|
This is the talk page for discussing the page, Dark counterpart. | |
|---|---|
|
Please try to
|
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 ~~
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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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
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)
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)