Talk:Pseudo-legendary Pokémon

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 05:18, 18 June 2013 by Stratelier (talk | contribs) (Tyranitar as main Pokemon of an NPC trainer: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search


What??? Do we seriously need this??? --155476Theryguy512473 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

im not going to say its unnessecary, but "Psuedo-legendary" sounds really stupid. so, i think it should either be reworked or deleted. maybe just add to each pokemon's trivia section that they are near legendary or somthing. MAGNEDETHTARIDNEDOPT 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I say reworkedPokemaniac102 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs moar reworking. I'll add the cleanup sign.. Tina δ 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
what should they be called then? or do yall think the anme is OK? MAGNEDETHTARIDNEDOPT 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What'ch ya tryin' to say huh!?Pokemaniac102 20:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that this would an article if where was a "Competitive Battling Project" thing. I do believe I heard the term "Pseudo-legendary" at least once in some places such as Smogon... Mudkipchan
I heard it before. But that was when it was refering to the Groudon in jirachi movie
They are all generally recognised as a set of unique pokemon with a few exceptions to each. (e.g. Garchomp's national pokedex number). However, the fan-term 'pseudo-legendary' in itself only actually refers to their final stages. (Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp). Isn't this a bit inaccurate? --Hyurnat4 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well in the anime, Dratini was specifically called a legendary pokemon in Legend of Dratini felinoel 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


I thought only base 600s were psudeo legendary. Why is flygon here? The Placebo Effect 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure either. o__O; Tina δ 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a three-stage part-dragon type that can only be found in its first form. Shiny Noctowl  02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
i dont think Flygon should be there, its just not rediculous enough MAGNEDETH 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


CAn't you find wild dragonair in more than 1 game? The Placebo Effect 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, FRLGRBYDP, But in DP you can find Pokéradar-ed Vibrava. So? Midnight Celtic 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

the fact of the matter is that Dragonite is def a psuedo-leg. MAGNEDETH 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Midnight Celtic 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


What about Aggron? KPF 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Aggron's UU, I believe. UU Pokémon wouldn't be psuedolegendary if they were in UU. :p Tina δ 04:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
may i ask what UU is? MAGNEDETH 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it means Under-used, as in List of Pokémon by Tier, which is fan-madePokeManiac102 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, under-used. It's fanmade. As is the term pseudolegendary. Tina δ 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
right, well, Aggron doesnt fit the bill because Lairon can be caught in Victory road, and apparently, thats against the rules...or somthing... MAGNEDETH 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
True.PokeManiac102 04:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, you can catch Dragonair in the wild, so how is Lairon against the rules? 45px 45pxKPF 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Because Aggron's base stats don't total 600. - Nebula 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The true defintion of pseudo-legendary is a bst of 600 and a three-stage evolutionary line. Things like Dragonair and gabite being caught in the wild are merely trivial. As is the fact they all have one immunity etc. Aggron, Flygon and Kingdra are NOT pseudo-legendaries and never will be. P-Ls do not have to be dragon-type or dragonoid. --Hyurnat4 08:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Real definition for psuedo-legendary

Isn't it a BST of 600? The Placebo Effect 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-legendary --> Powerhouse

It seems to me that everyone who commented on this page, other than Shiny Noctowl, was dumbfounded as to the article's title and definition therein. For pages dealing with fanon terminology, this is a good sign that something has been done wrong; fanon terms are necessarily known to a large number of fans, as opposed to a select few, or in this case - no more than one.

Furthemore, the page (prior to my editing it) included mentions of Pokémon with legendary characteristics, despite their having nothing to do with the suggested definiton of pseudo-legendary. It was also a mere copy-and-paste of the corresponding section on the Legendary page. Now, as for the definition itself, it should be crystal-clear that the powerhouses, as defined by myself, are distinct in their categorization from any other Pokémon (Flygon, for the sake of discussion). Simply put, they are non-legendary Pokémon whose total base stats is 600, which is a great deal higher than Flygon's 520 (see the trivia paragraph for clarification on Slaking). Besides, what makes Flygon any more special than Aggron, Walrein and the 7 fully-evolved, two-typed starters? All of these match the definition used by Shiny Noctowl. I do hope that competitive usage is not the reason, because Swampert and Infernape clearly outweigh Flygon in that regard.

