I use the Priest to also target in a similar fashion and believe I've eluded to a few of the same points made here. As an example, if that's the only option I have, I will play priest into an empty board but as I said above, it feels awful doing so (and would rather it be a better card for this decks purpose - I believe this was something you mentioned before - when I'm holding it, would I rather this be a different card. It's that specific analogy that lead me to the suggestion of reducing 1).

The comment that 'he's not just a removal spell' is the point I want to mention. If we use any card in any deck solely for the purpose it was put in for (unless the card is narrow and only has that one function), than we lose versatility/flexibility. We constantly have to change/adapt to our opponent, their deck archetype, game state, board state etc and the more we do, the more chances we have to be successful. In doing so you can change the value of a card based on the way you play it. Having said that, the purpose to include Priest in the first place is a removal spell and that's where it gains its most value. Given a hand with choices, I'd assume we'd both be holding the priest for a target and playing other options to the board. Then playing priest when he gains that value. I hope I haven't come across as saying that's the only value it has or implied that's the only way I'm using him. It's just his best use.

I get that you include 3 of them to improve the frequency in which you see 1 of them but it's the games where they keep showing up that become the basis for my suggested change. Back to your in hand test and the number of spins I've had with this deck, there are enough cases that came up where I was 'boy I wish this was X card instead of Banisher Priest'.

elk

I agree that he's bad at times, and I certainly don't want a three-mana 2/2 in my deck on stats alone.

With that said, since this deck is loading up on threats and buffs, the amount of slots we can spend on removal is extremely limited. This is why I play Banisher Priest. He hits whatever you need him to and he has the minor upside of being a body in case you don't need the removal (as I eluded to, above).

I think the deck would like to see one Priest in pretty much every game, though, so I think three is correct. It's the second copy that is usually groan-inducing but you have to deal with that in order to draw that first copy more consistently.

Sounds like there's lots of agreement and high fives going on here

It seems we're both saying frequency is the reason to include 3 and why I was relenting on Mentor before. I don't think Mentor is another card you want to see too frequently in this deck but I implied before that 2 mentors; in my opinion, equals the potential of 1 additional copy (or frequency) of any card I need in the deck. It can be dangerous since the mentor may not get on line/ create draw or not show up in time to keep tempo (especially since Mentor's value; in this deck, increases late game instead of on curve) but it feels better than the additional draws of Priest. Not to mention that Mentor ends up drawing into multiple copies of Priest more frequently when you have 3 (groan-inducing is a great description! I totally can hear it too now that you're a youtuber. In fact I'm looking forward to hearing it - haha).

Ultimately it's not a huge downside either way and only suggested it since I've been spinning this deck a lot over the past couple weeks and think it can tighten the value you get out of the deck. I'll chalk it up to personal preference?

elk

ok I'm going to be testing this deck in the next hour. I really think that Sigil Paladin dude is going to be wicked expensive for two white. I'm going to get caught with my pants down tapped out with God's willing in hand. Anyway, let's see how she rolls...

Ok here goes the testing with Hakeem's recently posted list. I'm going to miss the assaults

Game one . Win vs mono green. Sigel paladin is a monster defender.
Game two . Win vs GW lifegain. Wrecking ogre wins this one after keeping a two plains opening hand. Sigel paladin's exalted actually helped
Game three . Win vs radios. Hard casting an ogre with ordeal was huge. As was god's willing this game.
Game four . Win vs orz lifegain. Sigel paladin, hero, dragon, god's willing, that's game.
Game five . Loss VA GWUR he got out two obelisks and an anger of the gods. The deck is much slower to kill now so it's tough against decks that can set up.
Game six . Win vs naya tokens. Wings on rabblemaster with gods willing to help. Didn't even need the ogre this time.
Game seven . Win vs white agro. Turn two Sigel paladin, turn three hero and Caracas. Turn four ordeals on hero and sigil. Turn four wins on hero. God's willing dodges reprisals all day long. Love the versatility of this deck.
Game eight . Win Vs white agro. I played this smart. Had rabblemaster but against white I need the skies and need to kill fast. So truefire into wings and then just pumped until I could bloodrush an ogre. He was coming strong with paragon, Sigel paladin and hero with tons of gods willing, but I kept to the skies
Game nine . Loss vs asorzious control. Ugh, so boring. Got planar cleansed with baneslayer and dragon on table. He then plays baneslayer but I got a priest saved up. That buys me time and then I start drawing land like I'm lex Luther
Game ten ' win vs BGW I think. Deck came out really well. Hero into brizmas into mentor and Caracas, into ordeal and wins with tons of gods willing to boot.

So 8-2, can I stop testing now?
Hey guess what? I don't miss the assaults at all. But I think they would have sped things up maybe for a few games'

How about Armored Ascension vs. Inferno Titan and Hoplite vs. Caracal? How did you find Sigiled Paladin overall?

S.paladin was nice. Good defender if you are sailing a single exalted flier over.

I prefer titan to armored ascension, that's for sure.

I prefer hoplite to Caracas cuz of all the targeted stuff. It gets early board advantage

I've been playing the deck lately and I have to disagree with you both because Caracal has been amazing for me. He's good to enchant on T2 but now curving Caracal into Paladin then swing for two lifelink just increases his consistency. The downside is that he stays in Shock range a turn longer than Hoplite would, but the better mana and the lifegain offset that to me. Hoplite is explosive, Caracal is reliable, plus the cat just wins aggro mirrors because he basically Fogs the opponent.

Sigiled Paladin is just a ridiculous two-drop, as well. The deck used to struggle in that department because there were only five, so upgrading to eight is huge, IMO. The exalted triggers aren't critical or anything, but they've proven useful to me in a lot of instances.

