Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
On the topic of stall, I got reqs using a stall team without using chesnaught, and I found Aegislash relatively easy to deal with in comparison to Zard forms (lost at least 5 games from guessing the wrong zard) among other things. Most sets were dealt with by mandibuzz, and the ones that weren't (subtoxic and head smash), I was able to work around (sub toxic getting stalled out by chansey and head smash being scary but killing it relatively quickly). Chesnaught, while a good choice, is not mandatory to deal with Aegislash, and I didn't even get into things like Spdef hippo and things along those lines which also deal well with it.
Honestly, Spdef hippo looks to me like it deals with non sub-toxic (and metal sound, didn't even realise that was a set) without being too badly hurt, and sub toxic sets aren't fantastic stallbreakers imo due to the presence of clerics. Chansey actually wins the pp war (in exchange for most of it's pp admittedly), even assuming that aegislash doesn't use any of its moves on anything else.
Reqs post, although it has been a while, and almost everything that can be said about this subject has been said.
49 summarized it excellently in his post, and my thoughts are along the same lines. Basically Aegislash offers a lot in one teamslot with very little opportunity cost to use while maintaining some versatility, so much so that I would say it has a negative impact on the metagame. This has been the case for other mons where it isn't broken because it is outright sweeping teams, but rather because it offers too much to your team in one slot with little cost (i.e. Mega Steelix in NU). Aegislash fits that description and shouldn't be unbanned for that reason. The fact that there is basically no reason not to use it as some other users have mentioned follows this same reasoning, and further shows how a metagame with Aegi would be undesirable. There have been a lot of weird arguments for and against Aeigislash, but I think it is really as simple as that, without even considering 50-50s, other mons that become unviable, or weird lure sets.
Other than that I think it was a good, interesting suspect test. Something I noted was that bulky volcarona set up on the 3 most spammed mons of the suspect, Lopunny, Aegi, and Lando, assuming standard sets of course, so that was cool.
I think the best thing to do is BAN because Aegislash limits the teambuilding and it would be a centralizing presence in the Tier.
It could be anywhere since it can cover different sets with different functionalities and its stats and typing as a whole It allows him to have a good matchup againist large part of the tier that to fit to him it's forced to mutate, raising in usage stuff used just to check it (mandibuzz chesnaught) and dropping other mons that suffers it in benefit of who doesn't (alomomola > slowbro, mew Celebi latios drop ecc), making the mg closed to many others options during the teambuilding.
Aegi doesn't have an universal counter and the only way to defeat him is scouting the set(taking many risks for example switch in chesnaught and aegi uses toxic your plane to counter him is dead) and the revengekill(use a check for each of its set is impossible especially in some playstiles like for the offense team).
It's a strong support for other strong mons making them more solid and rather then help the tier unbanning aegi making it more unstable and that's why I'll vote ban for aegislash.
King's Shield 50-50 is a terrible argument. Sucker Punch and Protect still exist on several Pokemon and we're not crashing down on them. I'd argue and say that 50-50s reveal an extension of skill: part of being skilled requires you to be one step ahead of your opponent (read: not only one step ahead literally, but one step ahead of your opponent). Even if 50-50s didn't exist, strategies and plays would still be opponent-reliant anyway because your opponent's performance will effect how you'll try to execute your win condition. 50-50s in terms like Sucker Punch or King Shield make one evaluate both how much their opponent MUST pull off their correspondent plays (for example, if they HAVE to pull off a King Shield to stand any chance of winning, whereas if they do pull it off your win chance is still higher, for instance, would make King's Shield the safer play) -- but if your opponent is skilled enough to know they could benefit more from bluffing the King's Shield, then they might benefit more if you perform the safer play (which would be predicting their safe play). This logic applies to all of competitive pokemon. Whether it is literal in-your-face 50-50 or a series of complex plays, Pokemon Players are always going to have to outmaneuver their opponent. So in terms of "50-50 = no skill = broken = ban," please please please shut up. 50-50, to an extent, takes a form of skill. Yes, I get it; if two skilled players have 50-50s, then it fundamentally IS a coinflip - but even if all 50-50-based moves were removed, there will always be similar situations or plays that will go down to this fundamental coinflip anyway - it is unavoidable - and skilled players will just have to be more skilled than their opponent. A fundamental coinflip still is not a literal coinflip, either; there are many variables being ignored (such as the risks behind each move and the probability a player can win more than one "cointoss" since for them to get their metaphorical heads three times they'd have to win three coinflips consequently and the probability odds are literally stacked against that). (Don't get the wrong idea. Aegislash is ban-worthy. I'm just saying that this isn't something people should use to justify it when there are better arguments to be had.)
----
OK so aside from that King's Shield / 50-50 rant (which I made mostly because this argument about 50-50s is vomited everywhere and it grosses me out), I'd like to say one more thing: Aegislash should be banned.
It's a centralizing threat. It's a solid Pokemon against every archetype of teams in the metagame, and that is saying a lot. Aegislash can run numerous amounts of sets and most of them can threaten offense and defensive teams equally. Its bulk is so massive that it can pretty much KO any threat you need it too (since not many metagame threats can OHKO Aegislash in its shield form... actually, what Pokemon can OHKO Aegislash in shield form? Landorus's Earth Power only does like 80% iirc, and that's a really hard-hitting move in our meta as it is; there can't be many Pokemon that can OHKO Aegislash and perform other viable roles in the meta). The metagame's advancement has only made Aegislash a bigger threat in the competitive scene: since ORAS, Charizard usage has slightly decreased in favor for the newer Megas: Lopunny, Diancie, Sableye, and Slowbro. All of these new threats get their behinds mauled by Aegis. Aegislash's King Shield and Steel-typing allow it to act as decent check against Talonflame, too, one of offense's biggest threats. (I wouldn't say King's Shield is a 50-50 here so much as it makes switching into Talonflame on Aegislash and spamming Flare Blitz nonviable due to the attack drop). While those threats have started rising in usage, Aegislash's threats were either banned (goodbye Greninja) or were tossed aside (Charizards, Mega DD Tyranitar to an extent) for the newer threats (like Diancie and Lopunny).
Of course, that isn't an argument that proves Aegislash is ban worthy, per-say, but it is important to note how much of a threat Aegislash is. Aegislash has a lack of many offensive answers. Offensive threats can't switch into it, and the attack drop of King's Shield makes it hard to muscle through it (Lopunny, for example, could easily stop Aegislash at about 70% or less if it weren't for King's Shield attack drop) and Aegislash can easily tank at least one hit from any offensive threat and 2HKO, if not OHKO them, in response. In a sense Aegislash could be seen like a Wobbufeut without the Shadow Tag + better typing and ability to break stall. As it is, Aegislash would centralize the metagame to an unhealthy point.
