[Deck] Elves Combo

Not being satisfied with Theorycraft, I took IBA's list into a MTGO Daily Event.

Here's the results:
Round 1 - DDFT (2-1)
Round 2 - TES (1-2)
Round 3 - Mchainmail's Lands (2-0)
Round 4 - Aggro Loam w/ Burning Wish (0-2)

Nothing really that tested the deck for it's special build. I went 50/50 against combo with really fast draws vs their poor draws, and got blown out of the water the other 50%. I beat lands as expected. I lost to Burning Wish -> Devastating Dreams 2 games in a row. :\

One note that I would like to make about GSZ is that is completely ignores Chalice @ 1. This is a really big deal for those games that matter. I also really enjoy using 7 Priest effects because it's very likely possibility that you can untap and cast GSZ for Regal Force, effectively ending the game in 1 or less turns.

I did use a slightly different build than IBA's list. I utilize 16 lands (3 Cradles), and the sideboard contains 3 Cabal Therapy and 3 Thoughtseize (obv vs combo, didn't end up drawing them in my matches however), and 3 Krosan Grip, which I think is a absolutely necessary minimum for this style of deck.

One trick I used against ANT in testing is to board out 1 Heritage Druid, 1 Llanowar Elf, 3 Elvish Archdruid (too slow), and 1 Priest of Titania (ditto). I was able to Wish for elf drops to continue feeding Glimpse triggers, eventually drawing enough Black disruption to Mind Twist my opponent. I'm essentially racing these style of decks to see who will go off faster, except I bring similar disruption that they utilize. Most TES/ANT/DD players don't anticipate this tactic.

I never once felt like I was missing something without Summoner's Pact in the 75. I feel more secure with GSZ being able to tutor them out (and still kind of miss that Glimpse doesn't trigger for them, but oh well).

EDIT: I only used 3 Living Wish however. That never seemed to matter.

You say "I tested IBA's list" and then say "I scrapped a good bit of the wishboard, added three lands, and splashed black." I'm not saying you played a poor list (though you may very well have), but you can't compare your list to IBA's in that sense.

The majority wished of the targets in the wishboard are:
Gaea's Cradle
Emrakul
Viridian Shaman

The rest is just fluff that seems good on paper, but never used situationally. Terastodon was wished for once, against Stax when he has Tabernacle out. The rest of the targets are not needed realistically.

Playing more than 12 lands is a good plan, considering that when you're playing in real situations you will need more than 1 Forest out at any given time.

The black sideboard plan gives you a better matchup against faster combo decks where you would otherwise be cold to. This is a known weak matchup for Combo Elves.

I actually wish for combo pieces and Regal Force very often. Wasteland and Karakas come up a good deal. There's definitely a few slots that aren't very useful, but going down to 6 targets is, I think, a mistake.

I'm also not sure what the MTGO metagame looks like, but if you're both saying that twelve lands is too little, and then adding Bayous, fetchlands and Gaea's Cradle main, it just seems like there's a contradiction somewhere in there. The 12 lands I run are immune to Wastelands and Stifles, making them pretty reliable (although it may certainly be a bit threadbare.) The only nonbasic I would really think about running is a 1-of Dryad Arbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

I became interested in this deck recently. I've actually long dismissed most lists I've seen as being too Glimpse-reliant, but I felt that the 4 Priest/4 Archdruid list David Vo got 4th with recently at Atlanta had a lot of potential. The biggest problem I had with this list was that it didn't run Living Wish.

Living Wish is, put simply, retarded in Elves, and it's not worth any sideboard conversion to not run the card, because any strategy that nukes you is going to do so unless you're allowed to swap out 30-40 cards anyway. But Living Wish means always having a Gaea's Cradle or Emrakul available when you need it and never otherwise, as well as the pieces of the combo and answers to various problems and decks like Bojuka Bog and Phyrexian Revoker. More importantly, with or without a Glimpse you can often cast Emrakul as soon as you hit 15+ mana, which is very easy to do if you don't hit significant creature removal.

