Opinion on the Grass/Dark typing?

Basically what the title says. In my honest opinion, it is bar none my least favourite type combination in the whole game, to the point I find it to be unusable.

What really gets me is the monstrous amount of weaknesses. Fighters are going to be insanely common to see in any of the games and is common coverage as well, and Fairy is hard to counter and it is covered by many mons too. And that's not counting all the problems that Grass/Dark has.

A leak claimed that the gen9 Grass starter is going to be Grass/Dark in the final form, and I don't think I'm ready to deal with something with tons of weaknesses and being to hit practically nothing super effectively. The Grass starter so far is my favourite of the bunch, and I'm picking it no matter what, but I don't want the game to become unbeatable just because of how utter garbage Grass/Dark as a typing is.

Grass/Bug and Rock/Ice are also awful, maybe even objectively worse, but Grass/Dark to me, I just can't find anything good about it. I have literally never been impressed with that typing whatsoever and it enrages me on how useless it is. If the Grass starter ends up with that typing, I can only hope the gen9 games are super easy, to the point they are moreso than XY.

So what do you guys think of the Grass/Dark typing? Any experience with it yourselves, and do you think there is anything truly redeemable about it?

The Rock/Dark Tyranitar has the same amount of x2/x4/x0.5/x0 as Grass/Dark type, and it's a perfectly viable Pokémon.

I actually had a Cacturne in a Radical Red playthrough in every major battle since I caught it before the third gym, and all the way up to the hall of fame. Moveset was Spiky Shield, Fell Stinger, Sucker Punch, and Needle Arm (boosted to 95 BP iirc). And its Ability was changed to Sand Rush, doubling Speed in Sandstorm instead of Evasion.

Put in a Sand team, this guy could Fell Stinger a weakened opponent, then start sweeping with boosted speed and +3 Attack, and even Sucker Punch against still faster opponents or when the Sandstorm was over. I even have recorded footage of this cactus outspeeding and one-shoting a mega Blaziken.

So my point is, awful typings are ok (at least for offensive mons, of course not for stallers), just give the Pokémon better stats, access to good movesets, Abilities or something to make up for it.

The problem with starters is that if they get a bad typing, you can't compensate with stats because all starters must have roughly the same BST (you can, however, give them a good spread which is very important), and you can't give them better Abilities because of the tradition that every starter is stuck with the boring Overgrow/Blaze/Torrent (well, you can, but it would be a Hidden Ability so players wouldn't have access to it during a normal playthrough). So yeah, for starters I think bad typings that are weak to lots of things should be avoided.

Moved this to Gaming Central. Revolves around how the typing functions in-game.

Never used one of the Grass/Dark types. Does not seem that bad of a typing. Functions perfectly fine against Grass's usual targets (Water, Ground, Rock) and Dark's usual targets (Psychic, Ghost). Cannot handle everything, of course. Leaves those to other Pokemon.

Views Grass/Ice as worse, personally. Compromises the Grass side against Rock types (and typically Ground types, given how many know Rock attacks). Becomes weak to Flying on the Ice side. Who do you want to bring that in against? Just Water, Grass, and maybe Electric types.

It reminds me of my early days of Pokémon when playing generation 3, where I had Shiftry on my team. Shiftry was a great Pokémon to have on your team if you didn't choose Treecko as your starter. It also reminds me of Zarude, the 8th gen event mythical legendary, which I also had a lot of fun using on one of my Sun teams. Nonetheless, to answer your question, Grass-type is a type that already has five weaknesses by default, which are to Flying, Poison, Bug, Fire, and Ice. Despite this, Grass-type starters have still been a staple since the very beginning. However, Pokémon shouldn't be considered "useable" or not based upon their typing alone, as, unless your name is Cosmog, Cosmoem, and so on, not many Pokémon exist that are truly "unusable."

Rather, it should be based on the way you use them in battle, their stats, abilities, and movepool. For example, Venasaur, despite its weaknesses, is a great Pokémon because of its ability Chlorophyll, which doubles its speed in the sun and ability to learn Weather Ball, which becomes a powerful Fire-type move in the sun that doubles in power by its own effect and the sun itself, allowing Venasaur to be a great sweeper and to take down Steel-types, something that a Grass-type normally can't touch. Rillaboom is a pure Grass-type with five weaknesses, but it is one of the best Pokémon to use thus far because of its hidden ability Grassy Surge that creates Grassy Terrain upon switching in, high Attack stat, the move Grassy Glide that gets priority and doubles in power in Grassy Terrain, and its huge physical movepool for coverage. With Grass-types, the Dark-typing adds a 4x weakness to Bug-type, a Fighting-type weakness, a Dark-type resistance, a Ghost-type resistance, and Psychic-type immunity. Offensively, Grass/Dark-types can hit Ground, Rock, Ghost, Water, and Psychic-types super effectively, which is great because each of these types are good offensive types, and Water-type is common and is great defensively. Also, the ability to hit Ghost-types and Psychic-types super effectively is a great thing based upon how good those types commonly are.

If the move Pursuit returns in the 9th gen, then this Pokémon could potentially become a problem for Ghosts and Psychics wanting to switch out. Grass-type Pokémon tend to benefit well from the sun and, depending on the Pokémon's move pool and whether it is a physical attacker, it could get a STAB from Sucker Punch, which is a great move. If the starter truly is going to become a Grass/Dark-type, a great Pokémon to use with it would be a Water/Psychic type such as, for example, Starmie (my favorite Pokémon). Even though Grass/Dark has a lot of weaknesses, chances are good that your opponent would switch into a Fire, Fighting, or Fire/Fighting type to deal with it. Starmie has the ability to cover for Grass/Dark offensively and defensively in this situation, as Water resists Fire, Psychic resists Fighting, Water is super effective against Fire, and Psychic is super effective against Fighting. Bug types would be your main problem, especially Scizor, but if you're that scared of Bugs, a good Fire or Fire/Flying type such as Charizard is good, as Fire can resist Bug, as well as Flying, and both are super effective against Bug, and if it's against Scizor, it's also good against Bug/Steel as well. Thus, a Pokémon being good and useable often has nothing to do with their typing, but rather their abilities, moves, and stats, and how you build your team around them to accentuate their strengths and cover their weaknesses.

PageEmperor said:

Grass/Bug and Rock/Ice are also awful, maybe even objectively worse

Click to expand...

While I agree with Grass/Bug being bad, mainly because Bug-type alone is a bad typing because of its many weaknesses against super common types and the amount of types that resist it, but it's also bad because you're pairing Bug-type, arguably the worse type offensively and defensively with Grass-type, which has five weaknesses, including many that they share. This results in Grass/Bug having a lot of 4x weaknesses. Despite that, I still enjoyed using Parasect back in the day for catching Pokémon with Spore and False Swipe. Rock/Ice however, I strongly disagree. While Rock/Ice is definitely horrible defensively because of many weakness, including two double weaknesses against Fighting and Steel, offensively, both Rock and Ice are definitely some of the best offensive types in the game. When you combine them, you have a typing that is super effective against almost half of every type in the entire game. The only thing that is better is Ground/Ice, which actually covers more than half of all types in the game offensively.

Sweet Serenity said:

Rock/Ice however, I strongly disagree. While Rock/Ice is definitely horrible defensively because of many weakness, including two double weaknesses against Fighting and Steel, offensively, both Rock and Ice are definitely some of the best offensive types in the game. When you combine them, you have a typing that is super effective against almost half of every type in the entire game. The only thing that is better is Ground/Ice, which actually covers more than half of all types in the game offensively.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that 4x weakness to Fighting though. And other super common types. Say what you like but I'm also sure 90% of everyone else disagrees with you as well. Also, good job at getting overblown at a pretty small detail into the post once again. But super effective on half of everyone? I'll take it.

