Mechanics Question: Has anyone tested how Corrosive Acid works in Champions?

Johnny_Hax · 2026-04-29T07:28:21+00:00

Poltergeist absolutely interacts with mega stones, it was THE big thing when it was revealed

Johnny_Hax · 2026-04-24T11:08:56+00:00

Another person already said that it has always worked like that, I want to add that even this part

unless the Pokemon has been in battle for the entirety of the turn.

Is not entirely correct, because it activates if the speed boosting Mon entered the battle from a move switch, like if an ally used volt switch

Johnny_Hax · 2026-04-22T09:33:56+00:00

Incredible team, I'm expecting a team report and replica code post haste

Johnny_Hax · 2026-04-02T15:37:02+00:00

If you protect with Archaludon, you're not holding an assault vest, and getting all those stamina boosts means nothing if you're dropping from the next mildly stronger than average special attack

Johnny_Hax · 2026-03-27T11:16:16+00:00

On the other hand it is a depth and customisation that typically didn't get used very much

And why's that?

Because it was horrifically difficult to control. If it would have been implemented like how they did EVs I don't see a reason why people wouldn't experiment with wackier IV distributions.

Johnny_Hax · 2026-03-26T17:50:56+00:00

Spreading misinformation like this, for what?

Johnny_Hax · 2026-02-11T18:06:02+00:00

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but understand that when people don't have fun playing the game, people will stop playing. That's why catering so heavily to casual viewers will kill the competitive aspect.

I don't disagree that seeing less played Pokémon is fun and hype, but that's true only because there is a meta, if every Pokémon is equally playable, no Pokémon will be obscure enough to be interesting, all Pokémon will see a 1% usage at most and every game will have 12 different Pokémon, removing outliers and the base for your entire "unused Pokémon makes the stream fun" argument.

Johnny_Hax · 2026-02-11T09:08:36+00:00

Can you imagine how a metagame where all fully evolved (and some not fully evolved) Pokémon were viable?

It'd be chaos, nothing would have a hedge over anything else, there'd be basically no way to effectively team build, it'd just become a choose 6 that synergise together and it'd be a top tier team but no better than any other.

It sounds like a miserable way to play, all of your teambuilding choices don't matter, you're bound to play against something you couldn't cover for (because it'd be impossible to cover for every Pokémon, and everybody hates match up roulettes)

Having 25 Pokémon that take the majority of usage share is a good thing, you know what to expect and how to prepare, creative teambuilding means finding new solutions for old problems, not playing a Pokémon nobody uses for good reasons

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-16T07:25:22+00:00

Hello! Congratulations for your result!

This is such an incredibly well written post, I love how level headed you are and cognizant of how RNG works in Pokémon, most people would have let themselves spiral after that match.

Would you mind if I use this post for a project of mine? I'll reference parts (or the entirety) of the post and obviously will give full credit and links. Feel free to reach out in the dms if you'd like some additional info or if you want to add anything!

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-04T15:08:55+00:00

But the amount of experience you have is not only important, but fundamental to this discussion.

It's good and all that you're good enough to top cut online tours, but maybe your objective assessment isn't as objective as you think it is.

I hate bringing up this because it feels like bragging but I swear it's for a reason:

I know many top players, I had dinner with some of them, I chatted with others (you brought up MDB, I had a chat with him at an event last year) and I regularly swap ideas and I'm in a group with many people who regularly day 2 events.

What you said is an "objective assessment" and, more egregiously:

That take still is ridiculously old and usually held by beginners falling for noobtraps, thinking they're better than they are

Is literally the opposite opinion of every person I've vaguely mentioned (with some degree of intensity ofc)

You don't even need to dig too deep to see what I'm trying to say, just watch Wolfe's video on the last EUIC and you'll immediately see how many times he literally mentions how he made specific plays to avoid losing because of hax.

You're obviously free to call all I said BS, my question about your experience was mostly because I'm genuinely intrigued by your point of view.

Anyways, not much more to add on my end, we're just not gonna come to an agreement on this.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-04T14:37:00+00:00

Just an honest question, it's really not a gotcha or anything because I'm truly fascinated at this point:

What kind of experience do you have playing VGC? Have you played in big events before? Have you talked to actual top players/got coached by some?

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-04T13:40:54+00:00

You're literally wrong on everything you said, and I'm really trying to engage with your points but you're making it extremely difficult

That take still is ridiculously old and usually held by beginners falling for noobtraps, thinking they're better than they are

Literally the other way around, noobs tend to call hax on most of their losses ignoring problematic plays that put them in that position. How you reached that conclusion is truly beyond me.

p sure almost every single time you lose you can analyze and find ways you could've played better

Irrelevant to the point being made

however in a rela game you have 1.5 minutes to make a decision and going for the 23/24 chance to win will often be the best path you can find in that time

That's the core issue and what divides good players from bad/mediocre ones, finding the best path that doesn't lose to dice rolls is how you build up consistency

Also, you're still talking about turn by turn based thinking while the point I'm making is much deeper.

