Vampiric Dragon

Legality

Format Legality
Tiny Leaders Legal
Noble Legal
Leviathan Legal
Magic Duels Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Vintage Legal
Custom Legal
Vanguard Legal
Legacy Legal
Archenemy Legal
Planechase Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Unformat Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Archenemy (ARC) None
Odyssey (ODY) Rare

Combos Browse all

Vampiric Dragon

Creature — Vampire Dragon

Flying

Whenever a creature dealt damage by Vampiric Dragon this turn is put into a graveyard, put a +1/+1 counter on Vampiric Dragon.

: Vampiric Dragon deals 1 damage to target creature.

Vampiric Dragon Discussion

schulle on Ur Dragon

4 months ago

Well... I would definetly try to tinker a Little around,to be honest I don't think the deck will work out like this,you have way to few lands as most decks run around 35-37 normally and with a manaintensive tribe like Dragons it could also go up to 39.

so I will give some cut suggestions:

Coordinated Assault +Thunderstrike not really neccesary you almost always have the biggest creatures on board so attacking/blocking shouldn't be that much of a problem

Dragon Fodder + Krenko's Command the early blocker aren't worth that much,most of the time,I would advice to get additional ramp to get your Dragons out faster so maybe try out Cultivate + Kodama's Reach with some added basiclands

Now to the heartbraking part to cut some Dragons(40+ creatures is already extreme) if you want to keep some for your flavour it isn't wrong I just want to help to improve your expirience with the deck.

Dragon Hatchling + Dragon Egg + Furnace Whelp these cards have really low Impact on the game so it would be better to cast any kind of ramp to these cards to get your big bad Dragons out earlier.

Freejam Regent not enough artifact's to utilize the improvise mechanic so kinda overcosted

Knollspine Dragon drawing Cards is nice but if I'm not wrong Kindred Discovery was in this precon and it will probably help more then this,as you would Need a boardpresence before casting it to deal dmg

Progenitus it's really hard to cast and not even a Dragon...

Shivan Dragon one of the most iconic cards of magic...but it's kinda bad in this time,where creatures can be way more powerful then this

Tyrant of Valakut just seems underwhelming it's an average Body for a Dragon but if you want additional removal maybe something like Swords to Plowshares would simply be better

Vampiric Dragon overcosted and not that strong in itself

Volcanic Dragon underwhelming…

I know that it seems harsh to Judge some of your decisions but bear with me.

What would I add:

Many lands already said what was normal for most EDH decks also rampspells to get your big beaters out a couple of turns earlier

Removal would also help greatly.

Protection like Lightning Greaves and Swiftfoot Boots to get through with your best creatures.

Last but not least Urza's Incubator , Temur Ascendancy are both cards that i really enjoy to draw with my Ur-Dragon deck.

Hope my critique helped a Little to let the lizards fly higher then ever befor

Funkydiscogod on more

6 months ago

PlatinumOne Strawman Violation. Nobody was talking about zombies. The discussion was about vampires. Specifically, the claim that 'elf vampire' is an invalid creature type combination. Thus far, I have proved:

  • Wizards could create the 'elf vampire' type if it wanted.

  • No creatures have the creature type 'elf vampire'.

  • Creatures with art depicting elf vampires have the creature type 'vampire'.

This means they did not create any 'elf vampire' creatures, even though they had opportunity and cause. We conclude the current design guidelines forbid the 'elf vampire' and 'human vampire' creature type combinations.

You're nothing if not predictable, so I'll just finish the argument for you:


"But, muh Mirri the Cursed !"

This card was made prior to the grand creature type update. Even if it wasn't, it would still be the only creature card with art depicting a cat vampire, and it is legendary no less. It would seem that 'cat vampire' is so unusual that the extra type can be justified.

For contrast, human and elf vampires are so common, that the other type is not worth the mention.


"But, muh Vampiric Dragon !"

It is also worth noting here that Vampires for a long time prior to the great creature type update, were defined by Sengir Vampire 's ability, and all creatures with that ability had the type "Vampire" before "Vampire" was expanded from a simple mechanic-bound tribe (much like the recent Processor tribe).

