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

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I mean if you read any of arguments I refute the idea that usage = viability. Instead I state its one of the best indicators to what is viable. People argued against me claiming that even though Knock Off is low in usage, Lando must be banned because it can still use it and counter other threats. Then when the fact that Gengar has no counters because of Icy Wind came up, people started claiming that Gengar's using Icy Wind are "niche" and basically low in usage. The same argument I used for Lando. So what's stopping us from banning Gengar? It has no counters or really just as many as Lando does.
In other words rather than saying usage= viability, you state that usage is one of the strongest indicators of viability. Excuse me for my ignorance, but how are these statements in any way different or even relevant to your argument made here? Also, can you please explain how usage has any effect on the viability of a mon? If anything, usage pertains to trends in the metagame rather than being the "strongest indicator" of viability of said mon. Also, does this mean that if a mon has more usage, then that speaks more to its viability? (you know, the usage = viability) I'm sorry but these two statements boil down to the same idea. Even calling usage one indicator to viability rather would've still begged the same question as to how usage at all pertains to the viability of said mon, which again has been refuted on numerous suspects too many times to count.
 
ANNOUNCEMENT

ALL VOTERS FROM HERE ON OUT HAVE A GAME LIMIT OF 85 GAMES. THE 2:1 W/L RATIO NO LONGER APPLIES. AS LONG AS YOU HAVE ACQUIRED 2700 COIL WITHIN 85 GAMES, YOU ARE ABLE TO VOTE.


Our Data Miner Antar advised us not to run a W/L ratio alongside a coil requirement as it was pretty much pointless and we decided to go with a game limit instead. Also, as stated in the OP, we reserve the right to change the requirements as we see fit.

You can identify yourself here.

For the 46 people who already identified themselves, you are fine. As for everyone else, refer to the bold/underlined portion of this post.

Sorry for any inconvenience and thank you for your time.
Just a suggestion for the next suspect tests: since it obviously seems like the 2700 COIL requirements aren't sufficient enough for voting anymore, instead of posing additional requirements shouldn't the values (actually just the B value pretty much) used in the COIL calculations just be changed in accordance to whatever need the council decides? It just seems a bit redundant to pose a total game limit to actually limit the GXE rating when it is already limited in the COIL calculation + 2700 requirement.

Sources: I know math.
 
Just for reference, here is my original no ban argument http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...post-417-page-17.3538596/page-12#post-6229479. I have been seeing a lot of heated discussion regarding the degree to which Landorus can beat its common switchins and how healthy its "balance domination" is.

While Landorus has many viable switchins, I do accept the fact that it can potentially beat these pokemon. Pokemon like Tornadus-Therian, Latias, and Chansey all wall a good amount of sets, but are all beaten by very viable coverage moves. It is true that Cress and Mega Latias are the only 100% reliable switchins, but does this make Landorus broken? The answer is no. There are clearly myriad wallbreakers in the tier, such as Kyurem, Manaphy, Landorus, and many more. Their balance-beaking capabilities, however, are not necessarily worth a ban. Instead of trying to ban every single prominent wall-breaker, why don't people just adapt their playstyles? ORAS is simply a metagame consistenting of many offensive threats, so it only seems natural to adapt to the changing times. I'm not saying people should be using hyper offense every game, but just don't use 6 pokemon with speed <100 and expect to be fine against any wallbreaker. People can still use balance teams, but it is necessary to have some sort of speed control or offensive pressure. Pokemon like Latios, Thundurus, Weavile, and about any other offensive pokemon can offensively check Landorus, so putting something like that on a balance team wouldn't hurt. So now even if Landorus beats all of the potential switchins with the perfect coverage options, there is still a means of beating it with an offensive pokemon. I know the idea of using offensive pokemon is very foreign to some stubborn builders, but I think it's about time people adapt to the changing metagames in newer generations. I attribute the alleged issues with the metagame to the playerbase and its lack of adaptation, not the wallbreakers.
 
Last edited:
Just for reference, here is my original no ban argument http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...post-417-page-17.3538596/page-12#post-6229479. I have been seeing a lot of heated discussion regarding the degree to which Landorus can beat its common switchins and how healthy its "balance domination" is.

While Landorus has many viable switchins, I do accept the fact that it can potentially beat these pokemon. Pokemon like Tornadus-Therian, Latias, and Chansey all wall a good amount of sets, but are all beaten by very viable coverage moves. It is true that Cress and Mega Latias are the only 100% reliable switchins, but does this make Landorus broken? The answer is no. There are clearly myriad wallbreakers in the tier, such as Kyurem, Manaphy, Landorus, and many more. Their balance-beaking capabilities, however, are not necessarily worth a ban. Instead of trying to ban every single prominent wall-breaker, why don't people just adapt their playstyles? ORAS is simply a metagame consistenting of many offensive threats, so it only seems natural to adapt to the changing times. I'm not saying people should be using hyper offense every game, but just don't use 6 pokemon with speed <100 and expect to be fine against any wallbreaker. People can still use balance teams, but it is necessary to have some sort of speed control or offensive pressure. Pokemon like Latios, Thundurus, Weavile, and about any other offensive pokemon can offensively check Landorus, so putting something like that on a balance team wouldn't hurt. So now even if Landorus beats all of the potential switchins with the perfect coverage options, there is still a means of beating it with an offensive pokemon. I know the idea of using offensive pokemon is very foreign to some stubborn builders, but I think it's about time people adapt to the changing metagames in newer generations. I attribute the alleged issues with the metagame to the playerbase and its lack of adaptation, not the wallbreakers.
self proclaimed superiority in teambuilding (why can i adapt but no one else can????) shouldn't give you this unique argument of everyone else being lazy and that landorus-i is perfectly reasonable for certain playstyles to build around. the fact that the only pokemon that can safely switch into it are 1. a megaslot used on stall and 2. a passive shitmon only used for stall is ridiculous

therefore, balance, semistall and stall NEED to have these pokemon in order to have a reliable counter. the fact that you cited pkmn like latios, thundurus and weavile as suitable ways to deal with landorus on balance is fucking hilarious. having one offensive check that has no means to switch into landoi at any point does not make your team able to play against landoi, and the thought that slapping the aforementioned pokemon on any balance team to deal with landorus is hilarious. using an argument that an offensive check on balance is a perfectly suitable way to beat landoi is inarguably WAY lazier than just sitting there and assuming no one is trying to prepare for it in high level play when in reality you couldn't be more wrong.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
Now for this post.
One: most of the stuff I said in my last post applies, while you can use HP Ice or rock slide to check one specific defensive wall, you then lose a great amount of coverage and these moves are also quite rare. Sure Lando has "9 usable moves", doesn't mean he actually uses them (like rock polish, which is all kinds of useless). Lando does not have 3 sets he has 2. Calm Mind and normal Life Orb.
ok im anti ban too but there's a line between arguing something isnt broken and being plain ignorant. I agree with you that lando has 4mss, but it has 3 sets: cm, lo, and rock polish. I dont know why you ignore rock polish. it even has sd or scarf, even though lando-t does those better it's a nice lure. the rest of your post i agree with though. Also the only lando set i use on offense is sr/ep/explosion/knock off. It's a lord set that gets up rocks and deal damage. So that's 4 sets, not 2. But is it broken? No.

