That's a bit too niche to actually be any good otherwise. In what other situation would you want to trick a Ring Target onto anything else, bar maybe Gengar or Cofragigus, and then hit it with a low priority move? It'd work on Aegislash but giving up the one pokemon just to deal with it is pretty much why this Suspect Test is for it.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
np: XY OU Suspect Testing Round 5 - Ghost of Perdition
- Thread starter gr8astard
- Start date
- Status
So, I tested a little bit a team on the suspect ladder, got to like top 30 with it, and I gotta say Aegislash is indeed one of the most centralizing Pokémon in the game. It just feels like a new meta without it, because people actually want to use mons, which are completely walled by Aegislash. Sure, Mega Mawile and Mega Heracross are still annoying as hell, but they still are not in every second team and they are not that hard to handle.
I like how a got to use a simple Alakazam and sweep teams with it, just because I did not have to fear a defensive monster, which doesn't even care to switch in non-Stab Shadow Balls and just wreck everything frail with a Shadow Sneak. Also, Stall is kinda easier to handle, even though you may think it absolutely has nothing to do with Aegislash. It does. Without it, people use these stallbreaking Megas like Heracross or Meditalis, and other peoples teams change to deal with those. Fairy types are used more often especially Mega Gardevoir, which is really good because it is kinda harder to use Excadrill in sand (more threats for Tyranitar), so sometimes you have to rely on things like Scizor. It's like a chain reaction caused by simply banning a centralizing Pokémon like Aegislash, which indeed is not very hard to counter, but that is not the point.
In my opinion it's the hardest decision for a suspect test yet, because Aegi does not necessarily deserve a ban, there are a lot of good points which made that already clear, but it's role in the meta is very fixed and does influence general teambuilding.
I like how a got to use a simple Alakazam and sweep teams with it, just because I did not have to fear a defensive monster, which doesn't even care to switch in non-Stab Shadow Balls and just wreck everything frail with a Shadow Sneak. Also, Stall is kinda easier to handle, even though you may think it absolutely has nothing to do with Aegislash. It does. Without it, people use these stallbreaking Megas like Heracross or Meditalis, and other peoples teams change to deal with those. Fairy types are used more often especially Mega Gardevoir, which is really good because it is kinda harder to use Excadrill in sand (more threats for Tyranitar), so sometimes you have to rely on things like Scizor. It's like a chain reaction caused by simply banning a centralizing Pokémon like Aegislash, which indeed is not very hard to counter, but that is not the point.
In my opinion it's the hardest decision for a suspect test yet, because Aegi does not necessarily deserve a ban, there are a lot of good points which made that already clear, but it's role in the meta is very fixed and does influence general teambuilding.
Jaiho
bandy legged troll
since Amoonguss is usually a replacement for M-Venu on stall teams using another mega, by running max SpDef, you lose to the other big threat it is supposed to beat: BD Azumarill
To try preventing extensive redundancy, I'll try to counter only a couple of these claims.
Sometimes mispredicting whether or not the opponent will use Sucker Punch will also cost you the match. This type of scenario arises plenty of times in matches. It boils down to predicting the opponent to use a certain move vs predicting them to not use that move. While it's certainly not always able to be logically predicted (Sometimes can be read if you read your opponent well), it's part of the game and trying to erase all situations like these would be erasing a rather large part of the competitive metagame. The difference between something like Kings Shield vs no Kings Shield and Swagger is that Swagger is a complete hax factor unable to be predicted, while Kings Shield or basically any other move that has the potential to shift momentum in that game can be thought of as "What is the safe move vs the risk move?"
Also, EQ isn't suboptimal on a lot of Pokemon. Ground coverage is pretty great on a lot of them since Ground is a nice offensive type. Not to mention some of its users get quite a nice STAB from it.
"Lack of Counters":
As someone stated earlier, a lot of commonly used Pokemon nowadays do not have absolute counters to any possible set given. It's more necessary to be able to cover the most common sets (And I believe in Aegislash's case currently, this would be mixed attacker with Shadow Ball) than the less common sets. No team is perfect, no team can cover everything. Using that as a reason to ban a Pokemon is discouraging the discovery of new viable sets of any given Pokemon.
"Overcentralizing":
You know what else is almost mandatory to prepare for? Talonflame, Greninja, Mega Charizard-Y (X can catch one off guard too), Scizor (To an extent), Conkeldurr, Bisharp, Azumarill, etc. Having to bring an answer for commonly used Pokemon doesn't necessarily mean said Pokemon is broken. It's just common sense to want to cover what is most common. And besides, you also don't need something on your team solely for Aegislash. Though this experience is outdated now, I'll give an example that has happened to me:
I normally don't face many Aegislash. Whenever I have, they're most commonly physical sets. I once activated the Weakness Policy of an enemy Aegislash with my Conk, and then decided to hard-switch out into my defensive Landorus-T. I switched because in order to prevent me from 2HKOing it, it had to Kings Shield as Conk was pretty healthy and Shadow Ball wasn't killing from that range. I was correct in guessing it was physical and it did pitiful damage to me. I threatened it entirely at that point (Given I know that I wouldn't have taken it so well if it was mixed or special). And this Landorus-T wasn't on the team to deal with Aegislash; it was on to be a defensive pivot able to get rocks up while being able to deal nice damage.
