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 2025-05-01 09:15:34)
Changed to bottom of library.
Might no longer have space for flavor text.
References for power level: Deadbridge Shaman, Screeching Buzzard. Need to keep an eye on how this works out.
Changed to put card in hand.
Would it be doable at common though, at a reasonable mana cost, you think?
was: "When ~ dies, if your discovery is three or more, target opponent discards a card."
It's a Portent effect though, I'd rather have the variant you are talking about.
An inspired concept based on what you're talking about doing with Stalking Horror. I originally was thinking a variation on this that puts a card in your hand and then rest on the bottom of your library, but we're talking commons.
Ah, I didn't realize that implication with the full wording, yea that wouldn't work then.
Yea I think if you changed it to what you describe this would feel much better to me.
When I think about it, I agree that, if anything, the cards I'm most wary about are exactly instants and sorceries like this that treat discovery 3 or more as a contingency threshold.
I liked the direction of what you're talking about with Stalking Horror more than that. Keeps Discovery as a flexible number, but allows you to immediately benefit from it.
A threshold might still have some other uses, like to trigger something on a permanent though.
> I would change to "up to a number of cards" though, probably.
So the targeted opponent can choose to reveal less cards (none even) and deny you the option to make them discard cards? I don't see the benefit.
I kind of like that. It's a slightly creative way of using Discovery an "equal to" number. I would change to "up to a number of cards" though, probably.
That would feel a lot better to me than the current version of this, which is a contingency to get the effect at all.
I don't know about a "magic number".
I'm currently removing this kind of discovery from common.
I don't think it will stay at the other rarities, but common is where I'm currently putting my focus.
Option:
> When ~ dies, target opponent reveals a number of cards from their hand equal to your discovery and you choose one of them. That player discards that card. (Your discovery is equal to the number of different names among lands you control.)
Still, I'm not sure about this card or cards like this. Without Discovery, it's an overcosted Sign In Blood at a higher rarity. With Discovery, it gives you a slightly better effect that may as well just be what you get for the mana cost without Discovery. That's feel-bad or underwhelming to me. I'd rather just put Sign In Blood in my deck, or have a card like "Target player draws 3 cards and loses 3 life." for
.
Cards like the original Solar Ritual are somewhat similarly problematic to me. Without Discovery, it's useless. With Discovery, it's close to useless with Discovery 2 or less, redundant with Pyretic Ritual with Discovery 3, and then with Discovery 4 or greater it finally does something extra or unique, potentially being OP for a common in the late game (Say, Discovery 7, then it's
for 
). The card wildly swings from useless to OP.
This is why I expressed hesitancy or misgivings about Discovery, at least some of the designs. I'm not sure if we've truly figured out how to best use it yet, or it's easy to go astray with on some designs.
At the moment, it seems to mainly serve as an X variable on cards to provide a ramped up version of an effect when you have a high Discovery, like on Spontaneous Evolution, or as a "win more" thing or "do a more powerful version of the same thing" on cards at a Threshold of Discovery 3, like on Rip to Shreds and this card. In both cases it functions as a contingency, either as a variable or a threshold you have to meet to truly make things happen. Some of such designs might be okay, but some of them also struggle with balance issues or otherwise can feel underwhelming.
Other than that, we do have cards that use Discovery as a psuedo-landfall, like Vengeance of the Sun and Planar Conciousness, and unlike the other usages of Discovery, that does have the benefit that you can gain perks as your discovery increases, rather than perks being contingent on your discovery being high. They allow you to immediately benefit from Discovery, while many of the other cards turn Discovery into something you wait to benefit from. On the other hand, it was decided we shouldn't over-use the psuedo-landfall on cards, because of how close it is to landfall.
I have to wonder if there is some other more interesting or rewarding way to be using it.
Is it pretty much agreed that 3 seems to often be the magic number for Discovery?
For simplification this could affect only the controller rather than target - the different modes are plenty complexity by themselves.
removed from skeleton; r: common >> uncommon; fixed reminder text
I actually am fully supportive of continuing this set and completing it if possible. I just wasn't sure, when I initially started Branch II, that this set was continuing. I saw that you were archiving it, but I assumed it was dead in the water at first, because so much time has passed and as far as I can tell you were the only active one left. But then you started commenting and updating things.