Once again, look at these calcs for s-a
S Ranks
for altaria if they are offensive hp ice kills non mega, sludge wave kills mega. So it's a 50-50 if you have both moves.
clefable doesnt belong in s lol, but you 2hko with sludge
keldeo dies to psychic but can live earth power and easily kos back. plus it's faster.
meta is faster after mega and easily kos with ice punch, but if you outspeed you kill
A+ Rank
av azu destroys you, plus aj really hurts, killing after rocks if banded
bisharp you beat, sucker does 60+ if lo
char wont mega if x, then megas after dd and destroys you. If you have shown rock slide then it will mega though
char y also beats you. rock slide is the only chance vs these guys
diance you beat, but moonblast may kill after rocks
chomp doesnt quite kill but you need hp ice to beat it
gengar doesnt quite kill but you need knock off or psychic to beat it
gyarados eats you, rock slide doesnt kill. focus blast kills if they have mega'd though
heatran you beat
lando-t you need hp ice to beat otherwise edge 2hkos
lopunny eats you with ice punch, and fake + ice punch usually kills after rocks. earth power doesnt even kill so you need psychic or focus blast even if you get the roll
latios eats you but dies to knock off after rocks
manaphy eats you
you beat sableye
you beat scizor but +2 bp does over 2/3
you need rock slide for tflame and brave bird can kill after rocks
thundurus eats you
torn-t eats you (cant switch in if you have rock slide but outspeeds and can take one without rocks. plus rock polish essentially never runs rock slide)
A Rank
zam with psychic always kills after rocks then terrorizes the rest of your team with sheer force thx
exca you beat unless its faster and flinches
ferro you need focus blast to beat otherwise seed recovery is enough for it to live the second ep and ko with gyro
gard dies to sludge wave
gliscor you need hp ice
ice fang hippo beats you but most run stone edge, so you beat it
latias you need knock off, but you're slower and die to draco, plus knock doesnt even ko after rocks. so it always beats you, regular lati is a counter too
mega lati is a stone cold counter
mane outspeeds and kills with hp ice
rotom cant switchin on sludge wave but beats you in any other circumstance
you cant one shot slowbro and if it burns you die to resid plus it can get regen back
Starmie eats you
focus blast kills tar, but if you just have ep you die to its ice beam
you 2hko mega venu, but it can sleep you then drain back enough health to live, drain 2hkos half the time after rocks
A- Rank
mega aero eats you with aqua tail
sludge wave beats celebi
gyara still eats you
you eat jirachi
you eat klefki
focus blast kos kube after rocks, but it can run scarf
spdef mew is a counter, especially since it can knock off your orb
pinsir return usually kos after rocks plus you need rock slide to guarantee a kill if it takes rocks as non mega
politoed and all its swift swim mons destroy you
raikou hp ice kills
sludge wave kills serp
you need focus blast to beat skarm, pdef or spdef. So have fun hitting too
mega bro scald always kills and ep doesnt come close to killing
you need rock slide to guarantee ko on volc if there are no rocks and +1 fire blast always kills
weavile eats you

So looking at everything from S through A-, you beat 3 mons for every 2 mons you lose to in the best circumstance possible. A lot of them you sometimes beat sometimes don't. But do you want to know why getting all these calcs was a pain? I constantly had to switch moves on lando. All the calcs are 1v1 with rocks up with lando's most effective move. So I had to, time after time, change the moves on lando. With any 4 moves, you will only beat about half these things. CALCS DON'T LIE.
Between having less than 110 speed, not even one shotting most offensive mons, and having 4mss, lando is pretty bad vs offense. Even getting up a rock polish is difficult, and if you live the hit and set up, priority will finish you off, and many offensive mons can take one hit.
Balance has an issue with you, but things like slowking (which they run for metagross too not just for lando) beat you. AV torn-t likes beating you. I dont have the most experience here, but I don't think lando is any more threatening than stuff like kyu-b or manaphy.
Stall can beat you because of how easy it is to knock you off. Mew, mandibuzz, sableye, clef, and more can run knock off. Once you use your life orb you dont threaten them. Calm mind can threaten stall but the lack of recovery means between seismic tosses from chansey and brave bird from spdef talon(i use it on stall) they should ko you. If you are burned then it's easy to take you on.
A Landorus with every move starting at plus two speed is broken. A Landorus in our current OU metagame is not broken. The problems associated with Landorus are really exaggerated; "Lando is 6-0ing stall and single-handedly killing balance. Plus rock polish totally 6-0s offense!!!". This isn't the case at all. No ban.
 
wow I like these cherry picked arguements :); SR/Explosion/Knock Off/EP Lando-I? Why would I use that over a similar Lando-T set? AV Azu dies to SR+EP+Sludge Wave. nice "check", can any of these actually switchin? Or is 1 vs 1'ing something your idea of checking/countering :/. My god "calcs don't lie" lol. A lot of these can maybe force Lando-I out, but none of them counter/check it. And using a random made up/inferior set, adn calling it a lord set doesn't really mean that it qualifies to be one of the sets to prepare for. Also js SR Lando-I with 3 special attacks is actually a thing lol.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
wow I like these cherry picked arguements :); SR/Explosion/Knock Off/EP Lando-I? Why would I use that over a similar Lando-T set? AV Azu dies to SR+EP+Sludge Wave. nice "check", can any of these actually switchin? Or is 1 vs 1'ing something your idea of checking/countering :/. My god "calcs don't lie" lol. A lot of these can maybe force Lando-I out, but none of them counter/check it. And using a random made up/inferior set, adn calling it a lord set doesn't really mean that it qualifies to be one of the sets to prepare for. Also js SR Lando-I with 3 special attacks is actually a thing lol.
Just because something doesnt have checks or counters doesnt mean it's broken. All these circumstances are 1v1. You probably cant even force a switch since you lose to half this crap.
 
Who can't force a switch? The Lando-I user? Or the side using the "checks",I mean if you have an offensive team stuff like Latias still does the trick to check Lando-I,but def not most of the mons you mentioned. Also if something doesn't have any checks it IS kind of inherently broken. If it doesn't have any hard counters that's ok,but if it has no checks and can only 1 vs 1 it, force it to switch out with faster mons, you got a problem.
 

Malley

Dominachu
I've been mostly ignoring this thread because it makes me sad, but just a note to both sides: a counter is something that can switch in on and force out any set - the only two of these are Cresselia and Mega Latias; a check is something that can come in against any Landorus on a free switch and force it out. Above anything else, I just want everyone to know what they are saying when they use these terms.

Landorus has several checks, as does almost every 'mon. The issue with Landorus is that it is relatively easy (proportionate to its power, which is at the level of a glass cannon) to get it free turns due to its decent bulk and high speed (e.g. by switching in on a passive 'mon, revenge killing, double switching/VoltTurning, or predicting a lead) and once it is in it is very likely to get a kill since most teams will only have checks, not counters. It shifts momentum so drastically towards the side of its user that other means of gaining momentum (i.e. sustained high-quality play) often become irrelevant. When something has no counters and the supporting characteristics to consistently abuse this (in contrast to Kyurem-B, for example, which is hampered by its low speed and bad defensive typing) it is, in my opinion, broken. This is why Greninja and Mawilite were banned, and why Metagrossite was almost banned.

And a note to people listing counters to specific sets, such as SpDef Talonflame as long as Landorus lacks Rock Slide: relying on situational counters means that you are forced to carry at least two (e.g. a Latias in addition to this Talonflame, since if Landorus carries Rock Slide it probably does not carry Knock Off) which is centralising and easy for the Landorus user to build around. Moreover, Landorus's massive movepool and good mixed stats mean it can run sets tailored to deal with situations like this (I'm thinking mainly in tournaments, which a lot of posters here seem to have overlooked), making those two counters I mentioned above the only guaranteed answers and strong priority users the only 'clean' checks (those which can reliably force Landorus out or revenge kill it without being significantly weakened in the process). This is a stupid level of influence over the meta.

My final point is that, because of all these reasons, there is no very little reason to not use Landorus on most offensive teams, especially since it does not have the opportunity cost of being a mega despite having a similar power level. Imagine being able to run Mega Metagross on the same team as any other mega, and then tell me that it wouldn't be broken.

And yes, if something doesn't have checks or counters then it is broken.
 
