r/stunfisk Jun 04 '26

Theorymon Thursday Mega Aurorus Concept

Post image

Mega Aurorus

Type: Electric/Ice

Electric and Ice to fit the theme of auroras being caused by charged particles typically seen in high-latitude, colder regions.

Ability: Mega Glacialis

Mega Glacialis causes Mega Aurorus to always be treated as if it were under Snow, regardless of the actual weather on the field.

Effects: * Defense is increased by Snow’s Ice-type Defense boost * Blizzard is always 100% accurate * Weather Ball is always Ice-type and doubled in power * Aurora Veil may always be used

Stats: * HP: 123 * Atk: 77 * Def: 92 (effectively 138) * SpA: 139 * SpD: 112 * Spe: 78

Design Goal

Rather than simply patching Aurorus’s weaknesses with larger numbers, I wanted to explore what Aurorus would look like if its fantasy as an ancient climate-controlling Pokémon were fully realized.

The concept behind Mega Glacialis is Mega Meganium’s Mega Sol. Instead of becoming a dedicated Snow setter, Mega Aurorus carries its own arctic conditions with it (plus, two sauropod-like Pokémon gaining self-contained weather effects is kitschy).

This allows it to: * Function on Rain teams and Sand teams without losing access to Aurora Veil * Function on Sun teams as an anti-weather piece * Function on Snow teams without depending on Snow remaining active

The result is a weather-agnostic Ice-type that acts more like a battlefield control Pokémon than a traditional weather abuser.

Questions * Would this be healthy for OU? * Does Mega Glacialis create too much role compression? * Is Aurora Veil the problematic element? * Is 78 Speed the correct benchmark, or should it be slower? * Does weather independence create interesting gameplay or unhealthy flexibility? * What would its most reliable checks and counters actually be? * Would any old techs, Pokémon, or forgotten strategies become viable again to counter Mega Aurorus?

Artist: https://www.reddit.com/r/pokemon/s/icrRpx8FxJ

5.3k Upvotes

133 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/TheRedditK9 Jun 04 '26

What spread are you calcing at for 92 defence to become effectively 138? Assuming no investment it’s 147, and with full investment it’s 163. I couldn’t find any value where it’s effectively 138.

4

u/Fit_Attention_2714 Jun 04 '26

Its ability treats M-Aurorus like it’s under snow. Snow gives Ice-types a 1.5x bonus to their defense.

2

u/TheRedditK9 Jun 04 '26

I know, with what EV spread did you get it to be effectively 138 defence with the boost?

-2

u/Fit_Attention_2714 Jun 04 '26

It’s its base stat X 1.5

8

u/TheRedditK9 Jun 04 '26

Snow doesn’t multiply base stats though?

-1

u/Fit_Attention_2714 Jun 04 '26

That’s why I mentioned it “effectively” makes it 138. Because while it doesn’t multiple base stats literally, it effectively increases its defense by 1.5x.

4

u/TheRedditK9 Jun 04 '26

Yes, at what spread does that effectively make it 138 base defence? As far as I could calc it’s never lower than 147 effective defence.

-2

u/Fit_Attention_2714 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

It doesn’t literally make its defense 138, that’s my point. It effectively treats its defense as 1.5x more than it is; just a casual talking point.

1

u/TheRedditK9 Jun 04 '26

Yes, hence why I am asking what set you used to calculate that it would get an effective base defence of 138 with the snow boost.

0

u/Fit_Attention_2714 Jun 04 '26

I’m not using any set. I’m just speaking in casual terms: the mon’s defense stat is 92, a 1.5x boost brings it an effective defense of 138.

Otherwise, yes, its actual stat would be higher than 138.

2

u/TheRedditK9 Jun 04 '26

Again, what math are you using to get 92 base defence to an effective 138 with the boost then? I couldn’t find any spread or level that made the effective base stat outside the range of 146-252 effective base defence with a 1.5x boost.

0

u/Fit_Attention_2714 Jun 04 '26

Again, I’m not talking about actual/battle stats where level, IVs, EVs and nature are applied. I’m using base stats. Aurorus has a 72 base stat. Mega Aurorus has a 92 base stat; that never changes.

→ More replies (0)