I'm notorious for being more of a conservative player here on Smogon (usually, I don't like banning anything) but Aegislash is too much of a presence here. King's Shield makes Aegislash threatening -- not for the "50-50s" argument, so much as the "change stance and attack drop and damage immunity" King's Shield offers to Aegislash.
Aegislash has a neat movepool too, and can be fairly versatile with it. Weakness Policy, Autotomatize, SubToxic, Max Speed Head Smash, Life Orb Attacker, 3+ King's Shield, Swords Dance, Air Balloon, etc. etc. No, Aegislash can't run all these sets at the same time, but having access to all of these sets makes it much more versatile then, say, Mega Venusaur, which can only run one set with limited move variety. Just by putting Aegislash on your team, your opponent has to worry about one of your potential Aegislash sets, which only makes Aegislash more versatile, not less versatile (which I know some people will try and argue with the "it can't run all those sets!" argument because that's not the point; no one is saying it can, only that it adds to Aegislash's unpredictability and flexibility).
Aegislash is easy to add to any team, while pressuring other teams to find answers for it: that's the very defenition of centralizing. If Kyogre was dropped down to OU, teams would struggle to find an answer to it, and also struggle to find a reason not to use it; it is the same thing with Aegislash (yes, even stall can use Aegislash--I've seen many great stall teams with Aegislash).
Aegislash has a lot of checks, but as far as counters go (a Pokemon that can switch in + KO it), those are pretty sparse. Even things like Bisharp, which is the only Pokemon that can OHKO Aegislash that I can think of off the top of my head, has to worry about switching into Sacred Sword or facing Jolly Sacred Sword Aegislash (unless Bisharp is the not-standard Jolly itself).
So that's my two cents. Take from it what you will.
After finally getting my 4th reqs, I have come to the conclusion of what to do with Aegislash, but we will get to that later :] After siding with the the ban Aegislash movement the last time Aegislash was suspected, I enjoyed how many powerful Pokemon who where not able to shine earlier began to be extremely strong and effective in the late XY metagame once Aegislash was banned(Mega Hera, Mega Garde, the Latis to some extent, etc.). In order to deal with these new threats, a diverse group of Pokemon started becoming more viable(Mew, Starmie, Jirachi, Doublade), creating what I considered a diverse metagame where there was a decent balance with many strong threats but enough checks/counters to them to make team building interesting. However, the power creep from ORAS is ridiculous, with a crazy number of powerful Megas appearing(Mega Metagross, Mega Diancie, Mega Altaria, etc.). These new threats along with Lando-I, Serperior and other powerful Pokemon are impossible to cover on a single team, and trying to do so makes your team ineffective in most cases.
While Aegislash offers a blanket check to the majority of these OUs top threats, it single-handedly changes the metagame from a shitty one with too many threats to account for and matchup/ power creep issues to a shitty metagame in which one near-broken Pokemon will be spammed on every other team. This will alleviate team building issues but will only enhance the power creep issues OU has experienced transitioning form XY. Aegislash just becomes another overcentralizing threat to account for when teambuilding. The best way to create a desirable metagame at this point IMO is to ban the unhealthy threats, not introduce new ones. This, along with the common complaints such as the lack of blanket counters(it got Magnet Rise!?), the king's shield 50/50 controversy, and the overcentralization problem Aegislash causes, I have come to the conclusion that Aegislash is still as unhealthy for OU as it was almost a year ago. Therefore, I will be voting to keep it Ubers.
So I was up theorymonning last night about potential aegi counters, and I came up with an interesting idea: Knock Off Ferrothorn!
(note, this post is not anti or pro ban, these are just some musings on my part.)
4 Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 252 HP / 88+ Def Ferrothorn: 124-148 (35.2 - 42%) -- 84.9% chance to 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Aegislash-Blade Shadow Ball vs. 252 HP / 168 SpD Ferrothorn: 121-144 (34.3 - 40.9%) -- 55.8% chance to 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
0 Atk Ferrothorn Knock Off (97.5 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Aegislash-Blade: 230-272 (70.9 - 83.9%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
+2 252 Atk Aegislash-Blade Sacred Sword vs. 252 HP / 88+ Def Ferrothorn: 294-346 (83.5 - 98.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
So basically, standard OU utility Ferro with knock off actually underspeeds and beats aegislash given even a small amount of prior damage. KS is risky here because aegi would rather not eat a leech seed or free hazards (and Knock Off is kinda rare atm anyway). Given that Knock Off is already a legitimate choice on ferro for crippling offensive and defensive switch ins that don't fear his STABS, I would say that some variant of knock off ferro could easily find itself a place in both offensive and defensive teams alike. Steel Typing allows him to troll sub--toxic, and he can even take a +2 sacred sword (not that I would ever leave ferro in on SD aegi, leave that to quagsire or skarm or something). Good news is that SD aegi is pretty well telegraphed, so stall and balanced teambuilders builders really shouldn't have any issues with countering that (they deal with SDers all the time).
Note I also looked at sp defensive EQ forretress, only to find that 1. EQ doesn't OHKO and 2. Forret, even SP def, takes a huge amount from shadow ball (not to mention forret is pretty trash anyway).
Ok so I've had some time to play the ladder and I MIGHT be getting recs so I thought I'd post here.
While I was never really planning on voting at the last suspect test, I was probably someone who wanted to see Aegi go the most. King's Shield made the game very luck reliant, which was something I never enjoyed, and it's overall great bulk, offensive power, and versatility made it very centralizing. It was just way, way too strong, and it would almost always benefit your team if you ran it. Not to mention it was making a large portion of Pokemon in the metagame either unviable or much more difficult to use.
After its banning, we saw an amazing change to the tier. Pokemon such as Mega Gardevoir, Mega Heracross, Mega Medicham, Cresselia, Doublade, and more all get their chance to shine in a metagame in which they were either outclassed or useless before, while only a few Pokemon, such as Mandibuzz, lost any viability at all. Many people, including myself, loved this versatility, and many people consider late XY to be a great metagame, and credit its greatness to the absence of Aegislash. Overall, it seemed as though the Aegislash ban was a great idea.
