In this post, I do two things.
First, I evaluate the metagame reasons why we have this test. I find metagame reasons provided in the OP are incredibly weak or misleading - Rest Talk Goltres was indeed rare and the tier did not particularly slow down nor did Ghost resists become significantly worse.
Second, I provide an alternate explanation of why we are doing this test now and why I think the council is making a terrible decision in having this test. I claim that council simply wanted another bite at the apple so to speak and change a decision they now firmly disagree with. While it is okay and even desirable to correct mistakes, the council should first at least argue the previous test had a mistaken outcome instead of couch their argument in terms of metagame changes.
I have not yet decided how to vote should I get reqs.
Metagame reasons why we have this test
I think it's relatively uncontroversial to say that giving a Pokemon more than one suspect test in a short period of time needs extra justification.
The extra justification is the tier changed. In what way? See what IP writes:
Hey everyone, the UU council has been closely monitoring the tier following the Galarian Moltres test and has decided it’s time to suspect Aegislash (again).
Although it’s only been a few months since it was last suspected, Aegislash has continued to see high usage and success in UU. Anyone who plays the tier knows that Aegislash is the king of versatility. It can run a plethora of sets very efficiently and has proven this time and time again by varying which set it most commonly runs depending on metagame trends. We’ve seen King’s Shield + Toxic + 2 attacks been a staple during its stay, SubToxic, Choice Band, Choice Specs, and multiple setup variants. So what’s changed for it to be put on the chopping block again?
UU has been notorious for having to account for a lot of things in the builder. Aegislash lost one of its best counters in Galarian Moltres in the most recent suspect test, which was one of the best Ghost-resistant status absorbers in the tier. Because of this, SubToxic has started to see a resurgence in usage and has proved to be a headache to account for. Even should-be checks like Jungle Healing Zarude can be pressured throughout the game and lose to this set or to a potential Close Combat while scouting. King’s Shield lowering attack makes Pokemon like Zarude and Mandibuzz be shakier as checks, especially against the SubTox set which can use Foul Play users such as Mandibuzz and Amoonguss as Substitute bait. The two most recent shifts in Hippowdon and Scizor have also made the tier a friendlier environment for Aegislash to thrive in due to its now slower nature. Sturdy Ghost resists aren’t as popular or effective as they were before shifts and the most recent suspect test.
Despite all its strengths, Aegislash still suffers from what has always held it back. Its speed is sufficient to run slower walls and breakers but still leaves it vulnerable to the plethora of faster, hard-hitting Pokemon UU has to offer, making it often rely on King’s Shield to absorb hits. Most of the top ranked Pokemon in the tier, such as Excadrill, Salamence, and Zarude, to name a few, can hit it for super effective damage and/or heal its attacks when it’s forced to revert to shield form. Even Pokemon that it would normally counter such as Nihilego can fit moves like Knock Off to cripple it. In spite of all of this, the UU council has pretty much unanimously decided it’s a fitting time to suspect it again, so you know the drill:
So in short, I identify in red bold text above three things:
1) The loss of Galarian Moltres which countered Aegislash
2) Hippowdon and Scizor making the tier slower
3) Sturdy ghost resists being lowered in viability
Well, 1) is obviously true but I find posts like KM's here jarring:
your experience seeing gmolt isn't reflective of the actual state of the tier -- defensive resttalk gmolt accounted for over a quarter of the sets used in raw high level usage stats and was higher in tournament play. defensive gmolt was unequivocally the best check to most aegislash sets, and its loss from the tier is strictly a buff to aegislash, no matter how you cut it. regardless of its "main role", Gmolt (even offensive variants!) effectively limited aegislash and the sets it could viably run.
I mean Udongirl says Rest Talk Goltres is rare but then KM says their experience is not reflective of the tier and says "over a quarter" of sets used in high level usage stats were rest talk.
