Are Alolan forms gen 1 mons or gen 7 mons?

Gen 7.

>>32260592
ANYTHING PAST GEN1 ISNT POKEMON

Gen 7

Gen 1. Don't be retarded.

>>32260592
Gen 7

>>32260592
Gen 7 version of a gen 1 pokemon

Are megas gen 6 pokemon?

>>32260640
Gen 7. Fuck off.

>>32260800
Gen 1. Fuck off.

Gen 1 Pokemon Gen 7 Designs

Gen 1 Pokémon in Gen 7 clothing

File: image.png (14KB, 150x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 150x300px

Gen 7. And Unown is a Gen 3 Pokemon. And Pichu is a Gen 4 Pokemon.

>>32260592
Gen 7. They're the new versions of stuff like Roggenrola (obvious redo/regional counterpart of Geodude) or split evos in the case of Marowak/Raichu/Exeggutor. You don't consider Sylveon a Gen 1 mon, do you?

>>32260592
Both, I think.

Horrible abominations, that's what they are.

>>32260832
>You don't consider Sylveon a Gen 1 mon, do you?

No because Sylveon is new species while Alolan forms aren't.

It's fucking incredible how hard it is for people to grasp that forms aren't new Pokemon.

>>32260865
For me everything that can't be done in old games belongs to it's respective gen.
So yes the base pokemon are g1 but the new forms are g7

>>32260592
Going by the criteria we had ever since gen 1 they're gen 1 mons.
If you're a gf shill they're gen 7 mons.

>>32260592
They're just forms of gen 1 Pokemon

>>32260832
>Gen 7.

>They're the new versions of stuff
This means gen 1

> like Roggenrola (obvious redo/regional counterpart of Geodude)
Different mons
>or split evos in the case of Marowak/Raichu/Exeggutor.
Why are you calling them the same as pokemon from gen 1?

>You don't consider Sylveon a Gen 1 mon, do you?
Sylveon is a pokemon that debuted in gen 6.

>>32260865
If Eevee were added today, odds are it would have a single evolution that's treated like Wormadam or Lycanroc.
See: how Nidoran was handled in Gen 1 vs. gender differences in Gen 5 & 6.

Hell, Slowking is basically the original regional variant.

>>32260943
>Being on /vp/
>Not being a gf shill
Choose 1

>>32260895
>for me
Irrelevant

>>32260970
Cool beans

>>32260965
>If Eevee were added today
It isnt

>See: how Nidoran was handled in Gen 1 vs. gender differences in Gen 5 & 6.
Nidoran's case is an exception due to.gen 1 limits as non retards knew since gen 2. Also, by your logic they should be different mons, same with gender differences(which started in gen 4).


>Hell, Slowking is basically the original regional variant.
No, it doesnt even work in a remotely similar way.

>>32260981
>reddit spacing
Fuck off.

>>32260990
>reddit spacing
What?

>>32260592
I consider them to be gen 7, they're functionally and aesthetically different in enough of a way to make them separate.

>>32261005
They are gen 1 though.

>>32260997
You write like a fucking redditor.
Or at least an outsider. You have been here for a week or less, right? Lurk moar, cancer.

>>32260592
Gen 1: they are alternate forms, so they belong to the generation of the original pokemon

>>32261017
>You write like a fucking redditor.
Explain why
>Or at least an outsider.
Only because I attempt to argue, but i've been here since./vp/ started.

>>32261012
Well I disagree but I don't feel like getting into an argument so feel free to think that.

>Lol they are gen 1 BUT COULFN'T GET THEM IN RBY OR FRLG BECAUSE I SUCK GF DICK LOOOOLLLLLL

>>32260865
they can't change forms, ergo they're new pokemon

>>32261038
Its not a matter of opinion though.

>>32260592
Well they're gen 7.
Disregarding all the posts arguing, Alolan forms are only found in Alola, gen 7. This means that Alolan forms are gen 7 Pokemon, although the species as a whole is gen 1.

>>32261040
Gf shills are the ones who say gen 7.
People who say 1 are following the criteria the franchise had since gen 1. If we are wrong you have to prove it.

>>32261036
Do you have any proof?

>>32261047
Correct. I know they're gen 7, but I disagree with your statement. The species may be gen 1 but the forms are Alolan Pokemon, and are gen 7 only.

>>32261055
so cross evos are also gen 1 or 2?

>>32261054
Alolan formas are gen 7 forms, not gen 7 pokemon.

>>32261057
Of something completely irrelevant to the matterat hand? You are to one who claimed reddit, prove that first.

>>32260808
Gen 7. Fuck off.

File: IMG_0805.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>32260613

>>32261055
You can't get them in gen 1 games
If I didnt have access to something from the year 2010 in 2000 but it is based on tech from 2000, is it tech of 2000 you fucking dick licker?

>>32261066
You seem to think that I'm interpreting it as "are these Pokemon from gen 1 or 7?"

I am not. The OP asks whether the forms themselves are gen 1 or 7 Pokemon, and I stipulated that they are gen 7 Pokemon despite the species being gen 1.

>>32261063
If by "alolan pokemon" you mean the instance of the pokemon that have alolan forms then I agree, but the answer to ops question is gen 1 as alolan forms are, well, forms.

>>32261064
Each mon is from the gen it was introduced as we all knew since gen 1. Gf shills unlearned this.

