>>53768197>>53768502>how so much of it is meant to be "witty" or a pun.then why are you posting an image questioning why a dragonfly is/isnt a dragon?
>Gone are the days when Dragon meant "mythical and/or cool"kingdra isnt mythical or cool, this rule has been broken for like 20 years bro
>Fairy wasn't a consistent type from the getgo, but it's a complete dumpsterfire nowxy's introduction to fairies wasnt a good look for it you can blame sylveon for basically painting fairies as the "pink girlyshit type"
>What even is "Fairy"? what even is water type? it ranges from non aquatic mammals like simipour and azumarill that are water because theyre blue?
>>Just crack open a book if you don't know why x is a Fairy-type!its not this deep
either its pink or has origins in folklore, not every design has to spoonfeed you information
even if it was that complicated these designers jobs isnt to spoonfeed you or directly show why and how these pokemon are the type they are, its been like this since the very beginning. can you in true confidence why a pokemon like nidoqueen is poison/ground and not dragon simply by being a big scary reptile monster?
none of the non fairy types in that image should be fairy types bar maybe celebi? though id say celebi is more bug than anything honestly. musharna could pass as psychic/fairy since its based on an incense burner and aromastisse is also fairy for basically the same reason
applin and (eventually) zygarde are wyrms, exeggutor is a dragonfruit tree, and id argue mega ampharos shouldnt even be on this image because base amphy is basically in the same boat as charizard? both have "dragon" in their japanese names and have very draconic attributes about them but dont turn into actual dragons until they mega evolve?
you can post twitter posts for free yous all you want, its funny when done right, but dont make yourself look like a dribbling retard in the process
