Talk:Type chart (Generation I)
- I think it's to separate the physical attacks and the special attacks. --Shiningpikablu252 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the original instruction manual from my Pokemon Blue, page 33 contains a Type Chart that lists Ghost-Type attacks as super effective against Psychic-Type pokemon, not ineffective. While Generation I contained 2 Ghost-Type attacks (Night Shade and Confuse Ray; Lick was normal), neither of them were direct attacks and could not be super effective. However, upon investigation, Agatha's Gengar was indeed able to Night Shade my Kadabra for the full 56 damage. I don't see any Seismic Tosses hitting my Gengar. How can people say Psychic-Types were immune to Ghost-Types?
While the chart does list some oddities (Water being resisted by Electric, and using Poor to describe immunities while Bad is used for resistance), I think it's safe to say it's correct about this. --ZellMurasame 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, hello, Lick's been always Ghost-type. :p And it was ineffective against Psychic-types in GenI.
- ..let's just say that RBY was on lots and lots of drugs. With all these glitches and a 'poorly' made type chart system, I'd say that. :p Tina δ♫ 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't feel like getting out of the E4 at this point, so I can't verify that Lick is Ghost or Normal, but I'm pretty sure it's Normal. However the fact remains that Sonic Boom and Seismic Toss don't hit Gengar, yet Night Shade hits Kadabra. Why does this happen if Psychic is allegedly immune to Ghost? --ZellMurasame 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- So I got to my box, took out my Ghastly and tried to Lick a Pidgey and an Abra; and neither were effected. So I guess Generation I is just contradicting itself by letting Night Shade hit Psychic-Types... Oh well. --ZellMurasame 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Generation I chart displays Dragon attacks being .5x effective on Fire. That is wrong as Dragon attacks do normal damage against all types except for Dragon, which is 2x effective. - unsigned comment from Xxxplizit (talk • contribs)
- Well, with Dragon-type attacks in Generation I, type effectiveness doesn't actually matter, and that a correct multiplier is for consistency's sake with the game code only. Dragon Rage was all there was back in the first generation when it came to Dragon-type, and that attack is a set-damage strike. Hardly anyone would notice any errors with Dragon-type strikes in official type charts due to this. --Shiningpikablu252 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)