Talk:Freeze (status condition)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Is it true that Tri attack can freeze ice-type Pokémon? I have been using tri attack with my Serene Grace Togekiss on 200 ice-type Pokémon and I only caused them burns and paralysis. Unless I have been really unlucky I don't think Ice-type Pokémon can be frozen. Could anyone confirm this please? Thanks in advance. --Aqwertyuiop28 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


It would appear that Gen I and Gen II images are not actually of the FRZ status, but rather ice attacks. Perhaps these should be updated to actually show the status itself.- unsigned comment from Hobbs678 (talkcontribs)

Freeze and paralysis have animation only once (when the status is inflicted) before G3, and it's merely shaking in G1. Eridanus (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


So I was testing something (more precisely, getting the status icons and checking wherever they differ or not between party screen and in-battle screen) when I froze my Flash Fire Chandelure in a wild double battle in Generation V. She instantly thawed out and tried to use Will-O-Wisp (but failed because the target had paralysis). It could be getting that 1 in 5 chance... but still, someone may want to double check. Eridanus (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Electrify on Fire Moves + Volt Absorb, etc.

I haven't bothered to test this yet, but based on what is known about the move-absorbing abilities, it can be presumed that if a Fire-type move was changed to an Electric-type move with Electrify, it would not thaw a frozen target with Motor Drive, Volt Absorb, etc. If this ends up being true, would this be worth including in this article or is it too much of an edge case? VioletPumpkin (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Fire-type moves affected by Electrify won't thaw a frozen target anyway. Unlike Scald/Steam Eruption, the type is what does the thawing, not the move. --SnorlaxMonster 17:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, I didn't think that part through fully. This question still ought to apply if Scald/Steam Eruption were turned into Electric-type moves, though. VioletPumpkin (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Fire-type moves vs. moves that can cause burn

Regarding this edit, to explain more fully than in an edit summary: between this edit and Talk:Tri Attack (move)#Thawing, there seemed to be a lot of roundaboutness that ended up with the statement that in Gen I and II, thawing is caused by "damaging Fire-type moves that can cause burn." The thing is, all moves that can cause burn in those generations happen to also be damaging Fire-type moves. Therefore, it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that the criterion was just "can inflict burn" and didn't become "damaging Fire-type" until Gen III. Please revert me if I've overlooked anything or if my logic is wrong. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you have the facts right, but I guess the "roundaboutness" also served a purpose. Basically, I like SnorlaxMonster's version more than yours.
The statement "being hit by a Fire-type damaging move that can cause a burn will thaw you" is correct, because all such moves have a 100% to thaw. But if you omit "Fire-type", it's not correct, cause Tri-Attack has a 2/3 chance not to thaw. (I guess we don't actually make that strict statement, but I think we should try to imply it.)
Also, in general, I think we shouldn't be more technical than necessary (which might initially sound ironic when I'm responsible for many "technical" edits): For example, if Fire Spin and Hidden Power didn't exist, I would still absolutely prefer "by Fire-type moves" over "by moves that can cause a burn"; even though it's not the root cause, it is still as correct and precise, and it's probably even more intuitive (and also, it wouldn't require a change for Generation III). Nescientist (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Nescientist basically explained my main motivation for writing it that way. It's also worth noting that in Generation I there is actually a check that the move is Fire-type too, but it's ultimately irrelevant since all moves that can inflict burn in Generation I are also Fire-type (even when looking at glitch moves, it seems). --SnorlaxMonster 04:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that check is actually far from irrelevant: the function is apparently called from within a joint freeze/burn/paralyze function (messy Generation I logic), so the check should most accurately restrict to "Fire-type attacks that can freeze, burn or paralyze".
But let's please, please abstract from that. Nescientist (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hitting required?

While I wrote the above answer, I came to think about how missing affects thawing. I poked a bit, and I want to ask: Can moves that can cause a burn thaw even when they miss? From what I checked, that might very well be the case in Generation II (but I guess not in Generation I). So if anyone's able to confirm that a miss (or being ineffective in Tri Attack's case) won't prevent thawing, that'll be appreciated. Nescientist (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, I looked a bit deeper into it, and missing moves don't access the thawing routine (because their effect handling is interrupted/ended here). Nescientist (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)