Type coverage in Pokémon Champions: attackers, defenders, and honest rankings

The verified Analitykos attacking guide compares each attacking type with all eighteen single defending types. For an attacking pair, it keeps the better result of the two available STAB types against each defender. The defensive guide applies each of the eighteen attack types to the candidate defensive typing and multiplies the component matchups.

This is a clean chart benchmark, not a usage-weighted metagame model. Every type is counted once, theoretical pairs are allowed, and moves, Pokémon, and partner context are deliberately excluded. Changing any of those choices can change the order, so the method must travel with the ranking.

Ground and Fighting both reach five super-effective monotype targets. They are not interchangeable: Ground is neutral into ten types, resisted by two, and blocked by one immunity; Fighting is neutral into seven, resisted by five, and blocked by one immunity. The same top-line count therefore hides different consistency.

Rock, Fire, and Ice each reach four super-effective monotypes. Normal reaches none and is included as a useful lower bound, but this says nothing about a Normal move's base power, an ability that modifies it, or a specific Pokémon's damage.

For each defending monotype, choose the stronger result from the two attacking types. Rank pairs by super-effective count, then by fewer resisted or immune results, then by neutral count, and finally by a stable type key. That procedure produces a deterministic list rather than a hand-picked opinion.

Ice + Fighting and Ice + Ground both cover nine of eighteen monotypes super effectively and hit the other nine neutrally, so neither has a monotype wall in this model. Normal + Dragon is the weakest offensive pair: one super-effective result, sixteen neutral results, and one resisted result.

A standard damaging move has one attack type. A dual-type attacker can choose a STAB move of either type, so the coverage calculation takes the maximum effectiveness for the target. It does not multiply both attack types, and a defender is counted once even if both STAB types are super effective.

Defense works differently: multiply the attack type's modifier into each unique defending type. Two weaknesses produce ×4, two resistances produce ×0.25, and any immunity produces ×0 regardless of the other component. A repeated pair such as Water + Water must be canonicalized to the Water monotype; it is never squared.

The local guide uses a weakness-first order: fewer weak attack types, then fewer quad weaknesses, then more resistances and immunities. This rewards profiles with a small number of clear failure points. A mitigation-first order could instead reward many resistances even when it accepts more weaknesses.

Neither view is universally correct. A fast offensive team may prefer few weaknesses; a bulky pivot may value repeated resistances; a doubles composition may prioritize one immunity that creates safe partner attacks. Display the component counts so the reader can select the objective.

Normal + Ghost leads with one weakness, no quad weakness, two resistances, and three immunities. Poison + Dark and Ghost + Dark also have only one weakness and no quad weakness; their resistance and immunity distributions break the tie. These are type-chart properties, not automatic recommendations for a team slot.

Grass + Ice is the weakest defensive pair under the same comparator because seven attack types hit it super effectively and one of those is ×4. Ice + Rock has fewer total weaknesses but two ×4 weaknesses and can look worse under a multiplier-average objective. This disagreement is exactly why the ranking rule must remain visible.

Ice + Ground is tied for the top monotype breadth and appears on Mamoswine in Regulation M-B. That makes Mamoswine a sensible candidate to inspect, but the type result alone does not establish its set, damage, survivability, or place on a particular team.

A regulation-aware view can restrict candidates and targets to legal Regulation M-B profiles. It may equal-weight distinct profiles, equal-weight catalog entries, normalize alternate forms by species, or use reliable usage weights. Those methods answer different questions and should never share one unlabeled score.

Doubles adds partner coverage, redirection, spread moves, friendly-fire constraints, Protect, switching, and concentrated targeting. Mega Evolution can change a candidate or target's typing and Ability, while weather and terrain change whether chart coverage becomes usable pressure. Keep the chart leaderboard as a baseline layer beneath those mechanics.

Use the same set of candidate type pairs to create an attacking breadth list and a defensive risk list. Keep every component count visible and write one sentence explaining what each list omits.

Before sharing a ranking, state whether it covers monotypes, all theoretical profiles, the legal Regulation M-B catalog, or observed usage. State how attacking pairs, repeated types, quad multipliers, and immunities are handled. Keep ties visible when candidates share the measured result.

The verified local chart includes standard type multipliers and a move-specific Freeze-Dry branch in the engine. Pure type rankings should call the generic multiplier without that move exception. They also exclude stats, move power and accuracy, abilities, items, priority, spread modifiers, Mega timing, weather, terrain, and decisions—so they are not an absolute ranking of Pokémon.