And honestly, if this was still XY, I'd agree that the Aegislash ban is justified. But as of right now, in the ORAS metagame, I think we need to re-think if these bans are appropriate. As many of you know, ORAS is considered to be one of the most match-up based metagames not only in 6th gen, but ever. There are just too many threats to be covered, and while they all have their check and counters, it's impossible to deal with them all in only six teamslots. This is why the majority of effective OU teams atm are bulky offense or balance of some sort - it's the only way to have a chance to deal with all of these scary Pokemon. This leaves you with metagame where MU determines a lot and bulky offense is seen the majority of the time. I think this is the first time the overall power creep has had an effect on match-up to this extent, and it's definitely scary to see.
There are two ways I could come up with to tackle this. Either A. Ban some Pokemon in the tier who may not necessarily be "broken" by our usual standards, but still creates a very MU reliant metagame or B. Unban a Pokemon which can act as a strong blanket check to many of the Pokemon in the tier (in this case, Aegislash.) With the Mega Metagross suspect test, it seems as though the community is, unfortunately, against the first option, so as of right now, it seems the only way to solve this problem would be to unban something like Aegislash or Genesect, which like stated above, can act as an effective blanket check to a large portion of the tier. (I'd actually really like to highlight the first part of this last sentence, because I really want to make it clear that Aegislash is NOT my first option for fixing the problem in the metagame. However, it seems as though due to community's position on the matter, Aegislash is really the only option left.)
I'm not denying that Aegislash has its problems. It involves a decent amount of luck (though tbf this is present in a lot of other Pokemon, such as Bisharp), it is and it will be EXTREMELY centralizing due to its ability to check a large portion of the metagame, and while I wouldn't say it's the strongest offensive force in the metagame, it will still be decently hard to deal with due to King's Shield mindgames and its great versatility. But as of right now, I seriously do not see another way to solve the match-up problem in OU without the return of Aegislash. If anyone seriously has any ideas please tell me, because I'd actually love to know (they may have possibly been brought up in this thread, I'm not sure as I haven't really been keeping up-to-date with the massive amounts of discussion going on.) However, I'd rather have a metagame in which there is an extremely centralizing and strong threat (aka the suspect ladder) than one in which, assuming equal skill between the players, I already know the result of the match before it's even begun (the current ladder.)
That is why, as of right now, I think we need to (unfortunately) unban Aegislash.
I'd like to take the time to discuss the Match Up argument that's been floating around the forums since... oh, about mid-BW2 OU (perhaps longer, but it was most prominent in this era).
The argument is that Match Up dictates the winner and in a metagame such as this, Skill is not always the victor; therefore, Smogon need an answer to it.
The problem is that people assume that this problem has a fix, but due to how the Pokemon mechanics are set up (status moves, status chance, critical hit, and numerous of options in teambuilding and wide moovepools), no one can ever start a battle on even grounds with their opponent.
This is part of what defines teambuilding skill. See, this bit is usually ignored, but there are two types of skill in Pokemon: teambuilding and battling. People assume that Battle Skill alone should suffice in victory, as such, creating balance in the metagame. This is not false; hypothetically, such a metagame would be balanced. However, in Pokemon, this type of balance is impossible due to the mechanics and nature of this game. Battle Skill cannot drive a victory alone, and this is intentional due to how this game is designed.
I don't like seeing this MU argument brought up so much because I believe a player needs to have both the Battle Skills to play around bad matchups, and the Teambuilding Skills to make such a disadvantage as minimal as possible. I don't think Smogon needs an answer to Match Up disadvantage other than to simply get better at this game. LightningLuxray brings up a good point about how the metagame seeks to enter an equilibrium of balance; however, I do not believe unbanning Aegislash will give the metagame the balance it needs. Aegislash will only contribute to match-up reliant battles anyway, and in the direction metagame is developing, I don't think we'll be seeing any sort of perfect balance of MU advantage; however, due to the nature of this game and team construction, I think this is intentional on the developer's part. (Maybe not on a competitive standpoint, but as a feature of the game as a whole. They want players to think abstractly and create teams that achieve balance themselves). No team can be perfect, but I think with all the new Pokemon GameFreak is developing, this is unavoidable. They'll only continue to develop more and more Pokemon, but this also means more and more room for creativity in teambuilding, and teambuilding is what makes teams effective. Yes, you can't cover every threat, but you're supposed to use what's given to you to make a team that can achieve the highest win ratio possible, a team that can overcome its weaknesses with good Battle Skills and Teammates.
If you're losing to a Match Up based disadvantage, you have to think on how your team can minimalize its loss against the specific threats, and you have to know how to play around them (no player is of equal skill level; an adavantage or disadvantage helps give one player initiative, but I do not think the metagame is so MU that a skilled player cannot still come out on top if they have both Battle and Teambuilding Skills about them).
tl;tr: MU arguments are not reasons to unban threats. They will either contribute to MU or develop centralization (which is even worse than MU). Furthermore, MU should not be something that needs to be frowned upon or scoffed at. It's part of the game. It's part of what defines a skilled player (a completely skilled player -- most players brag that they can build amazing teams but can't use them, or battle well but can't build, but you need both to be successful at this game).
Do not unban anything in an effort to fix an issue that doesn't need a solve. Do not unban Aegislash for these reasons.
I'm not trying to attack anyone with this. LightningLuxray brings up some good points, and I wasn't trying to address him in specific, but this argument as a whole. As stated, it's been around for quite a while.
Yo can someone explain to me why overcentralization is a bad thing? This isn't gen 4 Ou pre chomp ban where most teams were chomp + 2 chomp checks + 2 chomp check checks and the winner was the last chomp standing.
I don't see how aegis warping the tier around itself by being a blanket check to a huge array of threats in one team slot is worse than using 2-3 mons on your team to check the threats that aegis checks (in addition to the fact that there are less viable mons with aegis around which is actually better in terms of creativity since it lets you run aegis + 5 diverse mons as opposed to being forced to run the same 2-3 mon defensive core which leaves less room for the rest of the team). Someone give me an answer please, unless someone can provide a decent explanation to this rather than spouting the same bullshit overcentralization line, I don't see how this is a reason to be used in its banning.
This isn't even regarding how the 50/50 argument is again total bullshit since pokemon in itself is an uncompetitive game, though I suppose minimalazing the amount of luck is a good thing shrug.
I'm still confused on what the good general arguments on the proban side is so someone mind enlightening me, not to mention that using gen 4 definition of uber standards is kinda outdated nowadays.
