np: ORAS OU Suspect Process, Round 4 - Genie in a bottle

[Gros orteil]

Hello, I'd like to add some thoughts since I have obtained requirements. After days of deliberation, I am finally voting ban on Landorus-I for the following reasons:

- His absurd power for each move boosted by sheer force. Earth power is 228 base power with STAB, sheer force and life orb (furthermore no recoil). It is a move with a BP that is rivaled by megas, yet he is not a mega. Moreover, he can run a mixed set without losing any power.

- Since an excessively powerful STAB is not enough to send a pokemon to ubers, Landorus also has decent bulk and has good speed in relation to the rest of the tier.

- Its versatility allows Landorus to deal with all the play styles; an offensive team can hardly switch-in against Landorus and it can destroys hyper offensive teams with rock polish or simply killing a mon on each free turn. Balanced teams don't necessarily have an appropriate switch-in for Landorus neither. Stall teams can be swept by Landorus with calm mind, and even though Chansey may still be alive, Chansey can still lose against knock off/focus blast/calm mind. Moreover he can adopt a lot of roles: stealth rock setter, calm minder, all-out attacker, rock polisher, mixed attacker.

- The genie only has two weaknesses: water and ice. The second is not that common (Kyurem-b, Weavile and eventually Mamoswine in OU). Yes, some pokemon can learn ice beam/punch or even hp ice, but the mons that have those moves are predictable (Thundurus' hp ice or Lopunny's ice punch are obvious). With only two weaknesses and two immunities, Landorus is able to switch in on a lot of stuff, allowing him to potentially set up.

- The metagame I faced during my reqs period was, for me, more enjoyable than the prior one.

Good luck to the last ladderers !

 

[aim]

Hi frens, a new live suspect tour has been announced for this Friday at 4pm eastern. You can find out the details here.

 

[baddummy]

Initially, I was pro-ban for this, but after spending time on the ladder, I am now anti-ban.

Landorus is very good at punishing teams for allowing you to have free turns, it can can either just fire off very powerful attacks, or it can Rock Polish up and finish off a weakened offence team. Now, initially, a pokemon that can punish teams very well for just one free turn seemed ban worthy to me, but you have to compare it to other mons in the tier as well. Granted, some of them do take up mega slots, such as Gardevoir and Charizard Y, but others don't, like Manaphy or Kyurem-B, and while I realise that Lando can be considered a cut above some of the aforementioned mons, it still works on the same principles.

The key difference here between Lando and other breakers is that it can also use Rock Polish, letting it, rather than just get one KO, finish off a weakened team. However, you'll also notice that there are pokemon that can fulfill exactly the same role, a strong late game sweeper is not a revolutionary or ban-worthy concept, Landorus will not take out a well-built team all by itself.

Against offence, the Rock Polish set is actually not too fantastic, because they pack plenty of priority, this is not something that is there specifically for Lando, it is something offensive teams should run anyway. The specific pokemon that you use for priority to hit Lando are not niche either. Stuff like Banded Azu and LO Weavile are good in their own right. Even things like Talonflame will work if you get some chip damage as it sets up, and maybe a bit from hazards. So, really, from an offensive viewpoint, Landorus is not heavily restrictive for teambuilding.

As for playstyles that Landorus does hit hard, that would be slower teams. I mentioned earlier that Landorus heavily punishes free turns, so it would make perfect sense that it hits teams that do give those out frequently rather than offensive teams, which aim to give almost none. Essentially, Landorus forces people to run fairly specific pokemon to beat it if they want a passive team and to not absolutely lose to any set. Tornadus-T seems to be the most popular one that semi stall likes to use, because it beats most sets, other than Rock Slide, which is very rare. So it very restrictive if you want to play a passive team that can't really hit back too hard. An argument that has popped up at least occasionally in this thread is saying something like it freeing up slots for teambuilding. Well, yes, it does, for one playstyle, this does not hold true for more offensively inclined teams.

However, in saying that it should be banned because it is heavily restrictive on passive, slow teams, you misunderstand the very concept of those teams entirely. Breakers do put stress on slow teams, as they should, because really defensive playstyles being balanced relies on the basic fact that there are significantly more threats in the meta than can be covered in teambuilding. Therefore, another good breaker is actually contributing in terms of what it can offer the meta. It is clear, from playing on the suspect ladder for a bit, that Landorus being gone does not actually relieve match-up issues, defensive cores that become viable because there is no Landorus to break through them heavily exasperates them. On the other hand, Landorus does not make these playstyles completely unviable, as defensive teams do have answers to it that they can make use of. It is very possible that running a Tornadus-T on your semi stall team means that you can't run something else to counter another breaker, such as Manaphy, but that's perfectly balanced because we shouldn't aim to build a meta in which passive cores can exist that can counter every popular threat in OU.

Defensive teams becoming significantly better actually has a serious effect on every other playstyle, because now that something which put pressure on them is gone, they are more free to counter other popular threats, and noticeably greater specialisation is now required to consider yourself not weak to stall or semi stall in a meta without Landorus I. It was already a nuisance while playing on the ladder to see a defensive core and think "Well, I can't break through that" but now that has become significantly more common for this to happen. This is not personal bias against defence or anything, but upon looking at teambuilding trends of people who have attained a high gxe, it is clear that the meta has undergone a shift to benefit defence.

Overall, I think that Landorus has its place in the meta. Being difficult to switch into certainly doesn't make it broken, neither does the ability to clean up a heavily weakened team. If it had some kind of a way of generating the free turns it needed due to very strong defences or typing by itself, then this would be a different matter, but the fact of the matter is that Ground/Flying has about one useful immunity in ground (Electric types usually carry hp ice anyway) and one decent resist, fighting is not such a great typing as it once was. To be blunt, looking at it just in terms of what it resists, that isn't such a great typing. Landorus is just another pokemon that can punish free turns given to it well, and it being gone does not ease match-up issues, it only intensifies them. My primary aim when voting now is to try to minimise team preview losses for teams that aren't designed to look to matchup to win or lose, and one less breaker in the tier results in a greater chance to encounter defensive cores that an otherwise well-built team has no chance of beating. It is for these reasons, that my personal opinion is do not ban.

 

[daftmau5]

Hi frens, a new live suspect tour has been announced for this Friday at 4pm eastern. You can find out the details here.

I appreciate all of the hard work you guys do but is there any chance we can get a more Oceania time zone friendly tour next time? For example, perhaps a tour starting between 7pm-10pm Eastern?

Thanks!

