A character that previously might not even be considered a "character" isn't obscure? A Pokemon that didn't even exist when it was chosen and doesn't have any specific relevance isn't obscure? But Impa, a character who has appeared in multiple Zelda games and often plays a significant role is obscure?
My definition of obscure relates to how well known a character is and how important they are to their series.
Greninja is the new Charizard and very very well know to anyone who has played or is familiar with the newest Pokegeneration.
WFT if very well recognised to almost anyone familiar with the Nintendo Wii.
Where as most people who play Zelda don't even realise Impa is a recurring character till someone points it out to them.
Possibly because she looks entirely different per game and seldom has a memorable role.
Impa is also only ever a story character in Zelda titles.
And only plays a significant role in at most two Zelda titles.
Sadly, I don't think HW will have any influence on SSB4 since it was only just released in Japan last week.
Yeah great explanation there.
Me: "How is he a clone considering this this this this and this."
You: "lulz he's a clone."
I pointed out that his differences were generally animation changes.
What it comes down to for me is, if it's clear that a character was started as a clone and then tweaked, then I could not classify it as an original moveset.
It's fairly evident that his moves have massive parallel with foxes', just tweaked and re-animated.
Up B tweaked to remove the charge.
Side B tweaked to move diagonally.
Nuetral B tweaked to slower and more powerful.
Down B and final smash barely tweaked at all.
The most notable difference is the smash attack animations.
That solidifies him as Luigifued, but in my opinion, that doesn't constitute classing it as an 'original moveset'.
Again, that's just how I classify a clone. If your definition of an original moveset requires less distinction, that's fine.