X was slept because that player used more dragon dances instead of breaking some more subs with flare blitz until Scolipede was forced out. This was very clearly mistake and shouldnt be labelled as "Scolipede embarasses a 3x dragon dance char-x". The player was so clueless that he was breaking most subs with dragon claw, allowing a free switch to mime or sylveon even with no sub.

Ninjask has no further relevancy in this thread, and he isn't to be used as a Reductio ad Absurdum. We've already established Ninjask, while access to Speed Boost and Protect, Sub, etc, simply lacks the bulk and overall functionality to his superior counterpart Scolipede.

There is no reductio ad absurdum involving Ninjask... I literally just mentioned the main weaknesses your team would gain by trading Scolipede for Ninjask and that these weaknesses arent enough to completly remove the need for specific counters against BP, just increase the number of viable ones.
Your reply is essentially "Ninjask wouldnt work because it has the same weaknesses you just mentioned, also you cant mention him because reasons".
Fantastic.

Someone who doesn't understand the definition of 'uncompetitive' and doesn't understand why a Pokemon is banned, tried to tell me not to use the word "uncompetitive." It's pretentious and ignorant to tell someone not to use the very word they fail to understand.

Sigh. I really dont know why I am wasting my time, but here it goes :
-Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions-- and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.-
First of all, "to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive" is entirely subjective. There is no consensus on how much autonomy it needs to take away before it becomes uncompetitive, specially when not dealing with plain luck.
"I think this pokemon classifies as uncompetitive -> it is uncompetitive -> everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant because I have already established it is uncompetitive" Is not a good line of thinking, you know?
You're just pretending its universally agreed that "being able to get speed boosts and maybe defensive boosts unless you have [list of counters here]" is automatically uncompetitive. It isnt. Virtually no one has a problem with Scolipede taking away autonomy when he is used outside of full BP Teams.
Scarfed Shadow Tag Trick Gothielle for example takes away a massive control from your hands for countless turns unless your entire team can deal with her, which is easily worse than Scolipede in the autonomy regard, yet not even she is uncompetitive by default.

The root of the problem is that you firmly believe that anyone who disagrees with your entirely subjective reasonings such as

A Pokemon that can acquire 1-3 Speed boosts and pass to any Pokemon with virtual surety is unhealthy for the metagame.

is an idiot.
You have already been called for your rudeness towards random people more than enough times in this thread, its obvious you wont comprehend anytime soon why your opnion is not the only one that matters.

I was going to point out every single bullshit you said, but I started drinking 5ml of water every time you repeated the words "uncompetitive" and "autonomy". I DIED.

 

[Over Zealous]

I was going to refute each of your points to show you how you're yet again mistaken (but yet still act like not only are you right, but like you have authority), but this is probably the most important point to consider here. (cause doing the former is like talking to a brick wall at this point)



So not only are BP chains beatable, but dependent on player competence. How is that not like every team archetype ever? Because you can't ignore BP while team building and smash through it all willy nilly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that totally seems to be what you want.

Yeah, we aren't saying Baton Pass chains are unbeatable or invincible. We're saying it's overcentralizing and unhealthy for the development of the metagame, AKA the entire point of this thread. We've arrived at: we need some sort of nerf to Baton Pass, but what?

Again, don't bother comparing a playstyle like hyper-offense with Baton Pass. Two entirely different archetypes. Baton Pass chain is a 6-headed beast with speed initiative. It forces all players to incorporate niche counter-measures just to have a chance at winning, unlike hyper offensive.

Let me guess, you will go back and edit that part too?


Are you really saying that Dragon dancing against a baton passer that has higher speed, is spamming substitutes and has a Smeargle on his team is subjectively a mistake? He didnt even attack when he saw the intact substitute at the end of the turn, he dragon danced a third time!
The definition of "entirely subjective" is entirely subjective. Using your logic, one could even argue that using self-destruct against a ghost is not inherently a mistake because the opponent could have switched the ghost out for a frail sweeper. What can be objectively determined is the final outcome, where a boosted Char-X was slept because that player used more dragon dances instead of breaking some more subs with flare blitz until Scolipede was forced out. This was very clearly mistake and shouldnt be labelled as "Scolipede embarasses a 3x dragon dance char-x". The player was so clueless that he was breaking most subs with dragon claw, allowing a free switch to mime or sylveon even with no sub.


