I for one have to agree that Lando I has few and far in between switch ins against HO, I won't comment on stuff that use bolturn Lando I cores or BP lopunny plus ttar Lando I core as those aren't a majority but work with great synergy and do exactly what they are supposed to do with few drawbacks.
However the last argument seems to have a huge bias towards hyper offence as no single argument past weavile an banded azu wich aren't splashable on most teams as an answer to said core.
For the entire suspect test we have had few antiban arguments from the stall or balance factions that duffer the most from Lando I as expected, however by posting single elements that either benefit from his presence or at some point are carried onto teams or used as sole examples of reliably checking a core for a single playstyle the more easy it seems to point the finger towards Lando I as a cancerous presence in OU from the team building aspect.
In no way I'm offending your perception of Landorus I, however I would like to see less offense deals with it arguments and more reasonable arguments as to why this pokemon doesn't affect negatively the core balance of other playstyles. I don't want to put words on anyone mouth but dome arguments even sound that they are just defending a team building crutch at this point.
Alright, that's fine, Weavile is not a splashable threat, there is a specific very offensive type of playstyle that it fits nicely on, as it provides no defensive synergy whatsoever. Personally, with good defensive typing and decent bulk, I can see Banded Azu being used as a breaker for more balanced teams, they usually have at least one, I wouldn't say it is HO exclusive. Saying that Landorus is more threatening towards balanced builds than HO is not something I can deny, but in my numerous mentions of things that can check it, I hope I have actually proved that the RP set isn't some easy win button vs offence teams as has been occasionally made out.
Alright, so to address reasons why I do not think it is too powerful vs more defensive, bulky play styles:
1) It does have some checks. People can point to obscure moves, like Rock Slide, which, as I noted in my previous post, is at less than 10% usage as of the latest ladder statistics, but those moves are rare for a reason, they are specific. By running this move, it gives up on x coverage, so the vast majority of people are inclined to skip something which hits 1 or 2 threats and use a move which hits more. Therefore, I would call Torn-T and sp def Zapdos pretty reliable checks to it, because, at the end of the day, they do beat 90%+ of Lando I.
2) There are other pokemon which also have few switch-ins. Saying that it needs hard counters is not valid, there are pokemon which are very short on switch-ins, and are also totally balanced. You can just look to things like Mega Gardevoir to see this.
3) It can run obscure moves to wreck certain switch-ins, but so can other pokemon, this is quite closely related to my first point. Gardevoir could potentially wreck a Mega Scizor switch-in with will-o-wisp, this was a popular tech move back when Mega Metagross was very popular. However, it does suffer penalties from this, in Gardevoir's case, it couldn't break stall as well, in Landorus', it loses out on coverage that it really needs. Earth Power is evidently not sufficient in itself, it relies on a large range of moves to be as threatening as it is. By running something so specific, you decrease the number of pokemon that it can hit.
4) One argument for banning Landorus is just how hard it hits bulkier playstyles. However, I do not believe that Landorus is actually the best pokemon at doing this in the tier. Suppose that you are playing a more stally build, Manaphy at first glance has far less answers than Landorus does, and it can straight up run through slower teams if they lack checks for the specific move that it is running. Therefore, the argument that it should be banned because it limits the building process of one style seems odd- surely if this were true, the greatest culprits should be suspected in that case?
5) This could be fairly controversial, but I am going to put it down anyway. Suppose that you are using a more defensive build, and somebody who you are playing has a Landorus. Ordinarily, you have good checks to Landorus, for instance, you might be running Torn T, which has other purposes such as handling Gengar nicely, and maybe a Gliscor, a good pokemon as a wincon against other fatter builds and generally a good Clefable answer. I have deliberately chosen these checks because they are not obscure, and they clearly have other good purposes than just checking Landorus. In any case, this particular Landorus happens to run Rock Slide, getting rid of Torn-T after the initial switch-in, and it also carries HP Ice, OHKOing Gliscor. Hell, hypothetically, let's also say you have a Slowking, and it runs Knock Off. Now, somebody could look at this instance and say "Landorus can potentially just beat my team, with this exact moveset, clearly the match is in favour of my opponent winning, therefore, because it can cause a matchup-based loss, I want it banned".
However, there are key factors that you are ignoring by making this statement. Yes, with the right moveset for the right team, Landorus can potentially be very threatening for a semi-stall build. The issue here is that, equally, somebody could come up against this very same semi-stall build with a solid team, maybe they have a Landorus too, but this time, it doesn't have the right set, ie no rock slide when up against a Tornadus-T. They could also look at this team, and consider their options when up against it. Suppose they not only have Landorus as a breaker, but they have CB Azumarill as well, and maybe sp def Talon. Looking at the opposing team, they see that it not only can beat their Landorus, but that it also has VenuTran, I'll mention this because that particular core did become more frequent on the suspect ladder. Venusaur handles Azumarill with ease, and they later learn that Heatran is carrying Stone Edge, making it a very reliable switch-in for what they thought could be a good wincon. Now, equally, they could also say that this match was very clearly in favour of the opponent, but this time, it is the more defensive build that emerges as the victor.
Let's just add another scenario, in this one, there is no Landorus being used at all. Instead, a different semistall user is matched up against somebody with a Manaphy, and so, naturally, they turn to their reliable switch-in for this, let's just pick Celebi. This particular Manaphy carries the moves Ice Beam and Rain Dance in its last two slots, so their "switch-in" gets demolished, and Manaphy can then just run through their team, as it often can, using not only its ridiculous ability to set up, but also its immunity to status. Clearly, the semistall user didn't really have a chance, whatever their impression was at team preview, the match was already lost for them.
What is the key point I am trying to make here? That Landorus does have switch-ins that work most of the time, and that yes, it can potentially run through a defensive team if it has the
exact moves it needs, I don't think anybody is going to deny this. What you also have to consider is that defensive cores are inherently more match-up based, and that although there is a possibility that Landorus can give you no real chance of winning if it is carrying
exactly what it needs, underlined because this should be a rare occurrence, you can also run into a more offensive team, and because you have solid answers for their breakers, have that match won very easily from team preview, with little to no effort required. Similarly, other pokemon can give you an even lesser chance of winning the match if they are carrying what they need, Landorus is not the sole culprit of this. So while there is the possibility that Landorus can put the user at a serious advantage against a defensive team, this is one of the disadvantages of using a more match-up based style, and there are many other instances where this can occur that do not contain Landorus. It is perfectly natural and healthy that defensive styles can't prepare for every version of every breaker, otherwise that would be a very dull meta that really wouldn't be worth playing. What is true is that defensive styles can prepare for most variants of Landorus without going too far out of their way by utilising the aforementioned Zapdos or Tornadus-T. So, when somebody says something like "If Landorus runs x obscure move, it can completely ruin my passive team", the only proper response, in my opinion anyway, is to point out that Mega Heracross could do a very similar job, and that providing stall with the tools to cover everything by banning is not the goal of the meta.
