Sam: a demon summoning spell ? why?
Lucifer: to summon a demon (auto censorship here)
====
The Wizard of Oz: A juvenile delinquent runs away from home, kills the first person she meets in a foreign land, robs her corpse, then promptly forms a gang with three complete strangers in order to kill again.
====
For Jeskai Control/Mardu/midrange decks primarily. Unless it gets countered, you should be able to turn that card at least into 2 cards if you us a fetchland for it (the fact that I play 9 also helps with that). I see how it goes.
See, this is nice. I swear the last time everyone was focused on Jund’s problems there was like three pages of whining instead of this proactive discussion and problem solving.
Delver, 3x Flayer at the expense of a Scooze? That’s a tough concession to make. I’m sure you didn’t come to that decision lightly. When trying to make room in my deck for something new, I’m always eyeballing the third Scooze, but any time I’ve taken him out I’ve usually added him back pretty quickly. I like having that much MB help against graveyard strategies and Burn, and he’s just a good late-game, top-decked bomb in general. I’m interested in how you feel about the additional Flayer after some testing. Also, have you tried a 3/1 split of the Lilianas? I’ve been a big fan of it lately. Honestly I feel like she’s just as good for the Control MU as she is for killing weenies just because of the -2 ability.
So what new (currently non-existent) cards do we think would really give us an edge if they were to be printed? A Midrange Mana-Dork that isn’t an awful topdeck? What about another Gx (2cmc) fatty to increase our clock or add some kind of virtual or actual CA while putting on pressure? Or some catch-all removal similar to Pulse, but a little quicker?
And paulotheodoro: Yeah man, Floyd is the tits. Love ‘em. I sent you a private message.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
Oh, also, if Stoneforge Mystic ends up getting unbanned, what kind of edge does that give BGW over BRG in regard to meta%/playability? Does having access to SFM, Lingering Souls, Path to Exile, and all the killer sideboard cards make them more relevant than us? Or does it just give us poor, misguided Midrange players another barely valid option?
In one way it could be bad for Jund if it just split the players that are already playing BGx because there are already so few running Jund.
In another way it could be good for Jund if SFM attracted more players to the BGx archetype (if they actually converted instead of just temporarily trying out the newly unbanned card), because that would slow down the format a little bit and we could focus more on grinding than on whatever it is we're doing now. Also, K-Command trades quite nicely with an activated SFM.
Honestly, I doubt she would make much of a splash in the long-run if she were unbanned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
It's flying delver's deck minus the flayers( i didn't own them), i was very impressed with deck because it behaved like a proper jund deck( last fnm in 4 turns , every hand even mulligans i had a raging ravine in hand PS:i am not joking).
Match ups :
Jund 2 - Storm 0
1) discards and scavenging ooze keep him i check while i beat him with goyf
2) same as the previous game plus lily
Jund 2 - 0 B/W something( i thought it was eldrazi and taxes but it was just b/w cards with some eldrazi)
1) discards and removal keep his creatures in check while goyf and bbe beat him
2) liliana keep his hand and creatures in check while bbe and goyf beat him
Jund 1 - mono red 2
1) i keep a bad hand and i got punished for it
2) oppo mulls to 4 get stuck on lands, while i kill him quickly
3) i helped my opponent by fetchin for non basics
Jund 1 - Treasure hunt 2
1) since i had no idea of the deck i am playing against i keep an hand with a mix of beaters/discard/ removal, i manage to discar his key pieces and then beat him.
2) i manage to discard some of his key pieces but he finds them again.
3) controversial: we get to a point while he casts days undoing but doesnt give me the time to answer with nihil spellbomb, he offers me to rewind . Since i don't want to be a **** and be labelled a spike etc at my new lgs i decide lo let it go, the game proceds well and in the end he won.
Even though i lost and placed 5th out of 14 i felt happy with the games and how i played (missplay aside), i felt that the deck was good.
I cannot think that the first two games were won by the fact tha my deck was competitive while theirs weren't, the storm players was missing key card (grapeshot, gifts ungiven) and the b/w player just put together black/white for removal and added eldrazi because they are big beaters( except for the 3/2 that gives -3-3 to a creature)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
From Supernatural:
Sam: a demon summoning spell ? why?
Lucifer: to summon a demon (auto censorship here)
====
The Wizard of Oz: A juvenile delinquent runs away from home, kills the first person she meets in a foreign land, robs her corpse, then promptly forms a gang with three complete strangers in order to kill again.
====
Went 3-0 tonight at fnm with an ID round 4. Beat bogles, the jund mirror (a very spicy version though), and green devotion. I’ll post a list later when I’m off mobile, but was playing no bobs and 4 trackers.
All in all the deck felt great and this is the third 3+ round event since I dropped bob and I haven’t missed him.
In hindsight I don’t think I’d change anything except the mana base. Was considering a 9th fetchland cause I hate losing to blood moon, in place of blooming marsh. Otherwise the deck was great.
I understand the hesitation and I don’t expect everyone to jump ship on bob immediately. But let me lay out a quick argument for why dropping bob for tracker has merits.
In modern nowadays the aggro decks are very very fast and don’t give you much time to stumble. Against decks like that, why would you want to spend your second, or third turn of the game playing a modal spell that’s either a grizzly bear chump blocker or phyrexian arena? Jund is not a deck in the market for bears and losing life to draw cards sounds like an excellent way to provide your opponent with reach. Yes there’s the dream scenario where bob flips only lands and just draws you cards for free. But most realistically bob is a two mana investment for a bear or a dork that bolts yourself and can never block. I’ve had more than my fair share of drawing 2-3 bobs in an aggro matchup and just feeling dumb.
So obviously the best matchup for bob then is the grindy mirrors right? But how often does bob actually live to run away with those matchups? The answer is rarely if ever, and against most midrange decks bob becomes an excellent target for bolt. Now tracker isn’t immune from that either, but he at least draws you cards on the way out.