My point in sharing this is that it isn't highly necessary to use something that ONLY checks/counters Aegislash because most of the Pokes that do can contribute more than that to the team.
"50/50s":
Sometimes mispredicting whether or not the opponent will use Sucker Punch will also cost you the match. This type of scenario arises plenty of times in matches. It boils down to predicting the opponent to use a certain move vs predicting them to not use that move. While it's certainly not always able to be logically predicted (Sometimes can be read if you read your opponent well), it's part of the game and trying to erase all situations like these would be erasing a rather large part of the competitive metagame. The difference between something like Kings Shield vs no Kings Shield and Swagger is that Swagger is a complete hax factor unable to be predicted, while Kings Shield or basically any other move that has the potential to shift momentum in that game can be thought of as "What is the safe move vs the risk move?"
Also, EQ isn't suboptimal on a lot of Pokemon. Ground coverage is pretty great on a lot of them since Ground is a nice offensive type. Not to mention some of its users get quite a nice STAB from it.
"Lack of Counters":
As someone stated earlier, a lot of commonly used Pokemon nowadays do not have absolute counters to any possible set given. It's more necessary to be able to cover the most common sets (And I believe in Aegislash's case currently, this would be mixed attacker with Shadow Ball) than the less common sets. No team is perfect, no team can cover everything. Using that as a reason to ban a Pokemon is discouraging the discovery of new viable sets of any given Pokemon.
"Overcentralizing":
You know what else is almost mandatory to prepare for? Talonflame, Greninja, Mega Charizard-Y (X can catch one off guard too), Scizor (To an extent), Conkeldurr, Bisharp, Azumarill, etc. Having to bring an answer for commonly used Pokemon doesn't necessarily mean said Pokemon is broken. It's just common sense to want to cover what is most common. And besides, you also don't need something on your team solely for Aegislash. Though this experience is outdated now, I'll give an example that has happened to me:
I normally don't face many Aegislash. Whenever I have, they're most commonly physical sets. I once activated the Weakness Policy of an enemy Aegislash with my Conk, and then decided to hard-switch out into my defensive Landorus-T. I switched because in order to prevent me from 2HKOing it, it had to Kings Shield as Conk was pretty healthy and Shadow Ball wasn't killing from that range. I was correct in guessing it was physical and it did pitiful damage to me. I threatened it entirely at that point (Given I know that I wouldn't have taken it so well if it was mixed or special). And this Landorus-T wasn't on the team to deal with Aegislash; it was on to be a defensive pivot able to get rocks up while being able to deal nice damage.
My point in sharing this is that it isn't highly necessary to use something that ONLY checks/counters Aegislash because most of the Pokes that do can contribute more than that to the team.
Last edited:
I've said this before but the previously banned pokemon/megas, and the ability to 6-0 teams with no effort, are not the baseline for what is broken. Mega Gengar/Mom/Luke are overpowered to an absurd extent, and so is Blaziken. Deo-S and D aren't quite so broken but they're still cancer; also ubers is their home planet anyway, they're were they belong.
After playing quite a bit on both ladders, it's interesting how the meta on the OU ladder has been completely shaped by Aegislash. The suspect ladder is completely different from standard in that the diversity in the suspect ladder far outclasses that of the standard. As someone else said, it's likely that people are just hyped to try out things that typically get crapped on by Aegislash. In regard to whether or not Aegislash is broken/unhealthy in the current meta, I'm strongly leaning towards yes. Being able to switch between base 150 defenses and offenses with a Protect on steroids is already really strong, but I feel that the ease with which it deals with the things that check it push it over the edge. There are a number of pokemon that are able to check the most common mixed shadow ball set, but some of its other sets, especially sub-toxic, SD, and even headsmash are all very viable and can wreck most of its typical switch-ins. I don't think the 50/50s created by king's shield with contact moves is really that significant in the grand scheme of things, but it's just icing on the cake, really.
I've seen a few comments that essentially say that Aegislash is just a top notch pokemon, and thus shouldn't be banned. I'm really not a fan of using that line of reasoning as an excuse to justify a pokemon that is simply too powerful. 5th gen Scizor was a top notch pokemon, but it has very consistent, exploitable weaknesses despite it. Aegislash is much more than that. Whether or not a pokemon is a top tier pick isn't especially important when discussing whether or not it's banworthy. Why a pokemon is top tier is what we look at. 5th gen Scizor was top tier because it was a great pokemon that offered a lot of utility and had great offensive presence. Aegislash is a top tier pokemon because it forces the entire meta to cater to it or get bent over.