Yo can someone explain to me why overcentralization is a bad thing? This isn't gen 4 Ou pre chomp ban where most teams were chomp + 2 chomp checks + 2 chomp check checks and the winner was the last chomp standing.
I don't see how aegis warping the tier around itself by being a blanket check to a huge array of threats in one team slot is worse than using 2-3 mons on your team to check the threats that aegis checks (in addition to the fact that there are less viable mons with aegis around which is actually better in terms of creativity since it lets you run aegis + 5 diverse mons as opposed to being forced to run the same 2-3 mon defensive core which leaves less room for the rest of the team). Someone give me an answer please, unless someone can provide a decent explanation to this rather than spouting the same bullshit overcentralization line, I don't see how this is a reason to be used in its banning.
This isn't even regarding how the 50/50 argument is again total bullshit since pokemon in itself is an uncompetitive game, though I suppose minimalazing the amount of luck is a good thing shrug.
I'm still confused on what the good general arguments on the proban side is so someone mind enlightening me, not to mention that using gen 4 definition of uber standards is kinda outdated nowadays.
Centralization isn't horrible. But, there's a pretty sizable difference in Centralization and Over Centralization. Mega Lopunny (prior to Aegislashes re-introduction) was a centralizing force for Offense, it required Offense to have to deal with it first if it wants to make it past it, however, balance and Stall could deal with it for the most part. Aegislash however, is a centralizing force for every team archetype under the sun, and is a threat to a LARGE majority of the Metagame. You're also damn near required to carry a check, regardless of your team.
Also, I love this statement
"I don't see how aegis warping the tier around itself by being a blanket check to a huge array of threats in one team slot is worse than using 2-3 mons on your team to check the threats that aegis checks"
Aegislash forces that same shit, except it's almost required. There's a reason the Aegi, Lop, Aegi Check core is so common. You need two Aegislash checks to get anywhere. It's not Aegi + 5 diverse mons, it's Aegi + Aegi check + Aegi check + diverse mons. You're not changing anything, you're simply shifting focus, as I've stated previously. Yea, it's nice that Aegislash is a blanket check to the meta, but because of that, you need to now worry about Aegislash and Lopunny.
Centralization isn't horrible. But, there's a pretty sizable difference in Centralization and Over Centralization. Mega Lopunny (prior to Aegislashes re-introduction) was a centralizing force for Offense, it required Offense to have to deal with it first if it wants to make it past it, however, balance and Stall could deal with it for the most part. Aegislash however, is a centralizing force for every team archetype under the sun, and is a threat to a LARGE majority of the Metagame. You're also damn near required to carry a check, regardless of your team.
Also, I love this statement
"I don't see how aegis warping the tier around itself by being a blanket check to a huge array of threats in one team slot is worse than using 2-3 mons on your team to check the threats that aegis checks"
Aegislash forces that same shit, except it's almost required. There's a reason the Aegi, Lop, Aegi Check core is so common. You need two Aegislash checks to get anywhere. It's not Aegi + 5 diverse mons, it's Aegi + Aegi check + Aegi check + diverse mons. You're not changing anything, you're simply shifting focus, as I've stated previously. Yea, it's nice that Aegislash is a blanket check to the meta, but because of that, you need to now worry about Aegislash and Lopunny.
Centralization and overcentralization are both subjective terms and by definition of ou, the biggest threats will be OVERUSED and by definition over/centralizing so uh I fail to see the problem.
Again you're just spouting the same things about centralization without giving me any proper reasoning on why overcentralization is unhealthy for the metagame.
I have no clue what you meant with your mega lopunny part bar the whole you must bring a check to it on (insert archetype here) otherwise you're fucked, which although obvious and clearly useful to the discussion, doesn't show anything to prove your argument of centralization being a problem.
Centralization and overcentralization are both subjective terms and by definition of ou, the biggest threats will be OVERUSED and by definition over/centralizing so uh I fail to see the problem.
Again you're just spouting the same things about centralization without giving me any proper reasoning on why overcentralization is unhealthy for the metagame.
So forcing the meta into an arm bar is okay to you? If that won't change your mind, why even open the forum to discussion if nothing anyone says is going to change that?
I can't possibly describe it further than that. Aegi forces the meta to conform to it, simple as that. That is over centralizing. Lop forces Offense to adapt to it, that is centralization.
the standard answer is that every team begins looking the same and that's cancer jajaja
more complex is probably that, teams without the same cores become unviable or far less viable, which is where the brokenness actually springs from; a mon is counterable but only by a very limited pool of things
edit: and stuff that gives up turns to it becomes unviable/much less viable, as supposedly seen by jirachi celebi etc
Ok so I've had some time to play the ladder and I MIGHT be getting recs so I thought I'd post here.
While I was never really planning on voting at the last suspect test, I was probably someone who wanted to see Aegi go the most. King's Shield made the game very luck reliant, which was something I never enjoyed, and it's overall great bulk, offensive power, and versatility made it very centralizing. It was just way, way too strong, and it would almost always benefit your team if you ran it. Not to mention it was making a large portion of Pokemon in the metagame either unviable or much more difficult to use.
After its banning, we saw an amazing change to the tier. Pokemon such as Mega Gardevoir, Mega Heracross, Mega Medicham, Cresselia, Doublade, and more all get their chance to shine in a metagame in which they were either outclassed or useless before, while only a few Pokemon, such as Mandibuzz, lost any viability at all. Many people, including myself, loved this versatility, and many people consider late XY to be a great metagame, and credit its greatness to the absence of Aegislash. Overall, it seemed as though the Aegislash ban was a great idea.
And honestly, if this was still XY, I'd agree that the Aegislash ban is justified. But as of right now, in the ORAS metagame, I think we need to re-think if these bans are appropriate. As many of you know, ORAS is considered to be one of the most match-up based metagames not only in 6th gen, but ever. There are just too many threats to be covered, and while they all have their check and counters, it's impossible to deal with them all in only six teamslots. This is why the majority of effective OU teams atm are bulky offense or balance of some sort - it's the only way to have a chance to deal with all of these scary Pokemon. This leaves you with metagame where MU determines a lot and bulky offense is seen the majority of the time. I think this is the first time the overall power creep has had an effect on match-up to this extent, and it's definitely scary to see.
