The curve is pretty high with 13 three-drops, but 20 lands is where I feel the deck is still comfortable. After dropping your 3rd land you could really care less about the rest of your lands. I also heavily board against control because that's the deck that tends to give us the most problems game 1. Here are some main pointers I can share after running iterations of the deck for about two months now:
-I don't like running Urborg because I feel like it benefits my opponent's way too much.
-I don't like Pain Seer because he's weak, his inspired is nice but it also kills me faster than I'd like.
-I prefer Master of The Feast over Herald simply because Herald doesn't have enough bite, but a 3/3 split between the two is great balance.
-I prefer Ultimate Price over Doom Blade and Bile Blight because it hits more relevant creatures, especially in the late game. This card is also a meta call, though.
-I like to use Gnarled Scarhide as pseudo removal sometimes. And if the creature dies, we get it back.
-I like to bestow whenever possible, especially Herald and Spiteful Returned. It takes multiple spells to completely remove the threat.
-I like to use Sign in Blood as a burn spell 9 out of 10 times. I only cast it on myself when I'm up against a slower control deck or out of gas and flooded out, which doesn't happen often.
Against R/G, the way I used to deal with it was through siding in Celestial Flare, which is okay against Demon and sometimes control as well. But by the time they land a Stormbreath, the field should have enough pressure to keep it on the defensive, which is not how Stormbreath should be played at all. I usually side in the fourth Banisher Priest against R/G, because short from Stormbreath, I hit everything else in the deck. Control is the worst matchup for me, and after side boarding, the deck usually takes the cake. With Mistcutters, Rootborns, and Sundering Growths, it does fairly well.
As for Smiter vs. Brimaz, I use choose to have Smiters in the main over Brim because of the 1 extra toughness. When I football him with Ajani, that extra 2 damage off of double strike can be the difference in closing the game. Smiter is just solid, but for the upcoming competitive events, I'm going to cut 1 Smiter, 1 Banisher Priest, and move 1 Scavenging Ooze to the Sideboard to fit in 3 copies of Brimaz.
And as far as Scavenging Ooze goes, he is usually a life saver game 1 against control. Post-Verdict, he can evolve E1, and then munch up everything in the GY to get in for massive amounts of damage. Against creature matchups, he's great dropping him in the late game to regain some life and get a beefy body to smash through stalemates.
Control is all luck on game 1, if they can curve out into a Verdict and you've over-committed, it's pretty much a blow out unless you had a Voice and E1 that survived it. Boon Satyrs/Wurms EOT can also wreck them if you can follow up with an Ajani, but other than that, Game 1 is usually a throw away.
I also used to run God's Willing, but it's a cute trick at best. If they kill your dude, you should have another one ready to drop the next turn. The conclusion it came down to for me was that God's Willing wasnt another threat, it only kept your threats alive- which to me is far from the same thing, worse even. Sure, my big Ooze or Smiter or Fleecemane dies, I'll durst drop another and continue to go to town because I can. The only time I would rather have God's Willing is against control to stop them from draw-locking you with Azorius Charm, but even then, God's Willing isn't a threat you can drop after a Verdict. I'll be doing lots of play testing this week, and I'll see how it works again, but I don't really have my faith in it as a crucial card in the deck.
One thing I'm considering is running Plummet over Last Breath, or maybe even ditching Sundering Growth/Unravel the Aether/ Revoke Existence/Glare for it so I can run both, but I'm not sure if that's the way to go.
I've been playing GW since post rotation as well, so I'm confident in saying I have my fair share of credibility.
The problem I see GW players are having is how to balance the deck out to be answerable to the meta they are playing in. As of lately creature heavy matchups are a lot more popular than control, but were seeing the rise of control and midrange style decks such as UW(x) and R/G Monsters. That being said, in my local meta and qualifying events I've been attending and participating in have a higher percentage of creature-based matchups (Mono U, RG, Mono R, Mono B, W(x) Aggro, etc.) than there are control based matchups. The mono black players I've met and played are well calculated and net-decking and/or splashing colors for answers. They know not to kill our stuff EOT because of voice, and they know Pack Rat is their biggest threat against us as it synergizes well with Mutavault and Gray Merchant.
