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 2025-05-07 15:04:19)
Yeah they tend not to come in high numbers, its more of a 'do we really need to just stick the curse subtype on the card' type of thing. I dont know if wizards would treat these kinds of cards as curses from now on as they haven't been printed in a standard outside of Innistrad sets.
The two sides seems to be at a pretty equivalent in power level when it should be an upgrade based on the cost to transform.
I recommend dropping the transform cost to
or giving some kind of life gain effect to the backside reference to the lifelink on the front.
I'm basing the decision on DJK having mentioned the desire to experiment with the idea, and it is a variation on the enchantment theme. Also, from what I've seen, curses don't come in very high numbers even in the sets where they are a mechanic. For reference:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=%7C%5B%22enchant%20opponent%22%5D%7C%5B%22enchant%20player%22%5D
If it does end up being an issue this can easily enough be tweaked into a normal enchantment version.
I was thinking more monocolored legendary cards at rare. We dont have to I just figured that we could just have slightly more legendary creatures in the set, as a kind of compramise for not doing the legendary matters theme.
Dont know if we want to use curse in a set where it isnt a mechanic. I know they did it in SOI but it was pretty much a callback to ISD.
An attempt at the DFC curse idea.
I suppose we do have 5 multicolored "legendary leader" slots in the skeleton, and we could make at least 1 legendary card in each color at Mythic.
But I'm not entirely sure how much a card like this one will fit into the set, because we've basically sidelined the whole "legendary matters" idea and there just isn't that much more space for legendaries.
I suppose I could see this as a commander-only type of card, but it's more for interacting with the commander environment than for interacting with the cards in this set. I do like how Discovery interacts with commander.
As we talked about maybe having slightly more legendary creatures than average at rare and mythic, I thought this might be a neat idea. Also seems good in commander even if we dont end up making that many in this set.
Unlike the green version of this idea, I changed this one to just make the land become a 3/3 creature, because +1/+1 counters isn't fitting for red.
Edited wording to make more sense.
I re-worded it similarly. And just to explain myself on the sorcery clause, it's to prevent you from getting an infinite counterspell effect.
Fixed wording on 2nd side.
Something like "
: Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost. Activate this ability only anytime you could cast a sorcery." It might need to have a cost to do this, being able to repeatedly cast a spell for free each turn, even if you do have to transform the card first.
Yea, if you could help me figure how to word it without the stack that'd be great. For some reason I'm not sure how at the moment.
If anything, maybe the flavor could be justified as the spell being captured in the lamp. But it still doesn't explain the disappearance of the creature.
I don't think that much needs changing about this card aside from the stack thing. I was just pointing out that it seems a bit weird that it would transform into a lamp, when I would defiantly see it as the other way around; Lamp > Creature. But its more of a flavour thing and the second side can just be renamed.
It might not be too much of an issue. Just something that bugged me slightly about it. But artifacts, for enough mana, can potentially do the same thing as colored cards.
Originally I did try to do a card that was a Lamp artifact on the 1st side Card74229, but it ended up doing things for colorless mana that felt too obviously blue to me, so I made it just be a creature on both sides.
You have a point about the stack thing, I just was unsure how else to word it.
I guess this one could maybe be reworked into artifact/creature, but I'm not sure it could be the same card as it is now.
I've been assuming they don't go to the graveyard. Otherwise, the wording could perhaps be changed to what I did with Unsung Hero, where it exiles and then returns to the battlefield at beginning of end step.
On these cards that transform when they die, do we want it to not go to the graveyard? If we dont then I see this wording as being fine but if we do we can have it return from the graveyard transformed in a similar way to Loyal Cathar but immediately.
changed 'must discard' > 'discards'
Well the only card we have to go on is Elbrus, the Binding Blade, but it could require
to equip. If it does then it'll be a black rare instead of an artifact one, where as it can be an artifact rare if its equip cost is generic.
I think if we're going to do a 'Lamp' style card then it'd want to be a lamp on the front side and a genie on the 2nd side. Just a flavour thing more than anything. For this I think it should just take either instant or sorcery, so then the second side can just let you copy it. The explicit use of the stack in card text is just something that really isnt done anymore.
I like this idea a lot. My only concern is that maybe the abilities are a bit color specific for the equip cost to be colorless? I'm not sure.