There are two ways I could come up with to tackle this. Either A. Ban some Pokemon in the tier who may not necessarily be "broken" by our usual standards, but still creates a very MU reliant metagame or B. Unban a Pokemon which can act as a strong blanket check to many of the Pokemon in the tier (in this case, Aegislash.) With the Mega Metagross suspect test, it seems as though the community is, unfortunately, against the first option, so as of right now, it seems the only way to solve this problem would be to unban something like Aegislash or Genesect, which like stated above, can act as an effective blanket check to a large portion of the tier. (I'd actually really like to highlight the first part of this last sentence, because I really want to make it clear that Aegislash is NOT my first option for fixing the problem in the metagame. However, it seems as though due to community's position on the matter, Aegislash is really the only option left.)
I'm not denying that Aegislash has its problems. It involves a decent amount of luck (though tbf this is present in a lot of other Pokemon, such as Bisharp), it is and it will be EXTREMELY centralizing due to its ability to check a large portion of the metagame, and while I wouldn't say it's the strongest offensive force in the metagame, it will still be decently hard to deal with due to King's Shield mindgames and its great versatility. But as of right now, I seriously do not see another way to solve the match-up problem in OU without the return of Aegislash. If anyone seriously has any ideas please tell me, because I'd actually love to know (they may have possibly been brought up in this thread, I'm not sure as I haven't really been keeping up-to-date with the massive amounts of discussion going on.) However, I'd rather have a metagame in which there is an extremely centralizing and strong threat (aka the suspect ladder) than one in which, assuming equal skill between the players, I already know the result of the match before it's even begun (the current ladder.)
That is why, as of right now, I think we need to (unfortunately) unban Aegislash.
The match-up issue is mostly resolved through how well your team is built, which is the reward of having a well-built team. Aegislash really does not fix the match-up issue, but only makes it worse by making the top threats (that aren't completely screwed over by Aegislash) even more difficult to deal with by being able to dismantle any one of their defensive checks. While metagame trends will make certain Pokemon look particularly broken, the metagame will eventually find ways to adapt to it. Everybody wanted to ban Zard X and Thundurus after the Aegislash ban, but as the metagame adapted to them, almost nobody wants to suspect either of them.
I'd like to take the time to discuss the Match Up argument that's been floating around the forums since... oh, about mid-BW2 OU (perhaps longer, but it was most prominent in this era).
The argument is that Match Up dictates the winner and in a metagame such as this, Skill is not always the victor; therefore, Smogon need an answer to it.
The problem is that people assume that this problem has a fix, but due to how the Pokemon mechanics are set up (status moves, status chance, critical hit, and numerous of options in teambuilding and wide moovepools), no one can ever start a battle on even grounds with their opponent.
This is part of what defines teambuilding skill. See, this bit is usually ignored, but there are two types of skill in Pokemon: teambuilding and battling. People assume that Battle Skill alone should suffice in victory, as such, creating balance in the metagame. This is not false; hypothetically, such a metagame would be balanced. However, in Pokemon, this type of balance is impossible due to the mechanics and nature of this game. Battle Skill cannot drive a victory alone, and this is intentional due to how this game is designed.
I don't like seeing this MU argument brought up so much because I believe a player needs to have both the Battle Skills to play around bad matchups, and the Teambuilding Skills to make such a disadvantage as minimal as possible. I don't think Smogon needs an answer to Match Up disadvantage other than to simply get better at this game. LightningLuxray brings up a good point about how the metagame seeks to enter an equilibrium of balance; however, I do not believe unbanning Aegislash will give the metagame the balance it needs. Aegislash will only contribute to match-up reliant battles anyway, and in the direction metagame is developing, I don't think we'll be seeing any sort of perfect balance of MU advantage; however, due to the nature of this game and team construction, I think this is intentional on the developer's part. (Maybe not on a competitive standpoint, but as a feature of the game as a whole. They want players to think abstractly and create teams that achieve balance themselves). No team can be perfect, but I think with all the new Pokemon GameFreak is developing, this is unavoidable. They'll only continue to develop more and more Pokemon, but this also means more and more room for creativity in teambuilding, and teambuilding is what makes teams effective. Yes, you can't cover every threat, but you're supposed to use what's given to you to make a team that can achieve the highest win ratio possible, a team that can overcome its weaknesses with good Battle Skills and Teammates.
If you're losing to a Match Up based disadvantage, you have to think on how your team can minimalize its loss against the specific threats, and you have to know how to play around them (no player is of equal skill level; an adavantage or disadvantage helps give one player initiative, but I do not think the metagame is so MU that a skilled player cannot still come out on top if they have both Battle and Teambuilding Skills about them).
tl;tr: MU arguments are not reasons to unban threats. They will either contribute to MU or develop centralization (which is even worse than MU). Furthermore, MU should not be something that needs to be frowned upon or scoffed at. It's part of the game. It's part of what defines a skilled player (a completely skilled player -- most players brag that they can build amazing teams but can't use them, or battle well but can't build, but you need both to be successful at this game).
Do not unban anything in an effort to fix an issue that doesn't need a solve. Do not unban Aegislash for these reasons.
I'm not trying to attack anyone with this. LightningLuxray brings up some good points, and I wasn't trying to address him in specific, but this argument as a whole. As stated, it's been around for quite a while.
Matchup is inherently part of the game. So is centralization. So is luck. I would say that all of them are equally harmfu.
But we minimize luck by getting rid of things like evasion moves, and we minimize centralization by banning Pokemon. So why should we just tolerate matchup-based metagames when we can do something about it?
"Make a better team" is better said than done, when even the best OU players are winning and losing at turn one.
So forcing the meta into an arm bar is okay to you? If that won't change your mind, why even open the forum to discussion if nothing anyone says is going to change that?
I can't possibly describe it further than that. Aegi forces the meta to conform to it, simple as that. That is over centralizing. Lop forces Offense to adapt to it, that is centralization.
Again you're showing nothing. With your definition, literally everything you must prep for (keldeo, zards, dragons, etc) is overcentralizing since it forces you to prep for them or you will lose. You're either going to have to explain how aegis manages to differentiate itself from other S/A threats or admit your whole centralization argument is terrible and shouldn't be a factor for voting.
Centralization and overcentralization are both subjective terms and by definition of ou, the biggest threats will be OVERUSED and by definition over/centralizing so uh I fail to see the problem.
Again you're just spouting the same things about centralization without giving me any proper reasoning on why overcentralization is unhealthy for the metagame.
If the metagame is too heavily centralized, it stifles creativity because having to account for one particular threat makes it harder to innovate different sets for mons because they have to fulfill the set's role without losing its effectiveness against the centralized threat as well as whatever the threat is meant to deal with.
