Ulgamoth Theory

[Ice Tyrant]

Even with it's Pre-Evo available earlier and the fact it's Pre-Evo exists at all, I have some reasons to believe Ulgamoth is a Legendary.

First off all, Ulgamoth is 4td strongest non-legendary and non-psuedo-legendary, and the strongest of such in the Isshu dex without a hindering ability like Archeos. Secondly, even though past Pokemon have been an Only One encounter in the past, Ulgamoth is not just found on some random route or cave, as it's found in an ancient castle (Rotom is found in the old chateau, but that sounds more like a random place due to how modern the building is in comparison to Ancient Castle). The most unusual fact about this encounter with Ulgamoth is it's high Level (At Level 70) and having the 2nd lowest non-legendary catch rate at a catch rate of 15 (Only Beldum's line goes lower). It also has the honr of being the highest leveled Pokemon on Adeku's team (Which can't be used as evidence against it being a legendary due to past gens having trainers with legends as well, such as Brandon and as recently as N).

Now I might be crazy, but remember, there was a big debat over Phione for similar reasons yet is a Legendary due to the fact it can't be entered in the Battle Frontier and Official Tournaments. If Ulgamoth is banned from the Battle Subway and Official Tournaments, we may very well have another Phione incident among us. Any thoughts?

 

[Zuruzukin]

Ulgamoth is not a legendary.

/endthread

 

[Falconwing]

Agreed. Ulgamoth is just a very powerful pokemon. Pseudo-legendaryish maybe. But not a legend.

 

[Missingno. Master]

If anything, I expected people to debate about the possibility of Zorua/Zoroark being legendary. But not Ulgamoth.

If it evolves into or from something, it's not legendary. If it can be bred so as to obtain moar of them, it's DEFINITELY not legendary. I worded it the way I did because Manaphy can be bred, just not to create more of itself.

With a mustache.

 

[Magmortar123]

Eh, I say no. It may seem like it stat-wise, but that's about it.

 

[FireMeowth]

Adeku has one, and it isn't plot-related (like all previous Trainers with Legendary Pokémon outside the Tower/Frontier). So no, it's not Legendary.

Also, not all Legendary Pokémon are banned from the Tower/Frontier. Only the strongest and the event-exclusive. Phione is among the latter, and therefore banned.

 

[Venator]

So Phione is considered a legendary by you guys while you can breed it to obtain more of it? Ulgamoth could very well turn out to be a nonevent legendary capable of breeding. After all, we've had how many things regarding legendaries happen to us in the past two generations?

Legendaries can't have genders. Owait.
Legendaries can't breed. Owait.

It is possible Game Freak very well decided to implement a legendary capable of breeding more of itself. They've tore apart the fanconception of legendaries before. What's stopping them from doing it again?

 

[Falconwing]

There's nothing legendary about it though. Provide evidence that Mothra is a legendary of any kind or else it's just another really powerful pokemon.

 

[Venator]

Ahem. Did you forget to read the OP Ryuu? Sounds like we have another Phione discussion on our hands.

 

[Falconwing]

No I read it. I jsut don't see that as proof.

EDIT: Statwise, it's weaker than the pseudo legendaries. And it's location shows it was in high regard, possible involved in legends, but legendary as is implied by the OP it is not .

EDIT2: Pseudo legend, at the most.

 

[Zuruzukin]

Oh, get off it, Venator. There's absolutely nothing legendary about Ulgamoth.

Also, to what you said earlier about Phione, it's not even a confirmed legendary itself and it does not evolve into Manaphy, so that was really no point at all. Meraruba DOES, however, evolve into Ulgamoth, so that alone shows it can't be legendary. There's obviously something special about it, given where its caught and how powerful it is, but that something special definitely isn't legendary status.

I don't know why this is even being argued.

 

[Orion-Sama]

At best, Ulgamoth is a "legendary" in the same veins as Arcanine and Dratini. Meaning, legendary but not really. Or legendary, not Legendary.

Yeah, weird, I know. But makes enough sense to me.

It's not like Phione at all. Phione is I guess a mutation of Manaphy, and thus can't evolve into one. Ulgamoth might be found like a Legendary would, but you can also get its pre-evo as a freebie. It's like saying Sudowoodo is Legendary.

 

[Venator]

And Phione is so debated because its breedable and hasa BST OF 480 and. Catch rate of 30. Ulgamoth has the third lowest catch rate, a. Higher BST AND is next to the main. Legendaries Pokedex wise.

 

[Zuruzukin]

And Phione is so debated because its breedable and hasa BST OF 480 and. Catch rate of 30. Ulgamoth has the third lowest catch rate, a. Higher BST AND is next to the main. Legendaries Pokedex wise.

And that means it's a legendary...How? You just really need to accept it's not and be done with it. I believe we've given you more than enough reasons as to why it's not.

And yes, that's exactly it. Phione is debated because YOU CAN BREED MORE OF IT. If there's one thing all legendaries have in common, it's their exclusivity. What would even be the point of legendaries if you could breed all you want? No, man. That alone is enough to rip apart your arguments.

The end. Please.