>>32261066
Haha kill yourself, poser.
>implying it is any hard to mention the first sticky or something of old days

They're just new gen 7 forms of gen 1 Pokemon, thats all there is to it

They carry on their old names and National Pokedex numbers

>>32261083
I didn't know Ninetales was Ice/Fairy back in 1996. Guess I wasn't informed well enough

>>32261084
>cannot bring proof
>ad hominem
For shame

>>32261055
>following the criteria the franchise had since gen 1
Forms weren't a thing until Unown and shinies, johtoddler.

>>32261083
I mean that the Alolan forms themselves are gen 7 Pokemon and that the species does remain gen 1 as a whole, the OP asks a very ambiguous question that can be interpreted as different questions and answers.

>>32261074
>You can't get them in gen 1 games

Not sure what gen 1 you played but I could get meowth, marowak, exeguttor and the others just fine.

>If I didnt have access to something from the year 2010 in 2000 but it is based on tech from 2000, is it tech of 2000 you fucking dick licker?
Those are two different devices. If you want to follow with this analogy you're essentially saying tv was invented in 2017 because a new model was released this year.

>>32261090
I didn't know Ninetales wasnt obtainable back in 1996. Guess I wasn't informed well.

>>32261098
No, but pokemon were since gen 1

>>32261103
The alolan forms are, as said in the name, forms.

>>32261104
>you're essentially saying tv was invented in 2017 because a new model was released this year.
He isn't, though. What you're saying though is that say, a smart TV is a 1927 invention

>>32261114
Can you get alolan forms in gen 1? That's right, and that's all you'll ever need for an answer.
The only games where they're available and obtainable as of now are gen 7 games, ergo they're gen 7 pokemon.

File: abusepastafag last thread OP.jpg (56KB, 763x278px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 763x278px

>>32261091
proof of what? of me being here? or of your fucking reddit tier posting?
Just browse any sub reddit, that's all proof you need, poser.

>>32261117
Not really, unless you assume smart tv is not tv. And i'm sure the tv in smart tv is there for a reason.

>>32261114
But they, as Pokemon, are separate from the original form, and as such, I am saying that they are gen 7. I am not trying to dispute that they are not the same, they're just different versions of the same species. What I am saying is that they are Pokemon from gen 7, which is what the OP asked. Regardless of their origin, they were introduced as permanent forms in gen 7, so I am saying that they are gen 7.
I will reinterate. They are a gen 1 Pokemon species. The forms are of gen 1 Pokemon. But the Alolan forms are gen 7.

>>32261123
>Can you get alolan forms in gen 1?
Ni, how does it.magically stop meowth from being in gen 1?

>That's right, and that's all you'll ever need for an answer.
So a mon is from the last gen it got a new thing? Venusaur confirmed r for gen 6 mon.


>The only games where they're available and obtainable as of now are gen 7 games, ergo they're gen 7 pokemon.
Except they arent new pokemon.

>>32260592
A little bit of both -- why has it got to be an either/or situation? Life has shades of grey you impossible fucking buffoons.

>>32261129
>But they, as Pokemon, are separate from the original form, and as such, I am saying that they are gen 7.

They're as gen 7 as a caterpie found in jhoto is gen 2. OP isnt asking for instances.

>I will reinterate. They are a gen 1 Pokemon species. The forms are of gen 1 Pokemon. But the Alolan forms are gen 7.
That's literally what i'm saying, they're gen 7 forms, not gen 7 mons.

>>32261148
>muh gray area fallacy

>>32261135
>how does it.magically stop meowth from being in gen 1?
It doesn't, that's not even the point here. We're not discussing whether or not Normal type Meowth is gen 1 or 7.

>>32261157
>>how does it.magically stop meowth from being in gen 1?
>It doesn't, that's not even the point here.
Yes it is. Meowth is a gen 1 pokemon and will always be.

>We're not discussing whether or not Normal type Meowth is gen 1 or 7.
Meowth is a gen 1 mon. It might get new forms, types, and attacks(none if which gen 7 did first mind you) but that wont make the species not gen 1.

>>32261104
But not the new forms
You know, I sometimes don't know if I am being trolled or this is real stupidity and semantics bullshit.

>>32261149
You misunderstand.
I am saying that yes, the species are inarguably gen 1, and as such the Alolan Pokemon species is indeed gen 1. But I am referring to the new Alolan form in the context it wa introduced, in Alola, i.e. gen 7, so I am saying that the Alolan forms specifically are gen 7 Pokemon.

>>32261170
But the OP said the forms
Why are you arguing about the pokemon themselves? fucking kill yourself.

>>32261188
A form isnt a new pokemon.

>>32261190
The instances of the pokemon is gen 7. The same way a pancham caught in sun and moon is from gen 7. But we wont make that distinction every time we discuss gen 7 mons.

>>32261194
No, op asked if they were gen 1 MONS or gen 7 MONS. He's wrong in thinking that a form=a mon, but the mons are gen 1.

>>32260592
Yes.

>>32261155
How is it fallacious to suggest a gen 7 redesign of a gen 1 Pokémon doesn't necessarily need to be classified exclusively as either?

Apart from that, what I suggested has next to nothing to do with the continuum fallacy (I didn't suggest there's no meaningful difference between gen 7 and gen 1 classifications, I just suggested that neither classification necessarily describes alola forms on its own). Why is it that you fallacy logicdorks so inept at actually recognizing fallacies?

