I think you can only afford to play so many creatures in BGx because threat heavy hands are good against midrange and midrange only. Among the creatures we currently play, bob sticks out like a sore thumb as the least frequently useful. Swapping him with tracker means you don’t need 4 bobs and 4 BBEs to stay relevant in value mirrors and can afford to run more answers MD. Once again, I play 13 pieces of spot removal + a lavamancer and more stuff in the board. With bobs in your deck, that’s good vs aggro but a recipe for disaster against control and midrange cause you don’t have enough value. My deck has all that tasty spot removal vs aggro, and also stomps midrange and control somewhat handily.
I think I’ve outlined my argument quite thoroughly and at this point I’ll just hop off the forum unless someone actually tests it and has informed criticism and feedback. I’m telling you, you don’t even have to play my build, but spend a week or two experimenting with a no confidant brew of your choice and if it feels like you’re heading in the wrong direction put them back in. But my guess is if you cut bobs for like a couple trackers and a couple brutalities you’ll see a notable difference in draw quality.
You're so smug and arrogant and can't even properly read. Yes, a deck that is just packed full of cheap spot removal to beat aggro at the cost of top end cards like 4th liliana, BBEs, and maybe a kcommand is just begging to get ranched by mardu or control when bobs number one and two die to lightning bolts and draw 0 extra cards. Or you could elect to play a hefty chunk of top end with your bobs, like the average jund decks right now, and get semi-often run over by aggro and combo because your hand is full of value cards that don't interact with your opponents in a mana efficient fashion AND you're still only even or maybe a dog to the other midrange decks.
I never once said bob himself is a disaster against midrange/control, you just don't like me and don't want to read my posts with an honest effort to understand them.
Reading comprehension is an important skill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UMerfolk GBWMelira PodRIP GBW Abzan Midrange GBR Jund Midrange
I think some Jund players really do expect too much from Bob which biases its point of view. The fundamental thing to note is that Bob is never realistically meant to be played on turn 2 and then surviving until the game is over. Thats just not what you can expect from it. However, it is just such an removal magnet because even if you draw one single extra card with it, it is already amazing. It is already 2-for-1. You are already ahead at that point. And I never get upset when my Bob gets bolted right away because of that. And you also shouldn't. When one really wants Bob to stick forever, then I think one has false expectations on the deck or magic in general. We are not goldfishing.
Tracker obviously can guaranteee a 2-for-1 or sometimes even more, so there is no doubt that in midrange mirrors or against control Tracker is better. That is however only true due to that matchups not being dictated by tempo. CA is important here.
Against aggro decks tempo matters so much more. Also card selection matters so much more. And when I compare Bob to Tracker in those matchups, I get to spend 2 mana only and have my extra card a turn earlier compared to tracker needing a total of 5 mana in order to have my extra card and its also a turn later at the very earliest. This 3 mana difference and one turn difference is so much worse compared to the max life loss of 4 from this one bob trigger. Like I said, you don't need to have Bob forever. You can also decide to chump with it after you drew one card. That way the 2 mana investment might already be enough to pull you ahead one step.
And of course tracker can close out the games more fast and run away with games. However, I am pretty sure, when you are in a position where you actually get to attack with Tracker and spend your precious mana to sac clues, then I think you are already winning. Tracker therefore does not help getting to the winning stage of that game. Bob can do that though! You can in some way refer to Bob as being an Aether Vial for cantrips, which lets you draw extra cards while you are still able to have your full mana to cast removal spells or answers in general. It generates tempo. Against aggro decks you need to slowly reach a point of stability at which point you turn the corner and be the beatdown itself. Tracker realistically only helps in the beatdown department in my mind, not really in the "reaching stability" department.
Above is exactly my experience. Like when bob finally helps you stabilize, you’ll probably be at a low enough life total that now all of a sudden you’re racing your own bob and praying your opponent hasn’t drawn bolt. Or you have to start doing things like killing your own bobs with your removal spells rather than your opponents stuff. It’s clunky and not something I think you should have to do in modern. And as it turns out, you don’t have to. For the record, I decided to scrap bobs after scrubbing out 0-2 at a GP DC side event and am 6-1 in matches played in paper since (and might even be 7-0 if it weren’t for hazoret ). In addition I have like a 75% win rate on trice against the tier 1 and 2 decks so far. Obviously it’s trice and the player quality isn’t always great, but 75% is, in my mind, a really good rate.
Whereas with bob you invest turn 2 to play extra removal on 3 and 4, I just do the inverse. I invest turns 2 and 3 into keeping the board as empty as possible and so that when I drop tracker it’s game over. And keep in mind, you are never forced to pop clues. If you already have useful, castable spells then you’re golden. Just play the spells you already have and crack the clue when the mana is available.
