I've never seen the Facebook group but it sounds like a mess I'll avoid. In the MOCS I'd have liked to see the Jund players side out hand denial for more impactful cards like Fulminators. The guy that Rubin beat in the semi had a Thrun in his board and didn't bring it in. Mind blown.
Liliana the Last Hope is amazing! I am going up to two at the 75. Elf and Merfolk players still have night mares of her. Having both Liliana walkers down feels like cheating
On the other hands Finks haven't impressed me that much. I prefer Brutality as Burn hate and for grind games I like Last Hope or a 3rd Command and Hazoret more...
What do you side in for burn other than brutality?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Deck(s): TappedOut Would love to have more input to improve!
Shaun Maclaren running 3 bolts and 1 Lavamancer in MD yesterday.
Where can I find this list? I'm very interested in the possibility of trading one Bolt for Grim Lavamancer. I played him in my MB a few years ago and he was awesome. I'd like to see what the rest of Shaun's list looked like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
Shaun Maclaren running 3 bolts and 1 Lavamancer in MD yesterday.
Where can I find this list? I'm very interested in the possibility of trading one Bolt for Grim Lavamancer. I played him in my MB a few years ago and he was awesome. I'd like to see what the rest of Shaun's list looked like.
Cool. Thanks for the link. That's a really odd decklist. I love the MB Lavamancer though. I'm gonna have to give it a try.
So I've noticed some guys are trying to jam the second Treetop Village. We used to run the second one sometimes a few years ago, but I don't recall if our mana requirements were more or less demanding. If I wanted to try it out, what should I cut? I see Steve Rubin cut the 4th basic (Mountain). Does this seem correct? I mean, I want the second Treetop, but I don't know if I want to get that greedy. Would I be better off cutting a Raging Ravine possibly?
Last but not least, after seeing literally almost everyone running 3x Scooze, I'm going to do the same. I cut the third almost right away so I could slot in an extra removal spell, but honestly I think I was just being greedy. I'm not going to go against the grain on this one.
Edit: So it looks like Duke cut a fetchland for Treetop, Nettles cut a Ravine, and Rubin cut the Mountain. Then you have the other guys running 24x lands with no Treetop. Not sure who to trust or look to. I do know I like 25x lands and I do know I want 2x Treetops though.
Edit #2: Ok, so here's the list I think I'm gonna try to settle on for now. I'm not doing myself any good at this point flip-flopping back and forth between all our awesome options.
Yeah... I think I can get on board with that. By no means am I set on the sideboard though. Still, I think it's headed in the right direction. Input is appreciated, as always. I think I'm gonna rock this bad boy on Wednesday, see how that goes, and go from there for FNM.
Sideboarding plan of Steve Rubin in the mirror was definitely weird. Siding out Bob can't be right and I don't think you want to keep discard in either.
I like his list otherwise and he also played well beside that sideboarding.
On the draw, I think you leave in Thoughtseize to nab BBE but you take out IoK, and have no discard on the play but I don't play the mirror much.
In the mirror you cut all discard and CBs and bring in grindy stuff, like always. I don't think that changes at all with BBE around. If you leave in TS to snag BBE, you own BBE will also get worse, and I think that this is a mistake.
How do Jund players feel about the following matchups?
UWR Geist
UWR Control
UW Control
Check the primer, there is information about UW and UWR.
As for Geist, it is usually favourable for us, as this deck plays out more or less like a tempo deck. And Geist specifically is not the best vs us due to LoTV.
Thanks for the speedy responses, deaddrift and chaos021. I think I really like the idea of it. I just think it gives me a better game-one against decks that I'm going to see fairly often. And it still covers some of the same angles that we want covered by having LtLH MB. I want to be able to do degenerate stuff on my opponent's EoT, and K-Command really fits the bill there.
Engineered Explosives, huh? I mean, the odds of cascading into it are slim, and even then, that's not a bad thing when we're trying to use it for tokens. It's such a powerful card. BBE just makes you look at things differently though. I'll be thinking on that one heavily.
Lolol tonight I literally just cascaded into EE for 0 the turn after my opponent had just Emptied the Warrens for 10 goblins on his T6. I had the mana to activate. It was stupid, embarrassing, and hilarious. I went 4-0 for 1st at MNM in a field of 30+ with this list:
Sideboarding plan of Steve Rubin in the mirror was definitely weird. Siding out Bob can't be right and I don't think you want to keep discard in either.
I like his list otherwise and he also played well beside that sideboarding.
