Ulgamoth Theory

[VeggiePopper]

You're very contradictory, ya'know? You say IslandWalker made an epic post and that he's right in the fact that we cannot decide whats a legendary and then you say "Legendaries still follow a rule". It is not the rule you described, however. It is the rule that Game Freak decides what is and what is not a Legendary. Game Freak could have decided to make Breedable and evolvable Legendaries. You're rule wouldn't support it but in that case, your rule contradicts the Game Freak rule. And since the GF rule is absolute, that means your rule would be false.

Now, that was a hypothetical situation but it may not be so hypothetical, given Ulgamoth. Ulgamoth could be the new revision of the Legendaries page (and Legendaries *cough* rule) but he may not be revealed as one yet. Sure, he lacks the legendary theme but that could be just an oversight (or an intentional thing to start this debate) on their part.

But he may be a Legendary. Nothing anyone has said has disproved it. There are no "rules" for Legendaries besides the GF rule. That was IslandWalker's entire point.

(typed on phone. Damn that took forever!)

1. Nope, I didn't contradict myself. I meant that we're not Game Freak to predict what they'll do or decide for them (to quote myself: "that only goes to Game Freak"), but there's still one general rule. What's up to GF is how and when will they bend -not break- it ("and rules are bended from time to time"). See? I was not being conttradictory, just had a wide perspective. You seem to have missunderstood my point as "there are rules but there are no rules" (which indeed would have been lamely contradictory) when it actually was "there are rules that can be bended exceptionally".

2. Island Waker's post was epic because it expalined very well how people -on both sides- try to predict things assuming they can read GF's minds and fail so badly, which applies not only on this topic, but on every other prediction/speculation thread. Didn't you read? His post was epic because of its philosophy, not because of his particular side on this discussion, so I still can praise him and not agree with him. Plus, he actually just said that he neither said it was a Legendary.

3. Yep, my rule analysis (not "my rule" per sé as you adressed it) would, and eventually will be broken and disproved when GF has no other option but to break it when everything's been done, but until then, the rule still (which means NOW, that is, Gen V, which includes Urgamoth) stands and it stands as "one rule per Pokémon, one rule one single time". And I repeat, that's not my rule, thats GF's rule, as that how they been doing it, I just pointed it out and analysed it.

4. You just said it: it lacks the Legendary theme (I assume you meant the Legendary treatment and characteristics. If you meant "legendary music theme", then I withdraw this point), so what would the point be in classify it as one? Just for the lulz? It's like calling a 4'10'' man 'tall' who of course wouldn't be tall, but say "He can be tall because the rule can be broken", or saying a bald man is long-haired: "He has no hair, but if he had, it would be long so let's just call him long-haired".
4.1. In the latter case, he could potentially be long-haired if he did let it grow long, but until he does it, he's still bald, not long-haired. The same goes for Urgamoth: since it doesn't meet the minimal Legendary criteria (that is, at least one Legendary-exclusive trait, for the ones you've all been mentioning also apply to rare and presudo-legendary Pokémon), the only way it could be a Legendary is when GF oficially announces that (thus it would be this Gen's Phione), but until then, it's not Legendary. You said it yourself: it may be, but isn't, until confirmed.

And LOL, I hate typing from phones too.

EDIT:

The only problem with this is that if legendaries were breedable, evolved, etc., etc., what would separate them from normal pokemon? GF's word? What's the point of having a separate category for a certain group of pokemon, if that group no longer possesses the traits that distinguished them from everything else? Now, I'm not going to completely bash the idea of Ulgamoth being a legendary, but I do think it would negate the concept of "legendary" as a grouping.

Actually, that was my point from the beginning. What would be special in Legendary Pokémon if they have nothing special anymore? (self-quoting me again: "if it was indeed a Legendary, then there would be nothing to differenciate Legends and non-Legends anymore thus completely killing the purpose of Legends, what would the purpose of it being a Legendary be if it has nothing to distinguish itself as a Legendary?")

 

[Venator]

Retract 4 and 4.1 because I did mean the legendary battle music.

