FYI: I've played only a minimal amount of mirrors since the unbannings, so take this lightly.
I've found the main difference between the more low to the ground interactive build and the previous builds posted of the Jund list, in the mirror, comes down to Fatal Push. The older lists don't tend to run this card to such a large extend that we do - which means that their Goyfs and Bobs tend to die on sight, while our Goyf has a much higher chance of surviving.
I do think the 4th man land is huge in the mirror though. I played a mirror last friday (with 25 lands, 4 man lands, but still low with lots of 1 drops). The deciding game came down the fact that I had drawn man lands, and my opponent didn't (he got quite unlucky). Treetop is a boss in the mirror - if they tap out T3 for Liliana and we have active treetop, we can kill it our T3 (even on the draw) without investing any cards into it. For mirrors and matches where you need the last bit of damage early - the card is a boss.
@andyburgos I love the approach thus far, cannot recommend it enough. You need to be aware that you lack the extra umph in the mirror though.
I have to say including TTV in my 24 landsuite seems particularly interesting especially due to the mentioned lack in powerlevel for the mirror. Manlands are usually what stay after the dust settles and can win you the game easily. Therefore I think TTV is definitely not a card you would miss in aggro matchups, but in attrition based and grindy matchups. And I am looking to see how bad TTV is in aggro matchups. If I don't see a significant impact for the aggro matchups, I think its safe to run 4 manlands in the 24 land build.
Thanks for sharing, I wholeheartedly agree on that last sentence.
I feel that many decisitions are close to mutually exclusive, i.e. 2xTireless tracker vs. TTV. I get from what you are saying that Hazoret is improving chances in the mirror, so I'll lend that and give it a go since I am only running one Abrupt Decay at the moment and can't find place for a second one for the life of me.
FYI: I've played only a minimal amount of mirrors since the unbannings, so take this lightly.
I've found the main difference between the more low to the ground interactive build and the previous builds posted of the Jund list, in the mirror, comes down to Fatal Push. The older lists don't tend to run this card to such a large extend that we do - which means that their Goyfs and Bobs tend to die on sight, while our Goyf has a much higher chance of surviving.
I do think the 4th man land is huge in the mirror though. I played a mirror last friday (with 25 lands, 4 man lands, but still low with lots of 1 drops). The deciding game came down the fact that I had drawn man lands, and my opponent didn't (he got quite unlucky). Treetop is a boss in the mirror - if they tap out T3 for Liliana and we have active treetop, we can kill it our T3 (even on the draw) without investing any cards into it. For mirrors and matches where you need the last bit of damage early - the card is a boss.
Amount of Fatal Push is a factor, but like you said, I think that manlands are more impactful in the mirror.
@andyburgos I love the approach thus far, cannot recommend it enough. You need to be aware that you lack the extra umph in the mirror though.
I have to say including TTV in my 24 landsuite seems particularly interesting especially due to the mentioned lack in powerlevel for the mirror. Manlands are usually what stay after the dust settles and can win you the game easily. Therefore I think TTV is definitely not a card you would miss in aggro matchups, but in attrition based and grindy matchups. And I am looking to see how bad TTV is in aggro matchups. If I don't see a significant impact for the aggro matchups, I think its safe to run 4 manlands in the 24 land build.
Thanks for sharing, I wholeheartedly agree on that last sentence.
I feel that many decisitions are close to mutually exclusive, i.e. 2xTireless tracker vs. TTV. I get from what you are saying that Hazoret is improving chances in the mirror, so I'll lend that and give it a go since I am only running one Abrupt Decay at the moment and can't find place for a second one for the life of me.
Well, I did not say that 4 manlands in 24 landsuites are actually fine, in fact I cannot tell as of now.
Yep! I Think you right, we needs a clock fast, one discard and a goyf for example. I think running 3 CB in SB waht you think Delver?
3 CB is certainly good vs Burn, I personally am on a 2/2 split of Finks and CB right now, since Finks is really good in the mirror and has broader applicability than CB I think.
I liked this list: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1006597#paper. 3 TTV and 2 RaRa sounds good to me. Transforming the RaRa requires 5 lands, 5 lands with the TTV you can play a magic of CMC 2 (BOB, Goyf, Decay, Push, Bolt,) and still attack transform TTV.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:
Mardu Pyromancer
Grixis Shadow
Traverse Shadow
Jund
Abzan
The Rock
I'm fairly certain having 4 creature-lands in a 24-land base is a surefire clunky mana base. If you don't mind not getting to play two spells or a 4-CMC spell on time, then I don't think you will care. I just think the liklihood is that you'll be a bit slower in casting your spells with 4 Blackcleave Cliffs and 4 creature-lands (a third of your mana base) without including shock lands since they hurt.
My sentiment on having 5 creature-lands on a 25-land base seems to line up similarly from experience as well, but I do love me some Treetop Village.
I'm fairly certain having 4 creature-lands in a 24-land base is a surefire clunky mana base. If you don't mind not getting to play two spells or a 4-CMC spell on time, then I don't think you will care. I just think the liklihood is that you'll be a bit slower in casting your spells with 4 Blackcleave Cliffs and 4 creature-lands (a third of your mana base) without including shock lands since they hurt.
My sentiment on having 5 creature-lands on a 25-land base seems to line up similarly from experience as well, but I do love me some Treetop Village.
Ultimately, thats what I also think right now and what I base my current opinion about this topic on that. In order to find out whether it works or not, we can simply test it (which I did not find time for yet, unfortunately) or compare manabases to the past.
When Infect was a good deck, we did run 24 lands with 3 Ravines. Running a fourth manland there would have been absurd, since the meta was so fast that the extra manlands would hurt the consistancy of our deck more than it would benefit.
However, during the time when Splinter Twin was legal (which was until January 2016) some Jund decks did run 4 Ravines in the 24 landbase. Also generally in the history of Jund 4 Ravines pop up at times here and there.
To conclude, whether or not 4 manlands are good or at least consistant enough depends on the speed of the format. Now its hard to compare the Splinter Twin format to this wide open modern format we have now of course, but I think its worth testing because we at least know that it is possible from a historical point of view.
Had good luck with the 4th manland (Treetop) in the 24 land build today. It was crucial as a clock and a Jace-killer in the Bring to Light Scapeshift (there’s got to be a better name for that) MU. I won he match, btw. His Jace would have run away with the game if not for that manland. Also, Tireless Tracker was a nice additional clock in games 2 and 3 in said MU. I also beat both Jund and Junk today. I played tight and it paid off. Tracker was big here, as well as both Ravine and Treetop. I haven’t noticed the extra manland slowing me down any. I dunno, I’m kind of sold at this point. You can say it’s anecdotal, I’ll say it’s empirical (I do understand how very little data is actually involved, I definitely have a bias). I think I used to run four anyway. Plus Duke advocated for it which isn’t nothing. Treetop is great, and I really want one in the 60.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I mean, one of the main alternatives to Treetop is the second basic forest, which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal. It could, in certain situations, put Abrupt Decay and Tarmogoyf online a turn sooner than Treetop (and against burn especially this can be important), but that doesn't seem like a big enough difference in efficacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I mean, one of the main alternatives to Treetop is the second basic forest, which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal. It could, in certain situations, put Abrupt Decay and Tarmogoyf online a turn sooner than Treetop (and against burn especially this can be important), but that doesn't seem like a big enough difference in efficacy.
Its definitely not as simple as that. There are other huge important factors/cards as well: KCommand, LoTV, LtLH, BBE, Ooze, activating Ooze's ability, being able to hold up removal and still deploy a creature etc etc. In all those instances a topdecked forest helps vastly more than a topdecked treetop village.
I mean, one of the main alternatives to Treetop is the second basic forest, which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal. It could, in certain situations, put Abrupt Decay and Tarmogoyf online a turn sooner than Treetop (and against burn especially this can be important), but that doesn't seem like a big enough difference in efficacy.
Its definitely not as simple as that. There are other huge important factors/cards as well: KCommand, LoTV, LtLH, BBE, Ooze, activating Ooze's ability, being able to hold up removal and still deploy a creature etc etc. In all those instances a topdecked forest helps vastly more than a topdecked treetop village.
is that Not exactly what he said, that tree Top does not make less colored mana than Forest, but is a turn slower?
No not really. It was stated that having a untapped forest this turn is more or less equal to having a tapped treetop this turn. Which isn't equal in my opinion. An untapped Forest this turn can give us so many possibilities in different situations to work against the pressure of aggro decks, wheras Treetop is, for this turn, just a missed landdrop effectively. And this can be very backbreaking against aggro. We already are on the backfoot naturally against aggro, we are being pressured hard by them, and we need to timely cast our spells in order to stand a chance against that. And my point is that Forest helps for that purpose, wheras treetop does not (in the turn where they enter the BF).
I mean, one of the main alternatives to Treetop is the second basic forest, which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal. It could, in certain situations, put Abrupt Decay and Tarmogoyf online a turn sooner than Treetop (and against burn especially this can be important), but that doesn't seem like a big enough difference in efficacy.
Its definitely not as simple as that. There are other huge important factors/cards as well: KCommand, LoTV, LtLH, BBE, Ooze, activating Ooze's ability, being able to hold up removal and still deploy a creature etc etc. In all those instances a topdecked forest helps vastly more than a topdecked treetop village.
is that Not exactly what he said, that tree Top does not make less colored mana than Forest, but is a turn slower?
No not really. It was stated that having a untapped forest this turn is more or less equal to having a tapped treetop this turn. Which isn't equal in my opinion. An untapped Forest this turn can give us so many possibilities in different situations to work against the pressure of aggro decks, wheras Treetop is, for this turn, just a missed landdrop effectively. And this can be very backbreaking against aggro. We already are on the backfoot naturally against aggro, we are being pressured hard by them, and we need to timely cast our spells in order to stand a chance against that. And my point is that Forest helps for that purpose, wheras treetop does not (in the turn where they enter the BF).
I guess I could have been more clear. All I meant by "early removal" when I said "which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal." was bolt, push, decay, and terminate. Any one or two-drop removal spells. I know it (the juxtaposition between the two lands in the Aggro MU) is not that simple, and don't think I suggested it was. I meant what I said at face value:
When trying to cast Bolt, Push, Terminate, or Decay (with the occasional exception of Decay) in the first two turns, it doesn't matter whether you have a Forest or a Treetop.
At no point did I suggest this was the only consideration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I played the Hollow One MU a few times earlier. The guy was happy to get the practice and so was I. It’s pretty rough. Any suggestions? Are we supposed to side in an Ancient Grudge? Seems extremely narrow.
I mean, if it gets too bad and starts becoming very popular I guess we could add some more Cages or Spellbombs in the side. I don’t know what else I would do. LotVoid seems extreme, especially in such an extremely diverse format as modern is right now. I kind of want to play the deck. Not sure if I’d have fun with it or not. The only things that really cost money that I don’t already have from Jund or LE are the Bloodghasts and the Goblin Lores.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
You bring multiple Grudges in? Maybe I’ll try that. I felt one was enough of a commitment to blowing up mummies. And I hear you, it always felt like if I had just a few more points of life I would be able to stabilize. That initial onslaught is rough though. I haven’t played the MU enough to know if my OP was getting lucky or if that’s how the deck always operates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I bring Grudges in, they're a solid answer to multiple Hollow Ones which allows us to save our hard removal for Anglers. Anger is great for dealing with those annoying recurring creatures too - I'm running 2 currently. A resolved Anger usually makes LotV great too. I've not had too many issues against the deck to be fair. They either seem to win early or we catch up and capitalize on their late game fragility.
Glad to see someone else doing the same thing. Some people thought I was weird bringing in two pieces of artifact removal against Hollow One decks... the Hollow is their only artifact, but it shows up often enough that artifact removal is not a waste.
It makes sense. After drawing seven cards and casting a Faithless Looting or two, or a Goblin Lore, they’ve already seen quite a bit of their deck and chances are you’ll be seeing a Hollow One. You can always toss it to Lili, and you don’t mind if you lose it to Burning Inquiry. I’ll give running two a shot.
Has anyone else tried the MB Lavaman?? It’s so good against so many MU’s. I wish y’all would. Having that kind of power game-one when it counts is amazing. He’s forced a couple of scoops on his own. I’m wondering if I should add a second in the board.
I guess I could have been more clear. All I meant by "early removal" when I said "which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal." was bolt, push, decay, and terminate. Any one or two-drop removal spells. I know it (the juxtaposition between the two lands in the Aggro MU) is not that simple, and don't think I suggested it was. I meant what I said at face value:
When trying to cast Bolt, Push, Terminate, or Decay (with the occasional exception of Decay) in the first two turns, it doesn't matter whether you have a Forest or a Treetop.
At no point did I suggest this was the only consideration.
I know that you said that concerning early removal, and this is technically right. But from context it seemed to me that you wanted to say that this is the most important part of it and that treetop isnt that bad in comparizon to forest. And thats where I catched in and wanted to say that for different cases and in a more general way, Forest is still way better than treetop in this spot, and that casting early removal is not everything about it. Anyway, just wanted to address this, thats all.
I've found the main difference between the more low to the ground interactive build and the previous builds posted of the Jund list, in the mirror, comes down to Fatal Push. The older lists don't tend to run this card to such a large extend that we do - which means that their Goyfs and Bobs tend to die on sight, while our Goyf has a much higher chance of surviving.
I do think the 4th man land is huge in the mirror though. I played a mirror last friday (with 25 lands, 4 man lands, but still low with lots of 1 drops). The deciding game came down the fact that I had drawn man lands, and my opponent didn't (he got quite unlucky). Treetop is a boss in the mirror - if they tap out T3 for Liliana and we have active treetop, we can kill it our T3 (even on the draw) without investing any cards into it. For mirrors and matches where you need the last bit of damage early - the card is a boss.
Thanks for sharing, I wholeheartedly agree on that last sentence.
