wait, what? for five mana reveillark is a better drop? how so? beause it brings back your little guys? with swans + chain of plasma, you can draw all your little guys, your lands, and everything else needed to kill an opponent. reveillark just brings weenies back from the grave for more mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RIP Polar Bear God
Friend, artist, magic player, but most of all, Polar Bear God. We'll miss you, buddy
For the record I'm on the 'Swans is good' boat, but I gotta say it-
How in four pages have none of the 'Swans is bad' guys not pointed out that it's being released in a set that revolves around -1/-1 counters, an effective way to kill off a creature that avoids direct damage to it?
More to the point, this is just another reason why no one can firmly say it's good nor bad until we've actually seen it played in the environment it is gonna exist in. We don't know what post-Moore standard will be like, all we can do is judge cards based on their potential, and Swans is a card that's loaded with potential.
Will Swans be format defining? Maybe, maybe not. But is it a card we should be excited about based on what we know so far? Abso-freaking-lutely. Anyone prepared to bash this card at this point in time is just looking to stir the proverbial ****, but those trying to defend it need simply point out that the card has the potential to be format breaking, and that should be enough to validate the excitement.
[/two cents]
it's a good point, one I've already considered. this thing is also being released in a set where the whit creatures get HUGE. (well, white and green...) so yeah, it's an interesting thing to consider, but if we're looking at its power in the set, I think the +1/+1s and -1/-1s balance out pretty nicely. and again, U/W is filled with ways to save their guys, as well as stop the threat before it even touches the creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RIP Polar Bear God
Friend, artist, magic player, but most of all, Polar Bear God. We'll miss you, buddy
They are an efficient Finisher as is, hard to remove in red, hard to kill in combat. They are everything Thieving Magpies wanted to be and more.
It is also brilliant in this set, because having a solid playable card like this one makes Whither so much more playable as a mechanic. I applaude Wizards for this card.
I dont think the card is awful, but i might cry if my oponent had a skred or two, this card can create insane card advantage for your oponent too, no one ever seems to mention that, though i do like the card and think it is probobly as good as people say
I agree. I personally don't play anything but lands in my decks, because almost everything else is hosed by Cancel.
Your point about the Swans is even more true, though, since blue and white have absolutely no way to protect creatures against removal. Thus, the Swans are particularly awful.
This, this is the best post ever.
Anyway, I rather like the Swans. I think they're pretty neato sideboard tech against a monored burn/aggro. They have absolutely no way to kill it, and if you can establish board dominance it's pretty unstoppable.
I'm fairly sure Chain of Plasma + Swans works as well as people think, but there's some weird rules intricacies that I had to work through in order to confirm it for myself.
Swans will trigger during the resolution of Chain, and that trigger will go in a "waiting hut" until a player would receive priority. Before a player gets priority though, Chain copies itself, putting a new copy on the stack. Now, before the chain copy resolves, the Swans trigger finally gets its chance to go on the stack, and since its on top of the Chain copy, it will resolve before the copy. Thus you will get to draw before you are asked to discard again, allowing you to go through your entire deck and put most of it in your hand.
Anyway, I rather like the Swans. I think they're pretty neato sideboard tech against a monored burn/aggro. They have absolutely no way to kill it, and if you can establish board dominance it's pretty unstoppable.
Personally, I'd never play a Swans against a burn deck. It would be a drawing machine for your opponent. I'd even side it out, if it was maindeck.
And they can kill it. Don't forget that Shadowmoor has a strong -1/-1 counters theme, so they'll most likely have playable -1/-1 counter cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from parinoid »
I rolled 5 D6's and got 3 fours. They must have changed the odds of getting a 4!
Anyway, I rather like the Swans. I think they're pretty neato sideboard tech against a monored burn/aggro. They have absolutely no way to kill it, and if you can establish board dominance it's pretty unstoppable.
im sorry, but if they're playing burn against swans, you cant gain board domanance, not when you turn every burn spell int ancestrial recall, id say the oposite, md the swans and board them out againt burn
I'll say it again, Swans are a strong playable card with good synergies and good upsides.
It is however not a format defining card, it's 4 mana, and not insanely overpowered.
It is DEFINITELY playable, it is DEFINITELY strong, but it is not broken like some people are claiming.
I think Swans is basically suffering the same level of scrutiny that a lot of early spoiled Johnny cards go through. The last one that I can remember getting attention like this was Galepowder Mage, which lots of people insisted would be the backbone of some Neo-Blink deck which never came to fruition (which reminds me - whatever happened to Forced Fruition.dec, which was going to burn up the tournament scene?).
It's really a product of an early card having a quirky ability and some potential/obvious synergy. But obvious synergy isn't necessarily enough to carry the backbone of a deck- it still has to work with other cards that share the same synergy, or give other cards in the deck its synergy (an enchantment that gave all creatures you control the Swan ability would definitely be more viable, for instance).
I'm fairly sure Chain of Plasma + Swans works as well as people think, but there's some weird rules intricacies that I had to work through in order to confirm it for myself.
Swans will trigger during the resolution of Chain, and that trigger will go in a "waiting hut" until a player would receive priority. Before a player gets priority though, Chain copies itself, putting a new copy on the stack. Now, before the chain copy resolves, the Swans trigger finally gets its chance to go on the stack, and since its on top of the Chain copy, it will resolve before the copy. Thus you will get to draw before you are asked to discard again, allowing you to go through your entire deck and put most of it in your hand.
Swans of Bryn Argoll has a replacement effect. Instead of the damage being dealt, the Swans' controller draws that many cards at the very moment when the damage would be dealt (during the resolution of Chain of Plasma). Then the Chain trigger goes on the stack (actually, does it? or do you choose whether or not to discard during resolution?)
Give me another card that turns my sulfurous blast into a sulf blast and an ancestral recall that's T2 legal and is less than 4 mana then I'll be happy to agree. I mean sure it's not the next Tarmogoyf but it's still amazing for decks that run outta gas
Go ahead and play that Sulf blast on T5. You'll be dead before then =D.
Thank you Enslaught for pointing out how people overhype cards pre-release and then once it gets out they never get mentioned again.
If you want an efficient beater with a good ability in U/W just play Godhead of Awe.
And there's plenty of cases of under-hype that turns out wrong as well.
As a general rule of thumb if you care about not making an ass out of yourself its best to not make strong assertions either way about a card's quality until you've done serious testing once you've seen the FULL format.
My group has done tests with the swan and it shows promise, but the fact is it is still a HUGE double edged sword. You almost always get the advantage, but it will take some massive tinkering to make swan.dec a reality.
Since no one seems to pushing on the subject, burn/counter is a good archtype for the swan, as it not only allows you to turn your burn into draw cards but to control the various outcomes that could result from your opponent being able to achieve the same bonus from your swans.
Swans of Bryn Argoll has a replacement effect. Instead of the damage being dealt, the Swans' controller draws that many cards at the very moment when the damage would be dealt (during the resolution of Chain of Plasma). Then the Chain trigger goes on the stack (actually, does it? or do you choose whether or not to discard during resolution?)
First, the Chain tries to deal three damage to the Swans, but the Swans prevent the damage and you draw three cards (it's not quite clear, but I think there's supposed to be an "instead" in there- I'm pretty sure it's a replacement effect, not a triggered ability). Then the Chain continues resolving and you have the chance to discard a card to copy it. The awful combo... functions...
If you want an efficient beater with a good ability in U/W just play Godhead of Awe.
Thank you! That card is so good! It's the best UW finisher I've seen in a while, and it has the potential to make a WU control deck viable. The important thing about it is that it not only is an evasive threat, but it shuts down the opponent's attack. It's practically Angel of Despair.
Swans on the other hand are a key to a really bad combo deck that can't go off before turn 4. And that's on the good draw. And without the swans the deck is nigh pointless.
Go ahead and lay your swans down on turn 4. Faerie decks will counter it and then do the last points of damage on turn 5. Aggro will beat you down before you can go off. Dragonstorm was a good combo deck. This, on the other hand, sucks. Period
Yep, because you know, against a Faerie deck, I wouldn't play anything on turn two or turn three (see Flier Shotgun). That's just bad playing, putting stuff down early. I know I only rely on a single four-casting cost card with 56 lands and try to win with it. Who needs anything else?
And also the reason D-storm was good was because it went off consistently early. And if it didn't it had a Plan B aka play Hellkite. What does this deck do besides play Seismic or Swans? Try and win with a 4/3 flyer. I dare you
You're saying a four-drop is too slow... but an eight-drop isn't slow? You've got to remember that the Swans would be played in a deck like U/R Counter-Burn or W/R Burn-Control. The Swans is just an efficient beater that can net you some cards off your efficientburn.
Dragonstorm was a combo deck that won the game the turn it went off. It suffered suboptimal cards in the deck to increase consistency in winning the game with the right setup.
That's why you don't run the Swans merely as a combo deck. Yeah, there are people who are only looking at decks like Swans+Seismic Assault, but that's bad deck building. The card should be seen as I illustrated above.
By contrast, the strategy of "Swans + Random Burn" isn't a combo. It's synergistic, I suppose, but designing a deck around it is a little silly at this point. It would be a lot more consistent for U/R burn to play more card draw than it would be to hold a hand full of Skreds and Shivan Meteors and Lightning Axes for the potential CA bonanza you'd get if you draw a Swan and it stays on the board.
You don't run crap burn like Shivan Meteor and Lightning Axe. Skred is good removal in a snow deck, and you also have stuff like I said above.
None of that even gets into the symmetric nature of the card. Turning every blocker or burn spell your opponents have into an Ancestral Recall (remember, opponents play cards too?) isn't a smart strategy. Last I checked, Sibilant Spirit wasn't too good. You might say no one blocks in constructed but I'll gladly throw a blocker in the way of a card that'll net me draws just for not taking damage from it.
It's a good thing he has flying. Yes, this is his biggest drawback, that if you block, your chumped off dude replaces himself, but that's why my deck will utilize him more than yours. Sibilant Spirit also cost six for a body that didn't fit the cost+drawback. The Swans come down earlier, bring flying beats, and can net you a lot more cards than your opponent when played right. End of turn, Incinerate you, Tarfire my Swans to get two cards, Shard Volley you.
This kinda reminds me of the Skred/Stuffy Doll stuff that ultimately went no where. There's a whole host of cards that would generate a tremendous advantage based on their synergy, but ultimately that synergy needs to be redundant (i.e. multiple cards like Swans that convert your burn suite into card advantage) or it needs to outright win the game. Swans does neither.
Stuffy Doll didn't do nearly as much on his own. Swans can at least attack. A ping a turn is weak, but the chance of pushing four damage a turn is much better.
On top of all this, burn is really only played a... wait for it... burn deck. Most other decks run spot removal like Nameless Inversion and Eyeblights Ending. Go ahead, spot removal this guy, I have other good creatures. Or go ahead and spot removal another good creature, I've got a flier. He's an efficient creature with an ability with a lot of potential. Yes, he could turn out to be total crap, I haven't tested him, but just from looking at him, I think he's pretty good. -Jack
Flash is an awful card
It's card disadvantage to let you play a creature at instant speed... Whoopdeedoo. Yes, I know it's played in an awful two card combo that wins the game when you play it...but since when is a two card combo playable.
In standard swans is pretty suboptimal, but in extended, you can run 2 swans combos, easily.
You have tutours that fetch swans, chains, drakmoor salvage, or Pact of negation
The deck goldfishes as fast or faster than enduring ideal or TEPS, is difficult to disrupt (thanks to it's instant speed nature and it's ability to avoid using the graveyard as a win condition). There's many ways to run it... I'm a fan of throwing the draco explosion combo in, just for giggles. It acts as a win condition, lets you win when you draw your deck (you can make your library just draco and some land), and... just to really upset the thread creator, you can hit your swans for 16 damage
*edit- Except Reveillark's ability is about ten times better than Swans'. Which makes it a much better card to play in...I dunno an U/W control midrange deck. Too bad there's not one of those around. O wait. Reveillark already has one!
This won't see play. in standard. Period
I have no idea about extended. I started playing Planar Chaos.
That's why you don't run the Swans merely as a combo deck. Yeah, there are people who are only looking at decks like Swans+Seismic Assault, but that's bad deck building.
Okay, but ultimately whatever deck you build has to have some focus other than "Get Swans out". Swans are 4 cards in a 60 card deck. You're not going to see them every game, which means that the deck has to already be consistent without them. Given what they add to such a deck and the risk it poses because of its symmetry, why would you run it over some other source of card advantage like Mulldrifter?
Yes, this is his biggest drawback, that if you block, your chumped off dude replaces himself, but that's why my deck will utilize him more than yours.
But this is a pretty significant drawback. A card would have to have an amazing ability to justify what's essentially a printed ability: "When ~this~ becomes blocked by a creature, that creature's controller draws cards equal to that creature's power."
Sibilant Spirit also cost six for a body that didn't fit the cost+drawback.
The drawback specifically giving potential massive card advantage to the opponent? You don't see the parallel?
The Swans come down earlier, bring flying beats, and can net you a lot more cards than your opponent when played right. End of turn, Incinerate you, Tarfire my Swans to get two cards, Shard Volley you.
It's evasiveness is a plus but honestly, it's bad strategy to be aiming burn spells that could be targetted at an opponent at a creature you control.
It's like people advocating this card have an amazing 3 step plan:
1. Draw cards.
2. ???
3. Profit!
It's basically a recitation of theory ("Drawing cards wins games. Drawing cards wins games.") without any understanding. You have to be drawing INTO something, the deck has to have some ultimate point. If it's to burn the opponent out, why are you relying on another card to get you more burn cards? Any meta that has sufficient overload of burn to support a burn strategy doesn't need this card, and any meta that needs this card doesn't have enough burn in it anyway.
Stuffy Doll didn't do nearly as much on his own. Swans can at least attack. A ping a turn is weak, but the chance of pushing four damage a turn is much better.
Stuffy Doll was at least advancing the player playing it towards winning the game by dealing damage.
On top of all this, burn is really only played a... wait for it... burn deck.
Except again, this creature invites blocks like no other creature I've ever seen. If its only weakness was specifically to burn, then it might have a case. But anything that flies is basically inviting an X-for-1, where X is that creature's power.
Most other decks run spot removal like Nameless Inversion and Eyeblights Ending.
I don't understand this argument - Nameless Inversion and Eyeblight's Ending are two cards that are heavily played that will outright kill this card, and this is a point the card's favor?
Go ahead, spot removal this guy, I have other good creatures.
You're going to have to give me a decklist or something. Are you playing counter-burn or are you playing aggro? How many creatures are you running if you're playing counter-burn that make this guy redundant?
Or go ahead and spot removal another good creature, I've got a flier. He's an efficient creature with an ability with a lot of potential. Yes, he could turn out to be total crap, I haven't tested him, but just from looking at him, I think he's pretty good. -Jack
Lots of people are playing fliers these days too, man. This turns Bitterblossom into Phyrexian Arena... Which is the best thing I've ever heard (too bad it's for the opponent). Chump blocking with a faerie becomes a much easier choice to make if you know it's going to net you 1-3 cards.
I haven't tested it either but it's not passing the smell test for me.
You're saying a four-drop is too slow... but an eight-drop isn't slow?
not when you insta-win with it
You've got to remember that the Swans would be played in a deck like U/R Counter-Burn or W/R Burn-Control. The Swans is just an efficient beater that can net you some cards off your efficient burn.
Finally something that is theoretically playable.
On top of all this, burn is really only played a... wait for it... burn deck.
which is heavily played these days
Most other decks run spot removal like Nameless Inversion and Eyeblights Ending. Go ahead, spot removal this guy, I have other good creatures.
1) other good creatures takes card slots. You can't just play as many threats/finishers as you like in a mid-range/controllish deck.
2) they gain tempo for killing Swans on the cheap.
I don't know why people seem to think this card is durable. It's not. It's expensive and dies to everything, and the only time your opponent can't kill it, they draw their deck and kill you.
to those that think this card sux, maybe you should read the reveillark confirmation and discussion page, its very funny. basicly people said the card sucked lets move on. sure a couple of people liked it, but most bashed it for its unplayability, lol. u/r swan deck bad against faeries?what?! lol. last i heard u/r plays burn; i beleive burn gives faeries a hard time. but that u/R deck will probably lose to faeries, lol. according to this guy we should all just put a bunch of removal in a deck and call it a day since all creatures in magic can be delt with. actually i agree, creatures are so overated. lol. omg, mutavault is bad too becouse it dies to everything and i could lose a land also. better throw away those tree top villages so i don't get 2 for 1ed. lol.hmm...better not put enchantments or artifacts either. would hate for a disenchant/ob ring/krosan grip/naturalize to be played. no i don't want a 4/3 flyer for 4 with an ABUSABLE drawback. thats just silly. better play it safe and just not do anything on my turn. In fact i shouldn't play anything since every card besides quagnoth can be thoughtseized. thats it! quagnoth and dodecopod deck here i go. that deck will be format defining.
maybe you should look at a few combo based legacy/vintage decklists. there are a lot of bad cards that are being used. look at protean hulk. thats a bad card, but what if we combine it with flash? but thats a bad idea becouse hulk is bad byitself and flash just flashes things. i think dragonstorm is a bad card too, but you wouldn't know that becouse deckcheck.net told you to play it. if its played, it must be a good card. lol, you'll probably play swan if it becomes teir one. then i'll laugh at you, becouse my terror trumps your entire deck. forget the 28 other cards in tthe deck that are burn and counterspells.
actually it will be funny to play against this deck in type 2. lets say this deck becomes teir one. i bring a janky rdw and i have dakmore salvage and seismic assault in sideboard. woot, i combo off my opponent. mirror match will be the stuff of legends, lol.
A)
Player A: I will Incinerate my own Swans
Player B: I will respond by casting Nameless Inversion to kill Swans
Player A: Alright you got your 2 for 1 for 2 mana.
B)
Player A: (On the his/her 3rd/4th turn) Cast Swans and pass the turn.
Player B: Rift Bolt Swans and I will draw 3 cards, which should mean enough burn and threats to beat you down before Swans kills me.
Player A: I think I ran out of counterspells for his burn.
C)
*You are playing a deck with quite a focus on Swans
You are on top deck and you top deck a Swans.
Alright, you got a 4/3 flier for 4 mana but your opponent can top deck a more immediate threat, like Garruk which can outnumber you with beast tokens or a Pestermite that will chump block Swans to draw 2 cards. At that point you need some good luck to draw burn to hit Swans.
*Lets make a direct comparison of a Lark topdeck to a Swans top deck.
Lark can be evoked to generate 2 more threats and net some card advantage or just provide a 4/3 flier that replaces itself against removal.
Swans provides a 4/3 flier that can eat some non-damaging removal and not replace itself. For Swans to match Lark in a top deck situation, you need to somehow have your opponent not draw any answers(which happens) or draw a burn spell to draw lots of cards from Swans
D)
But, say your deck is built for redundancy. So you have plenty of ways to tutor or draw a Swan and lots of burn, along with a win condition. But what happens when your Swan eats a counterspell 4 times or gets Extirpated?
Although there are good situations for Swans, but IMO I think they will be difficult to achieve.
Understand, Dredge is not really a Magic: The Gathering deck. When a card is playable in it, it doesn't mean it's a tournament playable card. It means it's playable in whatever crazy fantasy world that Dredge operates in.
But, say your deck is built for redundancy. So you have plenty of ways to tutor or draw a Swan and lots of burn, along with a win condition. But what happens when your Swan eats a counterspell 4 times or gets Extirpated?
Although there are good situations for Swans, but IMO I think they will be difficult to achieve.
Wow, the "omg ur combo piece could get Extirpated ur dek sux dun play it" argument. You can also Extirpate Reveillark in response to Body Double being played. I haven't seen that stop Reveillark from being played.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo, copy and paste this into your sig.
Hey, you. Yes, you reading this sig. Get off your computer, go find a copy of Skies of Arcadia: Legends and play it. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.
You're going to play this in Burn and what? Draw three cards while your opponent beats you? People keep saying that "o you guys have no point cause you say it dies to removal but there are other creatures which die to the same removal and they get played. this will get played. blah we won't listen"
You guys really don't get the point that decks built around this card, like say Swan Assault, are trash when this thing gets killed. Play it in U/R burn, which is a suboptimal deck without this guy anyway, and then when you play him I can either A) Beat you while you think about how many cards you won't draw cause you're going to be dead next turn B) Kill it, and then beat you while you think about how sad it was that you just lost all that card draw and your T4 play.
And if you wanna play this as a beater sure. I'll make the same deck and put in a better U/W finisher and beat you. There are better options in standard right now.
*Edit- and don't make connections between Reveillark and this card. When Reveillark gets shot with removal it brings back two guys, usually with an added bonus like bounce or card draw. And if you don't kill him he stays as a 4/3 flyer. THIS guy on the other hand is only a 4/3 flyer with a ability that is absolutely useless compared with Reveillark
Friend, artist, magic player, but most of all, Polar Bear God. We'll miss you, buddy
it's a good point, one I've already considered. this thing is also being released in a set where the whit creatures get HUGE. (well, white and green...) so yeah, it's an interesting thing to consider, but if we're looking at its power in the set, I think the +1/+1s and -1/-1s balance out pretty nicely. and again, U/W is filled with ways to save their guys, as well as stop the threat before it even touches the creatures.
Friend, artist, magic player, but most of all, Polar Bear God. We'll miss you, buddy
They are an efficient Finisher as is, hard to remove in red, hard to kill in combat. They are everything Thieving Magpies wanted to be and more.
It is also brilliant in this set, because having a solid playable card like this one makes Whither so much more playable as a mechanic. I applaude Wizards for this card.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpgjnU7C3Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7kkZixasc
This, this is the best post ever.
Anyway, I rather like the Swans. I think they're pretty neato sideboard tech against a monored burn/aggro. They have absolutely no way to kill it, and if you can establish board dominance it's pretty unstoppable.
http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=PTTOK01%5C897fm1 for a player that took Azerbaijan's deck to a Pro Tour.
I'm fairly sure Chain of Plasma + Swans works as well as people think, but there's some weird rules intricacies that I had to work through in order to confirm it for myself.
Swans will trigger during the resolution of Chain, and that trigger will go in a "waiting hut" until a player would receive priority. Before a player gets priority though, Chain copies itself, putting a new copy on the stack. Now, before the chain copy resolves, the Swans trigger finally gets its chance to go on the stack, and since its on top of the Chain copy, it will resolve before the copy. Thus you will get to draw before you are asked to discard again, allowing you to go through your entire deck and put most of it in your hand.
And they can kill it. Don't forget that Shadowmoor has a strong -1/-1 counters theme, so they'll most likely have playable -1/-1 counter cards.
im sorry, but if they're playing burn against swans, you cant gain board domanance, not when you turn every burn spell int ancestrial recall, id say the oposite, md the swans and board them out againt burn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpgjnU7C3Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7kkZixasc
It is however not a format defining card, it's 4 mana, and not insanely overpowered.
It is DEFINITELY playable, it is DEFINITELY strong, but it is not broken like some people are claiming.
It's really a product of an early card having a quirky ability and some potential/obvious synergy. But obvious synergy isn't necessarily enough to carry the backbone of a deck- it still has to work with other cards that share the same synergy, or give other cards in the deck its synergy (an enchantment that gave all creatures you control the Swan ability would definitely be more viable, for instance).
-E
Swans of Bryn Argoll has a replacement effect. Instead of the damage being dealt, the Swans' controller draws that many cards at the very moment when the damage would be dealt (during the resolution of Chain of Plasma). Then the Chain trigger goes on the stack (actually, does it? or do you choose whether or not to discard during resolution?)
If you want a sig as awesome as this, here's the place to get it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=182339
Thank you Enslaught for pointing out how people overhype cards pre-release and then once it gets out they never get mentioned again.
If you want an efficient beater with a good ability in U/W just play Godhead of Awe.
And there's plenty of cases of under-hype that turns out wrong as well.
As a general rule of thumb if you care about not making an ass out of yourself its best to not make strong assertions either way about a card's quality until you've done serious testing once you've seen the FULL format.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Since no one seems to pushing on the subject, burn/counter is a good archtype for the swan, as it not only allows you to turn your burn into draw cards but to control the various outcomes that could result from your opponent being able to achieve the same bonus from your swans.
First, the Chain tries to deal three damage to the Swans, but the Swans prevent the damage and you draw three cards (it's not quite clear, but I think there's supposed to be an "instead" in there- I'm pretty sure it's a replacement effect, not a triggered ability). Then the Chain continues resolving and you have the chance to discard a card to copy it. The awful combo... functions...
Thank you! That card is so good! It's the best UW finisher I've seen in a while, and it has the potential to make a WU control deck viable. The important thing about it is that it not only is an evasive threat, but it shuts down the opponent's attack. It's practically Angel of Despair.
On top of all this, burn is really only played a... wait for it... burn deck. Most other decks run spot removal like Nameless Inversion and Eyeblights Ending. Go ahead, spot removal this guy, I have other good creatures. Or go ahead and spot removal another good creature, I've got a flier. He's an efficient creature with an ability with a lot of potential. Yes, he could turn out to be total crap, I haven't tested him, but just from looking at him, I think he's pretty good. -Jack Yep, because an efficiently costed 4/3 flier is terrible. I know I'd never play a
Want a cool banner like mine?
Go to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Vizzerdrix Count = 183, 3 in Italian, 2 Foil
It's card disadvantage to let you play a creature at instant speed... Whoopdeedoo. Yes, I know it's played in an awful two card combo that wins the game when you play it...but since when is a two card combo playable.
In standard swans is pretty suboptimal, but in extended, you can run 2 swans combos, easily.
You have tutours that fetch swans, chains, drakmoor salvage, or Pact of negation
The deck goldfishes as fast or faster than enduring ideal or TEPS, is difficult to disrupt (thanks to it's instant speed nature and it's ability to avoid using the graveyard as a win condition). There's many ways to run it... I'm a fan of throwing the draco explosion combo in, just for giggles. It acts as a win condition, lets you win when you draw your deck (you can make your library just draco and some land), and... just to really upset the thread creator, you can hit your swans for 16 damage
*edit- Except Reveillark's ability is about ten times better than Swans'. Which makes it a much better card to play in...I dunno an U/W control midrange deck. Too bad there's not one of those around. O wait. Reveillark already has one!
This won't see play. in standard. Period
I have no idea about extended. I started playing Planar Chaos.
Okay, but ultimately whatever deck you build has to have some focus other than "Get Swans out". Swans are 4 cards in a 60 card deck. You're not going to see them every game, which means that the deck has to already be consistent without them. Given what they add to such a deck and the risk it poses because of its symmetry, why would you run it over some other source of card advantage like Mulldrifter?
But this is a pretty significant drawback. A card would have to have an amazing ability to justify what's essentially a printed ability: "When ~this~ becomes blocked by a creature, that creature's controller draws cards equal to that creature's power."
The drawback specifically giving potential massive card advantage to the opponent? You don't see the parallel?
It's evasiveness is a plus but honestly, it's bad strategy to be aiming burn spells that could be targetted at an opponent at a creature you control.
It's like people advocating this card have an amazing 3 step plan:
1. Draw cards.
2. ???
3. Profit!
It's basically a recitation of theory ("Drawing cards wins games. Drawing cards wins games.") without any understanding. You have to be drawing INTO something, the deck has to have some ultimate point. If it's to burn the opponent out, why are you relying on another card to get you more burn cards? Any meta that has sufficient overload of burn to support a burn strategy doesn't need this card, and any meta that needs this card doesn't have enough burn in it anyway.
Stuffy Doll was at least advancing the player playing it towards winning the game by dealing damage.
Except again, this creature invites blocks like no other creature I've ever seen. If its only weakness was specifically to burn, then it might have a case. But anything that flies is basically inviting an X-for-1, where X is that creature's power.
I don't understand this argument - Nameless Inversion and Eyeblight's Ending are two cards that are heavily played that will outright kill this card, and this is a point the card's favor?
You're going to have to give me a decklist or something. Are you playing counter-burn or are you playing aggro? How many creatures are you running if you're playing counter-burn that make this guy redundant?