I've seen a few comments that essentially say that Aegislash is just a top notch pokemon, and thus shouldn't be banned. I'm really not a fan of using that line of reasoning as an excuse to justify a pokemon that is simply too powerful. 5th gen Scizor was a top notch pokemon, but it has very consistent, exploitable weaknesses despite it. Aegislash is much more than that. Whether or not a pokemon is a top tier pick isn't especially important when discussing whether or not it's banworthy. Why a pokemon is top tier is what we look at. 5th gen Scizor was top tier because it was a great pokemon that offered a lot of utility and had great offensive presence. Aegislash is a top tier pokemon because it forces the entire meta to cater to it or get bent over.
Guys, one thing, if you remove a pokemon that has over 20% usage, OF COURSE the ladder is going to be different. Banning a pokemon because it will make the game "feel different" is not right. If that's a criterium, then we have to ban things every few months just to make the meta different.
Oh wait, aren't we already doing that?
Oh wait, aren't we already doing that?
Last edited:
Sry, I forgot to elaborate on this a bit more.
I wasn't saying that Heatran would be a hard counter to Pinsir if it didn't carry EQ, because even without EQ, it would still have CC, as you just mentioned.
Also, I wasn't saying Rest was a reliable recovery, I'm saying not including those because some people with half a brain tend to mention Rest as a reliable recovery.
Just clearing that up for ya.
I must disagree completely with this, first off yes the 50/50 can lose the aegislash but it can also win the entire game. Not only this but aegislash has TONS of sets-sub-toxic, autotomize, swords dance, fast life orb, wallbreaker and so on. You can't say theres 1 single counter to any set, mandibuzz for example loses to head smash and can't do shit to sub-toxic and the only one that can possibly come close is maybe bisharp which CANNOT switch in and if you mispredict loses anyways. Also the pokemon you listed have common counters and yes you have to prepare for them but most of the time you can beat them anyways. Aegislash legit made 1/2 of the old ou fall down a tier as well as tons of pokemon rise up for 1 POKEMON. Not only this but these so called counters don't even beat it 100% of the time. Also compared to last gen sooo many more people are running super effective moves just for it. Overall Aegislash is making a way less diverse metagame and is clearly overcentralizing can beat it's so called counters and deserves uber. Honestly saying you can predict king's shield doesnt mean you beat it.
as someone who also hates stall, "what do we have to lose by killing a playstyle" is a pretty bad argument
I agree. Removing Aegislash disturbs the balance of the meta-game. Its typing keeps a number of deadly threats in check. If the goal of this suspect test is to maximize the balance in the game, the only acceptable vote is no ban. Moreover, while Aegislash serves an important defensive role, its offensive abilities, albeit strong, are not overbearing. Thanks to its poor speed and inability to attack in succession (since it is extremely frail in blade-forme), Aegislash cannot pose an offensive threat to a team the same way Mawile, Medicham, and other deadly sweepers can.
Rotosect
Banned deucer.
"Aegislash without King's Shield is not broken!"
"Darkrai without Dark Void is not broken!"
"Giratina without Rest is not broken!"
Look, I agree that Aegi is far from ubers material, but this "just ban KS" argument needs to stop.
Ok, so...
No, removing Aegislash wouldn't remove the metagame's balance. You guys talk like every stall team needs one, when, in fact, it doesn't. Mega Heracross, Mega Gardevoir and Mega Medicham are already great stallbreakers, and if removing Aegislash means they'll get better then this is something positive, because they are almost never seen in competitive play. A metagame with variety is something good, not bad. Aegislash is not seen on every stall team. There are things that still check / counter the above threats, and if you can't think of any then you're probably not a stall player. There are several stall teams without Aegislash, I can make a list if you want. The argument that "Mega Heracross with Swords Dance instead of Earthquake will 6-0 stall teams" is silly, because I can make a team with Swords Dance Mega Heracross + Pursuit Bisharp right now and I'm 100% sure I won't 6-0 stall all the time, because Aegislash is not the only thing that stops these threats. Like I said on my first post, this Pokémon simply dominates both offensively and defensively, and this is just stupid. It has 150 base in 4 different stats, which makes it not only hard to kill, but hard to switch into. In fact, Aegislash itself can be a bitch against stall teams, considering there are almost no counters to the SubToxic set and almost no switch-in to the offensive LO set. Aegislash does not make the metagame better, it makes it much worse. It forces Pokémon to use stupid coverage moves and change their spreads so it can tank it. I don't think a metagame where things like Mega Pinsir, Mega Medicham, Mega Heracross and Mega Gardevoir get more space is something bad, I think it's something good. People nowadays only use Mega Mawile, Mega Gyarados and Mega Zard X, and this is not a cool tier to play. Banning Deoxys-S and Deoxys-D made stall a lot better, but no one can deny they were broken.