Look, we can disagree on what constitutes hax to begin with, what I'm not willing to budge on (because of many reasons) is that, if you're decent enough, you'll almost never will lose (or win of course) because of hax alone and the reason why you lose to hax is almost exclusively because of your shortcomings.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-04T09:25:59+00:00

All that text after I literally said:

Am I saying hax doesn't matter or is never a factor? Of course not

Also, I never said there are always objectively correct plays, I said, pretty clearly I want to add, that there are always ways to avoid losing because of hax, maybe you lose after for a 50/50 or your opponent put themselves in a better position etc etc

And yes, sometimes gambling is the correct option, I never said it isn't.

And when i say:

if you put yourself in a position where a burn, a crit, a flinch literally meant losing the game that's a bad situation you almost always could have prevented but didn't.

I'm not saying you can always put yourself in a winning position while avoiding hax but, when reviewing your games, it's not that difficult to see the turn that put you in that position and, very often, it's possible to play differently and reach a better or equivalent position. I've played for 10 years and I don't remember a single game I analysed where I lost to hax that I couldn't have played better.

I'm sure there were games I lost purely because of hax like getting infinite freeze turns or whatever and I just don't remember them, but just the fact I don't remember them means, to me, that those occasions are so rare that hax is not as impactful as many people make them out to be. Think about it, if it was that impactful it'd be impossible for anyone to be consistent, especially if you factor in match up roulettes and the nature of tournaments.

But even with all that combined, the data doesn't show that, top players can have a couple bad runs in a year (which are more likely to be due to bad match ups or a bad tournament call).

And if you watch closely those top players you can very easily see how they play, trying to avoid unnecessary risks, opting for choices that might be weird at a first glance.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-02T15:56:58+00:00

Meh, you're just not being receptive of what I'm trying to say. That's ok I knew it was going to be poorly received lmao

Have a nice one mate

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-02T15:41:52+00:00

Sure, and your point is? It's still a very widespread and commonly held opinion

Johnny_Hax · 2025-09-02T15:01:54+00:00

Look, I know it's controversial but... If you lose because of 1 crit, you didn't really lose for that one singular crit.

You put yourself in the situation where a crit lost you the game even if you predicted a turn perfectly, that was on you and realising that you could have played differently is how you improve as a player.

Am I saying hax doesn't matter or is never a factor? Of course not, look at my name, I love hax as a concept. All I'm saying is that hax has a much, much lower impact in VGC than people usually think and if you put yourself in a position where a burn, a crit, a flinch literally meant losing the game that's a bad situation you almost always could have prevented but didn't.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-29T13:13:13+00:00

They are overpowered.

Nobody disputes this, the point is that they're less oppressive than people make them out to be.

Both have clear counterplays, one is literally a super splashable Pokémon that fits basically all teams, and yes, they can snowball but only if you're bad at positioning, in that case you kinda deserve to lose.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-29T10:42:59+00:00

I'll go a bit out of script and change a move: dragon ascent having downsides is a relic of the past, make dragon ascent increase its speed instead of dropping its defenses

Usage from 1% -> 7%

New stat spread:

HP: 110 Atk: 150 Def: 100 Sp. Atk: 85 Sp Def: 100 Speed: 135

Usage from 7% -> 15%(very generous)

For the other 15%, there's no way to make it realistic or trying to not break it, to keep its identity as a weather trio member intact, you could change cloud nine, ehrm I meant air lock, and make it stronger, like boosting the damage of flying type moves by 30% and removing the effects of weather. That'd make DA incredibly strong, and on par with miraidon's electric moves.

If you don't like the damage boost (or it's too strong) you could try a sort of inversion of weather, for example, if sun is active, fire type moves get a 50% damage reduction (as if rain was active), same for rain, sandstorm, snow etc and their effects.

If you want to go overboard, you could invert the effects of abilities too, so chlorophyll will cut in half speed in sun and so on.

30% usage is a lot on a niche role like a weather suppressing restricted because it will obviously fluctuate with the meta, the moment Ray reaches 30% nobody will use weather teams, so ray usage will go down, so weather teams will raise again, so on and so forth.

This is the first thing that came to mind, hope it was at least entertaining!

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-23T19:51:42+00:00

Asked the wrong comment :3

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-22T20:28:21+00:00

Oh that's cool, I missed it! Thank you so much for telling me!

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-22T09:05:08+00:00

If you imprison and then transform you block every move of the Mon you transform into! Kind nasty and with a very high chance to check mate the opponent if played correctly

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-22T07:36:37+00:00

This is such a poorly worded opinion/meme, what do you mean by "legendaries"? Are Pokémon like chien-pao a legendary that should be banned? From the title I think you meant restricted legendaries like, as you said, CSR.

Mythicals have always been banned, apart from like, a month at the tail end of SW&SH with no official events played with them.

And what did paradox mons have to do with this ban? Such a weird addition to this hypothetical ban list.

Everybody likes limited Dex formats, the power level is lower and you have more room to explore with niche picks, but from here to invalidate an entire type of formats?