Green Sun's Zenith I eventually just built up to a 4-of because it was that good, and at that point I cut Summoner's Pact. The entire point of this list is to be able to win without Glimpse. Glimpse or no Glimpse, this deck will generally kill you on turn 3 about 80% of the time if there's no disruption, and its multiple paths to victory mean that you really need multiple points of disruption to have a good chance. Without Pact, Glimpse can even be used just to set you up on turn 2 or 3 for a next turn kill; first turn Llanowar, second turn Glimpse, Quirion, two other dorks, maybe a Heritage and drop a Priest, pass the turn, is actually a very strong play.

Of course, at the end of the day it is still elves. If someone's running StP, Lightning Bolt, Force, Daze, Counterbalance and Firespout all in the same deck, you're probably not going to win. But against most of the field I think this list is ridiculously strong and fast.

As a last point, I'm running Kamahl over Ezuri since;

1) It's slightly easier to kill people with a moderate amount of mana + Kamahl than with Ezuri, since in the scenario where, say, you have two priests and a Ranger + Kamahl, you can turn your lands into creatures to get additional bodies out there; an important part of optimizing the deck is knowing when to try and combo, and when you should just fucking go and kill them with your dorks,and

2) It's slightly better removal protection; Ezuri is only effective against Firespout, Deed and EE, whereas Kamahl can turn Damnation or Wrath into a gamebreaker by nuking the opponent's mana base. You really don't need much left in hand to take out a dude without lands.

Of course, Ezuri isn't an impediment when Glimpsing off, so I'm not 100% that this is the optimal choice, although Kamahl is much more badass imo.

Anyway, here's the list;

Glimpse-Elves, aka, Lucky Charms;

12 Snow-Covered Forests

4 Glimpse of Nature
4 Living Wish
4 Green Sun's Zenith

3 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Fyndhorn Elves
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Quirion Ranger
1 Wirewood Symbiote
3 Nettle Sentinel
3 Heritage Druid
4 Elvish Visionary
4 Priest of Titania
4 Elvish Archdruid
1 Regal Force
1 Kamahl, Fist of Krosa

sb:

1 Nettle Sentinel
1 Heritage Druid
1 Wirewood Symbiote
1 Regal Force
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Gaea's Cradle
1 Terastadon
1 Bojuka Bog
1 Karakas
1 Wasteland
1 Eternal Witness
1 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Wickerbough Elder
1 Caller of the Claw
1 Viridian Shaman

the SB is slightly less polished; four or five slots are still questionable. Otherwise I've been very pleased with the results I've been getting testing this list.

---

I'm not completely convinced by running the full four Priests over the 4th Nettle, and perhaps the 4th Heritage. I understand you do this to have them as wish targets, but hm. Other than that, Pact is always nice mid-combo, but your point is valid that that isn't the time you really need more cards to win. I'll see if I can play with this list this weekend.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rukcus

The majority wished of the targets in the wishboard are:
Gaea's Cradle
Emrakul
Viridian Shaman

The rest is just fluff that seems good on paper, but never used situationally. Terastodon was wished for once, against Stax when he has Tabernacle out. The rest of the targets are not needed realistically.

Playing more than 12 lands is a good plan, considering that when you're playing in real situations you will need more than 1 Forest out at any given time.

The black sideboard plan gives you a better matchup against faster combo decks where you would otherwise be cold to. This is a known weak matchup for Combo Elves.

---

This is exactly why I was able to fit in the VV's on the list in posted a page ago. Why wouldn't you run them if you have room once the fluff is gone?

K2, we had a discussion about Birchloe vs. titania and what the best T2 play is. We wer interrupted by IBA and part of the following discussion also covered my points.

However, do you have comments to this:

I totally agree with the core of the combo (except for birchlore) :)

Interesting point about birchlore also supporting the aggro clock a lot. I havent considered that yet...I remeber making the play quite often (T1 nettle, T2 couple of elves + pact for achdruid). You can also put it that way: With your list next to glimpsing + going off T2 with birchlore or quirion your favourite T2 play is 2-3 elves + archdruid and go for aggro. My favourite T2 play (without birchlore) is titania and go for combo/force+combo in T3.