No, removing Aegislash wouldn't remove the metagame's balance. You guys talk like every stall team needs one, when, in fact, it doesn't. Mega Heracross, Mega Gardevoir and Mega Medicham are already great stallbreakers, and if removing Aegislash means they'll get better then this is something positive, because they are almost never seen in competitive play. A metagame with variety is something good, not bad. Aegislash is not seen on every stall team. There are things that still check / counter the above threats, and if you can't think of any then you're probably not a stall player. There are several stall teams without Aegislash, I can make a list if you want. The argument that "Mega Heracross with Swords Dance instead of Earthquake will 6-0 stall teams" is silly, because I can make a team with Swords Dance Mega Heracross + Pursuit Bisharp right now and I'm 100% sure I won't 6-0 stall all the time, because Aegislash is not the only thing that stops these threats. Like I said on my first post, this Pokémon simply dominates both offensively and defensively, and this is just stupid. It has 150 base in 4 different stats, which makes it not only hard to kill, but hard to switch into. In fact, Aegislash itself can be a bitch against stall teams, considering there are almost no counters to the SubToxic set and almost no switch-in to the offensive LO set. Aegislash does not make the metagame better, it makes it much worse. It forces Pokémon to use stupid coverage moves and change their spreads so it can tank it. I don't think a metagame where things like Mega Pinsir, Mega Medicham, Mega Heracross and Mega Gardevoir get more space is something bad, I think it's something good. People nowadays only use Mega Mawile, Mega Gyarados and Mega Zard X, and this is not a cool tier to play. Banning Deoxys-S and Deoxys-D made stall a lot better, but no one can deny they were broken.
I'd much rather get a 1.3 power boost to all my attacks and forfeit investment in HP and have a colbur berry, which could be totally useless against some opponents, and get to run some hp.
Again, I just as easily could have used infernape as an example: Dragonite is a pretty good stop to Infernape, what if it runs hp ice or stone edge? you're basically done yipee.
I'm comparing aegislash to a versatile mon, and showing you how much LESS versatile aegislash is than a versatile mon. I don't see whats wrong with that.
Aegislash as a pursuit trapper is pretty sub par, it doesn't even kill latias as its switching out.
As I said earlier, unless the items are radically different and effect the actual choice of moves, (choice band vs choice specs) items really don't add much to versatility.
My definition of versatile is determined by how many pokemon can take you on comfortably. Despite your "exceptional offensive and defensive capabilitiyes...great as a wall breaker and a staller" mandibuzz is still an extremely powerful check to it and can switch-into 90% of everything aegislash can do. I don't care about what aegislash does, if a pokemon can still switch into it and handle it easily, then it's really not that versatile.
Listen pal i'm not tryna be condescending but you made talonflame seem as frail as sharpedo or something, if you were aware of/used bulk up talonflame, I doubt you would've described it like that.
Did you know that a burned scizor can beat rotom-w 1v1. Besides, aegislash still has to play a bunch of 50/50s with mega scizor as a burned +6 knock off will still do some big damage.
and jirachi is not complete ass, it may see some usage on the suspect ladder b/c aegislash is gone! Its other enemy, bisharp, will also drastically drop in usage because it often just helps the team by pursuit trapping aegislash for SD Mega hera/Mega Garde/Mega zam/mega cham etc etc. I mean half the reason to use bisharp rn is to just eliminate aegislash really, the other half is to abuse defiant and with deoxys gone, there's not going to be much of that either.
Not to mention tyranitar is far better at pursuit trapping lati@s than bisharp is.
Seriously, take a moment to consider why the king of BW OU was so bad in XY. In conjunction with steel's nerf, it was the rise of aegislash and bisharp that ultimately made it subpar. With those two largely gone from the meta, jirachi is a legitimate threat to prepare for.
Also, considering there are like two mons that can even take hits from mega gardevoir safely, and that one of them is a mega (zor), I'd think that jirachi is a perfectly respectable option if you don't wanna get your entire team shit on by mega gardevoir, which will probably be very common on the suspect ladder :I Unless you wanna rely on chansey ofc :/
Seriously outside of metagross, mega zor, and jirachi, what pokemon can even stomach its attacks?
Aegislash is the easiest mon to fit in any team so the first part doesn't really apply to the argument anyway.
And I never said that aegislash wasn't the most viable of mega cham's/garde's checks (AEgislash can't switch into fire punch, not a counter).
I don't really think aegislash is really a great mon to pressure the use of HJK in the first place considering how risky it is to switch into a fire punch.
