• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

Is the Fairy-type OP?


  • Total voters
    59
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

He's employed by the Spanish Official Nintendo Magazine, not Game Freak.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

He's employed by the Spanish Official Nintendo Magazine, not Game Freak.
"The company" refers to that company. I'm sorry to say, but I forgot the exact name of the Spanish Official Nintendo Magazine.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I suspect that some leaks are intentionally released from GF or Nintendo to create hype and the attention centers around Pokémon. Maybe Hiro (who apparently works for Nintendo Europe) wasn't authorized to leak this, and today he was.
That's still baffling. Only two days ago he felt the need to deflect speculation about a new type by pretending that Sylveon's type was Flying, but now he suddenly has permission from Nintendo to tell us the truth? There has been hype about a new type since February and we are probably not going to get any confirmation very soon, so I question the timing.

Another option, is that by Wednesday, too few employees were aware of this info, and he could've been easily spotted as the "leaker".
But he can be easily spotted even now. He wants us to know that he's the source.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I'm a fairy type supporter myself (and I also even thought Xerneas would be fairy type) but I'm still a bit suspicious of Hiro's actions. Didn't he get fired after the Black/White shenanigans? Also for the retconning discussion, I've had this image for a while so I'll share it.


View attachment 86534
While some of the evidence is pretty impressive I don't think so many should be retconned. There is an obvious case for lots of the ones in that picture if a fairy type did come to light. I wouldn't have Chansey & Blissey as Normal/Fairy though, just pure fairy.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I suspect that some leaks are intentionally released from GF or Nintendo to create hype and the attention centers around Pokémon. Maybe Hiro (who apparently works for Nintendo Europe) wasn't authorized to leak this, and today he was.
That's still baffling. Only two days ago he felt the need to deflect speculation about a new type by pretending that Sylveon's type was Flying, but now he suddenly has permission from Nintendo to tell us the truth? There has been hype about a new type since February and we are probably not going to get any confirmation very soon, so I question the timing.

Another option, is that by Wednesday, too few employees were aware of this info, and he could've been easily spotted as the "leaker".
But he can be easily spotted even now. He wants us to know that he's the source.

I haven't the answers by myself. That's why I'm telling all of this as guesses and suspicions. There's a chance all of this is fake. But there's a chance all of this is truth too, and when someone has a good or a bad history, that chance may vary. In this case, he's been a trustful source in the past, so people is more leading to believe this.

I don't believe I'm the owner of the truth, I'm not looking for winning a discussion at the internet. Unlike... other users.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I'm ready for a new type. I mean, why not? It's a new generation. Let's make it even more awesome.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

The "Fairy" type can leave alot up to interpretation, so I approve. It fills a sect that wasn't properly covered by any other type, has imaginable relations with other types, and it feels like pokemon. I would find this a suitable replacement for LIGHT.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

While I'm not opposed to the idea of a new type; just when exactly is this information supposed to be 'confirmed/revealed' tomorrow?
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

If the Fairy type is legit, then I hope it's used to its full potential. A person on another board noted that Slender Man of all things can qualify as a fairy in the mythical sense.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

'Fairy' also acting as 'Mythical' works for me. 15+ Years and all the Types have been expanded to include some very broad definitions. It would be lovely for a brand-new type to instantly reach that far from the beginning.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

If the Fairy type is legit, then I hope it's used to its full potential. A person on another board noted that Slender Man of all things can quality as a fairy in the mythical sense.
A Dullahan Pokemon with the fairy type would be awesome.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I don't really approve of the Fairy-type, since it seems like a lot of things could cover that, such as: anything in the fairy egg group (which is also a reason why I don't like it). It just seems too broad a term. Also, other types are generally an element of some sort, and "fairy" doesn't seem to be an element to me.

That said, if this "leak" or post or whatever turns out to be real, I'd hope they give Fairy a different name. I mean, am I the only one who looks at Xerneas and doesn't see fairy? Sylveon, maybe, but not Xerneas.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Okay, Venator, but if we do get a new type this generation, we all get to act like schoolchildren and laugh at you, okay? :p
Deal. :p

But I'll make sure to quote you specifically and laugh too, then.

There's not a good reason that you should just assume that there will not be any new types, either. There's just as much proof that "there will not be any new types" as "there will be more types" so your arguement is invalid. So int he future, that we know nothing about, I will not go back to this exact post, as I will have forgotten all about it, unlike you.
There is considerable circumstantial evidence against the possibility of new types. Though what the future holds in unknown to everyone outside of Game Freak, given the circumstantial evidence, it's best to not set your hopes too high in regards to a new type.

So please, enlighten us with your proof that there will be no new types.
Okay. Given Game Freak's past actions on new types and how premature fan speculation has, in every generation since II, always assumed that there will be a type, that new Pokemon "x" is of said type, and has always been wrong, I'm not sure that their is anything resembling a strong case for a new type.

Pokemon who, practically, embodied "Sound" were added as Normal-types, "Celestial" as Psychic-Rock types, and yet others as other types in the transition between Gameboy and Gameboy Advanced, accompanying an entirely revamped Pokemon system. If any time was truly ideal to add a new type, it was then and they didn't add any.

