Thinking "look at" might be better than "reveal", especially considering the blue part of the equation.

If I could word this as a Scry card I would, but that might make the text-formatting too much on this card.

How about:

> "Scry X, where X is your discovery. Then you may reveal the top card of your library. If a land card is revealed this way, put it ont the battlefiedl tapped."

?

It's shorter than:

> "Reveal a number of cards from the top of your library equal to your discovery. You may put a land card revealed this way onto the battlefield tapped, then put the rest of the cards revealed this way on top of your library in any order."

And I wouldn't leave without mentioning that I really think that abilities that return the cards to the back of the top of the library are inferior designs.

That is definitely shorter and simpler.

I agree with you that a portent-like effect does seem weak compared to scry or other more robust alternatives.

I'll try your version for the moment, though open to other possibilities.

In a way this is trying to do what one of the earlier abandoned discovery mechanics we were kicking around for Pyrulea did, as an individual card instead of a mechanic. I.E. Deck-filtering combined with land ramp.

As an aside, I've just started to slowly fill out the skeleton with common creatures. In the process of starting to do this, I've also gotten rid of a chunk of older designs of all rarities that weren't going in the right direction or working, and I am focusing a lot more of exploring what discovery can do.

I'm also exploring landtype cycling a little, especially specific to the faction's color combos. And I am trying to format the creature types to fairly equally be representative of the factions as you describe them in detail (I.E. Ashna gets cats and elephants, etc.).