Reveillark with Mystic Snake

IgnisFatuus · Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 90

This deck took first place at Oregon Regionals.

4 Adarkar Wastes
2 Calciform Pools
3 Faerie Conclave
2 Mutavault
4 Reflecting Pool
2 Snow-Covered Island
4 Snow-Covered Plains
1 Vivid Creek

4 Aven Riftwatcher
4 Mulldrifter
3 Mystic Snake
4 Reveillark
3 Sower of Temptation
2 Venser, Shaper Savant

3 Cryptic Command
3 Mind Stone
3 Momentary Blink
1 Prismatic Lens
4 Rune Snag
4 Wrath of God

I just wanted to get people's thought's on the deck. I like the idea of it, but I think there are a few glaring holes in the mana. First of all, the deck only runs 22 lands. I played a few games, and I often could not hit 4 mana. The other thing is that their are exactly 2 ways to cast Mystic Snake: Prismatic Lens and Vivid Creek (and yes you can use reflecting pool, but you still have to have the Vivid land to do that). I could never cast it.

So, I don't think this deck makes Mystic Snake work, but is it a good idea at all? Or should we just stick with the traditional build?

snoopster · Joined: 04 Dec 2004 Posts: 731 Location: nj

there's no way that deck won regionals if it has only two green sources for three green cards....

IgnisFatuus · Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 90

That's what you would think, but I just got it off the Wizards website:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/regionals08/portland

TugaChampion · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 403

luck>skill

TheRedWizard · Joined: 01 Sep 2004 Posts: 142

More than likely, the TC misrecorded the info and put mystic gates as mystic snakes. That would bring his land count up to 25 and make alot more sense.

boeda · Joined: 21 Dec 2007 Posts: 25

I just played against a similar build only with primal command, blue-green-white cairn lands and Finks..
It didnt have any mana problems but on the other hand it didnt win either...

I do like the idea though, maybe with some cuts and adds it can become as solid as Rev or Quick 'n toast. I think Careful Consideration and a 4th command should replace the stones and lens, and probably a WoG or 2 less...

What about the sb?

boeda · Joined: 21 Dec 2007 Posts: 25

bouncyer wrote:

'More than likely, the TC misrecorded the info and put mystic gates as mystic snakes. That would bring his land count up to 25 and make alot more sense.'

I think you are right! Funny thing people immediately copy this deck and try to make something out of it!

Delicious · Joined: 08 Jun 2007 Posts: 550

haha, wow, that's awesome

it makes this post not valid anymore.

but i would love to see a deck with mystic snake in it. but how would you get rid of lark to counter something?

skilla420 · Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 258

i think that there are better, more powerful options than mystic snake. A good card yes, but it can't beat the traditional build i'm pretty sure.
Looks like it could be fun though.

shawn0003 · Joined: 05 Sep 2004 Posts: 56

i've played both decks. the mystic snake version first. and then U/w lark. the mystic snake version can be a little less consistent obv, and gets hurt by magus if he resolves. the lark version is way more consistent and plays a lot better.

so....

Lark > mystic snake lark

although it is kool to blink a lark counter a spell and draw to cards.

gypsy · Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Posts: 904

venser > mystic snake anyway

skilla420 · Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 258