Last edited:
Just because something doesnt have checks or counters doesnt mean it's broken. All these circumstances are 1v1. You probably cant even force a switch since you lose to half this crap.
Yeah "calcs don't lie" when A. you actually posts the calcs and B. you aren't incredibly misleading with ones you posted anyway. Like Ferrothorn beating Landorus-I with Leech Seed + Gyro Ball, Lati@s beating Landorus-I without Knock Off, Rotom-W beating in every other circustance but Sludge Wave? Like alright awesome Ferrothorn wins in a 1 vs 1 scenario where A. Ferrothorn never switched into any previous damage or any of Landorus-I coverage moves B. Even if Ferrothorn is led vs Lando-I or switches on a Sludge Wave, you still lose lol because you don't take into account the turn you Leech Seed while Lando-I Earth Powers... So this is assuming you Leech Seed Lando-I on the switch and he is stupid enough to stay in and let you 2HKO him. Oh and Lando-I can't be Modest Rock Polish. Both Latios and Latias gets bopped by Sludge Wave and Hidden Power Ice, not just Knock Off as you seem to think, with SR in play. They still fair badly even without SR in play. Sludge Wave and HP Ice have a 90%+ chance to 2HKO Latios even without SR and even Rock Slide can 2HKO it. Latias tank a hit OK but what do you now that doesn't immediately lose tempo or make you unable to check Landorus-I? Do you Draco Meteor forcing it out, but then take Life Orb recoil which makes it KO'ed the next time it comes in because you didn't remove SR with Defog? Do you Roost making sure you stay out of 2HKO range, but you just gave your opponent a free switchin to a Pursuit trapper / Lati setup sweeper (ex. Mega-Alt)? Do you Defog to make sure you stay out of KO range (just barely) and at least do you something to help your team other than conuter lando-i, but again give the opponent a completely free switch? Rotom-W even the most specially defensive variants get 2HKO'ed by Timid Focus Blast with SR, potentially 2HKO'ed by Modest Sludge Wave from RP w/ SR, and finds itself useless when Lando-I CM's on the switch because it can cleanly 2HKO with Sludge Wave while Rotom-W cannot KO in return because of the +1 special defense boost from Calm Mind. Not to mention that the Landorus-I user can see you Hydro Pumping or Pain Splitting from like a mile away and makes plays accordingly because any other play will lose you the game next time Lando-I comes in and the momentum is totally in the Lando-I user's favor.

I am not even going to bother to go through all your other examples because it is pretty clear that most of them are erroneous and fallacious. If you and other anti-ban Landorus-I posters aren't even going to consider in-game scenarios then you aren't going to convince anyone that Landorus-I is not ban-worthy. Everyone knows that a Specs Keldeo and Life Orb Latios can revenge kill Landorus-I, you do not have to be good at this game to know that. Everyone knows that Landorus-I can not carry all of Knock Off / Hidden Power Ice / Focus Blast / Sludge Wave / Psychic. / Rock Slide. And you are right, Landorus-I does lose to some stuff 1 vs 1 such as faster special attackers and certain defensive pokemon when it lacks a certain coverage move. But this isn't relevant. It isn't relevant because it isn't relevant to the type of game we are playing. We are playing a 6 vs 6 team game where Landorus-I will have teammates that can circumvent its counters for it; where the play you make versus the Landorus-I has more short-term and long-term consequences than forcing Landorus-I out; where you have to scout and make risks to switchin on a hugely powerful special attacker because you don't know whether it carries a coverage move to destroy your check; and hell where Landorus-I reserves the option to, you know, switch out to avoid a KO. Not a 1 vs 1 game vacuum where Landorus-I is forced to stay in against pokemon that obviously outspeeds and KO's it. Not a 1 vs 1 game that you have pre-existing knowledge of Landorus-I's coverage moves so you don't have any sort of risk / reward switching out to find its coverage. And not a 1 vs 1 game where your Landorus-I check / counter could not have had previous damage, been trapped, or been lured in so that Landorus-I could be played more effectively. If you or any other anti-ban poster is not going to consider these circumstances (which still hasn't happened yet), then you are not forming an effective argument as to why Landorus-I should remain in OU.

edit: Baharoth Immunity to Sandstorm + Life Orb + Spikes makes it more resilient than other wallbreakers in the tier. It doesn't require a Mega-slot so it has little to no opportunity cost. It isn't able to be paralyzed by Thunder Wave so slower teams do not have a chance to slow it down so a defensive mon can KO it. It has access to a reliable speed boosting move to be effective against offensive teams. It has a larger movepool than other wallbreakers so its moveset is needed to be scouted against by the opponent (zard y is always fire blast / solarbeam / focus blast / roost) forcing the opponent to risk other mons just to know what set you are running. I think its pretty clear if you played with and against landorus that these qualities would be more apparent...
 
Last edited:
There is one question id like the pro ban side to answer.

What is for you the difference between Lando-I and all the other wallbreakers in the tier that makes him so much more dangerous that he needs to be banned? (I am assuming that no one here honestly wants to ban all of them)

Because the "it has almost no save switch in" argument can be applied to all of them.

LO KyuB destroys almost everything with Bolt/Beam/Dragon coverage, the only things that can switch in are Clef and Ferro who get nailed by HP fire/Iron head respectively.
Zard Y has very few switch ins who all get nailed by pursuit. Gardewhore destroys everything with just its stabs and Fblast and can beat/cripple its counters with taunt/wow.
Manaphy needs a turn to set up but after that nothing can safely stop it aside from faster mons. Metagross with Grass Knot has basicly no switch ins and can 2hko the whole meta. Gengar, same story. Mega Chomp in Sand. No switch ins. 4 attacks LO Diggersby, no switch ins. SD Mega Heracross? No switch ins. Mega Medicham? Sableeye, Mew, Slowbro, Celebi and the latter two get beat by Thunder/Ice Punch.

There are more but i think that should get the point accross. Having close to no safe switch ins isnt something unique to Landorus, its a common occurence in this meta. In fact many of these are even harder to switch into because they have more spammable stab attacks and dont have to predict that much, they also dont need to have 8 moves to beat all their switch ins. One could say he is faster than most of these wall breakers but with many of them beeing around the base 100 range it hardly even matters as there is nothing in between. And Gengar/Megagross are even faster. So what is it? What makes Lando so incredibly broken compared to the others? I guess the RP set is a major difference as it makes him better vs offense but is that enough to warrant a ban?

If you want to get rid of Landorus because he rips apart your defensive cores/teams your problems wont go away, there will just be something else that rips through your team.

So tell me, whats the big difference?
 

SketchUp

Don't let your memes be dreams
Baharoth
Hard to wear down because no rocks weakness (Zard Y, Kyurem-B) and an immunity to Spikes (Kyurem-B, Manaphy)
Doesn't take up a mega slot, so really low opportunity cost (Zard Y)
Immediate Power (Manaphy, Kyurem-B also does less damage)
A nice typing including 2 immunities which helps finding switchin opportunities (Kyurem-B)
A way to improve its speed tier (Manaphy, Zard Y, Kyurem-B)
Possibility to run different sets / Diversity (Zard Y's SpD set is not threatening as a wallbreaker, same as Manaphy's CM set)
 
Baharoth
Hard to wear down because no rocks weakness (Zard Y, Kyurem-B) and an immunity to Spikes (Kyurem-B, Manaphy)
Doesn't take up a mega slot, so really low opportunity cost (Zard Y)
Immediate Power (Manaphy, Kyurem-B also does less damage)
A nice typing including 2 immunities which helps finding switchin opportunities (Kyurem-B)
A way to improve its speed tier (Manaphy, Zard Y, Kyurem-B)
Possibility to run different sets / Diversity (Zard Y's SpD set is not threatening as a wallbreaker, same as Manaphy's CM set)
ZarY/Kyub have Roost and can be even harder to wear down.
Immediate Power only applies to Manaphy, LO Kyub hits just as hard and from both sides of the spectrum.
No Megaslot still leaves Kyub, Gengar, Manaphy and Diggersby.

