FANDOM

(Difference between revisions) | User:Rocket.knight.777
(I think it's not allowed to delete stuff from your talk page, though.)
(Irrelevant Trivia)
Line 53: Line 53:
   
 
::Well, that's precisely why. It has to be completely obvious for it to count as trivia. Galaxy-Eyes Photon Dragon is obviously based on Blue-Eyes White Dragon, and that's why that trivia point is there. Sky Pegasus is in no way related to Sapphire Pegasus, except that they're both pegasuses and have the same ATK. That's insufficient for them to be related. [[Special:Contributions/31.11.101.253|31.11.101.253]] ([[User talk:31.11.101.253|talk]]) 17:59, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
 
::Well, that's precisely why. It has to be completely obvious for it to count as trivia. Galaxy-Eyes Photon Dragon is obviously based on Blue-Eyes White Dragon, and that's why that trivia point is there. Sky Pegasus is in no way related to Sapphire Pegasus, except that they're both pegasuses and have the same ATK. That's insufficient for them to be related. [[Special:Contributions/31.11.101.253|31.11.101.253]] ([[User talk:31.11.101.253|talk]]) 17:59, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::Look, I'm just following the rules on that discussion I posted about in 44's Talk page. Have a beef with those people if you don't like their rules, not me! [[Special:Contributions/31.11.101.253|31.11.101.253]] ([[User talk:31.11.101.253|talk]]) 18:08, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:08, April 21, 2013

Number 9

Thank you for an education guess, but we don't know if it's Machine or Alien, yes, there is a spaceship that is an Alien... --FredCat 01:52, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

    • Alien isn't a type, it's an archetype. I doubt that Number 9 is a Reptile, which is the Type of the Alien archetype. But Number 9 isn't a Reptile, if it isn't a Machine, the best option that is could be would be Fairy. But purely based on the look, the best option is Machine.

Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 12:16, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Tell Me You Are Kidding

You should have asked the one who uploaded the image (File:Number6ChronomolyAtlanto-REDU-EN-OP.jpg). Anyhow, the image is from Konami
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:17, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Scroll down a bit on that webpage and its there. I don't change anything unless it is official. Look234 (talkcontribs) 05:19, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Still, friends, forgive me for saying so, but the name is very stupid.I'm an avid OOPArts fan, and the old name packs more punch for me. But if it is offical, as I can see, I'll have to swallow my pride and suck it up. Where does the new name for these card come from? Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 05:25, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

The most I can guess is "Chrono" for chronological and the best I can do for "moly" right now is Molybdenum. Wiki states "Molybdenum minerals have been known into prehistory" so it kinda fits with the theme. I know its weak but at least its a start. And yeah I liked the original name better as well. Not much we can do though. Look234 (talkcontribs) 05:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
No need to get like that, I took it from the horse's mouth.
"Now, ancient humans have acquired technology there’s no way they could have, and chronological anomalies have crept into the time stream, resulting in the Chronomoly monsters – monsters that should not exist, but somehow do." -Konami
Blame Konami for their own inconsistencies. -.- Look234 (talkcontribs) 05:43, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
There have been a couple of case where their OP images end up having the wrong name. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:46, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Or, it could just be an intern who is suffering from lack of coffee. Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 05:49, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

No worries. ^_^ Names will be changing quite a bit till we get more news on the set or better pictures. Look234 (talkcontribs) 05:53, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Until then, I shall just back away calmly and decide if I want to stay pure in my fanfiction or go with the flow. Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 05:56, June 28, 2012 (UTC)