Honestly for offensive teams i'd rather rely on revenge killing them than trying to stomach their hits, because especially with mega medicham, if your opponent predicts and nails a fire punch, you lose the glue of your team. And slowbro is gaining tons of popularity fast; besides just b/c a pokemon isn't used often doesn't mean its bad.
And are you seriously suggesting the only purpose of using mew or slowbro is to check mega cham???
They do so much more besides that hello
I'm going to post here (with a bit of a long-ish post) with the hope that some of you can at least see where I am coming from, even if you don't agree with all or part of what I say. I've consolidated the post with hide tags, but that is purely for aesthetic reasons. Please read them as well, as they transition and make important points.
Note that, since Gen 3 (when there were 386 pokemon), all a battler has had to use is 6 Pokemon slots, each of which can have 1 ability, 1 trait, 1 item, and 4 move slots. Now let's look at how many Pokemon (ignoring added items, moves, and abilities for now) have been added since: gen 3 386 -> gen 4 492 (increase of 96) -> gen 5 649 (increase of 263 since gen 3) -> gen 6 721 (increase of 335 since gen 3). While our ability to handle threats has been limited and remained static, the number of threats we have to deal with has only increased.
What does this mean? To summarize, we have continually added to the set of strategies and tools we have to prepare for, but we have kept the ability to respond to those strategies static.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO HOW I AM APPROACHING TIERING IN THIS GENERATION.
So now, Aegislash. Where am I on Aegislash? At the moment, after experienced both ladders for a bit, I am for ban.
Allow me to explain myself.
So now, the determination for ban. To me, being forced to guess any number of Aegislash sets with the prospect of losing a Pokemon if I guess wrong, being forced to guess in the arbitrary King's Shield skewed 50/50 again with the prospect of losing a Pokemon if I guess wrong, in combination with Aegislash's general utility and effectiveness lead me to believe it is broken. To deal with Aegislash, I can't simply have a counter. I need to have multiple checks as well as God-Given skill at arbitrarily guessing. I only have 6 Pokemon to win and 24 total moves to use, I can't afford to dedicate so many of those slots to safely handle Aegislash.
That's why, at the moment, I am voting Ban. I understand this is a very controversial stance to take, but I firmly believe it is for the best. You are obviously welcome to disagree, but I am merely stating were I am coming from so you can see what exactly the issue is for me.
First, a little general background before going into Aegislash specifically. I've been involved in Smogon tiering in Gen 4 (helped design and participated in the Gen 4 OU and UU processes), Gen 5 (introduced the idea of being open to complex bans for exceptional or "metagame-defining" concepts), and now Gen 6 (on-going). It's important to note that as generations have changed, so to have our approaches to tiering.
In Gens 4 and 5 we approached banning with a simple-to-state-if-not-simple-to-define concept, namely, "only ban if individually broken." What does broken mean? This was obviously nebulous, often vague, and contributed to many of the passionate debates over the years. I don't want to focus on this definition of broken because I feel Gen 5 was a true transition point for how we approach broken in terms of tiering.
In Gens 4 and 5 we approached banning with a simple-to-state-if-not-simple-to-define concept, namely, "only ban if individually broken." What does broken mean? This was obviously nebulous, often vague, and contributed to many of the passionate debates over the years. I don't want to focus on this definition of broken because I feel Gen 5 was a true transition point for how we approach broken in terms of tiering.
Note that, since Gen 3 (when there were 386 pokemon), all a battler has had to use is 6 Pokemon slots, each of which can have 1 ability, 1 trait, 1 item, and 4 move slots. Now let's look at how many Pokemon (ignoring added items, moves, and abilities for now) have been added since: gen 3 386 -> gen 4 492 (increase of 96) -> gen 5 649 (increase of 263 since gen 3) -> gen 6 721 (increase of 335 since gen 3). While our ability to handle threats has been limited and remained static, the number of threats we have to deal with has only increased.
What does this mean? To summarize, we have continually added to the set of strategies and tools we have to prepare for, but we have kept the ability to respond to those strategies static.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO HOW I AM APPROACHING TIERING IN THIS GENERATION.
Gen 5 was the last generation I could justifiably say "ok, I will look at this suspect in a vacuum and only vote ban if it is absolutely broken in this vacuum." Gen 5 might be the perfect example generation for such a transition point primarily due to the weather emphasis; weather introduced various strategies, and one of the on-going generation-level debates was how much we have to account for the inability to prepare for all strategies into our tiering. People are obviously welcome to disagree, but Gen 5 was right on the teetering edge for me in being able to handle strategies (though obviously up for significant debate). Some will say we should have taken that philosophy in Gen 5 as well, and that's ok.
If you'll look at my personal track record in voting in Gen 5, I kept to the previous philosophy, and most of my votes were OU.
