Thundurus (M) @ Leftovers
Ability: Prankster
EVs: 248 HP / 92 SpD / 168 Spe
Timid Nature
- Taunt
- Torment
- Substitute
- Thunderbolt
This is an extremely fun Thundy set, I haven't read all the post so I'm not sure if anyone has already used it but it shuts down set up Pokemon like Clef and it forces scarfers into struggle.
I've been running LO Thundy with TWave/Taunt/Tbolt/HP Ice and it's hella useful as a lead. Thunder Wave is very helpful for long-term neutralization of fast threats, and gives lasting consequences to most defensive Pokemon. It can also sacrifice itself to let a teammate take out a rogue sweeper. Taunt/Torment/Sub/Tbolt seems good too, though. Prankster is god in this tier.
Anyways: I don't think Talonflame is healthy in this metagame.
From a theoretical standpoint: I think almost any viable Pokemon as it's used in Linked, getting to use two particular moves in a row, would be broken in standard OU. It's a massive increase in utility for non-offensive mons, eases prediction a ton, and makes offensive Pokemon loads more powerful. The reason we don't have to ban these obviously broken Pokemon in Linked is because they're going up against other Pokemon that are broken in the same way. You can use two attacks at once? That's cool, I'm faster and KO you. Or I manage to tank them and KO you back, or I have some other combo to pull off, or I boost and recover and suddenly your power isn't enough. The point being that, to a certain extent,
Talonflame is, for the most part, not operating in a Linked environment, simply because for many, many things, Talonflame does not
care that they have linked moves, because it goes first and either KOs or wears them down past the point of uselessness. It is simultaneously one of the fastest priority users, outsped outside of Trick Room only by Extreme Speed, and one of, if not
the, most powerful priority users, both in raw power and in having a good attacking type (unlike Extreme Speed, which goes unlinked and offstab and is frickin Normal-type). Everything turns Nkos into N-1kos, but Talonflame can abuse this ability far better than anything else in the meta.
This brings us to the practical side of things. People above me, who have put a lot more thought into it than I, have highlighted how Talonflame's presence nerfs so many 'mons -- ones that it didn't in OU, because it did not have the power to OKHO or to 2HKO them as necessary before, but it has them now. And those 'mons do
not, for the most part, get any new ways to retaliate. It's overcentralizing not because it forces you to run certain 'mons, but because it forces you
not to run certain 'mons, or only run them with a damn hard counter for Talonflame. And I kind of want to use Fighting-types without having to use a teamslot on Tankchomp or Pdef Heatran, you know?
As for checking setup sweepers, well, if they're not boosting their speed, you can typically take them out with a Scarf user or a strong priority user, or (as I like to do) Prankster status to let something else check them. The problem comes in when
they're a Scarf user or a Dragon Dancer or whatever. And as mentioned previously, speed boosting+attacking means that setup sweepers don't grant free turns like they do in standard. If we need an unhealthy 'mon like Talonflame to keep a strategy in check, then that strategy is itself unhealthy.
tl;dr Ban Talonflame for being broken in theory and in practice, and ban boost+attack links so that they don't kill everyone who doesn't run Talonflame. It'll also free up team slots that were grudgingly given to Quagsire or Clefable (again, not that these won't be great mons)
The whole thing about the balonflame suspect just makes me think this meta should be ubers based because by OU standards everything viable in this meta is broken and needs to be banned. What we need to do to prevent having a page long banlist is adopt an ubers-like approach(at minimum) to banning to where only uncompetitive things are banned.
Ubers has, what, thirty generally viable Pokemon, counting Arceus formes? That's about what we'll get if we go that route, I'd say (
especially if we go with an ubers banlist, though I don't
think that's what you're suggesting). A lengthy viability rankings would more than compensate for a lengthy banlist, IMO.