Here's the list I've been running that I think answers the meta well:
As you can see, my deck can answer creatures extremely well. Banisher Priest is an essential creature in the deck that is an answer and a threat in itself as a body. And here's the thing, BP is complete synergy- Evolves E1, clears the way for our dudes to get in, buffs Voice tokens, yada-yada-yada. Sure, MB has kill spells and can remove it, but the whole "dies to removal" logic should be outdated because everything dies to removal. Without Priests, we can't answer threats that are under 5 power, but with them we can answer almost every creature with the exception of Stormbreath and Blood Baron.
The main board is a run-of-the mill, curved flash blitz that GW is. Siding against MB I usually drop Ajani and put in Last Breaths and go with the fourth Banisher Priest to deal with their threats, because without their threats they can't win the game.
The sideboard is very control-hate based. Mistcutters, Rootborns, Glare, they help out a lot against control, but once they drop Elspeth, we may as well scoop unless we have an Ajani in hand while we flash in a wurm while they're tapped out and under ten life. Control is nasty against us, which is one of the reasons why I run the Scavenging Ooze to try and compensate for the losses from verdicts, but even then, it's a very uphill battle unless we have the nut draws to win us game 1 and the following game. We're a powerful aggro deck, but were no Boros Blitz deck. I'm considering going Naya Aggro for Boros Charm and Mizz. Mor, but even then, that feels a little too far fetched.
As for Brimaz, he's alright. As of right now I don't feel he's necessary over Smiter, and he is just bonkers with Voice tokens, but I prefer the stopping power that Smiter has to offer. He's also great for when you're getting Thoughtsiezed with a hand only containing Smiter(s). I'm going to give him a go at the PTQ and the SCG open coming up, but I honestly think cutting Smiter is the wrong way to go.
Mono Black is actually a great matchup for us. Their removal, although relevant, oftentimes can't keep up with the aggression and persistence of our deck. With the amount of flash we can utilize against them we can exert enough pressure on their board state that forces them to start using their creatures as blockers just to keep them alive. Personally, I think it's bad not to run 3 main board Banisher Preist because she deals with almost everything any creature-based matchup runs, and against mono black shes fantastic for drawing out kill spells and clearing the way for your turn 1 and 2 drops to get damage in.
If you're matchup against them is as desperately bad as you make it out to be, you need to reevaluate your strategy/sideboard against them. We have so many answers for the deck there should be no excuse for it to be that bad of a matchup, barring the luck involved in the game. GW is a well-rounded deck against the meta, but it is very skill intensive.
I honestly don't know why people aren't playing Loxodon Smiter. Uncounterable is relevant, 4/4 is relevant, 3CMC is relevant, discard effect is relevant. All I've got to say is the Smiter is too good against a lot of matchups to not be run as a 4 of if at least a 3 of, more so than Ajani, and definitely more so than Boon Satyr given the cards the MBD has access to.
Drown in Sorrow is a great card, but it will far from make weenie decks irrelevant. Our matchup against MBD is great, our creatures are big, hard to kill, and replace themselves quickly with flash. We also have access to Selesnya Charm, great against their Demon and Erebos, we have Last Breath, which hits Merchant, Nightveil, and Mutavault. If built correctly we can deal with most, if not all of the meta by overpowering or attrtitioning out popular strategies.
Anyway, on a different topic:
Ajani. I see lots of lists with it, can anyone update me on which matchups it is good in, and which ones it isnt very good for?
spear and bow would also interest me.
Ajani is great on game 1 against most matchups bar Aggro or Mono-Black Devotion. The problem Ajani has against Aggro is that they are simply too fast for him to profit effectively from. MBD has Downfall.
