FANDOM


m (Mirror Force Counterparts)
(Mirror Force Counterparts: Comment.)
Line 241: Line 241:
   
 
Should the Mirror Force counterparts like [[Blazing Mirror Force]], [[Quaking Mirror Force]], [[Storming Mirror Force]], [[Drowning Mirror Force]], and [[Dark Mirror Force]] be included here? They're not Attribute specific cards, though its quite obvious that these cards are elemental versions of [[Mirror Force]]. Also, what counts as the "light" counterpart of the card? Is it this or [[Radiant Mirror Force]]? [[User:Dark Pride|Dark Pride]] ([[User talk:Dark Pride|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dark Pride|contribs]]) 14:36, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
 
Should the Mirror Force counterparts like [[Blazing Mirror Force]], [[Quaking Mirror Force]], [[Storming Mirror Force]], [[Drowning Mirror Force]], and [[Dark Mirror Force]] be included here? They're not Attribute specific cards, though its quite obvious that these cards are elemental versions of [[Mirror Force]]. Also, what counts as the "light" counterpart of the card? Is it this or [[Radiant Mirror Force]]? [[User:Dark Pride|Dark Pride]] ([[User talk:Dark Pride|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dark Pride|contribs]]) 14:36, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
  +
  +
:I suppose they could be listed there, yeah.
  +
:There is a table in the "[[Mirror Trap (series)]]" page that may be useful for you. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Becasita|Becasita]] <sup><small>Pendulum</small></sup></span> <span class="nowrap">([[User talk:Becasita|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Becasita|contribs]])</span> 15:10, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:10, November 14, 2016

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Template:Six Attributes.

Please try to

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Be welcoming

please unlock the template to add a link to Barrier Statues --Hanmac

Attribute Changers

I don't know how many cards there are like this, but if there is more than one, why not make a column for monsters that change attribute/change an attribute on the field, ala Homunculus the Alchemic Being? Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 18:59, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Changes Attribute, there are only a handful of cards which can change a monster's attributes. Of those, only two are monsters, and Genex Ally Changer (which is currently OCG-only) doesn't really change a monster's attribute, only makes it treated as another until the end of the turn. Homunculus' effect of being able to permanently change its own attribute once per turn sounds like it'd make an interesting elemental series, but I can't find any other cards suggesting anything more was ever done with it. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:11, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
I changed the title on one of the rows from Chambers to Charmers, to match the content. I was wondering if there should be a row concerning the most basic/ most "advanced field spell for each attribute (like Umi)? Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 21:07, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was wondering myself whether we should list the support spell cards for the Charmers... If we do one, we should do the other as well, for consistency. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:04, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the Spiritual Art cards? If so, then it would make sense to add them in, because they are related to both the attribute and the charmers. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 15:15, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Spiritual Art cards. I see they've both been added already. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:17, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that the Six Samurai and True Six Samurai should be added in? Also, are there enough monsters that are treated as other attributes for it to make sense to put them in (Like Elemental Hero Electrum, Light and Darkness Dragon, etc.)? Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 15:21, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
The Six Samurai and Legendary Six Samurai Cards are in. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 18:08, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
See my section below, "Slow down!". We shouldn't just be adding groups because of incidental uses of the attributes as delimitors (some good rules of thumb: for groups that don't have one card per attribute yet, whether it looks likely that the gaps will ever be filled, which is not the case with L&DD; if there are an uneven number of cards per attribute; and for cards like Electrum, we would have to add another column). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:17, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Return to hand

Are there any cards that return a monster of a certain attribute to the players hand? (like Salvage) If so, why don't we put them in? It seems like something that would a good fit for the table.

Also, does anyone know if there is a Synchro monster designed to work with each archetype specifically (like Dark End Dragon and Light End Dragon that we could make a new row for? Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 20:32, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Synchro Monsters group for now because it only had DED and LED; this is not a Six Attributes group so much as a light/dark group currently. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:17, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Slow down!

I understand that with my restructuring of the template, we can now trivially add whatever groups we'd like, but what is added still needs some relevancy here: groups should generally only be added if they are or appear to be designed around the attributes in some fashion, rather than the attributes being more of an incidental divisor between cards. Therefore, I've removed the "Machine Emperors" and "Synchro Monster" groups.

