Update on recent council votes
Recently, the 35 Pokes tiering council considered two matters: whether to add Mew to the pool of rollable pokemon and whether to ban the ability Tangled Feet. The council voted unanimously 8-0 to keep Mew banned and to ban Tangled Feet, and you can read our reasonings for doing so below.

The council cited Mew's deep set versatility and across-the-board base 100 stats as the reasons it would be an unhealthy, uncompetitive presence in a given 35 Pokes metagame. To quote once council member, Zetious "I don’t think it would be healthy...mew can run many different sets, and in the lower power level that most 35 months are, it would just be a guessing game until mew revealed its set... I think that it’s just too good of a mystery box to be a rollable [pokemon]." Zetious also quite aptly compared Mew to the Lake Guardians, two of which (Mesprit and Uxie) are currently legal. Mesprit and Uxie are often a centralizing presence in any meta they are included in, and are often limited by a combination of relative role predictability, lack of setup options, and lack of coverage against critical metagame threats. Mew doesn't suffer any of these limitations. Celebi was also cited as a Mew comparison, as it was legal in the December 2024 format alongside a myriad of pokemon which should theoretically have threatened it and yet remained a solid viable option. Mew also doesn't suffer from any of the limitations Celebi has, such as a 4x weakness to bug type moves. For these reasons, the council voted 8-0 that Mew remain banned.

Tangled Feet: The council voted 8-0 to ban Tangled Feet, and this vote was far simpler than many of our previous ones. Although confusion strategies (ex: Swagger + Mirror Herb) and *un*intentional evasion strategies (ex: Defog and Contrary being legal at the same time) are permitted in the tier, *intentional* evasion strategies are nearly universally banned under the 3 Evasion Clauses. Tangled Feet is not covered under any of the existing clauses, but still offers no semblance of competitive utility or value besides enabling intentional evasion strategies. As a result, the council decided it would be best to ban Tangled Feet.
Recently, the 35 Pokes tiering council considered two matters: whether to add Mew to the pool of rollable pokemon and whether to ban the ability Tangled Feet. The council voted unanimously 8-0 to keep Mew banned and to ban Tangled Feet, and you can read our reasonings for doing so below.

The council cited Mew's deep set versatility and across-the-board base 100 stats as the reasons it would be an unhealthy, uncompetitive presence in a given 35 Pokes metagame. To quote once council member, Zetious "I don’t think it would be healthy...mew can run many different sets, and in the lower power level that most 35 months are, it would just be a guessing game until mew revealed its set... I think that it’s just too good of a mystery box to be a rollable [pokemon]." Zetious also quite aptly compared Mew to the Lake Guardians, two of which (Mesprit and Uxie) are currently legal. Mesprit and Uxie are often a centralizing presence in any meta they are included in, and are often limited by a combination of relative role predictability, lack of setup options, and lack of coverage against critical metagame threats. Mew doesn't suffer any of these limitations. Celebi was also cited as a Mew comparison, as it was legal in the December 2024 format alongside a myriad of pokemon which should theoretically have threatened it and yet remained a solid viable option. Mew also doesn't suffer from any of the limitations Celebi has, such as a 4x weakness to bug type moves. For these reasons, the council voted 8-0 that Mew remain banned.

Tangled Feet: The council voted 8-0 to ban Tangled Feet, and this vote was far simpler than many of our previous ones. Although confusion strategies (ex: Swagger + Mirror Herb) and *un*intentional evasion strategies (ex: Defog and Contrary being legal at the same time) are permitted in the tier, *intentional* evasion strategies are nearly universally banned under the 3 Evasion Clauses. Tangled Feet is not covered under any of the existing clauses, but still offers no semblance of competitive utility or value besides enabling intentional evasion strategies. As a result, the council decided it would be best to ban Tangled Feet.