np: ORAS OU Suspect Process, Round 3 - Wandering Ghosts [Aegislash remains in Ubers]

[Slimmer]

Got my reqs today
ladder was pretty aids
well then, I can just reconfirm my opinion about Aegislash would remain Uber.
The case is pretty particular, because Aegislash is not a problem just by itself as many other pokemons as Mega Kanga, Mega Lucario etc but there are further points which increase its unhealthyness for the metagame:
1- aegi as whole of stats, typing, movepool, different movesets, lack of reliable counter of its all movesets and different roles it could run on any team you can slap it in thanks to its great utility given by abovementioned factors. You run Aegi because it can do job 2-3 pokemons do but just with one slot. So why not?
2- aegi as influence on the teambuilding. the meta extremely changed and turned to seem like XY, cutting off certain mons which became useless in favor to other mon with similar roles but less weak to the sword (example: mandibuzz > latias, alomo > slowbro etc). this seems quite ok because it's just a metagame change. the problem comes when other powerful threats like Lopunny-M, Landorus, Keldeo etc becomes too powerful just because a huge part of their counters/checks got eliminated by Aegislash. And this is not enough, because you have to check them and also Aegislash which can be... SD? Mixed? SubToxic? wtf? there are so few pokemon that can check all these powerhouses in few slots and this extremely reduce teambuilding. Just think about at how Helmet Chomp raised in usage while other setters fell. Look at how Mandibuzz rose, Latias (and Latios fell), etc. The metagame looked stereotyped and I think it's pretty unhealthy, while we can just reduce the power creep allowing different mons, different playstyles, without worry to threat >10 overpowered and almost uncounterable mons
3- aegi as influence on the metagame. Like I said, Aegislash is just powerful by itself, but it's also a too good support for other already powerful mons, but it can cover several different roles crushing particular kind of playstyles depending of movesets. You run balance Mandi team and you meet subtoxic stuff + hazards; you run bulky ground and here is wp mixed or dancer or just meet the pursuit + keldeo/charizard ecc its metagame is too wide in mons that can abuse its support (+ aegi abuse in guess-my-role-and-let-your-counter-get-rekt-by-my-different-set) and too tight in properly answers to all these mons. Adding Aegislash to the metagame won't help this meta so I find an unban pointless (even KSless); im still for a ban

you can't deny that there is a matchup problem in the current meta

Aegislash indeed won't solve this issue, adding other powerful stuff be dangerous and let the already powerful stuff even more broken simply by push out of the metagame certain utilities like psychics, certain fairies, everything can't tank well shadowballs or gets completely walled by aegi etc

 

[Freeroamer]

nor were we supposed to discuss any suspects other than this one in the thread. - This entire suspect is different, you know. Read the OP: The current OU metagame is characterized by the presence of incredibly powerful attackers, such as Mega-Metagross, Mega-Diancie, Mega-Gardevoir and so on. We believe that a Pokémon like Aegislash, while being potentially overcentralizing, could provide a reliable and all-round check to many of the aforementioned threats, thus giving some stability to a tier that's currently heavily influenced by the match up component of the game.
This suspect is about fixing the meta by dealing with threats. aegi/ makes lando better, but it makes all these other things not as broken.

Your points don't really address the issues many users have with Aegislash, it's not that these things have become slightly less viable, they're almost completely unviable because there's no reason to use them over what is quickly becoming established as common cores and threats, because there is little to no reward for being creative. In the current metagame, I wouldn't go as far to say that matchup isn't an issue, but also that there's the freedom to use different things, to create new threats and create ways of dealing with them. XY had the matchup problem initially too, but threats were banned to the point where while matchup was important(as it will be in every gen 6 game, if anyone thinks we can ever achieve a state where both sides will have neutral matchups across a wide spectrum of games they're only kidding themselves, there's too many pokemon in general for that ever to be a true statement.) it wasn't a deciding factor as it has been at times with the current metagame. I firmly believe that unbanning Aegislash is nothing more than a sticking plaster, and will prove detrimental to what is actually a fun metagame to play right now, simply because of the diversity of styles, teams and threats available. Don't restrict that diversity by unbanning Aegi and retreating back into a stale metagame where creativity is at a premium.

 

[jpw234]

Maybe aegi/ won't completely fix this, but the point is you can't deny that there is a matchup problem in the current meta

Actually I think I spent my last 4 posts doing just that

 

[thesecondbest]

Actually I think I spent my last 4 posts doing just that

fine, i'll rephrase it- you can't reasonably expect people to believe that matchup is not a problem in the current meta. In addition your attempts to refute the point are:
ban manaphy
when your weakest mamber has 120 spa and nasty plot you can't wallbreak well
every team needs hazard control, how can you not run it
I don't have a refutation to the last battle

So I don't think you've convinced anyone besides yourself on this topic

AM Edit: Stop minimodding. This goes for everyone else trying to do this to refute a point when the point is legitimate. It's childish so grow up and stick with the topic.

And i know that i have been discussing other possible suspects but the whole point of the suspect is about trying to balance the meta, it's not like a normal test, let's be honest.