Glad to hear some people are interested in testing, good luck and godspeed! And to those not convinced, like I said you don’t need to run 4-of tracker if you aren’t convinced, but even if you just trim all 3 or 4 bobs for like an extra value card and couple of removal spells you should notice the difference. A lower curve is obviously better, just remember not to go too light on cards for value mirrors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UMerfolk GBWMelira PodRIP GBW Abzan Midrange GBR Jund Midrange
You're so smug and arrogant and can't even properly read. Yes, a deck that is just packed full of cheap spot removal to beat aggro at the cost of top end cards like 4th liliana, BBEs, and maybe a kcommand is just begging to get ranched by mardu or control when bobs number one and two die to lightning bolts and draw 0 extra cards. Or you could elect to play a hefty chunk of top end with your bobs, like the average jund decks right now, and get semi-often run over by aggro and combo because your hand is full of value cards that don't interact with your opponents in a mana efficient fashion AND you're still only even or maybe a dog to the other midrange decks.
I never once said bob himself is a disaster against midrange/control, you just don't like me and don't want to read my posts with an honest effort to understand them.
Reading comprehension is an important skill.
I read it just fine. Your problem is that you can only see the worst scenarios involving Dark Confidant and not what is even statistically average. Think about this: in a deck where some high-level players have used Tireless Tracker before, why havent they moved wholesale off Bob if he's just so bad? Let's not forget the spells surrounding your win-cons can change depending on what you're facing. That's just the nature of how Jund works, but you keep standing here on your soap box preaching the evils of the Dark One to anyone who will give you the time of day. I'm saying this as someone who legitimately likes Tireless Tracker a lot. Speed is a problem with that guy and unless you can predict your metagame accurately, the spells you have surrounding your win-con are still a guess. Then you're remaining argument seems to be "Oh God! Don't take my life points, Bob!" No one cares. If the metagame is slow enough for you to play a Tracker over Bob and still get similar or better card advantage, I'm guessing things were going fine regardless of which CA engine you choose. Yes, there are certain scenarios I would rather have Tireless Tracker. There are many more where I would rather have Dark Confidant.
On a side note, I don't care one way or another about you. I dont know you enough to care. I just know what you're saying doesn't make complete sense in a large, open field. If Tireless Tracker is your jam, good for you. To say Dark Confidant is outright bad for the reasons you've given is somewhat nonsensical imo, but you do whatever floats your boat. I just wish you would quit making sweeping statements based on nothing more than a local metagame and personal notions. Give me various match ups with notes at least so there's something to analyze. What works for you may be based on something that won't be as effective for the rest of us.
But from a neutral perspective, playing as much Bobs (in Jund) as Trackers (in Junk, since i never play Bob there):
Isn't it so that, when we lose to aggro, it's usually when we've answered about everything and are going into topdeck mode and lose there because we can't topdeck the right answers to their topdecked threats?
I mean, with midrange we create the long game for aggro. It's not like we lose the first couple of turns very often, right?
And, if the above is true, wouldn't you like having a Tracker in that situation rather than Bob?
I'm just thinking out loud here, not drawing any conclusions.
In that scenario, yea. Usually when I lose to aggro, it's because I drew the wrong end of my deck or I got land screwed though.
I read it just fine. Your problem is that you can only see the worst scenarios involving Dark Confidant and not what is even statistically average. Think about this: in a deck where some high-level players have used Tireless Tracker before, why havent they moved wholesale off Bob if he's just so bad? Let's not forget the spells surrounding your win-cons can change depending on what you're facing. That's just the nature of how Jund works, but you keep standing here on your soap box preaching the evils of the Dark One to anyone who will give you the time of day. I'm saying this as someone who legitimately likes Tireless Tracker a lot. Speed is a problem with that guy and unless you can predict your metagame accurately, the spells you have surrounding your win-con are still a guess. Then you're remaining argument seems to be "Oh God! Don't take my life points, Bob!" No one cares. If the metagame is slow enough for you to play a Tracker over Bob and still get similar or better card advantage, I'm guessing things were going fine regardless of which CA engine you choose. Yes, there are certain scenarios I would rather have Tireless Tracker. There are many more where I would rather have Dark Confidant.
On a side note, I don't care one way or another about you. I dont know you enough to care. I just know what you're saying doesn't make complete sense in a large, open field. If Tireless Tracker is your jam, good for you. To say Dark Confidant is outright bad for the reasons you've given is somewhat nonsensical imo, but you do whatever floats your boat. I just wish you would quit making sweeping statements based on nothing more than a local metagame and personal notions. Give me various match ups with notes at least so there's something to analyze. What works for you may be based on something that won't be as effective for the rest of us.