Pretty much all your points (cant boost its speed but its much faster to begin with) apply to Gengar as well, shall we ban him next?

No doubt Lando has a bunch of useful traites that in their entirety are unique but if we take his shortcommings into account like no spammable stabs, all his coverage moves only hit specific targets making it impossible to cover all his counters and checks i dont know if thats a convincing reason for a ban.
 
Summarised this for ya:

Banning Lando will make stall more diverse!
If stall is more diverse, it isn't a guarantee that (particular stallbreaker) will work against them!
Therefore I will actually need to play better than the stall player!

You can see why posts like this make people think you're just a Lando-I abuser who doesn't want to lose their favourite toy, right?
Okay, no. Yet again people misinterpret my argument. I'm not arguing that if stall is more diverse than it would be in my own self interest to keep Lando-I unbanned so I can deal with stall. My argument is that because stall becomes more diverse without Lando-I, the meta becomes much more matchup dependent and limits teambuilding even worse than Lando-I did.

Unfortunately I don't really care for bragging about how well I can play this game or how I well I can play vs stall. I can tell you that I've climbed ladder to top ten multiple times using HO, balance, and stall. I've beaten many tournys using all three playstyles as well. And while my favorite team does have Lando-I in it, I've recognized my bias before posting my arguments for keeping it in the meta. I've found a replacement to Lando-I in this new meta to which I climbed to the top of suspect and beaten tournys with. I am not writing this as a way to show I am good, but rather as a way to show that I am not extremely biased towards Lando-I staying in the meta.

Also just to educate you - Kyu-B is more of a balance-breaker (which is another thing that people are saying will be OP without Lando) - but with LO and good prediction it can still do a number to stall. M-Hera destroys most stall - "revenged by Goth" is so obviously a shit argument that it hurts to explain why, but in a nutshell, most stalls don't run Goth because it makes them much weaker to a bunch of other threats, and Goth can only come in on a predicted SD or after a kill anyway. "Goth is beatable by M-Sableye" is just like fuck logic. Skarm and Ferro often don't run Shed Shell, again because it hurts their ability to counter other threats. SD Zard-X wrecks most of its common defensive checks; Quagsire and Rhyperior are basically the two which still handle it, but Quag is 2HKO'd with minor residual damage or if Zard has Outrage, and Rhyperior has overall bad typing and no recovery; plus both are relatively uncommon.
Kyu-b: Prediction isn't an argument, as people have told me time and time again. If we're using prediction as an argument, Lando-I's counters increase.

M-Hera: It does beat stall, but it also loses to the majority of other playstyles. Also many stalls in the 1695+ ladder do run Goth or do have some answer to Heracross. The second Hera is down is the second stall can breeze through the battle.

Goth: I mean you don't really explain your logic here either. If you get trapped by Goth, it happens. But if you don't have an answer for the Psychic CM Scarf set then youre playing stall wrong.

Skarm and Ferro: They do run Shed Shell on full stall because good players realize that switching out of Magnezone is >>> then Lefties recovery.

SD Zard X: So Zard-X needs to run Outrage to beat Quag. I can tell you now that the usage on that is probably less than 5%.


But even explaining why these threats are stallbreakers is misleading. It's catering to the mindset that you should be able to beat stall by using a stallbreaker. It should help, but ideally, beating it should require a cohesive team strategy, same as any other playstyle.

Please try actually playing with stall and seeing if its as unbreakable as you think, and then see if that changes your mind about how "necessary" Lando-I is for the meta.
I have played with stall and topped the ladder easily. Obviously I still lose at times but that doesn't take from the fact that the numerous stall variations birthed from the Lando-I ban have hurt the meta. The argument that beating stall requires a "cohesive team strategy" is ridiculous. The fact is that playing stall you don't need to predict and you have to work much less than your opponent does to win. Even if stall is still breakable in this meta, that is not my main argument. It's the fact that so many stall variations have been produced due to the Lando-I ban, that the meta is much more matchup dependent facing them than it was before. Stall teams used to worry about Lando-I as a threat, and filling up holes in their team to beat that threat means they were weaker in other areas. Now they don't have need to fill that Lano-I threat hole, and it's team building potential can go elsewhere.
 

shiloh

is a Member of Senior Staffis a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Tiering Lead
There is one question id like the pro ban side to answer.

What is for you the difference between Lando-I and all the other wallbreakers in the tier that makes him so much more dangerous that he needs to be banned? (I am assuming that no one here honestly wants to ban all of them)

Because the "it has almost no save switch in" argument can be applied to all of them.

LO KyuB destroys almost everything with Bolt/Beam/Dragon coverage, the only things that can switch in are Clef and Ferro who get nailed by HP fire/Iron head respectively.
Zard Y has very few switch ins who all get nailed by pursuit. Gardewhore destroys everything with just its stabs and Fblast and can beat/cripple its counters with taunt/wow.
Manaphy needs a turn to set up but after that nothing can safely stop it aside from faster mons. Metagross with Grass Knot has basicly no switch ins and can 2hko the whole meta. Gengar, same story. Mega Chomp in Sand. No switch ins. 4 attacks LO Diggersby, no switch ins. SD Mega Heracross? No switch ins. Mega Medicham? Sableeye, Mew, Slowbro, Celebi and the latter two get beat by Thunder/Ice Punch.

There are more but i think that should get the point accross. Having close to no safe switch ins isnt something unique to Landorus, its a common occurence in this meta. In fact many of these are even harder to switch into because they have more spammable stab attacks and dont have to predict that much, they also dont need to have 8 moves to beat all their switch ins. One could say he is faster than most of these wall breakers but with many of them beeing around the base 100 range it hardly even matters as there is nothing in between. And Gengar/Megagross are even faster. So what is it? What makes Lando so incredibly broken compared to the others? I guess the RP set is a major difference as it makes him better vs offense but is that enough to warrant a ban?

If you want to get rid of Landorus because he rips apart your defensive cores/teams your problems wont go away, there will just be something else that rips through your team.

So tell me, whats the big difference?
I think the big difference is that fact Landorus has the power to break any playstyle depending on its movepool. Lets take Kyurem-B as you said, while it does have a great movepool that can take down bulkier builds, it still has a lackluster speed stat that means it is easily forced out when playing offense. In the same scenario, Landorus could be the Rock Polish set, which easily allows it to handle the faster pokemon that are common on Offense. This is the same problem with pokemon like Manaphy or Heracross, who may have an easy time dismantling certain play styles, but struggle against the others. Landorus has such a large variety of sets, like Calm Mind to break Stall / Balance, and Rock Polish to beat Offense, which makes it the most threatening and ban-worthy wall breaker at this point.
 

Mur

If you're not first you're last
There is one question id like the pro ban side to answer.

What is for you the difference between Lando-I and all the other wallbreakers in the tier that makes him so much more dangerous that he needs to be banned? (I am assuming that no one here honestly wants to ban all of them)

Because the "it has almost no save switch in" argument can be applied to all of them.

LO KyuB destroys almost everything with Bolt/Beam/Dragon coverage, the only things that can switch in are Clef and Ferro who get nailed by HP fire/Iron head respectively.
Zard Y has very few switch ins who all get nailed by pursuit. Gardewhore destroys half the meta with just its stabs and Fblast and can beat/cripple its counters with taunt/wow.
Manaphy needs a turn to set up but after that nothing can safely stop it aside from faster mons. Metagross with Grass Knot has basicly no switch ins and can 2hko the whole meta. Gengar, same story. Mega Chomp in Sand. No switch ins. 4 attacks LO Diggersby, no switch ins. SD Mega Heracross? No switch ins. Mega Medicham? Sableeye, Mew, Slowbro, Celebi and the latter two get beat by Thunder/Ice Punch.

