And ladder is not representative of a tier because? I'm aware it's not the same as tournament play. This doesn't mean it doesn't support the argument that Xerneas is not restricting the tier. Top 5 mons means nothing, what matters is the % usage.
Ladder isn't wholly unrepresentative of the tier, but when you play, even at high ladder, it is hard to come to the conclusion that ladder is really representative of the tier. That is also before you look at the stats rather than whatever nonsense you happen to run into. For example, at 1790+ the majority of

are holding a

. That is something that no one has suggested as counterplay, rightfully so as it is an unviable set. This means that appoximately every eighth person you run into on high ladder is going going to be running


.
I'd think that alone pretty well illustrates that basing an argument on solely ladder usage, rather than using it to augment to augment your argument if it is applicable. Even outside of


there is so much garbage at high ladder that I'd be somewhat skeptical that anyone who has played there would be unaware of this. That being said, the ladder stats from last month arn't as bad as they tend to be in terms of representing the meta.

sticks out a bit, it is a good mon for sure but 28% usage is way too high. I'm not going to get into what I think the rough order and usage of the top mons should be as it isn't relevant to this thread.
If we are to take the ladder as representative of what the meta actually is aside from the general nonsense of mons such as


being a legitimate part of the tier, Trick Room accounted for approximately 9-10% of teams last month. Trick Room having such a high usage rate is almost always a signifier of deeper issues within a tier. People may disagree about specifically what that may be, but there is usually broad agreement that there is some issue. In most tiers, but particularly NDUbers, TR is a deeply flawed playstyle that only rises to prominence when HO is too strong as it tends to be close to an autowin v most forms of HO whilst losing to every other playstyle. In a healthy metagame TR should be relegated to a niche playstyle at best.
You make of this what you will. Logically, you'd say say that this is largely a ladder response to HO, but we all know that some portion of it is people enjoying


. That

has 9.5% usage is another reason to not entirely base your arguments on ladder usage imo. It is obviously not even in the same league as

. I'm not saying to disregard ladder statistics entirely, but that basing an argument entirely on ladder, and particularly ladder usage leaves it quite susceptible to being based on ladder tomfoolery. Tournaments don't happen particularly frequently, but if you can use them as a base for your argument it tends to be a much better starting point.
If you get swept because your PDon just fell to a Tera Fighting Xerneas, then your team building is the problem. And so far, Xerneas doesn't restrict team building as plenty of styles and Pokemon are viable.
Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe he is getting at is that in this scenario

has dealt with the

through hp rock and you have a healthyish

that could otherwise take a hit. Part of what makes
HP Rock FB such a threat is that it doesn't need to tera in most games.

is nearly always going to be a secondary

check on balance teams and even most BO squads you're primarily relying on something teraing +

to handle

if it isn't in

range.
I do find it surprising that you claim that

doesn't restrict teambuilding when you acknowledged that it does in your VR post. I agree that every teamstyle does remain viable

being present in the tier but it does signficantly hinder BO as a whole due those teams generally giving

plenty of opportunities to boost whilst also seldom being able to fit solid

counterplay.
Though

doesn't render playstyles unviable it heavily restricts what you can comfortably run within those playstyles, particularly balance and BO. If not for

for example,

would compete with

as a defogger more than it currently does.

would be a signifcantly better mon in the meta and so on. Even if

was banned I'd still probably default to


when building balance, but the rest of the team would be far more varied.
This is actually the part where I have the most issue with. You cannot simply disregard this argument because "VR is outdated". So what? Zygarde-C is not a top tier threat anymore? Is Arceus-Dark's utility not needed anymore?
I don't care where they are in the viability ranking. What I showed is that some Pokemon that can be abused by Xerneas are top tier, some of them are metagame defining. So what does it tell us? That despite Xerneas' existence they are still very good in the metagame, meaning that teams containing said Pokemon have enough counterplay to Xerneas.
I agree with you here in that the VR being outdated, though I wouldn't say it is inaccurate for the most part. Some things defenitely should move, but if a new player were to use it as reference they arn't going to be lead astray. I also don't agree with the point about

being knocked being particularly relevant in the

discussion. Where I disagree with you is that that

weak mons are not only viable, but some of them are key components of the meta is not a good reason to keep

around. If running a

weak mon on your team made it a bad team

would have been banned a long time ago.
I think part of the reason why we are disagreeing is that you're looking at things in a vacuum. I think most pro ban voters, including myself would agree that counterplay exists, but is largely inadequate. All of

's defensive counterplay is required to be at near if not full health in order to actually answer it. A

on the other side means

takes a massive risk defogging if it can't regen whatever health it looses while doing so as it otherwise no longer an ironclad

check due to tera mindgames. Likewise,

becomes incredibly uncomfortable setting hazards or switching into

as any chip puts it dangerously close to being OHKO'd at +2 even without accounting for hazards. This also doesn't account for sets such as focus blast or ingrain which render these two as checks moot anyways.


face similar issues in that they require whatever sac is used to actually get

into range of their attacks. Bob summed it up best by saying " this interaction being considerably in favor of the Xerneas player as they worry at most about losing a single Pokemon, while the other team can be swept by a single misplay." This is also something I touched on in my post about using

as a wallbreaker.
Yes the mons you've listed are good despite being

fodder, that still does not mean that there is adequate counterplay to

, especially when that counterplay is walking on a razors edge. As an example, a mon I view as similarly constraining is

. The key difference between

and

is that the

counterplay is actually solid. A reasonably healthy

can always switch in and revenge it. :mashadow: can always revenge it if it has taken any chip.