It amazes me that everyone assumed that the definition was acceptable simply because someone had put it forth. Bulbapedia encourages critical thinking and sets virtually no limits on the users' capacity to edit existing pages. Why was I the only one who had the fortitude to replace the previous definition with one that is actually used by the fandom? --Unown Lord 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mudkipchan apparently heard pseudo-legendary on Smogon, and I've heard pseudo-legendary on several websites, so I think it should be moved back. I agree, though, that the definition needed some work. But why remove Flygon? Its stats are slightly lower, but base stats shouldn't be included in the definition. Other than base stats, Flygon is in every way a pseudo-legendary. Shiny Noctowl  13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You can see my comments on the article's name further below. Now, the explanation for my excluding Flygon should be quite obvious from the pieces of trivia; Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross and Garchomp have more in common than what you listed in your definition, and in fact, they have more in common than just my addition to that definition (a total base stats of 600). Flygon does not share that common denominator; what it does share with the aforementioned five is also shared by at the very least Walrein and Aggron, who are part of a three-stage line, have two types, require nearly as much experience to reach their form, and have an even higher total of base stats (530). If the only reason for which you included Flygon but excluded those two is that you thought only Flygon was available strictly in its first form, then you thought wrong: In Generation III Sealeo and Walrein are also not available in the wild; in Generation IV both Vibrava and Sealeo are available (incidentally, Lairon is not).
But all of that is irrelevant, since neither Flygon nor Walrein (nor Aggron, for that matter) has enough in common with the powerhouses/pseudo-legendaries so as to be added to the group. It is enough to require a total base stats of 600 to limit the group to the five relevant ones (a respectable addition in and of itself), but again, their common denominator is even greater than that. Look at the trivia and see it for yourself. --Unown Lord 13:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shiny, Pseudo-Legendary makes more sense. I.E. My Snorlax is a powerhouse, but it isn't a pseudo-legendary. My Flygon is not my powerhouse, yet it is a pseudo-legendary. Catch my drift? Midnight Celtic 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Psudo legendary should be used. But the only pokemon that should meet this criteria are those 3 stage evos with a base stat of 600. Slaking is questionable, but I would say no to it, as well as flygon. The Placebo Effect 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Unown Lord. Take it or leave it. -ニョロトノ666 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
i agree with Placebo, though i think Slaking might be in. but not Flygon. MAGNEDETH 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Midnight Celtic makes a good point, powerhouse can mean ANY strong Pokémon, where as Psuedo-legendary makes a clear point. Glinn 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. It depends on the definition, not the connotation that goes along with the given word(s). -ニョロトノ666 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in a defenition if it doesn't explain clearly the subject? Glinn 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

absolutly, my old car was nicknamed "the powerhouse" but it was definatly not a pokemon! that being said, "powerhouse" is a general term, it sounds more like a metagame term than a true definition. i could load a powerful pokemon with powerful attacks, and ive got a powerhouse, but a psuedo-legendary means its special in some way, and what you are trying to appeal here is to somone whos never jheard the term before, and they will almost understand what psuedo-legendary just by the sound, where as a powerhouse requires an explanation. MAGNEDETH 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, powerhouse is too broad a term for these Pokémon. Pseudo-legendary fits the bill better. TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 05:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, my true gripe was with the contents of the article; redirecting the article to a new title was primarily symbolic of the reshifting of its underlying ideas. However, I would like to point out the irony in the statement that powerhouse is too broad a term spanning just about every overused Pokémon - the same can be said of pseudo-legendary, as evidenced by the fact that this article originally contained a separate list of Pokémon with legendary characteristics!
Furthermore, I personally feel that pseudo-legendary should be used to describe only two Pokémon that are not even mentioned in the article: Unown and Phione. Legendary alludes to mystery and nature or universe-controlling abilities; this article deals with battle prowess, for which legendaries are certainly well known, but it takes second place to their aura. Besides, some legendaries are not as battle-competent as the pseudo-legendaries/powerhouses in the article - practically all tweleve members of the legendary trios, and arguably some others. This comparison holds in base stats (the legendary trio all have a total of 580, which is lower than 600), but even an in-depth comparison on a competitive level leads to the same conclusion, at least generally. Therefore, is it justified to attach the name pseudo-legendary to a definition that highlights the battle prowess of Pokémon that are actually stronger than some legendaries? On the other hand, Unown and Phione are indeed pseudo-legendary if the term is taken to mean a Pokémon whose aura is associated with a true legendary (Suicune in Unown's case and Manaphy in Phione's).
But I digress, as I do agree that if pseudo-legendary is more frequently used by the fandom to describe the group in question, then it should be used for the purposes of discussing a fanon term.
One last thing - I appreciate Politoed666's token of solidarity. I don't mind reversions to my own edits, especially when done by another sysop, but it isn't my idea of showing respect; it would have been better to wait a bit longer in case I had arguments to present. I only wonder why the same level of urgency was not taken to revise the contents of the article in its original format, when it obviously needed re-working. --Unown Lord 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with certain points made by Unown Lord. Perhaps the overall issue with the term "pseudo-legendary" is the usage of "legendary." There are Pokémon that are "legendary" which do have certain exclusive characteristics, and applying the term to another group has its drawbacks. While the term may certain have specific applications to the pseudo-legendary Pokémon it is difficult to draw a completely defined line, contrary to the case with legendary Pokémon. The debate over which Pokémon "qualify" has no feasible ending point, as fans will always stick to their opinion concerning which ones "deserve" to be included. Sure, we have limits on Bulbapedia but in spite of this fact, there is still such an issue, as we can see from this very page. Honestly, I have no problem with the term, despite how vague it is and the supposed difficulty adhering to its guidelines. My wife on the other hand, disagrees with its usage for many of the reasons I mention. Deviant Audio 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Title Trouble