(Replying here because the other thread is locked)

 

[aim]

I appreciate all of the hard work you guys do but is there any chance we can get a more Oceania time zone friendly tour next time? For example, perhaps a tour starting between 7pm-10pm Eastern?

Thanks!

(Replying here because the other thread is locked)

I'll see what we can do. We usually try to be in favor of the host but this will definitely be taken into account next time

 

[Magis4Life]

Initially, I was pro-ban for this, but afteproceed totry and setup late game when priority users are taken out. spending time on the ladder, I am now anti-ban.

Landorus is very good at punishing teams for allowing you to have free turns, it can can either just fire off very powerful attacks, or it can Rock Polish up and finish off a weakened offence team. Now, initially, a pokemon that can punish teams very well for just one free turn seemed ban worthy to me, but you have to compare it to other mons in the tier as well. Granted, some of them do take up mega slots, such as Gardevoir and Charizard Y, but others don't, like Manaphy or Kyurem-B, and while I realise that Lando can be considered a cut above some of the aforementioned mons, it still works on the same principles.

The key difference here between Lando and other breakers is that it can also use Rock Polish, letting it, rather than just get one KO, finish off a weakened team. However, you'll also notice that there are pokemon that can fulfill exactly the same role, a strong late game sweeper is not a revolutionary or ban-worthy concept, Landorus will not take out a well-built team all by itself.

Against offence, the Rock Polish set is actually not too fantastic, because they pack plenty of priority, this is not something that is there specifically for Lando, it is something offensive teams should run anyway. The specific pokemon that you use for priority to hit Lando are not niche either. Stuff like Banded Azu and LO Weavile are good in their own right. Even things like Talonflame will work if you get some chip damage as it sets up, and maybe a bit from hazards. So, really, from an offensive viewpoint, Landorus is not heavily restrictive for teambuilding.

As for playstyles that Landorus does hit hard, that would be slower teams. I mentioned earlier that Landorus heavily punishes free turns, so it would make perfect sense that it hits teams that do give those out frequently rather than offensive teams, which aim to give almost none. Essentially, Landorus forces people to run fairly specific pokemon to beat it if they want a passive team and to not absolutely lose to any set. Tornadus-T seems to be the most popular one that semi stall likes to use, because it beats most sets, other than Rock Slide, which is very rare. So it very restrictive if you want to play a passive team that can't really hit back too hard. An argument that has popped up at least occasionally in this thread is saying something like it freeing up slots for teambuilding. Well, yes, it does, for one playstyle, this does not hold true for more offensively inclined teams.

However, in saying that it should be banned because it is heavily restrictive on passive, slow teams, you misunderstand the very concept of those teams entirely. Breakers do put stress on slow teams, as they should, because really defensive playstyles being balanced relies on the basic fact that there are significantly more threats in the meta than can be covered in teambuilding. Therefore, another good breaker is actually contributing in terms of what it can offer the meta. It is clear, from playing on the suspect ladder for a bit, that Landorus being gone does not actually relieve match-up issues, defensive cores that become viable because there is no Landorus to break through them heavily exasperates them. On the other hand, Landorus does not make these playstyles completely unviable, as defensive teams do have answers to it that they can make use of. It is very possible that running a Tornadus-T on your semi stall team means that you can't run something else to counter another breaker, such as Manaphy, but that's perfectly balanced because we shouldn't aim to build a meta in which passive cores can exist that can counter every popular threat in OU.

Defensive teams becoming significantly better actually has a serious effect on every other playstyle, because now that something which put pressure on them is gone, they are more free to counter other popular threats, and noticeably greater specialisation is now required to consider yourself not weak to stall or semi stall in a meta without Landorus I. It was already a nuisance while playing on the ladder to see a defensive core and think "Well, I can't break through that" but now that has become significantly more common for this to happen. This is not personal bias against defence or anything, but upon looking at teambuilding trends of people who have attained a high gxe, it is clear that the meta has undergone a shift to benefit defence.

Overall, I think that Landorus has its place in the meta. Being difficult to switch into certainly doesn't make it broken, neither does the ability to clean up a heavily weakened team. If it had some kind of a way of generating the free turns it needed due to very strong defences or typing by itself, then this would be a different matter, but the fact of the matter is that Ground/Flying has about one useful immunity in ground (Electric types usually carry hp ice anyway) and one decent resist, fighting is not such a great typing as it once was. To be blunt, looking at it just in terms of what it resists, that isn't such a great typing. Landorus is just another pokemon that can punish free turns given to it well, and it being gone does not ease match-up issues, it only intensifies them. My primary aim when voting now is to try to minimise team preview losses for teams that aren't designed to look to matchup to win or lose, and one less breaker in the tier results in a greater chance to encounter defensive cores that an otherwise well-built team has no chance of beating. It is for these reasons, that my personal opinion is do not ban.

I respect your opinion upon the matter though I am perplexed by some of your reasoning. Firstly, the rock polish set is not the only thing landorus has over the other wallbreakers. It also maintains more resilience by not being prone to being worn down by hazards or life orb recoil while also receiving the benefits of the buff and that is ofc before factoring in sheer force. Rock polish is only one of landorus' s viable sets but there are plenty of others. There is also something offputting about your argument that people repeatedly bring up that I just don't see to be the case. There is this idea that defensive cores practically become unbreakable, and landorus, which from your argument portrays landorus as a broken element that should be maintained in order to keep defensive teams in check when, that for one simply isn't the case. We certainly have more than enough wallbreakers to keep defensive teams in check in manaphy, m-garde, m-hera, etc. and is just not a sound reason to keep landorus in the metagame. I don't see how landorus is this one solution to keeping defensive teams in check, nor have defensive teams ever been so much of an issue to where i need a landorus-i to deal with them. Furthermore, the purpose of these suspects isn't simply to ease matchup issues. With the advent of each new generation and massive power creeps comes more difficulty in resolving matchup issues and honestly, these matchup issues are never going to be resolved by simply banning a mon. You also advocate this idea that though landorus doesn't limit team building from an offensive standpoint (I find this very arguable), the same cannot be said for defensive teams, but this is ok because the point (I think you mean weakness) of defensive teams in general is that wallbreakers are supposed to put stress on defensive teams. You seem to have this idea that heavily restricting balanced/stall is fine and that if this doesn't occur, then these playstyles somehow become more difficult to deal with because there is more wriggle room for diversity in these playstyles and somehow this leads to more matchup because you might run into a core you didn't prepare for? So consequently we should keep landorus because though it heavily restricts team building for these "slower" teams, it doesn't do so for offense (again I find this arguable) and if it is banned, defensive teams becomemore difficult to deal with and become more Iinfluential in the meta game than other playstyles. I simply don't find this to be the case, and even if it were, I wouldn't use this as a reason for keeping landorus-i in the first place. Furthermore, the rock polish landorus is used for late game cleaning. Despite the ubiquity of priority in the meta game, a well-played landorus wouldn't simply set up a rock polish when a talonflame or weavile is still present. Rather I would fire off attacks off the bat on anything I can force out or outspeed (which is quite a bit more than people think, especially as far as offensive teams are concerned) and then proceed to try and setup late game when priority users are taken out.