I feel that many decisitions are close to mutually exclusive, i.e. 2xTireless tracker vs. TTV. I get from what you are saying that Hazoret is improving chances in the mirror, so I'll lend that and give it a go since I am only running one Abrupt Decay at the moment and can't find place for a second one for the life of me.
Amount of Fatal Push is a factor, but like you said, I think that manlands are more impactful in the mirror.
Well, I did not say that 4 manlands in 24 landsuites are actually fine, in fact I cannot tell as of now.
Hazoret is certainly a bomb for the mirror, yes.
Mardu Pyromancer
Grixis Shadow
Traverse Shadow
Jund
Abzan
The Rock
3 CB is certainly good vs Burn, I personally am on a 2/2 split of Finks and CB right now, since Finks is really good in the mirror and has broader applicability than CB I think.
I liked this list: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1006597#paper. 3 TTV and 2 RaRa sounds good to me. Transforming the RaRa requires 5 lands, 5 lands with the TTV you can play a magic of CMC 2 (BOB, Goyf, Decay, Push, Bolt,) and still attack transform TTV.
Mardu Pyromancer
Grixis Shadow
Traverse Shadow
Jund
Abzan
The Rock
My sentiment on having 5 creature-lands on a 25-land base seems to line up similarly from experience as well, but I do love me some Treetop Village.
Ultimately, thats what I also think right now and what I base my current opinion about this topic on that. In order to find out whether it works or not, we can simply test it (which I did not find time for yet, unfortunately) or compare manabases to the past.
When Infect was a good deck, we did run 24 lands with 3 Ravines. Running a fourth manland there would have been absurd, since the meta was so fast that the extra manlands would hurt the consistancy of our deck more than it would benefit.
However, during the time when Splinter Twin was legal (which was until January 2016) some Jund decks did run 4 Ravines in the 24 landbase. Also generally in the history of Jund 4 Ravines pop up at times here and there.
To conclude, whether or not 4 manlands are good or at least consistant enough depends on the speed of the format. Now its hard to compare the Splinter Twin format to this wide open modern format we have now of course, but I think its worth testing because we at least know that it is possible from a historical point of view.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
Its definitely not as simple as that. There are other huge important factors/cards as well: KCommand, LoTV, LtLH, BBE, Ooze, activating Ooze's ability, being able to hold up removal and still deploy a creature etc etc. In all those instances a topdecked forest helps vastly more than a topdecked treetop village.
No not really. It was stated that having a untapped forest this turn is more or less equal to having a tapped treetop this turn. Which isn't equal in my opinion. An untapped Forest this turn can give us so many possibilities in different situations to work against the pressure of aggro decks, wheras Treetop is, for this turn, just a missed landdrop effectively. And this can be very backbreaking against aggro. We already are on the backfoot naturally against aggro, we are being pressured hard by them, and we need to timely cast our spells in order to stand a chance against that. And my point is that Forest helps for that purpose, wheras treetop does not (in the turn where they enter the BF).
I guess I could have been more clear. All I meant by "early removal" when I said "which doesn't do anything for us against aggressive decks that Treetop wouldn't in terms of casting our early removal." was bolt, push, decay, and terminate. Any one or two-drop removal spells. I know it (the juxtaposition between the two lands in the Aggro MU) is not that simple, and don't think I suggested it was. I meant what I said at face value:
When trying to cast Bolt, Push, Terminate, or Decay (with the occasional exception of Decay) in the first two turns, it doesn't matter whether you have a Forest or a Treetop.
At no point did I suggest this was the only consideration.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I mean, if it gets too bad and starts becoming very popular I guess we could add some more Cages or Spellbombs in the side. I don’t know what else I would do. LotVoid seems extreme, especially in such an extremely diverse format as modern is right now. I kind of want to play the deck. Not sure if I’d have fun with it or not. The only things that really cost money that I don’t already have from Jund or LE are the Bloodghasts and the Goblin Lores.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
Glad to see someone else doing the same thing. Some people thought I was weird bringing in two pieces of artifact removal against Hollow One decks... the Hollow is their only artifact, but it shows up often enough that artifact removal is not a waste.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Has anyone else tried the MB Lavaman?? It’s so good against so many MU’s. I wish y’all would. Having that kind of power game-one when it counts is amazing. He’s forced a couple of scoops on his own. I’m wondering if I should add a second in the board.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I know that you said that concerning early removal, and this is technically right. But from context it seemed to me that you wanted to say that this is the most important part of it and that treetop isnt that bad in comparizon to forest. And thats where I catched in and wanted to say that for different cases and in a more general way, Forest is still way better than treetop in this spot, and that casting early removal is not everything about it. Anyway, just wanted to address this, thats all.