>>15576457I didn't accuse you of anything there, but again, that being the case does not change the fact that the 3 responding to me missed the context of me responding to that part of the post.
>You were making it sound like Mega Banette could actually kill through other things with no problem just because it could OHKO Gengar a prime sweeper.No, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I wasn't implying this at all, and this assumption was where the problem lied, and what I was commenting on.
So first of all
>people thought that since Mega Banette could counter in "this" situation it could kill Gengar and thus it was goodIs an incorrect conclusion, as I was never saying that.
And secondly:
>Gengar had various other ways it could kill Banette.Is not really true. Gengar has no safe option against M Banette as I demonstrated. The Gengar either needs to sacrifice himself to kill the Banette, or get killed straight out, unless the Banette predicts badly. And yes, it is a prediction war, but the war is in Banette's favor. Sucker punch then Dbond is a safe bet for Banette every time, because either Sucker Punch kills, Dbond kills and corrects the mistake of letting Gengar sub, or Dbond gets disabled and Banette switches to something else.
>Does it really make me sound autistic if you aren't being "literal" enough to explain your posts?
You misunderstand. It isn't that I wasn't being literal enough, it is that you weren't taking any of the social cues behind my posts and were getting confused. By "being more literal" I mean slowly and meticulously spelling everything out. But this is neither here nor there.
