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 2025-05-06 03:48:36)
The problem is discovery is one of the new mechanics in the set and one of the most important, so its the one people will want to see more of. Cycling has been done before, and while its not a bad mechanic its not super exciting. Red and green as the primary discovery colors should have a larger focus on that. If we try to make red about cycling more then we start to push out the discovery side of red, or risk having too much going on at common.
As it stands black IS the primary cycling color, 2/3 of the black creatures have cycling plus a few noncreature spells. It also makes sense to me as black traditionally wants some graveyard interaction and cycling supports that.
As far as differentiating between cycling and land cycling I'm not sure I fully understand. They both fall under the umbrella term of cycling.
That kind of goes against what me and Gusto were talking about the other day. We feel red is the obvious primary cycling color, and blue is the obvious primary Unbound color, and green is the obvious primary Discovery color. Black and white both get DFC and enchantments.
I'm referring to regular cycling though, not land cycling.
Yeah I can see what you're saying. This could probably be just
and always put a +1/+1 counter on a creature since I dont think either effect is worth a full mana. Might push it a bit but I dont think its over the top. Right now its kind of lackluster and you dont want to play it as much on curve just to get the land.
I think black should be the color with the most cycling cards as its not sharing design space with another major mechanic in the set like red is. Thats reds problem, its just trying to do too much. Thats why it didnt have any vanillas/french vanillas.
I think you're also forgetting that basic landcyling is also cycling , which means that red actually has 5 cycling cards and blue has 4.
What about "~ deals 5 damage to target creature and all other creatures with the same name as that creature."? It could kill multiple things but it's expensive and there is room for one or two effects like that at common.
Gave provisional name.
Added to skeleton as main choice
Placed in competing spot on the skeleton
Ah I see what you did yea.
I do like that this fits the +1/+1 counter archetype. And I realize that the majority of the time, common only gets to search for basic lands. My concern is more that caring about basic lands, as Discovery support, is weak because Discovery benefits much more from nonbasics.
Thats how these cards fit into the skeleton, noncreature spells which create tokens are put in the creature slot, creatures with 0 power are put into noncreature slots. If you think about it this is could essentially be a 1/1 that lets a creature you control fight a creature your opponent controls when it enters the battlefield.
Added to skeleton
It didnt replace a card as such, Sting should have been taking up a creature slot so I moved it there which opened up a sorcery slot. The card which left the skeleton was Unbound Explorer as I'm pretty against those types of effects in a set where a decent chunk of the creatures you want to untap already untap themselves.
I could agree with that but if we're going to have spells that search the library for lands at common then they're going to have to get basic lands. There is also nothing wrong with having ramp in a lands matter set. If its really that much of a problem then this card does double up as a +1/+1 counter card for that archetype.
Yea I see that now. This one did decently when I entered it in the DCC the other day, and I'm more fond of it.
Ah yes missed that.
This is in the skeleton, it in a completing slot. I had to take out one of the mana rocks because it doesnt make sense to have both at common and the space should have been for a creature. It doesnt make a huge deal which is in which slot because that tends to get resolved by people quickly.
At the moment, this just seems like an expensive late game equivalent of "destroy target creature". It's also now a vanilla card when we need Discovery and Cycling to be red's focus, and red now has only 1 cycling instant/sorcery, and only 2 cycling cards altogether at common, when it should be the color with the most cycling. This currently actually leaves blue with more cycling cards than red at common.
I also think this type of thing (damage to a creature) is already better done by Trailblaze. I'd replace this with some other burn spell idea, maybe one that just targets a player, or some
burn spell.
Changed "a" to "an".
Seems a bit odd to me to put this in a creature slot. Yes, it creates a token, but it isn't a creature.
I haven't been able to piece together which card this replaced.
I also still don't like using "basic lands" as Discovery support, as that is the space with the least room for lands with different names (literally just 5, while in contrast, non-basics or lands in general, provides near infinite possibilities) and requires you to be playing multicolor to work.
Hmm, I had already kind of proposed another card to replace it. See: Undergrowth Weaver It also happens to be a Discovery card, which is needed.
I'd keep this, as it uses Discovery nicely I feel.
Now I looked and it was already taken out of the skeleton? I totally don't like Deserted Manalith over this card. I'd note that this is another move on the skeleton that was made without anyone else commenting/voting.
That would be good. After just glancing over what we've got right now I think that the
discovery archetype and the 
big spells archetype need a bit of help. The 
archetype is something that is brought together in the uncommons but the 
archetype should be much more emphasised at common.
Changed to Gusto's suggestion
White doesnt actually have any permanent removal for creatures at common, while it does already have a pump spell and a creature which acts as one. Considering
is our control archetype I dont find that very fitting.
Yeah that seems fair.
I think if you think of flavour text for a card there's nothing wrong with adding it while you remember it. As long as when you do its bearing in mind that it will probably end up as something different in the finished set. But I do agree with you that its all down to the art we find.
is our aggro archetype, if that doesnt want a combat trick I dont know what does. Maybe because its a wide archetype something akin to Swarm Surge.
Well, without the setup it is not that good, and with it becomes pretty strong. That's ok for a common, especially since you need to jump through some hoops to make it strong, hoops that require more than just Mana investment.
Regarding flavour, I really think it is not good for us if we already put flavour on the cards. Let's finish the set and then mold the flavour around it so we got a blank slate. Especially since flavour text just isn't important right now and subject to the art we find.
Thank you for that. Some descriptions still read like they were written after the card was made, not the other way round, but as you said, that is still subject to change.
We should maybe make a checklist which cards would be played in which archetype and if one type still needs a little help.
Good call, this card basically reads as an almost Mana Leak in this set most of the time right now, which is strong but weird. Replace it with a generic counterspell? Or something akin "unless its controller returns an untapped land to his or her hand."?