Uhh, guys, the title says Pseudo-legendary but the article is about powerhouses... --Manga-in-a-bottle 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's what I was in the middle of fixing, then a million edit conflicts come up. Argh. TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 06:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh... My bad.PokeManiac102 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried editing it, but then edit-conflicts. Why were you doing one at a time? I could have done it in 30 seconds. :| Glinn 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot. And I wanted to get some in before there was in edit conflictPokeManiac102 06:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
hows about we make a note the page about how some people call it "powerhouse" MAGNEDETH 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh Uh Uh I guess.PokeManiac102 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't Arcanine be classified as a powerhouse pokemon as well? Boywonder01 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Powerhouse. Not pseudo-legendary. There's a difference: Porygon-Z's a powerhouse, Alakazam's a powerhouse. Their base stats in Special Attack are higher than the base stats of any other non-legendary's Attack or Special Attack, but they aren't pseudo-legendary. They aren't the final forms of end-of-dex Pokémon, they're just final forms of Pokémon that do really well in Special Attack. TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 10:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
But the species is called legendary, despite it isn't a legendary, so it is kind of a pseudo..., isn't it? And it has the highest sum of base-stats of all non-legendary under 600... So there would be good reasons to call it a pseudo-legendary. And by the way, if you search for the Powerhouse-Article you are redirected to this article, so either there is a need for a own article for the fanterm Powerhouse or Arcanine is truly a pseudo. --Blablubbb 06:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

600 stat point total a requirement?

Doesn't that seem a little subjective? I mean sure they all have that but that doesn't mean a future Pokemon of similar psuedo-legend status will have that total. Plus with these Pokemon it could just be coincidence they all have 600. Having 600 total might have been how it happened for all of them, but I just don't seem it as a requirement per se. Just that that's how it happened. Toastypk 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The psuedo-legends were most likely designed so that their stats WOULD total 600. The only likely exception would be Dragonite due to Special Attack/Defence being a single stat in Generation 1, but it was probably reworked to total 600 in Generation 2. It's hardly likely to be coincedence that their base stats all total 600. - Nebula 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... well I've never paid attention to stat totals anyway, just relative strengths. Toastypk

As I said above a base stat total of 600 is a requirement, not a coindidence. It is why they are called pseudo-legendaries, as many legendary pokemon have a bst of 600.--Hyurnat4 08:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)--Hyurnat4 08:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Tyranitar, as of gen IV, technically has a total stats of 650?? (Due to its sand stream ability and the fact that Rock types get a x1.5 boost in S.Def in a sandstorm???) I know its not its true "Base" stats as such but even so I feel it should be mentioned PhantomCX 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nebula, the psuedo-legends were not designed so that their stats would total 600, in fact psuedo-legends at all were not designed, it is just a made up term? felinoel 03:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Couldn't Lucario fit the pseudo-legendary description? Shadow1337 23:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

how? its nothing like a Pseudo in any way. -- MAGNEDETH 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, for one thing pseudo-legendary by definition means false legendary. Lucario was once thought to be a legendary and has very similar stats. It even has higher stats than some of the legendaries.Shadow1337 00:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Pseudo-legendary is a term used to refer to any Pokémon that has a three-stage evolution line, 
two types, as well as a base stat total of 600. 
so, does Lucario fit any of those criteria? One. he has two-types. 1/3 doesnt cut it here. -- MAGNEDETH 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
But if Lucario ever gets an evolution, its evolution could possibly be a pseudo-legendary. Chocolate 00:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it won't. Riolu is a baby pokemon evolves from happiness, which will likely separate it. Lucario won't get an evolution because it has too varied a moveset and too high stats.--Hyurnat4 08:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's true.Shadow1337 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
not that it wont ever happen, but be rational. do you think Lucario will seriously get an evo? rationally, no. therefor, it is not (currently) a Pseudo-legendary. btw Chocolate, id appreciate it if you didnt edit my comments. if i wanted it like that, id have made it like that in the first place. -- MAGNEDETH 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
What's more, speculating on whether an evolution of a Pokémon would be pseudo-legendary is hardly a good argument for calling Lucario one. Glinn Mgraw 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I consider Lucario a semi-legendary Pokémon. A few others i put in the group are Pokémon like Arcanine, Unown, Rotom, etc. --いぬみみ 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
they have legendary traits, but they are not legendaries. and far from pseudo-legendaries. -- MAGNEDETH 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
That's why I call them semi-legendaries; meaning they are kind of legendary. --いぬみみ 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Slaking (Pokémon)

Why is Slaking not a Psuedo? DragonTamer 04:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oohh, It's not dual type, DragonTamer 04:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Too much trivia? Too little article? Can someone with experience in competitive gameplay edit it so that the trivia is not longer than the actual article? Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 12:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New table


Generation I Generation II Generation III Generation IV
 Dragon   Flying   Rock   Dark   Dragon   Flying   Steel   Psychic   Dragon   Ground 
Evolves from
 Dragon   Rock   Ground   Dragon   Steel   Psychic   Dragon   Ground 
Evolves from
 Dragon   Rock   Ground   Dragon   Steel   Psychic   Dragon   Ground 

*tc26* 03:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Available only as their first form.

The article states that "Most pseudo-legendaries are obtainable in the wild strictly in their first form. However, Dragonair is also obtainable in the wild in most games where Dratini is (all but Pokémon Red, Green and Blue). Likewise, Pupitar is available in the wild in Crystal. Gabite is found in Victory Road in Platinum."

However, with the addition of Platinum, Gabite can be found in the wild. This means that no, only 2 out of the 5 of them are only found in their first form in the wild. I honestly don't think that something like that should be included in the article, since when was 2 out of 5 "most", or even noteworthy? You could say that all 5 of them have the colour blue on them somewhere, but is that noteworthy?