Only rural and suburban retards think they're gen 1.

All city people know they're gen 7.

File: ivy what.jpg (9KB, 236x138px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x138px

>>32261236
I give up with you
That's enough /vp/ logic for me for today.

>>32261260
>>32261155
inb4 you call "no true scotsman" or some similarly irrelevant shit

>>32261260
>How is it fallacious to suggest a gen 7 redesign of a gen 1 Pokémon doesn't necessarily need to be classified exclusively as either?
Because the original species didnt change. And its the way we went with this ever since always and only now gf shills want to question it just to up the gen 7 pokemon counter. A form is not a mon. The species are gen 1 pokemon. They happened to get a form in gen 7.


>Apart from that, what I suggested has next to nothing to do with the continuum fallacy (I didn't suggest there's no meaningful difference between gen 7 and gen 1 classifications, I just suggested that neither classification necessarily describes alola forms on its own). Why is it that you fallacy logicdorks so inept at actually recognizing fallacies?
Except it can clearly be classified and you didnt present an argument against this. I didnt even know about this continuum fallacy, I just see a lot of retards trying to sound smart by briging up muh gray area for literally anything.

>>32261270
Its not like you had an argument in the first place anyways.

>>32261302
There is no argument.
Can you get the form in gen 1? no? then it is gen 7. The OP is dumb and confused mons with forms, but I am not him, yet you assumed I defended that same instance.
>NO IT ISN'T LOLOLOLOL
Now if you excuse me, I'll go do something else.

>>32261314
>There is no argument.
Figures

>Can you get the form in gen 1? no? then it is gen 7.
That's literally what i'm saying. The FORM is gen 7. The FORM.

>The OP is dumb and confused mons with forms, but I am not him, yet you assumed I defended that same instance.
I didnt assume you were the op, otherwise I would have refered to the op as you, seriously learn to read. Also, you invoked what was said on the OP, not me.

>>32260640
This.

File: woja.jpg (47KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 645x968px

>Pokemon past gen 1 are gen 1
I know this is bait but holy shit im done

>>32261345
Maybe nostalgiafags just want to apropiate them to feel like they still matter.

>>32261345
Who's saying this?

>>32261357
Why would nostalgiafags like pokemon that are, according to you, post gen 2?

>>32261288
>Because the original species didnt change. And its the way we went with this ever since always and only now gf shills want to question it just to up the gen 7 pokemon counter. A form is not a mon. The species are gen 1 pokemon. They happened to get a form in gen 7.

The question wasn't "which generation are alolan forms grouped under in the Pokédex" -- it was "are they gen 1 or 7 Pokémon?" and there are cases to be made for either. It's gen 1 because the Pokédex numbers don't change or because the species is still technically the same, or it's gen 7 because the forms were introduced in gen 7 or because these forms can only be found in gen 7, etc.

If the question were more specific, it might make more sense to think in terms of a gen 1/7 binary, but given how general the question was, I think there's more than enough room for "grey."

> didnt even know about this continuum fallacy, I just see a lot of retards trying to sound smart by briging up muh gray area for literally anything.

The continuum fallacy is the same fucking thing as the grey area fallacy you absolute fucking nerd (and it still doesn't apply to my first comment). God damn, you fallacyfags are so inept.

I also love the irony of a logicdork fallacylover chewing me out for "trying to sound smart."

File: meh.jpg (61KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x480px

>>32261366
Nostalgiafags have weird standards, how would I know?
>No it is gen 1 because the pokemon is in gen 1
>But you can't get the form in gen 1
>GEN 1 I SAID

>>32261372
>more specific

For example, Alolan exeggutor is my favorite grass type overall. Suppose I'm filling out an autistic favorite chart. Would I put it under my favorite gen 1 grass type or my favorite gen 7 grass type?

>>32261391
GEN 1

>>32261372
>The question wasn't "which generation are alolan forms grouped under in the Pokédex" -- it was "are they gen 1 or 7 Pokémon?"
Its the same. A pokemon is from the gen it was introduced as indicated in the national pokedex. You're just wording it in two different ways.


> It's gen 1 because the Pokédex numbers don't change or because the species is still technically the same,
As it has always worked.

> or it's gen 7 because the forms were introduced in gen 7 or because these forms can only be found in gen 7, etc.
As gf shills just made up exclusively for alolan forms. I can only have a nothed ear pichu in gen 4. Nobody calls pichu a gen 4 mon.


>If the question were more specific, it might make more sense to think in terms of a gen 1/7 binary, but given how general the question was, I think there's more than enough room for "grey."
The only difference would be if op made his mind on whether he asked for mons forms. There's zero gray area in either. The forms are gen 7, the mons are gen 1.

>The continuum fallacy is the same fucking thing as the grey area fallacy you absolute fucking nerd
I made that term up, didnt know it was an actual thing.

>(and it still doesn't apply to my first comment).
Not sure how the official definition means, but you still failed at logic by stating there's a gray area where it isnt. This can be solved I you could prove there is such gray area.

>I also love the irony of a logicdork fallacylover chewing me out for "trying to sound smart."
Nigga, stop saying i'm a fallacylover. I just called you on your bullshit.

>>32261391
I don't really know, and I don't think it matters all that much. I'd maybe lean toward gen 7, if only because the design itself came from gen 7, and I'm assuming that's what you like about a-Exeggutor.