 

[Matt3225]

Ulgamoth is an evolution and legendaries don't evolve so Ulgamoth is not a legendary. It's not even a pseudo legendary iirc. It's just a really powerful pokemon. Besides you can get two in the same game(pre evo in egg and Ancient castle) which no other legendary as ever done

 

[Orion-Sama]

And Phione is so debated because its breedable and hasa BST OF 480 and. Catch rate of 30. Ulgamoth has the third lowest catch rate, a. Higher BST AND is next to the main. Legendaries Pokedex wise.

So? The Dratini and Larvitar lines both come after the generational Legendary Trio in the ordering. You might make a case for Dratini being treated as "kind of" legendary, but not Larvitar.

I guess Rotom is Legendary because it precedes the Pixies then. Also, I guess Victini isn't Legendary because it comes before the Starters.

I guess Garchomp can't be considered a Pseudo-Legendary for not being right next to the 4th Gen Legendaries.

Ultimately, Pokémon placement can't be used as evidence. Same would go for Phione, except Phione is also supported by Word Of God.

 

[Venator]

What would even be the point of legendaries if you could breed all you want?

What would be the point of having gendered legendaries?
What would be the point of making any breedable legendaries at all?

What you are using the fan-determined definition for a Legendary. WE cannot decide for GameFreak if a thing is a Legendary or not. If GameFreak decides this thing is a Legendary, it is a Legendary.

If GameFreak decides to make breedable, and evolvable, Legendaries, what would that mean? What if they have already done so?

I'm not fighting to name Ulgamoth as a Legendary. Truthfully, I'm just here to stop you guys from shutting it down because you think you can define what makes a Legendary, Legendary.

 

[Falconwing]

Ven, if no one accepts it as a legendary, it's not a legendary. GF sure doesn't seem like it's put it in that category.

And besides, if your answer is simply going to be, "It's up to GameFreak," then there's no reason for any debate here. You have no argument. You are simply playing devil's advocate for no discernible reason.

 

[Zuruzukin]

What would be the point of having gendered legendaries?

It helps pull together the concept that Gamefreak wanted to give it. Just a minor little trait.

What would be the point of making any breedable legendaries at all?

Well, considering that the only breedable legendary is Manaphy and you can't even breed it for Manaphy, that's not even worth bringing up. Legendaries are NOT breedable, so I'd be asking that same question, too. There's no point.

What you are using the fan-determined definition for a Legendary. WE cannot decide for GameFreak if a thing is a Legendary or not. If GameFreak decides this thing is a Legendary, it is a Legendary.

Well, obviously. But that's the thing. It's not a legendary. We've gotten absolutely no word from Gamefreak that this thing has any kind of legendary status whatsoever, but we do know all of the legendaries. Ulgamoth is NOT ONE OF THEM. Sheesh.

If GameFreak decides to make breedable, and evolvable, Legendaries, what would that mean? What if they have already done so?

We just know what Gamefreak's given us, and guess what? The overgrown moth ain't a legendary. They haven't done so and probably won't.

I'm not fighting to name Ulgamoth as a Legendary. Truthfully, I'm just here to stop you guys from shutting it down because you think you can define what makes a Legendary, Legendary.

You seem to be under the false assumption that we're trying to decide what is legendary and what is not. That's not it at all. We just know for a fact that Ulgamoth is absolutely not legendary. You're not going to stop us from shutting it down.

I find it ridiculous that this is even being argued, again.

 

[Venator]

Really Ryuu? There are several reasons why Ulgamoth could be debated as a Legendary. I'll just make a list and you guys can go from there.

It has a signature move.
It learns a move every 10 levels.
It has a catch rate of 15, the third lowest catch rate next to Legendaries and the Beldum line.
It is between the Musketeer Trio and the "Psuedos".
It appears as a One Only Pokemon that is encountered at Level 70.
It is found within an Ancient Castle.

It helps pull together the concept that Gamefreak wanted to give it. Just a minor little trait.

And breeding is also a minor little trait that GameFreak could spread if it wanted. With Genders comes breeding.

Well, considering that the only breedable legendary is Manaphy and you can't even breed it for Manaphy, that's not even worth bringing up. Legendaries are NOT breedable, so I'd be asking that same question, too. There's no point.

And that was LAST Gen. Maybe GameFreak decided to throw up our concept of Legendaries yet again with the CURRENT Gen?

Well, obviously. But that's the thing. It's not a legendary. We've gotten absolutely no word from Gamefreak that this thing has any kind of legendary status whatsoever, but we do know all of the legendaries. Ulgamoth is NOT ONE OF THEM. Sheesh.

And what if, in the third version, Ulgamoth is given a Legendary backstory and Legendary battle music? Will it still be "not a legendary"?

We just know what Gamefreak's given us, and guess what? The overgrown moth ain't a legendary. They haven't done so and probably won't.

And GameFreak has proven our concepts of what they can and will do wrong before.

You seem to be under the false assumption that we're trying to decide what is legendary and what is not. That's not it at all. We just know for a fact that Ulgamoth is absolutely not legendary. You're not going to stop us from shutting it down.

It's not a false assumption. You say you know what a Legendary is by saying "Legendaries are not breedable". You don't decide whether a Legendary is breedable or not. That is GameFreak's choice. If GameFreak wanted to make a Legendary that breeds more of itself, would they be wrong because of your definition of a Legendary?

I find it ridiculous that this is even being argued, again.

Yes, I do too. You're not even giving the thought that Game Freak pulled a more advanced Manaphy/Phione on us again.