tl; dr landorus-i isn't the only wallbreaker that can keep defensive teams in check nor is this a good reason to keep it if it heavily restricts team building at least for more defensive teams even if it doesn't do so for offensive teams (I find landorus to heavily restrict teambuilding on offensive teams as well but I digress).
Rock polish isn't the only thing that landorus has that distinguishes it for other wallbreakers. Resilience courtesy of its good typing (defensively, this isnt crappy typing either, sporting few weaknesses and good immunities that further make it easier to gain free turns is useful despite the few resistances) and ability that prevent it from being worn down by hazards and no life orb recoil combined with sheer force that allow it fire off strong hits off the bat with practically no cost is also something to note.

 

[GlassVeins]

Wow, you smogon staff really are quite cool! I for one appreciate all your hard work.
Anyways, I probably won't get requs, but I think that Landorous deserves to be banned due to its combination of excellent stats, abilities, and movepool. Even though it isn't as broken as m-mence was, being able to drastically reduce the effectiveness of two playstyles with a minimal amount of support is a major problem. Having several excellent sets doesn't automatically make something broken, but landorous takes that to a whole new level with its diversity. Lastly, there is little to no downside of not running it on your team!

 

[Inglorion]

lol DD Zard Y new meta.

As for Weavile and Mamoswine, they can only get in after Lando has already taken a Pokemon out. And when they switch in, the Lando-I user can simply you know, switch out instead of saccing his win condition like a fool. Oh, btw Keldeo easily takes the Ice Shard and OHKOes the ONLY TWO RELEVANT Ice Shard user in OU (don't pretend that there are any other Shard user. )

Every single Pokemon has things that can force it out, even our Lord Mega Rayquaza isn't invincible. However, Lando-I simply creates a situation such that whenever it enters the field, it can completely swing the momentum in its user's favour because of how threatening it is to all teams. Say, Lando comes in on a Pokemon it can force out (let's use a 70% Clefable as an example ). So, Clefable is in KO range of Sludge Wave and is outsped. You really can't do anything meaningful here so you are forced to sac the Clefable to bring in your Mamoswine. Yes, you have forced Lando out but you have just sacced one Pokemon and is now weaker to my CM Keldeo which can still defeat your Mamoswine.

That was more or less irrelevant to the question I was responding to. The question was which pokemon can handle common cores that feature Lando-I. So whatever my answer is you can just add any other pokemon to your hypothetical team to throw a monkey wrench into dismantling said cores.

"LO Weavile and LO Mamoswine beat the common Lando-I + Pursuit trapper core."

"Lol I have a Keldeo too."

"B-But I have a Latios!"

Do you see how I could never give a satisfactory answer when you can keep shifting goalposts? There was never any mention of Keldeo associated with these cores so I was not obliged to account for it in my answer. I understand that pokemon is a 6v6 game but guess what? I just dismantled your main core with one pokemon, potentially Knocked Off/Low Kicked/EQ'd your Keldeo, AND I have five other pokemon to deal with any opponents Mamo/Weave can't handle, so the battle is still in my favor.

And no, they absolutely do not have to come in after something else has been KO'd. Double switches exist.

 

[MZ]

I cant conceive of how this thing won't get bandwagon banned from OU no matter what happens here, but I might as well post my thoughts since I've achieved reqs and have only posted here to correct others. I was honestly on the fence about Lando before, but playing suspect I just feel that it needs to go. Yes, it has weaknesses and struggles more vs offense and can be revenge killed blah blah blah. But we don't need another post saying "I ice shard it and it dies". On the other hand, it was basically the #1 thing to absolutely shred apart balance (I feel Kyurem and Manaphy are tough but far more manageable) while also performing well against stall and offense. It has two counters, one being shitty and the other taking up a Mega Slot. This on its own is enough to make it debatable but probably not bannable. Where I feel lando crosses the line is how straight up awful it makes balance and somewhat stall. With it being gone, my impressions were that balance has a much easier time and stall isn't unmanageable at all. Now you can use all these new pokes on balance that weren't outright awful, even high ranked, but I found myself never wanting to use because of how much they, and the playstyle, struggled against Landorus (for example, I really like Amoongus now) Comparing it to the pre lando-i meta, balance is so incredibly fucked against this thing that it's stupidly hard to do right without Mega Latias and still has issues anyway. Lando practically invalidates a playstyle while still being fine versus offense, not broken but not dead weight either as opposed to something like Mega Heracross which struggles much more versus faster offensive teams. I was 50/50 with Lando because it's a breaker that can also sometimes sweep, but not impossible to deal with for offensive teams and it does have outright counters. However, feeling how much balanced the suspect meta was (I know it hasn't been that long but thanks to a long streak of hax and choking I had far more games than average), I'm going to be voting ban to just make the meta better. I know balance isn't the only playstyle but it's a major one that I feel Lando has really been hurting, and since it isn't dead weight vs offense it's far more potent than any other balance destroyer.

Now you can go back to arguing about DD Zard Y because it's clearly relevant. this post probably sucked but w/e

 

[pika pal]

That was more or less irrelevant to the question I was responding to. The question was which pokemon can handle common cores that feature Lando-I. So whatever my answer is you can just add any other pokemon to your hypothetical team to throw a monkey wrench into dismantling said cores.

"LO Weavile and LO Mamoswine beat the common Lando-I + Pursuit trapper core."

"Lol I have a Keldeo too."

"B-But I have a Latios!"

Do you see how I could never give a satisfactory answer when you can keep shifting goalposts? There was never any mention of Keldeo associated with these cores so I was not obliged to account for it in my answer. I understand that pokemon is a 6v6 game but guess what? I just dismantled your main core with on pokemon, potentially Knocked Off/Low Kicked/EQ'd your Keldeo, AND I have five other pokemon to deal with any opponents Mamo/Weave can't handle, so the battle is still in my favor.

And no, they absolutely do not have to come in after something else has been KO'd. Double switches exist.