In any case, you'll catch shit from a bunch of people regardless.

>>32261383
>evolve cubone in gen 1
>get marowak
Wtf

>>32261391
1.

>>32261414
Because faggots here think they are lol so funny for being purposefully contrarian to cause drama and arguing.
/vp/ really hasn't changed. This is all hat vs hair all over again.

>>32261403

>I can only have a nothed ear pichu in gen 4. Nobody calls pichu a gen 4 mon

The extent of visual and mechanical differences of a-forms is enough to have people questioning whether or not alola forms are gen 7 Pokémon.

A-forms are unique to gen 7 in the way that megas are unique to gen 6 -- in this way, I think you could argue that a-Exeggutor is a gen 7 mon in the same way that, say, m-Scizor is a gen 6 mon in that these are the generations of games in which each of these specific, visually and mechanically distinct mons were introduced.

The same way you might say Giratina-O is from Platinum (not Diamond or Pearl), you can say that a-Exeggutor is from generation 7, not 1. I don't think this is really contentious.

> by stating there's a gray area where it isnt.

How is there not a grey area? The very question of whether or not a-forms are gen 1 or 7 mons, and that people are making (relatively sound) arguments for each side suggests a grey area here.

>I made that term up, didnt know it was an actual thing.

OK, ur not so bad after all.

>>32261466
>The extent of visual and mechanical differences of a-forms is enough to have people questioning whether or not alola forms are gen 7 Pokémon.
You dont get to define what means new species and what means new forms. And we're talking about pokemon fans here.


>A-forms are unique to gen 7 in the way that megas are unique to gen 6 -- in this way, I think you could argue that a-Exeggutor is a gen 7 mon in the same way that, say, m-Scizor is a gen 6 mon in that these are the generations of games in which each of these specific, visually and mechanically distinct mons were introduced.
But they're forms of preesxistinfg mons. Kudos for being the first idiot in this thread to acnowledge non alolan new forms but you dissong NE pichu shits all over your point.


>The same way you might say Giratina-O is from Platinum (not Diamond or Pearl), you can say that a-Exeggutor is from generation 7, not 1. I don't think this is really contentious.
The alolan FORM is from gen 7, jot exeggutor. Also, by your own logic, giratina o shouldnt be a gen 4 mon as you cant get it on every single gen 4 game. The only logical solution to this is to consider the mon to come from the gen it started in.


>How is there not a grey area?
I'm explaining why on my posts

>The very question of whether or not a-forms are gen 1 or 7 mons, and that people are making (relatively sound) arguments for each side suggests a grey area here.
Just because people are arguing about something doesnt mean both sides, or that even one of the two are on the right. There being a debate doesnt mean there's a grey are. Have you ever been on a canon thread? Most,bif not all discussion, is people spreading misinformation or headcanon ajd the arguments are, at best, attempts to correct them.

>>32261515
>But they're forms of preesxistinfg mons. Kudos for being the first idiot in this thread to acnowledge non alolan new forms but you dissong NE pichu shits all over your point.
in what way is something with entirely different stats, typing and moveset that are ultimately only related to their predecessor aesthetically the equivalent of some obscure shitmon with barely any difference from its mainstream counterpart?

>>32261560
In that they're different forms of the original as seen in the pokedex which is a source from the actual games.
You dont get to decide what makes a different mon.

>>32261236
No, I don't mean that. I mean the design and Pokemon (e.g. the OP raichu) are from gen 7. Raichu itself and by extension the alt form are both the same gen 1 species, but one is from gen 1, and the other is from 7. So yes, Raichu in all forms as a species is gen 1, but the Pokemon Alolan Raichu itself is from gen 7.

>>32261580
>Raichu in all forms as a species is gen 1, but the Pokemon Alolan Raichu itself is from gen 7.
That's literally what i'm saying though.

>>32261580
>>32261592
No, wait, I misread, "the pokemon alolan raichu" a form is not a new pokemon.

>>32261515
>You dont get to define what means new species and what means new forms

The original question had no mention of "species" or "forms" -- the original question is so general that an argument can be made for either case: that's all I'm saying. If the question was "are the Pokémon a-forms are based on from gen 1 or 7?" the answer is clear, but that wasn't the fucking question.

>The alolan FORM is from gen 7, jot exeggutor.

Yeah, but the question wasn't "is exeggutor a gen 1 Pokémon?" It was something like "is a-exeggutor, a specific version of exeggutor, a gen 1 or 7 Pokémon?" Because the question is so general (are we talking about the design? are we talking about Pokédex classification? are we talking about the generation it was introduced? No one fucking knows, because it wasn't specified) I don't think it's necessary to choose between one of two binary options.

>Also, by your own logic, giratina o shouldnt be a gen 4 mon as you cant get it on every single gen 4 game.

That's some retarded deduction on your part -- I never suggested a Pokémon needs to be present in every game of its generation to be a part of that generation.

>I'm explaining why on my posts

Yeah, and you're doing a shitty job of it.

>>32261602
Yes, it is a new Pokemon. Not a new species but it is an entirely different Pokemon, with a different design, typing, learnset, and stats. It's still a gen 1 Pokemon but the Alolan one is indeed a gen 7 Pokemon.