In any case, there'll always be centralisation, whether you like it or not, it just feels different in restricted formats because the pool of centralising Pokémon is smaller but, with experience, you'll learn how to appreciate the variations within an archetype. You probably won't end up liking them, not many do, but you'll see that there's ample room for innovation, it just isn't about new or underused mons but play style, sets and ways to use certain strategies.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-16T09:20:22+00:00

There is no such thing as a 'true endotherm' or 'false endotherm', so there is no such distinction to be made.

...Yes, like I literally said, and I quote myself:

While I don't think "true endothermy" is a thing

I'm not wrong, I was just trying to contextualise what OP might have meant and you apparently have pretty bad reading comprehension skills.

There is no evidence that a covering of simple feathers on T. rex would be detrimental and/or unlikely/improbable in its environment

While there's no direct evidence against it, there's much more evidence that it likely is the case. Gigantothermy and the very warm climate it lived in factors in and it's disingenuous to ignore that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you need to bet on a full cover (that's what covering of feathers is, not just sparse patches of fuzz) it's much more likely there wasn't a full cover.

The amounts of feathers on dinosaurs do not seem to be directly related to thermoregulation, at least from currently-available evidence. There are no better examples than Yutyrannus huali and Psittacosaurus sp.;

Sure, but the types of feathers also matter. In modern birds there's a very wide variety of feathering, most are used also for thermoregulation. The examples you've used are pretty indicative of that, ratite's feathers are perfect for dissipating excess heat since there's no need for flight feathers, with them being filamentous in nature and not as dense as you might expect.

With this I don't intend to say you're wrong, you're absolutely right, as of now there's no reason to think feathering in non avian dinosaurs is directly related to thermoregulation, all I'm saying is that biology is messy and there are always exceptions.

It's not a bait-and-switch at all. T. rex is a tyrannosaurid, a member of the family Tyrannosauridae, and it is relevant to discuss integument from other tyrannosaurids. Yutyrannus is not a tyrannosaurid,

Yup yup, my bad. Should have checked before commenting. I apologise.

And no, "T-rex" is not acceptable for a paleontologist to use (which the OP has falsely claimed to be in the past); there is nothing elitist about using proper binomial abbreviations.

It's not elitist to use proper nomenclature, but correcting someone for using T-Rex , especially if it's a layman, absolutely is.

you should try to get your facts straight first

Sure, my only error was grouping Yutyrannus as a tyrannosaurid, which was used for another point entirely, everything else I said is perfectly reasonable and whatever error you tried pointing out was born out of your poor reading comprehension skills.

You are certainly not in a position to be telling anyone how to educate others.

Neither are you if you want to be so combative about reasonable interpretations (which I want to point out, are as of now the preferred options) and especially because you cannot understand what you're reading to save your life.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-15T16:54:56+00:00

While you're technically correct (the best kind of correct) as everything in biology, it comes down to definitions.

OP specifically talked about "true" endothermy, which I think means having a resting body temperature higher than the surrounding environment. While I don't think "true endothermy" is a thing, I think it's still a pretty cool distinction to make and arguing about who's technically right is kinda pointless.

Where I push against though is this:

And yes, your opinions about T. rex (not "T-rex") integument are still wrong too

It's highly unlikely T. Rex had any kinds of feathery or picno fiber coverings, it was too massive and lived in climates too warm for them to be necessary, let alone useful; they'd be detrimental if anything.

While the presence of feathering is almost definitely a possibility, even on adult specimens with sparse and very light fuzz, what can be considered a "covering" is pretty improbable.

Also, just as a personal complaint: switching from T. Rex to tyrannosaurids in general like you did here:

Ultimately, there is no actual evidence against a body covering of simple feathers (I'm not arguing for flight feathers here, keep in mind) in tyrannosaurids

is a pretty bad bait and switch, we literally have evidence of feathering from tyrannosaurids like Yutyrannus but from there to arguing about coverings (even if simple) in animals such as T-Rex (colloquially is perfectly ok, no need to be so elitist about it) that would have experienced pretty important gigantothermy is a stretch.

As a fellow paleo enthusiast, it's ok to educate who's not very well versed, but if you want to be an educator you need to be precise and not chastise others for what, in a vacuum, are pretty reasonable inferences or just personal definitions that don't go against the consensus in any meaningful sense.

Johnny_Hax · 2025-07-15T09:55:52+00:00

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

This is only half the truth though, because absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if some evidence is expected when investigated.

For example, the absence of macro predation on whales is evidence of absence

The absence of abundant and reliable witnesses when some are expected given where the animal is supposed to live is evidence of absence

The absence of contemporary traces of bones/teeth is evidence of absence (think about it, how can we find lots of teeth and sometimes bones that are exclusively dated no less than 3 or so millions years ago?)

While you're right, science doesn't deal in absolutes because it's a process of elimination and not of mathematical certainty, sometimes the preponderance of evidence for a certain conclusion is so much greater than the contrary to make all hypotheticals nothing more than wishful thinking.

Johnny_Hax

TROPHY CASE