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

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?

Or they could just make dragon a new type?

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?

Palkia weak to water?
No.

i agree with Psystrike there element suits them fine they arnt just fire type

~Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Bloop

Or they could just make dragon a new type?

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.

Originally Posted by ∅Dermodio∅

Palkia weak to water?
No.

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?

Originally Posted by Andros 1337

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.

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?

Except you're the one suggesting Colorless-->Fire, so you need to give an explanation for the rest of us to get it.

Originally Posted by Psystrike

Except you're the one suggesting Colorless-->Fire, so you need to give an explanation for the rest of us to get it.

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.

Originally Posted by Andros 1337

I just think it makes sense based on what I said. It surely makes more sense than making Poison-types Psychic in the TCG.

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!"