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 20:45:36)
We could put this back up to cost
on the basic landcycling. If this set was more about playing multiple different colors in the same deck I'd be more inclined to keep it but since its not I think that it might be pretty pushed.
I don't think we need to push cycling that much more at common. This is just meant to be a plain 'vanilla' card so I wanted to keep the transform condition that way.
The flavour on this can be changed later, just thought I'd pencil in something.
Could just cut this for something else. Isnt a big concern atm so id leave it in for now.
There are a few cards in black that have lifegain, but you're right it isnt a major theme. Tempted to change this to something similar that works without needing other cards.
Is the cycling undercosted on this one? I usually dont value effects like this very highly so I'm not too sure.
Shouldnt these be 'When this land transforms into ~' rather than permanent if we're going off Abolisher of Bloodlines?
I think I might like Lightslinger a bit more as well, we already have Sunlight Apothecary which does lifegain already. Plus that fits into the 3 toughness archetype.
I'm pretty sure that discovery should be present in all the colors. Just because
focuses on those colors doesnt mean that it can appear a decent amount in other colors. This is a land set. That doesnt just mean have lots of lands. It should give players cards that interact with lands, in all colors.
I think the way discovery is used here is interesting, the discovery threshold idea itself arent about avoiding a downside, although they could be perceived that way, they're about the card getting better. I will agree that the card you're talking about is pretty weak, and I wouldn't want to have it stay that way if I were going to make it.
My only comment on increasing discovery is that it seems quite inconsistent in limited. In constructed maybe I can play a different land each turn to increase my discovery but I dont see that happening every turn in limited. It's just narrower landfall and while I have no problem with that, I'd rather do it at uncommon and higher so its more geared to the formats that can make more use of it.
It really depends on how you build your deck. If you're looking for a card every turn that increases your discovery then you would either want every land in your deck to have a different name, or to play more lands than you normally would. The second is especially true if you want to see some lands more than others (in constructed I'd rather seem my dual lands than basics most of the time).
Either way if you want to have lots of lands on the battlefield with different names, right? If I only have 2 lands with different names then what's the point of me playing with discovery cards. A player will be much more excited about the cards they're picking if they know they can make it do something bigger most of the time, e.g. 5 damage over 2 damage for a 2 cmc card.
Now we arent encouraging players to play loads more lands like they did in Zendikar. But we are saying that they should want to have more lands in play and to do that they might have to play slightly more lands than they normally would. In Zendikar they had lots of different ways for you to use the abundance of lands that you would have; we dont have to go that far. A couple of mana sinks and a cards that are a bit higher on the curve is a reasonable response to this.
In reality we dont know if thats something that will happen until we start playtesting, but the only other land set needed a decent number of ways to use a large amount of mana so we should keep that in mind.
My objection isn't so much that it's weak as that we're using the space for another off-color Discovery card (when there are already a handful of other black Discovery cards at common ), and that the way Discovery is being used here is just to avoid a downside.
There's another card I can't think of that's an uncommon in blue DJK posted that's a more explicit example of what I feel is poorly implemented off-color Discovery - something like 2 mana for a 1/1 creature that lets you draw a card on ETB only if your Discovery is 3 or greater.
That's basically using Discovery as threshold for an effect you could easily get by itself as a cantrip on lots of other cards that are better. Makes it feel like a bad use of Discovery.
As far as I see, this would basically be the only green card, except for one other I think, that does care about enchantments. The reason we added enchantment in was because just having an anti-land destruction card by itself seemed too niche.
I've sort just been going with a general instant/sorcery theme for blue and red, rather than "big spells".
While there are a lot of lands in this set, I don't follow the logic that this allows for more expensive cards. It's only the green ramp type effects, and the few ramp artifacts, that allow for that in practical terms. It is only the Discovery theme in
that actively encourages more lands.
I can definitely see the space taken by Sun Scorch, Spark of Passion and Trailblaze being a bit much. I would actually say that the main choice there is between Trailblaze and Sun Scorch, as both of them are creature only damage. I'd choose one or the other if we intend to sac one. Maybe Sac Sun Scorch because Spark of Passion is the same type of cycling card.
I'm down with replacing Deny experience with a Mill Card, either based on Discovery or as a cycling card.