Which brings us to the combo matchups where bob is admittedly better than tracker. But at the same time, how good is combo in the current meta? Humans is the top deck and it feasts on combo, so why build the deck to target strategies that are already both favorable matchups and pretty mediocre in the current metagame? To me that sounds like a bad idea.
And lastly I think one of the most compelling arguments for playing tracker is that he saves so much more deck space. Because he’s an excellent attacker I don’t have to spend as much deck space on creatures. I have 13 creatures, one of whom is really just a removal spell, and I haven’t had any issues with drawing threats. I have 11 creatures that can attack for 5+ a turn as opposed to like 7 for the average jund deck, AND I get to play excellent maindeck flex cards like collective brutality, grim lavamancer, 5 pieces of 1 mana removal, and dreadbore. One thing I’ve noticed in the bloodbraid elf era is I get a huuuuuugely increased incidence of mono-creature hands that have neither the disruption nor the speed to compete with the other linear strategies of the format. While that issue isn’t gone entirely, it’s dramatically improved with fewer creatures and you could likely even trim a few creatures and still be ok.
Sorry for the wall, but thanks for reading if you’re here. Just ask yourself how often you’ve been in sticky situations in modern, prayed for a clutch removal or goyf topdeck, and instead drew bob and died. For me, that number is far higher than I’m comfortable with. And if I had to guess, I think the relative lack of results for jund is because bob is holding us back significantly.
TLDR: the only matchups where bob is better than tracker is linear combo, and because of humans those decks kinda stink right now. Also tracker over bobs and some BBEs frees up a big chunk of maindeck space for whatever you want.
I understand the hesitation and I don’t expect everyone to jump ship on bob immediately. But let me lay out a quick argument for why dropping bob for tracker has merits.
In modern nowadays the aggro decks are very very fast and don’t give you much time to stumble. Against decks like that, why would you want to spend your second, or third turn of the game playing a modal spell that’s either a grizzly bear chump blocker or phyrexian arena? Jund is not a deck in the market for bears and losing life to draw cards sounds like an excellent way to provide your opponent with reach. Yes there’s the dream scenario where bob flips only lands and just draws you cards for free. But most realistically bob is a two mana investment for a bear or a dork that bolts yourself and can never block. I’ve had more than my fair share of drawing 2-3 bobs in an aggro matchup and just feeling dumb.
When aggro decks are very very fast, why should a card that draws you your first card in turn 4 at the very soonest be better? I think Bob generates huge tempo with the investment of life, which is really good against any deck which is light on removal. And against aggro multiples are indeed bad, but having one can really pull you ahead to find your needed answers.
So obviously the best matchup for bob then is the grindy mirrors right? But how often does bob actually live to run away with those matchups? The answer is rarely if ever, and against most midrange decks bob becomes an excellent target for bolt. Now tracker isn’t immune from that either, but he at least draws you cards on the way out.
There are plenty of midrange decks which are light on removal, like every version of CoCo decks, where Bob really shines. In my experiences, even in Jund mirrors Bob off the top actually lives often times. And remember, you have to think in incremental steps. Its not about Bob staying on the BF forever, if Bob has drawn one single card its already a 2 for 1, which is good enough. Also, against aggro decks, drawing one extra card and then trading with one creature from the opponent seems like a really good deal for 2 mana. However, Tracker obvously is better in the grindy mirrors for sure, since you can likely turn the card in a 3 for 1 if you combine it with a fetchland.
Which brings us to the combo matchups where bob is admittedly better than tracker. But at the same time, how good is combo in the current meta? Humans is the top deck and it feasts on combo, so why build the deck to target strategies that are already both favorable matchups and pretty mediocre in the current metagame? To me that sounds like a bad idea.
And lastly I think one of the most compelling arguments for playing tracker is that he saves so much more deck space. Because he’s an excellent attacker I don’t have to spend as much deck space on creatures. I have 13 creatures, one of whom is really just a removal spell, and I haven’t had any issues with drawing threats. I have 11 creatures that can attack for 5+ a turn as opposed to like 7 for the average jund deck, AND I get to play excellent maindeck flex cards like collective brutality, grim lavamancer, 5 pieces of 1 mana removal, and dreadbore. One thing I’ve noticed in the bloodbraid elf era is I get a huuuuuugely increased incidence of mono-creature hands that have neither the disruption nor the speed to compete with the other linear strategies of the format. While that issue isn’t gone entirely, it’s dramatically improved with fewer creatures and you could likely even trim a few creatures and still be ok.
I don't see why cutting bob should free up deck space. Jund's signature creature base in the past looked like the following:
Thats also 13 creatures, which were the default number for creatures to run in Jund. I don't think that has to do anything with Bob. Tracker is a faster clock for sure, but its rather slow. Your BBEs do get better though, which is a point for Tracker. I think Junds best line on average, against any given matchup is still turn 1 discard into turn 2 Bob/Goyf into turn 3 LoTV. That is the classic Jund line and I think this is still the best thing to do since it can just win games.
TLDR: the only matchups where bob is better than tracker is linear combo, and because of humans those decks kinda stink right now. Also tracker over bobs and some BBEs frees up a big chunk of maindeck space for whatever you want.
My TLDR on this is: I disagree that Bob is only better vs linear combo, I think vs aggro decks Bob generates more tempo and Tracker is too clunky against aggro decks. Deck space is also not the biggest argument for Tracker imo.
Very fair points. I just can’t get over the curve. Landing a turn-two threat/clock is so important now. Even if Bob is a measly threat, he’s still a threat. Two damage per turn, starting on turn three, is significant. And no, you’re not always going to be able to swing in without Bob dying, but our removal can easily clear a path, plus the opposition is notorious about letting Bob slide through unblocked once your life points are at a point where they think he’s a liability for you. I know that’s all kind of fringe, but really the main point I want to make is the importance of a turn-two creature for Jund right now.
