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 2025-05-08 01:23:34)
Changed to TRicher's suggestion and gave it a new name to better fit the flavor.
Changed to fit 4 mana slot and avoid a competing slot.
Changed mana cost to 1U from U, because Unbound is technically a little more powerful than Vigilance.
This is currently competing for a slot with Suspended Animation. I really like both cards, with the linked card interacting nicely with unbound, as a sort of anti-unbound card. I think this card is especially important though because since we are introducing Unbound in this set, it makes sense to have a basic aura that grants it to a creature. Maybe the card competing with it could be tweaked to fit an uncommon slot? It's strictly better than Dehydration in that it costs 1 less and does more. Comparing it to a newer card like Claustrophobia, it's less color-restrictive and does more, though it doesn't automatically tap the creature.
It's currently between this and (((http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cards/73844))) for the blue common DFC creature slot. I think this one might be a little pushed, since for an investment of 1 mana you get a 2/2 flier and you draw a card. I think the card competing with it should be pushed slightly from its current power.
This should probably either be scrapped or worked into uncommon. The ability for repeated draw on the 2nd side is potential a touch too powerful for this to be a common, on top of the rest of what it does and its complexity.
The enchantment ability here is very similar to the one on (((http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cards/73123))). I'd choose one of the two for the one DFC enchantment slot or otherwise consider scrapping both.
We might want to scrap this one if anything because the 2nd side has Landfall without the keyword. I like the first side though.
I really would like to keep this one. A suggestion for continuity and symmetrical elegance between both sides though, is that maybe it should be a 2/2 creature, which feels equivolent to the +1/+1 counter on up to two creatures. Could then maybe reduce the cost by
.
I definitely agree that a major priority is working out the common DFC conflicts in those colors. And I agree with your suggested scheme of 1 DFC enchantment and 1 DFC nonenchantment in those colors. That strikes a balance and I think it's fair to have at least one DFC enchantment slot if anything because there is no regular enchantment slot as it is in the way you designed the scheme. So the DFC enchantments do need at least a little space.
But at the moment there are just way too many DFC enchantments that just won't all make it, at least at common's design space. Maybe a few could be tweaked into uncommons. Otherwise there's just not room.
Thanks for filling out the skeleton :D Now we can see what we need for each color.
-DFC: I think it might be better to revisit the DFC for
,
and 
. We want to try and make sure that the enchantment theme isn't too pushed in these colors. I think they should have 1 DFC enchantment and 1 other, or just 2 nonenchantment DFC. 
/
has this DFC enchantment theme going on so i figured it was fine to keep them.
-Names/Creature types: Once we've completed the first draft for the commons we can give the cards names, even if they're just basic placeholders for now. Same with creature types.
Just filled out the skeleton for blue commons. It didn't go so bad until I got to the DFC slots. There are 2 common blue DFC slots, but 5 common blue DFC cards! That's going to be rough to boil down and required me to mark 3 competing cards for one slot. Stuff like that forces some decisions for us.
I did the same for the red commons, and the space for red is a bit more complicated and rough, with more competing cards (In one case there are 3 cards competing for one sorcery slot) and surprisingly a decent amount of open spaces (two CMC 3 creatures, a 5 CMC creature, and two instants).
Finally, I did the same for green commons. Green has its share of competing cards as well and a surprising amount of open spaces for sorceries. And much like blue, there is an overabundance of DFC (5 DFC) competing for only 2 DFC slots.
I figure this will be useful as a roadmap. It tells us what design space we probably shouldn't be creating more cards for, it lets us know what conflicts there currently are with what has already been designed so we can resolve them or otherwise figure out what cards we might not want to keep around afterall, and it shows what open spaces remain for ideas as well. In some cases maybe an open space at similar mana costs can function as a solution for competing cards. Another possible route for keeping some competing cards around while resolving conflict would be to tweak the idea of the card into an uncommon.
Either way, I highly suggest we work on resolving the current competing card issues, do some playtesting, and generally work towards a "complete first version" of the set's commons to share on the board. That will have to include naming and fleshing out cards, as we have quite a large amount of unnamed cards at the moment, as well as some without a creature type.