I'd have already removed it, but the page is protected. Ggled 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no blue on either Dragonite or Larvitar, thus your entire logic is flawed! Good DAY, sir!  :P In all seriousness though, you raise a good point. That part of the article definitely needs to be removed. --Dual 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he means a pokemon in the line has had the colour blue on them at some point? --Hyurnat4 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


It doesn't fit the 600 total, (540 in case you were wondering) but it's dual type, it has 3 stages in the family, and it's at the end of the Pokedex. Sorry about bringing up another Pokemon Corvy 12:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingdra isn't a pseudo-legendary. All qualities must be met. —darklordtrom 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Base Stat total trivia

On all the pseudo legendaries, there is a trivia entry stating that they have the second highest base stat total behind slaking. It then goes on to say how it's tied with the other pseudo legendaries etc etc. Wouldn't it make more sense to just not have this? I mean there's already a link to the pseudo legendary page (here) at the top of the page, and it explains here that they all have the same base stat total etc. Just seems redundant to me and pointless trivia. [[Derian]] 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


I don't know how you'd do it, but might it be useful to put stats on the final evolutions at some point.--Hyurnat4 09:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot of talk about stats and it would be nice to scroll up and refer to the stats of each Pokemon, rather then have to do to their individual page and scroll down. :/Tro 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Should the part about 600 stat total be changed to something like "at least 600"? Yes there is nothing like that now, but if in future generations something with 630 total does show up it would be better to be prepared now then argue about it when something comes up.--Mtn otter We are the Void 14:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll sort that out when it happens. Bulbapedia deals with the present. Thanks anyway. —darklordtrom 04:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I highly doubt anyone would complain about whether or not something with above 600 counts or not... felinoel 14:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Garchomp's location in the pokedex

Stated in the characteristics section, it says that Garchomp's evolution line is not next to any notable pokemon. However, I disagree: Before Gible is Spiritomb, a pokemon that is considered semi-legendary by fans, since it can only be caught once under special conditions in the wild. Should we reword that sentence to include this information? - unsigned comment from AuraGaurdian (talkcontribs)

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~). felinoel 04:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash's Larvitar

It mentions in the trivia that Ash had only one member of the pseudo-legendary line, referencing his Gible, but at one point he had a Larvitar. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --~~AuraGaurdian 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Give the source and edit it to two. felinoel 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's called Ash's Larvitar by the way. The trivia is actually referencing to his Larvitar but if you wanted to figure out a way of wording it you could say,"Ash is the only main character in the anime to own two different members of a pseudo-legendary family." or something along those lines. –MasterKenobi 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Gonna step in here quick and bring up that I think the reason why Gible is said to be Ash's only pseudo-legendary was because Larvitar was never technically his, he was just temporarily taking care of it or whatnot. Its article is named as such for the sake of simplicity. 梅子 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case then why does its article call it Ash's? Are we going to need to move the article if it wasn't Ash's? felinoel 03:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
From my previous comment on the matter:
Its article is named as such [ie. "Ash's Larvitar"] for the sake of simplicity
We can't very well call the article "the Larvitar that Ash took care of for about eight episodes but was never technically owned by him" or something. :P 梅子 15:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That may be true but it apparently isn't his, the page at least should not have that, Ash's current pokemon thing at the bottom or something felinoel 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 This discussion would better serve a purpose here, so I am moving it there

Addition of Charizard

I feel that Charizard is a pseudo-legendary. I think it should be added due to it's immense power. Feel free to respond. BrianPokemonTrainer 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Did.... you even read the article? Charizard does not fufill any of the requirements. It's not even that strong. ._. ▫▫ティナ 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well... who decided the rules of this fluff term anyways? felinoel 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Isn't kibago a Pseudo-legendary--KayKay|Chat to me! 03:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Stats don't reach +600. Ononokusu may be faster and stronger than Gyarados, but a pseudo-legendary he is not.--Black Yin Zekrom 03:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Awww, who removed part of my note in the trivia about how in the anime Dratini was specifically stated to be a legendary pokemon? felinoel 03:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying Arcanine should by a Pseudo-Legendary because "Legendary Pokemon" is in its title.- unsigned comment from Bluekirbystar (talkcontribs)
No I only said it should be psuedo-legendary because the anime stated it as a legendary? felinoel 14:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This page is about the Pseudo-legendary classification used by fans, especially in regards to the metagame. It does NOT refer to Pokémon which are considered legendary in in-game text or other media, despite not having the rarity or strength of typical legendaries. Why can't anyone seem to understand that? --AndyPKMN 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It was just a note for the trivia, trivia rarely is extremely on-topic with the rest of the article, that is why it gets posted in the trivia and not the article itself. felinoel 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. Trivia must be "on topic". You wouldn't add trivia about how Lance's Dragonite in Gen. I knew Barrier here. Similarly, your trivia would belong in the Legendary Pokémon article, or Dratini's article, but not this article. --AndyPKMN 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. I said extremely on-topic, the anime's classification of Dratini's status is moderately on-topic with a fluff term based on what the fans feel is Dratini's status. I never said trivia could be off-topic, I only said it didn't have to be extremely on-topic. felinoel 04:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Metagross is used in Gen V

Metagross is used by Lady Caitlin in the Isshu Elite Four rematch. - unsigned comment from Bluekirbystar (talkcontribs)


Isn't Ononokus a psuedo-legendary? It isn't near the end of the Pokedex, but then Garchomp isn't either. T a r o m o n 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No base stats of 600 total. End of discussion.--でんのう Zえんし 11:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right. I don't normally bother looking at stats... T a r o m o n 08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You should look at stats; as it is one of the best indicators of which species make a group, or are version counterparts.- unsigned comment from Eriorguez (talkcontribs)

Two types really necessary?