Your points don't really address the issues many users have with Aegislash, it's not that these things have become slightly less viable, they're almost completely unviable because there's no reason to use them over what is quickly becoming established as common cores and threats, because there is little to no reward for being creative. In the current metagame, I wouldn't go as far to say that matchup isn't an issue, but also that there's the freedom to use different things, to create new threats and create ways of dealing with them. XY had the matchup problem initially too, but threats were banned to the point where while matchup was important(as it will be in every gen 6 game, if anyone thinks we can ever achieve a state where both sides will have neutral matchups across a wide spectrum of games they're only kidding themselves, there's too many pokemon in general for that ever to be a true statement.) it wasn't a deciding factor as it has been at times with the current metagame. I firmly believe that unbanning Aegislash is nothing more than a sticking plaster, and will prove detrimental to what is actually a fun metagame to play right now, simply because of the diversity of styles, teams and threats available. Don't restrict that diversity by unbanning Aegi and retreating back into a stale metagame where creativity is at a premium.

creativity is the ability to use what you want. a matchup meta is when things people may or may not use can shit on your team because you can't counter them all. The current meta is not evolving so much as it is moving around in a circle. One month manaphy massively gained usage, then it became torn, different threats are popping up everywhere and people can't check them all with a team. When reymedy admits you construct a three mon core to try to check the meta and then run 3 obscure threats, you know there's something wrong. And look at the opponents team in the finals of the suspect tour: http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-ubers-53400 now go ahead and tell me creativity is dead.

 

[Sucker Lunch]

Made reqs with 80 GXE and I used a Mega Pinsir and Starmie Team, and I'll be voting OU for Aegislash.
My laddering experience was very enjoyable overall, despite using two mons that were supposedly invalidated by aegislash's presence. I faced a good number of aegislash teams and non-aegislash teams. I can only speak for myself, but I thought the meta looked pretty healthy. I encountered a mix of balance, HO, and Stall. To be completely honest, I feel like those who want aegislash banned are people whose favorite mega has been knocked down a few notches by aegislash's presence or people who want to flinch hax the world to death using jirachi lol. Once again, I'm voting off my own experiences on the ladder, and I can't bring myself to ban something that brings stability to the tier and makes it less matchup dependent.

In the long run, eventually we'll need something like aegislash to check the meta. Gfreak will only keep releasing more and more threats, and one team won't be able to cover a large portion of them unless using specific cores (which ironically, lessens the diversity we seek). This will also lead to a noticeably matchup based tier where luck has a significant influence, In addition, victory will also be impacted by how niche your win condition is.

Right now, we're sort of at that point where we're building teams like "OK, I'm weak to X-mon. So hopefully my opponent doesn't bring X-mon."

Anyway, I hope everyone who is striving for reqs makes them. ^__^
I'm pretty eager to see the results of this suspect. I have a few teams prepared for both scenarios.

 

[MZ]

Made reqs with 80 GXE and I used a Mega Pinsir and Starmie Team, and I'll be voting OU for Aegislash.
My laddering experience was very enjoyable overall, despite using two mons that were supposedly invalidated by aegislash's presence. I faced a good number of aegislash teams and non-aegislash teams. I can only speak for myself, but I thought the meta looked pretty healthy. I encountered a mix of balance, HO, and Stall. To be completely honest, I feel like those who want aegislash banned are people whose favorite mega has been knocked down a few notches by aegislash's presence or people who want to flinch hax the world to death using jirachi lol. Once again, I'm voting off my own experiences on the ladder, and I can't bring myself to ban something that brings stability to the tier and makes it less matchup dependent.

In the long run, eventually we'll need something like aegislash to check the meta. Gfreak will only keep releasing more and more threats, and one team won't be able to cover a large portion of them unless using specific cores (which ironically, lessens the diversity we seek). This will also lead to a noticeably matchup based tier where luck has a significant influence, In addition, victory will also be impacted by how niche your win condition is.

Right now, we're sort of at that point where we're building teams like "OK, I'm weak to X-mon. So hopefully my opponent doesn't bring X-mon."

Anyway, I hope everyone who is striving for reqs makes them. ^__^
I'm pretty eager to see the results of this suspect. I have a few teams prepared for both scenarios.

So the ideal teambuild in the meta is one that is weak to a mon and you just have to hope they don't bring it? That doesn't sound healthy in the slightest if you mean that it's impossible to actually handle all the threats in the tier. In fact, Aegislash exacerbates that problem. I just got reqs today and I'm voting to leave it in Ubers. I made a post about this earlier, but I can't state enough that Aegislash only beats the healthy things while not beating the broken things. It has all the things that made it arguably bannable in xy but makes the meta even more cancerous. The mons it does a good job at checking are things like Rachi or Chansey that aren't close to being broken, while Landorus and Lopunny remain disgusting. So getting back to sucker Lunch's post, I don't agree that Aegislash is a healthy check to the meta. It's a check to the stuff I want to see more of, and if Aegislash is eventually necessary to check the meta we can unban it then not now.

Although these points were laughable, I probably have to respond to them too. Aegislash makes mons worse but not impossible to use all the time, and both Pinsir and starmie aren't as effected by Aegislash as other things. EQ is worse coverage and starmie got a check, but both hit it for a lot of damage and starmie was also hurt by smogfrog since only one fit on most teams. They're nowhere near as annoyed as mega gardevoir which loses an important moveslot for far more inferior coverage and still is checked really hard. As far as people only wanting Aegislash banned to use Rachi and their favorite megas... yeah I don't even need to try to respond to that one.