But other than those two decks, Ajani is a left field card that people don't expect. He's great against Control because you can double up the Wurm token or Boon Satyr after flashing them in from a boardwipe, not to mention he pumps E1 and is hard to deal with without wasting resources. He's great against R/G because he can pump your dudes and also surprise them with his -3. Basically, his -3 is so good, that if they don't have an answer to Ajani or the creature that's going to be coming in on them, they're going to be taking a lot of damage.
Also, the comments on the mana base are correct.
I you have both colors in your opening hand and at least a two drop, you should be good to go. However, splitting your mana adjusted to your deck's lean is just as important as important.
-At 23 lands, 4 shocks and 3 Temples, and 8 Forests/Plains you will have exactly split mana. A 50% chance of drawing your colors that only gets better.
-At 23 lands, 4 shocks and 4 temples, you will have to lean towards one color more on a 8/7 or even 9/6 ratio of basics so you can hit WW or GG consistently.
-At 22 lands, 4 shocks and 4 temples, you are able to split your mana 50% and apply a lean on white or green if you'd like, but with the amount of 3 drops we run and our strict mana requirements of GW for certain cards, the deck becomes much more inconsistent by not being able to draw lands and/or reach our color requirements on curve.
Let me say that I love GW. I have top8ed a 320 person PTQ with it last year (when rancor was still legal, sigh) and it is a very powerful deck overall.
I have tried again to make it work for next PTQ using a list similar to the one in the post above. I found the mana-base very very frustrating. If you do not have a Temple (Garden o Plenty) or at least a Plain and a Forest in your hand, you basically have to mulligan, because if you do not draw any of the other source you simply lose. To tell the truth I had Experiment one, Voice, Lion, Charm, Smither, all in with the double color symbol , and that does not work.
I am thinking of moving towards the G splash.
The creature base would be something like:
- 4 Soldier (a must)
- 4 Dryad (maybe, to replace experiment one)
- 4 Precinct Captain
- 4 Voice (here the Green is needed for the lack of good 2 drops in white)
- 4 Brimaz
- 2 Eidolon
- 3 Banisher Priest
- 2 Angel of Thun
This allows to play Brave the Element (which I believe is very strong), and Spear, given the mini-token theme, with of course Ajani.
The mana base will be much more consistent because it will be heavily skewed toward white
What do you guys think about it?
I'd say the only problem with leaning towards white and dropping E1, Smiter, and Fleecemane is that your deck becomes much weaker towards the Aggro matchups and especially Mono-Black.
I would drop the Militants for E1; the Captains for Fleecemane; and drop the Archangels and one Brimaz for triple Smiter.
I honestly think Smiter is still a great card and it makes me kind of sad not seeing people run it as much anymore.
This is horrible advice. Our creatures are bigger and capable of overwhelming our smaller aggro adversaries. We don't need to race them since we are capable of attritioning them out of the game (via flash creatures, Voice, E1, etc.).
Against aggro decks I usually side in another Banisher Priest and two Unflinching Courage in exchange for Ajani, COTP and side out Selesnya Charms for Celestial Flare. Banisher Priest is great because it opens up the field for you to attack the opponent, while Unflinching Courage makes it harder for them to keep your life total down. I like Celestial Flare because it deals with problem creatures like Boros Reckoner and Soldier of the Pantheon, although it is pseudo removal, it is still pretty good removal nonetheless.
Here's the list I've been running with excellent success over the past few months:
I've been playing this version of the deck since rotation, and I have to say that it has provided great results over the past few weeks at a very diverse and competitive FNM. Mono-black and other variants boasts about a 90% win ratio, against Gruul 60%, other aggro decks (R/W, B/W, Mono-blue) it sits at 80% as well. The only issue it has is Esper with 25% win ratio, while other control variants such as American and U/W it has a 70% win ratio.
The extended testing in the shop has drawn me to these conclusions about the deck:
-The P/T to mana cost ratio is significant against all decks, one of the reasons why we play the deck in the first place.
