Districts of Kestner: Recent Activity
| Districts of Kestner: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Districts of Kestner |
Recent updates to Districts of Kestner: (Generated at 2025-05-03 00:23:35)
Destroy -> "Polymorph"
Wha... you didn't know about Fissure? That's some crazy coincidencing! It's like you did a mashup of two cards without even knowing the first one existed...
Yeah that makes more sense for red. If I change the name I could use that effect as well.
> In terms of color pie, I found two recent mythic red spells that can kill creatures - Indomitable Creativity and Descent of the Dragons.
Red explicitly gets "Baleful Polymorph" now i. e. it gets to destroy creatures if (and that's hard requirement here) it "turns them into something else". The first card printed under this new paradigm was IIRC Divergent Transformations.
Transforming the creature into absence of a creature or a worthless pile of ash does not qualify.
In terms of color pie, I found two recent mythic red spells that can kill creatures - Indomitable Creativity and Descent of the Dragons. In terms of power, the precedent I was inspired by was Fiery Confluence which can kill an artifact and deal 4 damage to each opponent for a similar price.
I hadn't actually realized that Fissure existed so thanks for that reference. I do know that this isn't a big splashy mythic - a better name and/or flavor should help with that - and I realize that destroy isn't usually in red's color pie. Perhaps I should change it to direct damage instead.
Mythicness - eh... there's a whole tranche of players who like big explosions. This would need a better name (referencing a known character - which; ugh; means chadra the dull and uninteresting) and really really nice shiny artwork. But that could be ok.
Mono-black would get this with a single word change: Destroy -> Sacrifice.
But yeah, this is out of pie since they started enforcing a pie.
So the obvious fix is to give it a really big number instead of destroy. That both appeases the pie somewhat, and also puts a really large number on the card, making the michael-bay psychographic even happier.
And sure, it's a win combo with Stuffy Doll. That's probably fine.
Sometimes, I think even WotC confuses 'powerful' with 'interesting'.
Not only is this not (and never was) in color pie, it's not a very interesting mythic. Rare, maybe, if it was BR
It doesn't. In fact, the damage that red deals to creatures is often hindered before it hits really big numbers since that tends to be the same result as 'destroy target creature' (there are obvious exceptions.)
Based on the name of this card, it looks like Onygox is referencing the classic card Fissure from The Dark, and reprinted in 4th edition. Interesting that he/she decided to make the card cheaper and give a bonus ability, even if this is mythic (though, Fissure is an instant.) It's not how I would do things, but I figure the choices made were deliberate and knowing.
Does mono-red get outright kill spells? If not, why make this color-pie break?
That's where Training Grounds come in. :)
There is no correct answer to the tie, I suppose. It's a fairly arbitrary decision thematically whether a tie means both creatures are under cover or neither is. I say, let the discussion be tabled until the mechanic actually gets tested - if there are game play issues with either version it's fine to have the options.
That then has the opposite problem; that it's trivial for an opponent to remove under-cover from the game completely. Most decks are happy to run a few 1-power utility or early creatures.
This creature is actually almost useful as an under-cover enabler; sionce you can use it on itself to then turn itself on.
Except, um, it costs 5 to use and so using it three times in a turn is pretty much imposisble.
It should definitely say "if CARDNAME has the lowest power" because if an opponents smallest creature has the same power as your smallest creature, your creature shouldn't get the undercover bonus because it's not really under it's opponents. If both of the tied creatures had an under cover bonus at the same time that would be a bit silly.
Under cover sounds like one of those keywords that is printed in italic with the ability description after it. Similar to Delirium, Revolt or Metalcraft. Example
:target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.
Under Cover - If CARDNAME has the lowest power on the battlefield, that creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn instead.
@Vitenka @SecretInfiltrator absolutely I agree, thanks for the suggestions.
Agreed with Vitenka. For this kind of card it would be really cool to have a larger power on the card itself, but a condition of "if a creature you control is under cover" - the creative treatment could be of a clandestine mobster who controls a network of operatives.
This seems like a good use for "under cover"; do more when you need it.
Except.. it is also on a creature-body that completely enables it. Which is the whole problem with the mechanic; really - you need there to be a larger range of power numbers for it to operate on.
-> 
, 1/1 -> 1/3
-> 
deck -> library