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 2025-05-02 10:18:17)
Changed to just be lands, removal of enchatment
Changed to just be lands, removal of enchatment
Changed to just be lands, removal of enchatment
Changed to just be lands, removal of enchatment
Changed to just be lands, removal of enchatment
@DFC Oh I'm fine with removing the enchantment from the man lands, like I said when I made them I just added lots of stuff to them and then we could cut the things from them we didn't like. I was talking about the DFC in general before.
@Lands We currently have allied color sac lands (Horizon Canopy cycle) and have 5 rare land slots left atm.
I tend to agree with Gusto that if we are going to have enchantment lands, there should be an enchantment-like effect, just like how enchantment creatures generally have effects that you would likely see on an enchantment that helps justify it both mechanically and flavorwise. Having an enchantment effect on a land may require adding mana costs or transform conditions that require paying mana to justify though.
@Enchantment lands: Not adding anything is a problem to me personally, but group consensus has to decide that. It's kind of weird in a mechanical sense instead of flavour, so it doesn't enrich the environment of the plane. I would understand it if they had enchantment effects like other enchantment creatures in this set, but they don't.
@Lands: How many rare lands will we have btw? 2 full cycles would be a bit much, that's true.
@Enchantments: It lets the cards have the same type on both sides with is something. But tbh I don't see the problem with having them as enchantments. It doesn't really take away from anything and being kind of weird isn't a bad thing. But I do want to do other DFC that aren't enchantments, in
predominately. As we currently had only made DFC that where enchantments//enchantment creatures I figured it was appropriate.
@Lands We're already finishing the Horizon Canopy so I don't know if finishing another cycle is really what we want to be doing. Plus we're chocked for space on rare lands atm, so apart from fine tuning what we have we're pretty good there.
Let's finish Commons and Uncommons first before we even think about Planeswalkers. They, as well as the rares and mythics, should fit into the framework given by the lower rarities, not the other way around.
@Enchantments: Again, I do not have a problem with them per se, it just doesn't add anything to DFC outside their archetypes that isn't already handled by them being a DFC. Flavourwise and mechanically, being a DFC is already good enough, and the relevant creature types can be added later on. Same goes for the enchantment lands, it feels especially weird cause they do not have an enchantment or aura effect unlike previous enchantment amalgams.
@Lands: Somebody mentioned that article on a forum, it's a very good read and also provides good ideas regarding land cycles. Nimbus Maze cycle would be awesome to finish, maybe in enemy colours though.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/sorry-i-didn-t-finish-your-land-cycle-bonus
Changed to care about discovery threshold instead of your exact discovery
Yeah agreed, Im going to change it to the threshold version for now. Another possibility is +X/-X, that way it would be worth about
more.
Yeah it seems wordy, but I dont want to move it up to uncommon just because of that. The effect is simple enough just the way you have to describe it takes up a lot of space.
"We haven't even started picking out cards for the design skeleton yet."
We should start inputting them quite soon I think.
"Is it really worse? Giving -x/-x is almost always better than doing x damage to target creature." Absolutely, it's better, but I don't think
more better.
Yea it's not a priority at the moment. Just something to consider eventually.
I feel we should wait on that until we've at least got the commons and uncommons done. We'll get a better feel for the set overall then. Right now we're basically just chucking ideas out there and seeing what sticks. We haven't even started picking out cards for the design skeleton yet.
This seems too wordy for common, especially in a set with as many wordy cards as we have so far.
Is it really worse? Giving -x/-x is almost always better than doing x damage to target creature. I'm more than willing to change it I just thought that costing
more was appropriate. On another note I think using discovery as a threshold is something we should do more of I think. Right now there's one card in black that also does it.
"I don't have a problem with that. Another unsettled question is what we are going to do about Planeswalkers."
We'll get there when we get there. Planeswalkers are really more of a creative and development problem in terms of WotC's process. We aren't even a third of the way through design I reckon.
"Until your next turn" facilitates the instant part being more meaningful.
Reduced cost by 1.
Doesn't seem very powerful at all. I recommend doing 'until your next turn'.
73467 is pretty similar to this except this is worse. I'd rather this be changed. Using Discovery as a threshold perhaps? Something like this-
Instant
Target creature gets -4/-4 until end of turn. If your discovery is three or greater, that creature gets -7/-7 until end of turn instead.
Too powerful? Not proper for the set? Just an idea. I had wanted to put this on a DFC Yaados Djinn card idea but it didn't work out, I created too complicated and unbalanced of a card. But it could work as a plain sorcery like this.