I really don’t think you did read it properly based on your statements but I think that’s beside the point. We’ve theorycrafted enough by this point. Will bob win you games that tracker might not? Yeah, absolutely. Sometimes bob works out great. But sometimes bob just feels downright embarrassing.
People don’t want to cut bobs and play trackers I think because they’re stuck a bit in the past. Confidants been historically great, so why wouldn’t he still be great now? And the answer is that in a meta full of aggro bob has been historically quite bad. In a meta where midrange and control decks are quite grindy and powerful, having the backbone value card of your deck die to a bolt for 0 CA is quite bad. That forces you to compensate with a ton of topend, and then you lose to the aggro decks. Tracker as the central CA engine allows you to trim on durdly card advantage cards and play more answers. It’s really that simple. Anyways if you want matchups here you go.
Burn: definitely very very favorable as compared to traditional Jund. Dropping bob is great. I’m like 4-0 here in paper and trice.
Affinity: I’m like 3-1 or 4-1 so far. The one loss was a practically won game and then I got hazoret’d with an etched champion on board and I couldn’t actually attack anymore. Otherwise, matchup feels quite favorable.
Mardu: I think I’m at 3-1 so far here. I almost had a another good match last night on trice but my opponent ditched the match at 1-1. This matchup feels roughly even, maybe a touch favorable for this build simply because their removal doesn’t always line up well vs big threats. I’ve had a single tarmgoyf go the distance before. Add trackers and baloths and their removal can start to fold.
Various control: I have a TON of practice here because trice loves control. I’m like maybe 10-1? 11-1? I have 1 loss I can remember and a toooooon of not close wins. Refer to that Jeff Hoogland video, that’s about the average control match.
Deaths Shadow: somewhat even, I think I’m maybe 2-2 so far? The lists that lean more on shadow are easier, I played against a deck that also had control game and it was pretty rough. Still though, feels quite winnable. Likely even.
Green devotion: 1-0 so far, not much to say.
Dredge: 0-1 so far, ran a touch unlucky and missed 3rd land for what might otherwise be a 1-0. Matchup could be slightly worse since this matchup is 100% about finding sideboard cards and bob helps you do that. Still, I think with 3 scoozes, 2 angers, and 2 graveyard artifacts this matchup should be reasonable.
Bogles: 1-0 so far. Sample size is small so idk, but cutting bobs and BBEs did help me fit unravel the aether in my board which helps a lot.
Storm and as nauseum: I’ll lump these since the matchups are similar. Very favorable in short.
Infect: 0-1 so far, misplayed this one pretty bad tho. Had the option to sweep the board of some hierarchs, got greedy, and then died to exactsies. It’s infect, and it still feels quite good. Bob is definitely great here tho.
Big mana (valakut and tron): obviously still not good. Valakut is always garbage. Only fought u tron which I’ve beaten twice, and Eldrazi Tron which I lost to. Worth noting that a 1-of bob absolutely lost me a game vs E-tron. If it was the 4th tracker, would probably have taken that game tho idk about the match.
GW value: 2-0 so far. Grindy af, but tracker runs away with games frequently where bob would likely start killing you before too long.
Jund mirror: not running so good so far. I think like 1-2 so far? I played it on Friday and the baloths help. The easiest way to lose here is just getting BBE’d out of the game, and playing 3 BBEs postboard might help.
Sultai midrange: 2-0, feels pretty good.
Humans and hollow one: unfortunately I just haven’t had the chance to test much here. I’ve done some goldfishing a while back vs humans with a somewhat clunkier build than what I posted a couple pages back and felt just a touch unfavorable. I’ve since cut a BBE to the board, added lavamancer to the main, and added baloths. Should be a reasonable matchup I think.
Hollow one is an unknown quantity, but watching Jeff Hoogland play with very some similar builds of BG rock implies it’s a reasonably even matchup. Baloth should be great. Worth noting that I don’t think bob is particularly good in either matchup, he’s just something you unfortunately have to play because you need 60 cards. My build could be better, but I’m confident it’s at least not substantially worse.
And I think that covers everything I’ve played so far? As I said, if you just really love bob and want to play some, he might be ok or even good as like a 1 or 2 of. But for me, I’m content on 0 for now. I’ve had moments where I wasn’t convinced on the 4th tracker and I can see room for trimming either a BBE or tracker 4 for another cheap piece of CA; I’ve just never had a moment where I was desperate for a dark confidant.
And you might see it as preaching, but I see it as starting productive conversation. I think I have strong anecdotal evidence that a no confidant build is both powerful and in my opinion better than traditional jund.