I am not gutsy enough to claim to know what is the better plan in the current legacy meta, but here are my thougths why I think the titania plan is better:
1)
I do feel a little bit all-in playing my hole hand in T2. The turn 4 kill is realistic in goldfish, but the common creatures like guyfs and reliquary, mishras can hold you back and a vial supported swarm might also out aggro you.
2)
There is of course a lot of CMC 1 removal for archdruid. -> if they remove archdruid you dont have a hand left you are also cribbled next turn to pay the 4 mana (if you can if not you loose the game) and your aggro plan is not existing anymore.
3)
you are more vulnerable to a EE, firespout, pyroclasm, perish. If they play those bombs with only a mandude and a titania out you have still 5 hand cards more and can recover much faster...if they don't, they won't be able to play a sorcery anymore. For EE, I have 7 spots for zealot in G1.

4) it sucks if you topdeck a glimpse with no hand cards. Of course there is symbiote and yuo can go aggro while collecting elves, but still I think you agree that it is much better to have a hand full of elves when drawing a glimpse...

5) If titania survives turn two (should survive nearly as often as archdruid survives T2), the plan is to play all the elves untap titania & cast force... that also set's up an aggro clock (1 turn later), but hopefully also give you card advantage and the chance to win the same turn (a real 2 in 1 plan).

6) I also often feel i dont want to use my pact for archdruid, because I want to use it for regal force. I think if you take the times you cast regal force T3 and win is much higher as the time you cast archdruid T2 and win.

7)In general: you can also put it that way that the other tribes gobs & merfolk have a better aggro clock/plan than elves and many decks out there can handle that...

So, with all that thoughts I thinking it is generally speaking not better to go primary aggro if no glimpse is available, but to go primary regal force and fall back to the aggro option if necessary or if it is really the obvious thing to do with a hand like forest, forest, fyndhorn, archdruid, warcaller, nettle, quirion.

Hey guys, did you see that in today's column "decks of the week" http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...y/activity/689

that there are alot of elf combo deck and they all share this : 4 pact + 2-4 zenith, 1 concordant crossroads (in many cases) and 1-3 ESG.

Any toughts ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

K2, we had a discussion about Birchloe vs. titania and what the best T2 play is. We wer interrupted by IBA and part of the following discussion also covered my points.

However, do you have comments to this:

I totally agree with the core of the combo (except for birchlore) :)

Interesting point about birchlore also supporting the aggro clock a lot. I havent considered that yet...I remeber making the play quite often (T1 nettle, T2 couple of elves + pact for achdruid). You can also put it that way: With your list next to glimpsing + going off T2 with birchlore or quirion your favourite T2 play is 2-3 elves + archdruid and go for aggro. My favourite T2 play (without birchlore) is titania and go for combo/force+combo in T3.

I am not gutsy enough to claim to know what is the better plan in the current legacy meta, but here are my thougths why I think the titania plan is better:
1)
I do feel a little bit all-in playing my hole hand in T2. The turn 4 kill is realistic in goldfish, but the common creatures like guyfs and reliquary, mishras can hold you back and a vial supported swarm might also out aggro you.
2)
There is of course a lot of CMC 1 removal for archdruid. -> if they remove archdruid you dont have a hand left you are also cribbled next turn to pay the 4 mana (if you can if not you loose the game) and your aggro plan is not existing anymore.
3)
you are more vulnerable to a EE, firespout, pyroclasm, perish. If they play those bombs with only a mandude and a titania out you have still 5 hand cards more and can recover much faster...if they don't, they won't be able to play a sorcery anymore. For EE, I have 7 spots for zealot in G1.

4) it sucks if you topdeck a glimpse with no hand cards. Of course there is symbiote and yuo can go aggro while collecting elves, but still I think you agree that it is much better to have a hand full of elves when drawing a glimpse...

5) If titania survives turn two (should survive nearly as often as archdruid survives T2), the plan is to play all the elves untap titania & cast force... that also set's up an aggro clock (1 turn later), but hopefully also give you card advantage and the chance to win the same turn (a real 2 in 1 plan).

