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 00:05:37)
'4U'->'
'
Backside didn't have any type
Corrected wording 'begginning'->'beginning', 'more than one card'->'two or more cards' source Archmage Ascension
I agree with Gustostückerl, this could be simpler. I think we should focus on simpler upkeep/endstep sort of triggers and basic creature buffs for common enchantment DFCs.
@Brainpolice "Honestly I had actually just intended to make plain DFC creatures that transform into creatures, experiment with different transform triggers, and maybe play around in general with DFC changing into different card types."
We can do that as well as the enchantment DFC idea.
"I don't think emphasizing enchantments plays into the themes of the set, when it's supposed to be a land matters set, not an enchantment matters set. "
Well I wouldn't say this is a land matters set, so much as a set that has land matters as a theme in it. Zendikar was the land matters set. I think this should be something larger, more about the conceptual themes, coming through in gameplay and flavor. In the same ways as I think lands mattering is something that fits that, I think some aspect of enchantments mattering does. Lands can be more important one, can be a major theme versus enchantments as only a minor theme. We are already on that road with a mechanic that specifically makes lands matter alongside a mechanic that helps enable this in basic landcycling, and no such mechanics for enchantments, only that they are associated with DFCs.
"On another note, I had hoped that we could fit in some legendary lands, which jibes well with Discovery. It looks like we simply won't have design space for it in this set though."
We could put one at mythic.
@Gustostuckerl "I'm with you on focusing on lands matter through more DFC lands and supporting cards. Right now, lands matter cause Discovery is a mechanic, but it doesn't feel yet that lands matter outside of that."
We have a few cards already that do so, and we have basic landcycling.
Kinda wordy trigger, but I wanted to support the leave the battlefield theme, and a sparker transformation is good for that.
Isn't that a bit complex for common? Good card though! We should watch out for too many "whenever you draw a card" or similar triggers, since there are already a lot of cards like that in the set. Drawing a card might trigger a shitload of effects, at common.
I was out of the loop for a while, so I didn't really get to follow the process.
Remember, nothing is set in stone, and we should make more than 1 card for some places in the skeleton to give us room to experiment. I'm with you on focusing on lands matter through more DFC lands and supporting cards. Right now, lands matter cause Discovery is a mechanic, but it doesn't feel yet that lands matter outside of that.
Honestly I had actually just intended to make plain DFC creatures that transform into creatures, experiment with different transform triggers, and maybe play around in general with DFC changing into different card types. I had also assumed that by DFC manlands we were actually talking about lands that transform literally/directly into creature lands on the other side. The "consensus" that the majority of the DFC creatures so far are enchantments on one side or another slipped past me and kind of threw me off upon looking at the card ideas. I didn't consider that a consensus so much as what people simply started doing anyway. I don't think it's inherently a problem but I don't want to overdo it.
I don't think emphasizing enchantments plays into the themes of the set, when it's supposed to be a land matters set, not an enchantment matters set. My worry is that enchantments might end up mattering more than lands if we keep making too many DFC enchantments and cards that refer to or target enchantments. On another note, I had hoped that we could fit in some legendary lands, which jibes well with Discovery. It looks like we simply won't have design space for it in this set though.
"Is it the main way for DFC?"
That's what the consensus seems to be so far.
"I don't get why we should narrow it down already"
We have a lot of opportunity to go back on things. Currently, we have a main way, and we can test it to see how it plays out. Then we might decide to turn to something different.
"especially because there are so many ways to make DFC. I know that DFC is a mechanic which we will need large quantities of, I do not get why it has to be enchantment creatures in more tan 2 colours."
It's not about have to though. It's been an intentional choice about how to use DFCs to play into the themes of the set.
Is it the main way for DFC? I don't get why we should narrow it down already, especially because there are so many ways to make DFC. I know that DFC is a mechanic which we will need large quantities of, I do not get why it has to be enchantment creatures in more tan 2 colours.
Enchantments matter cards in
is of course the best way to make it a good archetype.
Nice and simple. Regarding the Thirst for Knowledge, keep it in mind maybe if we need to support a subtheme, possible with discard land or something, but let's not have too many "complex" card draws in this set.
@Gustostuckerl
"Yes, but why should we have so many enchantment DFCs outside of
?"
Because it's the main way so far we have decided we want to use DFCs and because DFCs is a mechanic we want a large number of cards using.
"Especially because we said we can keep the set open regarding different ways of DFCs. Having them (almost) exclusively in
helps to distinguish the archetype even more."
That's why I suggested having a few cards with the enchantment matters element in 
to begin with, as a way to give it a clear archetype. My suggestion has been that the few enchantment matters cards are only in 
, but enchantment DFCs are not. 
and 
can also get the most enchantment DFCs, and perhaps the most DFCs in general.
Yes, but why should we have so many enchantment DFCs outside of
? Especially because we said we can keep the set open regarding different ways of DFCs. Having them (almost) exclusively in 
helps to distinguish the archetype even more.
Of course it is possible to distinguish the set from others, it's just an observation regarding the obvious similarities, which non designers could have too.
I would rather we have DFC that fit specifically to 
archetypes more while being distinguished to 
@Gustostuckerl "@Enchantment theme: Hmm, good observation, it might be better to change the DFC creatures who aren't
to something else. "Enchantments matter" would make it too similar to Theros, which some Unbound cards already do."
Multiple sets have done artifacts matter- Mirrodin, Esper, Kaladesh- yet have been different. The same can be true of an enchantment theme, especially when the most we could have with what we are working with now is Esper levels, and when we have enchantments tied to one of our mechanics which hits at a major themes.
@Brainpolice
"I do have a little bit of a concern that, the way things are being designed so far, this set has a defacto enchantment theme. Far beyond the suggestion that it be emphasized for just one faction. There is an "enchantment matters" thing being pushed on a lot of cards."
I don't think so. Largely because Theros, which had more enchantment stuff then we have, has specifically stated to have not done enough to bring the enchantment theme home. Just having most of our DFCs be enchantments doesn't really make enchantments matter. It does bring somewhat of an enchantment theme as a general concept in, which is amplified by actually having some cards that do this, but only weakly.
"Should we be careful about this, or is it a natural thing emerging we should just accept?"
For the most part, I think the later. There are more sets with artifact themes than enchantment themes, so I don't mind at all if this set has a minor enchantment theme to it. I think it's quite fitting, and as long as it doesn't distract from our more major themes, I don't think it causes any issues. That this theme is largely linked to one of our mechanics which hits the more major themes helps in this regard. The only specific things I think we should do to avoid it becoming too big is to make sure we have a reasonable number of non-enchantment based DFC. I see the enchantment DFCs theme as being like the werewolf mechanic in INN and SOI- the main use of DFC, and the most mechanically unified, but far from the only use, and with similar numbers. We already have the lands for instance.
@DJK3654: Ups, misunderstood you then, sorry for that.
@Enchantment theme: Hmm, good observation, it might be better to change the DFC creatures who aren't
to something else. "Enchantments matter" would make it too similar to Theros, which some Unbound cards already do.
I do have a little bit of a concern that, the way things are being designed so far, this set has a defacto enchantment theme. Far beyond the suggestion that it be emphasized for just one faction. There is an "enchantment matters" thing being pushed on a lot of cards. Should we be careful about this, or is it a natural thing emerging we should just accept?
Corrected wording '2'->'two' (life, damage, power and toughness are the only typical quantities expressed using numbers)
Enchantment subtheme was just a
archetype thing, I don't think we want it outside of those colors at all at least at common.
Yeah it basically just lets you use your opponents unbound creatures but im fine with that
Just left it as divination for now, but what do people think of 'Draw 3 cards. Discard 2 cards unless you discard an enchantment'? might be going too deep into the enchantment sub-theme but its basically thirst for knowledge at sorcery. But in this case I think simplicity is the best.
"which has an effect when untapping"
It doesn't seem like we are doing many of those though.
Moved up from common to uncommon
Most of the time when you're casting one of these effects, you are taking away a creature so you can use it for something. In this set with unbound when you take a creature with unbound, which has an effect when untapping it could lead to some huge blow outs. However that was just my first though upon rereading the card and im not too worried about it now.
I do think Suppression Bonds works better here as it can deal with enchantments as well.