 

[Sucker Lunch]

So the ideal teambuild in the meta is one that is weak to a mon and you just have to hope they don't bring it? That doesn't sound healthy in the slightest if you mean that it's impossible to actually handle all the threats in the tier. In fact, Aegislash exacerbates that problem. I just got reqs today and I'm voting to leave it in Ubers. I made a post about this earlier, but I can't state enough that Aegislash only beats the healthy things while not beating the broken things. It has all the things that made it arguably bannable in xy but makes the meta even more cancerous. The mons it does a good job at checking are things like Rachi or Chansey that aren't close to being broken, while Landorus and Lopunny remain disgusting. So getting back to sucker Lunch's post, I don't agree that Aegislash is a healthy check to the meta. It's a check to the stuff I want to see more of, and if Aegislash is eventually necessary to check the meta we can unban it then not now.

Although these points were laughable, I probably have to respond to them too. Aegislash makes mons worse but not impossible to use all the time, and both Pinsir and starmie aren't as effected by Aegislash as other things. EQ is worse coverage and starmie got a check, but both hit it for a lot of damage and starmie was also hurt by smogfrog since only one fit on most teams. They're nowhere near as annoyed as mega gardevoir which loses an important moveslot for far more inferior coverage and still is checked really hard. As far as people only wanting Aegislash banned to use Rachi and their favorite megas... yeah I don't even need to try to respond to that one.

You've misunderstood me. I said that we're at the point where people are building teams in that "Hope they don't bring X-mon manner", it's unhealthy and Aegislash alleviates this problem in my opinion. In addition, I'm not going to argue with you because this thread doesn't really change anyone's mind on how they're going to vote (except a rare few). I use the suspect thread to boost my like count in a short amount of time lol, I've already gone up 35+. But anyway, I hope you get reqs so you can assist in shaping the meta towards something you enjoy. But i'll be voting to keep Aegislash OU because I enjoy a slash-meta like many people and unlike many others.

I feel Aegislash brings stability to a tier without it, and makes the meta less matchup dependent.

 

[Martin]

You've misunderstood me. I said that we're at the point where people are building teams in that "Hope they don't bring X-mon manner", it's unhealthy and Aegislash alleviates this problem in my opinion. In addition, I'm not going to argue with you because this thread doesn't really change anyone's mind on how they're going to vote (except a rare few). I use the suspect thread to boost my like count in a short amount of time lol, I've already gone up 35+. But anyway, I hope you get reqs so you can assist in shaping the meta towards something you enjoy. But i'll be voting to keep Aegislash OU because I enjoy a slash-meta like many people and unlike many others.

I feel Aegislash brings stability to a tier without it, and makes the meta less matchup dependent.

Bolded part: Aegislash doesn't alleviate the problem: it just redirects it towards different Pokemon. It isn't solving the issue of matchup at all. As I said in my last post, there will always be an element of matchup involved as there are just so many things that it is v. difficult to account for the problem. With Aegislash, 1/3-or-so of what is currently viable loses viability, but instead you are put at a disadvantage if you don't prepare for Aegi and, concequently, other pokemon take advantage of this to "replace" mega metagross, altaria etc. This will never be fixed - ever. As much I would like this game to be all about skill - much like Chess - it is impossible to deny the flaw that having so many different pokemon with different elements, stats, movepools and abilities brings to the table.

Not trying to take away your opinion here, just stating my personal disagreement with the post.

 

[Machi]

Made reqs with 80 GXE and I used a Mega Pinsir and Starmie Team, and I'll be voting OU for Aegislash.
My laddering experience was very enjoyable overall, despite using two mons that were supposedly invalidated by aegislash's presence.

I just want to correct this because a lot still have issues in understanding terms. There is a huge difference between something's viability dropping versus outright becoming invalidated. The former simply implies that the environment is simply less favorable, in the case of Pinsir I doubt he'd appreciate an additional check and having to run EQ over CC or in the case of Starmie as a hazard control would not appreciate another spin blocker it can't exactly switch into or necessarily threaten easily. This also applies to many things like MGarde etc. They simply go down a notch in viability in so much that a common threat becomes prolific.

Invalidate would on the other hand mean being outright made redundant by something generally more superior or versatile in fulfilling the same role. In this situation we start looking at the psychic types like Jirachi which had risen to fill in the void of defensive synergy. You're far less likely to use Jirachi over Aegis in that role in so much that the other covers a much larger scope of resistances and immunities, while sharing similar weaknesses. You could use Jirachi but suddenly there is a large opportunity cost in so much that Aegis can cover the same threats but more, so that the other becomes a more niche choice.

It is important to differentiate because you'd be missing the point otherwise by dismissing it as an exaggeration.

You've misunderstood me. I said that we're at the point where people are building teams in that "Hope they don't bring X-mon manner", it's unhealthy and Aegislash alleviates this problem in my opinion.

The problem with this as brought up by several posters prior is that what does this do to teams that don't opt to carry Aegislash as their one size fits all solution? They'll essentially still be dealing with the large amount of threats and adding one more to the fray. If anything you're simply now banking on the lesser viability of say MMGross, when in fact it is still threatening to the same team archetypes.

 

[Mr. Goodra]

I just want to correct this because a lot still have issues in understanding terms. There is a huge difference between something's viability dropping versus outright becoming invalidated. The former simply implies that the environment is simply less favorable, in the case of Pinsir I doubt he'd appreciate an additional check and having to run EQ over CC or in the case of Starmie as a hazard control would not appreciate another spin blocker it can't exactly switch into or necessarily threaten easily. This also applies to many things like MGarde etc. They simply go down a notch in viability in so much that a common threat becomes prolific.