Whereas with bob you invest turn 2 to play extra removal on 3 and 4, I just do the inverse. I invest turns 2 and 3 into keeping the board as empty as possible and so that when I drop tracker it’s game over. And keep in mind, you are never forced to pop clues. If you already have useful, castable spells then you’re golden. Just play the spells you already have and crack the clue when the mana is available.
I did really think long after my last post and I think I came to the core of the problem we have here. With this post, you pretty much confirmed my thought. The thing is, fundamentally I and you are treating Bob differently and also the whole deck in general. Here you say it in black and white:
"Whereas with bob you invest turn 2 to play extra removal on 3 and 4, I just do the inverse"
That fundamentally requires you to have the necessary removal spells available to you before drawing extra cards with either Bob or Tracker. I have to address this again, Jund has a big problem in card selection. More often than not you are sitting with the wrong kind of answers (or no answers at all) in hand. I am 100 % sure that your plan of naturally drawing/having your needed removal spells to clear the board won't work 100 % of the time against aggro decks like Affinity, Humans or Hollow One. And I am also 100 % sure you won't hard mulligan to removal spells against an unknown opponent game 1 in Jund. And exactly that is my issue. And thats where Bob can help you out. You think of Bob as being the card that you jam to run away with the game and close the game, no, Bob is actually the card here that helps you finding removal spells that can clear the board (we are still talking about aggro to make it clear). Bob is not a finisher like Tracker in your sequencing. Bob's purpose is different. Bob is here that if you don't have the right removal spells for turns 1-3 (like you say) to actually drawing them. And since Bob's drawing ability doesn't cost mana, you can also cast them. As soon as the BF is clear and the aggro deck is in topdeck mode, you don't need bob anymore. Then you can grind yourself back to victory with Ooze, LoTV, Goyf, Tracker or whatever. See? Tracker has not the same role against aggro as bob does. And that is my whole point. Apparantly you seem to want Bob to win you the game. Of course that doesn't work against aggro. You are squeezing Bob into a role it simply isn't here. It seems you don't have that many problems with having the right answers like the actual state of Jund is. This is great for you, but over the longer run, I think you will have more and more hands where you are stuck with the wrong kind of answers and your Trackers won't help you out in that case. That is my whole point.
@EPICAS22: Welcome to our forum, happy to have a new contributer to the discussion of Jund! I have to say, very well done, you made your arguments very clear. I am glad you have similar opinions on the current state of Jund than I have, although sadly enough though. I agree with most of your points, but I would like to comment on one thing:
"2) Drawing multiple Bobs in any match up isn't great, but drawing any Bobs vs. the fast aggro decks (like Burn) sucks bad. Especially, if you don't know they are on Burn until they play Turn 1 goblin guide. Feels bad. I agree with your 2nd point!"
I think using Burn as an example is not a fair assessment to Bob. Burn is not an aggro deck, it is a combo deck which needs to resolve 7 three dmg spells to the face to win the game. Bob naturally is bad against this deck. I don't think we should look at burn for a typical aggro deck. Instead, look at Affinity or Humans instead!
There is no doubt that drawing multiple Bobs against aggro is bad. However, like we agree, Jund is in a weird state where you often don't have your needed removal spells to tackle the aggression of the opponent. Having a single Bob can really help you there sometimes. I really like 1 Bob against Affinity for example. If it means I have a decent chance to draw into Ancient Grudge in time, Bob is amazing then.
You did say neither Bob or Tracker fixes the problems of Jund, since its simple card drawing rather than card selection. I agree 100%. However though, if that is the case, if we take a moment to think about the modern meta as a whole, we see loads of linear aggro or combo decks which all share one big thing that Jund lacks atm: Very high consistancy. Now, neither Bob or Tracker helps finding specific cards, but I simply say: If those were the best cards available to us in the first place then I would choose Bob, just because you draw cards sooner and have therefore more chance to draw the answers you need in the needed timeframe. It is that simple actually.
Regarding your question whether I have played the list (also since Tempest asked actually) I can firmly say I haven't. However, feel free to disagree (and explain to me if you are then), as someone who playtested loads of matches to construct this primer in the first place, I can still share decent evaluation of both cards, since I did play both nevertheless. I don't think I need to necessarily jam a list with 4 Trackers first to be able to have right evaluation of both cards right? Its not that the card is new. I did play with it before and I know what the purpose for the card is in Jund. And like you also said, both are not interchangeable. Tracker is for difference scenarios than Bob and serves different purposes.
