I think what happened was that unbanning Venusaur made Sun a popular playstyle again, that now it works much better with the new threats added Post-DLC (For example, Magic Bounce Hatterene makes Specs Zard viable, without the need to run HDB)I'm probably in the minority but I think this is the right decision. It's too soon to say that drought is broken when one of it's best abusers just got released. The discussion for drought being banned wasn't even that talked about when venasaur was still in UUBL as much as it is now
It's mostly due to the fact that no one really tried out Choice Specs Charizard before Venusaur was unbanned mostly because nobody really thought about it. The Venusaur unban just brought to light the fact that it wasn't the only powerful abuser under Sun. Charizard must be considered as a full-fledged wallbreaker under Sun. A few days ago, before the results on the votes, I was already testing Sun teams and Charizard was really showing itself as a first-class threat even without Venusaur. It's not because Charizard slipped right under the radar for a couple of months that it's not broken and shouldn't be considered as an issue and as Just_Aaron said, it now has some insanely great teammates like Hatterene or Teleport Blissey.I'm probably in the minority but I think this is the right decision. It's too soon to say that drought is broken when one of it's best abusers just got released. The discussion for drought being banned wasn't even that talked about when venasaur was still in UUBL as much as it is now
It's mostly due to the fact that no one really tried out Choice Specs Charizard before Venusaur was unbanned mostly because nobody really thought about it. The Venusaur unban just brought to light the fact that it wasn't the only powerful abuser under Sun. Charizard must be considered as a full-fledged wallbreaker under Sun. A few days ago, before the results on the votes, I was already testing Sun teams and Charizard was really showing itself as a first-class threat even without Venusaur. It's not because Charizard slipped right under the radar for a couple of months that it's not broken and shouldn't be considered as an issue and as Just_Aaron said, it now has some insanely great teammates like Hatterene or Teleport Blissey.
But the thing is Venusaur isn't that broken without Sun, and manual sun is honestly worse than sun in its current state. The fact that you have an ability than can auto-set Sun for 8 turns (with Heat Rock) is really unhealthy for the metagame as that is why Venu and Charizard as of now are genuinely impossible to counter, and that leads to why Sun as an archetype is being brought up as potentially broken.Y'know i think you're right in saying that people just now realized the potential of charizard.I'd be lying if I said I realized the potential of choice specs solar powered charizard before venasaur got unbanned.However I still personally believe banning venasuar at least right now would be the best course of decision. If sun still proves to be a problem then I wouldn't disagree with anything the UU council does after that wether that would be banning charizard or just banning drought entirely.
But the thing is Venusaur isn't that broken without Sun, and manual sun is honestly worse than sun in its current state. The fact that you have an ability than can auto-set Sun for 8 turns (with Heat Rock) is really unhealthy for the metagame as that is why Venu and Charizard as of now are genuinely impossible to counter, and that leads to why Sun as an archetype is being brought up as potentially broken.
The thing is: without Zard and Venusaur, is Sun viable?
I mean, if we ban those two would Sun still be used? Because in the other hand if Drought gets banned at least manual Sun would be worth the shot because of how dangerous the aforementioned mons are under the Sun
I think banning individual pokemon that abuse a specific archetype is the worst thing and should never be done unless all else fails. Venusaur and Charizard can exist in UU just fine with zero problems without Drought. So if banning Drought means we are keeping two pokemon in the meta, then I think it's better to ban Drought than to load up on more UUBLs. In fact they would even make the UU meta more interesting with people using manual sun teams that aren't as broken as drought. The more variety of options available (that are not totally broken), the more interesting things will be.
I think is worth to mention that Torkoal and Ninetal would definitely rise to UU, so what happens in the lower tiers with Drought doesn't really matters (Besides, I think PU and NU already banned Drought...)You also need t keep in mind banning an ability makes any other users of said ability unusable in lower tiers. Banning Venusaur dosen't ban Ivysur in RU/NU/PU. Banning Drought removes it from any other pokemon. An ability ban does far more damage overall.
The argument here is where do you draw the line?
I would say for sure; if the choice is banning 1 pokemon to preserve an entire ability/playstyle; the answer is to ban the pokemon, as that is clearly the broken area. It's the old 'Speed Boost Blaziken' issue. Speed Boost didn't get banned; Yanmega and Ninjask were not broken, only Blaziken was. If Drought minus Venusaur [or Charizard] is fine, then Drought should remain.
But is a whole team archetype worth banning 2 pokemon? 3? Banning an Ability+Ability combo and several pokemon like Drizzle in Gen 5 OU [Which was still the dominant, and often rather autopilot; playstyle]?
Where is this cutoff where you say the playstyle-enableing ability itself is the problem and not the specific abuser?
I mean, I'd 100% say ban 1 pokemon over an entire playstyle-enableing ability. I'd probobly support 2 pokemon, if it was clear that those two pokemon were so above the cut it made sense. I'd really start heitsateing at 3 pokemon however.
You also need t keep in mind banning an ability makes any other users of said ability unusable in lower tiers. Banning Venusaur dosen't ban Ivysur in RU/NU/PU. Banning Drought removes it from any other pokemon. An ability ban does far more damage overall.
For me, there is no specific line to be drawn. You just have to look at the whole situation and see what the main issue is. If only one or two pokemon are very OP with the ability (Venusaur and Charizard), but 3-4 others are still very very good with it, then you probably need to ban the ability that is enabling the playstyle to move forward.
But, there's another issue with banning things like Venusaur + Charizard instead of Drought. An argument can be made that, by NOT banning Drought and instead banning Venusaur and Charizard, you are actually KILLING sun teams because nobody will really think it's worth to run a sun team without either of those two. While there other things like Shiftry/Heliolisk that can do good damage, it just isn't that much of a threat compared to having Venusaur + Charizard. But if you keep Venusaur + Charizard, you can still have sun teams using Sunny Day + Heat Rock on a support pokemon, and still keep things interesting. I think a lot of people will still try to use sun teams with Sunny Day as long as they can use Venusaur and Charizard with it, and it would be a lot more manageable and less centralizing.
So, by trying to save sun teams and banning a pokemon instead of Drought, you may actually be hurting the entire sun team archetype by removing the pokemon that make it viable. That is what I think should be considered moreso than "how many does it take" etc. The most important thing to me is to promote a variety of options, as long as they are all reasonable and not broken.