I'd say the defining feature is the 600 BST. The page, in more than one place, describes the fact that pseudolegendaries have two types as though you couldn't, even in theory, have a pseudolegendary without it, but is that so? Obviously, all the pseudos that currently exist have two types (and we should mention that fact, don't get me wrong), but wouldn't we just adjust our definition if they (hypothetically) introduced a monotype pseudo in the sixth generation? I don't think we should "define" a pseudo as having two types; nor should we list that as one of the reasons Slaking isn't. --HeroicJay 17:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, don't two typers have more weaknesses usually? Not a very legendary trait... felinoel 03:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


This may be shot down, but SURELY Ulgamoth is a pseudo-legendary. It may lack the Base Stats and Second Evolution, but it's clearly intended to be in the same tier. Its final evolution receives the EV yield of a Third-Stage pokemon, it comes right after Sazandorah, just like how Salamence and Metagross are placed next to each other (Garchomp was separated from legendaries by Evolutions from previous gens). It has significant mythology connected to it, and is obtained in peculiar ways, one of which is fashioned like a Legendary Encounter. It evolves at a ridiculously high level. Hell, the concept itself is that of something that would have a cocoon stage, but missed out on it somehow. The 550 Base Stat is peculiar, but surely can be put down to it having Butterfly Dance, an obscenely powerful move. Pretty much everything points it to being a counterpart with Sazandorah as the two pseudo-legendaries of Generation 5. N-Denizen 23:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, needs to have the stats and isn't a Dragon-type. Haxorus isn't considered Pseudo-legendary because of stats and it IS a Dragon. --Landfish7 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
They don't have to be a Dragon to be considered pseudo-legendary. But yeah, Ulgamoth has the wrong stats and it only has two stages. --ケンジガール 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification User Kenji-girl. --Landfish7 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree on Volcarona being intended to be something special, but not the same thing as pseudo-legends. It is something new and different, even if similar. Eriorguez 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The only problem I see then is that it's left in a weird limbo. It's not a "legendary" because it can breed, and despite being a Champion's ace, apparently not a pseudo-legendary. I think it's significant enough to classified as something surely. N-Denizen 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to disagree with everyone that opposes Volcarona as a Pseudo-Legendary. Just have a look at nearly every other Bug type that came before it for instance, and you'll notice that ALL tend to have stats below 400 or very rarely reaching 500 or higher. In nearly all games before B/W it was almost like a rule or some sort, or a tradition. Perhaps Volcarona lives up to this tradition even with B/W's upgrade to Bug types. As a Bug type, it would not be able to have as high of stats as other types if it followed this old tradition, so that would explain Volcarona's BST of 550 instead of 600. Another possible explaination is probably just an excuse to make it have a lower BST than Genesect. The big seal to all this is that Alder uses Volcarona as his main Pokemon. Why would it be used as his main if it wasn't a Pseudo-Legendary? Why just have something random instead of a Psuedo-legendary or even a Legendary? It all starts to make sense when you think about it. Volcarona, though having a lower BST than the other Pseudo-Legends, still has the exact same kind of power you'd expect from one due to it's gargantuan stats compared to other Bug types. Even Genesect feels very weak in comparison to Volcarona, as well as giving Tyranitar and Metagross something to fear and respect at the same time. So the point of all of this is, it would seem reasonable to accept Volcarona as a Pseudo-Legend due to past treatment of Bug types in general. Besides, doesn't it seem more like a fan idea to have them required to have a BST of 600 and be a 3 stage line? What if GF has their own requirements to the idea and simply design them as they please? For a Bug type to fill this role, all of this would make alot of sense. Why simply believe a Pseudo-Legend requires those things only because of past tradition from Gen I-IV? Wouldn't it be fair for a Bug type Pseudo-Legend to exist yet still follow the tradition of Bug types having lower Base stats than others? Shiramu Kuromu 20:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Pseudo-legendary is a fan term, so fans determine the requirements. It is based on a pattern we as fans have detected in each generation? Being "strong" has nothing to do with being pseudo-legendary (other than that pseudo-legendary requires a 600 BST). Champion usage does not make something pseudo-legendary, even if it is their primary Pokémon. Alder doesn't use a legendary Pokémon because they are restricted to battle facility Trainers and storyline events. They did not fit it into their previous pattern. Anything that breaks the mold is not bending the pattern, but rejecting it. What does Volcarona have in common with actual pseudo-legendary Pokémon? If we let Volcarona in, then the definition of pseudo-legendary becomes "has two types, needs 1,250,000 exp to get to level 100". Now, if you look at this list of Pokémon in that experience group and pick out all the dual typed Pokémon, excluding legendary Pokémon, you can see just how many there are. To name a few, Abomasnow, Aggron, Sharpedo, Lanturn. And that is only a few of them. --SnorlaxMonster 11:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Now you're being just biased about all this. Why do they all need BSTs of 600? Can't Volcarona be the exception due to it's Bug typing? Even if Dual typed and Slow exp group were the only requirements now, it would all still be the same, since Volcarona would be the only Pseudo-Legend that doesn't fill the previous 600 BST requirement. All you seem to be trying to do is sticking too much to tradition, because honestly, I thought you'd stick with the 1st to 4th gen's Pseudo-Legend tradition of Attack being the highest stat when it was revealed Hydreigon's highest was Special Attack instead. Due to that, I thought everybody would be biased with even it due to favoring Special Attack instead. Volcarona, when compared to Aggron of Flygon, makes far more sense as a Pseudo-Legendary. Honestly, I think of Pseudo-Legendaries having the highest BST of all non-legendaries out of one of their types. Dragonite, Salamence, Garchomp, and Hydreigon have the highest Base Stat total of all non-legendary Dragon types, Tyranitar has the highest of all Non-legendary Rock types, and the highest for Dark types along with Hydreigon. Metagross has the highest out of all Non-legendary Steel and Psychic types. Volcarona has the highest of all Non-legendary Bug types. It all makes sense when you consider how a Pseudo-Legendary could be designed with that in mind. Shiramu Kuromu 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
In other words, think of it this way:
-Evolves atleast once.
-Highest Base Stat total of atleast one of their types.
-Dual typed.
-Slow Experience group.
With this in mind, ONLY Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp, Hydreigon, and Volcarona fit all four of these requirements. Arcanine and Slaking don't have two types, and Archeops isn't in the right Exp group and isn't the highest of either of it's types. So there you have it, problem solved. Shiramu Kuromu 22:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that we should change the currently accepted definition of Pseudo-legendary just because you want Volcarona to be one. Not gonna happen.
Besides, Ghetsis is the last opponent in the story, and he uses a Hydreigon, but not a Volcarona. Not that final opponent usage matters, as Tyranitar was first used by Blue in FR/LG and was still considered a Pseudo-legendary in Gen II. - Blazios talk 09:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
ALDER is the last, not Ghetsis man. ALDER uses VOLCARONA, not Hydreigon. Shiramu Kuromu 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The main story ends with Ghetsis, not Alder. Alder is postgame. - Blazios talk 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


