I've read through a good majority of the arguments for banning/maintaining the three Pokemon being discussed. I don't have an immediate opinion on any of them, even if I might be more inclined in a given direction on some of them in one respect or another. However, I thought it would be important to highlight some key things being talked about that require more clarity. I am in agreement that the term broken, and what it applies to, can have some degree of subjectivity. However, I also believe that the consensus of "health" for the metagame suffers this problem to a greater degree of severity. The idea of what a "healthy metagame" is is incredibly subjective, and varies from person to person. It's primarily for this reason why I don't like to align myself with that philosophy. Even if there are some things the majority can agree on, such as avoiding luck promoting strategies or elements, the ideology of a "healthy metagame" is often a matter of perspective, and is very rarely tangible. Trying to use this as an ideal to aim towards, at least in my opinion, doesn't lead to constructive tiering or policy. Checks, and specifically counters, are talked about when it pertains to a suspects level of overall strength. I think this is often misrepresented in context however, and people miss the significance. Just because a Pokemon has X number of checks, or X number of counters, doesn't mean that it's subsequently that much easier or harder to handle, or that it is or isn't more deserving of a being a suspect/banned from the tier. At least not directly. There are correlations. What it really means when a Pokemon has X counters or X checks is that it is more or less likely to be appropriately handled by the player with the given options available, either during battle or during the team building process. Options is the important word here. I say options because that's all checks and counters are; more options. They're an extension of the pool of answers available to you. They're usually the most transparent, recognizable, and easily executed, but it doesn't mean they are the only answers available to a problem, or in this case a suspect. Unfortunately people fail to recognize this because it is easier to converse on paper with counters and checks than the detailed specifics of in-game situational strategy and theorycraft. This all sounds fairly obvious when considering that many of the Ubers we have aren't allowed in standard play despite having plenty of counters or checks, while Pokemon like Mew, which could be argued as virtually uncounterable, are relegated to UU. When a Pokemon is too strong for a given tier, it's because the rewards that are reaped for using that Pokemon are substantially higher than compared to Pokemon that normally reside in that tier. It doesn't matter if that Pokemon has counters or checks, because if the reward for using it is high enough, it will have a toxic effect despite these options against it being available. This is precisely why people become ignorantly wrapped up in arguments about counters and checks, and how that correlates to a Pokemons strength one minute, and then the next minute they will scoff at the propositions of niche counters that are presented to the debate by the opposition. These whishy washy, contradictory, inconsistent opinions happen because people realize intuitively that the reward for using that suspect vastly eclipses the overall reward for using that niche counter to said suspect. I've said this once before, but if you were to relegate Kyogre down from Ubers and in to the OU tier, it would immediately present an issue and become suspect worthy, even if it has hard counters and checks that are both OU quality or UU and below quality. The reason for this is that the rewards Kyogre brings to the player using it are so definitively great that you would be foolish to not use it if it were available to you, even if you had a means to deal with enemy Kyogre, and your opponents had ways of dealing with yours through counters and checks. Also, this should be very obvious, but overcentralization is a symptom to the problem, not the problem in and of itself. Gary2346 emphasizes the point I make, specifically with the text I've bolded. And this is the main inconsistency I see with Deoxys-S and Genesect, and not with Mega Lucario. I do not personally have the battle experience to say whether or not Mega Lucario is worthy of being banned or not. However, the arguments for it being banned are compelling (even in their simplicity) because the rewards it gives for using it, both in battle and on paper, seem to largely outweigh the reasons for why you would choose not to use it. At least by comparison to the other two. However, the propositions thus far for Genesect and Deoxys-S do not hold the same weight because they don't address why a player should use them in order to remain competitive if they do not want to risk being at a distinct disadvantage. I believe Mega Gengar and Mega Kangaskhan both had this distinct problem. When they were available, it was honestly kind of silly to not build a team with one or the other. I'd like to see some compelling arguments for why Genesect and Deoxys-S fit this bill.