Talk:Damage category: Difference between revisions
(→Move) |
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I believe the article should be moved, in order to avoid confusion between damaging and non-damaging moves. | I believe the article should be moved, in order to avoid confusion between damaging and non-damaging moves. | ||
[[User:GalarChamp Cinderace|GalarChamp Cinderace]] ([[User talk:GalarChamp Cinderace|talk]]) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | [[User:GalarChamp Cinderace|GalarChamp Cinderace]] ([[User talk:GalarChamp Cinderace|talk]]) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
I cast my vote in favour. Status moves aren't a damage category at all, now, are they? [[User:Pichugetic|Pichugetic]] ([[User talk:Pichugetic|talk]]) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
The fact that this page hasnt been moved for at least 5 and a half years is astounding. I vote in favour of the move. [[User:SylveonRando1|SylveonRando1]] ([[User talk:SylveonRando1|talk]]) 17:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
== ???-type == | |||
The page mentions the Bird-type is physical, but what about the unused ???-type in the Gen II/III games? [[User:WOLKsite|WOLKsite]] ([[User talk:WOLKsite|talk]]) 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The ??? type in Gen 3 is neither physical nor special; types before it are counted as physical and types after it are counted as special. [[User:ThomasWinwood|ThomasWinwood]] ([[User talk:ThomasWinwood|talk]]) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Meaning it uses neither physical nor special stats in Generation III. Whereas in Generation II, were attacks of the ??? type, they would be physical and use Attack and Defense. [[Talk:??? (type)#%22Hacked_???_type_moves_in_2nd/3rd-gen_games_would_always_do_very_little_damage%22|For reference]]. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 21:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:46, 9 April 2024
Move
I didn't propose the move, but I definitely support it (if we want to stick to the template and what's displayed onscreen), seeing that Secret Sword, for example, is said to deal "physical damage" by its Pokédex entry when in fact it is a special move. The leading sentence should then be changed (and focus on the SpAtk vs. Atk). Nescientist (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also support this. Not all moves deal damage-most status moves don't, in fact-so damage category is a bit misleading. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- My approval. TheUltimateGamer (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe the article should be moved, in order to avoid confusion between damaging and non-damaging moves. GalarChamp Cinderace (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I cast my vote in favour. Status moves aren't a damage category at all, now, are they? Pichugetic (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that this page hasnt been moved for at least 5 and a half years is astounding. I vote in favour of the move. SylveonRando1 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
???-type
The page mentions the Bird-type is physical, but what about the unused ???-type in the Gen II/III games? WOLKsite (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The ??? type in Gen 3 is neither physical nor special; types before it are counted as physical and types after it are counted as special. ThomasWinwood (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Meaning it uses neither physical nor special stats in Generation III. Whereas in Generation II, were attacks of the ??? type, they would be physical and use Attack and Defense. For reference. Nescientist (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