Invalidate would on the other hand mean being outright made redundant by something generally more superior or versatile in fulfilling the same role. In this situation we start looking at the psychic types like Jirachi which had risen to fill in the void of defensive synergy. You're far less likely to use Jirachi over Aegis in that role in so much that the other covers a much larger scope of resistances and immunities, while sharing similar weaknesses. You could use Jirachi but suddenly there is a large opportunity cost in so much that Aegis can cover the same threats but more, so that the other becomes a more niche choice.

It is important to differentiate because you'd be missing the point otherwise by dismissing it as an exaggeration.


The problem with this as brought up by several posters prior is that what does this do to teams that don't opt to carry Aegislash as their one size fits all solution? They'll essentially still be dealing with the large amount of threats and adding one more to the fray. If anything you're simply now banking on the lesser viability of say MMGross, when in fact it is still threatening to the same team archetypes.

Just wanted to reply to your last paragraph that I bolded. Your post is well argued, and I've made my arguments as to why I'm pro-OU before so I won't repeat myself, and instead will answer the last paragraph which I haven't discussed much before. I think the logic is slightly flawed.

Just the presence of Aegislash in the meta means mons will have to consider different coverage options and as such will have more answers. You don't have to run Aegi yourself to be better equipped for these threats as they have to consider the presence of Aegislash regardless, meaning Slowbro will be more consistent at switching into Mega Metagross for example as grass knot coverage will decrease. This applies to a ton of mons due to Aegi's presence affecting many sets, and as a result you should have a better shot at dealing with most of them as their perfect coverage is impaired.

 

[AM]

Just wanted to reply to your last paragraph that I bolded. Your post is well argued, and I've made my arguments as to why I'm pro-OU before so I won't repeat myself, and instead will answer the last paragraph which I haven't discussed much before. I think the logic is slightly flawed.

Just the presence of Aegislash in the meta means mons will have to consider different coverage options and as such will have more answers. You don't have to run Aegi yourself to be better equipped for these threats as they have to consider the presence of Aegislash regardless, meaning Slowbro will be more consistent at switching into Mega Metagross for example as grass knot coverage will decrease. This applies to a ton of mons due to Aegi's presence affecting many, and as a result you should have a better shot at dealing with most threats as their perfect coverage is impaired.

Yeah not necessarily. When you realize that most of the things that need this coverage can still maintain themselves to be top tier threat such as Mega Altaria with Earthquake and really is only hindering a handful of stuff that was already manageable in the first place it sort of throws the threat management argument out the window. M-Gross runs Earthquake for say, the Fighting Coverage it has. So the point about Slowbro being a better switch in sort of becomes a moot point when it can still be running Grass Knot. Also Slowbro runs a spread to handle M-Metagross better now so you're definitely looking at it from the totally wrong perspective of threat control. The threat control simply shifts if not makes it much harder as it makes some of the top tier threats even stronger. It's basically counter-productive the element of blanket checking when blanket checking just made certain elements much stronger than they should be in what otherwise would be balanced threats in our meta-game such as Mega Lopunny.

 

[Mr. Goodra]

Yeah not necessarily. When you realize that most of the things that need this coverage can still maintain themselves to be top tier threat such as Mega Altaria with Earthquake and really is only hindering a handful of stuff that was already manageable in the first place it sort of throws the threat management argument out the window. M-Gross runs Earthquake for say, the Fighting Coverage it has. So the point about Slowbro being a better switch in sort of becomes a moot point when it can still be running Grass Knot. Also Slowbro runs a spread to handle M-Metagross better now so you're definitely looking at it from the totally wrong perspective of threat control. The threat control simply shifts if not makes it much harder as it makes some of the top tier threats even stronger. It's basically counter-productive the element of blanket checking when blanket checking just made certain elements much stronger than they should be in what otherwise would be balanced threats in our meta-game such as Mega Lopunny.

That would still impair Gross as now Skarmory and Ferrothorn are much better answers than they were previously. I wasn't using it as a major reason for Aegislash to return but stating it as an example as to why you don't need to run it to benefit from its inclusion.

The main top tier threats in question are Lando-I and M-Lop, right? Well it's pretty debatable in Lando's case if it's even Aegi's fault that it's so good, because people have been calling for a ban on it for a while in a metagame where Aegi isn't allowed. As for Lop, couldn't that be assessed at a later stage? The core only came into existence on the suspect ladder and nobody has had sufficient time to deal with it.

 

[radianthero156]

Bolded part: Aegislash doesn't alleviate the problem: it just redirects it towards different Pokemon. It isn't solving the issue of matchup at all. As I said in my last post, there will always be an element of matchup involved as there are just so many things that it is v. difficult to account for the problem. With Aegislash, 1/3-or-so of what is currently viable loses viability, but instead you are put at a disadvantage if you don't prepare for Aegi and, concequently, other pokemon take advantage of this to "replace" mega metagross, altaria etc. This will never be fixed - ever. As much I would like this game to be all about skill - much like Chess - it is impossible to deny the flaw that having so many different pokemon with different elements, stats, movepools and abilities brings to the table.

aegislash redirecting the matchup problem to different pokemon is exactly what alleviates the issue. our current metagame has a whopping 52 (FIFTY TWO) pokemon placed between A- and S ranks in viability rankings. if aegislash was reintroduced into the metagame, that number would certainly drop, seeing as we would be lowering the viability of mons like jirachi/gardevoir/gallade/etc. is that a bad thing? NO IT ISN'T!!! instead of existing 52 key mons that pressure your teambuilding, there would be like 30, which makes teambuilding MUCH easier. yeah you would have to counter aegislash, because it'd be a fucking S rank pokemon, the same way you have to counter keldeo.