On the draw, I think you leave in Thoughtseize to nab BBE but you take out IoK, and have no discard on the play but I don't play the mirror much.
In the mirror you cut all discard and CBs and bring in grindy stuff, like always. I don't think that changes at all with BBE around. If you leave in TS to snag BBE, you own BBE will also get worse, and I think that this is a mistake.
How do Jund players feel about the following matchups?
UWR Geist
UWR Control
UW Control
Check the primer, there is information about UW and UWR.
As for Geist, it is usually favourable for us, as this deck plays out more or less like a tempo deck. And Geist specifically is not the best vs us due to LoTV.
I dont think the primer is very accurate - has it been updated since BBE? UW control is def not a negative match-up - UW control players are unanimous that it is unfavoured for UW control
I also have that feeling. I would like to try out something similar to Reid's/Logan's list but no Push and no Terminate makes me feel very uncomfortable playing in the mirror. There are so many questions currently and I feel it might take some weeks to get certain answers:
- What is the correct configuration of manlands?
- How much discard overall, and how many Thoughtseizes? We are losing more life now than before the unbans due to us being a tad slower/higher cmc with Bob in the buildup and Thoughtseize can really hurt against the now rejuvenated Burn decks.
- How should our removal package look like? Some pros play no Push and Terminate, others cut Decay entirely from the deck.
Questions over questions and we do not get clear answers. Reid and Logan performed poorly while Steve did well at MOCS, but then again, this tournament is not an inidicator for how the deck will look like in the future due to being a very small tournament with metachoices.
I might go back to Reids first try from his article and go on from there because I feel that list was solid and it proved to be very strong in Jeff Hoogland's stream (although I am not a big fan of him I have to admit that he played the deck pretty well).
Btw, someone noticed the FB-group and their opinions, but I would not listen too much to them because this thread here is miles ahead in terms of skill-level and experience.
Sideboarding plan of Steve Rubin in the mirror was definitely weird. Siding out Bob can't be right and I don't think you want to keep discard in either.
I like his list otherwise and he also played well beside that sideboarding.
On the draw, I think you leave in Thoughtseize to nab BBE but you take out IoK, and have no discard on the play but I don't play the mirror much.
In the mirror you cut all discard and CBs and bring in grindy stuff, like always. I don't think that changes at all with BBE around. If you leave in TS to snag BBE, you own BBE will also get worse, and I think that this is a mistake.
How do Jund players feel about the following matchups?
UWR Geist
UWR Control
UW Control
Check the primer, there is information about UW and UWR.
As for Geist, it is usually favourable for us, as this deck plays out more or less like a tempo deck. And Geist specifically is not the best vs us due to LoTV.
I dont think the primer is very accurate - has it been updated since BBE? UW control is def not a negative match-up - UW control players are unanimous that it is unfavoured for UW control
Given that statement it makes me feel you have not really read the primer at all. Thanks for that assignment.
If you actually read through it I said that with BBE the matchup gets better. And I did not say anywhere UW Control is completeley negative, but it is definitely close (only thing is that the matchup analysis is not fully acurate yet). UW was 100 % a bad matchup without BBE, with BBE it gets better and it is stated that way.
I actually recommend reading through the primer before write it off that way.
If you would have read the primer you would realize that I mention BBE acouple of times. I'll leave it like that for your question if the primer is updated or not.
I also have that feeling. I would like to try out something similar to Reid's/Logan's list but no Push and no Terminate makes me feel very uncomfortable playing in the mirror. There are so many questions currently and I feel it might take some weeks to get certain answers:
- What is the correct configuration of manlands?
- How much discard overall, and how many Thoughtseizes? We are losing more life now than before the unbans due to us being a tad slower/higher cmc with Bob in the buildup and Thoughtseize can really hurt against the now rejuvenated Burn decks.
- How should our removal package look like? Some pros play no Push and Terminate, others cut Decay entirely from the deck.
Questions over questions and we do not get clear answers. Reid and Logan performed poorly while Steve did well at MOCS, but then again, this tournament is not an inidicator for how the deck will look like in the future due to being a very small tournament with metachoices.
I might go back to Reids first try from his article and go on from there because I feel that list was solid and it proved to be very strong in Jeff Hoogland's stream (although I am not a big fan of him I have to admit that he played the deck pretty well).
Btw, someone noticed the FB-group and their opinions, but I would not listen too much to them because this thread here is miles ahead in terms of skill-level and experience.