The thing is, the core you accounted for was the Lando-I + Pursuit Trapper core, but not a potential Lando-Pursuit-Keldeo alternative/expansion of core. And it's not even quite like Keldeo is moving the goal post for a flimsy argument. Keldeo + Pursuit + X has been a common core structure since Gen 5.

The issue therein is that you have answered for one core, but there is no reliable way to deal with the sheer number of cores Landorus can easily fit into. He pairs well with other top threats like Mega Metagross, Altaria, Zard-X, or Thundurus, to name a few. It ultimately comes down to a similar issue with checking Landorus alone: a ridiculous number of set and/or core variants to prepare for allow Landorus to press a huge amount of pressure on teams just by virtue of existing, much less being on a team.

LO Weavile can beat Lando-I + Pursuit Trapper, but how well does he deal with other cores like Lando-I + Mega Scizor, or Lando-I + Gyarados?

Also, don't just assume Double Switches will make these things consistent enough to mitigate Landorus. If Double Switching was a reliable play around, sure Landorus would be easier to beat, but so would Kyurem-B, both Zards, Metagross, even Altaria. Prediction goes both way, and you can't depend on the idea of the Weavile user being smart enough to get Weavile in on every switch/Voltturn that brings in Landorus rather than having to take a revenge somewhere, or I could make the same argument that Mega Altaria is never hard to deal with because I'll always manage to double switch to my Metagross or Scizor and thus Altaria's Fire Blast or Earthquake isn't of concern.

You're no longer depending on reliable methods to counterplay Landorus anymore such as having reliable checks or ways to pressure it from coming in often, but now noting revenge killers or double switching, the former indicating Landorus put in work by fainting something while the latter requires you to win a coin flip/psych out your opponent every time to avoid losing momentum to the genie the moment he gets in.

 

[Inglorion]

The thing is, the core you accounted for was the Lando-I + Pursuit Trapper core, but not a potential Lando-Pursuit-Keldeo alternative/expansion of core. And it's not even quite like Keldeo is moving the goal post for a flimsy argument. Keldeo + Pursuit + X has been a common core structure since Gen 5.

The issue therein is that you have answered for one core, but there is no reliable way to deal with the sheer number of cores Landorus can easily fit into. He pairs well with other top threats like Mega Metagross, Altaria, Zard-X, or Thundurus, to name a few. It ultimately comes down to a similar issue with checking Landorus alone: a ridiculous number of set and/or core variants to prepare for allow Landorus to press a huge amount of pressure on teams just by virtue of existing, much less being on a team.

LO Weavile can beat Lando-I + Pursuit Trapper, but how well does he deal with other cores like Lando-I + Mega Scizor, or Lando-I + Gyarados?

Also, don't just assume Double Switches will make these things consistent enough to mitigate Landorus. If Double Switching was a reliable play around, sure Landorus would be easier to beat, but so would Kyurem-B, both Zards, Metagross, even Altaria. Prediction goes both way, and you can't depend on the idea of the Weavile user being smart enough to get Weavile in on every switch/Voltturn that brings in Landorus rather than having to take a revenge somewhere, or I could make the same argument that Mega Altaria is never hard to deal with because I'll always manage to double switch to my Metagross or Scizor and thus Altaria's Fire Blast or Earthquake isn't of concern.

You're no longer depending on reliable methods to counterplay Landorus anymore such as having reliable checks or ways to pressure it from coming in often, but now noting revenge killers or double switching, the former indicating Landorus put in work by fainting something while the latter requires you to win a coin flip/psych out your opponent every time to avoid losing momentum to the genie the moment he gets in.

You cannot possibly rebut an argument like this, you just stack the deck way too far in favor or the Lando user. I'm bowing out of the debate if double switches in competitive pokemon are not valid arguments. No offense to you personally either, I found you posted some of the best arguments in the Aegislash suspect thread.

 

[MilkyWay]

After reading through the arguements and playing on the ladder I am still torn on Landorus but am leaning towards no ban. However, there are some arguements, mostly on the pro-ban side, that have really been blown out of proportion and I've come here to address that.

Landorus is not Greninja. Greninja was much harder to switch into and beat not just because it got STAB on everything, but because it was insanely fast. Even pokemon that could switch into one move would be bopped by another before they could move and essentially had to take two hits. Landorus is not nearly that fast and many pokemon can easily switch into one of it's moves and outspeed it. This means that Lando-I won't be able to get away with freely spamming its moves like Greninja because if it doesn't predict correctly from the getgo it can easily be beaten or forced out.

Landorus is not Mega-Salamence. Mega-Salamence could effortlessly set up and would often 6-0 teams. Landorus, more often than not, is better off going AoA opposed to trying to set up a Calm Mind or Rock Polish. While both of these sets are effective, they certainly have their flaws. Calm Mind sets can easily be outspeed and KOed. Rock Polish sets are victimized by common priority and pokemon that can tank one hit and fire back. The latter isn't that uncommon becaue Earth Power has plenty of immunties and Lando's coverage moves are powerful, but not enough to flat out KO threats they aren't super effective against. Not to mention it isn't exactly a wak in the park for Landorus to set up these moves. Average bulk and uninvested defenes only go so far. I'll say Calm Mind will usually be easier to set up with because it's often used against slow, passivish, mons but certainly not Rock Polish. Rock Polish is meant to clean offensive teams but ironically Lando has the most difficulty setting up against these teams in the first place. Also we can't forget how mindless Mega Salamence was to use: set up and spam Return. We all have to admit that to use Landorus well it takes a bit more skill than that. Landorus is on the slow side, it's only STAB has pleny of immunties / resists, and it won't take too many hits. With this in mind, when Landorus gets in it has to make the most of every oppurtunity. It has to accurately predict the appropriate coverage move, know when it can set up and successfully sweep, know which hits can be tanked and which ones can't, and so on. A seasoned veteran who knows what they're doing will have a lot more success with Landorus than a person who started yesterday and I feel like this partially alleviates the team match up issues people blame on Landorus.

Landorus is not Aegislash. There was no reason not to use Aegislash. It checked so may pokemon defensively (which is something Landorus can't even dream of) and was by no means a pushover offensively either. It had a variety of sets, a spammable move in Shadow Ball (no Earth Power is not spammable), and was extremely over centralizing (those who played early to mid xy will remember), like 10x more centralizing than even Landorus in its most overexaggerated state. This isn't even to menton the other bullshit that came with Aegislash such as King's Shield, Stealth Rock resistance, spin-blocking, couldn't be trapped, amazing ofensive and defensive typing, crazy stats, etc. Honestly, the Pro OU for Aegislash side (both tests) had more support than the Pro OU Landorus side does now which just goes to show how ridiculous the Pro Ban side has blown things out of proportion because Landorus isn't half the pokemon Aegislash was.