 

[AM]

That would still impair Gross as now Skarmory and Ferrothorn are much better answers than they were previously. I wasn't using it as a major reason for Aegislash to return but stating it as an example as to why you don't need to run it to benefit from its inclusion.

The main top tier threats in question are Lando-I and M-Lop, right? Well it's pretty debatable in Lando's case if it's even Aegi's fault that it's so good, because people have been calling for a ban on it for a while in a metagame where Aegi isn't allowed. As for Lop, couldn't that be assessed at a later stage? The core only came into existence on the suspect ladder and nobody has had sufficient time to deal with it.

My issue with your first statement is the implication of set standards that many people in this thread sort of just formulated to hold true. So maybe it doesn't run Grass Knot at times and now goes with Fighting / Ground coverage to accommodate. So you're sort of still banking that you handle these threats based on "matchup" so to speak which the anti-ban party keeps claiming to be an aspect that has been alleviated by Aegislash alone.

Why assess something at a later stage when we're bringing something down that makes what would be a balanced Pokemon subjectively broken. It's really just going backwards at this point.

aegislash redirecting the matchup problem to different pokemon is exactly what alleviates the issue. our current metagame has a whopping 52 (FIFTY TWO) pokemon placed between A- and S ranks in viability rankings. if aegislash was reintroduced into the metagame, that number would certainly drop, seeing as we would be lowering the viability of mons like jirachi/gardevoir/gallade/etc. is that a bad thing? NO IT ISN'T!!! instead of existing 52 key mons that pressure your teambuilding, there would be like 30, which makes teambuilding MUCH easier. yeah you would have to counter aegislash, because it'd be a fucking S rank pokemon, the same way you have to counter keldeo.

Not concerned with the statement above other than I'm in the sentiment you're blowing this matchup bit way out of proportion but redirection of threat control will also reflect on the ranking threads as Diggersby would rise in usage, M-Metagross and M-Lopunny would probably switch places, and Mega Altaria is still a massive threat in and of itself. You're really just trading threats at this point so this isn't exactly a fantastic case if your'e trying to point out that people won't lose to top tier threats on a regular basis, hint they still will.

 

[QueenOfHax]

I'm sorry but why should Aegislash act as a scapegoat if Landorus and Mega Bunny become "too good"? Was Politoed blamed when Tornadus-T ravaged OU with its Hurricane spam in BW2? Was Dugtrio blamed when it trapped and removed Heatran so Genesect could destroy entire teams? Was Bisharp blamed when it punished defoggers for clearning Deoxys-D's hazards?

Between pokemon that can run through HO (Mega Lopunny) or stall (Landorus) like a hot knife through butter, and a pokemon that merely checks their checks, I'd say the formers are the more broken part of the partnership.

 

[AM]

I'm sorry but why should Aegislash act as a scapegoat if Landorus and Mega Bunny become "too good"? Was Politoed blamed when Tornadus-T ravaged OU with its Hurricane spam in BW2? Was Dugtrio blamed when it trapped and removed Heatran so Genesect could destroy entire teams? Was Bisharp blamed when it punished defoggers for clearning Deoxys-D's hazards?

Between pokemon that can run through HO (Mega Lopunny) or stall (Landorus) like a hot knife through butter, and a pokemon that merely checks their checks, I'd say the formers are the more broken part of the partnership.

I can't speak on the former aspects as I wasn't there but the whole Deoxys-D argument comes to the realization it was suspected on the premise of providing this support to Bisharp and offense as such was considered broken under the support characteristic. So yeah if something is supplementing balanced Pokemon that makes them out to be busted it's perfectly legitimate to put the supporter as the culprit.

 

[Mencee]

Bolded part: Aegislash doesn't alleviate the problem: it just redirects it towards different Pokemon. It isn't solving the issue of matchup at all. As I said in my last post, there will always be an element of matchup involved as there are just so many things that it is v. difficult to account for the problem. With Aegislash, 1/3-or-so of what is currently viable loses viability, but instead you are put at a disadvantage if you don't prepare for Aegi and, concequently, other pokemon take advantage of this to "replace" mega metagross, altaria etc. This will never be fixed - ever. As much I would like this game to be all about skill - much like Chess - it is impossible to deny the flaw that having so many different pokemon with different elements, stats, movepools and abilities brings to the table.

Not trying to take away your opinion here, just stating my personal disagreement with the post.

If you don't prepare for any S ranked mons you are put at a severe disadvantage, I don't see how Aegislash is any different.

 

[zbr]

If you don't prepare for any S ranked mons you are put at a severe disadvantage, I don't see how Aegislash is any different.

aegislash is mildly different. for aegislash, it has a plethora of tricks it can consistently pull off and there is only a few mons that can deal with it consistently and reliably. most checks are inconsistent at best and causes severe problems in team building. on top of that, it's not as if we are removing the already broken s ranked threats, however we are hoping that by adding one mon that can consistently check the top threats, we can have a more healthy and balanced meta. in all honesty that is just a dream. the more i ladder, the more aegi's presence in the metagame annoys builders/players like me. i've been playing all sorts of types from heavy offense to full stall and all of them benefit by just slapping aegislash onto it, its just too splashable of a mon imo and it shouldn't return.

tldr - aegi can consistently pull of many different roles whereas it's checks and counters are inconsistent at best barring a few like spdef glis.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

If you don't prepare for any S ranked mons you are put at a severe disadvantage, I don't see how Aegislash is any different.

