|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 5:19AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Dec 26, 2007
|
Has anyone considered running a R/W version of this deck.
I was wondering about it given just how strong white's control spells are at the moment, what with Path to Exile, Celestial Purge, Wrath of God, Oblivion Ring etc.
Secondly, what are people's thoughts about running Crucible of Worlds in this deck to make extra use of the Seismic Assault?
Not really, but like VeJi said, Cryptic is the reason to play blue instead of white. But if you try it, please post the results, I'm curious.
The Crucible just doesn't fit in the deck, what would you remove to put it?
Sure, the synergy with Seismic Assault is awesome. But, at least I, can't fit it in.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 5:28AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2009
|
Not really, but like VeJi said, Cryptic is the reason to play blue instead of white. But if you try it, please post the results, I'm curious.
The Crucible just doesn't fit in the deck, what would you remove to put it?
Sure, the synergy with Seismic Assault is awesome. But, at least I, can't fit it in.
The provisional decklist I had was as follows, however I will do some playtesting this evening and see how it does. I played very briefly against a friend last night, but he is fairly new to the game and playing Tier 3 deck. Having said that, I did win with so much left to spare in terms of card advantage and options, and at no time was I left in a position where I couldn't deal with whatever he could have thrown at me:
"R/W Swans"
Lands: 2 x 4 
-
4 x *Mutavault 
4 x *Rugged Prairie 
4 x *Battlefield Forge 
4 x *Ghitu Encampment 
4 x *Mountain 
4 x *Plains 
-
Creatures: 1 x 0 
-
4 x *Swans of Bryn Argyll 
3 x *Figure of Destiny 
3 x *Wall of Reverence 
-
Other Spells: 2 x 6 
3 x *Seismic Assault 
3 x *Crucible of Worlds 
4 x *Pyroclasm 
4 x *Volcanic Fallout 
4 x *Incinerate 
4 x *Path to Exile 
4 x *Oblivion Ring 
-
sideboard
4 x *Celestial Purge 
4 x *Wrath of God 
4 x *Guttural Response 
3 x *Something awesome 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 5:49AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Dec 26, 2007
|
The main difference between the decks is what made UR Swans famous.
Card Advantage.
Your RW seems to have little card advantage, the only draw engine is Swans.
A three color combo of RWU may seem plausible, but RW just doesn't have that CA engine that wins the games. Your RW deck can win a game easily, but not against a tier 1 deck.
Apparently a Swans deck needs to be UR, or you won't have the engine to win.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 6:22AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2009
|
I think I was more aiming at a fairly aggresive R/W control deck and really it should do fairly well even without the swans in it. As such, the swans are more icing on the cake than the fundamental game engine.
My other line of thinking was that Crucible + Seismic gives a fair degree of card advantage in that all lands are a two damage beat stick as well as still keeping your mana curve steady. It also means that you can chump with Ghitu Encampment and Mutavault and then bring the back from the graveyard to fight another day.
Having said that, at the moment this is only theory, but I am meeting up with my play testing group (all vastly better than me) so will give it a whirl there and see how it performs.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 7:42AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
I think I was more aiming at a fairly aggresive R/W control deck and really it should do fairly well even without the swans in it. As such, the swans are more icing on the cake than the fundamental game engine.
My other line of thinking was that Crucible + Seismic gives a fair degree of card advantage in that all lands are a two damage beat stick as well as still keeping your mana curve steady. It also means that you can chump with Ghitu Encampment and Mutavault and then bring the back from the graveyard to fight another day.
Having said that, at the moment this is only theory, but I am meeting up with my play testing group (all vastly better than me) so will give it a whirl there and see how it performs.
You'll need something with all that mana. Hmm... Banefire  .
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 7:45AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2009
|
You'll need something with all that mana. Hmm... Banefire .
Good thinking. If only Fastbond  were in Tenth...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 11:50PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2008
|
When going white. You can think about Wheel of Sun and Moon  (to go infinite with swans + seismic combo) and Pariah  (wins games against red)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2009 - 4:05AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2006
|
Pariah won't stop Banefire from killing your Swans, if that's the combo you were thinking of.
Also, to go infinite, you'd need to run more lands, like 35+
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2009 - 4:09AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2009
|
Pariah won't stop Banefire from killing your Swans, if that's the combo you were thinking of.
Surely no form of damage will kill the Swans...
You need either -1/-1 stuff or Terror et al.
My understanding is that because all of red's creature removal is via damage, Pariah on Swans means they cannot do you any damage, and simply end up decking themselves if they try...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2009 - 4:10AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Banefire's damage can't be prevented.
That being said, Banefire used as removal is kind of a waste. Most decks only run 2 max, too. But I suppose Red would have to resort to that at times.
|
|
|