Anyway, to both of you, the thing that would make them special is that there would still be legends about them. Not that those legends are 100% true. But still, without the legends behind them, nothing separates Legendaries from normal Pokemon besides stats and even then, several Pokemon have almost hit the same stat range as Legendaries. Legendaries have been shown to breed (in the anime at least) and have also been shown that there is more than one of them (via multiple games [Pt and HGSS for example] and the anime). They're just the same creatures as the others with one difference: The have legends associated with them. They're special in that manner. Sure, Dialga has been shown to manipulate time. Future Sight? Palkia has been shown to manipulate space. Teleport? My point is, they're just the same creatures as everything else, only more specially adapted and a bit more powerful.

1. I meant that we're not Game Freak to predict what they'll do or decide for them, but there's still one general rule. What's up to GF is how and when will they bend -not break- it.

And this rule has been established by Game Freak when? There is no such definite rule. If there was such a definite rule, why would GF even bend it in the first place? They don't bend it because they make the rules. "Game Freak decides what is a Legendary." We, as fans of Game Freak, do not decide what is a Legendary because of our own set of "rules" which are not definite and liable to be broken by Game Freak.

And GameFreak can, and will, change their own rules if they don't suit an idea they want to work with.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Ulgamoth is not a legendary.

/endthread

I think the second post settled this. Why this has gone on for 7 pages, I cannot see.

The likes of Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp and Sazandra are closer to being Legendary than this thing.

 

[Venator]

Because nothing definite for either case has been found yet and there is a definite possibility it is a Legendary.

 

[VeggiePopper]

Anyway, to both of you, the thing that would make them special is that there would still be legends about them.

Then it would be Arcanine-legendary, not officially Legendary (like Mewtwo, the Birds, the Beasts, the Regis or the Sinnoh Gods, notice the lower case) and the rest of your post has no sense whatsoever and my and CreepyMushroom's points (even my 4 and 4.1) stand.

And this rule has been established by Game Freak when? There is no such definite rule. If there was such a definite rule, why would GF even bend it in the first place? They don't bend it because they make the rules. "Game Freak decides what is a Legendary." We, as fans of Game Freak, do not decide what is a Legendary because of our own set of "rules" which are not definite and liable to be broken by Game Freak.

Of course there's no "official Game Freak rulebook", but that's how they've worked for 14 years and five Generations, so it can be clearly distinguished as a de facto rule, or at least, their modus operandi, and at least as of BW, it still remains, so if it is broken, it'll be until Gen VI. I did say it will eventually be broken, just that it still has to happen.

 

[Matt3225]

Because nothing definite for either case has been found yet and there is a definite possibility it is a Legendary.

No there isn't, if Ulgamoth was legendary we would know by now because GF would have classified it as a legeandary when they released it

 

[Venator]

Matt, have they stated anywhere that the Musketeers are legendary?

Nope.

Kyurem?

Nope.

The Djinns?

Nope.

Genosect?

Nope.

Meloetta?

Nope.

Game Freak has actually not classified any Legendary beyond Victini, Reshiram and Zekrom.

Then it would be Arcanine-legendary, not officially Legendary (like Mewtwo, the Birds, the Beasts, the Regis or the Sinnoh Gods, notice the lower case) and the rest of your post has no sense whatsoever and my and CreepyMushroom's points (even my 4 and 4.1) stand.

They would be a lot better than Arcanine-legendary. They would have legends about them in the country they are found. Arcanine is legendary in China, not Japan. That's why Arcanine are not treated as legendary in Japan.

But all of the Japan Legendaries have Japanese legends associated with them. Legends of creation, of power and of whatever else. Japanese legends.

That's what makes them Legendary.

Of course there's no "official Game Freak rulebook", but that's how they've worked for 14 years and five Generations, so it can be clearly distinguished as a de facto rule, or at least, their modus operandi, and at least as of BW, it still remains, so if it is broken, it'll be until Gen VI. I did say it will eventually be broken, just that it still has to happen.

Legendaries are powerful Pokemon described in legends that cannot have genders and cannot breed. Those were "de facto" rules up until Gen III, where it was revised because there were Gendered Legendaries. It was further revised in Gen IV because of Manaphy. They were revised because the rules were broken. The fan-made rules were broken by Game Freak. The "rule" that you're pushing is not Game Freak's rule. That rule is a rule you made that seems to fit, like all the other rules that Game Freak has broken in the last two (three) generations.