6) I also often feel i dont want to use my pact for archdruid, because I want to use it for regal force. I think if you take the times you cast regal force T3 and win is much higher as the time you cast archdruid T2 and win.

7)In general: you can also put it that way that the other tribes gobs & merfolk have a better aggro clock/plan than elves and many decks out there can handle that...

So, with all that thoughts I thinking it is generally speaking not better to go primary aggro if no glimpse is available, but to go primary regal force and fall back to the aggro option if necessary or if it is really the obvious thing to do with a hand like forest, forest, fyndhorn, archdruid, warcaller, nettle, quirion.

---

1) You shouldn't feel bad about putting your hand down, unless you expect sweepers. This allows you to do many things:
a) very fast aggro clock as is
b) get enough mana to summon/cast/wish regal force in.
c) summon/cast another lord. If you summon joraga you should have more than enough mana to make your guys big enough so that a goyf/knight is no problem.
This is one of the big advantages of wish I think, getting access to another regal/warcaller. Not to mention then when you dump you hand with a lord out, your opponent starts to sweat, on turn 2, which is great.

2) If you can summon archdruid, you generally do so by heritage, meaning if archdruid gets removed you have enough mana to pay the pact anyway (3 elves+land). Yes, your aggro plan definitely sucks there if you have no tutors, but there are quite a few cards in the deck that prevent waiting. The play is best made in situations where you dont have a glimpse and can't afford regal yet, so in those situations in certainly seems like the best thing to do. What would be a better play?

3) Ya you are def right on there. This is why I preach holding as many elves in hand as you possibly can until you combo. I'm only suggesting this play when the alternative is waiting to topdeck something.

4) You have to judge what will be faster/more likely to work in a given scenario. I def always go for combo first if I can though, I'm with you there.

5) Ya it's the same plan with Archdruid, though, so why not get the extra beef? I have really never seen a time when priest would be better than archdruid. The only thing I can think of is if you are running GSZ then 3 cmc v 4 cmc would matter, but 2 v 3 doesn't really ever make a difference. It's all about getting the most out of your cards, and the spots for priest would be better used as combo-friendly cards I think.

6) You are absolutely right. If you think the cards in your hand will result in affording force, don't make the play. This is a play I make when I can't combo, or if I need the ardruid in play to cast force

7) I actually do not think they have a faster aggro plan, especially merfolk. When are fish faster than t4? I've aggro raced both of them many times and won the vast majority of the time. Aggro in general is not a problem for elves at all, control is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

I'm also not sure what the MTGO metagame looks like, but if you're both saying that twelve lands is too little, and then adding Bayous, fetchlands and Gaea's Cradle main, it just seems like there's a contradiction somewhere in there. The 12 lands I run are immune to Wastelands and Stifles, making them pretty reliable (although it may certainly be a bit threadbare.) The only nonbasic I would really think about running is a 1-of Dryad Arbor.

---

The MTGO metagame is easily viewed at http://www.mtgonline.com. Due to the highly fluctuating nature, the metagame is more pure/varied than most regional metagames. I also fail to see how being vulnerable to Wasteland has any bearing on a deck that can easily return its Forests to hand with Quirion Ranger. The Stifle issue is a valid concern; but unless you're playing against Canadian Threshold, that issue should not matter as these tempo decks cannot wholly interact with Elves. Moreover, Cradle allows you to overcome any of the mana shortages and catapult you into the combo phase. I suppose it's a preference call, but I feel much more comfortable playing a higher land count than mulliganing excessively to find sufficient land in opening hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

3)
you are more vulnerable to a EE, firespout, pyroclasm, perish. If they play those bombs with only a mandude and a titania out you have still 5 hand cards more and can recover much faster...if they don't, they won't be able to play a sorcery anymore. For EE, I have 7 spots for zealot in G1.

