[Official] Crimson Dragon | Ruby Dragon

[EpicFirestorm]

I reckon the Ruby Dragon should have 11 cost instead. And then the Crimson Dragon should have 11/5 or 11/6 and the Ruby should have 14/5 or 14/4

[killybob]

i suppose its a reasonable rush tool but for the long game it sucks

[Emissary Laito]

I reckon the Ruby Dragon should have 11 cost instead. And then the Crimson Dragon should have 11/5 or 11/6 and the Ruby should have 14/5 or 14/4

That would make Crimson Dragon OP compared to the other dragons unless the cost for it was raised by 1 or 2.
Ruby would also be OP. Try comparing it to the other upped dragons, and you'll see that's a lot of attack points for something like that, and it no longer has the handicap of dying from just about anything. The lowered cost doesn't help matters.
Besides, it'd remove the Glass Cannon element, and I like that part of it.

They're good the way they are in my opinion.

[skyreal]

more HP for upped version only. basic is fine

[Funkyvenom]

this dragon does do a ton of damage, but with the cost increase it should at least have 3 health.

[RootRanger]

Sigh. People don't understand that the 2 hp the ruby dragon has make barely any difference. Almost everything that will do 2 damage will also do 3. The spells/abilities that do two damage (water/darkness bolts, infection, plague) are very uncommon, especially in upped play. The fire buckler and spine carapace can be handled with explosion. The 1 hp the ruby dragon lacks makes nearly no difference at all.

[Funkyvenom]

this card definetly needs a buff. It can be killed super quick, and it is very costly. Just look at sky dragon. Same cost, but it has -2/+5. that's 3 more attack/defense points. ruby dragon should either have its cost reduced or defense raised. it needs it.

[RootRanger]

Attack is significantly more valuable than defense. Look at the other dragons and creatures like armagio. Sometimes you want 2 more attack, sometimes you want 5 more defense.

[Funkyvenom]

even if attack is more important than defense in most cases, I think ruby dragon is owed at least 1 defense, because your defense is too low, no matter how high a card's attack is, it is are still insignificant and a waste of quanta if its defense is too low. For the cost, it just can't afford to have such low defense, even when upgraded.

[RootRanger]

no matter how high a card's attack is, it is are still insignificant and a waste of quanta if its defense is too low.

This is not true because you are not only assuming that every deck has damage-based CC, but that every user of the ruby dragon has no way of protecting it. Both are false. Quintessence is perfect for the ruby dragon and does not care about its low HP stat. Also, creatures with low HP stats are ideal for beating a rush or healing-based stall because when your opponent has no CC extra HP is useless.

[Sir Rebrl]

My first thought when I saw Crimson/Ruby Dragon under Buff This Card - "...Um no."

As many have said, the difference between 2 and 3 HP is insignificant against a CC deck (what does two damage in an upped deck usually does 3) and completely insignificant against CC-free decks.
As many have said, 12-15 attack is huge. That's 9(7) turns to kill your opponent from full with -one dragon- if they don't heal.

No buff.

[Tea is good]

Lowering cost would be a no no. People thing Golem/Dragon Cremation decks are OP already, making dragon easier to summon would just be a step backwards after all the nerfs to rushes.