Okay, since there is quite the support for this, let me try and summarize and delineate the issues properly and separate the policy questions. I know historically these kinds of proposals are quickly shutdown so I want to make an actual case. For context, I'm approaching this as an old gen council member myself and as a RoA lead, but also as someone who has researched & discussed this with Shiloh extensively, tried to do stuff in the past, and recently restructured ORAS's (OU) by using tournament-based usage, done just 3 months ago
here (This was like a year long process of getting approval and finding someone who can compile tournament usage).
Let us first discuss what the tiering policy for old gens actually is. And this is our first problem, because there is no one thread explaining this to my knowledge and if there is, it is difficult to locate. In fact most people do not know the general framework of old gen tiering, including me when I reached out to Shiloh and he educated me, and including some of my fellow ORAS council members very recently when we did the tournament-based usage mentioned above. And some people in this thread seem to be confused as well. For reference, here is the
modern and
outdated threads of the tiering policy framework, which is super general and does not mention old gens.
So, let me explain the tiering policy for old gens here, and this is to the best of my ability using the following resources: my private conversation with Shiloh where he explained it to me,
this,
this, this, and
this policy review threads. There is also difference between Old Gen OU, Old Gen Lower Tiers (henceforth called OGLTs) that were established (e.g. ADV UU), and OGLTs that were created later (e.g. GSC NU). I will mostly tackle the first one and some of the second one, the third one is beyond me.
The Pillars of Old Gen Tiering
1. Tiering for old generations is split
I. Generations 1-3 whose historical tiering predates modern usage-based tiering.
A. RBY is purely viability-based tiering.
B. GSC & ADV permit revisions through council-based decisions.
II. Generations 4 & after with modern ladder-based usage.
A. Historical usage-based boundaries between tiers are established. Neither changes in usage or viability nor council decisions can reopen these boundaries on their own.
B. (OU) or OU by technicality represents Pokemon that have fallen off in popularity from OU without being legal in UU.
C. BL Pokemon belong to the tier below but they are banned. This distinction establishes which tier has the right to re-test BL Pokemon. For example, Volcarona remains UUBL (and not OU despite substantial usage and viability), so that ORAS UU retains the ability and option to re-test Volcarona to UU.
2. Tiers are frozen (e.g. historical boundaries are preserved), but not locked. This is for the second category, generations 4 & after.
I. Council of a tier are allowed to make changes through policy review and voting (ex: ORAS OU recently banned King's Rock).
II. Why? As I understand it, this is done for stability and continouity. It makes the tier a known entity with specified borders. Even if there are strategic developments, the borders remain mostly permanent.
III. One perceived benefit is to make it easier for players to pick up the tier and for ex-players to relearn it.
3. New bans are tier specific and do not automatically translate to lower tiers.
I. For example, King's Rock banned from ORAS OU but its still allowed in UU and the tiers below. Tiering decisions in one tier does not autoamtically affect the tiers below it like in current gen.
^ There are things I am not 100% sure of so feel free to correct me.
There are two separate questions
1. Preserve freeze, allow for narrow exceptions
This is what I was proposing in the OP, not a universal unfreeze or an overhaul of the entire system. I am talking about Pokemon whose historical tier placement materially depended on access to a tool or a strategy, that was subsequently restricted by a post-freeze tiering decision, and thus rendering their historical usage no longer representative of the version that is legal today. Essentially, a rule change that fundamentally changed the defining basis for their historical placement.
I am NOT talking about Pokemon that were once viable like Raikou or Starmie in ORAS that have fell below modern OU standards, or Pokemon whose older strategies became less effective or less popular through ordinary metagame development (e.g. Electavire in DPP OU).
These Pokemon I am talking about, I will distinguish in three categories:
A. Pokemon that were hit by a
direct post-freeze ability nerf which is banned across all usage-based tiers.
- Dugtrio in ORAS OU - Arena Trap banned later and across all the usage-based tiers.
- Dugtrio in BW OU - Arena Trap banned later and across all the usage-based tiers.
- Venusaur in BW OU - Chlorophyll + Drought banned later in OU, and functionally across all the usage-based tiers as drought is banned.
- Abomasnow in BW UU - Snow Warning banned later from UU.
B. Pokemon that were hit by a
direct post-freeze ability nerf which is
not banned across all usage-based tiers.
- Gothitelle in BW OU - Shadow Tag banned later, but NOT across all usage-based tiers (Gothorita with Shadow Tag is allowed in NU).
C. Restrictions on a strategy that significantly contributed to historical placement.
- Espeon in BW OU - Baton Pass clause introduced later and exists across tiers, which was a major contribution to why it was OU
- Vaporeon in BW OU - Baton Pass clause introduced later and exists across tiers, which was a major contribution to why it was OU
These cases share a specific issue. Their historical placement reflects access to tools or strategies that later-tiering decisions removed. I am not talking about Azelf who is ORAS (OU) who did not lose access to anything, but simply lost its place in the metagame. I am talking about something akin to banning Huge Power from ORAS OU and then keeping Azumarill in (OU) without allowing its actual tier placement to be reconsidered.
Category A & C should be considered to drop. Meeting the criterion I set above should justify reviewing its placement, just not automatically (Category B is a good example why). Category B requires separate consideration, because obviously we don't want to drop Shadow Tag Gothitelle in lower tiers. Probably just keep it there in UUBL for now, and can give lower tiers their own option to ban shadow tag and drop goth.
This is a worthwhile endeavor for three reasons. One, it can always happen to future metagames and setting this precedent can be an important progression in our tiering policy framework towards old gens. Second, I think historical placement should retain a reasonable connection to the Pokemon actually legal today. When our own later-decisions sever that connection, there should be a narrowly defined way to reconsider it. Third, it gives lower tiers tools that they should be entitled to.
2. A broad, partial unfreeze
This suggestion is a major overhaul of old gen tiering, and I think a worthwhile discussion to have at the very least.
How it Would Work
1. A switch from historical ladder usage-based tiering to modern tournament usage-based tiering for older gens
I. There is a script that can compile tournament usage, we would just need like objective way to determine sufficient tournament usage. Like minimum sample size, which tournaments count, usage cutoff, etc.
2. Continue to freeze rises, but unfreeze drops
I. I think this a reasonable start and a way where we could get lower tiers on board to limit destabilization
II. Drops can still destabilize tiers, but can always be quick banned or held by council
3. Could start doing this one tier a time per generation
Reasons to Consider
1. A chance to experiment: the majority of 2027 will be a quiet year and can be a trial period
2. Community interest: I think we underestimate how many old-gen lower tier players would be willing to put effort into testing and experimenting with new tools. This could begin with communities that actively want to participate
3. It’s fun: this could bring new interest and variety to established tiers. That is not enough on its own to justify a change, but I think it is a legitimate benefit alongside a workable tiering process.
Conclusion
I think (1) should happen for sure, as it is a narrow and reasonable exception. I also think it would be a good idea to have a separate discussion on (2) at this pivotal time we find ourselves in and as old gens absorb gen 9.