Can you imagine if we had a mana-dork that didn’t undermine our late-game? Turn-two Lilis, Turn-two Trackers (or turn-three Tracker + double clue), turn-two Goyf + leaving up removal for Affinity/Infect. Damn, that thought makes me want to play NBL Jund. I got to play with DRS and BBE in Modern for a second there, and holy s*** that felt good. We’re in green, give us a GB/GR/GBR dork, WotC!
“Ah, but a man’s reach...” etc., etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
-Why does it matter which turn you start drawing extra cards against aggro decks? Our aggro matchups have never been defined by card advantage, they're defined by the life total at which you can stabilize the board. Dark Confidant does nothing at all to stabilize the board, you're just relying on him to draw you into cards that actually do stabilize the board. And when that doesn't happen, you just die. That makes bob iffy imo in the early game because he doesn't help you stabilize, and you can't even rely on him to lock up the late game because your life total will likely be too low to afford life for extra cards. Though tracker is more expensive, he absolutely locks up the game once you stabilize and he's a stronger chump blocker in a pinch when you need one.
-As you say Bob isn't awful in the midrange matchups, but Tracker is almost always better. Hold a fetch in hand and tracker is a guaranteed 3-for-1. Bob isn't abysmal in midrange mirrors, but I'd much rather have tracker 9/10 times if I had the choice. And even though midrange decks with no removal technically exist, how many of them are left in modern? Dedicated CoCo decks don't really exist anymore, the closest deck is elves which can also resembles an aggro deck semi-often.
-13 creatures is historically average for Jund, sure, but post-BBE it's certainly below average. Also remember that 1 of those 13 creatures is grim lavamancer which is only technically a creature/threat, and more often an answer. That leaves me with 12 threats, one of which cascades into a non-creature spell 2/3 of the time. And as I said, you could probably even trim that number by 1 or 2 if you thought it was a bit much, though I wouldn't.
-I think it's worth remembering that when Khans of Tarkir was released, Abzan was like a top 5 deck in the format and most of those lists played 0 confidants. And bob was likely better back then than he is now. Imo, the core of BGx that is ubiquitously powerful is Goyf, Seize/IoK, and LotV. Every other card is situational, and should be cut if they aren't pulling their weight.
-To Piney, the curve might look gross at first, but I promise it's smoother than it looks. The average jund deck right now is like 7-8 3drops + 3-4 BBEs? This deck is 10 3drops with 1 4drop (and yes, I know that tracker is a pseudo 4-drop, but the word "pseudo" is essential; tapped lands count for that 4th mana and you can also fit in a 1-drop on the same turn). The primary concern for a higher curve is losing to aggro strategies, but with MD lavaman, tons of cheap removal, and 2 brutalities I think most aggro matchups are pretty good. The biggest punish I've noticed for being a touch slower is you can sometimes get out-tempo'd in the mirror and against opposing LotV. That's a big part of why I have baloths in the board, but they're also excellent against aggro too.
I'm not asking you to trade-in your bobs for cash, but I would encourage others to test a similar build before writing it off entirely. And as a concession, I do think it’s ok or maybe even correct to play 1 bob over the 4th tracker. You might feel it in your midrange/control matchups, but there are times when bob is better than tracker, and redundant trackers are less powerful than the first. This build is quite a bit more powerful than your gut might tell you. And I'll remind everyone that a similar list got 32nd at an SCG event a few weeks ago despite basically no one playing builds like this. I don't think that was an accident.
-Why does it matter which turn you start drawing extra cards against aggro decks? Our aggro matchups have never been defined by card advantage, they're defined by the life total at which you can stabilize the board. Dark Confidant does nothing at all to stabilize the board, you're just relying on him to draw you into cards that actually do stabilize the board.
I suggest reading through that statement again. It is highly contradictory.
So you say it is completely equal to drawing extra cards on turn 3 compared to turn 10? You sure about that when we talk about aggro?
As comment to the second part: Aggro matchups are not defined by CA, you are right. So what does Tracker make so great against aggro then?
And to add: The lifetotal at which you stabilize the board is completely irrelvant unless its 1 or higher. If you really stabilize the board then, it just doesn't matter. In fact, if you win with 1 life, you exploited your life resource the best possible way. What these matchups are actually defined by is how fast you can stabilize the board. And obviously extra cards help finishing that goal faster. And therefore drawing those cards faster also helps to reach that faster.
So then I again say: Dark Confidant does nothing to stabilze the board? Well except drawing cards we need! I think you really underestimate that. Thats actually all what its all about. It creates tempo as you get a non mana costing cantrip every turn which you will need to find answers. Cards > Life, also against aggro. Life is a resource. And again, what does Tracker do different than also drawing cards? I could also say Tracker does nothing to stabilze, you are relying on him to draw you into cards that stabilize. You see the contradictory part here?
However, despite that, I think I know what you are trying to say. You kinda think that drawing an extra card two turns later with Tracker compared to Bob is more or less equal and that the life loss is making bob worse then. However, I am 100 % sure drawing extra cards 2 turns later is way worse if you are on the backfoot. I can bet, on average you have to play your tracker and chump block with it on turn 3 or 4. If you played Bob on turn 2, you could draw 1 extra card and maybe find that removal spell you need to kill a big creature and then you can trade your bob off. Like I said earlier, it is about tempo, and how fast you can stabilize. Not about the lifetotal.
Honestly I’m just hoping someone figures out a way to jam both Bob and Tracker. I’m a big fan of the card. She’s burned me multiple times on the opposite side of the table, and I’d like to utilize her for myself. I’m really glad she’s working out for you, Tempest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I don't see anything contradictory at all, I think you are reading selective sections of my statements to make a strawman argument here.