Landorus is not Deoxys. Both Deoxys were almost perfect at their respected jobs as many may recall, which was hazard stacking. I have already stated many of Landorus's flaws but I will reiterate some of them once again. Landorus is held back by its mediocre speed and defenses, which means it has to predict almost perfectly when it comes in to even partially qualify as the god people are making it out to be. Secondly, it has no spammable moves. Ground moves arent spammable in this metagame, Focus Blast has shaky accuracy, and the rest of its moves are powerful for coverage but won't be knocking over any buildings unless they are super effective hits. Due to it's average speed, Landorus will often only get one attack out before taking one itself, unlike say, Greninja. The fact that many of Landorus's checks are faster than it and can threaten it out really ensure that Lando will have to predict correctly to conserve momentum and do it's job. Then take into account that while Landorus may have great coverage, it needs three or four moves to accomplish this unlike something such as Terrakion or Zard X which mostly need two. Therefore, it is harder for Landorus to successfully predict the right more because it has more choices.

However, the most significant flaw with Landorus is it's risk vs. reward when the risk becomes "reality" over the reward (it mispredicts). When Charizard X mispredicts, something still takes a resisted Flare Blitz, which hurts. Same goes for Mega Gardevoire and Hyper Voice, Keldeo and Scald (burn chance), Metagross and Meteor Mash, Kyurem B and Outrage, Bisharp with Knock Off (lost item), and so on. The pokemon that predicted correctly and switched into these powerful moves still suffer consequences, be it taking lots of damage, risking a burn, losing an item, or a combination. They become signifcanty easier (maybe even crippled) for the given wall breaker or its teammates to break through later in the game. This is not the case with Landorus. Earth Power has many immunties and even with Sheer Force it's coverage will not be that powerful. Landous greatly relies on prediction and has a much harder time wearing down its checks and counters compared to many other pokemon.

The only legitimate reason I can see for banning Landorus would be to rejuvinate a stale metagame plagued by match up issues and stiff restraints on team building due to the large number of threats, of which Landorus being the greatest offender. I would be in favor of banning Landorus if someone or something proved this to be true, but so far the Suspect Ladder and arguements on this thread have not.

Now, my problem with this forum is that if I had never played competitive pokemon and I came here and read through many of the posts I would believe Landorus is a flawless, almighty god who obviousy should've been banned long ago but wasn't because the people in charge of the suspect tests are idiots who never got around to it. I would also think Landorus is in the conversation for one of the most broken things allowed in OU such as Mega Salamence and Mega Kangaskan, which isn't even close to true. In reality, if Landorus is to be banned it would be because the tier would be healthier and better off without it, not because it is an almighty, uncounterable, broken being.

 

[Lord Xen III]

Ok Ive noticed that a good majority of anti ban arguments are pretty much saying "dont ban lando I as it is the same as every other wall breaker in the tier". Also the some of the pro ban side could do a better job in refuting this in their posts because simply saying landorus breaks 2/3 of play styles as the pro-ban argument will only fuel this anti ban argument, since most good wallbreakers do in fact break 2/3 play styles. Lando I is one of the mons who have placed restricting chains on the meta due to being little to no risk to use, and very rewarding. Landorus I is not the only mon causing the problems in the current metagame. The matchup problem in ORAS can be in large attributed to the excessive amount of threats/breakers , and its difficult especially for balance teams to account for all these threats when you are only allowed 6 mons. As a result, the metagame has tended to favor offense the most, not just because Lando, but this does not mean the other play styles haven't seen success or unviable, because they surely have, but things are still unbalanced. Now, Landorus I is an offensive mon, so it will fit best on offensive teams. At the same time, landorus I is not as potent against opposing offensive teams due to its good but still average 101 speed. Thus it is easy to check , easy to revenge kill despite decent bulk, but there is nothing stopping it from switching out after it poked huge wholes in the opposing core other than weavile perhaps which can pursuit trap it technically since it threatens it with ice shard, but landorus can still take a pursuit or two due to type neutrality. Its rock polish set, while admittedly finds some difficulty in setting up against offense, allows it to threaten opposing offense teams greatly as a late game cleaner, as it outspeeds even sand rush excadrill after a boost and ohkoes notable offensive mons with a neutral modest earth power such as keldeo after rocks. Lando I naturally fulfills its role against Balance and stall extremely well due to the fact it is a wallbreaker, and arguably the best one in the tier at that, boasting powerful sheer force coverage. However while lando I naturally will cause more defensive teams to be less viable in the meta, this is not the reason to ban lando in itself, because as the anti ban side insists, there are many other powerful one mon breakers such as kyuu b, mega garde, heracross, manaphy, char y, keldeo, and the list can go in. To build upon my argument i will proceed to compare lando I to its partner in crime since BW and fellow S rank threat, keldeo. Keldeo is arguably just as overcentralizing as landorus I. Keldeo is also a great stall/ wall breaker as well with its amazing water and fighting stabs, and access to Calm Mind. The difference between landorus I and keldeo however is that both warp the metagame around themselves, keldeo has far more viable and reliable checks and counters to all its sets who can fulfill multiple roles in OU, such as azumarill, starmie, slowbro, amoongus, mega venusuar, both the Lati twins, celebi, tornadus, mega altaria, and there are probably a few more i missed off the top of my head. Landorus I on the other hand, only has two true counters, which are mega latias and cresselia. Cresselia is very passive and limited to stall, and mega latias while it works has a high opportunity cost due to taking up a mega slot.

Now with that said, landorus I does have many things that can counter specific sets, in other words many checks, mainly flying types and levitators. While these options are numerous, the powerful coverage landorus I boasts allows him to dismantle each one of these with ease. Now being able beat all ones checks reliably is not enough to ban lando in itself, because otherwise hydreigon would be ubers. But its the fact that Lando I can do it with **little support**. Landorus I is a S rank mon because it can sweep the majority of the metagame with little to no support. Landorus I doesnt face your team 1 v 6, it faces your team with the help of 5 other mons, or in other words associated cores. Landorus's I two reliable counters are easily dealt with by one slot, which is a pursuit trapper, tyranitar bisharp megagross scizor and weavile are all good examples. While offensive teams are usually best equipped to handle Landorus I and his associated cores, its no walk in the park, and because of landorus's other dominant traits, it puts itself above other powerful wallbreakers in the tier in breaking balance and stall, as people mentioned it is immune to t wave, doesn't take up a mega slot, doesnt take LO recoil for the majority of its moves( this is especially for those who like to compare gengar to lando), neutral to SR, immune to spikes, making it absurdly harder for defensive teams to wear down than some of the other powerful wallbreakers.

