Not really sure about the legendary enchantment designation. But I'm not sure if enchantment like effects would still be allowed on a land without the enchantment type added, even a legendary land that's the 2nd side of a DFC that costs mana to transform.

In terms of flavor consistency, Portal would be a better word than Gate as well.

Got rid of enchantment designation. Changed type on 2nd side to plane.

Is this still nonetheless illegal by the nature of land standards?

Gate makes for cross-set synergies, which may be good or bad depending on how you use this. I could imagine mechanics revolving around the land type, if you want to get a little more experimental with it, so at that point it's good to have Portal as a land type to fall back on.

What exactly do you mean with "enchantment like effects"? There are cards like Reliquary Tower or Emeria, the Sky Ruin with static or triggered abilities respectively.

Plane is already a card type, btw. Which also inspires: Portal to Elysium.

I do like Gate for the backwards-compatibility. Technically, "Gate Town" is the term for places like Ecstasy in Planescape, with the extra flavor and backstory going on here that the Gate Towns are portals to a respective Plane, and that the gate town has the potential to literally be absorbed into the connected plane.

That has a more specific synergy with Planescape than just "Gate". So I wonder if "Gate matters" mechanics would still count "Gate Town", because if I do use Gates, I'd have some Gate-matters cards.

By "enchantment like effects" I mean static abilities basically. I just was being wary because I know that standards for lands are more stringent than they used to be, when I think of those old legendary lands from the late 90's.

Yes, I am aware that Plane is already a unique card type. I suppose my intuition was to avoid plane cards for this for some reason. I was trying to use "Plane" as a separate, standalone land subtype here instead.

Maybe your route does make more sense, I just am hesitant about the die rolling thing. Planes seem to add a notable extra layer of rules complexity to the nature of the game as such, and that sort of gives me pause, but it is more representative of the scope of Planes in its "Meta" sort of nature, and more backwards-compatible with MTG.

If I were to keep the Gate-Town flavor, I could maybe go a Legendary Land -> Plane route.

I sort of feel the legendary tag here, while flavorful and sort of fitting the fact that the plane itself is one of a kind, is mechanically not inherently necessary/right for what the card itself does per se. But a Gate-Town sort is a legendary land by nature. Going your route of a more general Portal does get rid of that issue, but then doesn't represent the Gate Towns from Planescape, though you can loosely say it represents a portal from Sigil. It's a tradeoff.

I definitely do have flavor-synergy as an important consideration for the set it seems.

Oof. I'm not sure about fair... I think the costs seem right on this. I could be wrong.

But that is certainly harsh. Most decks don't have a way to destroy lands, even after sideboard. One activation from this card means game over to a large swath of decks.

I don't think I'd ever argue that a card shouldn't be printed because it's too harsh. That sounds like a losing argument to me. I'd personally dig around for another mechanic because it would bug my sensibilities. But I totally get why another person would insist on keeping it in.

It definitely has an edge because of the fact that land destruction isn't that common anymore and has inflated costs in contemporary MTG precedent. Though this would probably create a format that incentivizes land destruction or at least it being sideboarded in by people. Modern would have decent options for that.

But it is definitely a powerful effect, more of a card that fits into the power level of Modern than Standard.

I suppose upping the transform cost by would be a slight way to damper that. Strong static abilities of this nature and enchantments with such an effect don't come cheap typically, and getting a land w/mana is a boon on top of that. I don't always like the feeling of simply adding to a card's costs to balance it, but it can help in a basic way.

Oh, now I get the name. If you keep the legendary lands, I strongly suggest adding an epithet e. g. calling the front face Ecstacy, Gate Town.

There are two aspects to static abilities on lands.

• The land shouldn't be just a static ability while undermining the defined purpose of lands in producing mana. You have addressed that by adding a mana ability to both faces, so that's not an issue.
• Lands often lend themselves more to activated abilities as a matter of balance and tracking e. g. you'll get a land that taps to draw a card over aland that just lets you draw a card each upkeep because that way you can easily attach additional costs and make use of the meaningful decision between using the land for mana or effect (e. g. Azcanta, the Sunken Ruin).

One note with regards to tracking is that tapped lands sometimes become "invisible" to players who are used to those lands being "used up". So if you tap Ecstasy, Gate Town to transform it (or later the back face for mana) while the card is grouped with other land cards that creates a chance to forget about an ongoing effect.

The issue should be looked at in playtests. Otherwise the matter seems to be merely a question of balance.

Essentially the static ability is a hard to remove enchantment that doesn't cost you a card, so it should be cost accordingly - more than the effect alone would on an enchantment card.

For reference: Asceticism & Privileged Position.

Yea, or feels more appropriate to me.

For the moment I have the cost at , and changed the names on both sides to Ecstacy, Gate Town and Fields of Elysium.