So you say it is completely equal to drawing extra cards on turn 3 compared to turn 10? You sure about that when we talk about aggro?
This is highly disingenuous. You can start drawing cards as early as turn 4 with tracker. That's a one turn difference.
As comment to the second part: Aggro matchups are not defined by CA, you are right. So what does Tracker make so great against aggro then?
Once the game is stabilized, he runs away with the game regardless of the life total you stabilized at. The same is not true of Bob who is frequently uncastable due to not having enough life. Not only that, Tracker gets huge as you're drawing cards which makes him an excellent blocker or attacker if it's time to turn the corner.
And to add: The lifetotal at which you stabilize the board is completely irrelvant unless its 1 or higher. If you really stabilize the board then, it just doesn't matter. In fact, if you win with 1 life, you exploited your life resource the best possible way. What these matchups are actually defined by is how fast you can stabilize the board. And obviously extra cards help finishing that goal faster. And therefore drawing those cards faster also helps to reach that faster.
???? Yes, it does matter what life total you stabilize at when you have cards like dark confidant in your deck. If you stabilize the board at 1 life with dark confidant in play (and btw if bob is in play, that means you spent two mana to play a 2/1 which doesn't help and may not draw you anything that does) and your opponent at 15+ life, you actually expect to win that game? Cause I sure as hell don't. Winning a game from that board state gives you about 1-2 turns to close the game if you're lucky and flip a few lands. Not only that, I would much rather stabilize at 4+ life against a burn deck or humans deck with mantis rider. Yes, life total does matter.
So then I again say: Dark Confidant does nothing to stabilze the board? Well except drawing cards we need! I think you really underestimate that. Thats actually all what its all about. It creates tempo as you get a non mana costing cantrip every turn which you will need to find answers. Cards > Life, also against aggro. Life is a resource. And again, what does Tracker do different than also drawing cards? I could also say Tracker does nothing to stabilze, you are relying on him to draw you into cards that stabilize. You see the contradictory part here?
Because Tracker not only draws cards but quickly gets bigger than a tarmogoyf. That both brickwalls your opponent from attacking and helps you turn the corner quickly. Not only that, as mentioned above Tracker is a legitimate wincon vs aggro whereas I'd be nervous to lean on Bob as a win con when I've just stabilized the game at 3 life or what have you. And rather than leaning on your creatures to draw you answers, why not just trim some of those creatures and play more answers? Against humans or what have you I'd much rather have a fatal push than a Bob that I'm banking on to draw fatal push. With Trackers in the deck instead you can safely cut some number of value creatures for more disruption because you don't need all those grindy cards to beat decks like mardu or control.
However, despite that, I think I know what you are trying to say. You kinda think that drawing an extra card two turns later with Tracker compared to Bob is more or less equal and that the life loss is making bob worse then. However, I am 100 % sure drawing extra cards 2 turns later is way worse if you are on the backfoot. I can bet, on average you have to play your tracker and chump block with it on turn 3 or 4. If you played Bob on turn 2, you could draw 1 extra card and maybe find that removal spell you need to kill a big creature and then you can trade your bob off. Like I said earlier, it is about tempo, and how fast you can stabilize. Not about the lifetotal.
I almost never have to chump with tracker because instead of taking my turn 2 to play a phyrexian arena, I use the first three turns of the game to slow down my opponent or drop goyfs, then play a tracker and run away with the game. Just so you're aware, I beat bogles with this build somewhat decisively last night without ever drawing EE or unravel the aether and only ever seeing one copy of LotV. I nearly 2-0'd bogles while getting somewhat unlucky, and only lost a game because I thought I had the corner turned earlier than I did and got punished with a massive ethereal armor topdeck. In my experience this build is quite strong vs aggro.
[quote]This is highly disingenuous. You can start drawing cards as early as turn 4 with tracker. That's a one turn difference.
That one turn difference matters a lot in my mind. And also you have to spent 2 mana in order to do so, which matters even more.
Once the game is stabilized, he runs away with the game regardless of the life total you stabilized at. The same is not true of Bob who is frequently uncastable due to not having enough life. Not only that, Tracker gets huge as you're drawing cards which makes him an excellent blocker or attacker if it's time to turn the corner.
Sure, no doubt about that, but again, I really think reaching a stable position is more likely to happen with Bob in the first place.
???? Yes, it does matter what life total you stabilize at when you have cards like dark confidant in your deck. If you stabilize the board at 1 life with dark confidant in play (and btw if bob is in play, that means you spent two mana to play a 2/1 which doesn't help and may not draw you anything that does) and your opponent at 15+ life, you actually expect to win that game? Cause I sure as hell don't. Winning a game from that board state gives you about 1-2 turns to close the game if you're lucky and flip a few lands. Not only that, I would much rather stabilize at 4+ life against a burn deck or humans deck with mantis rider. Yes, life total does matter.
You don't get what I mean. However, I have to admit, I did refer to "stabilize the board" which is not what I actually meant. I meant stabilizing in general (not restricting that to the battlefield only). So with that out of the way, yes, it really doesn't matter at which life you stabilize. I think we can take burn out of the equation easily, because thats an unfair assessment of both cards, since Bob is naturally bad against the deck. And for the Mantis Rider argument, if you die to a topdecked one in my definition you don't have stabilized. And thats where I define stabilizing differently. I think a stable state of the game is when you at least not die in the next turn right away. And in this position, being at 1 or 4 life is irrelevant. It can become relevant again over the course of a few following turns, but not at the exact moment you are stable.
