Talk:Advanced Dark

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Advanced Dark.
This page is for discussing how to improve the page. For general discussion and comments, use the general discussion forum. To ask about rulings or how cards work, use the ruling queries forum. To get help with building a Deck, use the Deck help forum. 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

"Ultimate Gem Lord"

• Sorry, that was done in a rush. I meant "Ultimate Gem Lord" and (究極宝玉神).--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:05, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

• The issue here is that "Rainbow Dragon" has "Ultimate Gem Lord" in its OCG name, and so does "Rainbow Dark Dragon." The latter was released in Phantom Darkness, while a support card for "Ultimate Gem Lord" cards, "Rainbow Gravity" was released a set later in Light of Destruction. So, basically, Konami (or UDE, whoever was in charge at the time) screwed up with the name of "Rainbow Dark Dragon." Now all lores that would be "Ultimate Gem Lord" in OCG must be rendered as "Rainbow Dragon" or "Rainbow Dark Dragon" in TCG. This is obviously under the assumption that there will be no further "Ultimate Gem Lord" cards.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't an archetype because it doesn't have 3 or more members, which IIRC, is this Wiki's policy of what defines an archetype, and my stance is that, because there already is precedent for this situation (in "Rainbow Gravity"), we should follow that precedent for the English lore.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of all of that. And archetypes are defined by Japanese names.

That's for a series. Archetypes are defined by support. A support card = an archetype, even if there's only a single member. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 18:15, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

• Why wasn't there a page for "Ultimate Gem Lords" previously then? And fine, but I still say the lore should list "Rainbow Dark Dragon", based on TCG precedent. We are talking about the English lore, after all.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:17, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Because no one noticed that that's what the Japanese text said. It's only recently that we've begun strict categorization of archetypes, so there a lot of holes. There's a number of archetypes we've only just recently discovered that are buried in Japanese lores. Oh, the lore should list "Rainbow Dragon", not "Ultimate Gem God", you're certainly right on there. Link to Rainbow Dragon (archetype). Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 18:22, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you "linked" it, but since Malefic Rainbow Dragon is already released, you've made it look like it can also be a valid target for this effect from just looking at the text by itself. if konami changed the names, which can be very messy, i'd be fine with it, but i think it should be specified to just "Rainbow Dragon" and "Rainbow Dark Dragon". 24.83.215.20 (talk) 19:20, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think Tamaru was right to change the lore to 1 "Rainbow Dragon" or "Rainbow Dark Dragon". Converting the Japanese lore one term at a time doesn't work for this card. In the Japanese game, the only cards with "Ultimate Gem God" in their names are "Rainbow Dragon" and "Rainbow Dark Dragon". In the English game the only cards with "Rainbow Dragon" in their name are "Rainbow Dragon" and "Malefic Rainbow Dragon", so 1 "Rainbow Dragon" monster is not suitable terminology here. "Rainbow Neos" and "Rainbow Gravity" had the same problem and their English lores say "Rainbow Dragon" or "Rainbow Dark Dragon". -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:58, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. I'd go as far as to say that this archetype doesn't exist in the TCG at all and that "Rainbow Dragon" is an erroneous name for it. I think the page should be renamed "Ultimate Gem God" and should only be used in relevant OCG lores. Like this, every card referencing the archetype would need to say "a "Rainbow Dragon" monster, including "Rainbow Dark Dragon", except "Malefic Rainbow Dragon", which Konami will never do anyway. Normally, I trust your calls, Cheesedude, but I think you're trying to push this archetype issue far too hard and it's just not as easy as that in this situation.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 20:01, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this might go off topic, but who's Tamaru? 24.83.215.20 (talk) 20:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was thinking "YamiWheeler", but typed "Tamaru", which is a user name he goes by elsewhere. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:34, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Just to remember : "Rainbow Dragon" = "Ultimate Gem God - Rainbow Dragon", "Rainbow Dark Dragon" = "Ultimate Gem God - Rainbow Dark Dragon" and "Malefic Rainbow Dragon" = "Sin Rainbow Dragon". So, there's an archetype, but it's the "Ultimate Gem God" one, since there's cards that support it. Malefic Rainbow belongs to another one, the "Malefic" (or "Sin") one. When making archetype, one must first look at the Japanese names of the cards. These ones are a priority over the English ones. HPZ - O.N.E. (talk • contribs) 20:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

So, should the entire article "Rainbow Dragon (archetype)" be changed to "Ultimate Gem Lord"? 24.83.215.20 (talk) 20:54, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I had not considered the "Malefic Rainbow Dragon" issue. But I honestly don't think it is an issue. We have the Japanese names for archetypes on the archetype pages. You can easily check and see that "Malefic Rainbow Dragon" is not a valid target. Anyone that has a clear understanding of how we categorize archetypes (which can be obtained at the archetype page) should be able to realize this. I don't think I made it look like "Malefic Rainbow Dragon" is a valid target. If its not in the archetype navbox, then logic should dictate that its not part of the archetype at all (and this is hardly even issue compared to an archetype like "Seal").

Having said all that, I have zero issues with the pages being renamed and I see they already have been. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:10, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't just a Wiki issue, though. You also reworded the lores and that could have caused massive confusion, because not everyone is going to click the link to the archetype page to verify what constitutes a member or not. In general, I think Wiki policy should not come before accurate lores.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 00:15, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that I gave that no consideration at all and that's a fantastic point. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:19, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

A TCG release

Is this going to be a OCG-only card, or will it be released in the TCG in the future? It would be disappointing if this ended up a OCG-only card. Nothinglord (talk • contribs) 04:40, May 10, 2012 (UTC)