My only real thought is whether I should keep the singleton Ascension or swap it out for the Titan.

Also, elk was right about Ordeal of Heliod. The card is great here.

I think this is where we agree to disagree.

Hoplite just has been a much better fit in this list as far as I'm concerned (than Caracal). It's better pressure/output, it synergizes with the deck theme better, it gets out of range faster (and not just shock), it's a much better late game draw, it takes less investment to make it a threat and it's easier to rebuild after things like bounce. The upside of the lifegain and curving into paladin just doesn't seem to compare imo (I'd rather have the output difference over the lifegain).

Having eight 2 mana drops with Paladin is nice but I don't feel that I've had many issues with early plays not being available (please also consider we're not talking the standard +/-10 game run scenario. We're talking 2 weeks of play both day and/or night - going back to Jan 15th). Now I am basing this off of impression versus data but typically you see/feel the holes in a deck and look to address (i.e. noticing lack of plays on specific turns or unused/wasted mana etc.) I'm also considering that if you lump in the 1 mana creature, factor in tap lands and that the deck focuses on triggers and auras, the first 1-3 turns are usually quite busy and maximized (to the point where I believe having 3 more bodies with a prohibitive cost wouldn't be game changing). I also mentioned before that I found the cost can be an issue for turn 2; although much better at 16 sources, and will admit that further skewing the mana helps setup T3 for double white. I do concede that additional board presence has more merit but I think I'm just fine with Coordinated Assault being substituted for these bodies (I'll bank on the combat trick winning blocks so instead of increasing the deck's body count, I'll be considering this as removing theirs). Assault is great in this format and even better in this deck and I just can't see it being excluded from this mix. In fact, I'd start tossing other options before giving this one up (even keeping the Caracal and Paladin, I'd want the Assault to find it's way in here still).


For reference sake, I did keep the Caracal and Paladin in play tonight and will do so over the next night or so for further testing. Maybe I just haven't spun it enough to see what you're seeing.

elk

I got some solid testing in this morning with this deck (about 15-20 games) and I really am liking the switch back. I'm not sure the deck is better the way I have it now, but I definitely do like to play it more because the lifelink really helps race against aggro. A Caracal with a Wings on it creates a 4-point life swing while a Hoplite would only create a 3-point swing. The Hoplite kills faster, but the cat keeps me alive longer and lets me swing with impunity because I don't have to block.

I also really like the exalted triggers when attacking with a flier and having a first-strike defender on the ground if I need one. The extra Plains enabling Armored Ascension has been a bomb, I'm already thinking about second copy somewhere.

This is why I liked Favor (the vigilance aspect) and found it so important. The more vigilance in the deck, the more you could beat down without concern. I can see lifegain being the offset to that (although aren't we only talking 2-3hp per turn? Is that enough to offset aggro? Is the Ordeal trigger not enough to make the race difficult for them to win?)


Agreed. It can make some guys real bosses or make another threat. Having the lands skewed farther to plains helps ensure you don't end up with a Boros Guildgate and 3 Mountains in play when this card comes up.

elk

I'm making a new post for this deck because I've featured it on YouTube and I want to be able to link to it from there. The table will reflect any changes made after the recording of the deck tech.

Awww I was hoping to hear some thoughts/discussions during the deck tech or game 1. Maybe some 'filler' chat on some of the other card considerations when waiting for your opponent to make some decisions?

elk

I totally forgot, I was playing with my new microphone for a long time last night and recorded those two videos in a hurry (it was after midnight).

I'll mention the alternative option of Satyr Wayfinder and your results when I finally start with a T1 Caracal.

Sorry!

Don't be sorry! No worries!

Ya know I was just looking to hear the rambling story of how I'd been pestering and bugging the crap out of you over card choices.

"Man that elk guy just kept going on and on about this and that...what a bonehead!"

On to the deck aspect, I'm not sure why I hadn't considered it before and you had mentioned wanting 2 drops, why not Goblin Shortcutter? It would add another layer of pushing damage through (similar to Banisher Priest) and would allow you transition back to the Satyr Hoplite start (obviously dropping Caracal and Paladin).

elk

I think Goblin Shortcutter is the tipping point where Boros Heroic actually just becomes Boros aggro. Not that that's a bad thing, but once you're there then it becomes a question of how much land to cut and how many Goblin Arsonists to squeeze in. I'm not really big on flavor or theme when it comes to deck construction, but that doesn't mean I eschew it entirely.

Likely the first update I will be making once us 360 people finally get the new cards.



So the difference between this and my previous build would be:

-1 Threaten
-1 Resounding Thunder
-1 Hellspark Elemental

+3 Young Pyromancer.

I assume the change is going to be beneficial overall. It lowers the spell count a bit, but we are still at 24 spells, which should still be enough to make sure that Kiln Fiend, Guttersnipe, and Young Pyromancer are consistently being activated each turn (potentially multiple times). It ups the creature count in the deck which is definitely nice. Another 2 power creature for 2 is decent here on its own, and the added upside of the triggers makes it bonkers.

I could honestly probably even go down to 20 mana to squeeze in the 3rd Hellspark Elemental, but I want to see how things play out in practice before I try that. Another option would be to maybe drop the Swift Justice count down to 2 to squeeze him in.

I'm thinking of dropping to 20 land in my Izzet deck one Pyromancer hits, so let me know how your testing goes. I may just straight swap him in for Hellspark in my list, not sure if you considered that. I'm also thinking of cutting back on Banefire or cutting it completely if I go to 20 land but we'll see how it goes.

but Banefire wins me games with your Izzet!

Just theory-crafting, don't get your panties in a knot!