26
edits
m (→Plasma Blast) |
|||
Line 625: | Line 625: | ||
::That line of thinking seems like pure speculation, though. It's certainly not a fact that G Booster and G Scope are meant to represent a new form of TMs, especially given that they only work with a single Pokemon. Although this is also speculation, I believe they were meant to represent the same concept as Genesect's signature hold items - which seems logical to me, given that tools represent hold items. However, regardless of whether or not that particular thought is true, the statement "Because Technical Machines in the Pokémon games now have unlimited uses, attacks are now present on Pokémon Tool cards" is in no way a concrete fact. It is true that there are no TMs in the set and there are two (special, rare, out of the ordinary) tool cards with attacks on them, but that doesn't mean that they're replacing, or meant to replace, TMs at all. To say that those two cards are setting some kind of precedent for how something like TMs will be handled going forward is assuming a bit much, in my opinion. [[User:Viskiv|Viskiv]] ([[User talk:Viskiv|talk]]) 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | ::That line of thinking seems like pure speculation, though. It's certainly not a fact that G Booster and G Scope are meant to represent a new form of TMs, especially given that they only work with a single Pokemon. Although this is also speculation, I believe they were meant to represent the same concept as Genesect's signature hold items - which seems logical to me, given that tools represent hold items. However, regardless of whether or not that particular thought is true, the statement "Because Technical Machines in the Pokémon games now have unlimited uses, attacks are now present on Pokémon Tool cards" is in no way a concrete fact. It is true that there are no TMs in the set and there are two (special, rare, out of the ordinary) tool cards with attacks on them, but that doesn't mean that they're replacing, or meant to replace, TMs at all. To say that those two cards are setting some kind of precedent for how something like TMs will be handled going forward is assuming a bit much, in my opinion. [[User:Viskiv|Viskiv]] ([[User talk:Viskiv|talk]]) 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::Feel free to ''reword'' it as you like, just don't simply ''remove'' the content. First Tools with attacks on them is notable, and it is difficult to work with the content when it keeps getting removed. Please, modify it as you seem fit, just don't outright remove the entire topic when it seems that you have a problem with only 1 of the sentences. ''[[User:Maverick Nate|<sup style="color:#00008B;">'''Maverick'''</sup>]][[User talk:Maverick Nate|<sub style="color:#00008B;">'''Nate'''</sub>]]'' 14:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | :::Feel free to ''reword'' it as you like, just don't simply ''remove'' the content. First Tools with attacks on them is notable, and it is difficult to work with the content when it keeps getting removed. Please, modify it as you seem fit, just don't outright remove the entire topic when it seems that you have a problem with only 1 of the sentences. ''[[User:Maverick Nate|<sup style="color:#00008B;">'''Maverick'''</sup>]][[User talk:Maverick Nate|<sub style="color:#00008B;">'''Nate'''</sub>]]'' 14:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::Prior to this discussion I was not actually aware that they were the first tools with attacks on them - I agree that this is notable and should be mentioned. Not knowing that at the time, I didn't think there was anything notable about what I was removing. It would have been nice to have had this discussion two weeks ago! [[User:Viskiv|Viskiv]] ([[User talk:Viskiv|talk]]) 03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
edits