I'm down to continue contributing to this. I view my Branch two as a potential linked 2nd Pyrulea set, but if so, I'd like it to be coherent with this one. And I'm totally cool if some of the ideas from Branch II make their way into this. It looks like most of it probably won't. But something as simple as the change to Unbound in itself already has implications for changing the designs here.
Also, I'm not just interested in Unbound, but also exploring the "cycling synergy/combo" or "cycling matters" thing.
I don't know what to prefer: Two independent mechanical realizations of the same plane/flavor (that maybe overlap in some mechanics e. g. transform and cycling); or two sets that form a block/arc and play well with one another.
What I really wouldn't want is one set to be forced into some unnatural knots to match the other, but if I naturally fit some cards like Oltac Congregation into a set without unbound that's still positive synergy.
I think WotC got that right with their new system that utilizes multiple stand-alone sets over the big & small expansions.
As you are the last other member of the old team active: Would you prefer me branching off as well, or should I continue updating this set?
I do wonder, based on what you're saying, if the a 2nd/followup Pyrulea set would be best served with either of those two mechanics being introduced as an important set mechanic, or otherwise a new mechanic that jibes with Unbound. So the 1st set would introduce Unbound, and the 2nd set would complete its interactive potential more.
But then I do have to wonder...would that feel like Pyrulea?
Another thing, about me as a designer in general. I like to experiment and stretch the boundaries. Some of my ideas come from a "What if?" thought. That doesn't always work out. But it can. I'm better at designing than when I first started with it. Sometimes I have a concept that I'm trying out. But often the first version of the concept doesn't work out and I have to backtrack to make it work. Other times the idea just has to be abandoned. But I view that as part of the process.
My designs also probably reflect the type of player I am to an extent. I'm a combo oriented player. I'm also very much a Johnny type of player, and someone who likes deck ideas that are counter-intuitive or a bit off the wall. Some of my favorite cards and decks back in the day were things that manipulate the rules or the battlefield a lot, or that involve wild combos.
If I'm ever missing something about MTG mechanic precedent, it's most likely just because I simply do not actually keep up consistently with new sets or play these days, and I missed years of MTG precedent after I originally quit in the early 2000's. For the same reason a lot of people quit: People don't like to endlessly shell out money just to stay competitive with a rotating format. It is a convenient endless money suck for Wizards that way.
So I find custom design much more rewarding and fun than buying new cards, and it doesn't cost me a dime. The fact that my original heyday of playing was about 1994-2002 is also reflected a bit in my designs. I'm nostalgic for some of the things that used to exist that probably never would fly today. Like Stasis decks and Graveyard manipulation stuff, and just crazy control strategies, that just doesn't exist outside vintage/legacy.
IIRC Horizon Boughs is the inspiration/justification for unbound. It's notable that it's a global effect and actually requires less attention to process than individual cards with unbound.
Yes, if this can be done at common I'm all for it. Looks like this works out pretty well.
One of the main things that prompted me to look further into Unbound was a flavor consideration when I saw this card as the second side of a DFC: Horizon Boughs. It references Pyrulea, and gives your permanents the equivalent of Unbound. And gives a flavor reason for Birds of Pyrulea as well.
The change to unbound was rewording it so it can work on non-creatures, yes.
The other thing about Unbound is, almost by nature of it being able to be on lands, I see it as being very beneficial to blue control strategies. What blue player wouldn't love the idea of their lands always being open for a counterspell?
You can look at the skeleton rather than the visual spoiler - it's more representative anyway. Among other things, I cannot guarantee the visual spoiler doesn't contain inactive cards.
The counter solution seems to come with a lot of restrictions for the +1/+1 counter theme and explicitly a solution for a set that doesn't have DFCs yet. If DFCs weren't widespread yet, I'd use a Land Grant-death trigger here instead.
Fair enough, I guess. The visual spoiler seems unviewable so I can't tell for sure, but is the use of DFC widespread? For this cycle I would be more inclined to try something that causes less overhead. As an example, you could have creatures that enters with some counters and when they die they become lands (without said counters). Also an interesting place to try to have names that make some sense for a creature and for a land.
Now it's hardest to die/ramp for blue. :)
tou: 3 >> 5