>>42688772>Clearly not anymoreThat's why I used the word "possibly". A Pokemon being aquatic is a good point on deciding whether or not a Pokemon could be a Water type. It doesn't NEED to be Water type, but it would have been a great boon for Grapploct.
>How is Grapploct not being a Water type forced? >Because it’s a Fighting type?You're misreading/misinterpreting my post and putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the idea that types can subvert expectations, while fun, isn't always necessary, especially if that subversion is seemingly lacking a type rather than being given one. It just made Grapploct less fun/interesting and blend in with a boundless group of other mono-Fighting types. Some aquatic Pokemon not being Water type is beneficial to them for various reasons, but Grapploct gains nothing by being mono-Fighting.
>I’m pretty sure no one ever actually said these things. Where are you getting this from?Here on /vp/. There's even another thread up right now at the time of this post where someone argued that making Grapploct Fighting/Water would be pointless since Urshifu and Keldeo will soon be available.
>That’s not exactly helping its caseThis is just another way of saying "not all aquatic creatures need to be Water type". Again, while true, doesn't need to be applied here. Fighting/Water would be a fun typing for it.
Your post doesn't have any substance or actual arguments. I won't bother with you further, but I'll commend you on baiting me this far.
