(Apologies for not replying to this sooner. I thought I already had, so it slipped my mind for some time.)
First of all, I want to say that we absolutely should make more threads like the hacked Pokemon thread. In fact, there is already another one about evolving Pokemon written by HT a while back. I have some ideas for topics we could cover -- if anybody reading this wants to suggest their own, then please do.
As far as the thread you linked is concerned, though, I'm not convinced the same 'catch-all' style of response would be effective. Competitive Pokemon is very dynamic, and a lot harder to box into categories the same way we did on the two posts linked above. You can probably make a finite list of viable Pokemon in each role for every metagame, but even that premise comes with a lot of problems. What passes as viable? What counts as a distinct role? Do we cover every single format, or do we generalise? Do we cover every generation? Should we be updating the thread every time the metagame evolves? ...And so on.
The actual responses to that thread reflect a lot of these problems. In any balanced metagame, there is no Pokemon that can 'take on almost all Pokemon' as the question suggests, which led to people trying to fill the gaps with 'generalist' movesets that aren't very accountable of the meta. If you're versed in high-level competitive teambuilding, you might know that movesets designed to 'cover all physical attackers', etc. usually aren't optimal. Some of the advice there is outright bad, e.g. suggesting Ledian.
Having said all of this, though, I think competitive play is the most obvious topic we should cover with a thread like this. I just feel like something more static would be a better focus: for example, a thread covering basic teambuilding principles and moveset theory might be good. I could add some of the stuff that I personally repeat to new competitive players on the RMT section, for example. Again, share your ideas for what we could do.