Because Tracker not only draws cards but quickly gets bigger than a tarmogoyf. That both brickwalls your opponent from attacking and helps you turn the corner quickly. Not only that, as mentioned above Tracker is a legitimate wincon vs aggro whereas I'd be nervous to lean on Bob as a win con when I've just stabilized the game at 3 life or what have you. And rather than leaning on your creatures to draw you answers, why not just trim some of those creatures and play more answers? Against humans or what have you I'd much rather have a fatal push than a Bob that I'm banking on to draw fatal push. With Trackers in the deck instead you can safely cut some number of value creatures for more disruption because you don't need all those grindy cards to beat decks like mardu or control.
Again, I really don't think you have the time to spend all your mana on clues and conveniently draw your cards when you need to spend your mana on removal spells. Thats just not gonna happen, unless you have stabilized.
I almost never have to chump with tracker because instead of taking my turn 2 to play a phyrexian arena, I use the first three turns of the game to slow down my opponent or drop goyfs, then play a tracker and run away with the game. Just so you're aware, I beat bogles with this build somewhat decisively last night without ever drawing EE or unravel the aether and only ever seeing one copy of LotV. I nearly 2-0'd bogles while getting somewhat unlucky, and only lost a game because I thought I had the corner turned earlier than I did and got punished with a massive ethereal armor topdeck. In my experience this build is quite strong vs aggro.
If it works for you its fine, but when I look at Tireless Tracker absolute no thought like "man this card is good vs aggro" pops into mind.
It sounds like you have 0 interest in even testing this so I'm just gonna save my energy.
But to set the record straight, I never argued that tracker himself is great against aggro; I think of most of the cards in the deck he's perhaps one of the worst cards vs aggro except maybe thoughtseize and liliana. But that's more a credit to how good the rest of the deck is vs aggro than a ding against tracker. I'm simply arguing that Tracker is a sizable upgrade over Dark Confidant vs aggro even if neither is wonderful here, a MASSIVE improvement vs midrange/control, and only slightly worse in the combo matchups which doesn't matter much because:
A) those decks are mostly good matchups anyways even without bob
B) those decks are mostly pretty bad right now thanks to humans
C) though bob is a better tempo play here, Tracker is a better clock and gives the space to fit brutalities or other disruption into the maindeck
And I'll just leave it there because it seems like your mind is completely closed to the idea. But coming from someone who's played BG for 3.5 years, this build I've outlined feels like perhaps the most powerful BGx deck I've played to date.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UMerfolk GBWMelira PodRIP GBW Abzan Midrange GBR Jund Midrange
I'm more interested in results from an open, large-sized tournament. I like Tireless Tracker a lot, but it's really slow. I think you underestimate how slow it can be.
I also think you're wrong about their differences against combo not mattering. Speed is literally the name of the game against most combo decks.
Well I can't travel to many large tournaments and even if I could it's not like you can guarantee results on any given weekend. It just doesn't work like that, and no one else plays this build so idk what to tell you. Despite the fact that presumably very few people play this build, there's already a result from something like it right here: http://www.starcitygames.com/decks/121171
And I really don't think I underestimate "how slow it can be" at this point. I've played probably like 30-50 matches between paper and cockatrice at this point and my mind hasn't changed. When you spend the first 3-4 turns ripping apart your opponent's gameplan you get a lot of time for tracker to do his thing. When you really think about it, that's exactly what mardu does. It does a lot of disrupting then drops a bedlam reveler on like turn 4 or 5. Tracker isn't much different, but it requires much less support.
I honestly think everyone is overstating the usefulness of bob in these aggro matchups. The BGx archetype is built on the principle of having the most powerful 75 cards on either side of the table. When you have 4 cards in your maindeck that are actually less powerful than a bear, that completely undermines your gameplan. And anyways my average sequence vs an aggro deck is turn 1 removal or discard, turn 2 goyf or removal, turn 3 goyf or removal, turn 4 tracker + land. To me, that’s waaaaaaay better than playing a 2/1.
And tracker does die to all the same removal spells, but they key difference is that if you play a land after playing tracker you’ll get to draw 1-2 extra cards out of the deal. That makes all the difference in the world in midrange mirrors.
And I won’t argue against flayer and tasigur lists, they’re neat, but my hesitation is that flayer feels bad sometimes when you don’t have delirium but can’t afford to attack. He’s great when he’s working but a little inconsistent for my tastes.
And anyways I don’t claim to hold the definitive truths here. But in my experience bob has been a consistently disappointing card of late and tracker has been an all-star.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UMerfolk GBWMelira PodRIP GBW Abzan Midrange GBR Jund Midrange
EDH GBR Prossh
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sam: a demon summoning spell ? why?
Lucifer: to summon a demon (auto censorship here)
====
The Wizard of Oz: A juvenile delinquent runs away from home, kills the first person she meets in a foreign land, robs her corpse, then promptly forms a gang with three complete strangers in order to kill again.
====
with R i'll burn you and with B youll'be maimed
For Jeskai Control/Mardu/midrange decks primarily. Unless it gets countered, you should be able to turn that card at least into 2 cards if you us a fetchland for it (the fact that I play 9 also helps with that). I see how it goes.
Mardu Pyromancer
Grixis Shadow
Traverse Shadow
Jund
Abzan
The Rock
Delver, 3x Flayer at the expense of a Scooze? That’s a tough concession to make. I’m sure you didn’t come to that decision lightly. When trying to make room in my deck for something new, I’m always eyeballing the third Scooze, but any time I’ve taken him out I’ve usually added him back pretty quickly. I like having that much MB help against graveyard strategies and Burn, and he’s just a good late-game, top-decked bomb in general. I’m interested in how you feel about the additional Flayer after some testing. Also, have you tried a 3/1 split of the Lilianas? I’ve been a big fan of it lately. Honestly I feel like she’s just as good for the Control MU as she is for killing weenies just because of the -2 ability.