That's far too ambiguous of a statement. See, with most S rank mons, you can prepare for that 'Mon with one of your own. They tend to have the same set, and if they sway away from said set, their other sets don't threaten the check too much. Aegislash is not the same, a lot of the things that check one set, don't check its others, so, not only do you have to prepare for one set, but you have to prepare for another. You can't use the "well that set isn't common" because every set is common on Aegislash. So, what does that mean? It means in order for you to properly deal with Aegislash, you have to have multiple checks to it, which is about half of what makes Aegislash obscenely centralizing.
As ZANBAKUResh stated, Aegislash fits onto any team archetype, you just gotta choose the right set for it to work on that team. You can go into the match with a Mandibuzz thinking it Flat out counters Aegislash, and then you switch into a Head Smash, well, now you need something else to deal with it. So, with S rank mons, you prepare for the mon, and its set deviation doesn't tend to matter much, but with Aegislash, it can seal your fate right away.

 

[Martin]

If you don't prepare for any S ranked mons you are put at a severe disadvantage, I don't see how Aegislash is any different.

I' not denying you need to prepare for S rank mons. What I was saying is that no matter how hard you try to make the metagame not matchup-based there always will be a problem with it. It is what happens, and redirecting it doesn't really solve the issue IMO as it is just resulting in the same porridge in a differently-shaped bowl.

Dumb metaphors aside, what I am saying is that it is still going to a heavy element of matchup involved in matches regardless of whether Aegislash is there or not, and it is what makes teambuilding an experiment as opposed to just chucking things with synergy together, and it is why learning where you feel the right place to strike a balance between covering threats and making you opponents' lives hard in matches with synergistic cores is a key part of the learning process in teambuilding - as well as what makes it a fun process that means you will never have a perfect team.

 

[MANNAT]

That's far too ambiguous of a statement. See, with most S rank mons, you can prepare for that 'Mon with one of your own. They tend to have the same set, and if they sway away from said set, their other sets don't threaten the check too much. Aegislash is not the same, a lot of the things that check one set, don't check its others, so, not only do you have to prepare for one set, but you have to prepare for another. You can't use the "well that set isn't common" because every set is common on Aegislash. So, what does that mean? It means in order for you to properly deal with Aegislash, you have to have multiple checks to it, which is about half of what makes Aegislash obscenely centralizing.
As ZANBAKUResh stated, Aegislash fits onto any team archetype, you just gotta choose the right set for it to work on that team. You can go into the match with a Mandibuzz thinking it Flat out counters Aegislash, and then you switch into a Head Smash, well, now you need something else to deal with it. So, with S rank mons, you prepare for the mon, and its set deviation doesn't tend to matter much, but with Aegislash, it can seal your fate right away.

To add onto this, Aegislash's sets are so different that Pokemon that may stop one set are completely countered by another. Offensive monsters that destroy the Crumbler set may switch into an Aegi using sub and proceed to either get killed by shadow ball or severely crippled by toxic. Mons that deal with the subtoxic set well like Magic Guard Clefable may get smashed by a super effective coverage move and so on and so forth. Aegislash has a viable option on every single one of its sets to beat one of its counters, and it is broken. Even its "best" counter in specially defensive Gliscor gets killed in one shot almost all the time by HP Ice if rocks are up. The point is that Aegislash is so versatile that its overcentralyzing force is beyond our control.