People don’t want to cut bobs and play trackers I think because they’re stuck a bit in the past. Confidants been historically great, so why wouldn’t he still be great now? And the answer is that in a meta full of aggro bob has been historically quite bad. In a meta where midrange and control decks are quite grindy and powerful, having the backbone value card of your deck die to a bolt for 0 CA is quite bad. That forces you to compensate with a ton of topend, and then you lose to the aggro decks. Tracker as the central CA engine allows you to trim on durdly card advantage cards and play more answers. It’s really that simple. Anyways if you want matchups here you go.
And you might see it as preaching, but I see it as starting productive conversation. I think I have strong anecdotal evidence that a no confidant build is both powerful and in my opinion better than traditional jund.
Woah, wait. We need to differentiate here a little. Or this would end up in a big confusion!
Originally, we were talking about substituing Bob for Tracker, and I think we still are. This is not the same as saying we need to cut Bob. That is not the same topic here and you changed the topic now. And that is a strawman argument here.
The problem is here, that you are using the absolute powerlevel of Bob (which is obviously rather low) to make look the actual relative powerlevel of tracker way better. Please define, are we talking about relative or absolute power levels? The way this discussion goes, we absolutely speak of relative powerlevels of Bob compared to tracker in aggro matchups! And to make it clear: The absolute powerlevel of both cards against aggro is rather low!
If we are saying we need to cut Bobs because of aggro that is one thing. But that doesn't give you the freedom of playing just about any other card in your deck to make the deck better then. When you want to improve the aggro matchup, the "absence" of Bob won't just do the trick. You actually have to play better aggro cards then. And to make it clear again: I don't think replacing Bob with Tracker allows you do run more answers. You can run the exact same amount of answers like in your list but with Bobs alike.
When I approached removing bobs, my initial approach was to substitute bobs with cards like tasigur, BBE, and 2 trackers since that’s what I had on hand. When I did so, I found that I was playing whole games desperately waiting to draw tracker and thought to myself ‘maybe this card is just great and I need more’. So when I added more trackers, I realized I needed more low end to compensate for a more expensive CA engine so I put in more removal. Given that there are 13 targeted removal spells and a grim lavamancer vs aggro decks, and 8 targeted discard spells vs combo decks, plus 3 lilianas to round out both, you would actually be pretty unlucky to draw a no-disruption hand.
I guess we sorta view dark confidant in different lights? But for me personally, I feel like if your opener needs bob to draw you the disruption you need vs aggro, you’re probably just gonna die. You’d have to both get lucky to draw the removal and hope that your first removal spell on turn 3 is good enough. On the play that could work? On the draw that’s almost certainly too slow. Now replace the bobs with a Swiss Army knife like brutality and you don’t have to go digging anymore. Problem solved.
Like I said, I don’t think you can play a ton of spot removal in jund and play bob. That’s basically what the deck was before BBE unban, and it was pretty mediocre. Try that build and I can almost guarantee you’ll lose every match to control and mardu. And once again because tracker is so much better vs midrange I can comfortably drop durdly value cards and find space for MD lavamancer and 2 brutalities. That alone has made a toooooon of difference.
EDIT: Good old chaos. Interrupting this interesting discussion for your daily dose of “you’re bad and wrong”. Thanks bro. And for clarities sake, you cannot just 1:1 substitute bob for tracker because your curve will start to look gross. Which is I think what you were talking about in your last post Delver? To be honest, the conceptual start to this deck was actually more about cutting bob than substituting him.
I don’t think that has anything to do with articulating arguments. You’ve just kinda raised an objection.
Anyways, when deathrite shaman was around aggro just didn’t even exist as an archetype. Nacatl was still banned for much of that time and affinity and burn were the best decks. Burn and affinity are better now than they were then, and hollow one and humans are even stronger. That time does not qualify in my mind as aggro being good.
The best example I can give is when khans was released and Delver with cruise was a top deck. Abzan decks adopted siege rhino, a 4 drop that gained 3 life, and bob was still not particularly good. Now we run 3-4 4 drops again with lots of 3’s, and none of them gain life, in a meta that’s different but has parallels. Why would it be any better now than it was then?
Having the only repeatable CA card in my deck get 1-for-1d by any removal spell sounds unappealing to me. You’re not losing, sure, but you’re definitely not winning. Compared with tracker who eats removal and often leaves 2 clues in his wake, it’s really not close which id rather have in midrange matchup.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UMerfolk GBWMelira PodRIP GBW Abzan Midrange GBR Jund Midrange
Not really, chaos, in a true competitive setting the format was dominated by midrange and combo in those days. The best decks in the format were jund, pod, twin, tron, affinity, and maybe valakut? UWR was ok, but not great? Burn existed and was semi-competitive, but was a little lacking because like 50% of the format played 4 deathrite shamans maindeck. Wild Nacatl, iirc, was explicitly unbanned because aggro was practically non-existent with the sole exception of affinity. The format was like at most 15% true aggro decks, and the majority of that is affinity. Back then merfolk was probably the best non-affinity aggro deck, and coming from someone who loves merfolk, that deck is chronically underpowered in modern.
