Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki
Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Dark counterpart.

Please try to

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Be welcoming

Absolute/Dark Crusader.

Should Dark Crusader be added to this AT? Mattwo (talkcontribs) 05:42, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

  • Is he a counterpart of something? ~~ SebastiaanZ ~~
    • Absolute Crusader....it was already removed Mattwo (talkcontribs) 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. (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 00:07, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
Which idiot has removed the note about the Verz? —This unsigned comment was made by (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 00:08, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
Move it to disputed then...that's what that part is there for...Mattwo (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 03:44, February 15, 2012 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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?

What about "Dark End Dragon" with "Light End Dragon", or "Paladin of White Dragon" with "Paladin of Dark Dragon"? They match the requirements perfectly, except for "Paladin of Dark Dragon" who does not have ダーク in its Japanese case, but let me remind you that that is the same case of the well known dark counterpart "Darklord Zerato". Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 14:40, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Dark counterpart qualifications

At the end, if we are going to start to nitpick the dark counterparts, either we choose all who match the "twisted, sinister appearance compared to their original forms" (In which case "Dark Doriado", "Dark Elf" and "Paladin of Dark Dragon" don't match, but "Dark End Dragon" does), or we choose them based on their stats compared to an already-existing monster (In which case, only "Dark Doriado" and "Dark Elf" fail to match). Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 14:40, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

You just listed the qualifications that were agreed upon, all that match them should be added.
Dread (talkcontribs) 15:18, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DreadKaiser, I already added all the matching cards, the problem is that other users, after the release of "Dark Doriado", started to modify the list of Dark counterparts, that's why I wanted to discuss again what are the qualifications for a card to be considered one... the stats, the name and/or the appearance?
Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 15:23, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Because of Dark Doriado having the romaji for a dark counterpart (ダーク), it's best we go by Japanese name and appearance, IMO. ChaosGallade (talkcontribs) 16:48, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Guys, Dark End and Light End do not qualify. If there is an original monster, and some time later a dark counterpart of it is created, they qualify. But thst's not the case. Light End is not the "original one", Light End and Dark End were used together as counterparts to each other. It's just like Misawa's Fire and Water Dragons, for example. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talkcontribs) 17:48, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
ChaosGallade, if we go by Japanese name and appearance, "Dark Doriado" still doesn't qualify, her clothes are black, yes, but her general appearance is not twisted or sinister compared to "Elemental Mistress Doriado". If you watch the other humanoid Dark counterparts, say "Dark Grepher", "Dark General Freed", "Darknight Parshath" and "Dark Valkyria", their skin is dark toned, their hair is of decayed color and their eyes are red. "Dark Doriado" has the same skin, hair and eye color as "Elemental Mistress Doriado". That's why before "Dark Doriado"'s release, we used the non-dark counterpart stats as a way to determine if the monster was a dark counterpart or not.
If we go by Japanese name, then we will have to take out "Darklord Zerato" and "Paladin of Dark Dragon", too, as they doesn't have (ダーク) in it.
Also, LegendaryAsariUgetsu, by stats, name and appearance, "Dark End Dragon" qualifies to be considered a dark counterpart to "Light End Dragon". The fact that they were released together is irrelevant, as Dark counterparts are defined as "A series of DARK monsters that is identified by an existing non-DARK counterpart and 「ダーク」 in their Japanese name". You are saying it yourself, "Light End and Dark End were used together as counterparts to each other", making "Dark End Dragon" the DARK counterpart to the existing non-DARK "Light End Dragon",
Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 18:01, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Dark End is a counterpart to Light End as much as Light End is a counterpart to Dark End. I still think Dark counterparts should be monsters in which there is an original monster, and then a dark counterpart of it was released, like Dark Doriado. I don't think stats should have anything to do with this, since Dark Doriado is pretty clearly a dark counterpart to Elemental Mistress Doriado. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talkcontribs) 18:58, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Seconding what Ugetsu said. In the Doriado case, the Elemental Mistress variant (or heck, even Dryad) was the original counterpart; the Dark variant also has ties to the Elemental Mistress' effect. For Zerato, the Archlord was the original, while the Darklord was the corrupted, while both effects are also similar. In other words almost all the Dark counterparts have similar effects to their original counterparts (except for Dark Grepher, which has a Normal Monster counterpart, but it's still a Dark counterpart in terms of appearance and name).ChaosGallade (talkcontribs) 19:09, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
"Dark Doriado" is a dark counterpart to "Elemental Mistress Doriado" just as much "Darkflare Dragon" could be seen as a dark counterpart to "Lightpulsar Dragon", or "Red-Eyes Black Dragon" to "Blue-Eyes White Dragon", or "Adreus, Keeper of Armageddon" to "Tiras, Keeper of Genesis", except, they don't match the qualifications we have always been using to distinct monster that are part of "Dark counterparts" series, to other monster who are pretty clearly, a DARK-attribute version of another monster, which is exactly why most of the previously named monsters are in the "Disputed Cards" category. The qualifications we have always used are:
  • Dark 「ダーク」 in its name
  • Same ATK and DEF
  • Same Level
  • Same Type
  • Being a DARK monster
If we go to the matter of effects, then all the original dark counterparts have a similar effect to the original counterpart, except it is related to DARK monsters (Minus "Dark Valkyria", who, also, is the other exception due to "Dunames Dark Witch" being another normal monster). If we go into that extreme of details, then all other monsters do not qualify as part of the series.
In terms of appearance, I beg to differ again, but "Dark Doriado" looks nothing like the other Dark counterparts, you insist in it being part of the Dark counterpart series due to having 「ダーク」 in its name, but I would even say "Dark Doriado" is more an upgraded version of "Elemental Mistress Doriado", than a dark counterpart, due to its enhanced effect and higher level. The reason we decided to use the stats to make the difference, is precisely to avoid this kind of discussion. If this was a archetype, instead of a series, then everything would be more easy, but precicely due to it being a series, is why we needed a criteria to determinate what monsters is part of the series or not, and the best way to do it, is with their stats and name.
About "Dark End Dragon" and "Light End Dragon", in my opinion, if the Dark counterpart was released along with the original counterpart or after, is irrelevant. The idea of Dark counterparts is that they are "DARK monsters that is identified by an existing non-DARK counterpart, with 「ダーク」 in their Japanese name, and a twisted, sinister appearance compared to their original forms", in which case "Dark End Dragon" matches it. If the Lightray series name would have been just "Light", then, I assure you, "Light End Dragon" would have been counted as part of the series, as he is the Light counterpart to "Dark End Dragon".
Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 19:32, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Twilightsworn monsters don't belong in the series, they don't have "Dark" in their name

