Pyrulea: Recent Activity
| Pyrulea: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | More Detail on The Set | Skeleton | Color Archetypes | Creative/World Building | Cycles |
Recent updates to Pyrulea: (Generated at 2025-05-03 11:24:17)
"unless we just start putting in what type of card we'd want to see in that slot and then others can put theirs in if they disagree?"
That sounds like the best way to go about it. It's not like exchanging them should be a difficult process.
I like this version much more, doesnt feel like a you have to go -1 to deal with stuff and still lets you bounce your own things if you need to. I get what it was doing before, but if I really wanted to return my own stuff to my hand I'd just use Recoil or something along those lines.
Cant think of a good way to decide what we are looking for at each slot without it being extreamly conveluted. unless we just start putting in what type of card we'd want to see in that slot and then others can put theirs in if they disagree?
@Brainpolice yep that sounds like a good idea, more people to test the commons out, and we can work more on the other rarities while thats going on.
"Regarding the Commons, I just want to say that we got many complicated Commons, especially the trigger happy ones. Is that were we want to go in this set? I don't have a problem with it per se, it is just not beginners friendly at all."
I'd rather do the set realistically, as it were. That being said, I think it's probably going to be more interesting for us if we push the budget more on the higher end to give us more room for our designs. But I conversely think going well outside of realistic levels complexity would actually prove less interesting because making and playing text heavy cards can be quite easy and bland of an exercise.
And we're here for the challenge are we not? :)
DFCs do help mask some of the complexity by having the text be split up.
Well being a 3/3 still causes it to die to pretty much every removal spell we have currently designed. If they have one creature then menace pushes it through, but if they have two creatures it dies 99% of the time.
Could still make it a 3/3 although I did just change the
uncommon to be a 3/3 with menace so we'd be having two similar effects on two similar bodies.
I would say the next order of business for us should be to come to some consensus about what commons fill the skeleton, then create a new official thread on the forum to represent the cards of the set and get community feedback. While continuing to brainstorm and tweak card ideas here.
Yeah, but you have to put it in notes or something. Tried double filling by putting in the same card code but it doesnt let you. There are definatly cards competing for the same slot currently.
I do realise that we have lots of complciated commons, thats one of the reasons I want to start putting the set together so we can see how complciated it looks overall.
Regarding the conditional trigger of Discovery, would that also count cards that become lands via transformation? If not, those cards probably need an "exile-->enter again" transformation like the sparkers or something.
I guess I am not sure how we should go about filling the slots in general as it is, as we need to come to some degree of consensus about what cards we are going to keep, and it seems like we are still brainstorming ideas. The idea of one of us just deciding unilaterally to fill the skeleton in as they please is problematic.
Inevitably, there are going to be some cards that get left behind, whether because they are competing for the space with another card, or simply because there are better alternatives, or the idea just doesn't work out.
I don't have a problem with a good deal of complexity personally. But it may be that some of the more complex commons get left behind as inappropriate designs.
Changed " you control and don't control" into "two target permanents", discard is conditional now if a permanent was returned.
I guess Haste simply didn't occur to me. The other card I came up that does this so far, Awaken Terrain, doesn't grant haste either. There's also the fact that it's green/blue.
Well it plays on the "leaves the battlefield" plus graveyard recursion of
, so I don't really see it as that much of a detriment.
Gonna change it to Double Recoil though, that should make it more interesting in multiplayer.
We do need some group consensus on this. I see 3 basic possibilities:
Can we double fill a slot? That would be really helpful for designing alternatives. If not, we may need another column in the set for them.
Regarding the Commons, I just want to say that we got many complicated Commons, especially the trigger happy ones. Is that were we want to go in this set? I don't have a problem with it per se, it is just not beginners friendly at all.
I just compared it to other "increase" triggers, and most of them are tied to a certain event that went over the stack, like "whenever you gain life" is tied to the effect "gain life", or "lose life" is tied to "life loss". Additional rules might fix that though, true.
Corrected wording 'that land is'->'that land becomes' source: Awaken mechanic
Any good reason why this doesn't grant haste like with Awaken?
We can pack into the Discovery rules a rule explaining the more that this wording translates fully to when a land enters the battlefield under your control with a unique name. That's just a conditional variation on the landfall trigger so it should work.
The biggest concern I have with this wording is if people will misunderstand how it works. I want to try it out because I think it should be an intuitive and appealing wording for most people.
It is a combo card, reminds me of that combination of Astral Slide and Eternal Dragon, just in one card.
If that's the case, neither does Vengeance of the Sun work. I don't see how the trigger isn't possible though. Your Discovery = lands you control with diff names. A land with a diff name ETB = your discovery increases. Admitedly, I was unsure about the original wording on Vengeance of the Sun but DJK thought it worked. When I tried to think of alternative wordings things got convoluted, or at least it's more wordy and confusing to directly go "Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control with a different name from another land you control".
Is that trigger even possible? Increasing Discovery is not a distinctive event unlike gaining life or playing a land, so I'm not sure if this can work.
Corrected wording- left out 'from your graveyard'
Corrected wording- 'if ~ is in your graveyard' was unnecessary, removed comma between the effect and the condition.
I posted it in the DCC contest a few months ago.
If the planeswalker part ends up being too powerful we could just make it deal with creatures.
Editing Discovery rules text to show properly.
Creates a token through dying tokens? Yeah, limit is the graveyard, but still good IF you already have a token.
Green idea in similar form to Vengeance of the Sun. Possibly would need to be bumped to rare though?