In BW you can find wild Metang and metagross in Giant Casm. So it is'nt really a Pseudo-Legandary. --Nazirbashir 11:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And you can find wild Dragonair and Dragonite near the Dragonsprial Tower. What does not being found in the wild have to do with being a pseudo legendary? --ケンジガール 11:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone mention...

that ALL Pseudo-Legendaries have immunities? It's true you know.

It was in the trivia section, I swear...must've been removed for some reason (wtf deletionists) Frugali 09:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 : Kind of pointless to mention because they are not the only one with immunities. Lots of Pokemon have immunities to one type or another. Frozen Fennec


Didn't want to start an edit war, so I'm just going to post here to see what others think. So far as i know, and as far as I believe the fandom is concerned, the only defining traits of a pseudo legend are that they have a base stat total of 600 and that they evolve. I myself was unaware that they all need 1.25 million experience points to hit level 100. Does anyone else think that that fact in the definition in the opening paragraph is extraneous? RB Golbat 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, no. Espially if all six of them have that trait. Truthseeker4449 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's face it, you ask anyone who plays Pokemon, and they'll give you the 600 BST Evolution definition. Did Nintendo give them all the same amount of experience at level 100 on purpose? Probably. Is that how people define Pseudo Legendary? No. And since this page is a fan definition, then it should use what most people refer to it as. RB Golbat 02:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Many Pokémon need 1.25 Million exp to get to level 100, but they're not classed as Pseudo legendary (for obvius reasons such as Base stat=/=600). So I agree with RB, remove it.--ForceFire 02:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's been a week since I last asked, and it's a 1-1 split by people who aren't me. So here is a one week bump to try to solicit opinions, before seeing that no one else cares and changing it back to the way i changed it. RB Golbat 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