>>32261605
>The original question had no mention of "species" or "forms"

Sorry, no mention of "species" I mean

>>32261605
>The original question had no mention of "species" or "forms"

You might wanna read it again because literally says forms and uses mons to describe species.
> -- the original question is so general that an argument can be made for either case: that's all I'm saying.
Its badly redacted but the answer is clear no matter whether its asking for mons or forms.

>Yeah, but the question wasn't "is exeggutor a gen 1 Pokémon?" It was something like "is a-exeggutor, a specific version of exeggutor, a gen 1 or 7 Pokémon?"

Yes, and as it is a new version of a gen 1 POKEMON and the question asks, as you said(dont play dumb) whether the POKEMON is from gen 1 or 7 then the answer should refer to the POKEMON, not the FORM. Exeggutor is a gen 1 POKEMON. the answer is gen 1.

>That's some retarded deduction on your part -- I never suggested a Pokémon needs to be present in every game of its generation to be a part of that generation.
Its the main argument of you fags, that its magically not a gen 1 pokemon because you couldnt get it in gen 1. Pokemon diamond and pearl are gen 4 pokemon games. Yet people consider giratina a gen 4 pokemon and giratina o as a form of it and not a new mon. How could that be?

>Yeah, and you're doing a shitty job of it.
Says the guy who gets btfo with its own logic and tries to argue based on what the op meant without reading the post.

>>32261620
Its not, lore wise and gameplay wise its treated as a form. If you cant argue with lore and gameplay what do.you have?

>>32260592
I count them as part of the new gen 7 Pokemon when I count them up but it is just a Raichu so yeah it's gen 1.

>>32261631
He said mons though.

>>32261681
I just stated the gameplay reasons why. And I agree it's gen 1, you seem to be too quick to try and assert your reply rather than reading my post properly. When I use "Pokemon" I am referring to the design and total sum aspects of the Pokemon, and a yes, I count it as a new one, unless somehow you think that Alolan Raichu existed in RBY. However it is a mere form and I do say that Raichu and as such alolan raichu are both gen 1 as a species.

>>32261044
Haha yeah I love how Wormadam is 3 Pokemon!

>>32260592
They're new designs introduced in gen 7 so I think it's gen 7. Same way mega evos were gen 6.

>>32260965
>If Eevee were added today, odds are it would have a single evolution

Nobody cares about what ifs. Fact is Sylveon is a new Pokemon and forms aren't.

>>32261712
>I just stated the gameplay reasons why.
Pokedex says its a raichu form. That's gameplay literally saying its a form. You're just arguing based on your personal opinions.

>When I use "Pokemon" I am referring to the design and total sum aspects of the Pokemon,
Everyone else uses it for the species unless talking about a specific instance.

>However it is a mere form
So not a new pokemon?

>>32261736
The gameplay also makes sure that is the sole difference save for the previous evolutions.
I'm not even arguing with you, Alolan Raichu is a form of Raichu, a gen 1 Pokemon, and it is a gen 1 Pokemon. But every element of it was introduced in gen 7, and as such, it is a gen 7 Pokemon. You seem to be trying to force your definition of Pokemon as species only but this is not the case.

>it's the "a bunch of retards trying to jump through hoops to explain their headcanon of forms being new pokemon" episode

If they break the species clause it's not a new Pokemon. Period.

>>32260592
Offically Gen 1 Pokemon, but considered Gen 7 Pokemon by Game Freak to assuage the low number of new Pokemon.

>>32261714
Actually it's a gen 4 pokemon since all their forms are from gen 4

>>32261762
I think this is the best definition.
Would also cover mega evos in 6 to justify the low amount there too.

>>32261751
>The gameplay also makes sure that is the sole difference save for the previous evolutions.
Yes, they give alolan raichu different stats and the like because no one would.give a shit otherwise.

> You seem to be trying to force your definition of Pokemon as species only but this is not the case.
You're the one trying to change the definition of pokemon to your convenience. "My" definition is the one everyone always used. Its the reason no one bothered with ! And ? Unown ( or unown at all) and no one said anything about mega evolutions being new species.

>>32261674

>You might wanna read it again because literally says forms and uses mons to describe species.

By your understanding of the question, it's asking "Are forms... species?" The way you've distinguished forms and species makes the question incoherent.

>whether the POKEMON is from gen 1 or 7 then the answer should refer to the POKEMON, not the FORM. Exeggutor is a gen 1 POKEMON. the answer is gen 1.

Yeah, I agree, and, again, I think there's a case to be made for exactly this position.

However, if the question is "Is alolan-X a gen 1 or 7 Pokémon?" (this is basically how I interpreted the question, you know, because this interpretation is internally coherent), the answer becomes muddier.

>Yet people consider giratina a gen 4 pokemon and giratina o as a form of it and not a new mon

I didn't say Giratina-O was a new species, I only said it was from Platinum in the same way that, say, a-Exeggutor is from gen 7.

We're really just giving different answers to different questions, and you're too much of a dope to realize that 1) I agree with you that, say, Exeggutor is a gen 1 mon, and 2) that was never the question.

>>32261762
"Officially" is literally what gf considers. Gf considers them forms btw.

>>32261767
I know it's a gen 4. But it's three separate gen 4 pokemon according to that anon's logic.