I don't see how this is an excuse to use landfall. There are actually a few other cards that literally are landfall without naming it as such, which I wasn't fond of doing. This is a Discovery card that has similarities to landfall, but it's a bit more limited. It's just one way we've implemented Discovery on a handful of cards (for the most part, aside from this there's about one card in each color that uses Discovery increasing as a trigger). I can agree that this card in particular might not be so important though.
Maybe I'm a little ignorant in this area, but I don't see the appeal of cards like this very much. Unless somehow, the mere act of spending lots of mana is rewarded. I don't see why I'd want to dump 8 mana into a relatively minor activated ability. I guess some of the other ones presented are a bit better. But my intuitive reaction, from a competitive deckbuilding POV, is "why would I want to activate an ability like this for 8 mana on an easily killable creature"?
More of a flavour card than something I think we need.
Yea I think a Discovery based mill card would be nice.
This is actually not intended to be scry, and it wasn't from an ex-cycle. It's based on Portent, minus the card draw and shuffling part. Which is technically less powerful than scry, applied to yourself at least. Against an opponent it's a bit more interesting.
There are only two commons, and a more recent uncommon, that have this type of effect.
Something that Secret pointed out is that our "big spells matter/4 cmc + instant and socery" theme in
is severly lacking at common. We have 2 spells at 4 cmc and none larger than that. In a set where lands matter players will be able to play a slightly larger mana base, therefore we can make more expensive cards. There are defiantly some cards we can replace in both blue and red to make room for bigger instant and sorcery cards, even if its just 2 more.
Sun Scorch, Spark of Passion and Trailblaze are all very similar cards, in fact the first two both pretty much do the same thing. One of these could be cut and replaced with a bigger effect, say Sun Scorch becomes
Deal 5 damage to target creature.
Cycling
When you cycle ~ deal 5 damage to target creature.
I think we already want to cut Deny Experience, we could turn it into a big mill card, like:
Put the top X cards of target players library into their graveyard, where X is your discovery.
Something like that maybe?
Wording could be changed to: "Create a 1/1 green Insect creature token. Then you may have it, or another target creature you control, fight target creature you don't control." Lets it work as intended. Personally I dont think this card is that bad, but it could be replaced with a creature. Rather playtest this first though.
When using a new mechanic in a set I try to make as many cards that use that mechanic as possible and then cut them down to the ones that work best. I think thats how RnD does it as well, but thats more of a exploring design thing.
This card could be changed to some vanilla like creature, we already have a card that makes mana based on your discovery in red so I dont think we need something that does it on a stick.
There was going to be a minor bottom of the library matters theme in all colors originally but we scrapped most of those ideas, which is why there are slightly more cards with scry, I think. Plus its evergreen and doesnt provide card advantage so it can be easy to just stick onto a card without pushing it too much.
The 'bad' scrying cards are worded that way because it can affect other players. Pretty sure this is from an ex-cycle we had. I think this and Palm Reading are the only cards like this in the set, which I dont think is a large amount.
Reminds me of uncommon Maalfeld Twins. To have an eye kept on.
Changing trigger condition from combat damage to death
The difference here is that the card never leaves the battlefield and hence you don't get to attach it upon ETB since it does not actually re-enter the battlefield.
Also there needs to be some clarification e. g. when designers want to guide an Aura to the correct place. Accursed Witch says "enchant player" to be consistent with older Curses, but the intent is not to enchant yourself, so the wording used is more precise and functional reminder text as well.
tl; dr: Good design is sometimes about being more elaborate rather than being more succinct.
Yes to more vanilla/french vanilla creatures. Every common creature does not need to be a combo piece in some new way just to include the mechanics.
I don't know about all this triggered ability cards. With all the combo pieces we now have,
feels much less proactive and controly but more voltrony, if that makes sense.
Not that I'm against that card, but as it already has been mentioned, we need a little less triggered cards so as to not make it a complicated trigger fest in every colour.
Okay, next to the other landfall card this looks like you want to use landfall, but not show your hand. Is this really necessary?
On a side note: Red common creatures are quite busy and could use some vanilla/french vanilla action.
Yep, best to replace this. Three common counterspells in the file already. I suggest putting in something big for the large spell theme.