Also, much as I understand some people's chagrin towards dub names, I was removing them for two good reasons: the template is too wide with them, especially on the Wikia skin, and the translated/romanized names are offered in the linked articles already. I have added a hidden note about them at the beginning of the template, and from now on, any edits attempting to re-add these names will be reverted as vandalism. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:17, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Dinoguy, I didn't know that the End Dragons were the only two of the type; I had thought that each attribute had a synchro that said something like, "1 tuner and one [attribute] non-tuner".
Do you happen to know if each attribute has a card similar to Salvage? As in, a spell that allows you to add a certain number of monsters of the attribute to your hand? I think that fits the bill of what the template is trying to accomplish. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 22:53, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if that is actually the case, but it doesn't hurt to wait to add them until ones for the elemental attributes are mentioned/found or released.
None that I'm aware of. You can keep an eye for cards like that, but I don't think Salvage was ever part of a series. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:59, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. Also, does it make sense to put in the spirits? I found an Aqua Spirit card in my binder, and I'm pretty sure there are a few others that have similar effects and names.. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 23:04, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
If you can find a Light or Dark version, otherwise it would just be an Elemental series. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 01:19, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Would the versions simply have to have a similar summoning condition and effect, or would it have to be in the Japanese name as well? As far as I've been able to find out, you're right about them being an elemental set; however, I do think that there are a light and a dark monster with the same style of effect. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 03:35, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I think we'd be better off limiting ourselves to groups where the intent is a six attributes series (though I'd prefer to be able to compare these cards side-by-side; could you post a list of links to all six cards?). We may be able to create similar navtables for elemental and light/dark series, though. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:05, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'll go and take a look for the light and dark versions, and post them up when I find them. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 04:46, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Be sure to post the other four as well; I want to be able to directly compare all six. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:26, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Attribute spirits?

That guy had a point - maybe put in the LON attribute spirits (with Soul of Purity and Light in the LIGHT category) and the monsters from IOC with the same kinds of summoning conditions. (The LON ones seem more connected, though, so maybe just them.) I also added 6 equips that are similar to the fields. Raging Flame Sprite is AWESOME!!!!!StendikaClick here to yell at me.I haz done tihs stuph. 00:02, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the equips. I was sure there was another spell card series that fit the archetype, but couldn't think of what it was. As for the spirits, again, can you post a full list of them? I'd like to be able to directly compare them myself. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:08, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Garuda the Wind Spirit and Aqua Spirit have similar, yet opposite, effects.
The Rock Spirit and Spirit of Flames have similar, yet opposite, effects.
Soul of Purity and Light hasd a similar name and summoning conditions, and was released in the same pack.

Raging Flame Sprite is AWESOME!!!!!StendikaClick here to yell at me.I haz done tihs stuph. 00:29, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Summary table:
Name Set Number Attribute Type Level ATK DEF Summoning Effect
Soul of Purity and Light LON-066 Light Fairy 6 2000 1800 remove 2 LIGHT monsters in your Graveyard from play opponent's monsters lose 300 ATK during opponent's battle phase
Spirit of Flames LON-067 Fire Pyro 4 1700 1000 remove 1 FIRE monster in your Graveyard from play monster gains 300 ATK during own battle phase
The Rock Spirit LON-069 Earth Rock 4 1700 1000 remove 1 EARTH monster in your Graveyard from play monster gains 300 ATK during opponent's battle phase
Aqua Spirit LON-068 Water Aqua 4 1600 1200 remove 1 WATER monster in your Graveyard from play change the battle position of an opponent's face-up monster at each of their standby phases
Garuda the Wind Spirit LON-070 Wind Winged Beast 4 1600 1200 remove 1 WIND monster in your Graveyard from play change the battle position of an opponent's face-up monster at each of their end phases
Dark Necrofear (LON-065) fits the pattern in several ways (attribute-themed name, attribute/type pairing, must be special summoned by removing monsters of the same attribute in the graveyard from play, and located in the same place in the same set), but the rest of its effect is quite different... I'm going to ask Deltaneos before saying one way or another. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
I considered mentioning Necrofear, but I think she needs 3 Fiends instead of some number of Attribute guys. —This unsigned comment was made by Stendika (talkcontribs) 01:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
"Dark Necrofear" comes directly before "Soul of Purity and Light" and the "Spirit of" guys in set numbering, but as Stendika said it removes Fiends, which are a Type, not an Attribute. -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:24, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
So should I go ahead and put in the other 5?Raging Flame Sprite is AWESOME!!!!!Stendika ~ Does my deck look cool?[[User Talk:Stendika|Click here to yell at me.]] 01:27, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
That reminds me of Elemental Hero Great Tornado, Elemental Hero Absolute Zero, Elemental Hero The Shining, Elemental Hero Nova Master, Elemental Hero Gaia.... and then there's no DARK Attribute universal hero. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Right, I managed to miss that DN removes Fiends, not DARKs. In any case, I think there's a good enough argument at this point for at least listing the other 5 (and the universal heroes (assuming that's what they're called) look like a reasonable addition as well). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:07, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Don't know what the proper name is meant to be, but I just called then that because those are the only ones that work with any card from certain attributes, so it's kinda universal. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:43, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
With Elemental Hero Escuridão in the manga, that would be the DARK hero.
For the naming thing, there is also Omni-Heroes, but that's not an official term... or Manga E-Heroes which I'm not sure if it's really that, but it's on Talk:Omni-Heroes. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 23:05, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