But, in this case, vampirism among dragons is so rare that the extra type can be justified.


"But, muh Marauding Boneslasher !"

Irrelevant. We are discussing vampires. Zombies have their own rules.


"But, muh Frilled Mystic !"

Irrelevant. We are discussing vampires. Simic-themed cards have their own rules.


"But, muh Gifted Aetherborn !"

In this case, the flavor text makes it clear that they are not actually a vampire: their race is Aetherborn, and they drain the life out of living beings like a vampire would. This makes their class Vampire (notice how it occupies the traditional "class" part of the creature's type).


"A ha! So, an 'elf vampire' would be an elf who discovered a way to sustain their own existences at the cost of an insatiable hunger for the life essence of other beings."

If they were never bitten by a vampire to acquire their vampiric powers, then yes: this could be one way to justify the existence of an elf vampire, but their race would be elf and their class would be vampire.


"Ah, but that's still technically an Elf Vampire, so I have won an internet argument!"

Yes, you have successfully moved the goal posts far enough to find the single technical loophole. Your dishonest debate tactics have paid off. So, go ahead and land that aircraft on the carrier, President Bush: Mission Accomplished.

You earned it.

LordBlackblade on more

6 months ago

I'm going to lay it all on the table here to make my train of thought as clear as possible, and back up my statements with source material. I spent way too much time on this already, so I might as well post it!

Here's a Scryfall search showing all creatures with the Vampire subtype. Of them, thirteen (a mere 5.8% of all vampires) have an additional race subtype. Of those thirteen, three are undead Vampires ( Vampire Revenant , Nirkana Revenant , and Skeletal Vampire ), four are from the Eldritch Moon block and are Vampire Horrors ( Weirded Vampire , Voldaren Pariah  Flip, Stromkirk Occultist , and Stromkirk Condemned ), and four were printed before the Grand Creature Type Update (hencefore GCTU) ( Vampiric Dragon , Vampire Hounds , Mirri the Cursed , and Irini Sengir ). The final two are Aetherborn Vampires from Kaladesh ( Yahenni, Undying Partisan and Gifted Aetherborn ).

All of this points to Vampires with two races being the vast minority (again 5.8%) of all Vampires ever printed. Aside from the pre-GCTU Vampires, they all have set-specific reasons for having two racial subtypes or are undead (which seems counter intutive as I've always considered Vampires to be undead already...but I digress).

Here again (for posterity) is the link to the GCTU Announcement. This clarifies what the stance is or R&D in their approach to creature subtypes. From the article, "...we implemented the "race class" model for Magic creatures..." This establishes a baseline for every single MTG creature from September 2007 onward. Elf Druid, Human Warrior, Zombie Knight, etc. This is a framework for card design.

I want to be clear, its a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. In general, they wanted to keep it simple as part of the New World Order of MTG which you can find in an article here. While the article doesn't explicitly state that creatures typing is part of the NWO, it can be inferred from it that simplicity is important in MTG going forward. With that in mind it only makes sense that they would try very hard while designing cards to keep to the "race class" system for both consistency and simplicity. Are they never going to print a card with two races? Of course not, as you mentioned Frilled Mystic and as I mentioned Vorel of the Hull Clade . Wizards isn't afraid to work outside their own general guidelines if it suits their purposes, fits with the lore (this one is important for this argument), and doesn't unbalance the game.

By your argument, every Vampire would have the "Pre-Vampire-Race Vampire Class" e.g. Elf Vampire Druid, Human Vampire Warrior, Vampire Zombie Knight. Could they do it? Sure, but it goes against R&D's stated goal for what they want for MTG going forward by adding needless complexity (and letterhead) to cards.