So what new (currently non-existent) cards do we think would really give us an edge if they were to be printed? A Midrange Mana-Dork that isn’t an awful topdeck? What about another Gx (2cmc) fatty to increase our clock or add some kind of virtual or actual CA while putting on pressure? Or some catch-all removal similar to Pulse, but a little quicker?
And paulotheodoro: Yeah man, Floyd is the tits. Love ‘em. I sent you a private message.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
In one way it could be bad for Jund if it just split the players that are already playing BGx because there are already so few running Jund.
In another way it could be good for Jund if SFM attracted more players to the BGx archetype (if they actually converted instead of just temporarily trying out the newly unbanned card), because that would slow down the format a little bit and we could focus more on grinding than on whatever it is we're doing now. Also, K-Command trades quite nicely with an activated SFM.
Honestly, I doubt she would make much of a splash in the long-run if she were unbanned.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
4 Verdant Catacombs
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
Creatures [15]
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Dark Confidant
3 Scavenging Ooze
4 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Fatal Push
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Thoughtseize
1 Terminate
1 Abrupt Decay
2 Kolaghan's Command
2 Maelstrom Pulse
4 Liliana of the Veil
3 Fulminator Mage
2 Anger of the Gods
1 Engineered Explosives
3 Collective Brutality
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
1 Hazoret the Fervent
2 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Grafdigger's Cage
It's flying delver's deck minus the flayers( i didn't own them), i was very impressed with deck because it behaved like a proper jund deck( last fnm in 4 turns , every hand even mulligans i had a raging ravine in hand PS:i am not joking).
Match ups :
Jund 2 - Storm 0
1) discards and scavenging ooze keep him i check while i beat him with goyf
2) same as the previous game plus lily
Jund 2 - 0 B/W something( i thought it was eldrazi and taxes but it was just b/w cards with some eldrazi)
1) discards and removal keep his creatures in check while goyf and bbe beat him
2) liliana keep his hand and creatures in check while bbe and goyf beat him
Jund 1 - mono red 2
1) i keep a bad hand and i got punished for it
2) oppo mulls to 4 get stuck on lands, while i kill him quickly
3) i helped my opponent by fetchin for non basics
Jund 1 - Treasure hunt 2
1) since i had no idea of the deck i am playing against i keep an hand with a mix of beaters/discard/ removal, i manage to discar his key pieces and then beat him.
2) i manage to discard some of his key pieces but he finds them again.
3) controversial: we get to a point while he casts days undoing but doesnt give me the time to answer with nihil spellbomb, he offers me to rewind . Since i don't want to be a **** and be labelled a spike etc at my new lgs i decide lo let it go, the game proceds well and in the end he won.
Even though i lost and placed 5th out of 14 i felt happy with the games and how i played (missplay aside), i felt that the deck was good.
I cannot think that the first two games were won by the fact tha my deck was competitive while theirs weren't, the storm players was missing key card (grapeshot, gifts ungiven) and the b/w player just put together black/white for removal and added eldrazi because they are big beaters( except for the 3/2 that gives -3-3 to a creature)
Sam: a demon summoning spell ? why?
Lucifer: to summon a demon (auto censorship here)
====
The Wizard of Oz: A juvenile delinquent runs away from home, kills the first person she meets in a foreign land, robs her corpse, then promptly forms a gang with three complete strangers in order to kill again.
====
with R i'll burn you and with B youll'be maimed
All in all the deck felt great and this is the third 3+ round event since I dropped bob and I haven’t missed him.
Here’s the deck:
4 blackcleave cliffs
1 blooming marsh
3 raging ravine
1 treetop village
4 verdant catacombs
3 bloodstained mire
1 wooded foothills
2 overgrown tomb
1 blood crypt
1 stomping ground
2 swamp
2 forest
CREATURES
1 grim lavamancer
3 scavenging ooze
4 tarmogoyf
4 tireless tracker
1 bloodbraid elf
4 inquisition of kozilek
2 thoughtseize
2 collective brutality
1 fatal push
4 lightning bolt
1 abrupt decay
1 terminate
1 dreadbore
1 maelstrom pulse
2 kolaghan’s command
3 Liliana of the veil
1 grafdigger’s cage
1 nihil spellbomb
1 Liliana, the last hope
1 fatal push
1 bloodbraid elf
1 unravel the aether
1 engineered explosives
2 obstinate baloth
2 anger of the gods
2 fulminator mage
2 damping sphere
In hindsight I don’t think I’d change anything except the mana base. Was considering a 9th fetchland cause I hate losing to blood moon, in place of blooming marsh. Otherwise the deck was great.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
In modern nowadays the aggro decks are very very fast and don’t give you much time to stumble. Against decks like that, why would you want to spend your second, or third turn of the game playing a modal spell that’s either a grizzly bear chump blocker or phyrexian arena? Jund is not a deck in the market for bears and losing life to draw cards sounds like an excellent way to provide your opponent with reach. Yes there’s the dream scenario where bob flips only lands and just draws you cards for free. But most realistically bob is a two mana investment for a bear or a dork that bolts yourself and can never block. I’ve had more than my fair share of drawing 2-3 bobs in an aggro matchup and just feeling dumb.
So obviously the best matchup for bob then is the grindy mirrors right? But how often does bob actually live to run away with those matchups? The answer is rarely if ever, and against most midrange decks bob becomes an excellent target for bolt. Now tracker isn’t immune from that either, but he at least draws you cards on the way out.
Which brings us to the combo matchups where bob is admittedly better than tracker. But at the same time, how good is combo in the current meta? Humans is the top deck and it feasts on combo, so why build the deck to target strategies that are already both favorable matchups and pretty mediocre in the current metagame? To me that sounds like a bad idea.