-The deck rarely gets outsourced (no cards in hand) when playing due to the smooth mana curve. This is both an advantage and disadvantage that G/W has, due to its abnormally high P/T curve and its demanding mana necessities of GW, GG, and WW, which if all cant be met by turn three, the deck doubles its chance of not being able to cast certain cards on curve.
-Mistcutter Hydra, as it should be obvious by now, is great against any deck running blue in it. Especially U/W/x. Whether or not it is worthy in the main deck is a personal decision based upon your meta. I went with Scavenging Ooze over Mistcutter in the main as it provides a better late-game and built-in survivability against a lot more decks.
-This deck is a deck that answers the meta extremely well, with Voice, Selesnya Charm, and Advent of the Wurm, its resilience and unique curve is hard to deal with, and it's ambush strategy with flash creatures are a lethal combination that could take it to tier 1 now that we have the consistency offered by BNG's Scry land and Brimaz.
I plan on writing a primer soon and I'll probably start it in another thread, but I will wait about a month into this rotation now that BNG is out.
And goyf provides way too high a p/t for its mana cost.
And lightning bolt provides too much reach for its mana cost.
And delver.....
All the cards you listed are unidimensional.
Goyf is a beat stick.
Lightning Bolt is a burn spell.
Delver is a beat stick.
DRS is a 1-mana utility tool. It gains you life, it reduces the oponnent's life, and it accelerates your mana, all the while interacting with another zone within the game that only benefits its controller. That is too much utility for a 1 drop. Had DRS been a 2 drop, or only contained 2 abilities instead of 3, it probably would be considered "innocent" enough to avoid banning. However, it would definitely see a lot less play had it been that way.
You've come this far in life (if you're in college and such) and you're in a position where you are unsure what you WANT to do, but what CAN you do? Ask yourself, "can I survive living a minimalist, spiritual life of a monk?" "Is this really the right way to go about life in this current society?"
Because I too have read Siddhartha Gautama's philosophies and texts on Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., and what you need to keep in mind is that these books were written hundreds, if not a couple thousand of years ago. Life was different back then than it is now, obviously, so I wouldn't take those philosophies live read too literally. Having no income, or job, or skill, or education can backfire on you if you decide the monk life isn't for you. Spiritual stability doesn't mean financial or social stability, nor does it guarantee you a healthy, happy life.
I would think about those things before you make a big leap into the realm of Buddhism, because the world we live in today isn't so simple to live in as Buddhism, or any other religion, would have you believe it is.
Lignify
4 Tormented Hero
4 Rakdos Cackler
3 Gnarled Scarhide
4 Spiteful Returned
4 Thrill-Kill Assassin
4 Mogis's Marauder
3 Master of the Feast
3 Herald of Torment
4 Thoutsieze
3 Ultimate Price
2 Hero's Downfall
2 Sign in Blood
Land:
16 Swamp
4 Mutavault
Side:
1 Erebos, God of the Dead
1 Pithing Needle
1 Phyrexian
2 Doom Blade
2 Bile Blight
2 Brain Maggot
2 Nighthowler
4 Duress
The curve is pretty high with 13 three-drops, but 20 lands is where I feel the deck is still comfortable. After dropping your 3rd land you could really care less about the rest of your lands. I also heavily board against control because that's the deck that tends to give us the most problems game 1. Here are some main pointers I can share after running iterations of the deck for about two months now:
-I don't like running Urborg because I feel like it benefits my opponent's way too much.
-I don't like Pain Seer because he's weak, his inspired is nice but it also kills me faster than I'd like.
-I prefer Master of The Feast over Herald simply because Herald doesn't have enough bite, but a 3/3 split between the two is great balance.
-I prefer Ultimate Price over Doom Blade and Bile Blight because it hits more relevant creatures, especially in the late game. This card is also a meta call, though.
-I like to use Gnarled Scarhide as pseudo removal sometimes. And if the creature dies, we get it back.
-I like to bestow whenever possible, especially Herald and Spiteful Returned. It takes multiple spells to completely remove the threat.
