Here is the definition of check: Pokémon A checks Pokémon B if, when Pokémon A is given a free switch into Pokémon B, Pokémon A can win every time, even under the worst case scenario, without factoring in haxSo after playing some suspect, I feel like a lot of my feelings were summed up really well by AlphaGiratina. It might not be totally bannable this time around, but it doesn't improve the meta either. I didn't feel any better about playing OU. The powerful Megas are easier to check, but they're still huge threats and now I have to worry about Aegislash. The burden of proof here is on the unban Aegislash side to prove why it would make the meta better, and I just don't see that. The biggest threats in OU (Landorus, Keldeo, Zard X, Altaria, Metagross) aren't overly troubled by Aegislash (Altaria gains a solid check even if it has fire blast or eq, Metagross has to run eq and Keldeo is more afraid to spam sacred sword, but they'd still be top tier threats in an Aegislash meta imo), and while Mega Diancie is more hurt than most even it has earth power. In short, why would we want to unban this thing? It makes some of the top tier threats easier to handle while adding itself to the list of arguably bannable mons in OU (for being over centralizing, not broken). Not only does the unban side have to prove that Aegislash isn't over centralizing to the point of being banned (a very close argument) but also that it would improve the OU tier. Otherwise, if it dropped, we'd have a shitty tier with a mon that's arguably bannable but we can't ban because we decided it isn't.
um wut. I think it kinda does
Being able to survive a hit or two doesn't mean it can win every time. Also aegislash is often used as a bandaid switch-in, not a free switch which can makes things tough considering it's low speed.
Also the purpose of a suspect is to determine whether or not something is broken, not to determine whether or not it improves the meta in the opinion of some people despite not being broken