>>32261788
I think you're rather being stiff to Pokemon at this point because it has very often been used as a loose term to refer to forms and species. Very commonly has it been used to refer to either and or, simply because this is the only way you personally have seen it does not mean I am changing anything. You also possess no evidence that your definition is the one that "everyone" uses.

>>32261797
not really, the point was gen X pokemon, not separate pokemon in other ways

>>32261822
Yes really. Wormadam can't change forms. Therefore it must be three different Pokemon. Generation is irrelevant.

>>32260613
thread should have ended here tbbqh

>>32260592
I think it's gen 7 because I can't get one in gen 1

>>32261839
>Generation is irrelevant
not when it's literally the point of this thread

I forget what my exact reasoning was for using them. Most of it had to do with the matter that I didn't really like the other alolan mons enough to make an entire party from them. The other part was I didn't really care. I guess I still saw them as gen 7 mons even if they were based on gen 1 mons. It's like the argument that you're not using an evolution made in a later generation because it doesn't come from a new mon. It's a really stupid excuse. Now that a lot of time has passed, though, I think I have a better answer:

What does it fucking matter?

If something like that is going to determine if you use a mon or not, then I don't know if you're playing this series for the right reasons.

>>32261794
>By your understanding of the question, it's asking "Are forms... species?" The way you've distinguished forms and species makes the question incoherent.
The question IS incoherent as I said multiple times.

>However, if the question is "Is alolan-X a gen 1 or 7 Pokémon?" (this is basically how I interpreted the question, you know, because this interpretation is internally coherent), the answer becomes muddier.
Your intepretation is not internally coherent because it assumes forms and species are the same thing. They arent. So even if we assume the question is that if a form is a new pokemon the answer, and the arguments about it shouldnt be about gen 1 or gen 7 but whether pokemon and forms are the same thing, yet the simplests answers are either gen 1 or 7, not answers to the actual question.

>I didn't say Giratina-O was a new species, I only said it was from Platinum in the same way that, say, a-Exeggutor is from gen 7.
Giratina o being not a species shit all over your argument. Also , giratina is from gen 4. The only possible solution is that a mon.is from the gen.it originated. Which is literally my point. Your only way out was saying that giratina o is a new mon, but you closed that door.

This has been going on for too long so i'll only reply if you make an actual point.

>>32261857
But we're talking about whether or not forms are distinct Pokemon. That anon said that Alolan forms are new Pokemon just because they can't change back so that must mean Wormadam was 3 new Pokemon when gen 4 came out.

>>32261812
>I think you're rather being stiff to Pokemon at this point because it has very often been used as a loose term to refer to forms and species.
If that was ever true then the term form wouldnt be a thing at all. Of course a pokemon doesnt stop being a pokemon for changing form, but its kept within the same species.

>You also possess no evidence that your definition is the one that "everyone" uses.
Yes, most conversations and statements ever made and the fact that "form" is a thing.
If I say "I like bulbasaur" you assume the species. I should clarify whether I mean ash's one, one I have in game and so on, you just naturally assume the species.

>>32261878
well he's a fucking idiot then

>>32261883
Well I suppose you grew up in a different Pokemon community than I did, because that is not the experience I have had regarding the term over the years I have been playing this series. Personal differences I suppose.

>>32260592
Gen 7 enough for me to use on my teams, which are only composed of newly introduced mons. Pancake Raichu>Kanto Raichu

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-30 at 12.47.16 AM.png (186KB, 359x318px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 359x318px

>>32261870

>The question IS incoherent as I said multiple times.

And my claim is that the question's generality and incoherence leaves it open to interpretation, precluding easy either/or answers to it. This is not hard to understand, and if you honestly believed the question was incoherent, you'd have agreed with me from the start.

>Your intepretation is not internally coherent because it assumes forms and species are the same thing.

I never suggested that at all, and I've never claimed that forms and species are the same -- I've not been using "mon" as a synonym for "species" you absolute dope.

>Giratina o being not a species shit all over your argument.

My claim was never that, say, a-Exeggutor was a new species, you impossible buffoon.

>Also , giratina is from gen 4

This has nothing to do with the argument I put forward. Giratina-o is from Platinum, not Diamond or Pearl in the same way that a-Exeggutor is from gen 7, not 1. Giratina-O originating in Platinum means, if we want to narrow it down to a specific game, it's a Platinum Pokémon -- likewise, A-Exeggutor originating in gen 7 means it (Alolan Exeggutor specifically, not Exegutor in general) is a gen 7 Pokémon.

Again, I'm not saying this is the one correct answer to the question. This all boils down to how you're interpreting an incoherent question -- because you can interpret the question itself in a variety of ways, there is no clear answer to the question unless we specify it further -- what about this claim is hard to understand?

>The only possible solution is that a mon.is from the gen.it originated

No fucking shit. Again, if we frame the question in a certain way, I'd agree. But why would anyone be asking "Where did exeggutor originate?" To say "gen 1 Pokémon are from gen 1" is just a truism, which is why I didn't interpret the question as "which generation did a-forms species originate?"

>i'll only reply if you make an actual point.

nice snark, ya goober

You know, it's stuff like that that make me want there to be a new definition of the species clause, as the Alolan Forms are different pokemon in almost every way. They have different types, different stats, and even different movepools. Why do they have to be treated as the same pokemon simply because they still carry the name of another pokemon?

>>32260821
nice bait but
unown's ! and ? forms were introduced in gen 3, and spiky eared pichu, 3/10 bait, most people don't know this

>>32261070
Gen 1. Fuck off.