That said, in a tier like OU, for a mon to be a centralizing threat as consistently as Aegislash, that also entails having threats that are different to play around by default, as well as a degree of adapatability of its own. The thing is, when the metagame is too heavily centered around a particular Pokemon, teambuilding becomes linear because most attempts to adapt will be met with minor tweaks to Aegislash if they present a threat to begin with. SpD Gliscor leads Aegislash's LO sets to start running HP Ice, or just tweak its teammates slightly to carry a move for it (which isn't hard for the Aegislash user considering it synergizes with damn near anything). Aegislash alone forces dozens to adapt to him, rather than individual mons adapting to handle multiple different threats themselves. For an example (admittedly that popped up in the XY Aegi meta), think of Bulky Roost Dragonite. It was a set created to counter strong attackers like Landorus and Zard-Y, among others, plus Crumbler Aegislash. Say this set presented enough of a problem to Aegislash. SubToxic or HP Ice sets would pick up a bit, and with Aegislash being on as many teams as any 3 things that Bulky Roost would counter, the set's advantage in the metagame is effectively nullified.
A centralized metagame makes teambuilding too linear because having to account so heavily for a particular Pokemon means you sacrifice much more by giving up effectiveness against Aegislash to handle even 5 other mons more effectively. You don't see much of "Aegis + 5 diverse mons" teams because most of the options we consider diverse mons right now are inherently inferior to the common options when Aegislash has to be accounted for. In the current Metagame, while there are a large number of threats that can affect teambuilding, none put such a strain that I have to dedicate multiple slots to them to not auto lose to the point that it's more worth preparing for them over multiple other threats.
The other problem is also the things Aegislash makes better. Lopunny goes from being a viable Pokemon to being arguably the best Mega in an Aegislash metagame because it handles so much of what's left after Aegislash covers the opposition. Why would I devitate away from Lopunny when it alone does a lot of what I need for a team in a single teamslot? I might need Lopunny's work all done in one slot to even try fitting in other less viable mons to try experimenting. With Aegislash providing support in teambuilding by invalidating so many of their checks and supporting them in battle with his sets, mons like Lopunny and Landorus also become centralizing forces in their own right, now requiring heavy checking in teambuilding themselves in addition to Aegislash's constraint, which leaves even fewer team slots to play around with to try diversifying.
Matchup is inherently part of the game. So is centralization. So is luck. I would say that all of them are equally harmfu.
But we minimize luck by getting rid of things like evasion moves, and we minimize centralization by banning Pokemon. So why should we just tolerate matchup-based metagames when we can do something about it?
"Make a better team" is better said than done, when even the best OU players are winning and losing at turn one.
We minimize the ability to depend on luck, less so than luck as an overall factor. There's a difference between depending on Double Team to win and depending on a miss from a 70% accuracy move to win. Double Team is actively basing your strategy around a factor neither player can directly influence, whereas the luck factors allowed to stay are simply part of being weighed into the Risk-Reward matrix. If I don't think the consequences of Focus Blast missing are worth risking the attack, I can take the risk of a switch or different move instead, lesser risk and lesser reward.
The other thing is that match-up and centralization may or may not be mutually exclusive. If centralization is the opposite of match-up as people expect Aegislash to bring, then reducing one by increasing the other simply accomplishes nothing. If there is not a direct correlation, then there's no guarantee Aegislash's centralization will reduce the match-up issue, since now games could be decided by not preparing well enough for the high-profile threats rather than not having some level of preparation for a couple of the 50 threats. I'm personally in the camp that match-up and centralization are not mutually exclusive.
And the last thing I feel the need to iterate again: bringing a Pokemon down should be as an addition to a balanced metagame, not an attempt to fix and unfavorable one. Using Aegislash for the latter purpose, whether or not he is broken, is bordering on the broken-checks-broken philosophy because we are unbanning a threat as an answer to threats we consider unhealthy in the metagame as well. And that's without getting into the problem of Aegislash arguably failing to check all the big problems as intended anyway.
And the last thing I feel the need to iterate again: bringing a Pokemon down should be as an addition to a balanced metagame, not an attempt to fix and unfavorable one. Using Aegislash for the latter purpose, whether or not he is broken, is bordering on the broken-checks-broken philosophy because we are unbanning a threat as an answer to threats we consider unhealthy in the metagame as well. And that's without getting into the problem of Aegislash arguably failing to check all the big problems as intended anyway.
I disagree. By adding something to a balanced metagame, what do you hope to achieve? A more balanced one? The idea is that releasing Aegislash will fix the current metagame.
also, if aegis shifts its set to more subtoxic/hp ice to handle a rise in a particular dragonite set, which makes the dnite set less relevant, this is not really saying anything-you do adapt your sets to meta trends, yes? In fact I see this as a good thing, that people are adapting to the meta as it moves along. I am personally of the view that the overcentralizing thing is kinda bs. You may claim that dozen of mons are running a particular move to handle Aegislash, but those are limited mainly to like "oh this and that and that have to run earthquake" which happen to hit a TON of mons anyway, and isn't even a bad coverage option.
aegislash makes other threats worse to handle- yeah that's kinda the purpose of teambuilding, and why are we not banning those threats then? if it is not Aegislash itself that is broken, release it, and suspect lopunnite-. Some Pokemon are unviable because of it, but I honestly think that this argument can go on forever, and can be said about many Pokemon. Talonflame alone makes many things unviable too.
I honestly feel that Aegislash meta would have been more fun had Lopunnite and Landorus been banned first lmao. But really, i don't see aegis as the issue in most battles.
I'd like to take the time to discuss the Match Up argument that's been floating around the forums since... oh, about mid-BW2 OU (perhaps longer, but it was most prominent in this era).
The argument is that Match Up dictates the winner and in a metagame such as this, Skill is not always the victor; therefore, Smogon need an answer to it.
The problem is that people assume that this problem has a fix, but due to how the Pokemon mechanics are set up (status moves, status chance, critical hit, and numerous of options in teambuilding and wide moovepools), no one can ever start a battle on even grounds with their opponent.
This is part of what defines teambuilding skill. See, this bit is usually ignored, but there are two types of skill in Pokemon: teambuilding and battling. People assume that Battle Skill alone should suffice in victory, as such, creating balance in the metagame. This is not false; hypothetically, such a metagame would be balanced. However, in Pokemon, this type of balance is impossible due to the mechanics and nature of this game. Battle Skill cannot drive a victory alone, and this is intentional due to how this game is designed.