"Soul of Purity and Light" is not an "[Attribute Spirits]]" Monster nor does it have Spirit("Seirei") in it's name; it belongs under "Related Form"; already fixed it.--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:29, December 24, 2010 (UTC).

If Soul isn't an Attribute Spirit, then there's no longer a significant argument for the Attribute Spirits being a Six Attributes archetype; they would fall back to a Four Elements group, along with the Element monsters. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:21, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Chaos

What about chaos and the other attribute 'pairs', like Frost and Flame Dragon, Desert Twister and Chaos Sorcerer? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

They look close enough to be reasonable as an addition, if you can think of a good way to present them in the template. Are there any other monsters that would fit with these? ダイノガイ千?!」<sup& gt;? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000</sup> 02:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there are any other cards that are like that... except for the Element archetype, but they're a bit odd and aren't really 'pairs'. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:46, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

"Element" Archetype are just series of light and Dark Monsters (3 each); thus not being Six Attribute Monsters--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:54, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

As far as the "pairs" monsters go, if you can find three others with similar effects, but in the other three attributes, I see no reason why they couldn't go in. I agree about the Element monsters; but I think that on the article page, there could be a section with the Element attribute, the multiple attribute monsters, and the attribute changing monsters, listed as attribute support. Does anyone agree with this? Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 17:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
"talk", I just asked "User talk:Dinoguy1000" if me and anyone can put "Element" Archetype monster in his "Six Attribute" Template--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 18:15, December 24, 2010 (UTC).
"Element" are in "Six Attributes" Templates--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 18:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC).
The Element group should be removed from the template; they're a Four Elements group rather than a Six Archetypes one. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:21, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Genex Synchros

What do you think about including the Genex Synchro monsters? There's currently one for every attribute on the table except light. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 17:09, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record for saying this, but could you post a list, or at least a link to a page with a list? =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:21, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

the color guy is back

I guess we can keep the "related forms" in there, but should I get rid of the colors? And can I put Soul of Purity and Light back in the main "attribute spirits" category? She was in the same set (LON) as the others, and "soul" is kinda like "spirit"... Raging Flame Sprite is AWESOME!!!!!Stendika ~ Does my deck look cool?[[User Talk:Stendika|Click here to yell at me.]] 17:22, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Leave "Soul of Purity and Light" in "Related Form"; it's not an "Attribute Spirits" monster--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:32, December 24, 2010 (UTC).
I know that it isn't specifically an Attribute Spirit, but it could be put in, if the category on the Six Attributes page is put down as just "Spirits", with an explanation that the reason they made it into the category was due to how they are summoned. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 17:47, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
"talk", I just asked "User talk:Dinoguy1000" if me and anyone can put "Element" Archetype monster in his "Six Attribute" Template--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 18:15, December 24, 2010 (UTC).
"Element" are in "Template:Six Attributes‎‎"--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 18:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for allowing me or anyone to add "Element" Archtype Monster in your "Template:Six Attributes‎‎" even though there not really Six Attribute Monsters since there only Light and Dark Attributes (3each)"--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 03:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
As I said above and on my talk page, the Element group should be removed from this template. These and the Attribute Spirits, though, would be a good start for Template:Four Elements, if anyone wants to create that. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:21, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
The colors are right out, and should be changed back to gray if they haven't been already. They convey no semantic meaning, and aren't being used to fit any pre-existing color scheme, so they are purely decorative and, therefore, completely subjective as to what color in particular would be "best". If someone *really* wants colors added, they should start a topic on this talk page and present a compelling argument as to why different colors should be used at all, and why their proposed color(s) in particular should be used in preference to any other color. Until that happens, any addition of the colors should continue to be reverted. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:21, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
"None Yet" in Template: Six Attributes is gray I didn't want "(500 ATK▲/400 DEF▼)" and "(400 ATK▲/200 DEF▼)"to also be gray; that's Y I changed it to a different colour --Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:46, December 25, 2010 (UTC).
Both "None Yet" and "(500 ATK▲/400 DEF▼)"/"(400 ATK▲/200 DEF▼)" just serve as notes, so there's really not much of a reason other than aesthetics to distinguish them (and if we get into aesthetics, we'll be here forever - ask anyone on Wikipedia who was involved in the color discussions for wikipedia:Template:Ambox or wikipedia:Template:Navbox. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
I did it--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 18:59, December 26, 2010 (UTC).

