Post yfw it doesn't evolve using a Dusk Stone

In most cases, Pokemon given new evolutions are given a new way to evolve. If he used the Dusk Stone, it would fuck up the fact that he CAN'T use the dusk stone in SM. Gen 4 gave a bunch of pokemon ancient power and evolution items, and locations.

>>33237060
They already fucked up their non-sensical narrative before they began. Pilowsine was able to learn AP in Gen 3 but didn't evolve. Yet nobody's rioting.

>>33237033
やみのいし Darkness Stone

>>33237033
it won't

>>33237060
>magnemite is suddenly weak to fire and immune to poison and no one gives a shit
>but if eevee suddenly evolved with a leaf stone people would lose their fucking minds

This is what Game Freak actually believes.

>>33237309

don't forget the gen1 type matchups, every pokemon that became part fairy or fairy, and any other type matchup change in all these years

They don't give a fug about that stuff, they just wanna make the new stuff evolve in more gimmicky ways

>>33237328
fairy stuff is a different universe though

>>33237392
then type matchups from gen1->2 and steel type still work

they don't care about that stuff

>>33237033
What the fuck is this garbage? I've been gone from /vp/ for 6 months and I come back to see this stupid "new form"?

>>33237272
holy shit.

>>33237404
You apparently already know it's a new form (That's not how quotation marks work) so what do you mean what is it?

>>33237400
Yeah I agree with you but that was back in gen 2 just saying they have actually been pretty consistent recently.

>>33237033
That shouldn't surprise anyone. It has to be an event deal and/or a new evolution method, they officially told us this.

>You can't get Dusk Form Lycanroc on your team by ordinary methods, such as discovering the mysterious Pokémon in the wild.
http://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/a-huge-discovery-of-a-new-lycanroc-form/

>>33237060
either tangela lickitung or piloswine could always learn the move that would evolve them

>>33237431
PRO tip: Quotation marks are often used to express sarcasm in text.

>>33237444
Yes but only a fucking retard use them to sarcastically call something by it's literal technical name. It's like walking up to an ugly, rubbish 4 wheel vehicle and going 'What the hell is this stupid 'new car'?"
Yes, it's sarcasm, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing as a sentence unless you're trying to sound like you've never heard of a car before.

>>33237449
>Would use
Maybe I should learn to write before I call people out on shit like this, maybe you're just as illiterate as me but only slightly more stupid

>>33237449
You realize anon was talking about the fact Dusk is barely different from Midday (aka the main thing people have been discussing for days here) and therefore barely counts as a new form, right?

>>33237459
>The main thing people have been discussing for days here
He explicitly stated he hasn't been here for any of that and hasn't seen this form before.
Also, again, my point was that using quotations around the actual name for something to imply that it barely counts as that is not what quotation marks are for. It's like saying "So called" before whatever you were going to put in quotes. It's not "so called", it's just called that. That's probably why that anon didn't use your defense and simply said he was being sarcastic with it. Which again, is simply referring to something sarcastically by it's actual technical literal name. You can't sarcastically call someone by their name.

>>33237473
You think he can't use his eyes and see that it's basically a recolor on his own? All this "actual technical literal name" nonsense just makes you sound autistic. New form was said sarcastically, so he put them in scare quotes to communicate that.

>>33237484
He didn't say anything about it just being a recolour, he said "new form" which again is WHAT IT IS.
I'm not being autistic, I'm trying to talk to someone dense.
>New form was said sarcastically, so he put them in quotes
Yes, this is the point you're missing. You can not call something IT'S NAME sarcastically. I'm not saying that quotes are not an appropriate way to convey sarcasm, I'm saying the use of sarcasm is fucking stupid.
If your name is James then an appropriate way to write me sarcastically calling you James would be to use quotes, but calling you James sarcastically would be fucking retarded.

artist : http://siplick.deviantart.com/

>>33237693
No one asked???

>>33237272
They just fucked up horribly

But I'm pretty sure it wasn't their intention