Approved Core Collapse (aka C-C-C-Core Breaker!)

Not open for further replies.
As there have been no objections, I'd like to propose the following altered concept (additions subtractions):

Name: Core Collapse (aka C-C-C-Core Breaker!*)

General Description: A Pokemon that can not only effectively break the common OU core of Landorus-T and Rotom-W, but turn it into a liability.

Justification: Both Rotom-W and Landorus-T share the distinction of being an alternate forme introduced in the "third" versions of their respective generations. Thus, perhaps it is fate that these two form one of the most common cores in OU, if not the most common. As of this post, Landorus-T and Rotom-W occupy the first and third spots on the 1825 OU usage stats and are among each other's most common teammates. Even with the advent of Mega Evolution, there remains virtually nothing that can break through this core on its own are only a handful of singular pokemon that can break this core that has have not been banned to Ubers, leading most battlers to have to land repeated strong hits to wear it down. Thus, a Pokemon capable of reliably breaking this core on its own and rendering it a liability would have a unique niche in the OU metagame.
Questions to be Answered:

  • What factors make the core of Rotom-W and Landorus-T effective in the OU metagame? In particular, what makes this core more effective than other cores in the OU metagame? (Most experienced battlers should have a response to these questions already, but it still needs to be addressed for this concept to work.)
  • What approach (bulky, quick, etc.) is best suited for breaking through the core without making the CAP too powerful like the Pokemon that came before it (e.g. Greninja)? What viable function(s) outside of breaking such an ubiquitous core can a Pokemon have without being too powerful?
  • What cores would become more viable and/or widely used as a result of the CAP threatening and turning the the Rotom-W/Lando-T core into a liability? Are any of these cores ones that are currently overlooked in the OU metagame? Would the popularity of the most popular core in the game be drastically impacted simply due to the existence of a matchup which turns it into a liability?
  • To what extent do particular playstyles require constructing a core? Conversely, to what extent do particular playstyles revolve around breaking opposing cores?
  • On what team archetypes is the Rotom-W and Landorus-T core commonly found? What effect would reducing the viability of the core have on these archetypes?
Explanation: After the complex concepts of the previous two CAP projects, I looked back on earlier CAP projects for inspiration. The one that most struck a chord with me was Syclant, whose concept was "True Garchomp Counter." I think it would be beneficial for the CAP Project as a whole to consider more direct concepts, leading me to come up with this concept.

There are several factors underlying the effectiveness of the Landorus-T/Rotom-W core, such as defensive synergy, high bulk, and access to VoltTurn. I firmly believe that most or all of these factors would need to be addressed in order for this concept to be successful. For instance, simply making a Pokemon that can counter VoltTurn would not be sufficient to fulfill this concept, but such an approach would need to be one part of the overall process.

Furthermore, the last two CAP projects at the time of writing (Volkraken and Plasmanta) both focused on making a Pokemon fit into a core in one way or another. Both of them failed to fulfill their concepts, so I have come to believe that the concept of cores can be better examined by taking an approach opposite to that of previous CAP projects.

Another possible avenue to take with this concept would explore how much certain playstyles revolve around building a core. For example, certain playstyles (e.g. balanced) usually involve constructing a core in which each member can cover the weaknesses of another member of the core, allowing a skilled player to pivot and play around threats to the team. Other playstyles (e.g. hyper offense) do not concern themselves with such a core, but can often have certain members that are intended to be the linchpin of the team. As such, it would be interesting to see how disrupting what is arguably the most common core in OU would affect particular team archetypes.

The idea of various team archetypes being rendered impotent has also come up frequently in recent suspect tests (e.g. Greninja), so I think examining the balance of team archetypes in the OU metagame would be an interesting secondary objective of this concept.
I think the proposed edits make the proposed concept much more accurate in terms of describing what its purpose actually is.


I closed my eyes and I slipped away...
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
If a pokemon could break a core so efficiently wouldn't it be a liability by default? If it was so good at breaking it then wouldn't it be effectively playing the game 4-6


used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
If a pokemon could break a core so efficiently wouldn't it be a liability by default? If it was so good at breaking it then wouldn't it be effectively playing the game 4-6
Not necessarily. Pokemon is not really a game you can always measure in individual matchups. Even if it handles them in a given battle, if the core can easily fit another member to counter it hard in return, it is not making the core a liability. Additionally, if the Pokemon does not have major use outside of the one role, then it may not see a ton of usage, meaning it would still be worth running the core for all the battles where that Pokemon does not show up. It is about figuring out exactly how far we need to go to move from "beats it one on one" to "makes people reconsider using the core."

As the concept is, having been reworded, I think it looks good.

Approved 2/2
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)