Now let's fast forward to Gen 6. If Gen 5 was right on the teetering edge for me, Gen 6 brought us over. Yes, "obvious" strategies like weather teams were diminished, but Gen 6 introduced more than enough individually powerful Pokemon (hello: Mega concept) that the teetering edge was literally shattered.
In Gen 6, I'm approaching tiering both from an individual Pokemon and metagame strategies standpoint, and now I'm taking the fact that we still only have 6 Pokemon slots with 1 item, 1 ability, 1 trait, and 4 move slots to deal with an ever-burgeoning number of threats into account.
Again, if you'll look at my gen 6 voting record, you'll notice that now I've voted ban for all my votes. However, looking at it closely, I've again stuck with my stated philosophy. I voted ban because I felt everything we've suspect has required too much specialization to deal with it. We only have the aforementioned number of slots to deal with threats; if we want a healthy metagame, we have to ensure that we don't tolerate threats that have a very low cost to use and also require too much specialization to deal with.
What does this mean now? Well, I have to account for far more now that I did in previous generations. Is suspect X low risk and high reward to use? Does it have general purpose? Does stopping it require an overspecialization, primarily from the standpoint that most people are using the limited number of slots to deal with general threats? Does it introduce too many arbitrary decisions in a battle, and are the results of these decisions too often battle determining? Baton Pass for example was high risk to use, so purely from that point, I would have voted OU. However, the overspecialization to deal with brought it over for me, as I didn't think we could reasonably deal with Baton Pass chains with our limited number of slots as well as deal with the general metagame at large. Note that a yes for any one of these is not enough for me to vote ban...it's the overall judgment of all these factors. Also, these aren't all the questions I ask, but for the sake of space and time I'm not going to go into all of it here.
If you'll look at my personal track record in voting in Gen 5, I kept to the previous philosophy, and most of my votes were OU.
Now let's fast forward to Gen 6. If Gen 5 was right on the teetering edge for me, Gen 6 brought us over. Yes, "obvious" strategies like weather teams were diminished, but Gen 6 introduced more than enough individually powerful Pokemon (hello: Mega concept) that the teetering edge was literally shattered.
In Gen 6, I'm approaching tiering both from an individual Pokemon and metagame strategies standpoint, and now I'm taking the fact that we still only have 6 Pokemon slots with 1 item, 1 ability, 1 trait, and 4 move slots to deal with an ever-burgeoning number of threats into account.
Again, if you'll look at my gen 6 voting record, you'll notice that now I've voted ban for all my votes. However, looking at it closely, I've again stuck with my stated philosophy. I voted ban because I felt everything we've suspect has required too much specialization to deal with it. We only have the aforementioned number of slots to deal with threats; if we want a healthy metagame, we have to ensure that we don't tolerate threats that have a very low cost to use and also require too much specialization to deal with.
What does this mean now? Well, I have to account for far more now that I did in previous generations. Is suspect X low risk and high reward to use? Does it have general purpose? Does stopping it require an overspecialization, primarily from the standpoint that most people are using the limited number of slots to deal with general threats? Does it introduce too many arbitrary decisions in a battle, and are the results of these decisions too often battle determining? Baton Pass for example was high risk to use, so purely from that point, I would have voted OU. However, the overspecialization to deal with brought it over for me, as I didn't think we could reasonably deal with Baton Pass chains with our limited number of slots as well as deal with the general metagame at large. Note that a yes for any one of these is not enough for me to vote ban...it's the overall judgment of all these factors. Also, these aren't all the questions I ask, but for the sake of space and time I'm not going to go into all of it here.
So now, Aegislash. Where am I on Aegislash? At the moment, after experienced both ladders for a bit, I am for ban.
Allow me to explain myself.
Absolutely yes.
I don't think this can be argued. From typing (arguably best defensive typing with Steel, arguably one of the best offensive STABs in Ghost), to stats (basically 150 in all offensive and defensive stats with King's Shield and low speed), to moves (has boosting moves, strong enough STABs, good enough coverage with Sacred Sword), it has everything it needs to be at least designated a "great" Pokemon with little to no drawbacks to using it. So, Aegislash is an extremely effective Pokemon and has very high risk:reward output.
I don't think this can be argued. From typing (arguably best defensive typing with Steel, arguably one of the best offensive STABs in Ghost), to stats (basically 150 in all offensive and defensive stats with King's Shield and low speed), to moves (has boosting moves, strong enough STABs, good enough coverage with Sacred Sword), it has everything it needs to be at least designated a "great" Pokemon with little to no drawbacks to using it. So, Aegislash is an extremely effective Pokemon and has very high risk:reward output.
Absolutely yes.
You can run bulky sets, you can run offensive sets on both sides of the spectrum, you can run mixed sets, you can run support sets with Substitute and Toxic. So, Aegislash has multiple different sets that are all effective.
