>>33869502Fair enough, but hasn't that been said about a lot of the stuff that HAS been banned, from both OU and UU. I saw this in a previous UU thread, that each banning of something "degenerate" just banned the thing that was keeping the meta from going even more degenerate, and then that next thing that centralised the game around it got banned for being degenerate, and then the next thing centralised, and so on, with the format getting LESS pleasant to play each time.
I admit to having a lot of ignorance in regards to OU, but it seems that most things get banned for the meta centralising around them, but a lot of the stuff I have seen banned (such as the various bans in XY when I paid more attention, to the ORAS stuff, to today) are "well the game was centralised around X POKEMON (and Landorus but that is glue), so we banned X POKEMON, and now the game is centralised around Y POKEMON (and Landorus but that is glue), so we banned Y Pokemon, and... repeat as necessary.
As far as I am aware Lando wasn't even suspect tested in Gen VI (although I could be wrong), it seems that tiering council fiat and "general consensus" has made it beyond reproach. I thank you for the reply, but I feel that some elaboration of why it is a good thing for the format is required, since the argument of "well it is over centralising but it keeps other things from getting out of control" can get into a slippery slope to mega kang, mega gengar and so on very fast (after all, in XY Mega Kang kept things like Mega Mawile from getting out of control, or so was the argument against banning it).
>>33869531So with that argument, is it Landorus-T considered kinda like a Tapeworm that consumes some other, worse gut parasite? As in, it is overpowered, unfair, whatever, but that is okay because it is a check on other overpowered, unfair things? Again, if that is the case, why does it not apply to the other broken, overpowered things? It just feels inconsistent.