There are more but i think that should get the point accross. Having close to no safe switch ins isnt something unique to Landorus, its a common occurence in this meta. In fact many of these are even harder to switch into because they have more spammable stab attacks and dont have to predict that much, they also dont need to have 8 moves to beat all their switch ins. One could say he is faster than most of these wall breakers but with many of them beeing around the base 100 range it hardly even matters as there is nothing in between. And Gengar/Megagross are even faster. So what is it? What makes Lando so incredibly broken compared to the others? I guess the RP set is a major difference as it makes him better vs offense but is that enough to warrant a ban?

If you want to get rid of Landorus because he rips apart your defensive cores/teams your problems wont go away, there will just be something else that rips through your team.

So tell me, whats the big difference?
I answered this previously in my post where I explain how lando-i has a lot less counter play then the rest of the breakers in the tier. Since people are obviously ignoring it(except for the kind gentlemen who I had a nice debate with) I'l summarize it up real quick again. First how can you even say lando is the same as any other breaker? If it was the same as the other breakers wouldn't it be in A+ rank along with them? It's already established that lando-i is the best breaker in the tier whether it's broken or not so I'm not sure why people are trying to use this as an argument to not ban it ?_? Now why is lando-i exactly better than the rest? The key lies in the fact that there is little counter play to lando compared to the others. By this I mean for balance and stall seeing as they are the playstyles that need to counter-play said breakers. To give you some examples Mgarde can be pressured by hazards and it's weak defense to deter some of it's pressure. Manaphy is also pressured by hazards and lacks immediate power in which it needs to find that turn to gain said power. Zard-y is pressured immensely by stealth rock and common switch-ins such as ferro and clef can carry twave to para it. Gengar is worn down by life orb recoil and is pursuit weak leaving it susceptile to being removed from the game, also a common switch-in oppoetunity is clefable who can carry twave and cripple it. Kyub is also pressured by hazards and is slower compared to the other breakers giving it more checks then the rest. I can go on about every breaker in the tier but I won't and I'l just get to the point. What exactly do these teams have to counter play lando-i? It's immune to two types(one of which being immune to twave), doesn't take life orb recoil bar hp ice and knock off, has a nice speed tier for a breaker, is neutral to stealth rock and immune to spikes, and isn't pursuit weak. The only "reliable" way of counter-playing lando for these teams is trying to switch around and scout out it's set with shaky checks which in the end is all just to accomplish forcing lando-i out while you allow lando to fire off it's powerful attacks in the process. This is leading into how lando has a high reward to risk ratio which I have detailed very closely in one of my past posts so I'l leave it off here. I think I answered your question as to how lando is more threatening then every breaker in the tier. I'l link my previous posts here and my response to a kind anti-ban man who I had a nice debate with here which are both good reads and may bring some other topics to light that the anti-ban side seems to be missing. (warning:the first post was made during the team when people were posting "LOL i just got reqs and stall is on the ladder LOL no ban" so that is why that first post is a little more aggressive since I was infuriated that people could be so ignorant as to favor one playstyle entirely over the rest)
 

p2

Banned deucer.
Having extremely limited counters doesn't make something broken, wallbreakers like Mega Heracross and Mega Gardevoir are limited when it comes to counters but are they broken? No. Although Landorus has extremely powerful coverage options, this does not mean it is impossible to switch into. Landorus has a large amount of checks available, offensive ones including: Weavile, Mamoswine, Azumarill, Starmie, Keldeo and plenty more, while having defensive checks like: Rotom, Zapdos, Latias, Cresselia, Slowking and others

Landorus just isn't this kind of mon that destroys anything it sees, that everyone makes it out to be. For Rock Polish to handle Offense, it needs to outplay opponents constantly to get that +2 and then it needs to deal with priority. Sure, Band Azu isn't a guaranteed OHKO after SR, but face it, Landorus will NOT be any higher than 70% when it cleans up offense, it cannot just come in turn1 and sweep, it needs to keep coming in to apply a shit ton of pressure, constantly picking up SR damage on itself which means it's left weak to common priority. Stall teams have Cresselia or Mega Latias and they're just hard stops to it completely. Even though it thrives against Balance, balance still struggles with other shit such as Mega Gardevoir / MegaGross / ZardY. It's not Lando that is the problem, it's the massive inability for balance to handle the entire metagame. If you TRULY want balance to be in a meta where it doesn't lose on matchup, you're gonna need to ban a hell lot more than just Lando. but, Landorus checks are really common and all are very splashable on balance.
Even though it has 101 Speed, its speed tier is still really restricting. Unboosted Lando can be checked by pretty much everything with a speed tier above 101, and not to mention, mons around the 90-100 speed tier also check it easily if it decides to run Modest for extra damage.

I wouldn't call it overly restricting on teambuilding, if anything, it's not that hard to prepare for, handling it in games is harder, but it's definitely a lot easier to play around that people make it out to be because it's so easy to pressure into ridiculous predictions. That's why I'll be voting no ban.
 
I answered this previously in my post where I explain how lando-i has a lot less counter play then the rest of the breakers in the tier. Since people are obviously ignoring it(except for the kind gentlemen who I had a nice debate with) I'l summarize it up real quick again. First how can you even say lando is the same as any other breaker? If it was the same as the other breakers wouldn't it be in A+ rank along with them? It's already established that lando-i is the best breaker in the tier whether it's broken or not so I'm not sure why people are trying to use this as an argument to not ban it ?_? Now why is lando-i exactly better than the rest? The key lies in the fact that there is little counter play to lando compared to the others. By this I mean for balance and stall seeing as they are the playstyles that need to counter-play said breakers. To give you some examples Mgarde can be pressured by hazards and it's weak defense to deter some of it's pressure. Manaphy is also pressured by hazards and lacks immediate power in which it needs to find that turn to gain said power. Zard-y is pressured immensely by stealth rock and common switch-ins such as ferro and clef can carry twave to para it. Gengar is worn down by life orb recoil and is pursuit weak leaving it susceptile to being removed from the game, also a common switch-in oppoetunity is clefable who can carry twave and cripple it. Kyub is also pressured by hazards and is slower compared to the other breakers giving it more checks then the rest. I can go on about every breaker in the tier but I won't and I'l just get to the point. What exactly do these teams have to counter play lando-i? It's immune to two types(one of which being immune to twave), doesn't take life orb recoil bar hp ice and knock off, has a nice speed tier for a breaker, is neutral to stealth rock and immune to spikes, and isn't pursuit weak. The only "reliable" way of counter-playing lando for these teams is trying to switch around and scout out it's set with shaky checks which in the end is all just to accomplish forcing lando-i out while you allow lando to fire off it's powerful attacks in the process. This is leading into how lando has a high reward to risk ratio which I have detailed very closely in one of my past posts so I'l leave it off here. I think I answered your question as to how lando is more threatening then every breaker in the tier. I'l link my previous posts here and my response to a kind anti-ban man who I had a nice debate with here which are both good reads and may bring some other topics to light that the anti-ban side seems to be missing. (warning:the first post was made during the team when people were posting "LOL i just got reqs and stall is on the ladder LOL no ban" so that is why that first post is a little more aggressive since I was infuriated that people could be so ignorant as to favor one playstyle entirely over the rest)
Honestly, this is a difficult argument to handle, as far as the fact that Landorus is unanimously the best Breaker in the tier. However, what you are leaving out is the fact that whenever these other super breakers come in, they still manage to pick up KOs, which is why they occupy that role. As far as your pro-ban argument goes, you seem to be exaggerating the difficulty that certain super breakers have in performing their roles, which is not the case. The breakers that you listed may have certain flaws associated with them, but they are still able to perform their roles immensely well, which is why they also lack a solid number of counters and switch-ins. Your argument makes it seem like all of these other breakers are mediocre in their roles, which they aren't. Yes, they have to face certain means of counterplay to prevent them from destroying a team, but they aren't rendered unviable because of this. As far as your arguments of "T-Waving on the switch" go, the prediction argument goes both ways. Because of this, some of the examples of counterplay you provided aren't legitimate. I could easily bring my Zard-Y in on a Clefable expecting a Moonblast, and the Clefable wouldn't T-wave me. I do appreciate the fact that you aren't saying that Landorus is any more powerful than the other breakers, because it isn't. Once all of the breakers are into the battle, there is little that separates them in terms of power and speed, although Landorus has the most of both other than a boosted Manaphy. In the case of Manaphy, the only real cost of using it over Landorus is virtually only one turn of chip damage. Manaphy can force a switch, TG on the switch, and bop the mew mon with a boosted coverage move. The odds here are also "skewed" in the favor of the manaphy user, because the opponent doesn't know all of Manaphy's coverage moves either. So, really, the only advantages that Landorus has over the other Breakers, are typing, resistance and immunity to hazards, immunity to T-Wave.
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
I don't get why nobody like u-turn lando anymore :( That got BWlando banned imo. There is no need to try and predict stuff when you have the best move in the game at your disposal.

