Alright, this is my attempt to counter the argument made by
Mur on the anti-ban side of Landorus. Mur put together a great argument, so this probably won't be successful, but here goes.
Okay some of the arguments I've been seeing have been absolutely terrible on both sides recently(except for you AM) so I'l come in and handle some of these "arguments" that have been made. Well from my observations during the suspect my opinion still stands that lando-i is broken and absolutely needs to be banned. I can't even believe I saw someone say "the meta is worse stall is more prominent" lol is this a joke?
First of all, there is a ton of generalization going on in this thread, suggesting that all-anti-ban arguments are completely invalid and idiotic, which is not the case.
just because offense does not struggle with lando-i doesn't mean it isn't broken. If we followed the logic of a mon is not broken if it can't beat every playstyle then I guess the incredibly broken and centralizing greninja should be unbanned because it can't beat stall and offense pressures it right?? Like c'mon now how is all this "it's slow just use offense because it checks it easily" even an argument?
Ok, so you are saying that even though Lando-i is pretty ineffective against a dominant playstyle, it is still broken. Has this ever been the case? Greninja had coverage to beat every so-called check or counter it faced, and no other banned suspect has really not been effective against every single playstyle. So, to conclude, Lando already isn't on par with other banned suspects because of its ineffectiveness against a major playstyle in the current meta.
It's a widespread fact on both sides that lando-i is extremely potent against balance(I'l get into the arguments being made about of how lando isn't broken against balance later) and stall alike while struggling against offense due to getting pressured to set up. The meta being forced to one particular playstyle(offense) is a sign of an unhealthy force which in this case is lando-i forcing the meta away from the more defensive playstyles.
Really? You make it sound like all the other playstyles have become extinct just because of Lando's presence. This is far from the case, and there are a lot of other reasons why balance and stall have been forced to decline other than lando. Even then, the above bolded statement is false because neither balance nor stall are rendered completely unviable because of lando, and also because the suspect ladder also consists mainly of offensive teams in spite of Lando being gone. There's more on this later.
I'll agree that the pro-ban side has been over exaggerating the rp set's ability to sweep just a little bit, but does this mean you don't prepare for it? Of course not you should be preparing for every top threat in the meta and taking into account it's other common sets. The reason that is bolded is because that sentence right there destroys all these arguments being made by whoever in this thread that is saying that if you are prepared for rp lando-i your prepared for all of them. First of all 15%(or 12% whatever is being argued) usage for a move isn't uncommon by any means and it also shows that these anti-ban posters making these arguments clearly do not have enough knowledge of the meta to even know what move slots these moves go in to give it this usage statistic. Obviously earth power, sludge wave/focus blast, and hp ice are gonna take up most of the usage because they are the standard moves run on a majority of lando-i. The fourth slot is used for either rp, knock off, rock slide, stealth rock, or calm mind so of course these moves are going to have less usage than the rest because they aren't run on every set. Honestly the fact that people are trying to argue that lando-i has more switch-ins because they handle the rp set is honestly ridiculous.
Ok, its good that you concede the fact that the pro-ban side is suggesting that the RP set is unbeatable because they honestly are. Now, as for the rest of your argument, yes it is important to take into account all of the common sets of a top threat. However, the amount of overexaggeration the RP set is getting is forcing belief that it is the most viable set in the meta and unbeatable, meaning that if you prepare for it, you are prepared for every set. While this may be false to a certain degree, it still has the basic ring of truth that you are prepared for a hard-hitting wallbreaker with a huge speed stat to go along with it. If you are prepared to be able to beat a Lando with a RP set up, you will most likely be revenge killing it, with priority users such as CB Azu and Weaville. If you bring either of these two mons, you should be able to beat any common Landorus set other than a Sub set or some random defense investment, indicating that you are prepared for all viable sets. I mean, this can obviously be interpreted from the point of view that Landorus is sacrificing one of its coverage moves, and so therefore has more switchins, meaning that you could beat it more easily, but that is only half the argument. The real argument, as stated above, has no bearing on whether you can switch in to RP Lando or not, but rather if you can revenge kill it.
This goes back to what I said about these anti-ban players voting based off their bias toward offense. Yeah maybe you don't have to prepare for AoA or cm lando as much but balance and stall sure as hell do along with rp. Please tell me how stall reliably beats calm mind and knock off lando? Tell me how lando-i isn't centralizing to balance when it takes up two whole slots just to handle both the AoA sets along with rp. That right there hits the nail in the coffin for the anti-ban side saying lando-i isn't centralizing, being forced to dedicate multiple slots of a team just to beat one mon is centralizing.
Oh, the centralization argument. First off, you acknowledge the existence of Balance and Stall as legitimate playstyles even though you stated earlier that Lando is forcing them not to exist. Second, when is any top-tier threat not considered centralizing to a certain degree? You act as though any centralization is the final word in whether a mon is bannable or not, and this isn' the case. Centralization indicates that you have to prepare for the common sets of a mon. By your logic, Keldeo would be overcentralizing because Balance, Stall, and offense have to prepare for the AoA Specs Set, Scarf Set, and Sub CM, as well as the occasional LO Taunt Set. Does the existence of all of these different sets mean Keldeo is broken and overcentralizing? Of course not. As far as the whole two slots argument goes, many teams have secondary checks to top tier threats, and it isn't usually considered overpreparation at all. Landorus is a powerful top tier threat, and it deserves to be prepared for because of its capabilities.