Back on topic, What really scares me about the Grass/Dark typing is the fact that many of the crapton of weaknesses it has are common coverage moves, especially Fighting and Fairy. The former is generally a very common sight for opponent's mons, and is easy to get for coverage, and the latter is pretty hard to counter and is easy coverage as well.

PageEmperor said:

Yeah, but that 4x weakness to Fighting though. And other super common types. Say what you like but I'm also sure 90% of everyone else disagrees with you as well. Also, good job at getting overblown at a pretty small detail into the post once again. But super effective on half of everyone? I'll take it.

Click to expand...

"Good job at getting overblown at a pretty small detail into the post once again?" Really? It sounds like you have an attitude or a problem with me for some reason. Either way, It doesn't matter if anybody disagrees. I know how to play the game. I play Pokémon competitively often and I understand type combinations pretty well and how they work. If "90%" does disagree, well then "90%" likely have little to no battle experience. If you have a Pokémon that is Ice/Rock on your team and you know it has a double weakness to Fighting, then it makes sense to have a Pokémon on your team such to switch in to for defensive coverage that has a double resistance to Fighting. I don't understand how anybody with common sense can disagree with that. I went into detail because you don't really seem to understand how to play Pokémon well if you seriously believe that Grass/Dark is a bad type combination, or that type combinations even matter most of the time. If you know how to build a solid team that can cover your party's weaknesses, then you can do well with almost anything. If I have a feeling that someone doesn't understand the game well or know how to play it well, which is perfectly fine, I simply explain my reasoning in detail. It shouldn't be considered "overblown" if you actually cared to listen.

PageEmperor said:

Back on topic, What really scares me about the Grass/Dark typing is the fact that many of the crapton of weaknesses it has are common coverage moves, especially Fighting and Fairy. The former is generally a very common sight for opponent's mons, and is easy to get for coverage, and the latter is pretty hard to counter and is easy coverage as well.

Click to expand...

As for being scared of coverage moves, Fairy-type moves are very rarely used for coverage, and Fighting-type is almost exclusively used for coverage on physical attackers, unless you're scared of getting hit by a 70% accurate Focus Blast or a rare Aura Sphere user. This should give a good idea of what your opponent's moveset could be and when you might need to switch Pokémon, such as if your opponent is a physical attacker known for using Fighting-type moves. Ice, Rock, Fighting, Ground, and Electric are actually the most common coverage moves in Pokémon. The only ones you really have to worry about regarding common coverage moves are Ice and Fighting. Water-type is the most common type that uses Ice for coverage, but Dark/Grass can handle Water anyway. Fighting coverage when facing a physical attacker is really the only thing you have to worry about in terms of common coverage moves being a threat to you. Also note that the Grass/Dark Pokémon in question could also have its own coverage moves as well. If the Grass/Dark type is the best Pokémon on your team and has its stats boosted in the stats that benefit it the most, such as Speed and/or Attack/Special Attack, then you should be able to sweep teams without having to worry about coverage moves anyway.

^ So what gets Dazzling gleam again? A bunch of rocks, a bunch of Psychics which some of them don't look like they could produce light, etc. so yeah.

And in order to get boosted stats… you need to spend turns setting up. While worrying about getting hit by coverage moves. Good job. So yeah… no. Grass/Dark really is trash. And you think other people are worse players than you are just for the fact that you think you have 'experience'? Come on now.

PageEmperor said:

^ So what gets Dazzling gleam again? A bunch of rocks, a bunch of Psychics which some of them don't look like they could produce light, etc. so yeah. And in order to get boosted stats… you need to spend turns setting up. While worrying about getting hit by coverage moves. Good job. So yeah… no. Grass/Dark really is trash. And you think other people are worse players than you are just for the fact that you think you have 'experience'? Come on now.