I don't like seeing this MU argument brought up so much because I believe a player needs to have both the Battle Skills to play around bad matchups, and the Teambuilding Skills to make such a disadvantage as minimal as possible. I don't think Smogon needs an answer to Match Up disadvantage other than to simply get better at this game. LightningLuxray brings up a good point about how the metagame seeks to enter an equilibrium of balance; however, I do not believe unbanning Aegislash will give the metagame the balance it needs. Aegislash will only contribute to match-up reliant battles anyway, and in the direction metagame is developing, I don't think we'll be seeing any sort of perfect balance of MU advantage; however, due to the nature of this game and team construction, I think this is intentional on the developer's part. (Maybe not on a competitive standpoint, but as a feature of the game as a whole. They want players to think abstractly and create teams that achieve balance themselves). No team can be perfect, but I think with all the new Pokemon GameFreak is developing, this is unavoidable. They'll only continue to develop more and more Pokemon, but this also means more and more room for creativity in teambuilding, and teambuilding is what makes teams effective. Yes, you can't cover every threat, but you're supposed to use what's given to you to make a team that can achieve the highest win ratio possible, a team that can overcome its weaknesses with good Battle Skills and Teammates.
If you're losing to a Match Up based disadvantage, you have to think on how your team can minimalize its loss against the specific threats, and you have to know how to play around them (no player is of equal skill level; an adavantage or disadvantage helps give one player initiative, but I do not think the metagame is so MU that a skilled player cannot still come out on top if they have both Battle and Teambuilding Skills about them).
tl;tr: MU arguments are not reasons to unban threats. They will either contribute to MU or develop centralization (which is even worse than MU). Furthermore, MU should not be something that needs to be frowned upon or scoffed at. It's part of the game. It's part of what defines a skilled player (a completely skilled player -- most players brag that they can build amazing teams but can't use them, or battle well but can't build, but you need both to be successful at this game).
Do not unban anything in an effort to fix an issue that doesn't need a solve. Do not unban Aegislash for these reasons.
I'm not trying to attack anyone with this. LightningLuxray brings up some good points, and I wasn't trying to address him in specific, but this argument as a whole. As stated, it's been around for quite a while.
I entirely agree with this. It's kind of like applying the economic principle of inflation to a metagame. I'd also add Power Creep and Speed Creep to that list. There are a whole host of game mechanics and generally harmful characteristics that we allow into our metagame albeit most of them are only observable at a meta-analysis level. If you look at individual Pokemon, it's difficult to point to the problem, but if you look at the aggregate it's rather easy to see. For comparison's sake, just look at the power creep and speed creep from BW2 to now. Back then Base 100 Spe was the golden tier. Now, it's floating somewhere between 110-15. What I'm trying to illustrate here (because I know you're probably asking, "wtf is he on about") is that there are many inherently bad characteristics to each metagame.
Where I'm going with this is that it's our job to tier things in a manner that mitigates all of these problems as much as possible. In regards to match ups, that's entirely due to new toys being introduced with each and every game (expansion or new title). I totally agree with you, Shurtugal , that Team Building is a skill in and of itself. However, there are simply TOO many threats to handle right now. In the S through A- ranks ALONE, there are over 50 Pokemon listed. Contrast that with the 6 slots Game Freak allows you to have per team. There's no way you can cover all of those ~50 PLUS the rest of the relevant metagame in 6 slots. "You could make a team that covers 49 of the 52 most relevant threats in OU." Can you do that and at the same time cover the rest of the metagame? Look, you can cover as much of the S&A ranks as you want, but you're still opening yourself up to the rest of the viable OU metagame. That's why we say there's a huge matchup problem; it's not that people aren't building teams well.
This statement assumes that both players will make the best possible plays during the course of the match. That's exactly how we tier things. We tier things based on the assumption that, in any given situation, both players are of equal skill and make the best choices available to them. Sure--you could make the most skillful plays to try and remove an element you're unprepared for, but your opponent could just as easily exploit the element he or she has to his or her advantage. "Outplay the disparity" is a double-edged sword much like "outplay the coin flip".
Bringing a blanket check down to resolve this matchup issue is absolutely a viable option. It's certainly less restrictive than banning 3-5 things. I know a lot of people are going to read that last sentence and say, "but unbanning Aegislash is more restrictive than banning 3-5 things!" Is it really? Unbanning Aegislash will certainly polarize the metagame and make certain things less viable, but it doesn't make them completely unusable. I think a lot of people are mixing up "Pokemon 'X' is not used because the metagame isn't kind to it" with, "Pokemon 'X' cannot be used ever because it has been banned". Is introducing Aegislash perhaps an "easy button" in tiering? Maybe. But just because it makes team building simpler doesn't mean it's an unhealthy move to make for the meta. All that matters is that we mitigate unhealthy aspects to our metagame as much as possible. People, I get it--the XY Aegi meta was stale. But is Smogon a community that prides itself on competition or fun?
tl;dr: Matchup is an inherent problem with Pokemon, but it absolutely can be mitigated by (re)introducing a blanket check.
I disagree. By adding something to a balanced metagame, what do you hope to achieve? A more balanced one? The idea is that releasing Aegislash will fix the current metagame.
also, if aegis shifts its set to more subtoxic/hp ice to handle a rise in a particular dragonite set, which makes the dnite set less relevant, this is not really saying anything-you do adapt your sets to meta trends, yes? In fact I see this as a good thing, that people are adapting to the meta as it moves along. I am personally of the view that the overcentralizing thing is kinda bs. You may claim that dozen of mons are running a particular move to handle Aegislash, but those are limited mainly to like "oh this and that and that have to run earthquake" which happen to hit a TON of mons anyway, and isn't even a bad coverage option.
aegislash makes other threats worse to handle- yeah that's kinda the purpose of teambuilding, and why are we not banning those threats then? if it is not Aegislash itself that is broken, release it, and suspect lopunnite-. Some Pokemon are unviable because of it, but I honestly think that this argument can go on forever, and can be said about many Pokemon. Talonflame alone makes many things unviable too.
I honestly feel that Aegislash meta would have been more fun had Lopunnite and Landorus been banned first lmao. But really, i don't see aegis as the issue in most battles.