Ok, I made some corrections to the listing of all Dark counterparts, but it was undone by a content moderator, meaning I don't want to risk undoing that work without giving out my reasons for doing so, or else I could be accused of compromising the page.

As it has been previously stated, lots of times, in the series page and the Talk section, in order for a monster to belong to this series, they need to have "Dark" or "ダーク" in their name, either in their english name or their japanese name (As monsters, like Paladin of Dark Dragon or Darklord Zerato, lack "Dark" in their japanese name).

Twilightsworn, or トワイライトロード (Towairaitorōdo), don't have Dark in their name, thus they can't belong to the series, despite being dark version of Twilight monsters. This was the second time I have to take them out of the listing, you can check the History.

It is not unusual for Series to be difficult to catalog because sometimes they just share a thematic element, no name, attack patterns, etc... However, this is not the case, as the first and foremost common element of all the monster that fall into the "Dark counterpart" series is having "Dark in their name". We settled on that years ago, and it is not uncommon for people to forget about it.

So, either we subject ourselves to the conditions that allow us to classify these cards and take out Twilightsworn from the classification for lacking the first and most important element in the series... or we just decide that "any card that could be seen as a dark version of an existing card" should be included, meaning: we have to add Malefic, Shaddoll, Evilswarm, and probably all other cards that are described in the disputed section, a section that was created to explain why certain series/archetypes don't belong in the "Dark counterpart" series.

I am not making this out of a whim, I am making the correction following the statements found in the description of this series and, as I quote, the description of what a series is: "A series is a group of three or more cards that share an appearance in artwork, name, or effect similarity, but are not genuine archetypes due to lacking any support cards."

I have been helping in the edition of this particular page ever since 2012, and everytime a series or archetype compromised of DARK Attribute Monsters based on pre-existing Monsters shows up, we have the same discussion all over again.

Thanks for reading and your understanding, and in the case we have no choice but to redefine what monster compose this series, I will be more than happy to help with that too. If somebody wants to discuss why they should belong, I'm also open for discussion.

Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 06:51, December 11, 2018 (UTC)

You said "...as I quote, the description of what a series is: "A series is a group of three or more cards that share an appearance in artwork, name, or effect similarity..."
It is not just the "name", it's the "artwork".0123456789 The Great (talkcontribs) 07:31, December 11, 2018 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry for missing the point. If the page specifically state "they have 「ダーク」in their name", then I think it's appropriatd to let your version be.
However, since again, Twilightsworn is a dark version of Lightsworn. Maybe they can be listed in other table instead. 0123456789 The Great (talkcontribs) 07:37, December 11, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding, The Great. It is as you said, Dark counterpart monsters "have「ダーク」(or Dark) in their name". Ever since the series began, that has been the primary requirement everyone agreed upon, which is my main argument against adding monster lacking it, even if they are DARK-attribute versions of existing monsters. Twilightsworn are dark versions of Lightsworn monsters, nobody is denying that, which is why the "Disputed" section was created.
There could be a table in the disputed section, but I don't really see the point in it, as the dark version archetypes, such as Malefic and Twilightsworn have their tables in their own page. Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 07:48, December 11, 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I suppose it is safe to assume that we reach an understanding regarding the status of Twilightsworn monsters, thus I will proceed to edit their respectives pages. Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 03:33, December 13, 2018 (UTC)
I am totally clueless about the page. Just know that's it's an edit war, so I propose a "meet at the halfway" solution. Thanks for cooperating on your side.0123456789 The Great (talkcontribs) 06:12, December 13, 2018 (UTC)

navbox update

can someone update the navbox, it needs the three new members added --Draph91 (talkcontribs) 18:28, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello thanks for your cooperation. Unfortunately, the 3 monsters added don't match the established criteria to be listed as members of the series, that is being a DARK Monster that has an existing non-DARK counterpart and Dark (ダーク) in their name.
  • "Ebon Magician Curran" and "Princess Curran" don't have Dark or ダーク in their names, while "Dark Desertapir" is not a DARK monster.
  • The three cards could be added to the disputed section, though.
  • Kentaru Z (talkcontribs) 04:14, April 3, 2019 (UTC)