There is no reductio ad absurdum involving Ninjask... I literally just mentioned the main weaknesses your team would gain by trading Scolipede for Ninjask and that these weaknesses arent enough to completly remove the need for specific counters against BP, just increase the number of viable ones.
Your reply is essentially "Ninjask wouldnt work because it has the same weaknesses you just mentioned, also you cant mention him because reasons".
Fantastic.


Sigh. I really dont know why I am wasting my time, but here it goes :
-Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions-- and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.-
First of all, "to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive" is entirely subjective. There is no consensus on how much autonomy it needs to take away before it becomes uncompetitive, specially when not dealing with plain luck.
"I think this pokemon classifies as uncompetitive -> it is uncompetitive -> everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant because I have already established it is uncompetitive" Is not a good line of thinking, you know?
You're just pretending its universally agreed that "being able to get speed boosts and maybe defensive boosts unless you have [list of counters here]" is automatically uncompetitive. It isnt. Virtually no one has a problem with Scolipede taking away autonomy when he is used outside of full BP Teams.
Scarfed Shadow Tag Trick Gothielle for example takes away a massive control from your hands for countless turns unless your entire team can deal with her, which is easily worse than Scolipede in the autonomy regard, yet not even she is uncompetitive by default.

The root of the problem is that you firmly believe that anyone who disagrees with your entirely subjective reasonings such as is an idiot.
You have already been called for your rudeness towards random people more than enough times in this thread, its obvious you wont comprehend anytime soon why your opnion is not the only one that matters.

I was going to point out every single bullshit you said, but I started drinking 5ml of water every time you repeated the words "uncompetitive" and "autonomy". I DIED.

1. The replay illustrates how Scolipede can gather max stages of speed and grant speed initiative for the entire team (and possibly Def) even in the face of Charizard X. x3-4 Dragon Danced Charizard can sweep my Baton Pass chain; Spore Smeargle is just a gamble. He could have broke my Sub again, meaning nothing for him, as I'd get the speed I desire, and switch out anyways? Saying he or I made a mistake during any of the replays is useless.

2. Don't even mention Ninjask. He has no place on the thread, and can't be used as an argument.

3. Shadow Tag takes autonomy away from the game by trapping, and having no true counters; the opponent can't even switch in a counter. By the same token, no matter what the opponent does, Scolipede ensures the entire chain will have near max speed. Furthermore, he is capable of setting up multiple times in a match. This isn't just my opinion, it's a universal truth. You aren't stopping Scolipede from acquiring speed. A Suspect Test will show you this.

4. You're free to argue and disagree; that's the point of this thread. But if you're wrong, you're wrong. You can argue how Mega Kang, Gengar and Blaziken aren't broken or uncompetitive all you want, and you'd simply be wrong.

5. Whether you like it or not, there's a problem with Baton Pass, and so we're deciding how to nerf that problem. You either have suggestions, or you have nothing.

 

[Jukain]

Alright I'm going to post a replay dump in a bit but for starters here's the 4-mon BP team I'm using if anyone wants to try:

Hide

Vaporeon (M) @ Leftovers
Ability: Water Absorb
EVs: 248 HP / 128 Spd / 132 Def
Bold Nature
- Baton Pass
- Acid Armor
- Substitute
- Scald

Espeon (M) @ Leftovers
Ability: Magic Bounce
EVs: 252 HP / 220 Def / 36 Spd
Bold Nature
- Calm Mind
- Stored Power
- Hidden Power [Fighting]
- Baton Pass

Scolipede @ Mental Herb
Ability: Speed Boost
EVs: 184 HP / 164 SDef / 160 Spd
Timid Nature
- Substitute
- Protect
- Baton Pass
- Iron Defense

Sylveon (F) @ Leftovers
Ability: Pixilate
EVs: 248 HP / 252 Def / 8 SDef
Bold Nature
- Substitute
- Baton Pass
- Calm Mind
- Hyper Voice

Aerodactyl @ Aerodactylite
Ability: Unnerve
EVs: 252 Spd / 252 Atk / 4 HP
Adamant Nature
- Stone Edge
- Earthquake
- Ice Fang
- Aerial Ace

Landorus (M) @ Life Orb
Ability: Sheer Force
EVs: 252 Spd / 252 SAtk / 4 Atk
Naive Nature
- Earth Power
- Psychic
- Focus Blast
- Knock Off

Broken garb.