-I like to use Sign in Blood as a burn spell 9 out of 10 times. I only cast it on myself when I'm up against a slower control deck or out of gas and flooded out, which doesn't happen often.
As for Smiter vs. Brimaz, I use choose to have Smiters in the main over Brim because of the 1 extra toughness. When I football him with Ajani, that extra 2 damage off of double strike can be the difference in closing the game. Smiter is just solid, but for the upcoming competitive events, I'm going to cut 1 Smiter, 1 Banisher Priest, and move 1 Scavenging Ooze to the Sideboard to fit in 3 copies of Brimaz.
And as far as Scavenging Ooze goes, he is usually a life saver game 1 against control. Post-Verdict, he can evolve E1, and then munch up everything in the GY to get in for massive amounts of damage. Against creature matchups, he's great dropping him in the late game to regain some life and get a beefy body to smash through stalemates.
Control is all luck on game 1, if they can curve out into a Verdict and you've over-committed, it's pretty much a blow out unless you had a Voice and E1 that survived it. Boon Satyrs/Wurms EOT can also wreck them if you can follow up with an Ajani, but other than that, Game 1 is usually a throw away.
I also used to run God's Willing, but it's a cute trick at best. If they kill your dude, you should have another one ready to drop the next turn. The conclusion it came down to for me was that God's Willing wasnt another threat, it only kept your threats alive- which to me is far from the same thing, worse even. Sure, my big Ooze or Smiter or Fleecemane dies, I'll durst drop another and continue to go to town because I can. The only time I would rather have God's Willing is against control to stop them from draw-locking you with Azorius Charm, but even then, God's Willing isn't a threat you can drop after a Verdict. I'll be doing lots of play testing this week, and I'll see how it works again, but I don't really have my faith in it as a crucial card in the deck.
One thing I'm considering is running Plummet over Last Breath, or maybe even ditching Sundering Growth/Unravel the Aether/ Revoke Existence/Glare for it so I can run both, but I'm not sure if that's the way to go.
The problem I see GW players are having is how to balance the deck out to be answerable to the meta they are playing in. As of lately creature heavy matchups are a lot more popular than control, but were seeing the rise of control and midrange style decks such as UW(x) and R/G Monsters. That being said, in my local meta and qualifying events I've been attending and participating in have a higher percentage of creature-based matchups (Mono U, RG, Mono R, Mono B, W(x) Aggro, etc.) than there are control based matchups. The mono black players I've met and played are well calculated and net-decking and/or splashing colors for answers. They know not to kill our stuff EOT because of voice, and they know Pack Rat is their biggest threat against us as it synergizes well with Mutavault and Gray Merchant.
Here's the list I've been running that I think answers the meta well:
3 Experiment One
4 Soldier of the Pantheon
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Voice of Resurgence
4 Fleecemane Lion
3 Banisher Priest
3 Boon Satyr
4 Loxodon Smiter
2 Ajani, Caller of the Pride
4 Selesnya Charm
4 Advent of the Wurm
Land: 23
4 Temple Garden
4 Temple of Plenty
8 Forest
7 Plains
4 Mistcutter Hydra
3 Rootborn Defenses
3 Unflinching Courage
2 Glare of Heresy
2 Last Breath
1 Banisher Priest
As you can see, my deck can answer creatures extremely well. Banisher Priest is an essential creature in the deck that is an answer and a threat in itself as a body. And here's the thing, BP is complete synergy- Evolves E1, clears the way for our dudes to get in, buffs Voice tokens, yada-yada-yada. Sure, MB has kill spells and can remove it, but the whole "dies to removal" logic should be outdated because everything dies to removal. Without Priests, we can't answer threats that are under 5 power, but with them we can answer almost every creature with the exception of Stormbreath and Blood Baron.
The main board is a run-of-the mill, curved flash blitz that GW is. Siding against MB I usually drop Ajani and put in Last Breaths and go with the fourth Banisher Priest to deal with their threats, because without their threats they can't win the game.
