Legendaries Speculation/Discussion Thread

[Yveltal96]

Apparently you didn't read the quote my sig. I think you should



Well this is the Gen 6 Lengendaries speculation thread so we are allowed to speculate if they could possibly be new types.

i did read it that's why i said i don't care
and we don't know there will be a light type or sound type anyways?
can we stick with types that exist and aren't ancient history speculation?

 

[AuroriumX]

i did read it that's why i said i don't care
and we don't know there will be a light type or sound type anyways?
can we stick with types that exist and aren't ancient history speculation?

That's why this thread is about speculation, I don't see why everyone gets so wound up everytime someone mentions Sound or Light type. It's just speculation people.

 

[DarkSword39]

Yveltal shouldn't be Sound-Type. Every single Type we have, we can see them.

Stating the obvious: You can't see Sound!

 

[Yveltal96]

That's why this thread is about speculation, I don't see why everyone gets so wound up everytime someone mentions Sound or Light type. It's just speculation people.

it doesn't exist

 

[Dragalge]

Apparently you didn't read the quote in my sig. I think you should.



Well this is the Gen 6 Lengendaries speculation thread so we are allowed to speculate if they could possibly be new types.

What if they turned signatures off?

Personally I think the next BST 600 100 across all stats equivalent will probably be revealed like Victini did when it was shown after the end of M13.

 

[The Master Chief]

There's really no need to add more types. I mean all current types already have a check so why add more? But anyway i bet Xerneas is Grass/Psychic will Yveltal is dark/flying. Then again GF is full of surprises not

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

Actually, yes it does...I think it's better to say it's a possibility just as any other.



Your argument is actually pretty poor too.

As of now the current type chart is not balanced. Even if it were there is still nothing wrong with adding a new type just for the sake of adding one. Obviously when creating a new type they would take all that stuff you mentioned into account.

The chart is fine. New types are not going to solve the problems that other types have with respect to usage. All GameFreak would need to do is give types like Ice/Poison offensive boosts. I mean, Fighting type was rather underused (no one cared), and now in Gen V they are hailed as one of the best types to use. Who's to say that they can't do that to other types?

Adding just for the sake of adding is going to cause problems. I'd rather boost up a couple of types via moves/abilities/new pokemon design than to cause a nightmare by creating unnecessary new types.

 

[Yveltal96]

The chart is fine. New types are not going to solve the problems that other types have with respect to usage. All GameFreak would need to do is give types like Ice/Poison offensive boosts. I mean, Fighting type was rather underused (no one cared), and now in Gen V they are hailed as one of the best types to use. Who's to say that they can't do that to other types?

Adding just for the sake of adding is going to cause problems. I'd rather boost up a couple of types via moves/abilities/new pokemon design than to cause a nightmare by creating unnecessary new types.

thank you
i mean a new type would have to fix all the advantages and disadvantages all other types have. that would affect seventeen types
just boosting ices defense by one type and poisons offenses by one type, would only affect four

 

[cascadethewarrior]

The chart is fine. New types are not going to solve the problems that other types have with respect to usage. All GameFreak would need to do is give types like Ice/Poison offensive boosts. I mean, Fighting type was rather underused (no one cared), and now in Gen V they are hailed as one of the best types to use. Who's to say that they can't do that to other types?

It's not fine and why didn't they just do that for the overpowered Psychic-Type? They could have just changed the chart around but instead they added new types. There is no reason to not make a new type you just don't want one.

Adding just for the sake of adding is going to cause problems. I'd rather boost up a couple of types via moves/abilities/new pokemon design than to cause a nightmare by creating unnecessary new types.

It's not going to cause problems. You're making it more complicated than it really is.

thank you
i mean a new type would have to fix all the advantages and disadvantages all other types have. that would affect seventeen types
just boosting ices defense by one type and poisons offenses by one type, would only affect four

Actually, no. A new type would not have to affect all the other 17 types only the ones that need it. when Dark-Type was introduced and it's only relation was to Ghost, Psychic, Bug, Steel and Fighting. It had no influence towards any of the other types.

I notice you just cling to whoever's idea opposes a new type...

 

[Dragalge]

The chart is fine. New types are not going to solve the problems that other types have with respect to usage. All GameFreak would need to do is give types like Ice/Poison offensive boosts. I mean, Fighting type was rather underused (no one cared), and now in Gen V they are hailed as one of the best types to use. Who's to say that they can't do that to other types?

Adding just for the sake of adding is going to cause problems. I'd rather boost up a couple of types via moves/abilities/new pokemon design than to cause a nightmare by creating unnecessary new types.

Why?

And Gamefreak is smart, they can have full control over the typings and add a new type if they want too, they will find some way to balance it in. And you do realize that types isn't the only aspect that judges how balanced Pokemon is correct?

 

[Regality]

OKAY CALM IT.

They may add new types, they may not. There are valid reasons for them doing it just as there are valid reasons for them not doing it.

...I'm hoping for a rock type legendary.

 

[confuser987]

Why do people keep suggesting that the mascots are going to be dual-type. They can be like Groundon and Kyogre.

 

[Dragalge]

Why do people keep suggesting that the mascots are going to be dual-type. They can be like Groundon and Kyogre.

I'm actually settling for Normal for Xerneas and Dark for Yveltal rather then dual types now to be honest. Not the best suggestion granted but I found it simple yet effective (though Xerneas won't get a great STAB then again Dark moves aren't common either).

 

[cascadethewarrior]

Why do people keep suggesting that the mascots are going to be dual-type. They can be like Groundon and Kyogre.