I agree. The only real big thing what I am starting to believe is right is the 25 land package. Its just higher CMC, more dmg from Bob and clunkier cards, which requires 25 lands imo.
I am especially unsure about discard package and removal package as well. Creature suite should be clear as of now.
I also have that feeling. I would like to try out something similar to Reid's/Logan's list but no Push and no Terminate makes me feel very uncomfortable playing in the mirror. There are so many questions currently and I feel it might take some weeks to get certain answers:
- What is the correct configuration of manlands?
- How much discard overall, and how many Thoughtseizes? We are losing more life now than before the unbans due to us being a tad slower/higher cmc with Bob in the buildup and Thoughtseize can really hurt against the now rejuvenated Burn decks.
- How should our removal package look like? Some pros play no Push and Terminate, others cut Decay entirely from the deck.
Questions over questions and we do not get clear answers. Reid and Logan performed poorly while Steve did well at MOCS, but then again, this tournament is not an inidicator for how the deck will look like in the future due to being a very small tournament with metachoices.
I might go back to Reids first try from his article and go on from there because I feel that list was solid and it proved to be very strong in Jeff Hoogland's stream (although I am not a big fan of him I have to admit that he played the deck pretty well).
Btw, someone noticed the FB-group and their opinions, but I would not listen too much to them because this thread here is miles ahead in terms of skill-level and experience.
Yup, you have the same questions as me
So, I think the forum regulars here and the pros have reached the consensus on the 15 creature package, right? We used to run 13, and in 2016 we ran 14.
This is all I have as figured out.
I tried 6 discard last night and it didn't feel great, I needed answers, not discard.
I'm still not sure about 24 or 25 lands.
Hoogland, despite being unlikable, played Reid's original list very well, his losses were usually to really fast combo opponents who had close to nut hands.
Cutting down to 1 terminate/dreadbore seems...shaky. This only seems possible in a world where other midrange decks don't exist or bigger decks don't thrive.
There's a GP in mid March, I have a feeling things will get a little clearer then.
I may go back to Reid's original list. Cutting the push for the 2nd pulse seems greedy.
I've been performing poorly at my FNM for the past...hmmm, month and a half? (it's very competitive, large and there's no regulars to prepare for, it's everything). I've been doing fine on MTGO and bigger tournaments but I am running real cold at my weekly FNM and that feels bad.
2-2 is something unacceptable to me, I usually just drop if I can't cash in, I can always get practice on MTGO, may as well hang out with the wife instead of playing someone who also did poorly.
My win against blue decks has skyrocketed. Last night I had two BBE cascades flop against Humans, while I was forced to chump block a large Champion for multiple turns. I played against some janky abzan deck that played lingering souls, voice of resurgence, trackers and coursers. It was like Todd Stevens list without the dorks. I was pretty frustrated because I think his deck was trash that wouldn't do well in an open field, but two games in a row where he had voice into souls was backbreaking.
But I found myself even feeling low on removal against Humans.
Anyway, all I know is that these mocs only made the Jund lists seem more confusing. I'll probably test out Rubins list on the mtgo practice rooms.
“2-2 is something unacceptable to me, I usually just drop if I can't cash in, I can always get practice on MTGO, may as well hang out with the wife instead of playing someone who also did poorly.”
Ha! Aye, there’s the rub. FNM’s (or any tournament for that matter) always come with the opportunity cost of losing a Friday night with one’s wife (or loved ones). And I agree, if you’re not winning and on top of that not having fun or getting good practice rounds in against real meta decks and decent players, what’s the point? Depending on the night, a loss at my LGS can be brutal. It’s either highly competitive with an accurate representation of larger tournaments, or after losing a match you get paired with the kid that’s shuffling his unsleeved deck like they were Bicycle playing cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I'm no Jund expert but I do not like 25 lands. I have already flooded with this deck more than I'd like. In my list above I think I'd consider my 25th land to have been traded for one of the 2 CMC removal spells (Decay, Dreadbore, Terminate) or the third Scooze. If I went back to 25 lands it would be for a TTV, but 25 really feels like too much to me.
My decision was to offset the reduced percentage of playing a land on T4, by increasing the odds that any land I *do* play T4+ will enter untapped. That means only four fastlands and three manlands for a total of seven, vs. a normal list's nine. I have eight fetches, four basics, and the Twilight Mire. This gives me 18 B, 18 R, and 16 G. In my opinion this seems like a good package.
My long time playing BW Midrange has convinced me to be wary of being too threat-light, which is why I insist on keeping the creature count at 15. This deck has far more ability to recur threats from the yard than what I have played a lot of in the past, though.