This is factually incorrect as noted here:
https://www.smogon.com/stats/2022-04/moveset/gen8uu-1760.txt - high level stats on the ladder show only 19% used Rest and further, 9% used Chesto Berry so basically only 10% could have been Rest Talk.
Not to mention, even if KM was correct, well, all Udongirl did was say it was rare and even 25-30% usage is arguably rare.
So yes, I agree Goltres being banned made Aegislash better. But Rest Talk Goltres was the only reliable set to switch in anyways (and Aegislash can beat it still with +2 Close Combat and +2 Shadow Sneak unless Goltres ev'd for that). And it was, as Udongirl notes, rare. It was abundantly clear Goltres' best and most dangerous set was boosting sets, not Rest Talk.
2) and 3) are more difficult claims to address but we have another source that can tell us the answer:
viability rankings.
I don't really see how 2) and 3) are even true based on this, not to mention I don't see how 2) benefits Aegislash (Aegislash is such a slow offensive threat, that if the metagame gets slower, that's not necessarily helpful as it's still slower than say Nidoqueen which popped up in the VR).
For 3), yes Zarude and Krook became worse but Hydreigon became better, so on balance, it's not a significant shift in Ghost resist viability. And it's not like Zarude is suddenly a bad Pokemon - it was still considered top tier at A+!
For 2), I just don't see how the tier is slower with Raikou, Crobat and Keldeo all increasing in viability apparently while the only fast mons that got worse were Salazzle and Azelf.
I myself am not decided yet on whether Aegislash is broken. But I am decided that this evidence strongly suggests nothing has significantly changed for Aegislash since it was last voted Do not ban.
Alternate explanation
It just doesn't add up that we have another test so soon. Just one rare counter being gone is enough to get another test? Take the corollary to that statement.
Does anyone seriously think if we had an Aegislash counter appear in UU after Aegislash possibly gets banned,
we'd do a third test in quick succession to bring him back?
That's ridiculous and I think it's perfectly clear nobody would accept that. But this isn't even a hypothetical - specially defensive Rest Primarina is a solid check to the most dangerous Sub Toxic and Toxic + 2 Attack Aegislashes and has been rising in usage (
April stats vs
March stats). Are you willing to do a third test if it keeps rising in usage because now suddenly we have a bit better counterplay to Aegislash?
To me, it's clear the council thought the test outcome was wrong from the outset and is using Goltres leaving as an excuse to give Aegislash another test.
I think this because there are so many posts of council members on Discord saying either they didn't even know who the Aegislash ban voters were and that Aegislash should have been banned the whole time even before Goltres was axed. Of course you're entitled to your opinion and you should even share it. But you're going to make me very skeptical when you've been saying for weeks, with Goltres here, Aegislash should be banned, and then Goltres gets banned, and now we have to test Aegislash again.
Moreover, I get that Discord is an informal environment and you don't seriously think of the player base as sheep to herd. But you what do you expect the public who reads your messages, who are not your friends, to think when they see these messages.
To be clear, I am not against giving recently tested Pokemon another test, but I would have wanted us to be transparent about it.
Just say you thought Aegislash really should have been banned the first time, it's clear public sentiment has shifted (well, it could have been clear if the council created a survey), and that the council regrets it wasn't more active the first time.
To be honest, I still would disagree with giving Aegislash another test if that was the case, bar supermajorities of 70%+ favoring retests.
But I'd at least know what's going on.
Now the council has set us up where many in the public, or at least me personally, feels sucker punched and that the suspect process feels ever more tarnished.
Overall...
If you truly believe your metagame reasons are why we have this test, I have no qualm with you, although I explained in the first section why I disagree.
If you think Aegislash should have been banned the last time and acknowledge you want a second bite at the apple to help the metagame, I think this is terribly flawed on procedure but at least appreciate the honesty.
If you are simply using Goltres as an excuse to suspect Aegislash, I think you're abusing your levers of power and I am profoundly disappointed in this tiering decision.