Click to expand...

Players generally don't use Dazzling Gleam or any other Fairy-type move as a coverage move. Fairy moves are only good against Dragon, Fighting, and Dark. When players use coverage moves, they typically use moves that are super effective against many Pokémon at once, such as Ice, Rock, Fighting, or Ground-type moves. Dazzling Gleam is almost exclusively used by Fairy-type Pokémon. It wouldn't make any sense for a Rock-type Pokémon to use Dazzling Gleam because Rock-type doesn't have any issues with Dragon or Dark types. Sure, Rock is weak to Fighting, but Rock-types are usually physical attackers and they won't be able to make use of Fairy-type moves. It's best to use another Pokémon against Fighting-types instead. Psychic-type Pokémon probably make more sense to use Dazzling Gleam, but even then it's seen as a waste of a move slot and isn't used that often because Psychic is already super effective against Poison and Fighting. The only time it is truly commonly used is when the Psychic-type is also part Fairy-type. Psychic already takes down Fighting pretty well, and much better options can be used to take down Dark-types with less risk rather than a Psychic with an average powered Fairy-type move such as actual Fighting or Fairy type Pokémon.

I also never mentioned anything about anybody being better or worse than me as a player. A person doesn't have to think they're better than anybody else simply because they believe another player isn't good or experienced. Instead, I'm just pointing out that, based on your post, you don't seem to have much or any experience at all battling competitively, which is fine. Not everybody is into competitive battling. I mean, if I'm wrong, then I just can't imagine you being good. I say that because anybody with experience playing competitively against actual human players and not against mere NPCs or gimmicks such as Nuzlockes know that Grass/Dark and/or Ice/Rock definitely are not the worst type combinations and have their strong suits. Even if they have a lot of weaknesses, the goal as a player is to build your team to cover for weaknesses. They also would say that Fairy-type moves are not common coverage. I just honestly can't imagine a player that is actually good or experienced disagreeing with that.

Oh, and by the way, many ways exist to boost stats. The key is mainly to do it when its safe, such as when you put an opponent's Pokémon to sleep, when you have a bad matchup, when your opponent's Pokémon has a non-offensive role, when you use Dynamax and use max moves that boost stats, have abilities that boost stats such as Beast Boost or Speed Boost, and/or use Baton Pass to pass those stat changes at the right time when you can safely switch in. The more you know about the Pokémon you're facing and what moves players commonly run with them, then you automatically know when switching in is safe for stat boosts. I just find it sad how you ask for people's opinions on here, yet, you get upset when someone disagrees with you and don't even try listening to the reasoning that you asked for.

If we're talking about giving a Pokémon more weaknesses with its secondary type without gaining much offensively then yeah Grass/Bug before Gen IV was by far the worst. Still one of them since then, but at least you can use the Bug typing to your advantage with strong moves like X-Scissor or Bug Buzz rather than just Fury Cutter.

So far all the Grass/Dark types are really cool designs but I never used Shiftry or Cacturne due to a combination of their typing being out of sync with their stats in Gen III and the presence of Ludicolo and Tropius whom I like even more.

Water/Ice I find is deceptively rubbish. Water-types almost always have Ice-type coverage anyway so in return for weaknesses to the common Fighting and Rock you get…slightly stronger Ice/type moves. Again especially in Gen IV when 4/5 pseudos had a 4x weakness to Ice or Water but also had access to Rock-type coverage.

It's got a lot of weaknesses, but it's still usable.
I've used both Cacturne and Shiftry at some point, they weren't the best mons on my teams, but still put in good work.

I lean more towards aesthetic and how interesting type combinations are, rather than weaknesses - in that regard grass/dark is a cool type combination to me. Unfortunately it also includes my least favorite Pokémon in the series, Zarude, so that will permanently knock it down a few points. -sweats-

Devalue said:

Views Grass/Ice as worse, personally. Compromises the Grass side against Rock types (and typically Ground types, given how many know Rock attacks). Becomes weak to Flying on the Ice side. Who do you want to bring that in against? Just Water, Grass, and maybe Electric types.

Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. I guess Abomasnow's main niche (besides setting up Hail) is dealing with the cliché of Water types having Ice type coverage. Sadly the price to pay was too high as it gains a lot of weaknesses making it very unreliable.

Sweet Serenity said:

I also never mentioned anything about anybody being better or worse than me as a player. A person doesn't have to think they're better than anybody else simply because they believe another player isn't good or experienced. Instead, I'm just pointing out that, based on your post, you don't seem to have much or any experience at all battling competitively, which is fine. Not everybody is into competitive battling. I mean, if I'm wrong, then I just can't imagine you being good. I say that because anybody with experience playing competitively against actual human players and not against mere NPCs or gimmicks such as Nuzlockes know that Grass/Dark and/or Ice/Rock definitely are not the worst type combinations and have their strong suits. Even if they have a lot of weaknesses, the goal as a player is to build your team to cover for weaknesses. They also would say that Fairy-type moves are not common coverage. I just honestly can't imagine a player that is actually good or experienced disagreeing with that.

Click to expand...

Looking back, I probably should have said this instead: "Grass/Bug and Rock/Ice, I heard were also awful, and from what I've seen they were objectively worse.

So yeah, you really were freaking out over a pretty minor detail on the post. That is… pretty sad. And it's also even sadder that from then on out you begin raging over it and claiming that other people have no battling experience… right. I mean, after all, I was just listing type combinations that I heard could be worse and to be completely fair, you have been doing nothing but spew out overblown reactions, and most of such I already know of. Like come on now, of course I know Rock/Ice is not bad for attacking potential, that's exactly why I think Grass/Dark is a gazillion times worse.

I was just doing an example. Your reaction to an example was just immature, and before you freak out again, yes, you were raging. This is some embarassing stuff. Very much so.

That said, yeah, Grass/Dark is complete trash. Can't hit anything super effectively, weak to everything, feel free to find ways to change my mind.

PageEmperor said:

Looking back, I probably should have said this instead: "Grass/Bug and Rock/Ice, I heard were also awful, and from what I've seen they were objectively worse.

Click to expand...

Ok, so maybe you heard it was bad. Well, guess what, PageEmperor? I don't have to "hear" whether or not something is bad because I actually play and can determine for myself whether or not something is actually bad through testing, which is better than going by other people's words. With that, it doesn't matter whether you said this or not because it wouldn't influence my opinion. The gameplay is what influences my opinion.

PageEmperor said:

So yeah, you really were freaking out over a pretty minor detail on the post. That is… pretty sad.

Click to expand...

I am not "freaking out" or "raging" over anything. You started the topic asking for people's opinions on the Grass/Dark-typing and provided your own opinion by saying it was unusable. I, in a respectful and detailed way, disagreed with your opinion and mentioned that Grass/Dark had many good things going for it. After that, you somehow got upset with my answer, talking about how "90% of people would disagree with me (which is complete cap)" and said I was "overblowing things." That sounded like you were attacking me, so I mentioned that in my previous post. You just come off as a person that has an issue with people disagreeing with you, despite asking people for different opinions. That combined with the fact that you think I'm "raging" and "freaking out" when giving my opinion along with reasons to support it is the sad part. I mean, I haven't said anything about this to you in almost two weeks. Just get over it.

PageEmperor said:

And it's also even sadder that from then on out you begin raging over it and claiming that other people have no battling experience… right. I mean, after all, I was just listing type combinations that I heard could be worse and to be completely fair, you have been doing nothing but spew out overblown reactions, and most of such I already know of.

Click to expand...

And in response, I gave reasons on my opinion about type combinations that I know based on the many battles that I've played, not what I've "heard." I just can't imagine anybody with your mindset being a good competitive player. I don't know though. Maybe you are a really great competitive player. Whether I'm right or wrong, then it is what it is. I couldn't care less either way.

