Dragons

[DrunkDestroyer]

Personally I see dragons as more cards for the newer players, and Im fine with that.

Newer player lack the money to buy several dragons. The people who would use these cannot afford them and the people who can generally don't want to. Dragons cover a very small share of the elements market, which is a shame, because theyre, you know, big flamey scary things. Rawr!

[jmdt]

Newer player lack the money to buy several dragons. The people who would use these cannot afford them and the people who can generally don't want to. Dragons cover a very small share of the elements market, which is a shame, because theyre, you know, big flamey scary things. Rawr!

There's quite a few decks that use dragons in an upped arena.  , , , , , and all use dragons in some of their staple decks.

[Antagon]

It is the cheapest dragon, but the cost and hp stay the same while the attack goes up 1 point.  going from 10 to 11 attack is almost a waste of 1500 electrum in this case as you really are not getting any benifit from the expendiature.  This card should either drop to 9 cost when upped, or go to 12 attack, even if it means 11 cost.

the benefit is +1 damage! i personally really, really like the ivory dragon as it is, cheap and passable damage (compare that to earth or gravity version, but - exspecially earth - is ok, against damage-cc very nice), i also like mono death decks, and often use ivory dragon in there.

and, hell, who said dragons are for newbies? => major mistake, if you really think this, maybe you are new to this game or you should re-think your strategies.

 : 1-4 in many mono-decks, as only creatures of finishers, also nice decks like fahrenheit-dragons here (6 dragons, 4 fhs, 2 deflags, 18 pillars)
 : nice synergies with rustlers, often only life mark and light pillars for fast dragons, always 6
 : mono-entropy with discords, antimatters, shield(s) and often 4-6 dragons as only creatures (along with maxwells, sometimes)
 : shieldlock-dragon already mentioned
 : with earth mark or just mono black, always dragons as damage dealers in there
 : poisons-bws-arsenics-dragons ... need more?
 : often used in mono-air (with eagle eyes+fog/wings for control), or 2-3 iin unstable gas decks)
 : i like in earth decks with gravity mark, with pulverizers+gravity pulls, exspecially good against fire+aether (their cc based on damage)
 : needs a buff or another use, but mono-gravity often goes with chargers or control with otys, armagios for their life, so no room for dragons.
 : rol-hope as dmg-dealer, also nice in mono-light decks
 : look at team times last matches at war, main dmg-dealer there
 : essence used it quite often in his decks for different events in the past, mono-decks, as usual.

[Sigh]

The majority of those were mono-decks. What I believe most of the rest of us are saying is that we want to be able to use dragons in a more versatile setting, like a lot of the other cards in the game. Kind of like how you can use a Pharoah either in a deck where the creatures he makes eat others, or in a deck where his creatures are just like fireflies and Armagios mixed together. (bad description I know, but I couldn't put it any other way in my head)

[guolin]

The majority of those were mono-decks. What I believe most of the rest of us are saying is that we want to be able to use dragons in a more versatile setting, like a lot of the other cards in the game. Kind of like how you can use a Pharoah either in a deck where the creatures he makes eat others, or in a deck where his creatures are just like fireflies and Armagios mixed together. (bad description I know, but I couldn't put it any other way in my head)

Dragons are the very representation of mono-decks, lol...the high cost doesn't mean anything, huh?

[Sigh]

The majority of those were mono-decks. What I believe most of the rest of us are saying is that we want to be able to use dragons in a more versatile setting, like a lot of the other cards in the game. Kind of like how you can use a Pharoah either in a deck where the creatures he makes eat others, or in a deck where his creatures are just like fireflies and Armagios mixed together. (bad description I know, but I couldn't put it any other way in my head)

Dragons are the very representation of mono-decks, lol...the high cost doesn't mean anything, huh?

Are they now? Huh, I guess I never got the memo that we should only ever have dragons in our mono decks.

And no, all the high cost means is that the dragons have a high attack/hp, nothing more, nothing less.

[guolin]

The majority of those were mono-decks. What I believe most of the rest of us are saying is that we want to be able to use dragons in a more versatile setting, like a lot of the other cards in the game. Kind of like how you can use a Pharoah either in a deck where the creatures he makes eat others, or in a deck where his creatures are just like fireflies and Armagios mixed together. (bad description I know, but I couldn't put it any other way in my head)

Dragons are the very representation of mono-decks, lol...the high cost doesn't mean anything, huh?

Are they now? Huh, I guess I never got the memo that we should only ever have dragons in our mono decks.

And no, all the high cost means is that the dragons have a high attack/hp, nothing more, nothing less.

I meant that they are the most effective in monos, so the fact that they are not as versatile comes at no surprise. Yes, I know that there are duos and even rainbows that utilize dragons. That's enough versatility in my opinion, though.

[jmdt]

Dragons are big damage and very important to mono decks.  Changing them drastically would be a travesty.

[Sigh]

We don't necessarily (man i hate that word!) need a drastic chage, just one that will make dragons a tad more available to more decks and more deck types. That's not such a horrible thing to ask, is it?

[jmdt]

We don't necessarily (man i hate that word!) need a drastic chage, just one that will make dragons a tad more available to more decks and more deck types. That's not such a horrible thing to ask, is it?

Dragons are the big attackers of an element; this makes them expensive.  Since they're expensive only mono and sometimes duo decks can pull them off.  Rainbow decks have everything else, giving them access to dragons is

[ratchetspyro94]

Ivory dragon is probably the worst upgrade in the game for a large card.  +1 attack for an upgrade, seriously?

Ivory dragon, Colossal dragon, Basalt dragon all could probably use a buff as none are really ever used.

The rest are decent/useful along with the rest of the card in their element.

I use Ivory Dragon in my Mono Death deck and a -1 cost would be nice.

[Sigh]

We don't necessarily (man i hate that word!) need a drastic chage, just one that will make dragons a tad more available to more decks and more deck types. That's not such a horrible thing to ask, is it?

Dragons are the big attackers of an element; this makes them expensive.  Since they're expensive only mono and sometimes duo decks can pull them off.  Rainbow decks have everything else, giving them access to dragons is

WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH. Whoah. I totally agree on that. I'm SO not even talking about Rainbows though. I'm just saying that there should be more than one-ish good deck that these guys can be put into. I mean, they're Dragons! Ultimate beasts! Just because we CAN make 0-2 decks with them doesn't mean that any/most of us actually DO, or even give it a thought. (Don't lie to yourself, you know that it is true)

Right now Dragons are more of an afterthought, a buffer if you will. People look at their decks and say, "Hey, I need more power in this deck, and it makes a lot of quanta. What should I put in? More of X or Y? Nah, that would throw my perfect balance off. I guess that I'll have to put a dragon in, there's nothing else left!"