Same goes for many other Pokemon added since then. Even the transition between GBA and DS would have been a good time to add new types, especially for the cover legendaries who represented the very abstract concepts of Time, Space, and Anti-Matter. And for gen V, according to other speculative fans, when Reshiram's (even earlier with Zekrom's) typing was revealed, the ideal poster-Pokemon of the "Light" type was gone.

The circumstantial evidence for the lack of new types is strong, given past examples. It does not rule out the possibility, but the possibility is very low, given the circumstances, and every example cited as "proof" for a new type can be explained pretty well without reaching such a conclusion.

Patterns are invalid, since Pokemon has been breaking countless traditions lately. You not wanting any does not mean that Game Freak agrees with you. Even though there is a chance that there will not be a new type, it's the same chance as the reverse.
Which countless traditions has Game Freak been breaking? I'm curious.

And the chances are not nearly that equal.

Given that the same premises were used in every previous generation to support the idea of a new type, (and given the nearly endless design possibilities for every existing type) I find that there is no good reason to think that there will be a new type any time soon, outside of fan games.
So your defense is patterns in FANDOM. That is perfectly strong evidence.

Hey, remember that pattern when there would be two main series games, a remake, and a third version? Remember when there would always be two Eeveelutions every even-numbered generation? Remember when the Elite Four would always be in a set pattern? Remember when every region was Japanese? Remember those days?

Just because they weren't added then doesn't mean they can't be added now.

Honestly, I won't be surprised if there isn't a new type. It doesn't really overhaul the type system like everyone says it is to me, but that's probably just because I don't have a lot of time to play, so I can't really get into the games. I haven't even finished Black 2 yet. It would be a rather big change for the strategic part of the games, and it's not really something you can ignore, like character customization. But you can't just assume that there will not be a new type and think everyone else who does is a moron.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I don't really approve of the Fairy-type, since it seems like a lot of things could cover that, such as: anything in the fairy egg group (which is also a reason why I don't like it). It just seems too broad a term. Also, other types are generally an element of some sort, and "fairy" doesn't seem to be an element to me.

That said, if this "leak" or post or whatever turns out to be real, I'd hope they give Fairy a different name. I mean, am I the only one who looks at Xerneas and doesn't see fairy? Sylveon, maybe, but not Xerneas.

No more of an element then dragon, or fighting(unless we count Bruce lee's kicks as energy)~

There's plenty of types that aren't elements but rather more species, so fairy could fair well(see what I did there?)

Also I agree with you on Xerneas not seeming fairyish. If they do announce a new time I'd prefer it just be light type. It works infinitely better.and on that note light should be ineffective against dark and dark ineffective against light. Yin and yang
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I don't really approve of the Fairy-type, since it seems like a lot of things could cover that, such as: anything in the fairy egg group (which is also a reason why I don't like it). It just seems too broad a term. Also, other types are generally an element of some sort, and "fairy" doesn't seem to be an element to me.

That said, if this "leak" or post or whatever turns out to be real, I'd hope they give Fairy a different name. I mean, am I the only one who looks at Xerneas and doesn't see fairy? Sylveon, maybe, but not Xerneas.

No more of an element then dragon, or fighting(unless we count Bruce lee's kicks as energy)~

There's plenty of types that aren't elements but rather more species, so fairy could fair well(see what I did there?)

I understand that many of them aren't exactly elements, but a good majority of them are. The only thing I could see being like fairy, is dragon, like you said; both are more like a species. But it just seems like such a large amount could be qualified as fairy already that I couldn't see them changing so many of them to fairy.

I'm also personally at a loss for how it could be used in battle (what would it be weak to or strong against? What kind of attacks would be "fairy"?). It just seems a bit too complex to me.

I agree. Light seems like it would fit better for Xerneas than fairy.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

It's probably only a matter of time before Nintendo catches wind of this now that the news is spreading and GoNintendo has reported on it.

Their reaction or lack thereof will probably be a good indicator of whether or not this is all true. As Serebii said, they will destroy Hiro if he's really leaking stuff.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

@Zistal; when is this supposed 'Fairy type' supposed to be revealed/confirmed anyway?
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

@Zistal; when is this supposed 'Fairy type' supposed to be revealed/confirmed anyway?

By Hiro? Several hours ago.
Officially? Serebii thinks we might have to wait until June before they start spilling the beans on the types of Sylveon, Xerneas, and Yveltal.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

@Zistal; I see, thanks! Though I'm not entirely sure whether or not I believe this 'Fairy' type being real.
 
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I just want to say that I don't care who it is or what they've done before. I will believe nothing until OFFICIAL confirmation. Besides, I think everyone is jumping to conclusions about this. I can be wrong, I can be right, but I will never regret having suspicion for something like this. I know someone will throw something I said before at me, but I don't care. I don't care about reputations, I don't care about reliability. All I care about are facts. I see none. None whatsoever. Even if this is right, how do we know? We await real info? Well duh. We only have a few sources that can be credited as being official and irrefutable, and this is not it. I would also like to remind you the ENTIRE FANDOM believed a form to be a separate pokemon, and they were proven wrong. (I was not one of them, and if you weren't, then ignore this) I ask you to not believe something so quickly this time. I don't care what this means for me or about the past. This is my stance and I refuse to think otherwise.
 
Please note: The thread is from 8 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom