ITT: We post pokemon who don't deserve to be competitively

File: 7f9.jpg (99KB, 642x1443px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 642x1443px

>>27965471
This is either bait or you are a retard of massive proportions

>>27965471
What are the rules for defining such a trait?

File: stunkfisk.png (35KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 250x250px

Frankly unacceptable, desu. Only has one weakness.

Why would any pokemon not deserve to be competitively viable?

File: Landorus.png (60KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 250x250px

>>27965805
Generally disliked pokemon, especially those with terrible designs.

Here's a good example of one.

>what is kangaskhan

File: 4062-Landorus-Therian.png (75KB, 245x300px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 245x300px

>>27965859
Stay mad, nigga. Lando is the shit and there's nothing you can do about it.

File: 1471660309458.png (41KB, 315x363px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 315x363px

>>27965859
But why would subjective taste affect the "right" a pokemon has to be good competitively? Sure not many people like landorus, most outright hate it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be good.

Most pokemon aren't even made to be good to begin with, they're just... made, sometimes improved, but GF has a very small grasp on just how powerfull small changes can turn out to be.

So my answer would be none, there is no valid reason for why a pokemon shouldn't be viable, subjective taste isn't one.

>>27965859
Since when was serperior "generally disliked"?

File: 1455448232241.jpg (56KB, 516x689px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 516x689px

OP got fucked by Contrary leaf storm