As a result Landorus I is an unhealthy presence in the metagame. Removing Landorus I would be the first step to making the metagame a better one as team building restrictions will be lifted.At the same time, The removal of landorus I alone will not fix the metagame completely as there are other arguably broken threats out there, but you have to start somewhere and make it better from there. I heavily disagree with ABR's philosophy that players should simply adapt to changing times, as while adapations are always necessary, this does not mean we must accept cancer when it exists in our metagame. This inclines me to believe that there is a bias for offense being the dominant play style as a motivator of the anti ban argument for lando I, which blinds some of the anti ban proponent from seeing the real reasons why Landorus I needs to leave. If you play offense as your heart and soul and are tunnel visioned into it, then sure you wouldnt have much of a problem with a broken wall breaker running around free in the meta. Landorus I isn't ban worthy simply because it breaks balance and stall very well, nor because it only has 2 true counters ; its because when these aspects are combined with its other traits, such as its amazing move pool and power, typing and the very little support it needs in doing its job even compared to other S rank mons, Landorus I becomes just too good.
I think Landorus I is a clear **ban** from the Overused Tier.

 

[Norne]

Regarding Lando I being compared to other wall breakers, well I'll put it simply he is way more splashable and cost effective given that he is harder to wear down, has a great speed tier for a breaker, is not a mega, can pick off common checks by switching moves making him not qualified to be addressed as a 4mss threath sniper depending on one's team choices, forms good cores and doesn't disrupt other cores by stacking weaknesses.

There is no need to write an essay on that as the qualities are extremely obvious wich make him a rather obnoxious team building crutch with few drawbacks bar not using Lando T and unreliable match up against offense past late cleaner RP

If anything I would like to stress out that offensive teams got new cores past Lando I ban as they can't break bulky cores with much ease due to bulky teams losing the strain of carrying either soft checks for him or straight up carrying it's only 2 counters that are weak to pursuit trapping.

The only antiban argument that slightly holds a relatively strong case is the increase in match up reliance as one actually has to think a bit more to harm the new bulky cores that can be formed in some team archetypes as Lando I isn't a win condition against those anymore. Yet I still see this team building renaissance as a positive effect post Lando I theoretical ban to be honest.

 

[Lord Xen III]

Regarding Lando I being compared to other wall breakers, well I'll put it simply he is way more splashable and cost effective given that he is harder to wear down, has a great speed tier for a breaker, is not a mega, can pick off common checks by switching moves making him not qualified to be addressed as a 4mss threath sniper depending on one's team choices, forms good cores and doesn't disrupt other cores by stacking weaknesses.

There is no need to write an essay on that as the qualities are extremely obvious wich make him a rather obnoxious team building crutch with few drawbacks bar not using Lando T and unreliable match up against offense past late cleaner RP

If anything I would like to stress out that offensive teams got new cores past Lando I ban as they can't break bulky cores with much ease due to bulky teams losing the strain of carrying either soft checks for him or straight up carrying it's only 2 counters that are weak to pursuit trapping.

The only antiban argument that slightly holds a relatively strong case is the increase in match up reliance as one actually has to think a bit more to harm the new bulky cores that can be formed in some team archetypes as Lando I isn't a win condition against those anymore. Yet I still see this team building renaissance as a positive effect post Lando I theoretical ban to be honest.

Uh he is definitely more splash able and cost effective, and he is harder to wear down. Spikes immunity and lack of LO recoil are big and every bit of damage counts in game.

There is definitely a need to write an essay on it, because if i didn't then I would not be making my best attempt to shed light for those who strongly think Lando I is healthy for OU. While you may understand these concepts, not everyone else on this thread does.


Well that is the point, now it actually takes more skill to break bulky cores and you don't have a brainless no risk mon doing it for you. Besides, this is still a fallacy because there are many extremely potent answers to bulky cores right now: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/oras-ou-role-compendium-v2.3527423/


The increase in matchup reliance is simply because there are obviously other things that need to be suspected in this metagame lol, Lando is far from the only cancer in the tier atm. There are still too many threats out there, Lando is only one of them. Lando by being an over centralizing threat already contributed to the matchup issue more so than it did in its absence because teams have to run about 2 shaky checks to it that probably lose to other big threats.

 

[radianthero156]

Ok i got reqs earlier today and i guess i should post my opinion about my laddering experience. And i must say it was fucking AIDS. Basically I remembered why I don't ladder. Unlike in the aegi suspect ladder which i felt was the best oras OU metagame ever, getting reqs in this shitty meta was worse than seeing this OST's games. I went approximately 15-0 in the low ladder then went 33-17 (66% win rate) in the higher one, which was probably my worst performance ever in a suspect test. However, unlike in the aegi suspect, where i lost mostly due to my opponent outplaying me, there were like 12 games where i could've done literally nothing. The same applies to some of my opponents in like 15 of my wins too. When i used HO, i got fucked by defensive teams with hazards; when i used balance, i lost to random threats like diancie/zard y/kyu-b, and when I used stall I just got demolished by manaphy, magma tran, etc. The impression I get is that it is impossible to build an ORAS team without glaring weakness.

However, in the landorus-i metagame, it was pretty much the same crap. Maybe it was actually worse, because not only there were games my lando couldn't do anything because it lacked certain moves, there were also games where the opposing lando-i packed the exact 4 moves it needed to destroy me. Because of this, I feel voting ban is the correct option for this suspect, but this metagame is still terrible and several other measures still need to be taken. Altaria demands usually 2 team slots in order to be handled, which isn't affordable in such an unbalanced metagame. Additionally, Megagross is a pokemon whose checks are usually hard to fit onto a team, and it doesn't help balance the metagame since it's a really poor fairy check. Not to mention the RNG shenanigans it usually forces; it really is a cancerous mon that should be banned. I could go on and keep mentioning other dumb mons like zard-x too, but whatever. I don't really think those are broken, but I do believe they're the culprits for making this metagame the shitstorm it is right now.

tl;dr banning lando is correct but not enough to prevent this metagame from being an aids ballsack, ban gross/alt (or bring aegi back)

 

[thesecondbest]

I kind of get where you're going in this post. Lando has never been a problem for me personally, but you're completely right about matchup being a bitch. In the last test, I managed the COIL but dipped below 2-1 WL, but in this one I didn't even try to get reqs. The meta is just so tough to play in. Theroymonning, which I do now more than ever, is still fun. Watching people play is fun. But building teams that you think is good, then going out and getting smashed by threats that you actually can't prepare for, is absolute shit. I haven't played OU in ages, instead going for random OMs, just because of how bad matchup is. I think there's no real way to fix the whole issue; no one mon is broken but all of them are impossible to prepare for.