The best part is that U-turn gets se coverage on most of the checks (latis, cress, celebi). Of courrse it isn't KOing, but you're getting 140bp of coverage (somewhat close to knock off. Does more damage if item is already gone or mega lati) and you get to force said mon out.

It's too easy, really. U-turn out of lati into a tyrannitar and latias dies <3 U-turn out of cress into any strong se mon, and cress either dies or can't ever switch into lando again. <3 Chansey, charizard, etc are all the same.

Or go full akimbo and turn to a trapper but

U literally can't counter lando with u-turn. It's like every other u-turn mon, but you could hardly deal with lando to begin with
 
Okay, no. Yet again people misinterpret my argument. I'm not arguing that if stall is more diverse than it would be in my own self interest to keep Lando-I unbanned so I can deal with stall. My argument is that because stall becomes more diverse without Lando-I, the meta becomes much more matchup dependent and limits teambuilding even worse than Lando-I did.
This is a non-sequitur. How is stall becoming more diverse leading to matchup dependent games? If anything, diversity in teambuilding is inversely proportional to overcentralization. Your argument here, if anything, speaks to landorus-I's overcentralization in the metagame. We shouldn't ban landorus, because stall becomes more diverse and consequently somehow makes games more matchup dependent is not only silly, but an argument from consequences and irrelevant to the subject at hand. We are looking at landorus' s influence upon the metagame. Saying we need to keep landorus or else stall gets more powerful because there is more wriggle room for teambuilding is not only irrelevant but if anything, detrimental to your argument, as diversity in teams is a good thing that reflects lack of overcentralization of a mon. And once again, how is this statement different from what you said earlier?
 

Reymedy

ne craint personne
is a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Let's make the post to go along with my vote.

First, I'll simply join the statement I already made last suspect about how I see OU right now :

Now, I'm gonna explain my vision over what's going on in this tier, even if I already explained it a bit as I voted last suspect.
No decison, from now on, will be easy to take. There will be casualties.
We reached a point in Pokémon's history, where the metagame is simply TOO CROWDED. Try to think about it, as it's very simple to grasp : As generations keep coming, Pokémons are copulating and multiplying their numbers like crazy. One thing didn't change though : We still have 6 slots when we open our builder.
At some point, we'll crash into a wall, as it's getting harder and harder to deal with the myriad of new, very good, yet not necessarly overpowered, Pokémons.
Now, I can already hear people replying to that "but, maybe a Pokémon can check more Pokémons than before, making the building still possible". I agree to an extent, but it doesn't make my statement wrong. I think with XY (and already with BW), our tier was on verge of breaking up. Surely, way more Pokémons can be checked than before, but right now in OU, a builder is not able to virtually deal with most of the niche threats.
Stuff like Altaria DD with a specific coverage option, a boosting Talonflame, Volcarona with either Roost or a random coverage move, Azumarill BD Knock Off, Manaphy with god knows what, Unaware CM Clefable, Lopunny with Encore or Power-up-punch or whatever, a very fast Bisharp SD, Jolly CharX with either EQ or Flare Blitz, Diancie with a mixed set and a random coverage move, GyaradosM with Taunt or Substitute, Substitute FlincHachi, Lati@sM CM or some gay Twave shit, MetagrossM with HP Fire (you're still hoping you don't meet that right?), DD TyranitarM (you all forgot about this one too), Landorus with 4 moves you'll have to figure out as you lose your team members, SD RP or Substitute LandorusT etc
etc
etc.

I could go on for hours, there are so many niche threats, the guy who tries to cover them all is a fool. Because that's simply not possible. By a long shot at that.
Right now, the most sucessful strategy in OU IMO, is to build a very generic defensive core attempting most of the obvious threats, and pair it with a niche win condition without necessarly preparing it too too much (not commit). The point being, you want to delay the other's guy win condition as much as possible (hazards are very good for that, paired with phazing, that's why Hippo + Tornadus + Spikes is so good, you cover a lot of stuff, but not in depth), while hoping that your own win condition has a shot at winning. I think my game in semis of the Suspect tour showcases it pretty well. My answer to CM Clefable was my own QD Volcarona (so basically, I was not very prepared, neither was my opponent for that matter). However, I got to choose when I could engage this CM war due to phazing and offensive pressure (which is a very big + for me). Even though my opponent managed to be way luckier than me here, I still could manage to win due to me having simply MORE win conditions at hand (ones that were faring better than his, luckily). So much more that I literally threw them into a wall till the wall breaks.

Basically, it's impossible to prepare for everything that is niche. That's why you need to have a niche win condition, and hope your opponent won't be ready. The more unic threats you can fit inside the team, the better it will be. At the same time, you want a defensive core that your opponent will need to weaken, a defensive core that will buy you as much time as possible.
Since you can't cover the threats, you need to "out-threat" your opponent (which, don't be confused, doesn't mean that HO is the ultimate best option). We need to rethink the building, it's not about covering things, it's about bringing what your opponent won't be ready for.
Given the current situation, it appears pretty clear that my stance is to get some Pokémons out of this tier. To sum it up, nothing is outright broken to the point you can't deal with it, however the ridiculous amount of different Pokémons and sets available to each battler puts way too much pressure on the 6 slots at hand.

Which obviously, leads me to my next point. Why Landorus ?

-Incredible raw power. There is no need to set-up, Earth Power is here, available, stab'd, boosted by Sheer Force and Life Orb. It's strong.

-Really lethal coverage options. I insist on that, Landorus coverage options are really interesting, as they don't focus on being neutral most of the time, Landorus has access to a very unic spectrum of moves to support its Ground stab. These coverage options are going for super-effective hits on a lot of key Pokémons that could in theory deal with the overwhelming Ground stab. Sludge Wave is such a brutal way to deal with most Grass Pokémons if you think about it. On top of that it covers Fairies, which takes out of the equation a lot of good Special sponges. These are probably the two guaranteed moves on Landorus. Now let's talk about the options for the remaining slots. Knock Off to hit Psychic Types, mainly Lati@s/Gengar since their Levitate ability is very problematic for Landorus. Obviously, Knock Off is a very good option on its own, since knocking off items such as Leftovers, Eviolite or Assault Vest futher assists Landorus. Hidden Power Ice is a niche option to deal with the Ground/Flying typing (and, to a lesser extent, Garchomp), as this typing would resist the Ground/Poison coverage. Focus Blast is another niche move, able to hit very hard even the bulkier Skarmory (it will need to attempt a Roost stalling at full health), nail the OHKO onto Ferrothorn, ruin the plans of Balloon Excadrill and hit Chansey for respectable damages. Finally, a physical Rock move is another viable option. Rock Slide most notably, can surprise kill TornadusT AV after Stealth Rock, while also covering CharizardY, Talonflame and Volcarona nicely. Psychic is mostly for neutral coverage, but it is still a powerful move on its own. Oh yea, Explosion is pretty neat too actually.

