>>21589886We didn't, just like we don't need this
>>21589704.
There's just no point. At 17 fucking types, I think Pokemon had the largest number of elements in its rock-paper-scissors system, which is now even larger at 18. Adding more at this point doesn't do anything but already crowd out representation of other types, and clutter up an perpetually broken table of matchups. This was an argument made, admittedly, by Fairy-type deniers during the pre-reveal period as to why Fairy-type was impossible, but it's still a logical point to make. Do we really need yet another type on the chart? Does it really add anything to the setting? Effort would've been better spent re-balancing the existing types, something which happened anyway so it's not like Game Freak is morally against it or something.
Nevertheless, we got Fairy-types so we might as well deal with them. They weren't even implemented properly as an "anti-Dragon" type, and plenty of Pokemon should've gotten it and didn't. And vice versa. Just like Ice type, Game Freak also seems set on making a bunch of Mons that can't even make the best usage of the type, hampering with bad movesets or stat spreads.