>>32263002
>nice bait but

But what? Where's the rest of your post?

This question is worded badly.

Alola forms are Gen 7 forms, but the species themselves are Gen 1. The same applies to the Ash-hat Pikachu, Ash-Greninja and the Zygarde forms.

And for that matter, Unown ! and ? are Gen 3 forms, SE Pichu is a Gen 4 form, and Fairy-type Arceus, the Megas, Primals, and Cosplay Pikachu are Gen 6 forms.

>>32264583
Correction: When I said the same applies to, just replace Gen 1 with their respective Gens

>>32260895
I think that's a good way to see it.

As far as species goes, they're Gen 1 Pokémon. They can even breed their other forms. However, they're different forms that didn't exist back in the day, so by that logic, they're different monsters and Gen 7 Pokémon. A lot of you guys are fucking idiots, meanwhile I've accepted that they're kinda both.

>>32261074
>>32261063
>>32261090
>>32261104
>>32261117
>>32261314
>>32261345
>>32261716

Same Pokedex Number? Same Name? Cant use multiple on a team? Same Pokemon. This is inarguable and any other reason is nonsense

No, forms are not new pokemon. Male Meowstic is not a different pokemon from female meowstic. ? Unown isnt a seperate pokemon from A Unown.

>>32261716
Megas are forms of old pokemon

>>32261712
We have had plenty of pokemon with form changes that give us different stats, designs, typing or learnset

>>32264892
They are not both though. Not even kinda. Forms simply arent new pokemon.

>>32265559
>reviving a dead argument from hours ago for most of these
Going to have to disagree and since I've already done the whole thing around this thread I'm going to just tell you to fuck off. If they weren't in past games they're new, form or not. That's it.

>>32265951
So Fairy-type Arceus is a Gen 6 Pokémon?

>>32265957
Nothing is different about Fairy type Arceus except for the item.
Alolan forms have nothing in common with the old forms save for the name and number.

>>32265957
>comparing a singular type change applied to a ton of shit to a different design, movepool, stats, and sometimes evo line
dude

>>32263002
>autism

>>32265559
If you had read through my whole reply chain instead of picking through the thread like a retard you'd see I was agreeing with you and I was actually arguing the semantics of the term "Pokemon." Read next time.

>>32265965
>>32265979
>they have the same name, Pokédex number, egg group, produce eggs of each other, and cannot both be used in a Battle Spot team
>t-they aren't just new forms b-because it doesn't FEEL like they are to me!

>>32265559
Dingbat, I was saying that they are the same Pokemon but the forms are new and functionally they're completely different. Fucking people can't read on this goddamn site, I swear. You're picking fights with people who actually support your argument. Fuck

File: 234.jpg (13KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x400px

>>32265988
>you agree with him

It's impossible to have an Alolan Raichu in Kanto unless you bring it there from Alola. So alolan forms are gen 7 pokemon because that's the only place they are known to exist. It doesn't matter if the same species already existed in a different form somewhere else.

>>32265999
Well technically, yeah, I wasn't even arguing the same point he's collecting the posts about. But he's such a fucking blind idiot I don't think he can understand that.

>>32265996
>different stats
>different appearance
>can't produce the old form in the new game
>different moveset
>different typing
>t-they're the same because of these other things! Those ones you said don't FEEL like they matter to me!
Yeah it's the same species but it's a different Pokemon. All the other relevant examples in the thread (e.g. Unown, Arceus) have no significant difference. Unown's ! and ? look exactly like they'd be part of the other Unown, and function identically in every way. Same for Arceus.

The form itself is obviously from gen 7. The form doesn't count as a new pokemon, though. So technically Alolan Raichu IS Raichu, which is gen 1 pokemon. So it's a complicated question, desu. And fighting over the semantics of it is retarded.

>shitty thread where people argue semantics and shit was about to die
>some asshole bumps it with the same stupid shit the whole thread was filled with
fucking why

>>32266032
>different stats
Giratina, Shaymin, Darmanitan, Kyurem, Deoxys, Wormadam, Rotom, Tornadus, Thundurus, Landorus, Meloetta, Aegislash, Pumpkaboo, Gourgeist, Wishiwashi, Zygarde, Hoopa, Lycanroc, Minior
>different appearance
literally every form you goddamn idiot
>can't produce the old form in the new game
I'll give you that one. I can't think of any reason why the Kanto forms can't be obtained without bank
>different moveset
Deoxys, Kyurem, Wormadam, Rotom, Lycanroc, Hoopa, Shaymin

do you know anything about Pokémon forms?

>>32266055
Idk man. I'd honestly even take one of the plushie threads over this though.

>>32266061
they have different names though, and only they have all those 4 things at the same time

>>32266061
>>32266032
Oh I missed >different typing
Castform, Shaymin, Wormadam, Darmanitan, Rotom, Arceus, Meloetta, Hoopa, Oricorio, Silvally

>>32266061
And all of them save for Zygarde had those forms in the same gen (and Zygarde's was introduced in the same gen before the game debut), so they're irrelevant to the discussion and mean nothing, hence why I only mentioned Unown and Arceus. This is a new gen and it specifically asks if they are gen 1 or 7, since the general confusion was if the gen 1 species were different from the same species in a different form. Did you even understand the OP question? And like I said originally, they're the same species, just the new forms are different as they share nothing with other cross-gen forms.

