Talk:Mark of the Dragon

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Mark of the Dragon.
This page is for discussing how to improve the page. For general discussion and comments, use the general discussion forum. To ask about rulings or how cards work, use the ruling queries forum. To get help with building a Deck, use the Deck help forum. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

This Talk Page is only for the discussion on how to improve the article. Please post topics on general discussion or questions on rulings in the Forums.-- HHTurtle ^Talk   04:22, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Dragon column in the table

Unless there's any direct connection between each portion of the Crimson Dragon and the dragon associated with its corresponding Signer, I don't the Dragons should be mentioned in the table. They're not like the dark marks, which are directly connected with an "Earthbound Immortal", as they are shaped like them. Given the current state of the table, Rudger and Rex are both listed as Signer associated with the head, but only one with the Dragon implying the connection is solely with the Signer and not the mark. (Although I disagree with that. No connection has been shown between either of them with the fifth Dragon, so why is it listed alongside one and not the other?) -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well becuase they are stubborn with that, when everything youre saying is actually right and makes sense. The mark itself identify them as a Signer, but for their dragons is totally different reasons. Mean a very known example we all know is Yusei who possesed Stardust and wasnt a Signer when the series started until later. So for now it will be good to erase the fifth dragon form that navbox until it is actually revealed who possseses that last Five dragon card. DracoX 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the show's title stands for 5 Dragons, so why wouldn't the dragons be included with the Signers? 5 Signers, 5 Dragons. As for Yusei, his mark didn't activate because there was never a circumstance that required Stardust to choose him as the Signer. Don't forget that the Dragons are connected to the Signers through "fate", as the Crimson Dragon only bestows its mark to those who are deserving, and one of its 5 Dragons become that Signers partner. Messengerofthedark 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Messengerofthedark

AFAIK, there's no evidence that the show's title stands for Five Dragons, but that's beside the point. I didn't say the dragons aren't connected with the Signers. They are. So yes you must have a mark of the dragon to be associated with one be of the Dragons. But has there been any evidence to say the dragon you get depends on which mark you have? If it does it would mean "Stardust Dragon" should now belong to Crow. -- Deltaneos (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Despite the new pic being newer, shouldn't the old pic be used since it shows all 5 marks? Or is there another image that shows all 5 marks as they are now (i.e. Yusei with the Head, Crow with the Tail)? Or if no one minds I could add the Head (and probably the combined form from Yusei's back) onto the screencap that's currently used (sorta like the one on the bottom of the EI page that shows 6 out of 7 Immortals) --Blackstone Dresden 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that that would be good, or possibly a small picture showing them with their Dragon Markers~MEOW~ Might of the BIRD Empire~~ 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, good

Thank you Draco for finding/taking a very good picture of the Unknown Signer Marking from the game and placing it in the Non-Canon section of the Article~MEOW~ Might of the BIRD Empire~~ 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. DracoX 17:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Leo's Mark?

Do you think we should upload a picture of Leo and his Mark of the Dragon on this page? If the answer is yes or no, then explain why we should or shouldn't have it on this page? --68.105.214.183 (talk) 20:56, January 5, 2011 (UTC)