Now I'm also seeing the argument that lando-i is no different than any other breaker therefore it does not deserve a ban anymore than say gengar or manaphy do. First of all this is absolutely ridiculous and isn't my just my opinion, it's widely accepted lando-i is the best breaker in the tier. If lando-i was no better than mana or gengar don't you think lando would be sitting in the A+ rank with them? The viability rankings show that lando has been an S rank mon(which is higher than every other breaker) for a majority of oras. Now how can you even argue that lando-i is no different from any of the other breakers when it's been ranked higher than all of them for the entirety of the tier's life span?
I won't argue with you over the fact that Lando is the tier's best wallbreaker, but the basis of this argument is wrong. You state that Lando is proven better because it has sat in S rank for the entire period of the metagame, yet you ignore the fact the metagame trends can force changes in the viability rankings. For example, TankChomp has slowly risen since the dawn of ORAS as a bulky defensive SR setter to the position of A+ Rank, while Ferrothorn has sat in A rank the entire time. Now, some might argue that it is in A+ for its ability to run multiple sets, but its rise from A rank to A+ rank was almost entirely because of its newly discovered Tank set. As of right now, many people would argue that TankChomp is a better bulky SR setter than Ferrothorn, even though Ferrothorn was originally a more popular mon to fill that role. While their roles may differ slightly, this example is to prove that metagame trends can influence the Viability Rankings and change which mons are best at their respective roles. If a trend causes a surge in usage of Mega Latias, then Landorus will become less viable.
These incredible super-breakers in the tier are usually dealt with through the use of hazards or status to prevent them from doing too much damage to the team. For example zard-y is easily paralyzed on a seemingly free switch into clefable or ferrothorn or has it's free turns taken away from being pressured by stealth rock so it has to roost off the hazard damage. Mgarde is considered one of the most centralizing and fearsome breakers in the tier but it can easily be pressured through the use of full hazards(spikes and stealth rock) to chip off its health and by targeting it's frail defense to minimize the damage it does. Manaphy requires set-up and can be pressured when unboosted to avoid said set-up from occuring. Gengar can be para'd on the switch into clefable, gets worn down by life orb recoil, and is also extremely frail and pursuit weak. I don't think I have to go on about every breaker in the tier and how the teams they specialize in beating can stand up to them. Keep in mind i know that these mons are still hard for these defensive teams to handle I'm just stating the counter play in stopping them since all of them share a similar quality in having little that can switch into them, just trying to not make it seem like I'm downplaying them because I'm not. With that being said someone please explain to me what these teams have to fend themselves from lando-i? It's immune to twave, immune to spikes, neutral to stealth rock, takes no lo recoil bar hp ice and knock off, and has reasonable bulk that can't be exploited by very many defensive pokemon. The only way these teams have of counter-playing lando is to switch around and scout it's moveset in an attempt to find something on your team to reliably stop it from tearing through your core. I've seen people say "scouting is part of the game!" well apparently no one has taken into account the risk associated with scouting lando-i. Is switching around and as a result giving free turns to the best breaker in the meta a reliable way of counter-play? The answer should be clear to everyone that it isn't enough. Yeah, you may find that lando lacks rock slide and that your torn-t can switch into it but at what cost? You have either gone directly into torn-t praying for no rock slide and have gotten knocked off or you have switched around scouting for rock slide only to have a number of your mons take various amounts of chip damage from lando's powerful coverage options or the omnipresent stealth rock. Now what has lando risked here? Having a mon come in and resist a coverage move taking chip damage and then firing off another move to be taken by said tornadus? Very clearly the odds are skewed in favor of lando-i here and while this may be one particular situation it should be obvious that this happens very often considering it is the only "reliable" counter-play these teams have to lando-i. This is how lando-i is very different than the other breakers in the tier and how it is an extremely low risk/high reward mon.
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. However, scouting isn't nearly as hard as people make it out to be, especially the Tornadus argument you make. It really isn't that hard- switch into Torn-T on an Earth Power and then switch into a Rock Resist on the presumed rock slide. Based on the results, Lando is going to lack a certain coverage move. If this only applies to Stall or Balance, then any mons that take chip damage should be able to heal it off later.
"Being forced to run one of the few breakers" is this a joke? If you know anything about the meta you'd know that there is a surplus of breakers in the tier and even worse you make it sound as if having to run a breaker is some sort of centralizing symptom of removing lando-i. Like is this a joke? Breakers have been mandatory roles in offensive cores since the birth of competitive pokemon. You're forced to run breakers even with lando-i in the tier so I really have no idea what your trying to say here.
Alright, so there is a surplus of breakers in the tier, yet Lando-I is still overcentralizing to you. If Lando was actually as overcentralizing as you made it seem, then there would be no need to run any other wallbreakers other than it. Obvously it doesn't outclass everything in its role because the other breakers in the tier still are very viable. The idea of bannable overcentralization would imply that the metagame has deteriorated into stale battles where every team includes Landorus as its mandatory breaker and teams are filled with Lando, Lando's checks/counters, and checks/counters to Lando's checks/counters. Obviously this isn't the case as a lot of threats are still extremely viable, and many teams do not include Landorus as their mandatory wallbreaker.
Also, the decline of balance isn't only due to the rise of Landorus, even though it is a factor. The rise of TG Manaphy, as well as the presence of Torn-T, Kyu-B and other balance breakers. As it turns out, there are numerous factors that cause the decline of balance, with Lando being only one of them. A metagame without Landorus will end up having an even higher density of the above threats to compensate for Landorus being gone.
So there you have it. Many of the problems associated with Landorus are really exaggerated and inflated until people believe that Lando is 6-0ing stall and single-handedly killing balance, which really isn't the case, at least in my opinion.
No ban.