I am aware that an argument has already been brought up to add Slaking to the list. I think it should be added, for the following reasons. From what I understand, the definition here of a Pseudo-Legendary is (a) it can't be legendary. (b) It must evolve twice. It is not part of the definition that all of them must be dual typed, nor that they must have an immunity. This is simply a trait that all of the current members of the list happen to share. The third part of the current definition is that all of them must have exactly 600 BST. This is the part I don't understand. I can understand why it would be nice to have a requirement for at least 600, but why does it have to be exact? This brings us to Slaking. It has the highest base stats of any non-legendary. It evolves twice. Why should it be denied the position of being pseudo-legendary for being too powerful? Pseudo-legendary means "resembling a legendary", and legendaries are supposed to be powerful. There are 16 legendaries with a BST over 600, and 11 even higher than Slaking's. In terms of its lack of a second type, 22 out of 47 legendaries are single-typed. Slaking's lack of a second type definitely should not exclude it from being a pseudo-legendary. Tk3141 22:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Slaking, though not pseudo-legendary, has the highest base stats of all non-legendary Pokémon and one immunity, to the Ghost-type. However, it lacks some factors: a base-stat total of 600 and a secondary type. Slaking is also hindered by its ability, Truant, which is likely the reason for its high stats. From this page. However I would say the biggest reason it is not on here is because Truant truly cripples any astounding power it has. The only time to experience its true full potential is in a double battle with a Pokemon that uses Skill Swap on it so it can attack every turn rather than half the turns. Frozen Fennec 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, however, I don't think that a secondary type or an exact BST should be part of the definition. Yes, Truant does cripple Slaking, but it is technically speculation which says that this is the reason for its high stats. It is a non-legendary that has an even higher BST than any others on the list. Tk3141 02:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a fandom-defined term. This is the definition. We only report was it, not make it the way it is. The fandom says BST must equal 600, so Slaking is not pseudo-legendary. --SnorlaxMonster 12:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Might we want to review this definition, though? If we want the list to consist of those who are "like legendaries", we shouldn't restrict the list to dual types, as almost half of legendaries are single-typed. Similarly, less than half of legendaries have a BST of exactly 600. "The fandom" is, in my opinion, a vague term; it can't be that everybody agrees on the same point. Tk3141 16:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is a description of a fan term which describes all Pokémon which have, thus far, followed a specific pattern. Until the fans choose to recognize a Pokémon which Game Freak has made defy the pattern, no changes to the definition should be needed.--MisterE13 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Pseudo-legendary, while it does mean "like legendary", it is not a group that includes all Pokémon that are similar to legendary Pokémon, it is a group of Pokémon that follow a certain pattern (which causes them to be powerful). "The fandom" refers to the general fan consensus; not everybody agrees, but most people concede to this definition. --SnorlaxMonster 06:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So seriously, what's the definition?

