We've been working on this for the past few months and it's time to start slowly presenting what we have to the forum for feedback and doing some playtesting. The set is still very much in development, but we have come a long way with card ideas since we started. Community feedback would be much appreciated, especially since this set started on the premise of being a forum community set.
Connection to start: Fits into the vision of what makes Pyrulea different from Zendikar, that being it's a stranger and more mysterious world of discovery rather than rugged adventure world.
What it means in flavor: Connection to the notion of Pyrulea as ever changing through the cycles, creating the unknown, and the sense of vastness related to Pyrulea, as seemingly always having somewhere else to go.
What it means in gameplay: We want aspects of the game to have exceptionally high variance of play, as to have a feel of uncertainty. This doesn't want to be variance which is due more to player choice, as with Kaladhesh, but variance that is a little more out of player control. It also should not be variance around make or break moment, as this would play more into suspense and ominousness. One of the good things about the bottom of the library theme is how it has the variance of being hidden for the most part, but is still accessible so it's not too out of control. Cycling also helps create unknown variance moments without creating too much frustrating inconsistency.
IMAGINATION
Connection to start: Elaboration on the two lines of Pyrulea being weirder and more mysterious and the discovery theme.
What it means in flavor: The concepts of 'ever-changing' and the vast abundance of Pyrulea lead to the sense of vast possibilities especially in the sense of new and wondrous things.
What it means in gameplay: In connection to the mystery concept, this also wants variance of play. More in the line of player choice though. In order to combine unknown variance and controlled variance, we'll want decision making aspects that are quite situationally based, so the player stills has that sense of weaving their imagination, but they are sure what they'll end up doing until they get up to the decision. Also, this theme supports having cards that evolve in some way over time or build up together, in that they give a sense of progression toward some possibilities. DFCs are good for filling such a role.
DISCOVERY
Connection to start: One of our starting points
What it means in flavor: With a world steeped in mystery and imagination, much discovery is the inevitable result.
What it means in gameplay: Also in relation to the mystery theme (it's important that these themes can work together), discovery in gameplay is going to be about the moment when unknown variance resolves itself and there's a moment of progression in the flow of the game. The journey from the build up around moments of variance to the way game progresses afterwards. Discovery isn't just about the result but the journey, so it will be important then to make sure that there are a series of moments of variance being resolved in progression, allowing the player to go on a unique little path in each game. The Discovery mechanic is good in this way in that it has variance that isn't particularly player controlled, adding the mystery, which takes place over a series of stages.
Mechanic Color Balance
Discovery: primary RG, secondary WUB
Unbound: primary GU, secondary W
Cycling: primary BR, secondary WUG
DFC: primary WB, secondary URG
Archetypes
(W/U) - Control
(W/B) - DFC (minor enchantment theme as a thread, we can have DFC specific enablers as well, possibly cards going to the bottom of the library instead of the graveyard)
(U/B) - Leaves the battlefield theme (death, bounce and flicker)
(U/R) - Large instants/sorceries (different take on U/R mana 's general spells theme)
(B/R) - Cycling (threads can be specific cycling support, cards that like discard and cards that like draw)
(B/G) - Aggro (Tokens, small creatures, swarming)
(R/G) - Discovery (Minor take control of lands)
(R/W) - Small toughness (different take on R/W mana 's general go wide theme)
(W/G) - +1/+1 counters (because it fits the themes of set and is a good way of making use of some of the mechanics)
(G/U) - Unbound
World Factions
The Ashna RW: Sun worshipers found on the first layer of Pyurlea. Being the closest faction to the sun heart of the plane has given them an obsession with the power it can give them. They have built great pyramid temples to perform rituals closer to the sun. Their cities are found between the canopies, surrounded by planes of leaves. Primarily a human based faction, including leonin and loxodon.
The Emori GU: Scientists and advocates of the evolution of Pyurlea, found on the second layer. Most of the Emori spend their days tapping into the mana that coalesces under the first layer and forming it into physical objects. Most of the more abstract races on Pyurlea start their life here. They build their cities into the stems of great plants close to the bottom of the leaves on the first layer while being able to tap into the mana that passes down through the stem of the plants. Primarily a elf based faction, including faerie and trolls.
The Oltac WB: An empire of kings and emperors, found of the third layer. A large proportion of the Oltac are slaves or hired mercenaries, the real Oltac are mostly dead but death hasn't stopped them from ruling the empire they created. The leaders of the Oltac long ago gave up their mortal bodies to rule their empire forever. Select few join their ranks now, as many younger members of the Oltac now indulge themselves in the riches of their ancestors. The Oltac empire stretches throughout the whole of the third layer, made up of rope bridges connecting the various cities which have become sprawling metropolises built into everything from the trunks of great trees to the sides of mountains. Primarily a spirit based faction, including vampires and hags (with thrulls and humans making up the bulk of the "false" Oltac).