 

[shedinja4eva]

Wouldn't the Pass Clause someone mentioned before work? A pokemon that was passed to can't use the move baton pass (it will fail the same way using a sleep move on a pokemon will fall if there's already one asleep).

This way no specific pokemon or moves/abilities would have to be banned. People could still run six baton pass pokemon teams. There would be a lot of opportunity for different plays and counter plays (with different possible combos). But the power of a six pass chain would be eliminated no matter what combination of mons are used.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

Wouldn't the Pass Clause someone mentioned before work? A pokemon that was passed to can't use the move baton pass (it will fail the same way using a sleep move on a pokemon will fall if there's already one asleep).

This way no specific pokemon or moves/abilities would have to be banned. People could still run six baton pass pokemon teams. There would be a lot of opportunity for different plays and counter plays (with different possible combos). But the power of a six pass chain would be eliminated no matter what combination of mons are used.

It would make more sense to treat it like Species clause, and have it prevent you from entering a match with X Pokemon with BP. The difference between having two Pokes with Sleep inducing moves and having BP failing is that one will be entirely useless for the rest of the match. Where as sleep can be re induced when it wakes up.

Just make it so that you can't enter with X Pokes with BP, that number is dependent on what everyone agrees on, and call it a day.

 

[Awagarb]

1. The replay illustrates how Scolipede can gather max stages of speed and grant speed initiative for the entire team (and possibly Def) even in the face of Charizard X. x3-4 Dragon Danced Charizard can sweep my Baton Pass chain; Spore Smeargle is just a gamble. He could have broke my Sub again, meaning nothing for him, as I'd get the speed I desire, and switch out anyways? Saying he or I made a mistake during any of the replays is useless.

A replay filled with mistakes doesnt illustrate anything. If your opponent has absolutely no idea what to do against baton pass, then your replay is completly useless. I am almost expecting you to post someone shell smashing thrice in a row while the opponenet sets up hazards and then say "shell smash is clearly broken, mistakes or skill in general doesnt matter."

2. Don't even mention Ninjask. He has no place on the thread, and can't be used as an argument.

Yeah, the staple of baton pass teams for 3 generations has absolutely no place in the discussion about banning his replacement.
Dont even try to refute anything, just keep saying no one can mention him anymore. That will work against every possible argument.

3. Shadow Tag takes autonomy away from the game by trapping, and having no true counters; the opponent can't even switch in a counter. By the same token, no matter what the opponent does, Scolipede ensures the entire chain will have near max speed. Furthermore, he is capable of setting up multiple times in a match. This isn't just my opinion, it's a universal truth. You aren't stopping Scolipede from acquiring speed. A Suspect Test will show you this.

You didnt even read my post, did you? Keep fighting your strawman that has no idea how protect + sub works.

4. You're free to argue and disagree; that's the point of this thread. But if you're wrong, you're wrong. You can argue how Mega Kang, Gengar and Blaziken aren't broken or uncompetitive all you want, and you'd simply be wrong.

Woah. I am wrong because I am wrong. Scolipede is uncompetitive because it is uncompetitive. This opened my eyes.

5. Whether you like it or not, there's a problem with Baton Pass, and so we're deciding how to nerf that problem. You either have suggestions, or you have nothing.

I never said there wasnt a problem with baton pass. In fact, all my last posts were debating against a Scolipede ban because it wouldnt be enough of a nerf. Not that I expected you to know this, you're clearly not reading anything and has resorted to dodging every point with half assed generic responses.