Talk:Generation VI: Difference between revisions

m
Line 226: Line 226:
:::Just to clear things up before anyone gets confused: Gen5 introduced the first Fire/Dragon type Pokémon: Reshiram. [[User:Nickvang|Nickvang]] ([[User talk:Nickvang|talk]]) 16:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Just to clear things up before anyone gets confused: Gen5 introduced the first Fire/Dragon type Pokémon: Reshiram. [[User:Nickvang|Nickvang]] ([[User talk:Nickvang|talk]]) 16:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Actually, that's wrong, Reshiram's typing is Dragon/Fire, there hasn't been a Fire type with a secondary Dragon type as of yet [[User:Azure42|Azure/ChromeVoid42]] ([[User talk:Azure42|talk]]) 16:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Actually, that's wrong, Reshiram's typing is Dragon/Fire, there hasn't been a Fire type with a secondary Dragon type as of yet [[User:Azure42|Azure/ChromeVoid42]] ([[User talk:Azure42|talk]]) 16:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The so-called 'leaked info' is false and pure fan speculation. Note how they claim {{p|Scatterbug}} and {{p|Spewpa}} would be part-{{t|Fairy}}, yet both are pure {{t|Bug}}-types instead. Wouldn't you think that if they were an insider, they would have predicted the types correctly?  --[[User:Relicant|<span style="color:#785C3E;">'''Reli'''</span><span style="color:#FF3300;">★</span><span style="color:#C2A385;">'''ジーランス'''</span>]]'''?''' 17:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::The so-called 'leaked info' is false and pure fan speculation. Note how they claim {{p|Scatterbug}} and {{p|Spewpa}} would be part-{{t|Fairy}}, yet both are pure {{t|Bug}}-types instead. Wouldn't you think that if they were an insider, they would have predicted the types correctly?  --[[User:Relicant|<span style="color:#785C3E;">'''Reli'''</span><span style="color:#FF3300;">★</span><span style="color:#C2A385;">'''ジーランス'''</span>]]'''?''' 17:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::Azure42, I hope you understand that Fire/Dragon and Dragon/Fire are considered the same type combination by game mechanics. The Pokémon will get the same STABs, weaknesses and resistances. And still, it is quite confusing to say that Fire/Dragon is a new type-combination, without nothing you also count the order of the types. [[User:Nickvang|Nickvang]] ([[User talk:Nickvang|talk]]) 17:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::Azure42, I hope you understand that Fire/Dragon and Dragon/Fire are considered the same type combination by game mechanics. The Pokémon will get the same STABs, weaknesses and resistances. And still, it is quite confusing to say that Fire/Dragon is a new type-combination, without nothing you also count the order of the types. [[User:Nickvang|Nickvang]] ([[User talk:Nickvang|talk]]) 17:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Actually that's wrong, by that logic Helioptile is Normal/Electric, which is wrong as it's the first to have Normal as its Secondary type, the order can specify if it's an original type combination. It's general syntax, so instead of saying that it's the first Fire/Dragon, the trivia would note that it's the first Fire type to have Dragon as a Secondary type [[User:Azure42|Azure/ChromeVoid42]] ([[User talk:Azure42|talk]]) 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Actually that's wrong, by that logic Helioptile is Normal/Electric, which is wrong as it's the first to have Normal as its Secondary type, the order can specify if it's an original type combination. It's general syntax, so instead of saying that it's the first Fire/Dragon, the trivia would note that it's the first Fire type to have Dragon as a Secondary type [[User:Azure42|Azure/ChromeVoid42]] ([[User talk:Azure42|talk]]) 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::::[[List of Pokémon with unique type combinations|Bulbapedia considers Dragon/Fire and Fire/Dragon to be the same combination in terms of uniqueness, as they share the same battle properties.]] - [[User:Kogoro|'''<span class="sc" style="color:#DA70D6;">Kogoro</span>''']] '''-''' [[User talk:Kogoro|'''<span class="sc" style="color:#FFB6C1;">Talk to me</span>''']] - 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


== Only natural hair color so far. ==
== Only natural hair color so far. ==