EDIT: Try it epica, it’s sweet.
To your points, treasure cruise was indeed nuts, but to be honest if you put Delver with cruise up against hollow one or humans, I think the matchup would be somewhat close. People forget this, but even though Delver-cruise was busted, it had a substantial amount of competition with Abzan and and pod decks. It was probably the best deck, but not by a mile.
Also 1-for-1’ing is what you want your 1-for-1 spells to do, not your value cards. Jund is not the undisputed top deck king anymore so I’d much rather be up on cards at all times vs midrange. The difference between tracker and bob is that if you play tracker and immediately play a fetchland, tracker has already you given you the means to draw a card. And if they then kill your tracker immediately, you fetch in response. Now tracker has 1-for-1d your opponent and given you two extra cards. In that sense, tracker is most often a turn 4 play except in some corner cases where your hand is top-heavy.
When I approached removing bobs, my initial approach was to substitute bobs with cards like tasigur, BBE, and 2 trackers since that’s what I had on hand. When I did so, I found that I was playing whole games desperately waiting to draw tracker and thought to myself ‘maybe this card is just great and I need more’. So when I added more trackers, I realized I needed more low end to compensate for a more expensive CA engine so I put in more removal. Given that there are 13 targeted removal spells and a grim lavamancer vs aggro decks, and 8 targeted discard spells vs combo decks, plus 3 lilianas to round out both, you would actually be pretty unlucky to draw a no-disruption hand.
In general: If removing Bobs worked for you its okay, don't feel discouraged to play your playstyle. If it works it works. When we are specifically talking about removing Bob to improve our aggro matchups (I feel that this was the claim, right?) then I would not at all look at BBE, Tasigur or Tracker. I would look at Grim Lavamancer, extra Oozes, Grim Flayers or Kitchen Finks. What I do like about your list are the CBs maindeck. I think they could fit nicely as they are really good against Control and have potential against aggro decks (although they can sometimes be very low powerlevel too). So I think your experience of Tracker being great may only be due to your playstyle or your meta. This is fine to note, but might not be for everyone then.
I guess we sorta view dark confidant in different lights? But for me personally, I feel like if your opener needs bob to draw you the disruption you need vs aggro, you’re probably just gonna die. You’d have to both get lucky to draw the removal and hope that your first removal spell on turn 3 is good enough. On the play that could work? On the draw that’s almost certainly too slow.
Thats the story of Jund in general right now, thats exactly the problem Jund has. You haven't experienced it yourself yet as it seems.
Now replace the bobs with a Swiss Army knife like brutality and you don’t have to go digging anymore. Problem solved.
Well except you need to have your 2-of brutality in hand still. However, I stated that I like CB main, but I don't understand why you brought that up beforehand? You were only talking about your Tracker. It seems CB has actually been the card that helped you stabilize better against aggro. Its not about Tracker.
It’s not about tracker directly, no, but with dark confidant in the deck I don’t feel comfortable playing CB or lavamancer maindeck because I’d likely have to cut value spells to do so. If you cut value spells from your dark confidant deck, you’re going to end up back in the 2017 rut where jund was mediocre. This is a point I brought up earlier when I said “tracker frees up deck space”. I suppose I’ve already cut some BBEs and a Liliana, but I feel quite confident doing so because tracker is so good in the matchups where those cuts would be relevant.
BUT even still I prefer having at least 3 trackers and no bobs vs aggro because he’s a better win con. Tracker vs confidant in a vacccuum against aggro I’m willing to believe is personal preference, but being able to fit CB and lavamancer maindeck without sacrificing the midrange matchups is I think objectively a massive point in this list’s favor.
And not to get too ahead of myself here, but has anyone ever considered or tested playing 1 traverse the ulvenwald in place of a 25th land? Even with 4 trackers I feel like 25 lands is too many in the event where I’m not drawing trackers, and I’m considering cutting my fourth manland for a cycling dual from amonkhet, or for a 1-of traverse.
Could be too fancy. Any thoughts? My gut says cycle land is better because cascading into a traverse without delirium sounds terrible.
Just a night of really bad beats. Was hoping to run well but shoulda known better cause I always flop at this store. Lost 2-0 to hulk combo (misplayed game 2 by eating the wrong thing with scooze. Oops. If only I knew the matchup better). Then lost 1-2 to burn which I have never lost to with my build till now. Just could never draw life gain games 2 or 3. Oh well. I also think I punted this game cause I might have had lethal a turn earlier v burn had I not tunnel visioned on drawing a bunch of cards with tracker looking for life gain and just fired up treetop earlier. Mistakes were made.
