Dragon Roar? 1R
Instant Uncommon
As an additional cost to cast ~, you may reveal a Dragon card from your hand.
~ deals 3 damage to target creature.if you revealed a Dragon card or controlled a Dragon as you cast ~,
~ deals 3 damage to that creature's controller.
This card is the real deal. Come on wizards; keep giving us reasons to play the dragon deck. I find it somewhat amusing that hearthstone's new pve expansion has the same new "dragon in hand" ability.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
According to all other Gebrüll it should more like "Roar of Dragon", but according to Number 134 it is between "133 Descent of the Dragons" and "135 Dragon Fodder".
I'm SO SICK of the "too strong for Standard" argument. It's the new "Dies to removal". We can have a two mana 4/4 with a zillion abilities, but we can't just have Accumulated Knowledge. Makes sense.
"Draconian" is highly unlikely: that word doesn't actually have anything to do with dragons. It means "rigorous" or "unusually severe or cruel", usually in reference to laws or rules.
"Draconian" is highly unlikely: that word doesn't actually have anything to do with dragons. It means "rigorous" or "unusually severe or cruel", usually in reference to laws or rules.
Not a big reader of Uncharted Realms? The dragons speak Draconic. As in: "It was his voice! Narset reeled. It was Ojutai's voice that she was hearing in her ear. But how could it be? He was so far away. And didn't he speak in Draconic?"
And it slots right in at 134 in the number crunch. Draconic Roar is highly likely.
"Draconian" is highly unlikely: that word doesn't actually have anything to do with dragons. It means "rigorous" or "unusually severe or cruel", usually in reference to laws or rules.
Not a big reader of Uncharted Realms? The dragons speak Draconic. As in: "It was his voice! Narset reeled. It was Ojutai's voice that she was hearing in her ear. But how could it be? He was so far away. And didn't he speak in Draconic?"
And it slots right in at 134 in the number crunch. Draconic Roar is highly likely.
"Draconic" is fine - and "Draconic Roar" is almost certainly the correct name for the card.
I was objecting to "draconian", which some of the previous posters were using as if it had the same meaning. It doesn't.
I don't know what to think about it. This is probably a sideboard material against faster creature decks like Mono Red or Red White Aggro. Against those two I think I'd rather run Searing Blood. Sure, it might not hit Prowess'd Seeker or Mentor but you get the 3 damage bonus no matter what (I mean you have to kill a creature, but when you removal doesn't ultimately kill a creature you probably fell behind enough that 3 damage is not that important). The spell is really conditional and has no use against decks without creatures. In main deck Magma Jet should be just better. Right now we have only 2 really playable dragons that are red and even outside red your options aren't that good so you basically play mediocre cards that are good together, which rarely is a good strategy to build a deck.
I think I say no to it.
Fleecemane Lion says hi. As does double red. Also, you can target Siege Rhino with this if you want to just deal 3 to the face; Searing Blood can't do that.
So much text for simply dealing damage. The card may be good, but it's ugly.
Why don't they go with the route of having the toption to reveal a card when it resolves? Wouldn't that work ruleswise as well? I think that'd be much cleaner.
Alright, BR dragon tribal seems a thing now. This will be played in standard, should dragons become a thing, and any casual or home brewing modern dragon deck as a more splashable Searing Blaze.
Still thinking if green is really essential or just stick with Rakdos dragons. I have to make that deck.
Based on my German courses quite long ago, I would say that the translation is wrong at the moment: the "dragonic" condition is to deal damage to the controler. Base damages are for the creature.
Text should be:
Dragon Roar? 1R
Instant Uncommon
As an additional cost to cast ~, you may reveal a Dragon card from your hand.
~ deals 3 damage to target creature.
If you revealed a Dragon card or controlled a Dragon as you cast ~,~ deals 3 damage to that creature's controller.
I think this is what the translation says, just not edited well for readability.
This card is the real deal. Come on wizards; keep giving us reasons to play the dragon deck. I find it somewhat amusing that hearthstone's new pve expansion has the same new "dragon in hand" ability.
A dragon in hand is worth two in the bush, after all.
...fun card. Always nice to see more burn spells. This one's less likely to be burn to the face once you start topdecking (although if you can keep a Dragon on the field, I guess that does the trick, too - I always forget about that condition), and you need a creature target for it to be enemy burn (though at that point you might have your own dragon that's big enough to bolt without killing it), but burn is burn. Still a pretty good reason to play the Dragons! deck, at least for me. Unless it's only a partial cycle, there should still be cards with the same condition at White and Black (unless I'm forgetting cards already revealed), which means two more opportunities to get cards worth playing Dragons for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The true measure of all heroes is not what they achieve, but who they inspire." —Triumph of Gerrard
I already knew the red one in this cycle would be the most playable. The specific effects are less important in this case than the fact that red is already playing Stormbreath Dragon and/or Sarkhan, so throwing this into RW without adding any new dragons gives you a decent chance of getting 6 damage for 2 CMC. Plus, Thunderbreak Regent may see some play in that deck as well
Based on my German courses quite long ago, I would say that the translation is wrong at the moment: the "dragonic" condition is to deal damage to the controler. Base damages are for the creature.
Text should be:
Dragon Roar? 1R
Instant Uncommon
As an additional cost to cast ~, you may reveal a Dragon card from your hand.
~ deals 3 damage to target creature.
If you revealed a Dragon card or controlled a Dragon as you cast ~,~ deals 3 damage to that creature's controller.
But... that's what the translation says right now?
Instant Uncommon
As an additional cost to cast ~, you may reveal a Dragon card from your hand.
~ deals 3 damage to target creature.if you revealed a Dragon card or controlled a Dragon as you cast ~,
~ deals 3 damage to that creature's controller.
Source:http://www.planetmtg.de/articles/artikel.html?id=6848&typ=2&action=comments
Find me on TappedOut also!
Trade with me!! Always in search of cards!
Feel free to tell me yours!
Check out my expected lands table at:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Airj6A6lYAz_dG05T2JETnVTak1xQ0tqOHNSdEJLWVE&hl=en_US#gid=0
This will see *heavy* Standard play.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Or perhaps
Dragon's Roar?
---edit---
Well this doesn't work either >.<'
Maybe
Draconian Roar?
Dragon's Bellow?
The actual shout for Fire Breath is Yol Toor Shul.
And it slots right in at 134 in the number crunch. Draconic Roar is highly likely.
"Draconic" is fine - and "Draconic Roar" is almost certainly the correct name for the card.
I was objecting to "draconian", which some of the previous posters were using as if it had the same meaning. It doesn't.
Fleecemane Lion says hi. As does double red. Also, you can target Siege Rhino with this if you want to just deal 3 to the face; Searing Blood can't do that.
Why don't they go with the route of having the toption to reveal a card when it resolves? Wouldn't that work ruleswise as well? I think that'd be much cleaner.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Still thinking if green is really essential or just stick with Rakdos dragons. I have to make that deck.
I think this is what the translation says, just not edited well for readability.
A dragon in hand is worth two in the bush, after all.
...fun card. Always nice to see more burn spells. This one's less likely to be burn to the face once you start topdecking (although if you can keep a Dragon on the field, I guess that does the trick, too - I always forget about that condition), and you need a creature target for it to be enemy burn (though at that point you might have your own dragon that's big enough to bolt without killing it), but burn is burn. Still a pretty good reason to play the Dragons! deck, at least for me. Unless it's only a partial cycle, there should still be cards with the same condition at White and Black (unless I'm forgetting cards already revealed), which means two more opportunities to get cards worth playing Dragons for.
But... that's what the translation says right now?