-Very good speed. Base 101 is good. It is still very good. As long as you're over 100, you're VERY fine. Being slower than 100 means you have to think about what to do when a Sun-boosted Fire Blast from CharizardY is thrown at you (I like to use this benchmark as Pokémons over 100 really drop in terms of raw power when compared to Charizard or Medicham, except Landorus..).

-Solid typing. Ground and Flying are two types that are present in 90% of the teams. Landorus has both. The immunities are simply too good for obvious reasons (you don't want to be swept by a Scarf LandorusT or by a Volt-Switch loop).
-Deadly set-up options. Landorus really has solid options to abuse its coverage. Substitute is the kind of move that can ruin the tempo of an Offense as it's trying to sacrifice its member to keep the momentum. Rock Polish is obviously a crazy good move on something that powerful and resilient to most priorities. Calm Mind is niche, and only has the merit of crushing very slow teams... but it's still something available, and who doesn't like to have something to shit all over these teams?

-Tempo king. It has Stealth Rock and U-Turn, how could you ever go wrong?


All these things are cute, but don't really mean that it has to be banned. A lot of Pokémons in the current metagame have a sizeable amount of "cons" to make them worth using. However, very few of them have a speed over 100 and such a raw power at their disposal, are not Megas, or Pursuit/SR weak (hint : Only Landorus, TornadusT can be comparable with Regenerator to compensate for the SR weakness, however it has to rely on one of the most awful Stab move ever).

The community decided that Megas are "ok" right now given the outcome of the MetagrossM suspect (even if I consider that ignoring that 58% of "yes for the ban" was an awful move from the council). Thus, we should look at non-mega Pokémons if we want to carry on cleaning the Tier up. Landorus appears flawless as fuck. I can totally understand that you doubt this ban, really, I do. I mean, I played for the whole XY period with this Pokémons and I wasn't that afraid of it. It was a different metagame though, right now Landorus is way too lethal and applies a pressure on the building that it would be healthy to take off.

The suspect test laddering was ok, I don't really want to develop this part as I did not build for the suspect and simply used a team from the Landorus metagame.
Time to vote for the 9th time ! Cheers !
 
Last edited:

Mur

If you're not first you're last
Honestly, this is a difficult argument to handle, as far as the fact that Landorus is unanimously the best Breaker in the tier. However, what you are leaving out is the fact that whenever these other super breakers come in, they still manage to pick up KOs, which is why they occupy that role. As far as your pro-ban argument goes, you seem to be exaggerating the difficulty that certain super breakers have in performing their roles, which is not the case. The breakers that you listed may have certain flaws associated with them, but they are still able to perform their roles immensely well, which is why they also lack a solid number of counters and switch-ins. Your argument makes it seem like all of these other breakers are mediocre in their roles, which they aren't. Yes, they have to face certain means of counterplay to prevent them from destroying a team, but they aren't rendered unviable because of this. As far as your arguments of "T-Waving on the switch" go, the prediction argument goes both ways. Because of this, some of the examples of counterplay you provided aren't legitimate. I could easily bring my Zard-Y in on a Clefable expecting a Moonblast, and the Clefable wouldn't T-wave me. I do appreciate the fact that you aren't saying that Landorus is any more powerful than the other breakers, because it isn't. Once all of the breakers are into the battle, there is little that separates them in terms of power and speed, although Landorus has the most of both other than a boosted Manaphy. In the case of Manaphy, the only real cost of using it over Landorus is virtually only one turn of chip damage. Manaphy can force a switch, TG on the switch, and bop the mew mon with a boosted coverage move. The odds here are also "skewed" in the favor of the manaphy user, because the opponent doesn't know all of Manaphy's coverage moves either. So, really, the only advantages that Landorus has over the other Breakers, are typing, resistance and immunity to hazards, immunity to T-Wave.
Uh I thought we covered this a few posts ago. I mention in the very first post that these other breakers are extremely good and also pick up kills by coming in as well. I am by no means trying to make them sound unviable or so far out of the reach of lando in this role. I was replying to the argument that the individual above asked how lando-i is any better then the other breakers which we also already settled before in our discussion with the lack of counter-play with lando which iirc was referred to as something hard to disagree with. Also no it isn't the prediction argument at all. I'm not saying in order to beat zard-y you have to predict around it and twave it. I'm stating that it is a form of counter-play to zard-y that takes away one of it's free switches therefore adding more risk to it coming in. If I was referring to a scenario in which zard was twaved on the switch and using it as my example then you would be correct but that is not the case here. What I'm trying to portray in this example is that these other breakers have forms of counter-play that give them some risk throughout the game therefore making them possible to handle for these defensive teams despite them having incredible offensive capabilities. Lando-i on the other hand has almost no consistent form of counter-play other then switching around it which is not exactly a healthy characteristic to have. This plays into how lando-i is very low risk and high reward since it can reliably break teams apart regardless of coverage due to there being a lack of reliable counter-play to actually deter it from doing it's job(which I also discussed very in depth in my response to your first post). Yes lando indeed only has a better typing, resistance and immunity to hazards, immediate power, and immunity to twave over the other breakers but these characteristics are exactly what takes away the common methods of dealing with said breakers. How is a mon with little to no counter-play healthy for the tier? In your first response you say exactly:
I appreciate the fact that you mention counter-play and hazards because this is the only reason why Lando is the tier's best wallbreaker. Other than these reasons, other wallbreakers would be on par with Lando as far as power, speed and bulk. I really can't deny any of this part because Lando is still an incredible wallbreaker.
So you recognize that yes lando does lack counter-play and this is what separates it from the rest. I'l ask the question again, how is a mon that lacks counter-play(when all others in it's role have it) healthy for the tier? Since I know that your next response may involve how you can "easily" scout around lando so it indeed does have some counter-play I'l leave what I said in my response to your first post here:
I'd like to say before finishing this that just because you can play around something does not mean it isn't broken. I bet you or myself that we can take one of our OU teams and play around an e-killer arceus and beat it but does that mean it isn't broken just because we played around it? Of course not and while this is an extreme example I think it gets the point across. Just because balance or stall can carry a few shaky checks and potentially beat a lando-i doesn't mean it isn't broken and isn't consistently difficult to play against on a game-by-game basis.
Also your comparison to manaphy kind of shows how much over the edge lando is since a good portion of the tour scene and high ladder players alike consider manaphy suspect worthy and potentially broken so if mana is suspect worthy would this not show that it's superior is far over the edge?

I'd like to pose a question to the anti-ban side. What reasons are there that are in-arguable that lando-i should stay in the tier? If your first thought is "because it's just not broken" and not a specific reason then it just shows that there is a lack of any strong reason as to why lando-i is not broken or unhealthy for the tier. The only arguments I have seen that fit this description are that it can get revenge killed/checked by a lot and can't run everything on one set giving it a few decent set specific counters or hard checks if you will. Meanwhile the pro-ban side's answer to it's version of this question has more responses such as that lando-i has only two counters the are either playstyle specific or cost a mega slot, it is a step above breakers that are already difficult to handle, you agreed to lando having little counter-play so that can fit here as well, it has the ability to destroy two of the three major playstyles, and it's extremely versatile which makes it so you require different checks to successfully cover them all putting a bit of strain on teambuilding in the process. See the problem I'm seeing with this is a majority of the things brought up by the anti-ban side are just counter arguments to these points while not actually proving their own points to be countered by the pro-ban side. Can you guess why this is? It's because there really are no strong reasons as to keep lando in this tier so the arguments are forced at attempting to disprove the pro-bans arguments. The pro-ban side has some strong evidence pointing to lando-i being broken in the tier while the anti-ban side has none of their own and is really just saying "but... but..." in an attempt to find some ground in the discussion. Hell your argument to that statement will probably be something along the lines of "but you fail to mention this, this, and this" proving my point further. Due to all of this and all my specific points about lando-i in the previous posts I find there to be no reason as to why lando-i is not broken and doesn't deserve to receive the ban hammer.
 
