• The forums' spoiler embargo for all content from Pokémon Legends: Z-A's Mega Dimension DLC has been lifted! Feel free to talk about the new content from the expansion across the forums without the need of spoiler tabs!

    Please note that this lifted embargo only applies for the forums, and may still be in effect on other Bulbagarden sites.

Should Dragon-type Pokémon be changed from Colorless to Fire-type in the TCG?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andros 1337

Andros 1337

New Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Currently, Pokémon that are Dragon-type in the games are represented by Colorless in the TCG. However, looking at the way many Dragon-type attacks look in the games and anime, I was thinking, would it be a good idea if Dragon-type Pokémon were represented by the TCG Fire-type instead?

This would basically be a repeat of Poison-type Pokémon being switched to the TCG Psychic-type from the Grass-type (which I never thought made much sense). Should the same be done where Dragon gets switched to the Fire-type from Colorless?
 
think about palkia, kingdra, giratina... theyd look awfully funny as fire types... plus, if they were fire, they would be strong against grass and bug.... not quite right
 
Maybe your conception of dragons link their element exclusively with fire, but dragons from all around the world are linked to many other elements. If I recall correctly, dragons in Japan are more linked with water or the weather, so why would a Japanese card game link them with fire?

Dragons from Pokemon draw from many inspirations, why link them to the fire-breathing European versions only?
 
i agree with Psystrike there element suits them fine they arnt just fire type

~Fuzzy
 
Bloop said:
Or they could just make dragon a new type?
Click to expand...

This. Dragon should really get it's own type in the TCG, along with some of the other not-currently-represented types, in my opinion.
 
∅Dermodio∅ said:
Palkia weak to water?
No.
Click to expand...

Palkia doesn't have to be weak to water; game logic does not apply.

My argument for making Dragon-types represented by Fire in the TCG is based on the appearance of many Dragon-type moves in the games, also most Dragon-types can learn Fire-type moves.

After all, what basis was there to change Poison-types to Psychic in the TCG?
 
Andros 1337 said:
Palkia doesn't have to be weak to water; game logic does not apply.

My argument for making Dragon-types represented by Fire in the TCG is based on the appearance of many Dragon-type moves in the games, also most Dragon-types can learn Fire-type moves.
Click to expand...
Many dragon-types can also learn ice, electric, and water moves.

The only dragon move currently animated with fire in-game is Outrage. A lot of new dragon moves like Dragon Tail and Dragon Rush don't even look like they have elemental affiliations based on their animation. Dragon Breath in the anime was portrayed more as a green breath, and Gen IV chose to differentiate it further. It's effect in paralysis also suggests that it affects Pokemon differently than fire.

After all, what basis was there to change Poison-types to Psychic in the TCG?
Click to expand...
Except you're the one suggesting Colorless-->Fire, so you need to give an explanation for the rest of us to get it.
 
Psystrike said:
Except you're the one suggesting Colorless-->Fire, so you need to give an explanation for the rest of us to get it.
Click to expand...

I just think it makes sense based on what I said. It surely makes more sense than making Poison-types Psychic in the TCG.
 
poison changed because most people associate purple with psychic, and because there were far more grass than psychic cards so they were trying to balance it. those were my guesses anyway. not quite sure what that adds to your argument anyway
 
Seeing as if Dragon-types were added into the TCG, you would pretty much have to have Ice-types, and then there would be a whole hideous cycle of adding a type, and then adding a type that it strong against it because it "wouldn't be fair" otherwise. Changing the Dragon-type Pokémon to Fire-types, like pretty much everybody above me said, wouldn't make sense because of type matchups/moves/etc. I don't think something that would affect the TCG as much as changing around entire types, and possible adding a lot of them, would work very well. Maybe if it had happened a while ago, like the additions of Steel-type and Dark-type cards, but not now.
 
Andros 1337 said:
I just think it makes sense based on what I said. It surely makes more sense than making Poison-types Psychic in the TCG.
Click to expand...
But this issue isn't about poison-->psychic is it, so I think we should stop comparing it unless you don't want a real discussion and want to continue on the direction of "but poison types did it and it made less sense!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom