I can't find if there's a place to post general discussion about the set? I really like this set, is it sad that I'd rather play this than the current sets? I really like the mechanics of this set and sound exciting to play around with. And some of the cards are really unique and seem to be a large departure to the stagnant norm in actual sets.

The only question I have right now is have you thought about "test for lands" being anything other than 2? I would like to see an X card at least, and maybe some being either 3 or 4. It seems cool to have some only 2 and some be 4 possibly and just leave it at that? Maybe uncommons could have test: 3 or 4 and commons could have just 2 or something.

The "test" mechanic is actually I'm really excited about. It's so simple yet easily fixes a small problem in alot of sets. Alot of sets don't have a really good ability for small and / or useless creatures that can help in such a beneficial way. Would be awesome in this set or in an expansion for a card that says "T: target card in grave yard has test: X" or all sorts of fun things.

Can't wait for there to be an entire card list and some of us get together and find some way to get to playtesting.

Comments about the whole cardset can be posted here. It's linked from the cardset main page under the title "Cardset comments (4) | Add a comment on this cardset". SFletcher has replied to you there :)

... I wonder what the 'test' mechanic used to be.

I keep reading this card's text box as Ancient Spring. It isn't quite: it sacs for or , not . More excitingly, though, this can give you mana when you're tapped out, for when you really need that surprise Erase.

right, this is interesting variant on Ancient Spring. this can be sacced for mana the turn it enters play. a poor man's lotus petal. or later on sacced for UW or UB as you said. or keep it as an island as long as you like.