Was hoping to come back to you all with another nice result, but that’s life I guess.
EDIT: left the tournament after 0-2-1. Went to time vs skred because both my opponent and I drew nothing but lands game 2. I did draw a cycle land and it would likely have been better that game as a manland, but idk. Given a sample size of 1 and some really insane circumstances I think I’ll say jury is still out. This match would have been a win but just came up 1 combat step short of bringing it home. Oh well. Also sorry for the triple post. I’ll make myself scarce for now unless anyone wants to keep discussing. As a consolation prize I beat up on tron just now on cockatrice. Damping sphere is great.
I think I’ve outlined my argument quite thoroughly and at this point I’ll just hop off the forum unless someone actually tests it and has informed criticism and feedback. I’m telling you, you don’t even have to play my build, but spend a week or two experimenting with a no confidant brew of your choice and if it feels like you’re heading in the wrong direction put them back in. But my guess is if you cut bobs for like a couple trackers and a couple brutalities you’ll see a notable difference in draw quality.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
I never once said bob himself is a disaster against midrange/control, you just don't like me and don't want to read my posts with an honest effort to understand them.
Reading comprehension is an important skill.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Tracker obviously can guaranteee a 2-for-1 or sometimes even more, so there is no doubt that in midrange mirrors or against control Tracker is better. That is however only true due to that matchups not being dictated by tempo. CA is important here.
Against aggro decks tempo matters so much more. Also card selection matters so much more. And when I compare Bob to Tracker in those matchups, I get to spend 2 mana only and have my extra card a turn earlier compared to tracker needing a total of 5 mana in order to have my extra card and its also a turn later at the very earliest. This 3 mana difference and one turn difference is so much worse compared to the max life loss of 4 from this one bob trigger. Like I said, you don't need to have Bob forever. You can also decide to chump with it after you drew one card. That way the 2 mana investment might already be enough to pull you ahead one step.
And of course tracker can close out the games more fast and run away with games. However, I am pretty sure, when you are in a position where you actually get to attack with Tracker and spend your precious mana to sac clues, then I think you are already winning. Tracker therefore does not help getting to the winning stage of that game. Bob can do that though! You can in some way refer to Bob as being an Aether Vial for cantrips, which lets you draw extra cards while you are still able to have your full mana to cast removal spells or answers in general. It generates tempo. Against aggro decks you need to slowly reach a point of stability at which point you turn the corner and be the beatdown itself. Tracker realistically only helps in the beatdown department in my mind, not really in the "reaching stability" department.
Whereas with bob you invest turn 2 to play extra removal on 3 and 4, I just do the inverse. I invest turns 2 and 3 into keeping the board as empty as possible and so that when I drop tracker it’s game over. And keep in mind, you are never forced to pop clues. If you already have useful, castable spells then you’re golden. Just play the spells you already have and crack the clue when the mana is available.
Glad to hear some people are interested in testing, good luck and godspeed! And to those not convinced, like I said you don’t need to run 4-of tracker if you aren’t convinced, but even if you just trim all 3 or 4 bobs for like an extra value card and couple of removal spells you should notice the difference. A lower curve is obviously better, just remember not to go too light on cards for value mirrors.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
I read it just fine. Your problem is that you can only see the worst scenarios involving Dark Confidant and not what is even statistically average. Think about this: in a deck where some high-level players have used Tireless Tracker before, why havent they moved wholesale off Bob if he's just so bad? Let's not forget the spells surrounding your win-cons can change depending on what you're facing. That's just the nature of how Jund works, but you keep standing here on your soap box preaching the evils of the Dark One to anyone who will give you the time of day. I'm saying this as someone who legitimately likes Tireless Tracker a lot. Speed is a problem with that guy and unless you can predict your metagame accurately, the spells you have surrounding your win-con are still a guess. Then you're remaining argument seems to be "Oh God! Don't take my life points, Bob!" No one cares. If the metagame is slow enough for you to play a Tracker over Bob and still get similar or better card advantage, I'm guessing things were going fine regardless of which CA engine you choose. Yes, there are certain scenarios I would rather have Tireless Tracker. There are many more where I would rather have Dark Confidant.
On a side note, I don't care one way or another about you. I dont know you enough to care. I just know what you're saying doesn't make complete sense in a large, open field. If Tireless Tracker is your jam, good for you. To say Dark Confidant is outright bad for the reasons you've given is somewhat nonsensical imo, but you do whatever floats your boat. I just wish you would quit making sweeping statements based on nothing more than a local metagame and personal notions. Give me various match ups with notes at least so there's something to analyze. What works for you may be based on something that won't be as effective for the rest of us.