Your example of Ahn-Crop Invader brings up an interesting point though and I have a thought about it. Let's use some cards with current links as examples. For you side I produce Marauding Boneslasher . A Zombie Minotaur 'Race Race" just like your example. For my side I produce Merciless Eternal . A Zombie Cleric "Race Class." I think what this shows is that when Wizards does put two races on a card it is unlikely be two "Common" races. E.g. Zombie Human, Elf Goblin, etc., unless there are extreme circumstances (Looking at you Vorel). Again I think it comes back to complexity. If every undead or mutated creature had to state its pre-death/mutation type, there'd be way too many of the core tribes in the game. The vast majority of Vampires and Zombies were originally humans judging from their art. By giving cards like that the Human subtype, Humans as a tribe would become overly powerful simply from having a large pool to draw cards from. Keeping the number of races/classes on a card to a minimum could potentially be balance related.

tldr:

1) Multi-Race Vampires are small percentage of all Vampires ever printed.

2) Wizards wants to consistent in its product and has chosen the "Race Class" model for subtypes

3) Wizards wants to keep the game simple when possible. Extra subtypes go against this and as such are only used when crucial mechanically (e.g. Horrors for the Eldritch Moon block) or from a lore perspective (e.g. Yahenni, Undying Partisan )

LordBlackblade on Funkydiscogod

6 months ago

So I posted my big response here by accident. Since I'm here anyway I just wanna say that for what its worth, I see where you are coming from and agree with you 100%!

PlatinumOne on more

6 months ago

LordBlackblade: and what is this "great subtype update"? the fact that Frilled Mystic is a simic card is irrelevant. if the simic cards can "break the rule" so to speak, then so can anything else. is it really so difficult to bring back vampires that are also of another species? like Vampiric Dragon ? what about Gisela, the Broken Blade who is both an angel and a horror?

Funkydiscogod on more

6 months ago

PlatinumOne The reason why "Elf Vampire" is invalid, is that once they become a vampire, they lose their previous species identity: This is the reason a vampire that was once an human is classified as a "vampire", not a "human vampire".

There are always the examples of the old cards that break the current rules, so yes, Irini Sengir is currently classified as a "Vampire Dwarf", as well as cards with the Sengir Vampire ability, like Mirri the Cursed or Vampiric Dragon .

Aetherborn are a special case, with vampires like Gifted Aetherborn , because the flavor text explains that Vampire is actually their job, not their species.

Caerwyn on more

6 months ago

MontaukMonster - as the person designing the proposed cards, the onus is on you to defend their creation. You are the one opening up your cards for critique, after all. It is not enough to just say "because I can," particularly given the abnormal nature of these proposed cards. You also really need to work on your tone--as has been mentioned already, you're coming off very aggressive, and that's not fair to those who took the time to respond.

In the interest of discussion, however, I will offer what you have yet been reluctant to do--a defense of your core concept. Personally, I agree with what others have said--that planeswalkers need to be limited in scope, but I want to move the conversation past the discussion of the core concept so we can address the actual cards themselves.

  • What is the justification for the game design, and the creation of common planeswalkers?

As of right now, Pauper does not have access to any planeswalkers. This proposal would give pauper access to additional cards, as well as make planeswalker-matters cards that are currently at uncommon viable options in pauper, expanding the card pool and increasing diversity.

  • What is the lore justification for common planeswalkers?

The issue here is that Planeswalkers are, by definition, legendary. After all, only a minuscule number of people have a spark, and only a fraction of those have their spark ignited.

The justification here is that someone has figured out how to artificially create the ability to planeswalk (akin to the Planar Bridge or Weatherlight, but embedded in a creature). However, this is a temporary situation, and burns out the person's body (hence why they only have minus abilities).

  • Creature types on Planeswalkers

These are just generic individuals who have an artificial spark; they are not great heroes. We've already seen tribal cards, such as instants and enchantments, which show there can be some mix-ups between creature subtypes and others.

I think a better option would be to come up with a single planeswalker type that could apply to all of these, and then flavour them through the art. Something like "Planeswalker - Ensparked" that captures the essence of what you're trying to do, without getting into the messy situation of adding creature types.

  • Non-humans as planeswalkers.

Boza's point is invalid. In addition to Bolas, Ugin, and Karn, there's Ashiok, Tibalt, Kiora, Sorin, Angrath, Dovin Baan, Ajani Goldmane, Ob Nixilis, Mowu (sort of), Nahiri, Vraska, Kaya, Nissa, and so many more. So, that's not really an issue.