The sideboard is very control-hate based. Mistcutters, Rootborns, Glare, they help out a lot against control, but once they drop Elspeth, we may as well scoop unless we have an Ajani in hand while we flash in a wurm while they're tapped out and under ten life. Control is nasty against us, which is one of the reasons why I run the Scavenging Ooze to try and compensate for the losses from verdicts, but even then, it's a very uphill battle unless we have the nut draws to win us game 1 and the following game. We're a powerful aggro deck, but were no Boros Blitz deck. I'm considering going Naya Aggro for Boros Charm and Mizz. Mor, but even then, that feels a little too far fetched.
As for Brimaz, he's alright. As of right now I don't feel he's necessary over Smiter, and he is just bonkers with Voice tokens, but I prefer the stopping power that Smiter has to offer. He's also great for when you're getting Thoughtsiezed with a hand only containing Smiter(s). I'm going to give him a go at the PTQ and the SCG open coming up, but I honestly think cutting Smiter is the wrong way to go.
If you're matchup against them is as desperately bad as you make it out to be, you need to reevaluate your strategy/sideboard against them. We have so many answers for the deck there should be no excuse for it to be that bad of a matchup, barring the luck involved in the game. GW is a well-rounded deck against the meta, but it is very skill intensive.
I honestly don't know why people aren't playing Loxodon Smiter. Uncounterable is relevant, 4/4 is relevant, 3CMC is relevant, discard effect is relevant. All I've got to say is the Smiter is too good against a lot of matchups to not be run as a 4 of if at least a 3 of, more so than Ajani, and definitely more so than Boon Satyr given the cards the MBD has access to.
Drown in Sorrow is a great card, but it will far from make weenie decks irrelevant. Our matchup against MBD is great, our creatures are big, hard to kill, and replace themselves quickly with flash. We also have access to Selesnya Charm, great against their Demon and Erebos, we have Last Breath, which hits Merchant, Nightveil, and Mutavault. If built correctly we can deal with most, if not all of the meta by overpowering or attrtitioning out popular strategies.
Ajani is great on game 1 against most matchups bar Aggro or Mono-Black Devotion. The problem Ajani has against Aggro is that they are simply too fast for him to profit effectively from. MBD has Downfall.
But other than those two decks, Ajani is a left field card that people don't expect. He's great against Control because you can double up the Wurm token or Boon Satyr after flashing them in from a boardwipe, not to mention he pumps E1 and is hard to deal with without wasting resources. He's great against R/G because he can pump your dudes and also surprise them with his -3. Basically, his -3 is so good, that if they don't have an answer to Ajani or the creature that's going to be coming in on them, they're going to be taking a lot of damage.
Also, the comments on the mana base are correct.
I you have both colors in your opening hand and at least a two drop, you should be good to go. However, splitting your mana adjusted to your deck's lean is just as important as important.
-At 23 lands, 4 shocks and 3 Temples, and 8 Forests/Plains you will have exactly split mana. A 50% chance of drawing your colors that only gets better.
-At 23 lands, 4 shocks and 4 temples, you will have to lean towards one color more on a 8/7 or even 9/6 ratio of basics so you can hit WW or GG consistently.
-At 22 lands, 4 shocks and 4 temples, you are able to split your mana 50% and apply a lean on white or green if you'd like, but with the amount of 3 drops we run and our strict mana requirements of GW for certain cards, the deck becomes much more inconsistent by not being able to draw lands and/or reach our color requirements on curve.
I'd say the only problem with leaning towards white and dropping E1, Smiter, and Fleecemane is that your deck becomes much weaker towards the Aggro matchups and especially Mono-Black.
I would drop the Militants for E1; the Captains for Fleecemane; and drop the Archangels and one Brimaz for triple Smiter.
I honestly think Smiter is still a great card and it makes me kind of sad not seeing people run it as much anymore.