Lessons Learned

Please bear with me here; there's a lot of ground to cover for me to properly explain myself.
Rocket, it sounds to me like your position comes largely from a view that archetypes are just a special type of series. While this is an understandable position - and it is entirely correct for many archetypes - it doesn't actually work because of how Konami themselves have handled archetype support in various rulings (as Deltaneos pointed out above). Because of this, archetypes and series work much better and make much more sense if you view them as two separate but related things: they are both groups of cards which share some common bond, but an archetype's common bond is a gameplay mechanic (specifically, one or more support cards which list a particular string that archetype members must have in their Japanese names), while a series' common bond is a design theme of some type (such as being used by a particular character, or being derived from a particular story/legend/mythos/etc., or so on).
When you view them in this way, you can see that an archetype may contain a series - and most archetypes are simply a series with one or more support cards - but also that a series can contain an archetype, an archetype can contain multiple series (and vice versa), and a series can contain other series (and an archetype can contain other archetypes). However, another conclusion is that every archetype has at least one series of cards at its core; this is usually the series that the archetype's support card(s) was intended to accompany.
For example, look at one of the oldest archetypes in the game, the "Archfiends". This is a group of cards that all share a common theme of being demonic in nature, but there's a bit more here: there is also a smaller series in this group, the Chess Archfiends, that share the theme of being based on chess pieces (and the first "Archfiend" support card is actually a part of this series as well). While this series doesn't have any support cards of its own (that is, there are no cards that specifically support the Chess Archfiend series), it's still a distinct series in its own right, and we could probably justify giving it its own article.
On the other hand, there are groups of cards that are definitely a series, but don't share any common string in their Japanese names. Consider for example the "rampaging" versions of the "Charmers" ("Avalanching Aussa", "Storming Wynn", "Raging Eria", and "Blazing Hiita"): these cards definitely form their own series, because they all have the common theme of being "evolved" forms of the original "Charmers", but they could never be an archetype because they don't have any common string in their names, so a hypothetical support card would have to name each of them individually. Further, the "Charmers" and their "evolved" series (the aforementioned "rampagers", the "Familiar-Possesseds", and the "Spiritual Arts") are all part of a larger series.
For a similar example with archetypes, consider the "HEROes". This is an archetype with its own support cards, but it also has four subarchetypes ("Elemental HERO", "Destiny HERO", "Masked HERO", and "Vision HERO"), which again have their own individual support cards, and one subseries ("Evil HERO"). Even so, all of the subarchetypes and the subseries are also "HEROes", and they are all supported by "HERO" support cards.
So, to sum up: you are entirely justified in thinking that it doesn't make sense to say that e.g. "Thought Ruler Archfiend" is a "Sphere" card, or that "Necroid Shaman" is a "roid". And when you understand the distinction that we draw between archetypes and series, and why we draw that distinction, and what the implications of the distinction are, you see that you're absolutely right, because the "Spheres" and "roids" aren't just archetypes, but they are also series (but! the archetype "Sphere" is different from the series "Sphere", as is the archetype versus the series "roid"). Therefore, "Thought Ruler Archfiend" isn't actually a "Sphere" monster, in the sense that it is not part of the "Sphere" series, although it is still part of the "Sphere" archetype, and the same with "Necroid Shaman" and the "roid" archetype and series. In fact, one thought on this that I have had for some time is that there's a very strong argument for documenting archetypes on their own articles, purely as a gameplay mechanic, and series on separate articles, as a thematic group. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:05, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Utopia Ray V Material number

Of course that it precede version is "Number 39: Utopia", but we have to following what was writing on the source. Shriek site said 3 Level 5 monsters, not 4. I am sure that's just an easier way to Xyz Summon him (without using the special way to Overlaying on Number 39: Utopia), only to omitting the effect that required the precede version as it Xyz Material. --iFredCat 19:44, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll go along with it, but I don't buy it. The best bet is that it's Utopia Ray that is Ranked Up. Why else would it the name be "Utopia Ray V"? If it were just Utopia, it would be "Utopia V" or something of the like. But, I would fight it. --Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 20:41, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Episode 94

Answers you are looking for about Episode 94 is here. Just click the link and please mind not to use profanity. ---highly respect, Stark 19:22, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant Trivia

Yeah, but you just edited something that was already there, with bad grammar. Why would you do that? I didn't remove that. Also, I already told you that baseless theories on why the Numbers have their numbers is not allowed. Fortunately, I am a good judge on whether a trivia point is irrelevant. 31.11.101.253 (talk) 17:39, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

What number basis? Look, it has already been discussed in the past by admins that the trivia points about Numbers are getting way off-hand. Some people used multiple mathematical operations to connect Trey, Quattro, and Quinton to their numbers. Also, we don't note if another card is similar to another unless it was done on purpose. The 2 Pegasus were not done on purpose; they are just both based on a pegasus, which is irrelevant to note. 31.11.101.253 (talk) 17:51, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's precisely why. It has to be completely obvious for it to count as trivia. Galaxy-Eyes Photon Dragon is obviously based on Blue-Eyes White Dragon, and that's why that trivia point is there. Sky Pegasus is in no way related to Sapphire Pegasus, except that they're both pegasuses and have the same ATK. That's insufficient for them to be related. 31.11.101.253 (talk) 17:59, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Look, I'm just following the rules on that discussion I posted about in 44's Talk page. Have a beef with those people if you don't like their rules, not me! 31.11.101.253 (talk) 18:08, April 21, 2013 (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.