---

Hence the VV plan post board. This changes the nature of the deck and allows you to use elves as VV retriggers rather than actual combo elements. Sometimes, you still combo off, but the main path is to do into attrition mode with VV providing a fast clock. I haven't tested out GSZ with the VV plan, but I have since cut Buried Alive from the sideboard. With Buried Alive in the SB, I recommend playing 4 VV., as you invariably end up drawing one before you can fire off Buried Alive.

On a separate topic, I am starting to get the impression the major discussion points are converging onto the following.
1. Which tutors do we run?
2. Sideboard options

The first point may not be resolved and come down to a preference call. At this point in time I'm inclined towards GSZ and Living Wish, but I'm content also with Pact. I don't believe enough testing has been done with Living Wish and GSZ (and for sure not together), so I will continue to see how it works. I have a guess that it's slightly slower in terms of combo turn, but overall better for the deck due to not randomly losing to missed/unpaid for Pact triggers. (See Matt Sperling's forgotten pact trigger at SCG Open in LA)

The Sideboard issue also comes down to intent. I don't see a way to improve the combo element in this deck much more than it exists in the maindeck. For that reason, I use a semi-transformational sideboard to throw the opponent off his planned game. The discard disruption plans works well against our weak combo matchup. The Vengevine option provides inevitability in the attack step. NO/Pro provides a difficult to answer 3 turn clock. Each of these are viable options IMO.

The 100% Wishboard is something I am not comfortable playing with. It essentially places all your eggs on Living Wish, which we'll only see about 40-50% of the games we play. This isn't a big enough factor to devote all the sideboard room for utility.

On a final note, I strongly believe that Krosan Grip is necessary to remove troublesome permanents. Ethersworn Canonist, Engineered Plague, and Humility are all bad cards for us, and a on a lesser note Counterbalance. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore these cards entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rukcus

Hence the VV plan post board. This changes the nature of the deck and allows you to use elves as VV retriggers rather than actual combo elements. Sometimes, you still combo off, but the main path is to do into attrition mode with VV providing a fast clock. I haven't tested out GSZ with the VV plan, but I have since cut Buried Alive from the sideboard. With Buried Alive in the SB, I recommend playing 4 VV., as you invariably end up drawing one before you can fire off Buried Alive.

On a separate topic, I am starting to get the impression the major discussion points are converging onto the following.
1. Which tutors do we run?
2. Sideboard options

The first point may not be resolved and come down to a preference call. At this point in time I'm inclined towards GSZ and Living Wish, but I'm content also with Pact. I don't believe enough testing has been done with Living Wish and GSZ (and for sure not together), so I will continue to see how it works. I have a guess that it's slightly slower in terms of combo turn, but overall better for the deck due to not randomly losing to missed/unpaid for Pact triggers. (See Matt Sperling's forgotten pact trigger at SCG Open in LA)

The Sideboard issue also comes down to intent. I don't see a way to improve the combo element in this deck much more than it exists in the maindeck. For that reason, I use a semi-transformational sideboard to throw the opponent off his planned game. The discard disruption plans works well against our weak combo matchup. The Vengevine option provides inevitability in the attack step. NO/Pro provides a difficult to answer 3 turn clock. Each of these are viable options IMO.

The 100% Wishboard is something I am not comfortable playing with. It essentially places all your eggs on Living Wish, which we'll only see about 40-50% of the games we play. This isn't a big enough factor to devote all the sideboard room for utility.

On a final note, I strongly believe that Krosan Grip is necessary to remove troublesome permanents. Ethersworn Canonist, Engineered Plague, and Humility are all bad cards for us, and a on a lesser note Counterbalance. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore these cards entirely.

---

Will come back later to post more, but I'd like to note that saying " randomly losing to missed/unpaid for Pact triggers" should not be a point of discussion in figuring out what tutors to run between GSZ, Pact, and Living Wish. There are obviously spots where going for a pact can be dangerous (i.e. you're in a spot where not comboing and could lose to a wasteland/removal spell), but straight up punting isn't an argument to be considered.

Playing poorly is also not a good choice for the deck.