Template:Four Elements

In response to comments above and on my talk page, I've created {{Four Elements}} to cover card groups belonging to the related (but distinct!) Four Elements theme. Any thoughts or suggestions for additions are welcome (and if there are about three Light and Dark groups, I'll create a Template:Light and Dark as well). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Element cards will belong in your "Template:Light and Dark" not in "Template:Four Elements"--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 20:09, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: You should try to put "Template:Light and Dark" with "Template:Four Elements" as one "Template" since 4+2=6, and to save time and pressure--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 20:54, December 25, 2010 (UTC).
"Light and Dark" and "Four Elements" are two different themes, and shouldn't be in the same template (if they were, it would ultimately end up turning into a copy of this template, with some extra groups). The Elements do belong in the Four Elements template even though they're Light and Dark, because of their effects (they aren't called the "Element" monsters for nothing). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:11, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Would these same Elements go to your "Template: Light and Dark" group also?--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 21:29, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
No. The Elements aren't a Light and Dark archetype, so they wouldn't belong in Template:Light and Dark. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:09, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Will you make "Four Attribute Monsters" section like U did with "Six Attribute Monsters"? so anyone can write about them--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 22:33, December 25, 2010 (UTC).

I didn't create the Six Attribute Monsters article. Anyone can create a similar Four Element Monsters, though, if they want (though it would probably be better to name it as Four Elements, and then rename the Six Attributes article to just Six Attributes...). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:09, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I did it--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 19:00, December 26, 2010 (UTC).
I'll make it as Four Elemental Monsters--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 19:42, December 26, 2010 (UTC).
I went ahead and renamed both articles per my suggestions. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:37, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Do you want to port over the discussion about the four attribute pages to the four attribute template page for reference there? Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 23:02, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just make sure there's a not clearly saying they were copied from here. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:17, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Rule Breakers

What are the tags say "Rule Breaker" supposed to mean? It doesn't seem to make sense to have them in the boxes. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 23:04, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I simply removed them, there's really no point in noting them here (in the case of the Synchro one, I simply removed that card; if it doesn't match the pattern, it's not directly part of the Six Attribute group). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:32, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Guys "Rule Breaker" just means not following the rule or pattern; i think.--Wasn't 23
06, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
If it is a rule breaker though, there is no reason to put it in the article. We don't need a "rule breaker" tag. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 23:08, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Synchrons

I removed Stardust Synchron from the Synchron list; the card doesn't exist/ hasn't been announced officially as of yet. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 22:35, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

You could have left "Stardust Synchron" it till 3/18/11; it might became a real card till then. Do you think I should add it back--Wasn't 23:02, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Until it is actually released as a card, leave it out. We don't put speculation in articles. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 23:05, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I have reservations on the status of the entire Synchrons group... it's just waaay too unbalanced between attributes to fit the Six Attributes archetype the same way the other groups do. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:07, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Do you think we should see if there are certain ones that seem to be made to fit the attributes then? We could remove the others if it is the case. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 02:20, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
May as well... With the number of them, it's possible we could end up with two (and possibly more) different Six Attributes Synchron groups (we should also check and see if any fit as a Four Elemental group). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:44, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the warriors and synchrons should be here. Should I remove them? -Thus has spokenStendika, the epic.Click here to yell at me. 19:25, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at how they've been reformatted. I'm thinking we might be able to cut down the number of warriors by taking out the ones with dissimilar effects, like Blizzard Warrior, which doesn't change attack, level, or special summon anything. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 20:10, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Synchrons and Synchron tuners

