rotom's status

thats only one side! The other side is that it is legendary?

has anyone checked the mailbag?
 
MAGNEDETH said:
sounds right to me. what do we call Pokemon like that? we should make a page featuring them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there could be two definitions to pseudo legendary. The first being based on power (Dragonite, Tyranitar, Garchomp, ect.) and the next being based on rarity (Snorlax, Sudowoodo, Rotom, ect.).
 
^To me a pseudo legendary is a rare pokemon that's also tough, but your idea seems good to me
 
Missingno. Master said:
Perhaps there could be two definitions to pseudo legendary. The first being based on power (Dragonite, Tyranitar, Garchomp, ect.) and the next being based on rarity (Snorlax, Sudowoodo, Rotom, ect.).
Click to expand...

Hm. The problem with that is that the second definition isn't consistent from gen to gen. Sudowoodo was a one-of-a-kind Pokémon in Gen II, but is now common in IV. It still might be worth expanding on, although I think it would be better as an addition to an existing page (like Rarity) than its own.
 
I don't see this how this status thing works from Gen II and beyond. You could breed them in Gen II. So Sudowoodo wasn't as rare as originally intended.
 
Neither was Snorlax, but the point remains that if you didn't get that first one you were screwed unless you could trade.
 
In the meantime, we've got dudes like Tangela in gen I who are only available by in-game trade. Where do they fit?
 
Maybe we should have something like this:

"major event pokemon" like palkia, Diagla and Girintia as they appear in spear pillar in Platinum

"Nintendo event pokemon" like lv50 Dragonite or surfing pikachu etc...

"Special Event Pokemon" like shaymin or darkrai etc...

"in game event pokemon" ones that can be obtained in game, but are not tied to a storyline like Mewtwo in FR/LG or Rotom in Gen IV. Maybe Manaphy could be placed here too as it is available in game as such, but not a main game, but a ranger game.
 
DCM said:
thats only one side! The other side is that it is legendary?

has anyone checked the mailbag?
Click to expand...

Phione trivia:

There was much debate over whether or not Phione is a legendary Pokémon until recently, when Pokémon.com revealed that Phione is indeed legendary.[1] This makes it the legendary with the lowest base stats.
  • Oddly, the website initially answered that Phione was not a legendary Pokémon, but it was soon changed. This may indicate, however, that Pokémon.com's staff are unsure about Phione's legendary status, and thus makes their answer negligible, and Phione's legendary status still unknown
Click to expand...
 
Phione's definitely legendary. It can't be used in the Battle Tower, and the only things that can't be are legendaries. Doesn't matter that its base stats are all 80, putting it at the same total as Froslass and Glalie, because Slaking's allowed and has the same total as Groudon and Kyogre.

If a Pokémon's not allowed in the Battle Tower, it is legendary. The reverse is not true, however. Which is why Rotom is suspect. At the same time, one, Rotom's found early as just after the second badge in Platinum (all previous games require quite a few more badges to reach the first), there's nothing special about it besides the fact that it can possess different appliances, and honestly, it can breed and make more of itself. Not something else like Manaphy, but itself. And don't pull Phione on me because Phione can only be obtained originally by breeding Manaphy.

Hence saying, Phione must be descended from a Manaphy in some way, but Rotom will only have Rotom and Ditto in its lineage. This makes it more like Voltorb than like Phione. Who cares where it falls in the Pokédex. Are Dratini, Dragonair, and Dragonite legendary because they're between Moltres and Mewtwo? Is Snorlax because it's right before Articuno?
 
TTEchidna said:
Phione's definitely legendary.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

TTEchidna said:
It can't be used in the Battle Tower, and the only things that can't be are legendaries. Doesn't matter that its base stats are all 80, putting it at the same total as Froslass and Glalie, because Slaking's allowed and has the same total as Groudon and Kyogre.
Click to expand...
Phione is disallowed from the battle tower because of its semi-exclusiveness to events. Pokemon that are banned are either event-exclusive or just plain broken. All these just happen to be legendaries, except for Phione. Slaking is allowed because of Truant. Regigigas is allowed because of Slow Start.

TTEchidna said:
If a Pokémon's not allowed in the Battle Tower, it is legendary.
Click to expand...
Yeah, again, no.

TTEchidna said:
The reverse is not true, however. Which is why Rotom is suspect. At the same time, one, Rotom's found early as just after the second badge in Platinum (all previous games require quite a few more badges to reach the first), there's nothing special about it besides the fact that it can possess different appliances, and honestly, it can breed and make more of itself. Not something else like Manaphy, but itself. And don't pull Phione on me because Phione can only be obtained originally by breeding Manaphy.
Click to expand...
Rotom is allowed in the Battle Tower because it is neither broken nor event-exclusive. And yeah, Phione needs Manaphy originally, but this means nothing as to Phione's legendary status, or lack thereof. Once one has the first Phione, getting more is absurdly easy. And the phrase "getting more is absurdly easy" should NEVER apply to a legendary

TTEchidna said:
Hence saying, Phione must be descended from a Manaphy in some way, but Rotom will only have Rotom and Ditto in its lineage. This makes it more like Voltorb than like Phione. Who cares where it falls in the Pokédex. Are Dratini, Dragonair, and Dragonite legendary because they're between Moltres and Mewtwo? Is Snorlax because it's right before Articuno?
Click to expand...

Is Phione because it falls between the Gen. IV non-event legends and the Gen. IV event legends? It feels good, turning one's flawless logic against them.
 
Please note: The thread is from 17 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom