yeah, we really dropped the ball on Lark, but in retrospect it's easy to see why it's so good: If you don't kill it, it beats your face in, but if you do kill it, its friends mess up your board position and then beat your face in. Putting your opponent in a lose-lose situation is a good move.
Swans, on the other hand- If you don't kill it, it beats your face in; but if you do kill it, it... dies.
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.
So then it's safe to assume you play NO control what so ever? because I mean I run elf aggro with the ABILITY to win turn 4, do you know how often I win turn 4? Done it twice, and if there would have been a shriekmaw or terror or counter in the mix it wouldn't have happened. I mean really, how about we also say every card with out casting cost of 3 or less is a card you will NEVER get out because you'll already be dead.
Oh also think about this, There's a red deck... right now.... that's actually a competitive deck.... it's called red deck wins. Now let's see, so we take out one simple card that isn't amazing in that deck and replace it with gas that has excellent synergy with the entire deck in it's self and now all of a sudden the deck is horrible????
Yea I also know Elf/Warrior aggro plays stuff like......i dunno...eyeblight's ending? The Swans will die before the Sulf Blast can even be played. Heck you can Thoughtseize the Swans if you really wanna get funny.
The same goes for Swans.dec. Elves can get disrupted but when you expect to play Swans and then Sulf Blast one turn after the other, don't expect that not to get stopped.
I'm not saying one will beat the other I'm saying that basically because you take out a good card that doesn't mean you beat the deck, I deal with pithing needle on garruk all the time and guess what I have left? An elf deck with out a garruk, ok then I can still pull off a win. RDW with out Swans is RDW it can still win just having the swans would help.
Also here's other red cards in T2 that swans is good with
Incinerate
Rift Bolt
Shock
Tarfire
Pyroclasm
Sulfurous Blast
Basically almost every card in the deck. It's a good card because it goes so well with other cards. Do you really think reveillark would be good in a deck where all your creatures are 3+ power?
Take away Garruk from Elf aggro and you still have a Tier 1 deck. Take away Swans from RDW and you have...a fairly bad Tier 2 deck.
There's a reason why decks like Elf Aggro, Warrior Aggro, Reveillark, and Faeries are good. It's because if you take out one card the rest of the deck is still extremely good. I really can't say the same thing for Burn, mostly because you run out of resources too quickly.
This is like the argument I had with people saying new Sygg was going to be amazing in Burn.dec. It really just won't work.
Idk it could be some random cards I'm pulling here... and I know crazy CRAZY idea
Ping lands
Gemstone mines
Basic duals
RDW is already a Tier 2 deck but it's still competitive and infact I mean really you don't even have to say it's RDW if you have a tier 2 deck that you play and you put something in to make it a tier 1 then if they take care of it it's back to where you started it doesn't mean don't run the card. I mean because I completely take out reviellark doesn't make reveillark horrible all of a sudden does it? And the deck is even NAMED after it so you can't really say "gee it's not really that important"
So wait wait wait, you're declaring that a card is bad because you feel a certain deck that it would go well in.... is bad... That's like saying the food you eat is krud because what it was cooked in just doesn't look all that great.
Um yeah cards can be defined by their format....like Shadowmage Infiltrator wasn't as good because of Psychatog in Odyssey (if this isn't true I wasn't around back then but this is what I've heard)
Plus the card is just bad overall. Seriously, its like saying the new Sygg is good. Its a card that is already outclassed as a finisher. and its ability is already outclassed by Reveillark.
Plus the card is just bad overall. Seriously, its like saying the new Sygg is good. Its a card that is already outclassed as a finisher. and its ability is already outclassed by Reveillark.
Ok, dude, enough is enough. We've listened to you rant about how bad the Swans are for seven pages. You don't like the card? FINE. You are free to not like it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. HOWEVER. Your entitlement to your opinion stops when you attempt to force your opinion down other people's throat. If we want to use Swans, what harm will it do to you? Why do you care?! If I want to use Sygg (who is actually really amazing), will it hurt you any? Seriously, this thread has overstayed its welcome.
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.
Sure dude whatever. And for a good 4 pages I wasn't even here so it was just 4 pages of ppl bashing my opinions. People see card draw and oogle at it. remember this when you see this card in the Jank rare pile
Ok Red deck wins isn't the ENTIRE format, and frankly a card that combos with any card that deals damage to a creature which is dominated by red which is also the color that usually runs out of gas the fastest and has almost no card draw isn't anywhere near terrible at all when you consider it gives it something it needs. It may not be Tarmogoyf but it's not like it's Scornful Egotist
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.
Yet the existence of readily available hate did force NarcoBridge out of the format, and that had a much stronger case (i.e. the combo pieces it ran WON THE GAME).
It's not the case that every combo deck crumbles to something like Extirpate, but if your deck is resilient enough to win without the marquee card, is it really the marquee card?
Yet the existence of readily available hate did force NarcoBridge out of the format, and that had a much stronger case (i.e. the combo pieces it ran WON THE GAME).
It's not the case that every combo deck crumbles to something like Extirpate, but if your deck is resilient enough to win without the marquee card, is it really the marquee card?
-E
...I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me?
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.
Ok, so if Reveillark can win by beating down with Cloudskates and Mulldrifters and doesn't need to combo off, is it really a Reveillark combo deck, or is it a Blink tempo deck that happens to have a combo?
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.
Ok, so if Reveillark can win by beating down with Cloudskates and Mulldrifters and doesn't need to combo off, is it really a Reveillark combo deck, or is it a Blink tempo deck that happens to have a combo?
It's the latter (it's always been the latter). The template for Reveillark was built on the backs of recursive decks like Blink and Proclamartyr. The idea of generating CA in white by getting utility out of creatures with CIP abilities is only enhanced by Reveillark, but Reveillark itself did not mark the invention the concept.
The difference here is that Reveillark runs in parallel with what the deck wants to do anyway. It just helps tremendously that it's there. It's like having a cheap red card that says "Deal 3 damage to target creature or player" in a red deck that wants to play very efficient threats and reduce the opponent's life total to 0 as fast as possible. Without that card, the deck can probably win, if the rest of the deck is strong, but it's enhanced by being there.
By contrast, in a deck with the strategy "play very efficient threats and reduce the opponent's life total to 0 as fast as possible" is not very well served by a card that says "Gain 3 life or prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to you this turn". Sure, the card doesn't hurt the strategy overall but it also doesn't really help.
To bring it back to the current deck idea - look at the (non-janky) proposed decks - Counter Burn, R/W Burn. Counter Burn wants to neutralize the opponent's threats by playing a counter strategy and burn out the opponent with the format's most efficient burn spells. That means that every card in the deck has to support that baseline strategy. In that deck, Swans essentially distracts from the main purpose, because it causes you to divert your direct damage from the opponent to it, with what ultimate goal? To draw more cards to do what you could have done from the start(: burn to the face)?
The same is pretty much true with the RW concept; the card itself is still running counter to what the deck wants to do. It's basically a big pit stop that you do to get more cards, when it would be much more efficient to run sources of card advantage that also line up with the deck's ultimate goals (or that are more consistent or that don't offer your opponent easy avenues for abuse or that don't open you up for a 2-for-1...).
The same is pretty much true with the RW concept; the card itself is still running counter to what the deck wants to do. It's basically a big pit stop that you do to get more cards, when it would be much more efficient to run sources of card advantage that also line up with the deck's ultimate goals (or that are more consistent or that don't offer your opponent easy avenues for abuse or that don't open you up for a 2-for-1...).
-E
I understand where you're coming from and what you're talking about, but I think the whole point is that red doesn't have any card advantage on it's own (except Browbeat, which is bad). The idea is that you have a 4/3 flyer that can help getting the opponent's life total to zero and you can throw one burn spell at it to get a couple more. I'm not saying it's a good strategy, but burn has a reputation for running out of gas.
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.
I understand where you're coming from and what you're talking about, but I think the whole point is that red doesn't have any card advantage on it's own (except Browbeat, which is bad). The idea is that you have a 4/3 flyer that can help getting the opponent's life total to zero and you can throw one burn spell at it to get a couple more. I'm not saying it's a good strategy, but burn has a reputation for running out of gas.
True but that's what the blue brings to a counter-burn deck, and there are a lot better/more reliable ways to generate CA than this card given its drawbacks.
RW is a harder sell as a deck idea, but I could buy that RW as a color combo could use the card more than UR.
I tested my Swans deck against RDW tonight and ended up winning before I could get burned every time. I have found it essential to put counters in when playing this deck, though...usually when a Swan hits the table (especially with Pyrohemia or Razormane in play), the game is over in a couple turns. The deck is URW.
If the white shroud enchantment is real, it will be a perfect sideboard card.
Swans can definitely become a janky card in the wrong hands, but it is a very easy card to build a strong deck around. And it is hard to kill.
Also, when planning combo decks, it is important to remember that Extirpate still exists, so the deck needs to be strong enough to stand after the worst (an exed Swan).
I really don't care about it at all. If I get one, I WILL trade it off to my brother or someone. But yes, the arguement about stuff dying to removal is pathetic, but against me it's a somewhat strong point. Yeah this card seems meh to me, but I'm not the sort of guy who cares that much about card advantage unless I'm running some stupid pyromancer's swath deck. So swans=$2 value to me, but I'm not stupid and I know I'm quite likely to be able to get more value out of it than $2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
With all, put the same thing except with / in front of what type of tags they are (like [/card]) to close them.
Card: [card]
Hybrid: :symub: = order doesn't matter
Oh yeah...Idyllic Tutor...that should probably go in there too.
So yeah, it does kinda just slide right in there. A 5-color deck in standard, with double and/or triple costs all up in it's bootay, is completely and totally viable right now. Just pick your poison with painlands and it's all golden.
I like its chances with that new RRR for 4 damage spell.
(if it's real)
Contradictory?
I personally don't really like Swan's chances in RDW, because with Corrupt back (not targeting Swans, of course) and a whole slew of amazing black removal at it's disposal MBC can really hurt and will probably be played for a while in the beginning (until people realize that MBC's "I have terrible draws against control and sometimes even aggro" curse from wa-hay back in the day will come back to haunt it, but maybe Beseech the Queen will get there for the deck, you never know). RDW likes to stick to creatures that can be played quickly or creatures with haste and I don't really think that will change one bit. The Swans combo deck, however, I think has true potential to really work (especially in Extended if they don't decide to ban it before the last season w/Onslaught rotates out). That Chain of Plasma combo is sickeningly good.
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?
Swans + Seismic Assault=draw lots until I hit salvage then win with Salvage.
Swans vs. Counterspell: Shusher (in Seismic's colors)
Swans vs. Extirpate: avoid casting unless you can win then against anything black (not too hard unless they're MBA or B/R aggro with boarded in Pate, nothing else puts up enough pressure).
Swans vs. Extirpate + discard so your Swans hits the yard: It dies to the rest of the aggro-driven format because it's playing discard =P
Swans, on the other hand- If you don't kill it, it beats your face in; but if you do kill it, it... dies.
So then it's safe to assume you play NO control what so ever? because I mean I run elf aggro with the ABILITY to win turn 4, do you know how often I win turn 4? Done it twice, and if there would have been a shriekmaw or terror or counter in the mix it wouldn't have happened. I mean really, how about we also say every card with out casting cost of 3 or less is a card you will NEVER get out because you'll already be dead.
Oh also think about this, There's a red deck... right now.... that's actually a competitive deck.... it's called red deck wins. Now let's see, so we take out one simple card that isn't amazing in that deck and replace it with gas that has excellent synergy with the entire deck in it's self and now all of a sudden the deck is horrible????
If you want a sig as awesome as this, here's the place to get it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=182339
The same goes for Swans.dec. Elves can get disrupted but when you expect to play Swans and then Sulf Blast one turn after the other, don't expect that not to get stopped.
Also here's other red cards in T2 that swans is good with
Incinerate
Rift Bolt
Shock
Tarfire
Pyroclasm
Sulfurous Blast
Basically almost every card in the deck. It's a good card because it goes so well with other cards. Do you really think reveillark would be good in a deck where all your creatures are 3+ power?
If you want a sig as awesome as this, here's the place to get it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=182339
There's a reason why decks like Elf Aggro, Warrior Aggro, Reveillark, and Faeries are good. It's because if you take out one card the rest of the deck is still extremely good. I really can't say the same thing for Burn, mostly because you run out of resources too quickly.
This is like the argument I had with people saying new Sygg was going to be amazing in Burn.dec. It really just won't work.
Ping lands
Gemstone mines
Basic duals
RDW is already a Tier 2 deck but it's still competitive and infact I mean really you don't even have to say it's RDW if you have a tier 2 deck that you play and you put something in to make it a tier 1 then if they take care of it it's back to where you started it doesn't mean don't run the card. I mean because I completely take out reviellark doesn't make reveillark horrible all of a sudden does it? And the deck is even NAMED after it so you can't really say "gee it's not really that important"
If you want a sig as awesome as this, here's the place to get it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=182339
and RDW is really red deck loses.
(if it's real)
So wait wait wait, you're declaring that a card is bad because you feel a certain deck that it would go well in.... is bad... That's like saying the food you eat is krud because what it was cooked in just doesn't look all that great.
If you want a sig as awesome as this, here's the place to get it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=182339
Plus the card is just bad overall. Seriously, its like saying the new Sygg is good. Its a card that is already outclassed as a finisher. and its ability is already outclassed by Reveillark.
Ok, dude, enough is enough. We've listened to you rant about how bad the Swans are for seven pages. You don't like the card? FINE. You are free to not like it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. HOWEVER. Your entitlement to your opinion stops when you attempt to force your opinion down other people's throat. If we want to use Swans, what harm will it do to you? Why do you care?! If I want to use Sygg (who is actually really amazing), will it hurt you any? Seriously, this thread has overstayed its welcome.
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.
If you want a sig as awesome as this, here's the place to get it: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=182339
Yet the existence of readily available hate did force NarcoBridge out of the format, and that had a much stronger case (i.e. the combo pieces it ran WON THE GAME).