PageEmperor said:

Like come on now, of course I know Rock/Ice is not bad for attacking potential, that's exactly why I think Grass/Dark is a gazillion times worse. I was just doing an example. Your reaction to an example was just immature, and before you freak out again, yes, you were raging. This is some embarassing stuff. Very much so.

Click to expand...

Stop the cap. You know you had no clue that Rock/Ice is great offensively, or knew about how much of the game that those two types alone cover super-effectively. With all due respect PageEmperor, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You talk about "giving examples," but I gave you examples of all the good aspects of Grass/Dark, yet you blew them off, started resorting to attacking me, and then responding to me about it again almost two weeks later. If anything, that's true immaturity right there and very embarrassing stuff.

PageEmperor said:

That said, yeah, Grass/Dark is complete trash. Can't hit anything super effectively, weak to everything, feel free to find ways to change my mind.

Click to expand...

If you want to believe that Grass/Dark is that terrible, then believe what you want to believe. I don't live to change people's minds. If you want your mind changed, get on Pokémon Showdown, the Nintendo Switch, or whatever platform you play on, build a competitive team around Zarude, have about 15 battles against others with the same team, and find out for yourself if it sucks or not. If you can't win any match with a good, balanced team supporting a good physical sweeper like Zarude, then I honestly have no clue what to tell you.

By the way, I looked at your post history and you seem to be a Nuzlocker. Maybe you're speaking from the perspective of a Nuzlocker, which makes sense because the point of a Nuzlocke is to keep your Pokémon alive for as long as possible. Maybe Pokémon with many weaknesses aren't good for that purpose. Yet, if you're speaking from a competitive perspective, then I just can't agree with you because I've climbed the ranks with Zarude and several other Pokémon with many weaknesses. If you know what you're doing, weaknesses shouldn't mean much. Either way, it is what it is. Get over it and believe what you want to believe, but realize that not everybody in the world would agree with you.

Steps in to remind everyone that the discussion is about Grass/Dark types. Feel free to debate which situations they excel in and which they falter in, your experiences with any Grass/Dark Pokemon, and perhaps their relative standing among other types. Please respect others' opinions and their experiences.

Also asks users to file a report OR speak with one of the section moderators (Devalue, Shooting Star, and colours for this subforum) if you take issue with another user's posts.

Exactly. That said, before we go back to the topic…

Sweet Serenity said:

I am not "freaking out" or "raging" over anything. You started the topic asking for people's opinions on the Grass/Dark-typing and provided your own opinion by saying it was unusable. I, in a respectful and detailed way, disagreed with your opinion and mentioned that Grass/Dark had many good things going for it. After that, you somehow got upset with my answer, talking about how "90% of people would disagree with me (which is complete cap)" and said I was "overblowing things." That sounded like you were attacking me, so I mentioned that in my previous post. You just come off as a person that has an issue with people disagreeing with you, despite asking people for different opinions. That combined with the fact that you think I'm "raging" and "freaking out" when giving my opinion along with reasons to support it is the sad part. I mean, I haven't said anything about this to you in almost two weeks. Just get over it.

Click to expand...

For the record, I am completely fine with everyone disagreeing with the whole "Grass/Dark is the worst typing" deal (in fact I kinda want to see disagreements to that). My only issue was you getting overblown at my examples. Y'know, the "I HEARD Grass/Bug and Rock/Ice were PROBABLY worse" part. You seemed to be going a little insane at over a pretty minor detail in my post, and that kind of bothered me.

And I have gotten over practically everything at this point. I'm not the one who saw a tiny ass point in a post and raged over it. That said, please stop making these dumb arguments if they don't contibute to the following question: "Is Grass/Dark a good or bad typing?". In short, no, I don't want to contain with you anymore on this thread.