I would tend to agree that playing perfectly is preferred to not. It's much easier when MTGO reminds you that you have a trigger. Other times, you might be in a tough spot, go for the combo anyways, then get punished by Perish/Firespout, etc. The point is that Pact still represents a liability just as IBA has mentioned (upkeep cost) whereas GSZ doesn't.

Now if there was a possibility to run a 3-way split card that acted as Pact/Zenith/Wish I would run 8 easily, but anything above 12 non-creature spells in this deck is going to dilute the density sufficiently to make Glimpse not reliable enough. Additional lands already do this pretty badly, but that's a preference call on my part (playing 16 vs 12-14).

I'm not entirely sold on the usefulness of Dryad Arbor yet, especially without a Natural Order package in the 75. It seems as though in the hands that I naturally draw it, I would prefer a basic Forest instead. Only in instances where I have Forest, Cradle, and GSZ would I want to search out Dryad Arbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rukcus

I would tend to agree that playing perfectly is preferred to not. It's much easier when MTGO reminds you that you have a trigger. Other times, you might be in a tough spot, go for the combo anyways, then get punished by Perish/Firespout, etc. The point is that Pact still represents a liability just as IBA has mentioned (upkeep cost) whereas GSZ doesn't.

Now if there was a possibility to run a 3-way split card that acted as Pact/Zenith/Wish I would run 8 easily, but anything above 12 non-creature spells in this deck is going to dilute the density sufficiently to make Glimpse not reliable enough. Additional lands already do this pretty badly, but that's a preference call on my part (playing 16 vs 12-14).

I'm not entirely sold on the usefulness of Dryad Arbor yet, especially without a Natural Order package in the 75. It seems as though in the hands that I naturally draw it, I would prefer a basic Forest instead. Only in instances where I have Forest, Cradle, and GSZ would I want to search out Dryad Arbor.

---

I think we're splitting hairs on the upkeep thing with Pact, but I gotcha.

Outside of a desperation pact where paying for it is really up in the air...the upkeep cost shouldn't be a problem. When I say "shouldn't be a problem" I mean that you should have well over GG2 available to pay at your next upkeep, and I'm not referring to simply forgetting.

I personally like 4 GSZ 4 Pact...to add to the redundancy in getting your combo together or finding your draw engine (ala Regal Force into Glimpse). I've rarely had trouble stringing guys together for a glimpse chain. My list has 31 creatures (not counting Emrakul) and you still have the 4 Wirewoods to recast 4 guys (esp a Visionary) to keep things going.

I've never tried Living Wish..but the 2 mana cost seems iffy and I tend to think it dilutes the strength of your sideboard, as youre losing many slots and I dont think a Karakas and Wasteland are worthy of 2 slots just as wish targets.

Why are people running Dryad Arbor without Natural Order? Is this just for use with Quirion Ranger and GSZ = 0 (and I guess also pumping up Cradle)? I run Dryad Arbor, but that's mainly due to playing the 4 NO/1 Prog out of the board.

Did some goldfishing again.
I dont think goldfishing does not tell us something about the overall strength/playability of the deck, but I use it to find out how different concepts play and how adding aggro/control/utility elemnts hurt the combo.

Her my past results:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

Here my goldfish results for the new list (again 71 games). Here the results compared with my old goldfishing:

K2's wish list:
T2: started combo: 14% finished successfully 40%
T3: started combo: 31% finished successfully 100%
T4: started combo: 35% finished successfully 100%
Mulligan: 15%

My black list with thoughtseize and diabolic intent (page 60)
T2: started 6% finisehd successful 75%
T3: started 39% finished successful 64%
T4: started 35% finished successful 96%
Mulligan: 18%
In 25% before I started to combo I was able to play protection (thoughtseize)
I used diabolic intent 13% of the time to tutor for glimpse or an important elve.