 

[Falconwing]

However, it is pretty obvious they are.

 

[Ferbgor]

Ulagamoth is NOT a legendary. It has a pre-evolution and can breed. It is probably encourtered at Lv.70 because of its importance in the past. (It has to be old if it's found in the bottom of the Ancient Castle.)

 

[Venator]

However, it is pretty obvious they are.

That still does not change the possibility that Game Freak may have intended Ulgamoth to be a new "radical" (to fans) Legendary.

 

[Luxio]

In fairness to the OP, at least this isn't one of those fail threads in which the poster didn't actually reinforce their facts just because Ulgamoth looks kl nd cud be possible legdin, yes?/

But I can see why s/he would thing it is a legendary. I personally am going to label it as the first two-stage-pseudo until light is shed on the fiasco with the European/American releases. I think that would believable. It's just a shame I had to sift through eight pages of rancid bickering, filled with hostile disposition because people get so worked up about these things everyone enjoys a healthy debate.

 

[AndyPKMN]

Personally, I think we should assume the "rules" for legendaries haven't changed until something comes up which contradicts those (and even then maintain a healthy dose of skepticism: If Nintendo says it's legendary then it is, but keep in mind that even "official" materials from third parties have given us misinformation on the issue, such as the guide classifying Rotom as legendary).
Ulgamoth is quite unique and powerful, and certainly seems to be significant to legends. On the other hand, the same applies to Spiritomb. A lot of the arguments that Ulgamoth is a legendary are contradictory. It's near legendaries in the Pokedex! Oh wait, so are other non-legendaries, and if we're trying to disprove previous rules for legendaries we shouldn't start making new ones.
That said, I disagree with anyone saying this should be closed. As long as we can maintain a civil mode of discourse, we can keep debating this. It ought to still be considered an open issue.

 

[Pride]

Ulgamoth, is in fact, just a strong Pokémon. However, more Isshu news is coming, so we never know. it might be a legendary after all. but still, it's not a legendary. probably just a strong Pokémon, which I believe will be given psuedo legendary status..

 

[Blazaking]

Wait, Ulgamoth is banned from the Battle Subway?

 

[Falconwing]

I don't believe so.

 

[Blazaking]

Well then, on what basis is this whole discussion?

It evolves from a Pokémon. It can breed that Pokémon. If you can just breed millions of it, what type of legendary can it be?

So yeah, Ulgamoth is a pseudo-legendary, at most.

 

[Falconwing]

That's my entire argument exactly.

 

[Articwolf10]

Yeah Ulgamoth can't be a Legend... IT evolves strike one. IT can breed to get more of it Strike two (And don't bring up Phione GF can't decide if It's Legendary or not)

THeir are Rules for Legends... They don't evolve ever they can't breed (Exluding Manaphy and Phione however Manaphy doesn't count as you can't Breed other Manaphy and Phione is debatabl) Ulgamoth doesn't fit the criteria for a Legend

 

[#Daisuke#]

Ulgamoth is by no means a legendary Pokemon.

Ulgamoth evolves from a another Pokemon, Ulgamoth can be bred, and Ulgamoth is allowed to participate in Battle Subway battles. A legendary Pokemon wouldn't be able to do these things. I wouldn't even call it a two-staged pseudo legendary. Going by that logic, Arcanine and Archeos would be one too. At best, Ulgamoth is just a very strong Pokemon and may be considered legendary in a sense as Dratini and Arcanine are.

 

[Venator]

Personally, I think we should assume the "rules" for legendaries haven't changed until something comes up which contradicts those (and even then maintain a healthy dose of skepticism: If Nintendo says it's legendary then it is, but keep in mind that even "official" materials from third parties have given us misinformation on the issue, such as the guide classifying Rotom as legendary).

That said, I disagree with anyone saying this should be closed. As long as we can maintain a civil mode of discourse, we can keep debating this. It ought to still be considered an open issue.

This. Only we should maintain the possibility, given this is the "Is this really Pokemon?" generation (and that nothing else radical enough to warrant that statement has been found yet), that Game Freak decided to throw every thing we "knew" about Legendaries out the window.

Also, bringing up Rotom makes me wonder why they gave Rotom the Legendary music.