  • Multiple creature types

Contrary to what Funkydiscogod, there is precedent to combine Vampire with another creature type-- Vampiric Dragon , Vampire Hounds , Bloodghast . It's rare, but that's not to say it never happens.

I think that covers a lot of the basics, and at least gets us to the point where we can address the individual cards.


Pyrenisian Druid - this card is costed too aggressively. It's the same cost as Rampant Growth, for effectively the same effect, but repeatable twice.

I think a fair price would be . This is the same CMC as Cultivate , accounting for the fact you can get multiple lands, with the additional green added to offset any potential planeswalker synergies, such as proliferate or The Chain Veil .


Disciple of Raojan - this is a very powerful effect, as it's basically Shock with rebound. That card already exists in the form of Staggershock , and is costed three. Basing this on Staggershock , I think sounds reasonable.

I might also consider reducing this to "target player or planeswalker" to further limit its utility and make it more reasonable as a common.


Minion of Jarius] - this is a painful card, particularly against slower decks. However, there is some precedent for repeatable discard Skull Fracture , and Raven's Crime .

I might reduce the starting loyalty to two, and change the mana cost to (so far, I think they're all pretty consistent at the 1XX level, provided the loyalties are adjusted accordingly). I would consider bumping this up to , due to the card being at common, depending on the removal situation in the hypothetical set.


One, with the potential for three, +1/+1 counters should probably cost more than . Again, I think you can probably get away with , and even keep the loyalty at 3.


Norina's Apprentice - five loyalty is way, way too high for this effect. That's a whole lot of cards it could potentially draw. To keep with the theme I have been using, I think 2 or 3 loyalty would be appropriate for that cost. Leaning toward 2 to make this more palatable as a common.


Moving on to the creatures:


Elvish Mulchkeeper - while Green can draw cards, it's usually in conjuction with lands ( Abundant Growth ), creature power ( Abzan Beastmaster ), or a combat trick ( Aggressive Urge ). It's a pretty big bend of the colour pie to have this type of card draw on a Green creature.

The repeatable shuffling your library is also not ideal--shuffling takes time and is not fun for anyone, and there are enough ways to untap creatures that you could have multiple shuffles in a single turn. That's a nightmare to play with or against.

You could probably do something a bit more green. : Reveal the top card of your library. If it is a land you may put it in your hand."


Tendor's Servant

Counters are players are a bit annoying to keep track of, but there is precedent for it. White also has the ability to search for basic Plains, so, while it's a bit of a bend, it's on the acceptable side.

It's hard to evaluate this card in a vacuum, as I don't know how easy it would be to get service counters. I kind of like the concept, in that it's a decent card at any point in the game.


Scaletian Dreadbeast - the proper language is "Spend only mana produces by basic lands to cast Scaletian Dreadbeast." (Source: Imperiosaur I think this might be too aggressively costed and could be either a 4/2 or one mana more, just to avoid a Tarmogoyf situation, but I think you could probably get away with this in a non-standard set.


Drow Ascendant - As others mentioned, Regenerate has fallen out of use because it was not an intuitive mechanic (removing the creature from combat does not follow from the word itself; replacement effects trip up players; etc.).

This is an extremely problematic card though. Turn 4, Drow Ascendant into a turn 5 Fatal Push for a blood counter, then Damnation with regenerate/indestructible means you can keep this from being wrathed and then swing for a huge amount of damage.

I would probably leave it with the firebreathing and ping ability.


Gleeful Pyre - Nope. There is no reason for this card to exist. Functionally, it's the same as "You may have four copies of Gleeful Pyre and four copies of Lightning Strike in your deck." There might be some use for it in Standard, but standard usually has enough two mana burn spells floating about that I don't see the first ability as ever being all that relevant.


Book of knowledge - the language should read:

[mana cost], tap: Search target player's library for a card and exile it face down. Then that player shuffles their library. (source Praetor's Grasp

Then, as a separate static ability:

You may look at and play cards exiled with Book of Knowledge.

Load more

No data for this card yet.