Wall of Calcs Incoming

252+ SpA Aegislash-Blade Hidden Power Ice vs. 244 HP / 192+ SpD Gliscor: 292-348 (82.9 - 98.8%) -- 75% chance to OHKO after Stealth Rock
0 Atk Gliscor Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 146-174 (45 - 53.7%) -- 1.2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Head Smash vs. 248 HP / 136+ Def Mandibuzz: 306-360 (72.3 - 85.1%) -- 75% chance to OHKO after Stealth Rock
0- Atk Mandibuzz Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 134-158 (41.3 - 48.7%) -- guaranteed 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
0 Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Bisharp: 368-436 (135.7 - 160.8%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252+ Atk Bisharp Knock Off (97.5 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 240-284 (74 - 87.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Excadrill: 362-426 (100.2 - 118%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252+ Atk Mold Breaker Excadrill Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 260-308 (80.2 - 95%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Mega Lopunny: 250-296 (92.2 - 109.2%) -- 87.5% chance to OHKO after Stealth Rock
252 Atk Mega Lopunny Drain Punch vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 180-212 (55.5 - 65.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ Atk Tough Claws Mega Charizard X Fire Punch vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 254-300 (78.3 - 92.5%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Head Smash vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Mega Charizard X: 362-428 (121.8 - 144.1%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252 SpA Mega Charizard Y Fire Blast vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Aegislash-Shield: 224-266 (69.1 - 82%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery (Specially Defenive)
4 Atk Aegislash-Blade Head Smash vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Mega Charizard Y: 752-888 (253.1 - 298.9%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252+ Atk Conkeldurr Knock Off (97.5 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 172-204 (53 - 62.9%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
+2 252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Iron Head vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Conkeldurr: 333-393 (94.8 - 111.9%) -- guaranteed OHKO after Stealth Rock (SDs on switch)
252 SpA Mega Diancie Earth Power vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Aegislash-Shield: 162-192 (50 - 59.2%) -- 78.5% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Aegislash-Blade Flash Cannon vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Mega Diancie: 588-696 (243.9 - 288.7%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252+ Atk Garchomp Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 254-300 (78.3 - 92.5%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Aegislash-Blade Hidden Power Ice vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Garchomp: 364-432 (101.9 - 121%) -- guaranteed OHKO
232 SpA Mega Gardevoir Shadow Ball vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Aegislash-Shield: 146-172 (45 - 53%) -- 0.4% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Aegislash-Blade Flash Cannon vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Mega Gardevoir: 248-294 (89.5 - 106.1%) -- guaranteed OHKO after Stealth Rock
252 SpA Life Orb Gengar Shadow Ball vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Aegislash-Shield: 242-283 (74.6 - 87.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Aegislash-Blade Shadow Ball vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Gengar: 404-476 (155.9 - 183.7%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252+ Atk Mold Breaker Mega Gyarados Crunch vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 234-276 (72.2 - 85.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
+2 252 Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Mega Gyarados: 404-476 (122 - 143.8%) -- guaranteed OHKO (SDs on switch)
4 Atk Meloetta Knock Off (97.5 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 80-96 (24.6 - 29.6%) -- 0% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Iron Head vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Meloetta: 198-234 (49 - 57.9%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Life Orb Sheer Force Landorus Earth Power vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Aegislash-Shield: 273-322 (84.2 - 99.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
0 SpA Aegislash-Blade Hidden Power Ice vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Landorus: 296-352 (92.7 - 110.3%) -- guaranteed OHKO after Stealth Rock
252 Atk Landorus-T Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Shield: 252-296 (77.7 - 91.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery
252 SpA Aegislash-Blade Hidden Power Ice vs. 56 HP / 0 SpD Landorus-T: 352-416 (105.7 - 124.9%) -- guaranteed OHKO
252+ SpA Choice Specs Magnezone Hidden Power Fire vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Aegislash-Shield: 152-180 (46.9 - 55.5%) -- 74.6% chance to 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery
252 Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Magnezone: 194-230 (69 - 81.8%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock
(these might be a tad bit cherry picked but are pretty reasonable)

Keep in mind that these are different sets and there are probably a ton more calcs that I can show, but I think they get my point across for how versatile Aegislash is and how it has a set to beat basically anything in the Meta 1v1.

 

[Noulis]

can someone tell me how aegishlash having many sets which can be checked by different pokemon depending on the set is different that the plethora of sets that m-alta can run ? the only difference i see is that m-alta comes with opertunity cost maybe? but it's one of the best megas in the tier already so i dont think that holds a lot of ground as argument.

 

[Ryfi110]

can someone tell me how aegishlash having many sets which can be checked by different pokemon depending on the set is different that the plethora of sets that m-alta can run ? the only difference i see is that m-alta comes with opertunity cost maybe? but it's one of the best megas in the tier already so i dont think that holds a lot of ground as argument.

MEGA Altaria.
NONMEGA Aegislash.

For Altaria, you need to use your dedicated mega slot to have it and it often needs to set up a cotton guard, a dragon dance, or both before it can wreck the opposing shitpile once called a proud team. It can be statused with conditions like WOW and Toxic, and since it is a setup sweeper, it needs to decide if this is worth keeping the stat boosts. Heal Bell can be ran, but assuming Roost is also in the set, it leaves you with no boosts + 2 attacks or DD + Roost + HealBell + Return.
Altaria comes in and takes 25% damage from rocks if it has yet to mega evolve.

For Aegislash, you need to carry a dedicated counter(s) or check(s). The most distinguished variants being SubToxic vs 3 Attacks + King Shield. It is a ghost type, meaning it can spin block, and proceed to KO most of the existant spinners. You can switch something in, and congrats, you took a hit, but then you need to deal with king's shield mindgames in addition to a very scary shadow ball. Shadow ball is resisted by very few types, and even chansey hates Sacred Sword. Plus, it can neither toxic or seismic toss Aegislash, meaning not even the most pristine special wall can wall (and proceed to beat) a special attacking Aegislash. It also has the benefit of being able to carry an item, whether that be a life orb, a weakness policy, leftovers, or anything else.

In addition, Aegislash can be thrown into literally any team, and it will put in work 99.999999999999/100 times (true fact). Altaria has a couple playstyles it works on, but its lackluster unboosted speed + no priority, in addition to some 4MSS, Aegislash is overall more worthwhile to have on a team.

Plus, you can have both on the same team 0_o

 

[zbr]

i doubt what i say at this point is of any notable consequence to those who are pushing for aegislash to return but i hope to be able to change the minds of those who are on the fence about aegi's suspect.

I'm sorry but why should Aegislash act as a scapegoat if Landorus and Mega Bunny become "too good"?

is this truly not the case? it's not that they are scapegoats but rather they push these threats past the borderline of manageable simply because of how consistent of a supporter it can act for said mons.

Was Politoed blamed when Tornadus-T ravaged OU with its Hurricane spam in BW2?

was politoed not the sole reason a whole archtype called rain became broken af? torn-t was the culprit because even without rain, it had the speed tier to punish offence as well as having a good ability to ravage the tier with. rain was the icing on a well made cake.