And lastly I think one of the most compelling arguments for playing tracker is that he saves so much more deck space. Because he’s an excellent attacker I don’t have to spend as much deck space on creatures. I have 13 creatures, one of whom is really just a removal spell, and I haven’t had any issues with drawing threats. I have 11 creatures that can attack for 5+ a turn as opposed to like 7 for the average jund deck, AND I get to play excellent maindeck flex cards like collective brutality, grim lavamancer, 5 pieces of 1 mana removal, and dreadbore. One thing I’ve noticed in the bloodbraid elf era is I get a huuuuuugely increased incidence of mono-creature hands that have neither the disruption nor the speed to compete with the other linear strategies of the format. While that issue isn’t gone entirely, it’s dramatically improved with fewer creatures and you could likely even trim a few creatures and still be ok.
Sorry for the wall, but thanks for reading if you’re here. Just ask yourself how often you’ve been in sticky situations in modern, prayed for a clutch removal or goyf topdeck, and instead drew bob and died. For me, that number is far higher than I’m comfortable with. And if I had to guess, I think the relative lack of results for jund is because bob is holding us back significantly.
TLDR: the only matchups where bob is better than tracker is linear combo, and because of humans those decks kinda stink right now. Also tracker over bobs and some BBEs frees up a big chunk of maindeck space for whatever you want.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Can you imagine if we had a mana-dork that didn’t undermine our late-game? Turn-two Lilis, Turn-two Trackers (or turn-three Tracker + double clue), turn-two Goyf + leaving up removal for Affinity/Infect. Damn, that thought makes me want to play NBL Jund. I got to play with DRS and BBE in Modern for a second there, and holy s*** that felt good. We’re in green, give us a GB/GR/GBR dork, WotC!
“Ah, but a man’s reach...” etc., etc.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
-Why does it matter which turn you start drawing extra cards against aggro decks? Our aggro matchups have never been defined by card advantage, they're defined by the life total at which you can stabilize the board. Dark Confidant does nothing at all to stabilize the board, you're just relying on him to draw you into cards that actually do stabilize the board. And when that doesn't happen, you just die. That makes bob iffy imo in the early game because he doesn't help you stabilize, and you can't even rely on him to lock up the late game because your life total will likely be too low to afford life for extra cards. Though tracker is more expensive, he absolutely locks up the game once you stabilize and he's a stronger chump blocker in a pinch when you need one.
-As you say Bob isn't awful in the midrange matchups, but Tracker is almost always better. Hold a fetch in hand and tracker is a guaranteed 3-for-1. Bob isn't abysmal in midrange mirrors, but I'd much rather have tracker 9/10 times if I had the choice. And even though midrange decks with no removal technically exist, how many of them are left in modern? Dedicated CoCo decks don't really exist anymore, the closest deck is elves which can also resembles an aggro deck semi-often.
-13 creatures is historically average for Jund, sure, but post-BBE it's certainly below average. Also remember that 1 of those 13 creatures is grim lavamancer which is only technically a creature/threat, and more often an answer. That leaves me with 12 threats, one of which cascades into a non-creature spell 2/3 of the time. And as I said, you could probably even trim that number by 1 or 2 if you thought it was a bit much, though I wouldn't.
-I think it's worth remembering that when Khans of Tarkir was released, Abzan was like a top 5 deck in the format and most of those lists played 0 confidants. And bob was likely better back then than he is now. Imo, the core of BGx that is ubiquitously powerful is Goyf, Seize/IoK, and LotV. Every other card is situational, and should be cut if they aren't pulling their weight.
-To Piney, the curve might look gross at first, but I promise it's smoother than it looks. The average jund deck right now is like 7-8 3drops + 3-4 BBEs? This deck is 10 3drops with 1 4drop (and yes, I know that tracker is a pseudo 4-drop, but the word "pseudo" is essential; tapped lands count for that 4th mana and you can also fit in a 1-drop on the same turn). The primary concern for a higher curve is losing to aggro strategies, but with MD lavaman, tons of cheap removal, and 2 brutalities I think most aggro matchups are pretty good. The biggest punish I've noticed for being a touch slower is you can sometimes get out-tempo'd in the mirror and against opposing LotV. That's a big part of why I have baloths in the board, but they're also excellent against aggro too.
I'm not asking you to trade-in your bobs for cash, but I would encourage others to test a similar build before writing it off entirely. And as a concession, I do think it’s ok or maybe even correct to play 1 bob over the 4th tracker. You might feel it in your midrange/control matchups, but there are times when bob is better than tracker, and redundant trackers are less powerful than the first. This build is quite a bit more powerful than your gut might tell you. And I'll remind everyone that a similar list got 32nd at an SCG event a few weeks ago despite basically no one playing builds like this. I don't think that was an accident.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
I suggest reading through that statement again. It is highly contradictory.
So you say it is completely equal to drawing extra cards on turn 3 compared to turn 10? You sure about that when we talk about aggro?
As comment to the second part: Aggro matchups are not defined by CA, you are right. So what does Tracker make so great against aggro then?
And to add: The lifetotal at which you stabilize the board is completely irrelvant unless its 1 or higher. If you really stabilize the board then, it just doesn't matter. In fact, if you win with 1 life, you exploited your life resource the best possible way. What these matchups are actually defined by is how fast you can stabilize the board. And obviously extra cards help finishing that goal faster. And therefore drawing those cards faster also helps to reach that faster.
So then I again say: Dark Confidant does nothing to stabilze the board? Well except drawing cards we need! I think you really underestimate that. Thats actually all what its all about. It creates tempo as you get a non mana costing cantrip every turn which you will need to find answers. Cards > Life, also against aggro. Life is a resource. And again, what does Tracker do different than also drawing cards? I could also say Tracker does nothing to stabilze, you are relying on him to draw you into cards that stabilize. You see the contradictory part here?