What do we hope to achieve? Uhm. . . Isn't that apparent? If the meta were balanced right now, which it's not, Aegi or no, and we reintroduced Aegislash, we would see if Aegislash would be fitting in the meta. If it didn't, we'd keep it banned, if it did, we'd drop it. So, if the meta was balanced we would for sure know whether it is "broken" or not (notice the quotes). However, if the meta is already unbalanced as shit, you don't reintroduce a previous suspect in the hopes it will "balance it". That's the exact opposite of what we should have done. It's EVERYTHING we've gone against until this suspect. Hell, if we wanted to make an attempt to balance the Ninja meta we could have had we dropped a few things, but that sounds absolutely absurd does it not? So what the hell makes this one different? Because the suspect was controversial? Well, MegaGross' suspect had some silver lining. . . so, that shouldn't mean shit. Honestly, this was the stupidest thing we could have possibly done. So, what do you achieve? You ensure Aegislash itself is/is not "broken" instead of putting a veil over the problem and shifting the focus.
Also, Lopunny is only "broken" because of the Aegislash drop. Lando is just borked.
I disagree. By adding something to a balanced metagame, what do you hope to achieve? A more balanced one? The idea is that releasing Aegislash will fix the current metagame.
also, if aegis shifts its set to more subtoxic/hp ice to handle a rise in a particular dragonite set, which makes the dnite set less relevant, this is not really saying anything-you do adapt your sets to meta trends, yes? In fact I see this as a good thing, that people are adapting to the meta as it moves along. I am personally of the view that the overcentralizing thing is kinda bs. You may claim that dozen of mons are running a particular move to handle Aegislash, but those are limited mainly to like "oh this and that and that have to run earthquake" which happen to hit a TON of mons anyway, and isn't even a bad coverage option.
aegislash makes other threats worse to handle- yeah that's kinda the purpose of teambuilding, and why are we not banning those threats then? if it is not Aegislash itself that is broken, release it, and suspect lopunnite-. Some Pokemon are unviable because of it, but I honestly think that this argument can go on forever, and can be said about many Pokemon. Talonflame alone makes many things unviable too.
I honestly feel that Aegislash meta would have been more fun had Lopunnite and Landorus been banned first lmao. But really, i don't see aegis as the issue in most battles.
Also, the thing that Aegislash forces EQ onto things is not good as in the vast majority of cases they'd rather carry another move that isn't EQ. The prime example is Mega Heracross. It wants to run Swords Dance, but Aegislash's mere presence means that it is forced to run EQ. Other examples include megazard X, which 9/10 times would rather have Flare Blitz anyway, Mega Metagross, which means that it loses v.s. Skarmory every time due to not being able to hit it with Hammer Arm when it roosts, Dragonite, which would rather have Superpower so that it can actually do damage to BalloonTran and the uncommon Air Balloon+Magnet Rise Magnezone... the list goes on. Simply saying "oh they don't mind having EQ anyway" is pure naivety as they very rarely actually want to carry EQ in the first place due to it taking up one of their valuble moveslots which could be used on something more useful for them if Aegislash wasn't there.
Only because bulky roost isn't that common. If bulky roost with EQ becomes a thing to counter aegi (which it certainly could), then aegi could very well begin running HP ice for him, with nailing gliscor as a bonus.
Coverage moves are very rarely ran for just one pokemon.
I got reqs yesterday night, and I can say, although I do enjoy using Aegislash, i do no believe it is the answer to make the metagame better. We will just be changing problems,and Aegis dominoe effects will be too strong. SO I will vote Aegislash stay in Ubers. Its not about the 50s 50s its about its effect on the metagame as whole.
Just got reqs, I'm going to keep it short because everything has been said over and over.
I think most of us agree that the biggest problem OU has is that it is very matchup reliant with the poewrful Mega's flying around. Aegislash is very effective at checking Malaria and MMMMETA. I've found that because of this matches do become less matchup based, but at what cost? The cost that we have an even more broken Pokémon in the metagame that nothing can wall. Aegislash can 2HKO everything. His main 'check' Mandibuzz is a joke with how easy it is to lure as it is also a Defog user. Get up rocks and you can 2HKO easily with LO Flash Cannon.
It comes in on way too many things and it has way too many sets to utilize, honestly I can't think of a reason not to use it. And that's really the main thing, Aegislash can fit on any team, kinda stupid not to use it. It can get passed his counters with ease and while you're scouting for his moveset you already lost one Pokémon most likely.
So, Aegislash helps against the match-up problem OU has but it is not the answer as it is simply too good at everything it can do, even without KS.. Oops I said I would keep it short.
Since I've been seeing a lot of posts right now about matchup problems in the metagame, I feel I have to reiterate what I and a few others have said before in the thread. Matchup is simply never going to get better, and bringing something like aegislash down is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It'll help for a bit, but you'll still eventually bleed out. The matchup won't get better, because when pokemon Z or gen 7 comes out, we are going to get a whole lot of borderline overpowered megas that we will have to prepare for, and in gen 7, a bunch more non-mega threats to consider, plus new moves/abilities/items/buffs/nerfs etc. Gen 6 was the tipping point, and now everyone will have to accept that in the future, OU will be very matchup based. There will be threats like Lando-i and zard y that are impossible to switch into, and they will make it so if you don't prepare for one, you lose. If you don't like matchup, we can't keep bringing down overcentralized threats, because for one, that sets a bad example by saying, "this thing is broken and unmanageable, but we need to unban it so a bunch of other things aren't broken and unmanageable." The idea behind smogon's bans is to ban something if it is broken or overcentralizing, not bringing something back to limit it. Secondly, it won't work. Yes, aegislash may be a band-aid right now, but say in gen 7, we get 15 super threats, 10 that aegislash can stop, 5 that aegislash can't stop, but greninja can stop those 5 threats, so by the logic of this suspect, we bring back greninja, a borderline broken threat to check others (PS, I know aegislash and greninja aren't the same at all, its just an example). But if we go down this path, we will most likely either reach a point where we run out of borderline broken stuff like greninja, deo-d/s, gene, and aegislash, and the threats keep piling on, and then matchup isn't fixed, or we get a really centralized and unbalanced metagame, built around 5-8 huge threats and countering them, sort of like how ubers is about primal groudon, extreme killer arceus, xerneas, and beating those threats (I also know that isn't what ubers is about, but those guys completely centralize the tier, and if you don't have generally 2 solid checks to each, you will lose). Anyway, unbanning aegislash won't cure matchup, it'll just keep it from coming back for about a year.
TLDR: MATCHUP ISN'T GOING TO GET ANY BETTER AT ALL, STOP WHINING ABOUT IT! AEGISLASH MAY BE A SHORT-TIME SOLUTION, BUT IT WON'T HELP IN THE FUTURE.