can always revenge it if it is willing to tera and will do so most of the time anyways. There is other counterplay, but compare this to

gets toxic'd or takes any chip and your counterplay is now a coinflip which heavily favours the

user.
Let me rephrase my point. Other sweepers (or general offensive Pokemon) such as Ultranecrozma prior transformation, Zacian-C, PDon, Yveltal, Arceus-Ground and many more have plenty of switch-in opportunities. You can hard switch them to check different threats. Xerneas, as you said, cannot do this, so you essentially have 5 slots to cover the whole metagame instead of 6 should you choose to use Xerneas, and thus are inherently easier to break through. A well-built team can take advantage of this while having good Xerneas checks in the back.
This is something I'd largely disagree with.

doesn't really fit in with the rest.

and

(more cm than dd sets) find switchin opportunities but

and

don't really switch into much of anything. The only thing that

is semi comfortable switching in on is

and a scouted

.

can run heat wave, but that is uncommon enough to to say it can generally switch in.

really doesn't want to switch in unless it is able to pull off a sweep as being forced out, even without taking damage, heavily comprimises its ability to do so later.

is really taking a risk switching in v much of the metagame as uninvested it really does not great bulk even as

. Taking a stray hit + hazards is generally going to push it into non

revenge killing range.
What Bob said applies about

switching in applies to most of these mons as well with the exception of

.

Most of the time they arn't going to be hard switching in and they are not being used defensively. They'll come in after something they can force out or set up on has killed another teammate. Sure they can switch in and take a risk, but often times there is little upside to doing so.
This is a Gothitelle problem and not a Xerneas one. Gothitelle + LO Eternatus does the same, except being harder to take advantage of thanks to Eternatus' immediate power and speed control.
It is both.

is as strong as what it enables. I've said before I'd be happy to see shadow tag banned. Even if

were banned I'm not sure that moves the needle for pro or anti ban voters. Sure it is a good partner for

, but I don't consider it to change the impetus.
One counterplay is inconsistent but a combination of two of them (i.e. Tera Ho-Oh, Ho-Oh + PDon, any check + Priority, Taunt, Knock Off, general offensive pressure) is pretty damn consistent in answering Xerneas, meaning no mind games needed. You'll notice that I haven't even talked about Ditto.
The point is that while two methods of counterplay is enough to handle

it too often isn't enough to handle

+ friends. Even


requires mindgames as tera

and the

user reads or guesses that

just dies to moonblast with any chip. You can also tera and phase while the

user just attacks while means

is likely now going to be vulnerable to one of

's partners and

is still intact. Taunt still has similar interactions given that our most common taunters (


) are OHKOd by moonblast. Sure we have other users of taunt but those with the exception of

don't exactly handle even unboosted moonblast well and merely delay

as opposed to actually checking it. Furthermore, taunt is not an auto include on these mons movesets as they often have other moves they would rather fit. You also have to actually have them in v :xereneas: which isn't exactly a guarentee once you've revealed taunt. The reason I and others have not mentioned

is that in practise it doesn't answer

significantly better than


.

doesn't OHKO and is OHKO'd in return and doesn't pick

off from a much higher range than


.
The common thread in all of the counterplay you've listed is that it is contingent on the

user using geomancy and then attempting to sweep when they are under no obligation to do so and often times that is worse play than just attacking. This isn't in regards to anything in particular you've wrote, but when deciding whether to ban a mon decide it based on what it is actually capable of doing when played well. During my suspect run and when I've laddered in general yeah


has been absolutely fine because a lot of people just go oh I can
that full health

rather than doing a slight bit of work and chipping the

or using

to break for its teammates which could easily win from there if they were not so greedy. If I were to vote based on what I've seen rather than what

can actually do I wouldn't vote to ban it. The same would have applied to

. I faced 8 during that suspect run, switched in

every single time clicked
and glared it. Never was punished a single time and it was mostly the same for high ladder games. Still voted to ban it because even though I had a team well built to handle

it was obviously way too much.
In general, and this is the most important, I don't think the conditions needed for a Xerneas ban are reached. It's not uncompetitive whatsoever, and its brokenness remains to be seen as it doesn't require some obscure counters, doesn't restrict team building more than any other top tier threats, doesn't drastically lessen the viability of any Pokemon I can think of (for example PDon vs Zekrom, regular Kyogre) and doesn't confine the metagame to favor a play style over another.
I'd agree with you that it isn't uncompetitive though I do believe it is unhealthy enough to warrant a ban. I'll also agree that it doesn't require obscure counters, gona state again

isn't real atm. It most certainly does restrict teams more than other top threats. A key differentiating factor between other top threats such as

is opportunity cost. Double Dance

is one of the scariest mons in the no questions asked. However, if you commit to that you lose almost all of the defensive utility that you'd associate with

. It also requires more than a single turn to sweep most of the time or the opposing team to in a signicantly weakened state relative to

.
Ubers has and always will be a centralized tier, that is not going to change regardless of the outcome of this suspect test. The tier centralizing around

is healthy as it provides an immense defensive presence regardless of it

gets the boot. It can do everything, but crucially it can't do everything at once. Defensive sets are not threatening to sweep you. SD Utility sets are great breakers but will easily be revenge killed. Double Dance sets have minimal defensive utility. This is very different from

which is just a beatstick that chooses what beats it and you have to hope you guess right or you're probably going to lose. A team can handle being a little weak to a particular

set, the same can't be said of

. Generally you're capable of handling it or you lose. Even then it can still find a way to beat you.