Talk:Dark counterpart

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Dark counterpart.
This page is for discussion about the article, not general talk about its subject. See the Forums for general discussion. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

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. --FredCat 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? --FredCat 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)

Which idiot has removed the note about the Verz? —This unsigned comment was made by 88.159.251.178 (talk • contribs) 14:12, February 2, 2012

Visit the history of that page, then click "undo", which can reviving the lost part of that note you mentioned. Also, don't forget to sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~) at end of your comment please, because it's important part for Discussion AND Talk Page. --FredCat 14:37, February 2, 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:

• Does not have the same ATK and DEF
• Does not have the same Level

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.

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)

The table is too strict?

The "Dark Counterpart/Original" Table may have too strict of columns now. Tiras and Adreus came out together, so there is technically no "Original" for them. Any ideas towards accommodating that through "culling" some terms to fit. —This unsigned comment was made by 24.112.244.29 (talk • contribs) 23:35, January 26, 2012

That's nice to know you cared about them, and please be sure to sign your edits with four tildes whenever you're sign in Talk Page or Discussion Article, as they are important to know who it came from and it's your absolute responsible. --FredCat 23:43, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Aside from lacking "dark" in it's name and not using the entirely same name as it's normal counterpart, Ardeus has the same rank, attack, and defense as well as having a similar title which contains an antonym. I think these facts put together do indeed make it a dark counterpart, however it seems to be nearly on par with the first three cards on the "disputed cards" list except it's not a zombie conterpart and does not have dark in it's name at all. I suggest moving it to disputed as the rest of the cards in that table do indeed have Dark in their name and that alone is reason enough to question it. Mattwo (talk • contribs) 00:44, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Adreus should be moved to the disputed category, not only it does not have "Dark" in its name, but also it does not have the same type as Tiras (Tiras being a Fairy and Adreus a Fiend). I think the card was planned to be some sort of "Demon Counterpart" to Tiras. I could move it to the disputed category if an admin gives the final approval. Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 14:43, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

It's a series (not an archetype), so whether having a word in the name or not is unnecessary to this.

Since this is Dark Counterpart to Original Card, I agree that Tiras and Adreus don't belong. They at least suit Chaos more.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 14:50, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Dark Elf, being on the list or not?

Recently Dark Elf was taken out the Dark counterpart members, because it has its ATK and DEF inversed with his non-Dark counterpart. The person claimed that it was a requeriment that the ATK and DEF must be same, but then, I ask now, how much strict we must be with this table.

Also it is worth mentioning that Dark Elf came long before the series itself, so, while it was not planned as a "Dark counterpart", it was planned as a dark version of Mystical Elf. So we could consider it a honorary member.

If we take out Dark Elf, because of laking 1 of 4 requeriments to be part of the series, which can be summarized to:

1- Dark in its name

2- Same ATK and DEF

3- Same Level

4- Same Type

Then shouldn't we be taking out Darklord Zerato too? Remember that he does not have Dark 「ダーク」 in its japanese name, thus he can't be considered a full member.

I propose that if we are going to be so strict with the table, that we should move Dark Elf and Darklord Zerato to the related category. I mention the case of what happened with Marie the Fallen One, who came before the Darklords series but still has "fallen angel" in its japanese name, so she was put in the related category.Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 03:44, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Odd-Eyes

The page basically says Dark Counterparts are DARK-Attribute counterparts of non-DARK monsters. But, why is "Odd-Eyes Pendulum Dragon" and "Dark Rebellion Xyz Dragon" here?
The Grim Reaper (talk) 22:24, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Some random put in there. If you doubt an entry's authenticity, you can check the page's history to see who put it in. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 22:29, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I was close. RISINGDracyan (I already don't remember the name of that person) was the one. Should I place it in "Disputed" or remove it all together?
The Grim Reaper (talk) 23:26, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Remove. It's an Xyz Monster counterpart at best. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 02:00, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you wanted to know, people saw "Dark Rebellion Xyz Dragon" as a Dark counterpart because they saw Yuto as Yuya own "Dark counterpart", so the logic behind it was that just as Yuto is "Dark Yuya", Xyz Dragon is "Dark Odd-Eyes Pendulum Dragon".

The technical reasons for Xyz Dragon to be put on the list where: because it has Dark in its name, has the same ATK, DEF and Type of Odd-Eyes, and while it does not have the same Level, seeing that Xyz Monsters do not have a level to begin with, its Rank is the same as Odd-Eyes' Pendulum Scale. For me the part of "Level vs. Rank vs. Pendulum Scale" is still debatable (As there is no case so far of a Dark counterpart being a different type of monsters as the normal), however I totally agree with the "Dark counterparts are DARK-Attribute counterparts of non-DARK monsters" argument. So it is better for it to be removed. Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 18:48, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Dark Elf and Dark Doriado

I brought up this discussion about 3 years ago, about which cards could be considered part of the series or not. At the end, due to the not inclussion of "Dark Elf" in the table, the concession, to my understanding, was that for a card to be part of the series, it needed to have the following stats:

• Dark 「ダーク」 in its name
• Same ATK and DEF
• Same Level
• Same Type
• Being a DARK monster

Now, we with the release of "Dark Doriado", the discussion is brought up again, as Dark Doriado has neither the Level, nor the ATK and DEF of "Elemental Mistress Doriado". So, are we going to include both "Dark Elf" and "Dark Doriado" in the list or are we going to take both into the "disputed card category"? What about other monster who may have ダーク in their name and look like an already existing monster, except they don't have the same stats? Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 14:27, October 18, 2015 (UTC)