That's true it's just most of the Legendary mascots are Dual-Type and plus i can see elements of different types in Xerneas and Yveltal. Though Mono-type is still possible. What Mon-type would they be though?

I'm actually settling for Normal for Xerneas a

What makes you see Normal in Xerneas?

 

[Yveltal96]

if Yveltal would be monotype, i think he would just be flying
because it would be better than being pure dark IMO
at least he wreaks the advantages of being a bird

 

[Umbreon Bob]

You guys obviously cannot take a joke here. Honestly I have no idea what they are going to be doing for the legendary pokemon.

Edit: To add to this. Assuming that a new type is being added based on the stature of a pokemon for a fraction of a second is obviously going over the top.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

Why?

And Gamefreak is smart, they can have full control over the typings and add a new type if they want too, they will find some way to balance it in. And you do realize that types isn't the only aspect that judges how balanced Pokemon is correct?

Because if people consider the chart to be broken, then adding new types is going to worsen the problem rather than provide a solution to it. I personally don't see the chart as broken, but I'd rather the new types be a last resort to fixing the chart, as in: exhaust options such as giving better moves, abilities, stat distribution etc.

Also...you didn't read what I said: "I'd rather boost up a couple of types via moves/abilities/new pokemon design"

Obviously showing that type isn't just the aspect...it's abilities/moves/stat distribution etc.

It's not fine and why didn't they just do that for the overpowered Psychic-Type? They could have just changed the chart around but instead they added new types. There is no reason to not make a new type you just don't want one.

It's not going to cause problems. You're making it more complicated than it really is.

Your comparison is flawed considering that obviously Gen I mechanics =/= Gen V mechanics. The type chart is fine because there is no standalone type that is beyond broken and needed to be rebalanced. How else were they going to nerf the Psychic types when Speed decided their crit rate and weaknesses had 0 options to fight back (Bugs were beyond terrible, Ghosts had physical split who uses Shadow Ball...meaning Gengar line is ineffective)? Psychics hit everything at essentially neutral power with ZERO resistances (except itself). Making it quite obvious that Dark (and to a certain extent, Steel) needed to be added.

How is it not going to cause problems? (Playing the devil's advocate) If you view the chart as broken in the first place...then tell me how adding a type is going to help with balancing the "brokenness?"

 

[cascadethewarrior]

Because if people consider the chart to be broken, then adding new types is going to worsen the problem rather than provide a solution to it. I personally don't see the chart as broken, but I'd rather the new types be a last resort to fixing the chart, as in: exhaust options such as giving better moves, abilities, stat distribution etc.

Also...you didn't read what I said: "I'd rather boost up a couple of types via moves/abilities/new pokemon design"

Obviously showing that type isn't just the aspect...it's abilities/moves/stat distribution etc.

The Type chart itself is not balanced not the Pokemon and moves associated with said type.

Your comparison is flawed considering that obviously Gen I mechanics =/= Gen V mechanics. The type chart is fine because there is no standalone type that is beyond broken and needed to be rebalanced.

Not broken but underdeveloped a.k.a Ice and Poison-types

How else were they going to nerf the Psychic types when Speed decided their crit rate and weaknesses had 0 options to fight back (Bugs were beyond terrible, Ghosts had physical split who uses Shadow Ball...meaning Gengar line is ineffective)? Psychics hit everything at essentially neutral power with ZERO resistances (except itself). Making it quite obvious that Dark (and to a certain extent, Steel) needed to be added.

um Idk change the current a type(s) resistances and immunities!? But no they instead chose to add new types, they did not need to do that.

How is it not going to cause problems? (Playing the devil's advocate) If you view the chart as broken in the first place...then tell me how adding a type is going to help with balancing the "brokenness?"

By improving underdeveloped types effectiveness. Duh! -___-

 

[Bolt the Cat]

I'm thinking there's going to be:

-3 mascot legends
-One other trio
-A pair of version exclusive runners
-Several new event Pokemon (I'm thinking around 2-4)

That seems like a reasonable amount of new legendaries to me. And then they can add in some past gen ones to flesh out post game (Mewtwo, either the Bird or Beast trio, maybe a few 4th gen legendaries).

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

The Type chart itself is not balanced not the Pokemon and moves associated with said type.


Not broken but underdeveloped a.k.a Ice and Poison-types


um Idk change the current a type(s) resistances and immunities!? But no they instead chose to add new types, they did not need to do that.


By improving underdeveloped types effectiveness. Duh! -___-

If they're underdeveloped (which I agree, but not to the point of being considered unbalanced), then why not go the Fighting-type route? Where you gradually build up their usefulness by giving it good moves etc.? It's gotten to the point where they're amongst the best types in the game...so it wouldn't be hard to forsee that for Ice/Poison/etc. types.

I don't think you really understand how broken Psychic types were...to the point where they were benefitting from abusing paleolithic Gen I game mechanics. Even with resistances, Psychics were capable of dealing amazing damage back to the opponent with their ridiculous Special stat (due mainly to the fact that the types they hit had 0 means of fighting back effectively). Plus thematically speaking, if not Ghost, Bug...then what other type would make sense...? I'm not seeing a good sensible weakness for Psychic if retyping was an alternative. Therefore, Dark/Steel HAD to be done.

I'm not understanding the logic here...you're aware that the chart is unbalanced, but you believe that adding new types will somehow bridge the gap between underdeveloped types? For example, (Hypothetically speaking) let's say we include Light and Sound...they have no obvious strength/weakness relation to Ice/Poison that would make sense (like Fire/Water, Bug/Psychic etc.), so that doesn't really help bridge the gap between the underdeveloped types. If anything, it just worsens the problem.