Do you think we should only list the synchron synchro monster and tuner that matches? Like Nitro Synchron and Nitro Warrior? It would make the sections be more like the rest of the table, and probably could be made into a single row as well.. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 19:53, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I edited the table to fit the above idea. I think that it makes the table look more like it was originally intended to. I'm going to try and see if I can get the tuners next to the synchrons to complete the change. Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 20:01, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy Beasts

Considering that all of the cards listed in the table are actual printed cards, should the Alchemy Beast section be removed? Also, can we cut down the "warrior" section/ remove it as well? There is not indication that they are designed around the attributes in any way, nor are the monsters listed related to any one thing (like tuning, creating a combo, etc.). Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 23:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I removed "warrior" section like you suggested. I think "Alchemy Beast" should stay because their relate to six attribute. even their "Normal Spell Card" like Fortune fairies.--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 00:36, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty then. The warriors section was more pressing anyway. Thanks! Jon Kovacs (talkcontribs) 00:39, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
You Welcome, I was going to removed them anyway since they were just "sitting". Anyway, I hope "User:Dinoguy1000" doesn't OK with it.--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 00:47, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
In place of the "sitting" warriors, I added "E-Hero Neos" Contact Fusion under E-Hero Fusion because they're all E-Hero Neos Fusion Monsters and there are only six of them, ((E-Hero Neos + 1 Neo-Spacian) (Warrior, 7/2500/200)).

question about "Template:Six Attributes"

does the template have to be in ABC order?--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 16:55, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Monarch

Shouldn't the "Monarch" monsters be in this template? I mean there is a Monarch for each attribute and LIGHT and DARK have 2 Monarchs. --E.G.G. (My Contributions) 16:25, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Go ahead and add it. --Golden Key (talkcontribs) 16:28, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
"Delg the Dark Monarch" and "Kuraz the Light Monarch" only belongs in "Template:Light and Dark" and not in "Template:Six Attributes" because those two monsters effect activates when their either normal or special summoned but can't attack during that turn, while the other "Monarchs": "Caius the Shadow Monarch", "Granmarg the Rock Monarch","Thestalos the Firestorm Monarch", "Zaborg", "Mobius", and "Raiza the Storm Monarch" effects only activate when tribute summoned and these monsters can attack regardless of how its summoned by default.--Wasn't 23:21, September 21, 2012 (UTC).
Yeah but that doesn't stop having the name of "Monarch". --E.G.G. (My Contributions) 23:21, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it was made for name. it's for effect use and ability.--Wasn't 23:23, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
While the "Template:Light and Dark" is for certain situations, this template is for general situations. --E.G.G. (My Contributions) 23:25, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
In that case you can add them back. I didn't know Template: six was for general situation; I thought it was effect focus and card text commontree.--Wasn't 23:28, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sad News

"Master D" wants to delete all the stuff that's on Six Attributes; his reason is "This page isn't needed; some of the archetypes on this list don't even have anything to do with Attributes, and their correspondence to specific Attributes isn't important enough for it to have its own page; you can just state it on their Archetype pages."--Wasn't 14:41, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

about "Dustons"

should we put the "Duston" mosnters in here? they do belong in "Template:Six Attributes" even though only 3 attribute of them came out in OCG/TCG so far.--Wasn't 15:53, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

I added the Dustons in Template: Six Attributes because they all are Level 1 with 0 atk and 1000 Def Fiend-Type. So far only Water and Dark is Left. Water is "Blue Duston". not sure what Dark is.--Wasn't 13:56, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Now can we put the "Dustons" in here? The "Blue Dustons" is already here in OCG/TCG--Wasn't 16:54, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
I already put it in here.--Wasn't 02:10, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Mirror Force Counterparts

Should the Mirror Force counterparts like Blazing Mirror Force, Quaking Mirror Force, Storming Mirror Force, Drowning Mirror Force, and Dark Mirror Force be included here? They're not Attribute specific cards, though its quite obvious that these cards are elemental versions of Mirror Force. Also, what counts as the "light" counterpart of the card? Is it this or Radiant Mirror Force? Dark Pride (talkcontribs) 14:36, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose they could be listed there, yeah.
There is a table in the "Mirror Trap (series)" page that may be useful for you. Becasita Pendulum (talkcontribs) 15:10, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.