 

[AM]

I kind of get where you're going in this post. Lando has never been a problem for me personally, but you're completely right about matchup being a bitch. In the last test, I managed the COIL but dipped below 2-1 WL, but in this one I didn't even try to get reqs. The meta is just so tough to play in. Theroymonning, which I do now more than ever, is still fun. Watching people play is fun. But building teams that you think is good, then going out and getting smashed by threats that you actually can't prepare for, is absolute shit. I haven't played OU in ages, instead going for random OMs, just because of how bad matchup is. I think there's no real way to fix the whole issue; no one mon is broken but all of them are impossible to prepare for.

This post quite frankly is astronomical horseshit and I'm saying this now because I see too many posts like this that carry so little weight when I read them. You blatantly just admitted that you couldn't meet a 2:1 W/L ratio requirement on some preconceived idea that matchup was the factor which I think is a complete overexaggeration, you just admitted that you would go out of your way to theorymon circumstances to benefit your cause instead of applying practical scenarios, you haven't played OU in ages so why are you even here trying to discuss tiering in here is beyond me, and the matchup problem is inherent but not to the extremity that OU players like to just bandwagon and establish upon themselves in such a negative manner thus creating this social stigma that there is a problem that exists to such a high degree that it will always decide the outcome.

The suspect test is still Landorus guys, not the +20 suspect tests people want or think should happen. Let's not create a pity party over matchup issues that are being blown out of proportion.

 

[Shurtugal]

Okay, so i decided to post my thoughts on Landorus-I since i got the requirements.

Landorus-I is so much broken in Overused in my opinion becuase of it's ability sheer force and it's base special attack is 115.

It doesn't have counters/checks, even chansey can't wall it, landorus-I is great against any type of team, it has only two weaknesses ice and water, the only used water and ice pokemons can barely switch-in against landorus' vigorous attacks, whether it's hyper offense, stall or balance, it still kills, i didn't get to battle so many landorus-I on the ladder when i was getting the suspect test requirnments, Landorus-I is broken as fuck in Overused and i think it should be banned, there is nothing to say about a pokemon which cannot be stopped without sacrificing others, it is entirely broken in the Overused metagame, i don't know if banning Landorus-I will make the tier better but still it's the right decision.

BAN!

That's probably because Landorus-I was banned on the Suspect ladder.

----

I agree that this matchup argument needs to stop cropping up - we need to discuss Landorus here. Speaking of, I don't like this pursuit + keldeo arguments; we're evaluating Landorus as its own Pokemon, its effect by itself on the metagame, not what partners up with it. I didn't like the argument in BW and I don't like it now. (And as a final note, aren't badged / moderated users supposed to encourage newer user activity in the ou forums? Why is thesecondbest being ridiculed for commenting on a bandwaggon other users were also making? I don't agree with what second said but he isn't "horseshit".)

 

[Clair]

I agree that this matchup argument needs to stop cropping up - we need to discuss Landorus here. Speaking of, I don't like this pursuit + keldeo arguments; we're evaluating Landorus as its own Pokemon, its effect by itself on the metagame, not what partners up with it.

Would you say Tyranitar and Hippowdon are irrelevant to your evaluation of Excadrill as a Pokemon?

Other than that you're completely right, arguments that Lando-I's removal will affect the perceived match-up problem are unproductive and need to stop.

 

[Random Passerby]

I agree that this matchup argument needs to stop cropping up - we need to discuss Landorus here. Speaking of, I don't like this pursuit + keldeo arguments; we're evaluating Landorus as its own Pokemon, its effect by itself on the metagame, not what partners up with it. I didn't like the argument in BW and I don't like it now.

Shurtugal, I disagree with this statement because Pokemon is a 6 v 6 game, not Landorus vs the world. In order to properly account for Landorus, you need to think of the way the player using it is going to give it support (through cores) to fully take advantage of its abilities. It's similar to how taking care of Keldeo in Gen 5 also involves thinking of Rain and Sand teams and why Manaphy was banned (Rain Support).

 

[Shurtugal]

Shurtugal, I disagree with this statement because Pokemon is a 6 v 6 game, not Landorus vs the world. In order to properly account for Landorus, you need to think of the way the player using it is going to give it support (through cores) to fully take advantage of its abilities. It's similar to how taking care of Keldeo in Gen 5 also involves thinking of Rain and Sand teams and why Manaphy was banned (Rain Support).

When you suspect a Pokemon, you evaluate it as an individual. We aren't suspecing teams, we're suspecing individuals. We didn't ban Blaziken because it paired well with hazard stacking, but because the metagame revolved around it too much and it broke every playstyle with pretty much no effort; it didn't even need to consume the megaslot if you didnt want it too. Genesect was banned because of how many sets it could run, strong priority, strong typing, etc. etc. They weren't banned because OH X SUPPORT YAY!

The point is: we don't ban things because they work well with other pokemon. That's not broken, that's good teambuilding. I mean, by that logic, I could say "Talonflame is broken because if you pair it with birdspam teams it's hard to wall it after its teammates take down its counters." Well no shit flying stab is hard to take after the flying counters are taken down and no shit the flying counters were taken down because its teammates took them down; that's what a team does. How is that broken? Are we gonna ban anything effective with other teammates, because you're looking at the entire OU base. Talonflame is weak to rocks, you say? WELL IT CAN PAIR UP WITH HAZARD REMOVAL PARTNERS EASILY! BROKEN!!!

Like I said: Landorus switching out of ice moves doesnt make Landorus any less weak to ice moves (it's STILL going to be supereffective x4 whether you switched out or not) and Landorus is still going to be countered by Cresselia and Latias even if you run Pursuit teammates. Having partners doesn't make Landorus ANY LESS WEAK to said Pokemon. If you want to use the teammate argument, I can pair Latias with a Pokemon that can set up a sweep on Pursuit trappers. This argument is inefficient because the teammate argument goes round and round to the other side and really doesn't PROVE ANYTHING.

No shit Landorus is good with Pursuit trappers and Keldeo. That doesn't make Landorus itself broken. If anything, this makes Landorus teams more predictable and easier to build against. (No, teambulding centralizing pro-ban users, this is not evidence Landorus restricts teambuilding; other Pokemon cores, like Chansey + Skarmory, or Clefable + Heatran + MSableye, or Rotom-W + Landorus-T, are teambuilding engines you combat against. This isn't a proof of restriction but one of many team structures one has to keep in mind.)