However, despite that, I think I know what you are trying to say. You kinda think that drawing an extra card two turns later with Tracker compared to Bob is more or less equal and that the life loss is making bob worse then. However, I am 100 % sure drawing extra cards 2 turns later is way worse if you are on the backfoot. I can bet, on average you have to play your tracker and chump block with it on turn 3 or 4. If you played Bob on turn 2, you could draw 1 extra card and maybe find that removal spell you need to kill a big creature and then you can trade your bob off. Like I said earlier, it is about tempo, and how fast you can stabilize. Not about the lifetotal.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
This is highly disingenuous. You can start drawing cards as early as turn 4 with tracker. That's a one turn difference.
Once the game is stabilized, he runs away with the game regardless of the life total you stabilized at. The same is not true of Bob who is frequently uncastable due to not having enough life. Not only that, Tracker gets huge as you're drawing cards which makes him an excellent blocker or attacker if it's time to turn the corner.
???? Yes, it does matter what life total you stabilize at when you have cards like dark confidant in your deck. If you stabilize the board at 1 life with dark confidant in play (and btw if bob is in play, that means you spent two mana to play a 2/1 which doesn't help and may not draw you anything that does) and your opponent at 15+ life, you actually expect to win that game? Cause I sure as hell don't. Winning a game from that board state gives you about 1-2 turns to close the game if you're lucky and flip a few lands. Not only that, I would much rather stabilize at 4+ life against a burn deck or humans deck with mantis rider. Yes, life total does matter.
Because Tracker not only draws cards but quickly gets bigger than a tarmogoyf. That both brickwalls your opponent from attacking and helps you turn the corner quickly. Not only that, as mentioned above Tracker is a legitimate wincon vs aggro whereas I'd be nervous to lean on Bob as a win con when I've just stabilized the game at 3 life or what have you. And rather than leaning on your creatures to draw you answers, why not just trim some of those creatures and play more answers? Against humans or what have you I'd much rather have a fatal push than a Bob that I'm banking on to draw fatal push. With Trackers in the deck instead you can safely cut some number of value creatures for more disruption because you don't need all those grindy cards to beat decks like mardu or control.
I almost never have to chump with tracker because instead of taking my turn 2 to play a phyrexian arena, I use the first three turns of the game to slow down my opponent or drop goyfs, then play a tracker and run away with the game. Just so you're aware, I beat bogles with this build somewhat decisively last night without ever drawing EE or unravel the aether and only ever seeing one copy of LotV. I nearly 2-0'd bogles while getting somewhat unlucky, and only lost a game because I thought I had the corner turned earlier than I did and got punished with a massive ethereal armor topdeck. In my experience this build is quite strong vs aggro.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
That one turn difference matters a lot in my mind. And also you have to spent 2 mana in order to do so, which matters even more.
Sure, no doubt about that, but again, I really think reaching a stable position is more likely to happen with Bob in the first place.
You don't get what I mean. However, I have to admit, I did refer to "stabilize the board" which is not what I actually meant. I meant stabilizing in general (not restricting that to the battlefield only). So with that out of the way, yes, it really doesn't matter at which life you stabilize. I think we can take burn out of the equation easily, because thats an unfair assessment of both cards, since Bob is naturally bad against the deck. And for the Mantis Rider argument, if you die to a topdecked one in my definition you don't have stabilized. And thats where I define stabilizing differently. I think a stable state of the game is when you at least not die in the next turn right away. And in this position, being at 1 or 4 life is irrelevant. It can become relevant again over the course of a few following turns, but not at the exact moment you are stable.
Again, I really don't think you have the time to spend all your mana on clues and conveniently draw your cards when you need to spend your mana on removal spells. Thats just not gonna happen, unless you have stabilized.
If it works for you its fine, but when I look at Tireless Tracker absolute no thought like "man this card is good vs aggro" pops into mind.
But to set the record straight, I never argued that tracker himself is great against aggro; I think of most of the cards in the deck he's perhaps one of the worst cards vs aggro except maybe thoughtseize and liliana. But that's more a credit to how good the rest of the deck is vs aggro than a ding against tracker. I'm simply arguing that Tracker is a sizable upgrade over Dark Confidant vs aggro even if neither is wonderful here, a MASSIVE improvement vs midrange/control, and only slightly worse in the combo matchups which doesn't matter much because:
A) those decks are mostly good matchups anyways even without bob
B) those decks are mostly pretty bad right now thanks to humans
C) though bob is a better tempo play here, Tracker is a better clock and gives the space to fit brutalities or other disruption into the maindeck
And I'll just leave it there because it seems like your mind is completely closed to the idea. But coming from someone who's played BG for 3.5 years, this build I've outlined feels like perhaps the most powerful BGx deck I've played to date.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Pretty bold statement. Then keep us updated on your build, I am curious how it performs over the longer run.
I also think you're wrong about their differences against combo not mattering. Speed is literally the name of the game against most combo decks.
And I really don't think I underestimate "how slow it can be" at this point. I've played probably like 30-50 matches between paper and cockatrice at this point and my mind hasn't changed. When you spend the first 3-4 turns ripping apart your opponent's gameplan you get a lot of time for tracker to do his thing. When you really think about it, that's exactly what mardu does. It does a lot of disrupting then drops a bedlam reveler on like turn 4 or 5. Tracker isn't much different, but it requires much less support.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
And tracker does die to all the same removal spells, but they key difference is that if you play a land after playing tracker you’ll get to draw 1-2 extra cards out of the deal. That makes all the difference in the world in midrange mirrors.
And I won’t argue against flayer and tasigur lists, they’re neat, but my hesitation is that flayer feels bad sometimes when you don’t have delirium but can’t afford to attack. He’s great when he’s working but a little inconsistent for my tastes.
And anyways I don’t claim to hold the definitive truths here. But in my experience bob has been a consistently disappointing card of late and tracker has been an all-star.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh