Planescape: Recent Activity
| Planescape: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Planescape Details |
Recent updates to Planescape: (Generated at 2025-06-22 05:43:21)
| Planescape: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Planescape Details |
Recent updates to Planescape: (Generated at 2025-06-22 05:43:21)
Separated lines to make text formatting look better.
True, that's a fair point.
Thanks for the feedback, I've been needing some sort of feedback about this set idea. I don't think it's as insane of a proposition as it might seem at first. It is ambitious though. I want to map things over as correctly-feeling as possible.
It's a common practice to use a local name for a race that gets represented by a creature type that is more common among other planes. Think of flamekin & cinder; selkie, merrow & triton.
A trick I like to use to cut down on the constant re-use of the race's local name in cardnames is to refer to it only in the flavor text. I wouldn't be too worried about over-use since the amount of races you are featuring will mean none of them will get all that many cards either.
Cost changed to 3W, changed to uncommon.
Cost changed to 3U, changed to uncommon.
Cost changed to 3R, changed to uncommon.
Cost changed to 3G, changed to uncommon.
Cost changed to 3B, changed to uncommon.
The balance of some or most of these does feel pushed for common to me. It was sort of my first attempt to experiment with nonbasic landcycling.
I'm trying to get a feel for how nonbasic landcycling would work out. It strikes me that it should generally cost
or more.
For the moment I'm going to switch all of these to uncommon and add
to the cost. Even that might still be pushed in this case if we're comparing to Gravedigger, as it's still strictly better.
They are pretty much the planescape equivalent of Centaurs. But I'm trying to use planescape specific races here as consistently as possible. I could call them Centaurs as a type and Bariaur as part of the cardname, I suppose, though that would cause there to be a lot of cards with "Bariaur" right in the name, unlike every other planescape race used here.
They are different but related, at times opposed races though, with Githyanki being associated with evil and the lich queen, and with Githzerai being associated with Zerthimon. But that is a possibility, to collapse them into one.
They are similar. Resonant is the one that you can do more interesting things with, and in a choice between the two I'd keep Resonant. Prismatic seems like something I'd likely use relatively rarely as a non-keyworded ability on a handful of cards, like the effect on Transguild Courier (which almost begs to be a reprint here).
So far I'm getting the feeling as well that Prismatic would be hard to use as a mechanic in all colors and at common, without flavor fails.
I'm still getting a feel for what the mechanics are going to be here. Aside from nonbasic landcycling I'm scratching my head about what to do with "land matters" without giving in to the temptatation to simply port Discovery over to this. It'd be too simple to do that.
Explore seems like an intuitive possibility to use as a returning land-matters mechanic.
Another possibility I'm kicking around is if Devoid would actually fit into this set, particularly representing the Modrons and the more neutral artifact side of the equation, but that also clashes with the multicolor-matters thing, unless I could work it within the set into a dominant tension between the two (Multicolor vs. Colorless).
Grave Digger is not a bad card. Already able to recur further copies of itself that card is uncommon material. Making it cheaper and adding cycling doesn't really fit it any better to common.
>"Prismatic - (This card is all colors at all times.)
Resonant - (This spell's colors are the colors of mana spent to cast it.)"
These two mechanics seem redundant.
If akki and boggarts are Goblins, these should be Centaurs.