The Yaados UR: A militaristic faction seeking to make their mark on the plane, found on the fourth layer. Having only recently reached a point where the other factions consider them a reasonable force, the Yaados are keen to prove that they can be just as powerful, if not more so, that the others. Building great metal cities and militarising most of their members is just the start. The mystics of the Yaados have recently mastered turning the mana that runs through the stems of the plants into elementals to serve them and are looking for more ways to exploit this newfound power. Primarily a lizardfolk based faction, including djinn and weirds (these are rare, the Yaados preach purity and have purged most of the other races from their faction. Only those who prove useful survive).
The Xibal BG: A large swarm, found on the fifth layer. Where as the Oltac might preach the survival of the individual the Xibal focus on the progress of the whole. With a hive mind based society every action of the Xibal takes into account how it influences the rest of the swarm. On closer inspection however the whole swarm however is merely an extension of its empress and her broodlords, making it closer to the Oltacs views than most would think. The Xibal build their hives in the roots of the great plants of the plane, surrounded by the foliage that has died and fallen down from other layers. One mans waste is another mans treasure. Primarily a insect based faction, including thallids and treefolk (the thallids and treefolk are often scavengers who have integrated into the Xibal hive mind).
Discovery (Your discovery is equal to the number of lands you control with different names.)
Unbound (This creature untaps during each player's untap step.)
Cycling
Basic landcycling
DFC (Including DFC lands and DFC that change card types)
As always, I’m curious as to whether or not the set has been playtested, and if so, how it plays.
I found myself saying “too good” quite a bit. What I mean by that, is the card will warp limited play and accelerate games, and make people feel cheated. All of which is fine if you don’t want to make a realistic set.
Omen Watcher – Ultracrappy for the white one-drop. Should be blue. Or even better colorless especially in a set with cycling.
Parvia Guardian – It’s only the second card, so I could be mistaken, but I’m guessing there’s some tap enablers, which probably makes this too good in limited.
Sunlight Apothecary – Seems like “Discovery” is going to be Domain 99% of the time. Speaking of, an ability word would be a better way to do to implement Discovery imo. As an outsider to the set, I view it as gimmicky-Domain-wishes-it-was-as-cool-as-Devotion. On top of that, it doesn’t read properly in English.
Heatproof Hawk – It would be nice to see a W cycle cost and this is the perfect candidate for it.
Discovery – When Sunlight Missionary enters the battlefield, you gain 1 life for each different land you control.
Battle Companion – A set with Unbound could/should do without Vigilance. The card is pushed anyways and would still be more than fine without Vigilance.
Temple Guard – There’s power creep and then there’s power leap. This is the latter. Way too good for common.
Bearer of Light – Power creep. And superfluous untapping in a set already rife with Unbound. Boring. Need more variety at common to reduce linear limited games. Where’s your vanilla creature?
Dispersing Light – imo there should be tension between a card’s primary cost:effect and it’s cycling cost:effect. I don’t sense that here. The smart play is to cycle every time and it’s worth the wait. The casting cost should be 1W and the cycling cost 3W. Or even better, increase it to 5W and have it give protection to all creatures you control. In a land-centric set like this, you’re going to need some common mana sinks anyways.
Avoid Conflict – This should cost W, especially if you increase Dispersing Light’s cost to 1W.
Minor Noble – This is WAY too good for common. 3WW: create a Suntail Hawk each of your turns? No way. It’s a cool card, but has uncommon written all over it.
Everliving Vitality – Too strong for common.
Guardian of the Sands – no power or toughness
Mystical Seer – This is much better than you may realize.
Coastal Traveler - Nimble Innovator with Unbound. Why?
Yaados Decoy – Problem: for 4UU, I can return Yaados Decoy and two other target creatures to hand.
Skyborn Djinn – I think, in general, it would be best if most of your commons with Unbound have toughness 2 or less. The fact that they have Vigilance is good enough, they shouldn’t also be resilient.
Blood Leech – The life gain may be too much. I would snatch as many of these up in draft as I could.
Dark Bargainer – Why would anyone ever cycle this?
Deathrite Familiar – I like this card but “equal to your Discovery” still makes me wince every time I read it (and I’ve been reading it for weeks/months). Linguistically, it’s an ugly baby.
Hive Mercenary – four point lifeswing can’t be countered draw a card? Too good.
Xibal Vermin – Typo. And wow, very powerful.
Draining Essence – No. Not at common. Completely format warping in limited.
Cemetery Horror – This is fine, but note that 7 (over 1/3) of the black commons are creature destruction. There should only be 2 or 3.
Yaados Militant – More of a personal criticism here rather than a technical one… I’d be disappointed as an aggro drafter for my haste granter to cost 3 mana.
Conquering Warlord – This is uncommon. Commons have to pay for their pump, they don’t get it for free. Also, they don’t get cool names like “Conquering Warlord”.
Solar Elemental – Now this is an interesting use of Discovery. You should tap into this design space a lot more.
Seige Commander, Ashna Piker, Sonic Elemental – You may want to reconfigure a couple of these bodies. Red only needs one Hill Giant at common.
Magma Caller – This is a proper place for double red mana symbols in the casting cost. It seems too “smart” for common and should maybe be uncommon.
Sun Scorch – This should cost 5 or 6 to cycle.
Trailblaze – land cycling would make for some good flavor here.
Sun Seer – Have you played with or against transform? This is too good. Too easy.
We have been talking about playtesting but have not gotten to it. I think it's something we need to do really badly.
A number of the commons that have been listed here have already been altered or replaced over the past few days.
All of which is fine if you don’t want to make a realistic set.
Ouch. Harsh.
Parvia Guardian – It’s only the second card, so I could be mistaken, but I’m guessing there’s some tap enablers, which probably makes this too good in limited.
Yea, we pointed out yesterday that Parvia Guardian is way too good. Even without tap enablers.
Sunlight Apothecary – Seems like “Discovery” is going to be Domain 99% of the time. Speaking of, an ability word would be a better way to do to implement Discovery imo. As an outsider to the set, I view it as gimmicky-Domain-wishes-it-was-as-cool-as-Devotion. On top of that, it doesn’t read properly in English.
Discovery was originally proposed as merely being a threshold mechanic. I thought that was too limited, so I suggested it be more like Devotion. In the end, it has ended up being a variety of this at once, but it's more like devotion 75% of the time. Sometimes it is like Domain, but in the majority of cases it is like Devotion. In a few cases, it is used as psuedo-landfall.
I don't really understand why you think Discovery doesn't read properly in english or looks funny. Seems okay to me.
Battle Companion – A set with Unbound could/should do without Vigilance. The card is pushed anyways and would still be more than fine without Vigilance.
I agree that I found the choice to make a vigilance card odd given the existence of Unbound, since Unbound is basically Vigilance +.
Temple Guard – There’s power creep and then there’s power leap. This is the latter. Way too good for common.
Originally this was 2/2 for 2W. It had to be moved up in the skeleton because another card replaced its slot. Would the older version have been too good as well?
Dispersing Light – imo there should be tension between a card’s primary cost:effect and it’s cycling cost:effect. I don’t sense that here. The smart play is to cycle every time and it’s worth the wait. The casting cost should be 1W and the cycling cost 3W. Or even better, increase it to 5W and have it give protection to all creatures you control. In a land-centric set like this, you’re going to need some common mana sinks anyways.
It did bother me that the costs were identical.
Guardian of the Sands – no power or toughness
It's 3/3, like the others in the cycle. I simply glitched and didn't add it.
Skyborn Djinn – I think, in general, it would be best if most of your commons with Unbound have toughness 2 or less. The fact that they have Vigilance is good enough, they shouldn’t also be resilient.
I did sort of feel like this is one small step away from being a blue Serra Angel at common.
Cemetery Horror – This is fine, but note that 7 (over 1/3) of the black commons are creature destruction. There should only be 2 or 3.
Good observation. That is overkill (literally).
Solar Elemental – Now this is an interesting use of Discovery. You should tap into this design space a lot more.
Funny enough, this was the use of Discovery that was most complained about by Secret and the card was scrapped yesterday. The concern was that it's a "lame duck" in later turns, and Secret suggested removing any other cards that use Discovery this way (which I resisted - I have a number of uncommon designs using it as psuedo-landfall that I quite like).
Discovery was originally proposed as merely being a threshold mechanic. I thought that was too limited, so I suggested it be more like Devotion. In the end, it has ended up being a variety of this at once, but it's more like devotion 75% of the time. Sometimes it is like Domain, but in the majority of cases it is like Devotion. In a few cases, it is used as psuedo-landfall.
What does "sometimes its like domain, but in the majority of cases it is like Devotion" even mean?
I don't really understand why you think Discovery doesn't read properly in english or looks funny. Seems okay to me.
Okay, outside of the context of this set how often do you use the construct "have discovery" over "make a discovery"? That's - beside the mechanical concerns - I pushed for discover to be a keyword action and using a different term here - in my own design file (that still contains a variant of discover as well) the mechanic is called territory based on the expansion connotation having many lands has.
Solar Elemental – Now this is an interesting use of Discovery. You should tap into this design space a lot more.
Funny enough, this was the use of Discovery that was most complained about by Secret and the card was scrapped yesterday. The concern was that it's a "lame duck" in later turns, and Secret suggested removing any other cards that use Discovery this way (which I resisted - I have a number of uncommon designs using it as psuedo-landfall that I quite like).
Note that my specific concern is that these cards punish you for being efficient in getting discovery early on and hence should be purged from common. Though I also say these should be tested against straight up landfall and predict that they will not be more interesting.
What does "sometimes its like domain, but in the majority of cases it is like Devotion" even mean?
It means that on the majority of cards it's used on, it works like Devotion that counts lands you control with different names. Only 2ndarily is it on cards as a threshold mechanic. I forgot what domain actually does though, which isn't a threshold mechanic. Discovery is indeed similar to Domain, except it counts lands you control with different names instead of basic land types, which is more versatile.
Okay, outside of the context of this set how often do you use the construct "have discovery" over "make a discovery"? That's - beside the mechanical concerns - I pushed for discover to be a keyword action and using a different term here - in my own design file (that still contains a variant of discover as well) the mechanic is called territory based on the expansion connotation having many lands has.
Neither of the phrases you quote - "have discovery" or "make a discovery" - are how it's been used. Never pops up in the wording of any card, and isn't part of the rules text of the mechanic. So I'm unsure what the objection is to. What it does have a precedent outside the set for, in actual usage, is like devotion, with the phrase "equal to your Discovery" working like "equal to your devotion to (color)".
I do actually think the word Territory fits the flavor better than Discovery though.
But it seems rather late into the process - after us rolling with Discovery for nearly two months and designing something close to a hundred cards (or at the very least, something like 50 cards) with it - for it suddenly to be pushed on us that it's bad. Feels a bit odd, after working as a group under the agreement to use Discovery all this time, for one person to suddenly show back up who wants to redo one of the key mechanics we've been using. That kind of sticks a monkey wrench into the whole consensus and single handedly destroys at least 50 card ideas in the file, not to mention the cards that have been created to enable it.
I'm all for critique, but it's a bit of a bitter pill to suddenly accept one person overthrowing a consensus on a mechanic that four or five other people have been designing cards around in the file for the past month and half or so.
Note that my specific concern is that these cards punish you for being efficient in getting discovery early on and hence should be purged from common. Though I also say these should be tested against straight up landfall and predict that they will not be more interesting.
By its very nature, it's going to be weaker than landfall. But part of the design goal was to not do landfall. But we're also talking about like, literally only 4 cards or so that use Discovery as psuedo-landfall, most of which are uncommons. I agreed to removing the one common it was on.
But it seems rather late into the process - after us rolling with Discovery for nearly two months and designing something close to a hundred cards (or at the very least, something like 50 cards) with it - for it suddenly to be pushed on us that it's bad. Feels a bit odd, after working as a group under the agreement to use Discovery all this time, for one person to suddenly show back up who wants to redo one of the key mechanics we've been using. That kind of sticks a monkey wrench into the whole consensus and single handedly destroys at least 50 card ideas in the file, not to mention the cards that have been created to enable it.
I never liked discovery as much as the rest. I yielded to the majority in the interest of moving forward. And I will stick to both positions (A) discovery is not as good a mechanic as its made out to be and (B) I will make an effort to make the best out of the set regardless of using discovery or not.
I have never claimed a vote in your consensus. You will have to live with differing opinions. And you will always need an advocatus diaboli in any productive discussion, so why not have someone who is not pretending?
Before taking the bitter pill, take this:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I've generally appreciated some of the criticism you've brought lately. A number of the commons badly needed their flaws pointed out. You also voiced a few concerns I had in the back of my head with some of them.
Some of the things that we ended up doing also were doing against my initial skepticism. For example, I originally didn't "vote" for unbound. But I ended up liking it after seeing its potential.
I just think in the case of Discovery, we've gone to far already under the assumption of using it to go back on it. It's Legend's criticism of it that I took especially harshly though - that it doesn't make sense in english? I don't get that.
Part of the appeal of Discovery to me is that it encourages the environment to be one with lots of unique lands. It also happens to fit Commander really well.
Imo discovery is good, but it really needs some tweeking. When we first came up with the idea I asked if we could change it to be called something else as it doesn't really feel like it works in English, I think I suggested discoveries (Discoveries are lands with different names you control.). Territories is another interesting way to word it. I'd rather keep it as a mechanic than a keyword, it just gives it more flexibility.
However in design mechanics do get created, taken far into design and then get scrapped. The 'forbidden' mechanic is an example of this. I would want to see how it plays out before scrapping it though because as I've said I think it does have a lot of potential. Remember design is fluid and even large, set defining themes can be cut out if it just isn't doing what its needed to do.
Overall I think that the concerns that have been made about a lot of cards are well founded. Some more than others but its defiantly helped a lot. Thanks everyone whose made a contribution to the set in the past couple of days
I think I see what is meant about Discovery not making sense in english now, as it is a singular term in reference to a plural. I also always felt that Territory/Territories fits the flavor of what it's supposed to do better. Discovery sounds more general, like an object, or a scientific breakthrough, not necessarily traveling to or uncovering a land.
I think I see what is meant about Discovery not making sense in english now, as it is a singular term in reference to a plural. I also always felt that Territory/Territories fits the flavor of what it's supposed to do better. Discovery sounds more general, like an object, or a scientific breakthrough, not necessarily traveling to or uncovering a land.
Territory is nice except it sounds more like a conquests/empires thing, not something to do with discovery/exploration/imagination.
Territory might make more sense in terms of "increasing", but it doesn't catch the flavour of different lands. Your territory figuratively speaking also gets larger if you play a basic plains every turn, since more plains equals more land. That's not what the mechanic does, so naming it "territory/territories" is kinda misleading.
@Legends: Could you maybe be persuaded to give criticism on the multiverse page too? Would be greatly appreciated.
As for putting in the green commons and the rest here, I'm purposefully pausing on that right now because we've made some decisions that significantly alter the commons skeleton altogether recently. So I'm waiting until we have a more refined commons skeleton, then I'll modify and finish what is listed here after that. as a main update.
A mse-set with the current common skeleton can (hopefully) be viewed here.
The file has been exported automatically with a script. I am aware of plenty of possible improvements, but if you notice anything in particular that should be taken care of rather sooner than later feel free to contact me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
@Legends: Could you maybe be persuaded to give criticism on the multiverse page too? Would be greatly appreciated.
Just saw this. I'd be happy to. Already would have if I'd thought to click the link last time. Just the white for now.
Sun Prison – Basically Duplicant for 3WWW? Since “Sun Prison” doesn’t leave the battlefield when “Prison Elemental” dies. Personally, I’m fine with that, I’m just not sure if that’s your intention.
Card74194 – should say “return that creature card”
Keeper of the Crucible – could be common
Card73354 – seems rather easy to pull off.
Turn 1: Any 1 Drop (Thraben Inspector_.
Turn 2: Raise the Alarm followed with Card73354
Or
Turn 1: 1 Memnite, 2 Ornithopter, Card73354
Card73982 – there’s three Journey to Nowhere’s at uncommon and at least 1 at common plus Suppression Bonds and targeted removal.
Card74437 – there’s two “return enchantment from gy” cards at uncommon
Fate of the Fallen – “each creature that died this turn”
Solemn Offering – There’s this and then the exile version. Nothing inherently wrong with it, just noting.
The card list isnt the best place to work off. Some of those cards where created to explore what we could do with certain effects, such as Solemn Offering and the return enchantment from the graveyard effects. A decent number of them wont make it into the final set. But you did point out some fairly important points about some cards
Defiantly trying to cut down on removal in general.
Yea the skeleton more accurately indicates what cards from the file are currently being considered for inclusion, while the general card list includes a decent amount of common and uncommon designs that have been overruled or left behind in the process so far.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
MULTIVERSE CARD FILE (Current overall work in progress)
Breakdown of Conceptual Themes
MYSTERY
Connection to start: Fits into the vision of what makes Pyrulea different from Zendikar, that being it's a stranger and more mysterious world of discovery rather than rugged adventure world.
What it means in flavor: Connection to the notion of Pyrulea as ever changing through the cycles, creating the unknown, and the sense of vastness related to Pyrulea, as seemingly always having somewhere else to go.
What it means in gameplay: We want aspects of the game to have exceptionally high variance of play, as to have a feel of uncertainty. This doesn't want to be variance which is due more to player choice, as with Kaladhesh, but variance that is a little more out of player control. It also should not be variance around make or break moment, as this would play more into suspense and ominousness. One of the good things about the bottom of the library theme is how it has the variance of being hidden for the most part, but is still accessible so it's not too out of control. Cycling also helps create unknown variance moments without creating too much frustrating inconsistency.
IMAGINATION
Connection to start: Elaboration on the two lines of Pyrulea being weirder and more mysterious and the discovery theme.
What it means in flavor: The concepts of 'ever-changing' and the vast abundance of Pyrulea lead to the sense of vast possibilities especially in the sense of new and wondrous things.
What it means in gameplay: In connection to the mystery concept, this also wants variance of play. More in the line of player choice though. In order to combine unknown variance and controlled variance, we'll want decision making aspects that are quite situationally based, so the player stills has that sense of weaving their imagination, but they are sure what they'll end up doing until they get up to the decision. Also, this theme supports having cards that evolve in some way over time or build up together, in that they give a sense of progression toward some possibilities. DFCs are good for filling such a role.
DISCOVERY
Connection to start: One of our starting points
What it means in flavor: With a world steeped in mystery and imagination, much discovery is the inevitable result.
What it means in gameplay: Also in relation to the mystery theme (it's important that these themes can work together), discovery in gameplay is going to be about the moment when unknown variance resolves itself and there's a moment of progression in the flow of the game. The journey from the build up around moments of variance to the way game progresses afterwards. Discovery isn't just about the result but the journey, so it will be important then to make sure that there are a series of moments of variance being resolved in progression, allowing the player to go on a unique little path in each game. The Discovery mechanic is good in this way in that it has variance that isn't particularly player controlled, adding the mystery, which takes place over a series of stages.
Mechanic Color Balance
Discovery: primary RG, secondary WUB
Unbound: primary GU, secondary W
Cycling: primary BR, secondary WUG
DFC: primary WB, secondary URG
Archetypes
(W/U) - Control
(W/B) - DFC (minor enchantment theme as a thread, we can have DFC specific enablers as well, possibly cards going to the bottom of the library instead of the graveyard)
(U/B) - Leaves the battlefield theme (death, bounce and flicker)
(U/R) - Large instants/sorceries (different take on U/R mana 's general spells theme)
(B/R) - Cycling (threads can be specific cycling support, cards that like discard and cards that like draw)
(B/G) - Aggro (Tokens, small creatures, swarming)
(R/G) - Discovery (Minor take control of lands)
(R/W) - Small toughness (different take on R/W mana 's general go wide theme)
(W/G) - +1/+1 counters (because it fits the themes of set and is a good way of making use of some of the mechanics)
(G/U) - Unbound
World Factions
The Ashna RW: Sun worshipers found on the first layer of Pyurlea. Being the closest faction to the sun heart of the plane has given them an obsession with the power it can give them. They have built great pyramid temples to perform rituals closer to the sun. Their cities are found between the canopies, surrounded by planes of leaves. Primarily a human based faction, including leonin and loxodon.
The Emori GU: Scientists and advocates of the evolution of Pyurlea, found on the second layer. Most of the Emori spend their days tapping into the mana that coalesces under the first layer and forming it into physical objects. Most of the more abstract races on Pyurlea start their life here. They build their cities into the stems of great plants close to the bottom of the leaves on the first layer while being able to tap into the mana that passes down through the stem of the plants. Primarily a elf based faction, including faerie and trolls.
The Oltac WB: An empire of kings and emperors, found of the third layer. A large proportion of the Oltac are slaves or hired mercenaries, the real Oltac are mostly dead but death hasn't stopped them from ruling the empire they created. The leaders of the Oltac long ago gave up their mortal bodies to rule their empire forever. Select few join their ranks now, as many younger members of the Oltac now indulge themselves in the riches of their ancestors. The Oltac empire stretches throughout the whole of the third layer, made up of rope bridges connecting the various cities which have become sprawling metropolises built into everything from the trunks of great trees to the sides of mountains. Primarily a spirit based faction, including vampires and hags (with thrulls and humans making up the bulk of the "false" Oltac).
The Yaados UR: A militaristic faction seeking to make their mark on the plane, found on the fourth layer. Having only recently reached a point where the other factions consider them a reasonable force, the Yaados are keen to prove that they can be just as powerful, if not more so, that the others. Building great metal cities and militarising most of their members is just the start. The mystics of the Yaados have recently mastered turning the mana that runs through the stems of the plants into elementals to serve them and are looking for more ways to exploit this newfound power. Primarily a lizardfolk based faction, including djinn and weirds (these are rare, the Yaados preach purity and have purged most of the other races from their faction. Only those who prove useful survive).
The Xibal BG: A large swarm, found on the fifth layer. Where as the Oltac might preach the survival of the individual the Xibal focus on the progress of the whole. With a hive mind based society every action of the Xibal takes into account how it influences the rest of the swarm. On closer inspection however the whole swarm however is merely an extension of its empress and her broodlords, making it closer to the Oltacs views than most would think. The Xibal build their hives in the roots of the great plants of the plane, surrounded by the foliage that has died and fallen down from other layers. One mans waste is another mans treasure. Primarily a insect based faction, including thallids and treefolk (the thallids and treefolk are often scavengers who have integrated into the Xibal hive mind).
Unbound (This creature untaps during each player's untap step.)
Cycling
Basic landcycling
DFC (Including DFC lands and DFC that change card types)
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I found myself saying “too good” quite a bit. What I mean by that, is the card will warp limited play and accelerate games, and make people feel cheated. All of which is fine if you don’t want to make a realistic set.
Omen Watcher – Ultracrappy for the white one-drop. Should be blue. Or even better colorless especially in a set with cycling.
Parvia Guardian – It’s only the second card, so I could be mistaken, but I’m guessing there’s some tap enablers, which probably makes this too good in limited.
Sunlight Apothecary – Seems like “Discovery” is going to be Domain 99% of the time. Speaking of, an ability word would be a better way to do to implement Discovery imo. As an outsider to the set, I view it as gimmicky-Domain-wishes-it-was-as-cool-as-Devotion. On top of that, it doesn’t read properly in English.
Heatproof Hawk – It would be nice to see a W cycle cost and this is the perfect candidate for it.
Discovery – When Sunlight Missionary enters the battlefield, you gain 1 life for each different land you control.
Battle Companion – A set with Unbound could/should do without Vigilance. The card is pushed anyways and would still be more than fine without Vigilance.
Temple Guard – There’s power creep and then there’s power leap. This is the latter. Way too good for common.
Bearer of Light – Power creep. And superfluous untapping in a set already rife with Unbound. Boring. Need more variety at common to reduce linear limited games. Where’s your vanilla creature?
Dispersing Light – imo there should be tension between a card’s primary cost:effect and it’s cycling cost:effect. I don’t sense that here. The smart play is to cycle every time and it’s worth the wait. The casting cost should be 1W and the cycling cost 3W. Or even better, increase it to 5W and have it give protection to all creatures you control. In a land-centric set like this, you’re going to need some common mana sinks anyways.
Avoid Conflict – This should cost W, especially if you increase Dispersing Light’s cost to 1W.
Minor Noble – This is WAY too good for common. 3WW: create a Suntail Hawk each of your turns? No way. It’s a cool card, but has uncommon written all over it.
Everliving Vitality – Too strong for common.
Guardian of the Sands – no power or toughness
Mystical Seer – This is much better than you may realize.
Coastal Traveler - Nimble Innovator with Unbound. Why?
Yaados Decoy – Problem: for 4UU, I can return Yaados Decoy and two other target creatures to hand.
Skyborn Djinn – I think, in general, it would be best if most of your commons with Unbound have toughness 2 or less. The fact that they have Vigilance is good enough, they shouldn’t also be resilient.
Blood Leech – The life gain may be too much. I would snatch as many of these up in draft as I could.
Dark Bargainer – Why would anyone ever cycle this?
Deathrite Familiar – I like this card but “equal to your Discovery” still makes me wince every time I read it (and I’ve been reading it for weeks/months). Linguistically, it’s an ugly baby.
Hive Mercenary – four point lifeswing can’t be countered draw a card? Too good.
Xibal Vermin – Typo. And wow, very powerful.
Draining Essence – No. Not at common. Completely format warping in limited.
Cemetery Horror – This is fine, but note that 7 (over 1/3) of the black commons are creature destruction. There should only be 2 or 3.
Yaados Militant – More of a personal criticism here rather than a technical one… I’d be disappointed as an aggro drafter for my haste granter to cost 3 mana.
Conquering Warlord – This is uncommon. Commons have to pay for their pump, they don’t get it for free. Also, they don’t get cool names like “Conquering Warlord”.
Solar Elemental – Now this is an interesting use of Discovery. You should tap into this design space a lot more.
Seige Commander, Ashna Piker, Sonic Elemental – You may want to reconfigure a couple of these bodies. Red only needs one Hill Giant at common.
Magma Caller – This is a proper place for double red mana symbols in the casting cost. It seems too “smart” for common and should maybe be uncommon.
Sun Scorch – This should cost 5 or 6 to cycle.
Trailblaze – land cycling would make for some good flavor here.
Sun Seer – Have you played with or against transform? This is too good. Too easy.
A number of the commons that have been listed here have already been altered or replaced over the past few days.
Ouch. Harsh.
Yea, we pointed out yesterday that Parvia Guardian is way too good. Even without tap enablers.
Discovery was originally proposed as merely being a threshold mechanic. I thought that was too limited, so I suggested it be more like Devotion. In the end, it has ended up being a variety of this at once, but it's more like devotion 75% of the time. Sometimes it is like Domain, but in the majority of cases it is like Devotion. In a few cases, it is used as psuedo-landfall.
I don't really understand why you think Discovery doesn't read properly in english or looks funny. Seems okay to me.
I agree that I found the choice to make a vigilance card odd given the existence of Unbound, since Unbound is basically Vigilance +.
Originally this was 2/2 for 2W. It had to be moved up in the skeleton because another card replaced its slot. Would the older version have been too good as well?
It did bother me that the costs were identical.
It's 3/3, like the others in the cycle. I simply glitched and didn't add it.
I did sort of feel like this is one small step away from being a blue Serra Angel at common.
Good observation. That is overkill (literally).
Funny enough, this was the use of Discovery that was most complained about by Secret and the card was scrapped yesterday. The concern was that it's a "lame duck" in later turns, and Secret suggested removing any other cards that use Discovery this way (which I resisted - I have a number of uncommon designs using it as psuedo-landfall that I quite like).
No playtest that I know of yet. I plan to do so soon unless I do Castes of Bant first - oh, or Lords of Ravnica commons... too few weekends!
---
Just chiming in as the local critic of discovery:
What does "sometimes its like domain, but in the majority of cases it is like Devotion" even mean?
Okay, outside of the context of this set how often do you use the construct "have discovery" over "make a discovery"? That's - beside the mechanical concerns - I pushed for discover to be a keyword action and using a different term here - in my own design file (that still contains a variant of discover as well) the mechanic is called territory based on the expansion connotation having many lands has.
Note that my specific concern is that these cards punish you for being efficient in getting discovery early on and hence should be purged from common. Though I also say these should be tested against straight up landfall and predict that they will not be more interesting.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
It means that on the majority of cards it's used on, it works like Devotion that counts lands you control with different names. Only 2ndarily is it on cards as a threshold mechanic. I forgot what domain actually does though, which isn't a threshold mechanic. Discovery is indeed similar to Domain, except it counts lands you control with different names instead of basic land types, which is more versatile.
Neither of the phrases you quote - "have discovery" or "make a discovery" - are how it's been used. Never pops up in the wording of any card, and isn't part of the rules text of the mechanic. So I'm unsure what the objection is to. What it does have a precedent outside the set for, in actual usage, is like devotion, with the phrase "equal to your Discovery" working like "equal to your devotion to (color)".
I do actually think the word Territory fits the flavor better than Discovery though.
But it seems rather late into the process - after us rolling with Discovery for nearly two months and designing something close to a hundred cards (or at the very least, something like 50 cards) with it - for it suddenly to be pushed on us that it's bad. Feels a bit odd, after working as a group under the agreement to use Discovery all this time, for one person to suddenly show back up who wants to redo one of the key mechanics we've been using. That kind of sticks a monkey wrench into the whole consensus and single handedly destroys at least 50 card ideas in the file, not to mention the cards that have been created to enable it.
I'm all for critique, but it's a bit of a bitter pill to suddenly accept one person overthrowing a consensus on a mechanic that four or five other people have been designing cards around in the file for the past month and half or so.
By its very nature, it's going to be weaker than landfall. But part of the design goal was to not do landfall. But we're also talking about like, literally only 4 cards or so that use Discovery as psuedo-landfall, most of which are uncommons. I agreed to removing the one common it was on.
I never liked discovery as much as the rest. I yielded to the majority in the interest of moving forward. And I will stick to both positions (A) discovery is not as good a mechanic as its made out to be and (B) I will make an effort to make the best out of the set regardless of using discovery or not.
I have never claimed a vote in your consensus. You will have to live with differing opinions. And you will always need an advocatus diaboli in any productive discussion, so why not have someone who is not pretending?
Before taking the bitter pill, take this:
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Some of the things that we ended up doing also were doing against my initial skepticism. For example, I originally didn't "vote" for unbound. But I ended up liking it after seeing its potential.
I just think in the case of Discovery, we've gone to far already under the assumption of using it to go back on it. It's Legend's criticism of it that I took especially harshly though - that it doesn't make sense in english? I don't get that.
Part of the appeal of Discovery to me is that it encourages the environment to be one with lots of unique lands. It also happens to fit Commander really well.
However in design mechanics do get created, taken far into design and then get scrapped. The 'forbidden' mechanic is an example of this. I would want to see how it plays out before scrapping it though because as I've said I think it does have a lot of potential. Remember design is fluid and even large, set defining themes can be cut out if it just isn't doing what its needed to do.
Overall I think that the concerns that have been made about a lot of cards are well founded. Some more than others but its defiantly helped a lot. Thanks everyone whose made a contribution to the set in the past couple of days
Grimm - A plane of dreams, nightmares and fairy tales
Would be nice to see the green cards.
Awesome!
Territory is nice except it sounds more like a conquests/empires thing, not something to do with discovery/exploration/imagination.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
@Legends: Could you maybe be persuaded to give criticism on the multiverse page too? Would be greatly appreciated.
The file has been exported automatically with a script. I am aware of plenty of possible improvements, but if you notice anything in particular that should be taken care of rather sooner than later feel free to contact me.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Just saw this. I'd be happy to. Already would have if I'd thought to click the link last time. Just the white for now.
Sun Prison – Basically Duplicant for 3WWW? Since “Sun Prison” doesn’t leave the battlefield when “Prison Elemental” dies. Personally, I’m fine with that, I’m just not sure if that’s your intention.
Card74194 – should say “return that creature card”
Keeper of the Crucible – could be common
Card73354 – seems rather easy to pull off.
Turn 1: Any 1 Drop (Thraben Inspector_.
Turn 2: Raise the Alarm followed with Card73354
Or
Turn 1: 1 Memnite, 2 Ornithopter, Card73354
Card73982 – there’s three Journey to Nowhere’s at uncommon and at least 1 at common plus Suppression Bonds and targeted removal.
Card74437 – there’s two “return enchantment from gy” cards at uncommon
Fate of the Fallen – “each creature that died this turn”
Solemn Offering – There’s this and then the exile version. Nothing inherently wrong with it, just noting.
Defiantly trying to cut down on removal in general.
Grimm - A plane of dreams, nightmares and fairy tales
Is there something better?
Probably the Skeleton.
Grimm - A plane of dreams, nightmares and fairy tales