My titania/GSZ list (page 63)
T2: started 13% finished successful 67%
T3: started 46% finished successful 97%
T4: started 23% finished successful 94%
Mulligan: 10%

---

New result with titania/wishlist (again 71 games):
T2: started 14% finished successful 90%
T3: started 45% finished successful 97%
T4: started 17% finished successful 100%
Mulligan: 20%

It is funny how similar the results are, altough I think the wishlist has a much better aggro plan (4 archdruid) and more elements of control/access to utilities. 20% mulligan is a lot... I should probably go back to 13 forests instead of 12, but I think the higher mulligan is also a result of having hands with only tutors/archdruid/glimpse and no fuel to start with...
Goldfishing I never wished for cradle... curious to see if it will be good in playtesting.

THe singleton concordant helps in early/mid combo a lot and this card as well as spirit guide help the deck to bring more surprise factor I think.

Here is the list

Creatures
4 Elvish Archdruid
4 Priest of Titania
3 Elvish Visionary
3 Heritage Druid
4 Llanowar Elves
3 Nettle Sentinel
4 Quirion Ranger
1 Regal Force
3 Wirewood Symbiote
3 Fyndhorn Elves
3 Elvish Spirit Guide

Instants
4 Summoner's Pact

Sorceries
4 Glimpse of Nature
4 Living Wish

Entchantments
1 Concordant Crossroads

Basic Lands
12 Forest

SB
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Heritage Druid
1 Nettle Sentinel
1 Regal Force
1 Wirewood Symbiote
1 Viridian Zealot
1 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Bojuka Bog
1 Karakas
1 Joraga Warcaller
1 Gaea's Cradle
4 Mindbreak Trap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

Did some goldfishing again.

It is funny how similar the results are, altough I think the wishlist has a much better aggro plan (4 archdruid) and more elements of control/access to utilities. 20% mulligan is a lot... I should probably go back to 13 forests instead of 12, but I think the higher mulligan is also a result of having hands with only tutors/archdruid/glimpse and no fuel to start with...
Goldfishing I never wished for cradle... curious to see if it will be good in playtesting.

---

This is why you should maximize the deck's one drop count while it can still function. It's my main gripe with most lists that I test against mine, I love having a lot of fuel.

I think I can name one justification for running Priests in IBA's list. GSZ and Living Wish both require 2+ mana to become useful. A resolved priest allows these tutors to become "active" in the sense. In k2thej's list, he uses Pact + Wish, which requires 0 and 2, for an average of <1 mana, allowing the combo to effectively continue with only 1 "active" mana. This is significant in situations that don't involve multiple Nettle Sentinels.

This also takes into account catmint's reliance on Living Wish as the "4th" Elf tutor (finding Nettle, Heritage, and Symbiote).

Perhaps we should focus the testing on this small, but important distinction between the tutor's mana cost and target. This may allow us to more neatly come to a conclusion about the preferred tutor of choice, based on operating mana cost.

Reading along these interesting thread, I think I'm going to modify mi list but basing in the following tutor base:

3 Living Wish
2 Summoner's Pact
2 Green Suns Zenith

These having a half wishable board with the 4th Heritage and Nettle. I'm also hesitating about the inclusion of Birchlore, probably 1-2 with the 3rd on board.

I don't want to center in board a lot, only to see how many slots I need for the Wish to the main deck works correctly and consistently and how many free slots after wish I have to other cards. Reasons to choose that tutor base is because there will be situations in which we have more than a tutor to choose abd these do the deck more versatile.

Also I agree that Krosan in the board is a must.

What about the new prerelease card Surgical Extraction?

Question to all wish players who want to wish for something vs. dredge.
If we see that we cannot race, what do we wish for?

Karakas, because we expect most dredge players to abuse iona and once she is out we cannot wish anymore?

Bojuka Bog, because we want to remove the GY right now and think that this buys us enough time. However if putrid imp is out there it might only give us 1 turn... also we we wish for bojuka, we have to play it this turn, because if not we allow the dredge player to finish the game next turn or somehow prepare for his gy to be removed..

Faerie Macabre, because we want to react in his turn and we think removing two cards is enough, altough he knows we have the Faerie?
Which cards would you remove typically? (wait for dread return or remove his only 2 dredgers when playing breakthrough?

...something completely different?

I havent played that much vs dredge and I have no experience using wish to disrupt dredge.
Do you have input for me?