So yeah, let's get back to topic. Is Grass/Dark, in your honest opinion, usable, not usable, or do you have any strong reasonings? I actually would like to know, hell, I actually would like to know how it isn't a bad typing.

I consistently see people being dissatisfied with the Grass/Dark typing, and I'm not sure I get it.

I take issue with certain type combos when we get an abundance of them in one generation. Like, we did get two Grass/Dark types introduced in Hoenn, back when both Dark and Grass were exclusively special types. The movesets for these types were also extremely limited; no Leaf Storm, no Wood Hammer, no Grass Knot. And Dark only had Crunch as a decent move, really.

(I also take issue with Galarian Rapidash being Psychic/Fairy - Gardevoir and Hatterene were enough, we get it. Feel like we were cheated out of a much cooler Rapidash).

Now though, I like Cacturne and Shiftry, when they can be properly equipped. Are they super weak to Bug? Yes. Yes, they are. But I don't care.
Same with Darude Zarude. I like its design, I like its moveset. Its ability is a bit bleh; "Leaf Guard". I feel like it would've been better suited with Chlorophyll or Tough Claws, but I guess they were looking for something to pair with the Jungle Healing motif.

TL;DR, I like the typing, and don't think it sucks. A 4x weakness is never ideal, but Tyranitar and virtually every Dragon type (bar Kingdra) up until gen 5 don't let it get in their way, so why should the Grass/Dark types?

My condolences to any Pokémon with the Grass/Dark-typing. At least there are even worse type combinations.

I don't hate the Grass/Dark typing per se, but dang does it highlight how poorly some types fare defensively. Grass and Dark are individually offensively fine (combined they at least hit all single-typed Pokémon neutrally), but don't have much in terms of defensive use. Being weak to almost half of all existing types (specifically seven of them) is never ideal imo. At least Grass/Dark resists six types (and is immune to one) in turn.

As long as a Grass/Dark-type can get some mileage out of its offensive capabilities (like Zarude), I suppose defense isn't too big an issue.

PageEmperor said:

Exactly. That said, before we go back to the topic…



For the record, I am completely fine with everyone disagreeing with the whole "Grass/Dark is the worst typing" deal (in fact I kinda want to see disagreements to that). My only issue was you getting overblown at my examples. Y'know, the "I HEARD Grass/Bug and Rock/Ice were PROBABLY worse" part. You seemed to be going a little insane at over a pretty minor detail in my post, and that kind of bothered me.

And I have gotten over practically everything at this point. I'm not the one who saw a tiny ass point in a post and raged over it. That said, please stop making these dumb arguments if they don't contibute to the following question: "Is Grass/Dark a good or bad typing?". In short, no, I don't want to contain with you anymore on this thread.

So yeah, let's get back to topic. Is Grass/Dark, in your honest opinion, usable, not usable, or do you have any strong reasonings? I actually would like to know, hell, I actually would like to know how it isn't a bad typing.

Click to expand...

You're the one that went off-topic in the first place by attacking me instead of my reply. I gave you a thorough answer to your question in post #5. You didn't respond to anything that I've said about the positive aspects of the Grass-type and when Grass-type is paired with Dark-type. Instead, you mentioned that I supposedly was "overblown by a small detail" in your post. No, the truth is, you simply made a statement and I disagreed with that statement. Chances are great that if I agreed with you on everything you said, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Thus, you're the one that went off-topic by making your post about me instead of the Grass/Dark typing. You seem to believe that someone disagreeing with you and giving you detailed reasons explaining why they disagree is somehow "raging." I'll tell you what then. Go through my post, which is post #5, read it carefully, and tell me anything that you think I'm wrong about, give good rational reasons why you think I'm wrong, and we can talk about it respectfully without you having to attack me because you think I'm "overblowing things" or "raging." It's that simple. If you can't do that, yet still want to "stay on topic," then stop responding to me with personal attacks.