You can run bulky sets, you can run offensive sets on both sides of the spectrum, you can run mixed sets, you can run support sets with Substitute and Toxic. So, Aegislash has multiple different sets that are all effective.
This is up for debate, and for Aegislash, more tied in with the other points, so I'll get back to it.
Absolutely yes, and in multiple ways.
First, it has numerous sets, most of which are handled differently. If you guess the purpose wrong, you're often losing at least 1 Pokemon (for example, if you switch a specially defensive Pokemon to handle the Spooky Plate Shadow Ball special attacker Aegislash but the opponent is using the Swords Dance physical attacker).
Second, it introduces literal arbitrary decisions, namely in the form of frequent 50/50s with King's Shield. This is so important because the 50/50 decision IS NOT an even trade for user and opponent, which people seem to be arguing it is. Remember, using King's Shield makes Aegislash have 150 defenses again...meaning the user has the 50/50 as well as 150 defenses. The opponent only has the 50/50. Yes, the user might guess wrong and the opponent "can set up," but this is a specific scenario and dependent on the 50/50, not independent of it.
Guessing between attacking or not attack Aegislash has determined many high level ladder matches, and there is no skill involved here. It is simple arbitrary guessing. There is no "gaining of information" on the opponent to "best predict" a switch or something...it is literally just "here is a guess, make it, hope for the best." So, Aegislash forces the opponent to guess its set, at the risk of losing a significant member, and forces the opponent to guess an arbitrary 50/50 which is not even, at the risk of again losing a significant member.
First, it has numerous sets, most of which are handled differently. If you guess the purpose wrong, you're often losing at least 1 Pokemon (for example, if you switch a specially defensive Pokemon to handle the Spooky Plate Shadow Ball special attacker Aegislash but the opponent is using the Swords Dance physical attacker).
Second, it introduces literal arbitrary decisions, namely in the form of frequent 50/50s with King's Shield. This is so important because the 50/50 decision IS NOT an even trade for user and opponent, which people seem to be arguing it is. Remember, using King's Shield makes Aegislash have 150 defenses again...meaning the user has the 50/50 as well as 150 defenses. The opponent only has the 50/50. Yes, the user might guess wrong and the opponent "can set up," but this is a specific scenario and dependent on the 50/50, not independent of it.
Guessing between attacking or not attack Aegislash has determined many high level ladder matches, and there is no skill involved here. It is simple arbitrary guessing. There is no "gaining of information" on the opponent to "best predict" a switch or something...it is literally just "here is a guess, make it, hope for the best." So, Aegislash forces the opponent to guess its set, at the risk of losing a significant member, and forces the opponent to guess an arbitrary 50/50 which is not even, at the risk of again losing a significant member.
So now, the determination for ban. To me, being forced to guess any number of Aegislash sets with the prospect of losing a Pokemon if I guess wrong, being forced to guess in the arbitrary King's Shield skewed 50/50 again with the prospect of losing a Pokemon if I guess wrong, in combination with Aegislash's general utility and effectiveness lead me to believe it is broken. To deal with Aegislash, I can't simply have a counter. I need to have multiple checks as well as God-Given skill at arbitrarily guessing. I only have 6 Pokemon to win and 24 total moves to use, I can't afford to dedicate so many of those slots to safely handle Aegislash.
That's why, at the moment, I am voting Ban. I understand this is a very controversial stance to take, but I firmly believe it is for the best. You are obviously welcome to disagree, but I am merely stating were I am coming from so you can see what exactly the issue is for me.
So on 50/50s: the issue is not that Aegislash causes 50/50s, it's that it causes excessive 50/50s.
EQ IS suboptimal on a lot of Pokemon. Mega TTar (other coverage ie Fire Punch), Mega Pinsir (Close Combat), Terrakion (reliable Rock STAB, SD, SR, Sub, Taunt...whatever it has trouble fitting into its moveslots because Aegislash exists), Dragonite (Fire Punch, though EQ would be viable I guess), and Mega Heracross (SD or 4-move coverage ie fitting in Bullet Seed or whatever) all have other moves they would rather be running. For all but Dragonite, EQ wouldn't just be VIABLE because there's no reason to run it in the absence of Aegislash.
Lack of counters is a point that you can't discount. Sure not everything has counters to every ridiculous combination, but at least they have counters/hard checks to the majority of their best sets. Aegislash has literally zero safe switch-ins solely considering the four relevant, heavily viable sets that have been prevented, which is absolutely an issue.
Talonflame is different because (1) it's way way easier to check/counter and (2) you don't prepare specifically for it, you prepare for Flying spam, which you can deal with given 1 mon. Greninja is much easier to check/revenge kill because it's frail, and yes it does have counters, and can be prepared for in 1 mon. Aegislash requires multiple answers per team which is different from any other mon in the tier. Plus are any of these mons literally determining viability? Hell no. So yea Aegislash is more centralizing than those mons.