ZarY/Kyub have Roost and can be even harder to wear down.
Immediate Power only applies to Manaphy, LO Kyub hits just as hard and from both sides of the spectrum.
No Megaslot still leaves Kyub, Gengar, Manaphy and Diggersby.

Pretty much all your points (cant boost its speed but its much faster to begin with) apply to Gengar as well, shall we ban him next?

No doubt Lando has a bunch of useful traites that in their entirety are unique but if we take his shortcommings into account like no spammable stabs, all his coverage moves only hit specific targets making it impossible to cover all his counters and checks i dont know if thats a convincing reason for a ban.
Yes Zard and Kyu have recovery but that gives up momentum on their end, leaving them vulnerable to attacks or status, and it certainly helps that Lando-I isn't as weak to hazards (hence less "need" to recover). Not that we actually need to consider recovery in the case of an offensive mon...

As for the rest put simply you're selling it short if you're going to look past its main strengths over the other mons you mentioned, a better typing, stats, movepool, SR neutrality, lack of recoil, immediate power without need for boosts/choice items (very big deal) etc -- I don't think these dots need to be connected. You're not looking at it from the bigger picture if you only isolate its characteristics than taking it as a whole, which is where the problem really begins.

Yes he has short comings but like any pros and cons we consider it in relative comparison to his strengths, of which it is argued that he has considerably more going for him than against him.

Edit: As for the new reqs... poo I was going slow to maintain an 82-84% ratio :(
 
Last edited:
Also special breakers normally are better than physicals (cause u don't care about burn, rocky helmet, intimidate, etc) and normally they are harder to face than physicals because they are hard to wear down but Landorus is in another level because he doesn't take life orb recoil, he is inmune to sand and thunder wave and thanks to his good bulk he can even bypass some passive defensive water shit mons like alomola with 2 earth powers while his scald hardly 3kos, he is like metagross (more broken crap) almost 0 counters but the reason he is broken is that he offers too much reward for ofensive teams with 0 opportunities cost.
 
Uh I thought we covered this a few posts ago. I mention in the very first post that these other breakers are extremely good and also pick up kills by coming in as well. I am by no means trying to make them sound unviable or so far out of the reach of lando in this role. I was replying to the argument that the individual above asked how lando-i is any better then the other breakers which we also already settled before in our discussion with the lack of counter-play with lando which iirc was referred to as something hard to disagree with. Also no it isn't the prediction argument at all. I'm not saying in order to beat zard-y you have to predict around it and twave it. I'm stating that it is a form of counter-play to zard-y that takes away one of it's free switches therefore adding more risk to it coming in. If I was referring to a scenario in which zard was twaved on the switch and using it as my example then you would be correct but that is not the case here. What I'm trying to portray in this example is that these other breakers have forms of counter-play that give them some risk throughout the game therefore making them possible to handle for these defensive teams despite them having incredible offensive capabilities. Lando-i on the other hand has almost no consistent form of counter-play other then switching around it which is not exactly a healthy characteristic to have. This plays into how lando-i is very low risk and high reward since it can reliably break teams apart regardless of coverage due to there being a lack of reliable counter-play to actually deter it from doing it's job(which I also discussed very in depth in my response to your first post). Yes lando indeed only has a better typing, resistance and immunity to hazards, immediate power, and immunity to twave over the other breakers but these characteristics are exactly what takes away the common methods of dealing with said breakers. How is a mon with little to no counter-play healthy for the tier? In your first response you say exactly:

So you recognize that yes lando does lack counter-play and this is what separates it from the rest. I'l ask the question again, how is a mon that lacks counter-play(when all others in it's role have it) healthy for the tier? Since I know that your next response may involve how you can "easily" scout around lando so it indeed does have some counter-play I'l leave what I said in my response to your first post here:

Also your comparison to manaphy kind of shows how much over the edge lando is since a good portion of the tour scene and high ladder players alike consider manaphy suspect worthy and potentially broken so if mana is suspect worthy would this not show that it's superior is far over the edge?

I'd like to pose a question to the anti-ban side. What reasons are there that are in-arguable that lando-i should stay in the tier? If your first thought is "because it's just not broken" and not a specific reason then it just shows that there is a lack of any strong reason as to why lando-i is not broken or unhealthy for the tier. The only arguments I have seen that fit this description are that it can get revenge killed/checked by a lot and can't run everything on one set giving it a few decent set specific counters or hard checks if you will. Meanwhile the pro-ban side's answer to it's version of this question has more responses such as that lando-i has only two counters the are either playstyle specific or cost a mega slot, it is a step above breakers that are already difficult to handle, you agreed to lando having little counter-play so that can fit here as well, it has the ability to destroy two of the three major playstyles, and it's extremely versatile which makes it so you require different checks to successfully cover them all putting a bit of strain on teambuilding in the process. See the problem I'm seeing with this is a majority of the things brought up by the anti-ban side are just counter arguments to these points while not actually proving their own points to be countered by the pro-ban side. Can you guess why this is? It's because there really are no strong reasons as to keep lando in this tier so the arguments are forced at attempting to disprove the pro-bans arguments. The pro-ban side has some strong evidence pointing to lando-i being broken in the tier while the anti-ban side has none of their own and is really just saying "but... but..." in an attempt to find some ground in the discussion. Hell your argument to that statement will probably be something along the lines of "but you fail to mention this, this, and this" proving my point further. Due to all of this and all my specific points about lando-i in the previous posts I find there to be no reason as to why lando-i is not broken and doesn't deserve to receive the ban hammer.
I'm sorry but there are so many things that you said in your post that are just horrifically unacceptable to read, even if we are both pro-ban.

"Also your comparison to manaphy kind of shows how much over the edge lando is since a good portion of the tour scene and high ladder players alike consider manaphy suspect worthy and potentially broken so if mana is suspect worthy would this not show that it's superior is far over the edge?"
Let's all get on the tournament player bandwagon! Choo choo!! Whether or not "tournament players" think Manaphy deserves a suspect has literally zero to do with anything, period. Using support for a Manaphy suspect among a handful of arbitrary users to justify banning Landorus is just not a precedent I can vote alongside in good conscience. Landorus should go because Landorus as traits which make it separate from other healthy & balanced offensive pokemon that, together, make it too potent for OU.

"I'd like to pose a question to the anti-ban side. What reasons are there that are in-arguable that lando-i should stay in the tier? If your first thought is "because it's just not broken" and not a specific reason then it just shows that there is a lack of any strong reason as to why lando-i is not broken or unhealthy for the tier."
Once again, we are banning Landorus because Landorus is a broken pokemon as per all the reasons pro-ban has stated in this thread, myself included. If it wasn't broken, we wouldn't be banning it. Your entire statement doesn't make sense because if anti-ban actually could prove Landorus wasn't broken, why are we banning it? Just because? Despite being on opposite sides I totally agree with ABR , it is the responsibility of the playerbase to adapt to more offensive threats in the metagame and teambuild accordingly. I just happen to think Landorus is an exception to that rule. The best line in your entire post was that Landorus is "a step above the other breakers", which sums up what pro-ban's general point is/should be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top