Talk:Dark counterpart

Absolute/Dark Crusader.
Should Dark Crusader be added to this AT? Mattwo (talk • contribs) 05:42, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is he a counterpart of something? SebastiaanZ
 * Absolute Crusader....it was already removed Mattwo (talk • contribs) 15:03, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Verz be added?
Should the Verz be included in this? After all they are all counterparts of various monsters and all share the DARK Attribute. SebastiaanZ
 * No, because 'Dark Counterparts' are all "Dark [insert name here]" or "[name] the Dark [title]" or something. Basically, they have "Dark" in their name. Secondly, 'Dark Counterparts' are simply just that, random DARK counterparts. The Verz are virus infected Duel Terminal cards. To put it simply, they are more 'Virus Counterparts' if anything. Nothing to do with 'Darkness' about them. 184.79.83.239 (talk) 13:11, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Dark Counterparts is something that should be going for all. Verz are dark attribute counterparts of various monsters, so they are Dark Counterparts. I say they should be added! SebastiaanZ
 * That's clearly a point - but take a look at some Verz, it has corrupted on some monsters, like one of those Gusto Tuner, for explain. -- F  r  e  d  C  a  t  13:13, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the entire Warrior of Zera set, Adreus, Keeper of Armageddon and Malevolent Mech - Goku En say hi. If it's doubt-able put it in "Disputed Cards" Mattwo (talk • contribs) 00:11, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Dark Counterpart ain't "Disputed Cards", k? -- F  r  e  d  C  a  t  02:03, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * That section was added for a reason right? The way I see it Verz fit perfectly there Mattwo (talk • contribs) 02:08, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Verz does not fit to be considered Dark Counterparts and agree that they should be considered some sort of Virus or Corrupted counterpart. The reason? Because if you see the Dark Counterpart archetype, we can find that all its members share this attributes in common:
 * They are Dark-Type Monsters.
 * They have "Dark" in their name. (With the exception of Adreus, Keeper of Armageddon, but that's a TCG Original Card)
 * They share the ATK and DEF with their Original Version. (With the exception of Dark Elf, but it has the opposite stats)
 * They share the Level with their Original Version.
 * All the Verz monsters have other attributes in common between them and their counterparts, the most noticeable they share "Verz" in their name and not "Dark", and some has 50 ATK more and 50 DEF less than their non-Verz counterpart.
 * Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 00:07, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Darkflare Dragon
I think Darkflare Dragon should not be considered a member of the Dark Counterpart Archetype, because of the clear differences it has with Lightpulsar Dragon: While it is true that it has "Dark" in its name, all the other members of the archetype share those points with their normal versions.
 * Does not have the same ATK and DEF
 * Does not have the same Level

Also if we see the story presented in http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/products/sd-sddc.html Darkflare Dragon is more like a companion of Lightpulsar than a rival or counterpart. So I say we should take Darkflare Dragon out of the archetype. Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 00:07, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I'm asking that here first, because I don't want to make the change if nobody shares this opinion with me.
 * Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 00:08, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Move it to disputed then...that's what that part is there for...Mattwo (talk • contribs) 04:52, January 13, 2012 (UTC)