As I pointed out above (and nearly no one responded), if the sixth gen introduces a non-legendary Pokemon with a 600 BST with only one type will we say that it's not pseudolegendary, or will we just change the definition of what a psuedolegendary is? Why is having two types or a specific level-up curve considered a necessary condition to being a pseudolegendary rather than just a trait all of the current ones happen to have? Indeed, given that you can completely remove either restriction or both of them and not change the list of pseudolegendary Pokemon at all (you can't do so with the 600 BST or the fact that they come from evolutionary families), I'd say Occam's Razor would slice away those unnecessary conditions. --HeroicJay 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PS. I'd like to point out that the opening paragraph used to mention that all pseudos had Attack as their highest stat, though it wisely did not include that as a part of the definition of what makes a pseudo a pseudo. Now it doesn't say that any more. Just sayin'. --HeroicJay 07:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The pseudolegendaries are variations on a theme. The dual types and stats are part of that theme. Single type would suggest that there's an underlying difference. Experience group makes them hard to raise, suggesting that they're all very similar. Like PP of moves, experience group is an indicator of the similarity of Pokemon. If Nintendo feel the need to make it a lower experience group, that makes it easier to raise, suggesting that there are underlying differences - the Pokemon are not considered equal. Stats like that aren't just a random choice. Werdnae (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't say I agree. We can say that the two types and the level-up curve are traits they all have, at present, but how is it part of the definition? If you remove those restrictions, the number of pseudolegendary Pokemon remains six, so those restrictions aren't helping with the definition and just unnecessarily restrict possible future psuedolegendaries. I was asked to provide a source that they're not necessary. Where's the source that they are? I mean, let's say, totally hypothetically, that one made a page called "Pikachu Clones" back in the fourth gen, discussing Pokemon such as Pichu, Plusle, Minun, and Pachirisu. (The usefulness of such a page isn't the point; let's just say that one existed.) At the time, they decided to define the Pokemon as "Cute mono-Electric-type Pokemon that have a resemblence to Pikachu. Aside from Pichu and Pikachu, none of the Pikachu clones evolve." Are you to say that, when the fifth gen came out, this hypothetical page would have been wrong to alter its definition and include Emolga? If so, why? And if not, then why did the definition need to include the "mono-" part of it at all if it's unnecessarily limiting and so easily discarded? --HeroicJay 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't think having two types should be part of the definition; I don't see a pure Dragon-type pseudo legendary Pokemon being that unlikely. I did a quick search, and I couldn't find any other non-forum giving a definition of pseudo-legendary Pokemon, so there is nothing stating either way. However, I would say experience group is just as important as BST. --SnorlaxMonster 12:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I still stand against it. I'm being treated like I'm trying to redefine which Pokemon are pseudolegendary, and, yes, I do see that others have tried. But I'm not. Removing these two restrictions does nothing. It's Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp, and Hydreigon now. It'll be Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp, and Hydreigon if you remove those restrictions.
Who made the call that they're necessary to the definition? I've been asked to source that they're not. Why must I prove the negative? It's the positive case that requires proof! Should I add a [citation needed] to the definition?
If you were to remove the 600 BST part of the defintion, and still keep everything else, you'd add things like Aggron and Rhyperior to the list, so we can't do that.
The "three-stage evolutionary family" thing comes off to me as a roundabout way of saying "not legendary", but I'm fine with it since legendary status can be arguable (the Legendary page on this very wiki is unsure on Phione, and even though I strongly disagree, I've even seen modern fans try to argue Rotom's legendary status.) And without it, Jirachi and Landorus are brought into the list of "pseudolegendaries", so obviously that restriction is necessary, regardless of the wording.
But why type combos? Why experience groups? Removing them changes what? Is there a 600-BST three-stage mono-type family in the medium-slow group that is clearly not pseudolegendary I'm somehow unfamiliar with? (Well, Slaking has a 670 BST and three stages and is a monotype, though he is in the Slow group, but... Truant is all it takes to convince me he's not a proper pseudolegendary. And he's the closest there is, besides the obvious six!)
As I said, if you were to put on the side (in Trivia or something) that all of them, at present, are dualtypes in the Slow experience group, you wouldn't see me argue - it's true, after all. But to put it in the definition, as if to say "Pokémon without these traits can't be pseudolegendary"... I jusst don't see it. --HeroicJay 18:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thing is, pseudo-legendary is the observation of a pattern and nothing more. When they all fit it and it is likely that they will continue fitting a condition, it should be treated as part of the definition. No, removing the experience group condition does not remove anything, but that condition is really for restricting what we may get next generation. --SnorlaxMonster 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Next generation, if we get a Pokemon with a BST of 600 who is at the top of a three-stage evolution family in the medium-slow experience group instead of slow, and it doesn't have any major negative traits like Truant, do you really think the fandom isn't going to call it a pseudo-legendary? Do you honestly believe most of the fandom - who defined the term - even cares about experience curves that much? And can you provide a source on it? --HeroicJay 22:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no source (BP was the only fansite I could find that actually defined pseudo-legendary outside of "means Dragonite, Tyranitar, Metagross, Garchomp, Hydreigon"), because GF has never officially mentioned the pattern anywhere, but the pattern is obvious enough that the fandom has noticed it. Knowing the fandom—who tried and push Volcarona and Haxorus into being pseudo-legendary—there will certainly be many people who think it should be. However, it won't truly be one. I don't see that ever happening though, as experience group is part of the pattern. Even if something had a BST of 600, three-stage evolutionary family and medium-slow experience group but had Truant, it would still be pseudo-legendary. --SnorlaxMonster 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that a contradiction? (Did you get your experience groups confused?) And if something can be pseudolegendary with Truant, then Slaking should definitely count, since his stats are way higher than the existing pseudolegendaries (NOTE: I do not consider Slaking a pseudolegendary, I'm just saying that the logic doesn't flow.) --HeroicJay 18:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Truant is irrelevant; its BST is not 600, so it does not fit the pattern. And yes, I meant slow experience group (I meant to check that before I saved). --SnorlaxMonster 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that, though it's not a very specific or encyclopedic definition, a pseudo-legendary Pokemon would be a non-legendary Pokemon as strong, stat-wise, as legendaries. By that simple definition, Slaking easily fits the bill... or, rather, he would, except Truant limits his strength. (Well, Regigigas is similarly hindered, but all the same...) Now that said, all pseudos that exist have 600; there's no argument here and it works to say it. But the rest of it is redundant, adds nothing to the definition, and is something we'll just have to retcon away the moment GameFreak decides to contradict it.
BTW, Does anyone else at all have any input? Anyone? I've notived that a lot of Bulbapedia discussions go nowhere fast; at best, they wind up arguments between two or three users, like, say, this one. --HeroicJay 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If you ask any fan what they define psuedo legendary as, they would say a three stage evolution line with a 600 BST in the final stage. Two types and experience are not what you would get with most fans definition. Since this is a fandom term, we should use the definition most fans use. RB Golbat (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Pesudo-legendary is a fan term to describe an intentional pattern. Experience group is part of this part of the pattern. Therefore, it should be considered part of the definition. --SnorlaxMonster 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It's part of the "pattern" that people only learn about when they read this page. Regardless of if it's a pattern or not, it's not what the fandom defined definition is. RB Golbat (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindenting) Here is one example of the term being define without the dual typing or the experience mentioned. I'm sure I can find more online later when not at work. RB Golbat (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Champion Iris with Hydreigon

You should add that. Chomper4 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Maybe we should have a pseudo-pseudo legendary page or section for all the almost pseudo-legendary pokemon (That don't quite fit the requirements but are still considered near-legendary pokemon. This is just after reading the whole talk page about the controversy... - unsigned comment from Yor2cool (talkcontribs)

That would result in debates over what counts as almost fitting the category. The definition debates all assume the same Pokémon as already part of the group. There are no Pokémon that are debatably pseudo-legendary Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 12:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Something unique about Metagross

Should it be noted that Metagross is the only Pseudo who doesn't resist, but in fact has a weakness to, fire? DragonMasterNeal (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ability capitalization

A user with permission could change "ability" to "Ability" in the Tyranitar section. Yvnr (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Why is this page protected? I wanted to add something to Others. Stickipedia (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As the protection log notes: "As this is a subject of constant debate, editing is restricted. Requests can be made on the talk page." - Kogoro - Talk to me - 21:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Tyranitar as main Pokemon of an NPC trainer

  • "Only pseudo-legendary Pokémon that is not the main Pokémon of a major boss at the end of the game it was introduced in. However, Tyranitar was used by Blue in Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen Versions, but only in his rematch."

Tyranitar (as a Shadow Pokémon) was also Evice's main Pokémon, in the final battle of Pokémon Colosseum. I think this is an interesting addition we can make to that note. --Stratelier 05:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)