Also, when evaluating somethings performance in OU, you have to analyze it as an individual. We aren't banning the combination of Landorus + Purusit + Keldeo. We're only considering the ban of Landorus by itself, so it should be judged by itself.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree Random Passerby.

edit: bringing up Keldeo is not a good argument; Keldeo didn't get banned in BW OU. That suspect was also hilarious because Keldeo was no where near close to being broken, and Rain was the real culprit in that metagame. Keldeo's suspect was exactly like this thread; according to the thread Keldeo was this super broken Pokemon that needed to be banned, but suspect voting came and the No Ban vote was pretty massive.

edit2: Clair that's a bit different because Excadrill needs Sand support to use one of its sets, and there are only two Sand Stream users. Landorus doesn't need Purusit support or Keldeo to function at any of its sets; Excadrill's Sand Rush set NEEDS sand to function. Does that make sense? :) I'd consider Hippo / TTar support in an Excadrill suspect, but I wouldn't consider Purusit / Keldeo support for Landorus because that's just good teambuilding; you aren't restricted to using those Pokemon for Landorus, whereas Excadrill's Sand Rush set is restricted to sand support.

edit3: i've already explained why i disagree with you. there is nothing else to say. also no "if there were differnet pokemon running alongside it maybe he'd have different counters" because that's not true. teammates are there to break counters. BUT THEY ARE STILL COUNTERS. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. Switching into your ice-type counter doesnt make Landorus magically resistant to ice-type attacks. It's weakness to ice-type makes the ice switch-ins necessary, much like how Landorus being countered by Latias makes Pursuit partners relevant. They are STILL counters.

 

[Lord Xen III]

I agree that this matchup argument needs to stop cropping up - we need to discuss Landorus here. Speaking of, I don't like this pursuit + keldeo arguments; we're evaluating Landorus as its own Pokemon, its effect by itself on the metagame, not what partners up with it. I didn't like the argument in BW and I don't like it now. (And as a final note, aren't badged / moderated users supposed to encourage newer user activity in the ou forums? Why is thesecondbest being ridiculed for commenting on a bandwaggon other users were also making? I don't agree with what second said but he isn't "horseshit".)

Landorus being suspected as its own pokemon implies that we are assessing its abilities if you play a battle of 1 v 6. This is simply not the case, Landorus is being suspected because of how little support it needs from associated cores to sweep the metagame, and because of the great amount of support it gives to associated cores. This is why we describe Landorus as a very low risk high reward pokemon. So the popular Lando+ keldeo+ pursuit trapper core is relevant to the argument since this is how you you will see lando teamed up whenever you go against it a great majority of the time. If the associated cores with LAndo were different, then maybe he wouldnt be an S rank pokemon in that meta, because there would be completely different pokemon running about alongside it. Maybe then he would have more counters. You even admitted that landorus doesnt need a pursuit trapper or keldeo to function, which proves how broken it is that it can easily fit in this core and make its own job ten times easier than it already is.


I only addressed the matchup argument in my post because the anti ban side makes it seem like without lando there is a matchup issue, when Lando in fact is a big contributor to it. With that said, as AM pointed out, a lot of users have exagerrated this issue on both sides. The point of banning lando is to help the metagame become healthier, and then address future issues in the meta as they come.

 

[Clair]

edit2: Clair that's a bit different because Excadrill needs Sand support to use one of its sets, and there are only two Sand Stream users. Landorus doesn't need Purusit support or Keldeo to function at any of its sets; Excadrill's Sand Rush set NEEDS sand to function. Does that make sense? :) I'd consider Hippo / TTar support in an Excadrill suspect, but I wouldn't consider Purusit / Keldeo support for Landorus because that's just good teambuilding; you aren't restricted to using those Pokemon, whereas Excadrill's Sand Rush set is.

It's not different, it's just an extreme example. The question is whether the support Lando-I receives (in this case, Pursuit) is significant enough to be relevant to this discussion. I'll try and explain why I think it is.

First up, your basic core of Lando + Keldeo + Pursuit is only a thing because of the massive overreliance on Latias in teambuilding. Latias softchecks half the meta, Defogs, has speed and decent power, and can sac itself lategame with Healing Wish. Great. But way too many people stick Latias on their balanced teams as their primary defense to Lando-I, lose it to a Tyranitar or something, and then get swept by Earth Power. Simple, right? Just poor teambuilding.

But the thing is, Latias covers so many teambuilding bases, that removing it makes it even harder for a balanced team to cover the vast number of relevant metagame threats. In many cases, the optimal teambuilding decision is to use Latias regardless.

I guess the argument, therefore, isn't that Pursuit makes Lando-I more broken, but that Lando is the best abuser of Pursuit support in the current metagame.

 

[Genesis7]

OK so I just got reqs so I am going to post my thoughts here, sorry if I'm repeating a lot of what was said before me. First off, I'd like to say that I love Landorus-I and it is a centric theme to my builds BUT I do realize that it is hard to play around and dismantles many playstyles. Although I was originally going to vote ban before laddering, that was only reinforced after the laddering I did. This Landorus-I free meta is really fun and still pretty offense-centric from what I've seen but not to the point that balance and stall can't thrive. Honestly, I think this is the last broken mon in the ORAS tier atm so I'm definitely an advocate for getting rid of this and taking a large step towards a good final meta.

Edit: After reading through this thread a bit, I just want to agree with some if the anti-ban arguments that say that lando needs a lot of support and circumstances to go its way in order to sweep. I can't recall a time I was swept by RP or CM lando-I because it is just as easy to keep at bay as any other sweeper in the tier. This is a good argument but, if we compare it to other sweepers without boosts we can see where it is broken. Lando-I is still an enormous threat without an RP or CM because of its unpredictability and it's ability, when we look at prevalent sweepers like BD Azu or SD scizor or DD mega-gyara, Landorus-I is WAY more effective before boosts than any of these sweepers and any other sweeper in the tier. This is a broken mon with the unpredictability that was argued in the mega-meta suspect that hits just as hard but ALSO is a prevalent sweeper (yes ik that meta gets hone claws). So with this in mind, I'm treating this suspect similarity to the metagrossite suspect where I voted no ban. The differences I'm seeing here is that a). This ban will improve the meta from what I've seen on the ladder. b). This ban won't create any new super threats (like what I saw in Diancie pass during the metagrossite ladder) c). This mon is arguably more broken than Metagross because of its utility of RP or CM making it a hard hitter like meta combined with sweeping capabilities.