Against aggro decks I usually side in another Banisher Priest and two Unflinching Courage in exchange for Ajani, COTP and side out Selesnya Charms for Celestial Flare. Banisher Priest is great because it opens up the field for you to attack the opponent, while Unflinching Courage makes it harder for them to keep your life total down. I like Celestial Flare because it deals with problem creatures like Boros Reckoner and Soldier of the Pantheon, although it is pseudo removal, it is still pretty good removal nonetheless.
Here's the list I've been running with excellent success over the past few months:
3 Experiment One
4 Soldier of the Pantheon
4 Voice of Resurgence
4 Fleecemane Lion
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Loxodon Smiter
3 Boon Satyr
3 Banisher Preist
4 Selesnya Charm
2 Ajani, Caller of the Pride
4 Advent of the Wurm
Lands:
4 Temple Garden
3 Selesnya Guildgate
8 Plains
8 Forest
2 Sundering Growth
2 Celestial Flare
3 Unflinching Courage
3 Rootborn Defenses
1 Banisher Preist
4 Mistcutter Hydra
I've been playing this version of the deck since rotation, and I have to say that it has provided great results over the past few weeks at a very diverse and competitive FNM. Mono-black and other variants boasts about a 90% win ratio, against Gruul 60%, other aggro decks (R/W, B/W, Mono-blue) it sits at 80% as well. The only issue it has is Esper with 25% win ratio, while other control variants such as American and U/W it has a 70% win ratio.
The extended testing in the shop has drawn me to these conclusions about the deck:
-The P/T to mana cost ratio is significant against all decks, one of the reasons why we play the deck in the first place.
-The deck rarely gets outsourced (no cards in hand) when playing due to the smooth mana curve. This is both an advantage and disadvantage that G/W has, due to its abnormally high P/T curve and its demanding mana necessities of GW, GG, and WW, which if all cant be met by turn three, the deck doubles its chance of not being able to cast certain cards on curve.
-Mistcutter Hydra, as it should be obvious by now, is great against any deck running blue in it. Especially U/W/x. Whether or not it is worthy in the main deck is a personal decision based upon your meta. I went with Scavenging Ooze over Mistcutter in the main as it provides a better late-game and built-in survivability against a lot more decks.
-This deck is a deck that answers the meta extremely well, with Voice, Selesnya Charm, and Advent of the Wurm, its resilience and unique curve is hard to deal with, and it's ambush strategy with flash creatures are a lethal combination that could take it to tier 1 now that we have the consistency offered by BNG's Scry land and Brimaz.
I plan on writing a primer soon and I'll probably start it in another thread, but I will wait about a month into this rotation now that BNG is out.
All the cards you listed are unidimensional.
Goyf is a beat stick.
Lightning Bolt is a burn spell.
Delver is a beat stick.
DRS is a 1-mana utility tool. It gains you life, it reduces the oponnent's life, and it accelerates your mana, all the while interacting with another zone within the game that only benefits its controller. That is too much utility for a 1 drop. Had DRS been a 2 drop, or only contained 2 abilities instead of 3, it probably would be considered "innocent" enough to avoid banning. However, it would definitely see a lot less play had it been that way.
Be realistic about it.
You've come this far in life (if you're in college and such) and you're in a position where you are unsure what you WANT to do, but what CAN you do? Ask yourself, "can I survive living a minimalist, spiritual life of a monk?" "Is this really the right way to go about life in this current society?"
Because I too have read Siddhartha Gautama's philosophies and texts on Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., and what you need to keep in mind is that these books were written hundreds, if not a couple thousand of years ago. Life was different back then than it is now, obviously, so I wouldn't take those philosophies live read too literally. Having no income, or job, or skill, or education can backfire on you if you decide the monk life isn't for you. Spiritual stability doesn't mean financial or social stability, nor does it guarantee you a healthy, happy life.
I would think about those things before you make a big leap into the realm of Buddhism, because the world we live in today isn't so simple to live in as Buddhism, or any other religion, would have you believe it is.