Lots of people are playing fliers these days too, man. This turns Bitterblossom into Phyrexian Arena... Which is the best thing I've ever heard (too bad it's for the opponent). Chump blocking with a faerie becomes a much easier choice to make if you know it's going to net you 1-3 cards.
I haven't tested it either but it's not passing the smell test for me.
-E
not when you insta-win with it
Finally something that is theoretically playable.
which is heavily played these days
1) other good creatures takes card slots. You can't just play as many threats/finishers as you like in a mid-range/controllish deck.
2) they gain tempo for killing Swans on the cheap.
I don't know why people seem to think this card is durable. It's not. It's expensive and dies to everything, and the only time your opponent can't kill it, they draw their deck and kill you.
maybe you should look at a few combo based legacy/vintage decklists. there are a lot of bad cards that are being used. look at protean hulk. thats a bad card, but what if we combine it with flash? but thats a bad idea becouse hulk is bad byitself and flash just flashes things. i think dragonstorm is a bad card too, but you wouldn't know that becouse deckcheck.net told you to play it. if its played, it must be a good card. lol, you'll probably play swan if it becomes teir one. then i'll laugh at you, becouse my terror trumps your entire deck. forget the 28 other cards in tthe deck that are burn and counterspells.
actually it will be funny to play against this deck in type 2. lets say this deck becomes teir one. i bring a janky rdw and i have dakmore salvage and seismic assault in sideboard. woot, i combo off my opponent. mirror match will be the stuff of legends, lol.
A)
Player A: I will Incinerate my own Swans
Player B: I will respond by casting Nameless Inversion to kill Swans
Player A: Alright you got your 2 for 1 for 2 mana.
B)
Player A: (On the his/her 3rd/4th turn) Cast Swans and pass the turn.
Player B: Rift Bolt Swans and I will draw 3 cards, which should mean enough burn and threats to beat you down before Swans kills me.
Player A: I think I ran out of counterspells for his burn.
C)
*You are playing a deck with quite a focus on Swans
You are on top deck and you top deck a Swans.
Alright, you got a 4/3 flier for 4 mana but your opponent can top deck a more immediate threat, like Garruk which can outnumber you with beast tokens or a Pestermite that will chump block Swans to draw 2 cards. At that point you need some good luck to draw burn to hit Swans.
*Lets make a direct comparison of a Lark topdeck to a Swans top deck.
Lark can be evoked to generate 2 more threats and net some card advantage or just provide a 4/3 flier that replaces itself against removal.
Swans provides a 4/3 flier that can eat some non-damaging removal and not replace itself. For Swans to match Lark in a top deck situation, you need to somehow have your opponent not draw any answers(which happens) or draw a burn spell to draw lots of cards from Swans
D)
But, say your deck is built for redundancy. So you have plenty of ways to tutor or draw a Swan and lots of burn, along with a win condition. But what happens when your Swan eats a counterspell 4 times or gets Extirpated?
Although there are good situations for Swans, but IMO I think they will be difficult to achieve.
Modern:
Something new every week
Legacy:
Something new everyweek
Wow, the "omg ur combo piece could get Extirpated ur dek sux dun play it" argument. You can also Extirpate Reveillark in response to Body Double being played. I haven't seen that stop Reveillark from being played.
Hey, you. Yes, you reading this sig. Get off your computer, go find a copy of Skies of Arcadia: Legends and play it. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.
You guys really don't get the point that decks built around this card, like say Swan Assault, are trash when this thing gets killed. Play it in U/R burn, which is a suboptimal deck without this guy anyway, and then when you play him I can either A) Beat you while you think about how many cards you won't draw cause you're going to be dead next turn B) Kill it, and then beat you while you think about how sad it was that you just lost all that card draw and your T4 play.
And if you wanna play this as a beater sure. I'll make the same deck and put in a better U/W finisher and beat you. There are better options in standard right now.
*Edit- and don't make connections between Reveillark and this card. When Reveillark gets shot with removal it brings back two guys, usually with an added bonus like bounce or card draw. And if you don't kill him he stays as a 4/3 flyer. THIS guy on the other hand is only a 4/3 flyer with a ability that is absolutely useless compared with Reveillark