I really like Engineered Explosives in the side, by the way, for enchantments, tokens, Affinity, and Lantern. Not too sure I really want Lavamancer though, since I have both Anger and EE. Thinking about changing Lavaman to Thrun (for the heavy control presence at my shop) or to a third Brutality for all the Burn, combo, and secondarily for control.
In general I suspect that tinkering with 24/25 lands and all the other little fiddling around that we do around the edges is certainly meaningful, but probably not hugely impactful over the course of a handful of weekly tourneys. What I mean is that I think success or failure probably has much more to with keep/mull decisions, matchup pairings, and general variance, than it does to changed percentages--at least on timescales of a few tens of matches instead of say many hundreds of matches.
I don't think that split on discard is something we can agree on. I don't think I've seen less than 4 but I've seen all sorts of splits on it, some heavier on Thoughtseize, some playing more than 5, etc. I think people haven't agreed on the discard, and I'd sooner just slot it as 4x discard.
I also think there are probably some additional constraints we can put on it. All the lists I've been looking at have at least 1 Abrupt Decay / 1 Fatal Push as well. When I look at the lands too, there's probably a minimum on shocks/fetches/manlands that we could write out. The idea for the core would get us to something a lot more fleshed out until we have a list fully fleshed out.
Alright guys, had some time to think about the current decklists from the mocs, the modern challenge and the 5-0's from the competitive leagues. There are some similarities between the lists, but there are also many different philosophies appearing.
About cutting Push: I am not a fan, to say the least. Push is a 1 mana (often) unconditional removal the deck needs. I think playing 1 is fine, but geting rid of it seems like a big mistake to me.
The amount of discard in the maindeck: Again, cutting Thoughtseize can't be right thing to do because you sometimes need this unconditional discard to take a big threat in your opponent's hand which IOK can't take care of. Reid Duke also added 1 Thoughtseize to his recent list.
The 4 Bolts are set in stone for me alongside the 4 IOK (depending on the meta I could also see a mix of 3 IOK/2 Thoughtseize but I like the 4/1 more). That leaves us with ten 1 mana interaction spells, which are hugely important to our strategy. Yes, BBE made these spells "worse" in the sense that higher cmc spells are better cascade targets but they are a) important to clear the way for our strong second and third turn spells in form of Bob, Goyf and Lili b) important in the midgame when it is necessary to cast several spells a turn (now even better with Treetop Village in the deck) and c) still not completely bad cascade targets.
The next part of the deck are the creatures. Most of the current lists play 15 creatures: 4 Bobs, 4 Goyfs, 3 Oozes and 4x the Elf. Now let me try to explain you the "Ooze problem" I have had since the unbanning: In order to be able to play 3 Oozes, you have to cut another card from the deck. I do not want to go below ten 1cmc spells, so the possibilities are the following:
1) Cut the 25th land: I think 25 lands is the correct amount, everything below is far too greedy. Imagine not hitting your 4th land in time in the mirror while your opponent is jamming BBE's for fun.
2) Cut Liliana, the Last Hope: Also currently not an option for me. The card is doing too many amazing things in so many matchups.
3) Cutting one of the higher cmc spells (I will come to them later). This is what most of the lists seem to do, but again these spells are too important for our strategy to cut them, but it is probably the best way if it turns out playing the 3rd Ooze is necessary.
4) Playing only 2 Oozes: This might seem greedy to a lot of you, but so far in my testing I have been happy with just two. Only the latest decklists online made me think again about this decision but for now I will stick to 2 of them.
Taking into consideration that 5 Lilis mainboard are the best configuration there are still 6 free slots in the deck: 2 of them are K-Command, one of the best cascade targets in the deck. I want the removal package as versatile as possible, therefore I decided to put in 4 different 1ofs:
Maelstrom Pulse, Terminate, Dreadbore and Abrupt Decay. 3 of them stand for versatility, Terminate is just there to do the job without asking any further questions.
Now to the lands:
If your meta is full of Blood Moon, play 2 Swamps and 2 Forests. My meta is full of Field of Ruin, so the Mountain instead of the second Forest is a no-brainer for me.
What I am really unsure about is the current configuration of manlands. I will start with 2 Ravines and 2 Treetop Villages, but if I struggle getting red mana I could see myself going back to 3 Ravines and a single Treetop Village. The Ape land is simply overperforming for it's activation cost, therefore the 2/2 split currently.
Anyway, here is the decklist I am currently testing with (I am yet to build a sideboard):
Optional are one more Ooze, one more Land, One more Discard, Terminate, Decay, Dreadbore, LtlH, Bolt, Push .....
I agree on everything except the discard. I think it is not clear if we want 3 IOK and 2 TS. I think what we can agree on is that discard should be anywhere between 4 and 6, but thats about it.
Maybe we wont be able to agree on discard in general, at least not the split. We probably will only be able to agree on the number. Discard is a very metagame dependant thing in my opinion, and also personal preference. Some people like more to save dmg against aggro decks and run more IOK, and others want to hit every card possible and run more TS.
My decision was to offset the reduced percentage of playing a land on T4, by increasing the odds that any land I *do* play T4+ will enter untapped. That means only four fastlands and three manlands for a total of seven, vs. a normal list's nine. I have eight fetches, four basics, and the Twilight Mire. This gives me 18 B, 18 R, and 16 G. In my opinion this seems like a good package.
In general I suspect that tinkering with 24/25 lands and all the other little fiddling around that we do around the edges is certainly meaningful, but probably not hugely impactful over the course of a handful of weekly tourneys. What I mean is that I think success or failure probably has much more to with keep/mull decisions, matchup pairings, and general variance, than it does to changed percentages--at least on timescales of a few tens of matches instead of say many hundreds of matches.
That is certainly viable, but I want to stress that the standard 24 land build looked like the following:
This is actually the same amount of "tapped" lands like you have right now. So you really didnt offset the higher curve at all compared to the past. Now, admitted, sometimes Blooming Marsh was run over Mire, but 24 land builds have definitely not 9 of those lands like you assumed. It was 7, and sometimes 8.
Most of those 24 land builds suggested all around are actually not according the standard manabase from the past, but are more or less greedy breeds of a 25 land base. Especially since more people included Treetop in the 25 land builds, people just assume that you can also play it in 24 land builds.
Its like going into a new direction by adding a land, and then going back a different direction by cutting a different land. You end somewhere else.
And that leads to misassumptions on the general needs and requirements our manabase has. The starting point of the manabase has unrightfully shifted by many people, since some of them dont know, when looking at a 25 land build, what the actual 25th land is. And when they think that 25 lands is too much, they often cut a wrong land, landing in a different realm of 24 land build. And if many people do so, "false" 24 land builds are spread, which I think is essentially the case now.
I am really stressing this purposefully since I really value this topic highly. It is important to know where you came from when you want to go back (In that case going from 25 lands to 24 lands or simply depicting a 24 land builds from 25 land builds).
What do you side in for burn other than brutality?
TappedOut
Would love to have more input to improve!
Where can I find this list? I'm very interested in the possibility of trading one Bolt for Grim Lavamancer. I played him in my MB a few years ago and he was awesome. I'd like to see what the rest of Shaun's list looked like.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
Shaun's list is on his twitter here: https://twitter.com/ShaunMcLaren/status/970462809396883456
From his 30 Days of Streaming marathon, for anyone wanting more Jund video content, there's VODs of his streams on his Twitch too.
UWR Geist
UWR Control
UW Control
UWx control/midrange
Bant Eldrazi
So I've noticed some guys are trying to jam the second Treetop Village. We used to run the second one sometimes a few years ago, but I don't recall if our mana requirements were more or less demanding. If I wanted to try it out, what should I cut? I see Steve Rubin cut the 4th basic (Mountain). Does this seem correct? I mean, I want the second Treetop, but I don't know if I want to get that greedy. Would I be better off cutting a Raging Ravine possibly?
Last but not least, after seeing literally almost everyone running 3x Scooze, I'm going to do the same. I cut the third almost right away so I could slot in an extra removal spell, but honestly I think I was just being greedy. I'm not going to go against the grain on this one.
Edit: So it looks like Duke cut a fetchland for Treetop, Nettles cut a Ravine, and Rubin cut the Mountain. Then you have the other guys running 24x lands with no Treetop. Not sure who to trust or look to. I do know I like 25x lands and I do know I want 2x Treetops though.
Edit #2: Ok, so here's the list I think I'm gonna try to settle on for now. I'm not doing myself any good at this point flip-flopping back and forth between all our awesome options.
4x Bloodbraid Elf
4x Dark Confidant
4x Tarmogoyf
3x Scavenging Oooze
1x Grim Lavamancer
Planeswalkers(4)
4x Liliana of the Veil
Instants(8)
2x Kolaghan's Command
1x Abrupt Decay
1x Terminate
3x Lightning Bolt
1x Fatal Push
Sorceries(7)
2x Maelstrom Pulse
3x Inquisition of Kozilek
2x Thoughtseize
4x Blackcleave Cliffs
4x Verdant Catacombs
3x Bloodstained Mire
1x Wooded Foothills
2x Overgrown Tomb
1x Blood Crypt
1x Stomping Ground
2x Swamp
1x Forest
1x Mountain
2x Raging Ravine
2x Treetop Village
1x Twilight Mire
3x Fulminator Mage
1x Kolaghan's Command
1x Liliana, the Last Hope
1x Choke
2x Ancient Grudge
3x Collective Brutality
1x Deglamer
1x Golgari Charm
1x Nihil Spellbomb
1x Grafdigger's Cage
Yeah... I think I can get on board with that. By no means am I set on the sideboard though. Still, I think it's headed in the right direction. Input is appreciated, as always. I think I'm gonna rock this bad boy on Wednesday, see how that goes, and go from there for FNM.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
In the mirror you cut all discard and CBs and bring in grindy stuff, like always. I don't think that changes at all with BBE around. If you leave in TS to snag BBE, you own BBE will also get worse, and I think that this is a mistake.
Check the primer, there is information about UW and UWR.
As for Geist, it is usually favourable for us, as this deck plays out more or less like a tempo deck. And Geist specifically is not the best vs us due to LoTV.
4x Verdant Catacombs
4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Blackcleave Cliffs
2x Overgrown Tomb
1x Blood Crypt
1x Stomping Ground
2x Swamp
1x Forest
1x Mountain
3x Raging Ravine
1x Twilight Mire
Creature (15)
4x Dark Confidant
4x Tarmogoyf
4x Bloodbraid Elf
3x Scavenging Ooze
4x Liliana of the Veil
1x Liliana, the Last Hope
Sorcery (7)
4x Inquisition of Kozilek
1x Thoughtseize
1x Dreadbore
1x Maelstrom Pulse
Instant (9)
4x Lightning Bolt
2x Kolaghan's Command
1x Fatal Push
1x Abrupt Decay
1x Terminate
2x Ancient Grudge
1x Anger of the Gods
2x Collective Brutality
1x Engineered Explosives
3x Fulminator Mage
1x Grafdigger's Cage
1x Grim Lavamancer
1x Kitchen Finks
1x Liliana, the Last Hope
1x Nihil Spellbomb
1x Thoughtseize
I dont think the primer is very accurate - has it been updated since BBE? UW control is def not a negative match-up - UW control players are unanimous that it is unfavoured for UW control
UWx control/midrange
Bant Eldrazi
I tried 6 discard main last night, and I didn't like it outside of the grixis control matchup, I felt as though I was too short on removal.
Not having an agreed upon list kinda gives me anxiety. That was my issue with Abzan at points last year, it took a while for a list to be agreed upon
It seems like the pro's are even more split about what a list should look like than before.
- What is the correct configuration of manlands?
- How much discard overall, and how many Thoughtseizes? We are losing more life now than before the unbans due to us being a tad slower/higher cmc with Bob in the buildup and Thoughtseize can really hurt against the now rejuvenated Burn decks.
- How should our removal package look like? Some pros play no Push and Terminate, others cut Decay entirely from the deck.
Questions over questions and we do not get clear answers. Reid and Logan performed poorly while Steve did well at MOCS, but then again, this tournament is not an inidicator for how the deck will look like in the future due to being a very small tournament with metachoices.
I might go back to Reids first try from his article and go on from there because I feel that list was solid and it proved to be very strong in Jeff Hoogland's stream (although I am not a big fan of him I have to admit that he played the deck pretty well).
Btw, someone noticed the FB-group and their opinions, but I would not listen too much to them because this thread here is miles ahead in terms of skill-level and experience.
Given that statement it makes me feel you have not really read the primer at all. Thanks for that assignment.
If you actually read through it I said that with BBE the matchup gets better. And I did not say anywhere UW Control is completeley negative, but it is definitely close (only thing is that the matchup analysis is not fully acurate yet). UW was 100 % a bad matchup without BBE, with BBE it gets better and it is stated that way.
I actually recommend reading through the primer before write it off that way.
If you would have read the primer you would realize that I mention BBE acouple of times. I'll leave it like that for your question if the primer is updated or not.
I agree. The only real big thing what I am starting to believe is right is the 25 land package. Its just higher CMC, more dmg from Bob and clunkier cards, which requires 25 lands imo.
I am especially unsure about discard package and removal package as well. Creature suite should be clear as of now.
Yup, you have the same questions as me
So, I think the forum regulars here and the pros have reached the consensus on the 15 creature package, right? We used to run 13, and in 2016 we ran 14.
This is all I have as figured out.
I tried 6 discard last night and it didn't feel great, I needed answers, not discard.
I'm still not sure about 24 or 25 lands.
Hoogland, despite being unlikable, played Reid's original list very well, his losses were usually to really fast combo opponents who had close to nut hands.
Cutting down to 1 terminate/dreadbore seems...shaky. This only seems possible in a world where other midrange decks don't exist or bigger decks don't thrive.
There's a GP in mid March, I have a feeling things will get a little clearer then.
I may go back to Reid's original list. Cutting the push for the 2nd pulse seems greedy.
I've been performing poorly at my FNM for the past...hmmm, month and a half? (it's very competitive, large and there's no regulars to prepare for, it's everything). I've been doing fine on MTGO and bigger tournaments but I am running real cold at my weekly FNM and that feels bad.
2-2 is something unacceptable to me, I usually just drop if I can't cash in, I can always get practice on MTGO, may as well hang out with the wife instead of playing someone who also did poorly.
My win against blue decks has skyrocketed. Last night I had two BBE cascades flop against Humans, while I was forced to chump block a large Champion for multiple turns. I played against some janky abzan deck that played lingering souls, voice of resurgence, trackers and coursers. It was like Todd Stevens list without the dorks. I was pretty frustrated because I think his deck was trash that wouldn't do well in an open field, but two games in a row where he had voice into souls was backbreaking.
But I found myself even feeling low on removal against Humans.
Anyway, all I know is that these mocs only made the Jund lists seem more confusing. I'll probably test out Rubins list on the mtgo practice rooms.
Ha! Aye, there’s the rub. FNM’s (or any tournament for that matter) always come with the opportunity cost of losing a Friday night with one’s wife (or loved ones). And I agree, if you’re not winning and on top of that not having fun or getting good practice rounds in against real meta decks and decent players, what’s the point? Depending on the night, a loss at my LGS can be brutal. It’s either highly competitive with an accurate representation of larger tournaments, or after losing a match you get paired with the kid that’s shuffling his unsleeved deck like they were Bicycle playing cards.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
My decision was to offset the reduced percentage of playing a land on T4, by increasing the odds that any land I *do* play T4+ will enter untapped. That means only four fastlands and three manlands for a total of seven, vs. a normal list's nine. I have eight fetches, four basics, and the Twilight Mire. This gives me 18 B, 18 R, and 16 G. In my opinion this seems like a good package.
My long time playing BW Midrange has convinced me to be wary of being too threat-light, which is why I insist on keeping the creature count at 15. This deck has far more ability to recur threats from the yard than what I have played a lot of in the past, though.
I really like Engineered Explosives in the side, by the way, for enchantments, tokens, Affinity, and Lantern. Not too sure I really want Lavamancer though, since I have both Anger and EE. Thinking about changing Lavaman to Thrun (for the heavy control presence at my shop) or to a third Brutality for all the Burn, combo, and secondarily for control.
In general I suspect that tinkering with 24/25 lands and all the other little fiddling around that we do around the edges is certainly meaningful, but probably not hugely impactful over the course of a handful of weekly tourneys. What I mean is that I think success or failure probably has much more to with keep/mull decisions, matchup pairings, and general variance, than it does to changed percentages--at least on timescales of a few tens of matches instead of say many hundreds of matches.
I also think there are probably some additional constraints we can put on it. All the lists I've been looking at have at least 1 Abrupt Decay / 1 Fatal Push as well. When I look at the lands too, there's probably a minimum on shocks/fetches/manlands that we could write out. The idea for the core would get us to something a lot more fleshed out until we have a list fully fleshed out.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
About cutting Push: I am not a fan, to say the least. Push is a 1 mana (often) unconditional removal the deck needs. I think playing 1 is fine, but geting rid of it seems like a big mistake to me.
The amount of discard in the maindeck: Again, cutting Thoughtseize can't be right thing to do because you sometimes need this unconditional discard to take a big threat in your opponent's hand which IOK can't take care of. Reid Duke also added 1 Thoughtseize to his recent list.
The 4 Bolts are set in stone for me alongside the 4 IOK (depending on the meta I could also see a mix of 3 IOK/2 Thoughtseize but I like the 4/1 more). That leaves us with ten 1 mana interaction spells, which are hugely important to our strategy. Yes, BBE made these spells "worse" in the sense that higher cmc spells are better cascade targets but they are a) important to clear the way for our strong second and third turn spells in form of Bob, Goyf and Lili b) important in the midgame when it is necessary to cast several spells a turn (now even better with Treetop Village in the deck) and c) still not completely bad cascade targets.
The next part of the deck are the creatures. Most of the current lists play 15 creatures: 4 Bobs, 4 Goyfs, 3 Oozes and 4x the Elf. Now let me try to explain you the "Ooze problem" I have had since the unbanning: In order to be able to play 3 Oozes, you have to cut another card from the deck. I do not want to go below ten 1cmc spells, so the possibilities are the following:
1) Cut the 25th land: I think 25 lands is the correct amount, everything below is far too greedy. Imagine not hitting your 4th land in time in the mirror while your opponent is jamming BBE's for fun.
2) Cut Liliana, the Last Hope: Also currently not an option for me. The card is doing too many amazing things in so many matchups.
3) Cutting one of the higher cmc spells (I will come to them later). This is what most of the lists seem to do, but again these spells are too important for our strategy to cut them, but it is probably the best way if it turns out playing the 3rd Ooze is necessary.
4) Playing only 2 Oozes: This might seem greedy to a lot of you, but so far in my testing I have been happy with just two. Only the latest decklists online made me think again about this decision but for now I will stick to 2 of them.
Taking into consideration that 5 Lilis mainboard are the best configuration there are still 6 free slots in the deck: 2 of them are K-Command, one of the best cascade targets in the deck. I want the removal package as versatile as possible, therefore I decided to put in 4 different 1ofs:
Maelstrom Pulse, Terminate, Dreadbore and Abrupt Decay. 3 of them stand for versatility, Terminate is just there to do the job without asking any further questions.
Now to the lands:
If your meta is full of Blood Moon, play 2 Swamps and 2 Forests. My meta is full of Field of Ruin, so the Mountain instead of the second Forest is a no-brainer for me.
What I am really unsure about is the current configuration of manlands. I will start with 2 Ravines and 2 Treetop Villages, but if I struggle getting red mana I could see myself going back to 3 Ravines and a single Treetop Village. The Ape land is simply overperforming for it's activation cost, therefore the 2/2 split currently.
Anyway, here is the decklist I am currently testing with (I am yet to build a sideboard):
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Bloodbraid Elf
Planeswalkers (5)
4 Liliana of the Veil
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
Spells (16)
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Thoughtseize
1 Fatal Push
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Terminate
1 Dreadbore
1 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Kolaghan's Command
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Mountain
1 Twilight Mire
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
2 Raging Ravine
2 Treetop Village
I agree on everything except the discard. I think it is not clear if we want 3 IOK and 2 TS. I think what we can agree on is that discard should be anywhere between 4 and 6, but thats about it.
Maybe we wont be able to agree on discard in general, at least not the split. We probably will only be able to agree on the number. Discard is a very metagame dependant thing in my opinion, and also personal preference. Some people like more to save dmg against aggro decks and run more IOK, and others want to hit every card possible and run more TS.
That is certainly viable, but I want to stress that the standard 24 land build looked like the following:
4 Bloodstained Mire
1 Wooded Foothills
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
3 Raging Ravine
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Twilight Mire
This is actually the same amount of "tapped" lands like you have right now. So you really didnt offset the higher curve at all compared to the past. Now, admitted, sometimes Blooming Marsh was run over Mire, but 24 land builds have definitely not 9 of those lands like you assumed. It was 7, and sometimes 8.
Most of those 24 land builds suggested all around are actually not according the standard manabase from the past, but are more or less greedy breeds of a 25 land base. Especially since more people included Treetop in the 25 land builds, people just assume that you can also play it in 24 land builds.
Its like going into a new direction by adding a land, and then going back a different direction by cutting a different land. You end somewhere else.
And that leads to misassumptions on the general needs and requirements our manabase has. The starting point of the manabase has unrightfully shifted by many people, since some of them dont know, when looking at a 25 land build, what the actual 25th land is. And when they think that 25 lands is too much, they often cut a wrong land, landing in a different realm of 24 land build. And if many people do so, "false" 24 land builds are spread, which I think is essentially the case now.
I am really stressing this purposefully since I really value this topic highly. It is important to know where you came from when you want to go back (In that case going from 25 lands to 24 lands or simply depicting a 24 land builds from 25 land builds).