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 07:35:01)
That's a very fair point. Some of the cards I saw and just felt there where better options but others I would like to try and fit into the skeleton. Is there someway we can have a group of cards that we'd consider for the skeleton? Ones that we feel should probably have a place but there doesn't seem to be one. I could make a seperate page and we could just post a list of cards that we feel could have a place in the skeleton there?
changed flying to hexproof
changed indestructible to trample, reduced cost by
Changed trample to menace
I dont see why both cant exist in the same set. Both encourge playing more lands, one is just more generic for less payoff.
The only thing that might make me want Trials of the Oltac for this slot is that it directly support the
archetype, while this is just a good enchantment. I do like this but we could have a mono color enchantment that does a similar thing instead.
The way I see it if you have this card without the other two cards to tap, its just a bad creature with unbound. If you do then it becomes a countering machine. Either way one player is being made to feel bad, either you for playing a 1/3 with unbound for 3 or your opponent because everything they cast can effectivly costs 2 more.
I'm fine with the fact that some existing uncommons just aren't going to make it into the skeleton. There are some that I see why they just don't feel right or aren't viable designs (for example, in retrospect the cards that transform a creature/enchantment I think should be abandoned, so it makes perfect sense why no one has added them). But I feel like I've mostly only put cards in that do fit the archetypes listed.
The one concern I have is that some designs here and there that actually are good or core designs are going to be just forgotten in an ever-expanding card file if we don't mark them in the skeleton, if we proceed to go ahead and make a bunch of other new cards that fill the skeleton while they are left behind. So I'm not sure how easy it will be to "add it later" when all the space will already have been taken by other things. That's why I feel an incentive to make them visible in the skeleton.
The other thing is that I'd much rather have designs of mine that already exist be critiqued and for me to be told why they shouldn't be there, then for them to just be lost in the shuffle without comment or being considered for the skeleton. That's why I'm commenting on them asking for feedback. It's one thing for people to give reasons why something shouldn't be there, it's another for it to silently just not be considered at all. There are other people's designs this applies to as well.
For example, once I pushed the issue, you gave me a good explanation for why Itzal's Watchful probably shouldn't be included. That's great, I get it now. But, for another example, cards like Card74006 and Swirling Gale have been passed over without any comment or consideration. So I feel an incentive to comment on them asking for feedback and consideration, otherwise they're just going to be silently left behind without explanation.
So, in essence, my view is that existing cards that haven't been added to the skeleton need critique or consideration before just being sidelined for new designs. Maybe some of them have good reasons for not being added, maybe some should actually be there.
Something that needs to be addressed is the uncommon skeleton and our already existing uncommons.
The uncommon skeleton is me throwing ideas out there about what we could want at uncommon. If each color has two cards for a 2 color archetype then there will be five cards for each archetype at uncommon, which is the average number. When I made uncommon skeleton I just came up with ideas about what these uncommons could be. I didnt use existing ideas when making it I just came up with what we 'needed' and then filled the rest in with generic stuff that could benefit the other archetypes. I'm fully expecting to find that we want other cards that we want at uncommon and replace some of the slots with new ideas.
Also we dont have to try and fit every uncommon we've made into these slots; some of the uncommons just dont feel right anymore, some arent balance, and some are just clearly outclassed by similar cards. The point is that we should only try and put a existing uncommon into the skeleton if we feel like it makes a necessary impact on the uncommons. If it doesnt feel necessary then leave it out, we can add it in later when we've got a good starting point for our uncommons.
Added to skeleton.
So far the scheme at common with 3 DFC in W/B and 2 in the other colors has worked out alright, and I guess for uncommon it makes sense to do 2 DFC in W/B and 1 in the other colors.
This is a little bit weak, I agree. For the moment I have switched the two cards, with the mentioned card taking this slot, and this one in the competing cards zone.
On another note I think this card is pretty weak for an uncommon, it has to kill something but it even struggles to do that (and survive) for most of the commons that cost 3. Plus the flip side doesn't seem that strong, especially if you consider what you have to do to get this to kill a creature and survive. Sun Seer seems better in almost every way and thats a common.
I think that if we want more than 1 slot for a DFC we can have one. I only assigned 1 for each color outside of
at uncommon because I felt that we didnt really want to push the 'off color' DFC. The only other sets I have to go on for DFC are all skewed to have two colors with the majority of the DFC in (Innistrad with 
and 
for werewolves).
There is also Agitated Elemetal that is a red uncommon DFC contending for this slot, but would actually fit the "land animation slot". Problem is that that slot isn't for a DFC.
Added to skeleton.
Added to skeleton for now.
I guess I kind of figured that requiring you to tap two creatures balanced the card out.
Thoughts on whether or not this and Swirling Gale have a place in the skeleton or if they should be left behind? They're both ways of using Discovery for mass creature damage.
The problem I have with cards like these is that they're either to weak to play or to annoying to play against. Out of all the unbound cards in blue this is my least favourite just because it can easily make games not fun for players.
I get that. I just treat both this and Card73577 as core off-color Discovery designs I wouldn't want to see left behind.
That sounds good. I figured since we had a pretty decent amount of straight up removal at common we might want to try something different for the removal at uncommon.
Although I'm not against having vanilla/french vanillas at uncommon, I'd like them to be a bit more exciting. This is pretty much Razorfoot Griffin, just bumped up a bit. Don't know if that makes it uncommon either.
Really, the only thing stopping this card from neatly fitting right in to the slot is the description of the slot as "drain creature". Do we inherently need "drain creature" over just "creature removal"?
Really would like for this card to make it in, but two other cards were put in the Unbound slots first.
I'd vote for this for the slot.