Talk:Illusion

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Illusion.
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

Should Sinful Spoils be here or no?

I speak mainly to XBrain130.

First of all, who decided that s/t cards don't count to determine the thematic types of an archetype? I mean, 2/3 of Runik consist of spells and that's the important part of it, and only 2 (which I remind you is 1+1) each of the monsters (not counting Sleipnir) are fairies and beasts, yet it's listed both as a beast and fairy mixed theme. Let's not even talk about Paleo, which was listed as an aqua theme (yeah yeah with note) even when they only had 1 extra deck monster.

Then, shouldn't the purpose of a wiki to inform people about more than what they can see by themeselves? I think it's important to make players know what's the only other illusion theme currently existing. I can understand listing it as a mixed too, because Rciela supports spellcasters (and we now have a second one that's kinda part of the theme by name) and this should be counted for my previous argument, but just don't remove it please.

This very same discussion could have been made about Sangen if Tenpai didn't exist as an archetypal name. Tridon's Lorekeeper (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "thematic Type". It's a matter that Spoils is, at the moment, an archetype entirely devoid of member monsters, so it makes no sense to list it under any Type imo. That's not really the same thing as Runick having 6 monsters among 2 Types, all Palezoics Traps turning themselves into monsters of the same Type, or whatever the hell you're talking about with Sangen.

The purpose of a wiki is not making arbitrary claims such as "an S/T-only theme is an Illusion Deck" just because 2 of them are Illusion support (and not exactly very good support either). - XBrain130™「Ｘ（エックス）ブレーン１３０」 02:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

«I don't know how to do it but it could be useful to add a note to specify that no actual "sinful spoils" card is an illusion monster, but rather one supporting them is and two traps support the type»

TL;DR that is exactly why it doesn't belong there. - XBrain130™「Ｘ（エックス）ブレーン１３０」 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

What I meant about Tenpai is this: if the field spell didn't mention them by name but only by stats like the other cards, they wouldn't be an archetype but a series like Dragon Rulers but, if they didn't even have it in their names and were just monsters looking alike, they would have only been three random monsters with no technical conncections that we knew were conceptually connected. Basically like Diabellze and Diabellstar if neither mentioned sinful spoils or... I dunno, Fallen of Argyros being related to Spright... in such case, if also the two synchro (which could have as well been scrapped since they already have a pre-existing synchro/boss) you should have listed Sangen among the dragon themes, because that would have been the only name you could refer to for this theme, even tho they would have only been 2 spells. "LV5 illusion" is the same as "FIRE dragon" if Tenpai didn't exist as an archetypal name. Let's make another hypothetic case: if Cycle and Morrighan mentioned Diabellze by name rather than by stats, would have you listed "Diabellze(series)" among the illusion themes? Because I think "Dark Magician(series)" would have been listed among spellcaster themes even in 2000 where only Thousand Knives and Dark Magic Curtain (and Girl but her didn't matter because Eye or Timaeus didn't exist) existed.

Sorry for being verbose, but mine isn't an arbitrary claim. I don't want to change the schematic rules (which I love as a rational person) of the wiki of course, but only say that would be logical to also count related archetypes among typal themes. I mean, when you see a card page, you can already see everything that synergizes with it right below or in the tips section, yet its archetype page contains both members and supports. You don't make one by only listing the members and write "go search for the supports by yourself, I don't want them here because they lack the archetypal name"... then why should you when making a type page? I think a related subsection should be made next to mixed, otherwise one could randomly see Diabellze's traps on a table and say "why wasn't I told Sinful Spoils has thematic relation with illusions when I checked the illusions themes on the wiki?" Tridon's Lorekeeper (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

«in such case, if also the two synchro (which could have as well been scrapped since they already have a pre-existing synchro/boss) you should have listed Sangen among the dragon themes, because that would have been the only name you could refer to for this theme, even tho they would have only been 2 spells»

The hell? Of course we wouldn't, once you remove so much it stops being a theme and wouldn't be listed anywhere. This argument is completely nonsensical.

«Let's make another hypothetic case: if Cycle and Morrighan mentioned Diabellze by name rather than by stats, would have you listed "Diabellze(series)" among the illusion themes?»

It still wouldn't be a theme to begin with because a series needs to be distinct and have 3+ members. It wouldn't change the current situation of Diabellze being a monster related to the Spoils archetype. In fact, it would only run the case for Spoils being an Illusion theme into the ground.

«(and Girl but her didn't matter because Eye or Timaeus didn't exist)»

Of course Girl matters, she has always been considered as a Dark Magician herself, archetype or not!

«You don't make one by only listing the members and write "go search for the supports by yourself, I don't want them here because they lack the archetypal name"...»

Yeah, because supports cards are what define an archetype, they cannot be not listed!

«then why should you when making a type page?»

Because you're comparing apples with oranges. Archetype support cards have no bearing on on lists of which themes are predominantly made of monsters of which Type. In fact, you do realize List of Illusion-Type support cards is already a thing and shows the two Spoils in question, right?

«I think a related subsection should be made next to mixed»

I disagree, that's an overkill that wouldn't be relevant for any other Type. It would only ever serve as a desperate attempt to shoehorn Spoils into this page at all costs. - XBrain130™「Ｘ（エックス）ブレーン１３０」 13:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm from mobile so I can't quote but I can reply point by point if you understand.

1) are you telling me that if you had (Fadora, Baidora, Zhongdora, Trident Dragion, Brimming Manor and Sangen Kaimen) three monsters that looks identical and have a different but similar naming scheme, specifically work to make a boss monster and namely support two spells depicting them not by chance, wouldn't you call them a THEME??? Surely they wouldn't be an archetype but, call them a series or not, you can't say that if konami gave them THEMATIC affinity on purpose. *

2) I didn't really get your argument tbh. Diabellze and her two traps are in fact 3 cards, belonging to Sinful Spoils as a support and members respectively. And the more you say "illusion theme" next to their names, the more I can't understand how you can't see IT IS even aside all these speech.

3) This made me think you didn't get what I wrote. Dark Magician Girl didn't count a "DM monster" because such thing didn't freaking exist in any test yet. Like saying that Albaz and Argyros should be grouped as "Fallen monsters" in case a future support come out. No of course, so in 2000 (after Premium Pack 4) there were only 4 cards forming Dark Magician's series, which were himself and Girl, and those two spells. But yeah this is another question, because the series doesn't have the name of the spells, I only cited it for the numbers.

4) but it's the same question!!! Or change the theme section to "archetype/series" and make a note to specify for us mere mortals that only those with 3+ monsters of such type are valid without counting anything else. Because if you know what the word "theme" freaking means in the dictionary, you can't seriously say that Sinful Spoils isn't now an illusion theme, when that would also been the only way the could be played purely.

5) I do, but that's enough only because there are currently a few cards. When in the future thery will be 100+, if I'm a dumb or lazy person, I might not see by myself that either Cycle or Morrighan isn't just a stand alone support but one of 2+ supports made on purpose to give Sinful Spoils an illusion thematic nature.

6) that's not desperate, that's just what I really think would be logical and useful. And I can ensure you that's not the only case, but the game has now too many themes to go checking for all of theme especially, you know, if the problem is not having a place where they are listed among the others.

now that I think about it, Egyptian Gods are kinda what I was describing Tenpai dragons and Diabellze's traps could have been: there's no "Egyptian God" archetype, still they are considered a series only because they are supported namely (together but I think they were considered a series even before) and by stats as DIVINE divine-beasts. Doesn't matter tho, because your only real argument is s/t archetypes not being countable as a theme to be listed in a monster type page they purposely support... I can't even write it without laughing Tridon's Lorekeeper (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

1) No, that is not what I'm saying, evidently I misunderstood what you said, you haven't been terribly clear about this point.

2) Because only a small part of it supports Illusions, it's not the focus of the entire archetype! And even if it were, it would be like saying "Abyss Script", a theme of sorely Spell Cards, is a Fiend archetype, which is a ridiculous notion.

3) That is plain false, I can assure you I have been on this wiki since before Timaeus was a printed and DMG was ALWAYS considered a Dark Magician card, because back then, as a series, the definition of the Dark Magician theme was "Dark Magician, all cards that mention it, and all its evolutions/retrains/etc.".

4) Yeah you see, the thing is that in the context of YGO, "theme" DOES equate to "archetype or series", because Konami officially uses it that way. The dictionary definition doesn't matter here.

5) Servicing "dumb and lazy people" is not our responsibility and is a futile endeavor, so its not a relevant argument for anything.

No, Egyptian Gods would be considered a series even if they had no support of any kind, by virtue of being a trio of cards that clearly follow the same design pattern (which is the case with many series). - XBrain130™「Ｘ（エックス）ブレーン１３０」 18:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Scusa Brain, voglio passare il weekend con la mia compagna malata di cuore. Risponderò lunedì, togli pure l'archetipo intanto se lo ritieni informativamente più giusto. Tridon's Lorekeeper (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)