It's not the case that every combo deck crumbles to something like Extirpate, but if your deck is resilient enough to win without the marquee card, is it really the marquee card?
-E
...I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me?
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.
If I told you, would you even know how to respond?
-E
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.
It's the latter (it's always been the latter). The template for Reveillark was built on the backs of recursive decks like Blink and Proclamartyr. The idea of generating CA in white by getting utility out of creatures with CIP abilities is only enhanced by Reveillark, but Reveillark itself did not mark the invention the concept.
The difference here is that Reveillark runs in parallel with what the deck wants to do anyway. It just helps tremendously that it's there. It's like having a cheap red card that says "Deal 3 damage to target creature or player" in a red deck that wants to play very efficient threats and reduce the opponent's life total to 0 as fast as possible. Without that card, the deck can probably win, if the rest of the deck is strong, but it's enhanced by being there.
By contrast, in a deck with the strategy "play very efficient threats and reduce the opponent's life total to 0 as fast as possible" is not very well served by a card that says "Gain 3 life or prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to you this turn". Sure, the card doesn't hurt the strategy overall but it also doesn't really help.
To bring it back to the current deck idea - look at the (non-janky) proposed decks - Counter Burn, R/W Burn. Counter Burn wants to neutralize the opponent's threats by playing a counter strategy and burn out the opponent with the format's most efficient burn spells. That means that every card in the deck has to support that baseline strategy. In that deck, Swans essentially distracts from the main purpose, because it causes you to divert your direct damage from the opponent to it, with what ultimate goal? To draw more cards to do what you could have done from the start(: burn to the face)?
The same is pretty much true with the RW concept; the card itself is still running counter to what the deck wants to do. It's basically a big pit stop that you do to get more cards, when it would be much more efficient to run sources of card advantage that also line up with the deck's ultimate goals (or that are more consistent or that don't offer your opponent easy avenues for abuse or that don't open you up for a 2-for-1...).
-E
I understand where you're coming from and what you're talking about, but I think the whole point is that red doesn't have any card advantage on it's own (except Browbeat, which is bad). The idea is that you have a 4/3 flyer that can help getting the opponent's life total to zero and you can throw one burn spell at it to get a couple more. I'm not saying it's a good strategy, but burn has a reputation for running out of gas.
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.
True but that's what the blue brings to a counter-burn deck, and there are a lot better/more reliable ways to generate CA than this card given its drawbacks.
RW is a harder sell as a deck idea, but I could buy that RW as a color combo could use the card more than UR.
-E
If the white shroud enchantment is real, it will be a perfect sideboard card.
Swans can definitely become a janky card in the wrong hands, but it is a very easy card to build a strong deck around. And it is hard to kill.
Also, when planning combo decks, it is important to remember that Extirpate still exists, so the deck needs to be strong enough to stand after the worst (an exed Swan).
Card: [card]
Hybrid: :symub: = order doesn't matter
Spoiler: [spoiler]
Deck: [deck]
Ancient Amphitheater (desperation)
Using Green (cuz you just know you love Glittering Wish to fetch Swans with a tasty wish package including Husher, Teeg & friends)
Fertile Ground
Horizon Canopy
Brushland
Grove of the Bornwillows
Karplusan Forest
Oh yeah...Idyllic Tutor...that should probably go in there too.
So yeah, it does kinda just slide right in there. A 5-color deck in standard, with double and/or triple costs all up in it's bootay, is completely and totally viable right now. Just pick your poison with painlands and it's all golden.
Contradictory?
I personally don't really like Swan's chances in RDW, because with Corrupt back (not targeting Swans, of course) and a whole slew of amazing black removal at it's disposal MBC can really hurt and will probably be played for a while in the beginning (until people realize that MBC's "I have terrible draws against control and sometimes even aggro" curse from wa-hay back in the day will come back to haunt it, but maybe Beseech the Queen will get there for the deck, you never know). RDW likes to stick to creatures that can be played quickly or creatures with haste and I don't really think that will change one bit. The Swans combo deck, however, I think has true potential to really work (especially in Extended if they don't decide to ban it before the last season w/Onslaught rotates out). That Chain of Plasma combo is sickeningly good.
Swans + Seismic Assault=draw lots until I hit salvage then win with Salvage.
Swans vs. Counterspell: Shusher (in Seismic's colors)
Swans vs. Extirpate: avoid casting unless you can win then against anything black (not too hard unless they're MBA or B/R aggro with boarded in Pate, nothing else puts up enough pressure).
Swans vs. Extirpate + discard so your Swans hits the yard: It dies to the rest of the aggro-driven format because it's playing discard =P
"A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer."
"I love you guys, thanks for comin' to my special."
- Mitch Hedburg (1968-2005)
We love you too Mitch, we love you too.
"Girls are like Voltron: the more you stick together, the better it gets." SE