Was Dugtrio blamed when it trapped and removed Heatran so Genesect could destroy entire teams?

you are doing reverse arguing for this. genesect is the one with aegislash syndrome considering it was a mon that had literally zero solid counter/switch in except for heatran which was arguably covered by hp ground as well. this is a really silly argument considering that dugtrio is not a good supporter and is only consistent at supporting mons that require an offensive threat gone. unlike aegi, who can function as a supporter for both offensive and defensive threats alike.

Was Bisharp blamed when it punished defoggers for clearning Deoxys-D's hazards?

read AM's post.

Between pokemon that can run through HO (Mega Lopunny) or stall (Landorus) like a hot knife through butter, and a pokemon that merely checks their checks, I'd say the formers are the more broken part of the partnership.

a better and more appropriate argument would probably be lando-i and pursuit user (usually ttar) interaction in bw2 prior to lando-i's ban. if we were to compare ttar's role to aegi's role as a support, it's best support is to provide fast trapping so that lando can sweep effortlessly without much to worry. comparing that to aegislash, it is definitely a lot more similar. however in the case of aegi, on top of what it can provide to the top metagame threats as support to make them even more broken, it itself is also a top metagame threat (unlike dug, ttar (in bw it was a lot more dimensional due to weather wars being prominent af), politoed which only ,arguably, provided more one dimensional support ), making it a lot more multi-dimensional and a lot more meta-defining then said support, giving us little to no reason to return it back to the tier.

 

[pika pal]

can someone tell me how aegishlash having many sets which can be checked by different pokemon depending on the set is different that the plethora of sets that m-alta can run ? the only difference i see is that m-alta comes with opertunity cost maybe? but it's one of the best megas in the tier already so i dont think that holds a lot of ground as argument.

That is indeed it though.

Altaria comes with some degree of opportunity cost because it is a Mega. While that tends to be a moot point on viability for the whole, in the context of the Metagame at large that's a big deal since it means Altaria can't provide support for, say, Mega Lopunny on the same team by using its Special set to break walls.

Altaria's sets are also sets you have to prepare for, but not prepare "specifically" for. Altaria can usually be stopped by things that make decent additions to teambuilding for any archetype such as Scizor, Mega Metagross, or Heatran. The Special set has trouble breaking some fatter resistances to Hyper Voice and can be checked by a lot of faster mons since it needs mostly offensive investment to hit hard. Altaria necessitates some roles to be filled on your team, but not specific mons.


Aegislash does not even have the opportunity cost of a Mega, being an extremely low cost, low risk, high reward addition to a team. There is virtually no team possible that cannot use Aegislash to some extent, and I would doubt any team can outright be better for his absence.

On top of that, Aegislash's versatility allows him the explicit benefit of outright choosing his checks (this thing has no counters), not even at the cost of his typical effectiveness. Altaria required a good check to a Slow, Bulky Dragon Dancer and a Special Fairy Wallbreaker. Aegislash requires you be ready to check his Crumbler set, SubToxic set, SD set, LO 3 attacks set, you have to check Aegislash, not just whatever role he's playing. And if you fail to bring a proper answer to the Aegislash set you're facing, you could just be SoL by the team matchup. Sound familiar? Aegislash doesn't alleviate the team match up because while he removes some threats, he makes the others require more preparation by virtue of needing to be prepared for however many sets he could run as well as the threats that still exist. A metagame where I need to 3 slots to cover all Aegislash sets and 3 slots to cover 25 threats isn't that different from a metagame where I have to cover 50 threats with 6 teamslots. In fact, it might be worse because it's less likely for Aegislash's checks to overlap with that of the mons he's supporting (one of the things that makes him ridiculous offense or support for a team).

It's like Primal Groudon in Ubers. Primal Don fits onto virtually 90% of teams in the tier, and there are very, VERY few teams that cannot fit him into a role over something else. You need to prepare for Primal Groudon extensively to not autolose; not even to beat him, just not to have your team smashed/crippled by him due to underpreparation.

Ubers, however, is a tier that is prone to centralization and allows it, always has been with Kyogre, XY Xerneas, and now Primal Groudon being perfect examples of its "kings". However, would you say such a metagame is healthy? While not to the same extreme extent, Aegislash has a very similar effect on OU, in that he centralizes the tier around dealing with him because he's so easy to put on a team without losing anything. Match-up against Primal Groudon can moves Pokemon up or down ranks in Ubers viability, match-up against Aegislash moves things up and down when he's in OU. If that degree of centralization is what we want out of the OU metagame, then that's the anti-ban side's right to vote for. I just don't think that's the metagame we should want out of our standard. Pokemon is a game that can never be 100% skill based by virtue of both RNG hax and the sheer number of unique pieces available to play with in either meta, even if there are fewer in the Aegislash meta.


And as far as the idea of Landorus and Lopunny being the culprits rather than Aegislash, let me try an analogy outside of Pokemon.
Imagine a boss battle in an RPG, you face 3 strong Berserkers and 1 support character like a Bard. Sure, the Berserkers can lay into you, meanwhile the Bard is casting status effects or buffing them by disabling your counter tactics with things like Silence. The Bard is what's making the boss fight difficult, so he registers as the greatest threat despite the fact that, in a vaccuum, the 3 Berserkers would be greater individual threats to a party than he would. What's the most efficient way to diffuse the boss fight? Eliminating the 3 Berserkers, or the Bard supporting them?

If OU is going for as few bans as possible, does it make more sense to ban 3 mons that are broken because of Aegislash support, or to ban Aegislash himself for providing that support?