Hello There, Guest!  LoginRegister

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
technically no
Author Message
BumblebeeCody Offline
Super Moderator
******

Posts: 2,194
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 24
Thanks: 1796
Given 339 thank(s) in 266 post(s)
Post: #9
RE: technically no
(08-01-2012 02:38 AM)Raven Wrote:  I fail to see whats so special about legendary pokemon anymore. There are 45 legendaries now. In my opinion, if they're all legendary, then none are legendary.

I think they're legendary (high in amount sure) because of some sort of special presence that they have among the over Pocket Monsters. There are around 700(ish) Pokemon now so having 45(ish) legendaries isn't really that big.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2012 09:23 AM by BumblebeeCody.)
08-01-2012 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
technically no - zax1998 - 07-30-2012, 09:44 PM
RE: technically yes - BumblebeeCody - 07-30-2012, 09:52 PM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 07-30-2012, 10:07 PM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 07-30-2012, 11:19 PM
RE: technically no - zax1998 - 07-31-2012, 08:30 PM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-01-2012, 01:46 AM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 08-01-2012, 07:41 PM
RE: technically no - Raven - 08-01-2012, 02:38 AM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-01-2012 09:23 AM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 08-01-2012, 10:42 AM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-01-2012, 11:07 PM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 08-02-2012, 01:45 AM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 08-02-2012, 01:55 AM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-02-2012, 03:10 AM
RE: technically no - Nicknclank - 08-02-2012, 03:49 AM
RE: technically no - DarkNerd - 08-06-2012, 10:51 AM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 08-06-2012, 08:56 PM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 08-01-2012, 06:28 AM
RE: technically no - DarkNerd - 08-01-2012, 06:31 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)