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 2025-05-04 04:46:49)
This looks like it could as well as be mono-
. Remember that "scandal" with GDS3 where 
was the "more correct cost" for a Serra Angel instead of 
? (Neldanc Coven) I mean, the question was specifically formed for that answer in that case, but still. It's somewhat of a policy inside WotC.
This is missing the shuffle clause btw.
noncreature -> instant or sorcery, player -> opponent
@dude1818 Interesting, did not know this. Will consider it.
The template for the first ability turned out to be problematic in digital Magic. That doesn't matter here, but if you're trying to be "authentic" you might want to reword it so it's not a static ability, e.g. how Bonds of Mortality works
"enchant creature" -> "enchant creature you control"
@SecretInfiltrator @Sorrow thanks for comments, did not even notice :P
Maybe change to "enchant creature you control"? To negate that?
Straight creature removal in blue?
"You get an experience counter. Scry X, where X is equal to the number of experience counters you have." -> "If you are experienced, scry 1. Then, draw a card."
-> 
, "Counter target spell unless its controller pays 
for each experience counter you have" -> "Return target spell to its owner’s hand. If you are experienced, counter that spell instead."
-> 
, "Exile ~."
I can see how that would fix it, but I don't want this to target players. How about "You may have..."?
I will do the self-exile thing though, that's reasonable.
Ugh, "up to one" is so ugly :(
I note the rebirth fix to this was to allow it to target a player which you can almost always do.
And yeah, this wants to self-exile and could maybe be a little cheaper.
Going by Vengeful Rebirth and Volcanic Vision, this seems somewhat weakish by comparison. Also, since it doesn't exile itself, you can keep recurring two of these with each other. I guess that does make it more powerful, but I don't think that's something you want to encourage. It's a pretty boring play pattern.
added "up to one" as per @Tahazzar's suggestion
You can't cast this card if there are no creatures on the battlefield. If you are the only one with creatures, then you are forced to target one of those.
So maybe go with "~ deals X damage to up to one target creature..." instead?
five -> three
Umbral Rune -> Seal of Verdure
Yeah, rather weak. But every set's gotta have 'em.
I have no logical reason why it isn't called a Seal, so I'll rethink the name.