Disturbing the balance of the metagame and stall is definitely not the case. How many WCOP stall teams used Aegislash so far? Maybe one or two at best. How does Aegi even beat Mega Hera? It loses to EQ which Hera has to run for it. How does it beat Mega Medicham, which often runs Fire Punch for it? The presence of Aegi makes them beat it, so I don't see how Aegi is balancing them for stall. It is holding them back from being slightly better because they can't run their full moveset and have to tread carefully around it, but it loses to them because of its centralization, which forces them to prepare specifically for it. Megacham, Mega Gard, and Mega Hera aren't even THAT much better that it's going to be 'the death of stall'. So please, cut the hyperbole (sry Reverb and Laurel :[).
Also every single word Aldaron just posted :]
Isn't that why we run Shadow Sneak, so it doesn't have to rely on OHKOing stuff.
It doesn't need a boosting move to do a lot of damage.
True, but who uses a recovery move for a Weakness Policy set?
or if your opponent makes the wrong move, they lose a lot of momentum, or lose their Pokemon, which could cost them the game. Also Aegislash doesn't really mind Wisp that much as it usually has Shadow Ball anyways.
Have fun switching that into Sacred Sword.
K
Mega-Gardevoir and Mega-Medicham are not "almost never seen" because they both have enough usage to be OU as of the latest usage statistics, banning aegislash would certainly cause them to be more common and powerful, but just calling this a good thing without any testing as to whether or not they would be too powerful is bit hasty.
I'm on the fence on this subject. while I do think that aegislash being banned would allow more pokemon to shine, I'm also concerned that it might allow them to shine too much. I'm also not sure if aegislash is unhealthy for the metagame, as it does so much for so many playstyles, making them all better. While many pokemon might become more viable, many would lose niches based on what they can do to beat aegislash. Bisharp in particular was already hit hard by the deo bans, if Aegislash is banned, not only would it lose it's niche as being one of the best offensive checks, there would be far less reason to use defog as Aegislash is by far the best spinblocker, lessening Bisharp's role of defog blocker. Mandibuzz would also be diminished but to a far lesser extent.
Right now, I would say Ban Aegislash, but keep an open mind to the possibility of unbanning it should the lack of it's presence destabilize the metagame further.
Keeping a broken Pokemon in OU as an equalizer is never a good idea
I'm actually quite surprised that Aegislash is being supsected. With that said, even though it has great offensive and defensive stats due to stance change, if you want to use both of them you are going to have to split EV's making it either less bulky or not as strong offensively, especially if you want it to be mixed. Aegislash has almost the same defensive prowess as deoxys D stat wise, but in reality it's not as bulky because of the split EV's. Any decently strong stab super effect attack will do a lot to it, even with max HP investment. Also, all Mandibuzz has to do to get around sub toxic Aegislash is run taunt and a bit of speed if it needs too. Aside from bulky mons like hippowdown and mandibuzz, offenisive pokemon like landorus and mega Gyarados can check it as well.
Assuming it is broken.
I have a question that seems to be on a lot of peoples minds in regards to the ban of Aegislash. Say that it does get banned, and the metagame becomes unbalanced, hypothetically. Would we then unban it or ban the things causing the unbalance? Because to my understanding, most of the people who believe that Aegislash shouldn't get banned are concerned where the meta would then lead to. Is it going to continue with more bans of Pokemon that are "broken" or are we going to re-evaluate previous bans to help re-balance out the meta. If someone could please clarify, it would be nice.
If Aegislash does get banned and the metagame becomes unbalanced we will not unban it because it was already doomed to be overpowered or overcenteralizing or whatever we banned it for. We will ban the things causing this unbalance. However, banning Aegislash has nothing to do with if with the metegame afterwards becomes unbalanced. If we deem it ban worthy we will not keep it in ou just to balance out the metagame.
I don't believe Stealth Rock was kept as an equalizer of certain threats such as Volcarona as much as it is kept as a hazard that hits all pokémon (bar Magic Guard) which acts as a sort of 'tax' for switching out.
After my first while on the ladder, I'm still in favor of a ban. Of course other arguments still stand about keeping Aegislash in the tier, but the argument that it should be kept in order to hold back pokémon such as M-Garde, M-Hera etc. is simply not holding up. On this suspect ladder in which Aegislash is not allowed, I am not finding any threats to be running terribly rampant. Perhaps it would take time for these strategies to be discovered, but if so, we can proceed to look at the broken pokémon. Aegislash is not the problem.
It is, but even with one broken thing it can still be unbalanced
Here's a video with my thoughts on the matter
- Status