>>32266061
All of those are the same gen though and the op is asking about crossgen forms, so he did address the ones you mentioned because they're not what is being argued about

>>32266061
>>32266082
Kind of fucked up dude, it's about gen 1 vs gen 7 not gen 1 vs gen 1 or gen 7 vs gen 7
different gens bro

>>32266061
Thanks for reviving this shit thread to rehash the same stupid shit that's been done to death over again anon

>>32266091
We have seven other examples of cross-gen forms, then.
1) Unown ?/!
2) Pikachu-Colored Pichu
3) Spiky-Eared Pichu
4) Fairy Arceus
5) Cosplay Pikachu
6) Cap Pikachu
7) Zygarde 10%/Complete
Is anyone arguing about whether or not these are forms or new Pokémon?

>>32266108
Pichu had nothing different about it other than a spiked ear. Fairy Arceus was a retcon because of a new typed introduced. It's literally the same Arceus you would use for the other types. Pikachu wearing a costume =/= forms. If I change my clothing am I a new person? Zygarde's forms were known about before gen 7 was released. It was only added in gen 7 because GF knew gen 6 was a fuckup and didn't want to add new games and decided to move forward to gen 7.

>>32266108
I addressed Arceus, Zygarde and Unown already, read my post again. Pikachu/Pichu itself does not change any more than Unown and remains the same Pokemon with a single temporary move to distinguish it in contest form, and it is functionally similar to the unevolvable Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow in that they are unable to be evolved (losing this condition upon trade takes away the special trait, much like a cosplay pikachu plopped into XY). It is still the same Pikachu in stats and normal learnset.
Alolan Forms are crossgen evos with a radical appearance change combined with stats, movesets, and evo changes.

>>32266108
>pikachu with clothes is the same as a whole redesign of raichu melded with a pancake and given psychic powers
hoho

>>32266125
those forms also learn new moves that normal pikachu can't

File: you looser.jpg (26KB, 500x391px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x391px

>>32266108
>pikachu colored pichu
>a form difference
what the fuck
It's just a normal shiny pichu you fucktard

>>32266161
It's an entirely separate form in the Pokédex, you fucktard. I despise the existence of the Pikachu family special treatment, but it is a different form of Pichu. It also can't evolve or be traded to any game besides HGSS, unlike a normal Pichu

>>32266158
A lot of event pokemon have special moves. That's the point... Surfing and flying Pikachu were fan service to the mascot just like the cosplay forms. Stop being retarded please.

>>32266168
No, you're still a fucking retard.
Pikachu Colored Pichu is a regular shiny pichu holding an everstone, you can evolve it.
The one that can't be transferred or traded is Spiky eared Pichu.
All shiny Pokemon are shown as separate in the Pokedex.

>>32266168
did you even get the pikachu colored pichu
I evolved mine and I still regret it

>>32266168
This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Pikachu color pichu was evolvable and was literally just a shiny Pichu

>>32260592
They're Gen 7 forms of Gen 1 mons.

You don't need to argue which is their "true" generation because there's no such thing. It's like arguing whether a tomato is a fruit (it develops from the ovary! it contains seeds!) or a vegetable (it's used in savory dishes! it's for dinner, not dessert!).

Ask a real question instead, like "What year was this form introduced?" or "Which regions can it be caught in?" or "What is its art style?"

File: moonface.jpg (140KB, 683x515px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 683x515px

>>32266168
Are you just pretending to be a dumbass or have you actually thought this since the shiny pichu event?

File: retarded.jpg (225KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1200x1200px

>>32266168
>this is /vp/ now
Well I owe an anon 5 bucks now. I hope you didn't reset with that little bugger still on cart.

File: 1443574701243.png (322KB, 846x651px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 846x651px

Nice thread you guys got here

>>32260592
Gen 7 forms of gen 1 mons.

>Was created in gen 7
>Therefore it is gen 7

You can't have these in the first games, they are not a part of what was introduced in gen 1.

>>32260592
Considering the fact that it's just the same Pokemon with alternate forms, they're still gen 1 Pokemon. Same rule works for Mega Evolution.

>>32266078
They have the same name. Alolan Raichu is just called Raichu.

>>32265951
okay I'll listen to you instead of GameFreak

>>32265988
There are no semantics. Forms are forms and pokemon are pokemon.

>>32266125
>>32266146
You dont get to decide when a form is different enough to be a new pokemon

>>32263662
Gen 7. Fuck off.

>>32260592
They're formes. Are the Primals gen 6 mons? Are the Megas gen 6 mons?

>>32267168
Gen 6.5. Fuck off.

>>32267170
Gen 6.0. Fuck off.

>>32267141
you can call Alolan Raichu Raichu, but you cant call a regular Raichu Alolan Raichu, they have different names and Alolan Raichu is a gen 7 pokemon

>>32267169
They're not available in the previous gens, so, yes.

>>32260592
they are Gen 7 Kanto mons

>>32260592
This question could be solved quite easily if only WE HAD A FUCKING NATIONAL DEX FUCK YOU GAMEFREAK FUCK YOU OHMORI

>>32267844
they have the same dex number you dry shit

>>32260613
2nd post best post

>>32266108
You forgot about Ash-Greninja, Megas, and Primals.

>>32267150
Neither do you.