In that scenario, yea. Usually when I lose to aggro, it's because I drew the wrong end of my deck or I got land screwed though.
I really don’t think you did read it properly based on your statements but I think that’s beside the point. We’ve theorycrafted enough by this point. Will bob win you games that tracker might not? Yeah, absolutely. Sometimes bob works out great. But sometimes bob just feels downright embarrassing.
People don’t want to cut bobs and play trackers I think because they’re stuck a bit in the past. Confidants been historically great, so why wouldn’t he still be great now? And the answer is that in a meta full of aggro bob has been historically quite bad. In a meta where midrange and control decks are quite grindy and powerful, having the backbone value card of your deck die to a bolt for 0 CA is quite bad. That forces you to compensate with a ton of topend, and then you lose to the aggro decks. Tracker as the central CA engine allows you to trim on durdly card advantage cards and play more answers. It’s really that simple. Anyways if you want matchups here you go.
Burn: definitely very very favorable as compared to traditional Jund. Dropping bob is great. I’m like 4-0 here in paper and trice.
Affinity: I’m like 3-1 or 4-1 so far. The one loss was a practically won game and then I got hazoret’d with an etched champion on board and I couldn’t actually attack anymore. Otherwise, matchup feels quite favorable.
Mardu: I think I’m at 3-1 so far here. I almost had a another good match last night on trice but my opponent ditched the match at 1-1. This matchup feels roughly even, maybe a touch favorable for this build simply because their removal doesn’t always line up well vs big threats. I’ve had a single tarmgoyf go the distance before. Add trackers and baloths and their removal can start to fold.
Various control: I have a TON of practice here because trice loves control. I’m like maybe 10-1? 11-1? I have 1 loss I can remember and a toooooon of not close wins. Refer to that Jeff Hoogland video, that’s about the average control match.
Deaths Shadow: somewhat even, I think I’m maybe 2-2 so far? The lists that lean more on shadow are easier, I played against a deck that also had control game and it was pretty rough. Still though, feels quite winnable. Likely even.
Green devotion: 1-0 so far, not much to say.
Dredge: 0-1 so far, ran a touch unlucky and missed 3rd land for what might otherwise be a 1-0. Matchup could be slightly worse since this matchup is 100% about finding sideboard cards and bob helps you do that. Still, I think with 3 scoozes, 2 angers, and 2 graveyard artifacts this matchup should be reasonable.
Bogles: 1-0 so far. Sample size is small so idk, but cutting bobs and BBEs did help me fit unravel the aether in my board which helps a lot.
Storm and as nauseum: I’ll lump these since the matchups are similar. Very favorable in short.
Infect: 0-1 so far, misplayed this one pretty bad tho. Had the option to sweep the board of some hierarchs, got greedy, and then died to exactsies. It’s infect, and it still feels quite good. Bob is definitely great here tho.
Big mana (valakut and tron): obviously still not good. Valakut is always garbage. Only fought u tron which I’ve beaten twice, and Eldrazi Tron which I lost to. Worth noting that a 1-of bob absolutely lost me a game vs E-tron. If it was the 4th tracker, would probably have taken that game tho idk about the match.
GW value: 2-0 so far. Grindy af, but tracker runs away with games frequently where bob would likely start killing you before too long.
Jund mirror: not running so good so far. I think like 1-2 so far? I played it on Friday and the baloths help. The easiest way to lose here is just getting BBE’d out of the game, and playing 3 BBEs postboard might help.
Sultai midrange: 2-0, feels pretty good.
Humans and hollow one: unfortunately I just haven’t had the chance to test much here. I’ve done some goldfishing a while back vs humans with a somewhat clunkier build than what I posted a couple pages back and felt just a touch unfavorable. I’ve since cut a BBE to the board, added lavamancer to the main, and added baloths. Should be a reasonable matchup I think.
Hollow one is an unknown quantity, but watching Jeff Hoogland play with very some similar builds of BG rock implies it’s a reasonably even matchup. Baloth should be great. Worth noting that I don’t think bob is particularly good in either matchup, he’s just something you unfortunately have to play because you need 60 cards. My build could be better, but I’m confident it’s at least not substantially worse.
And I think that covers everything I’ve played so far? As I said, if you just really love bob and want to play some, he might be ok or even good as like a 1 or 2 of. But for me, I’m content on 0 for now. I’ve had moments where I wasn’t convinced on the 4th tracker and I can see room for trimming either a BBE or tracker 4 for another cheap piece of CA; I’ve just never had a moment where I was desperate for a dark confidant.
And you might see it as preaching, but I see it as starting productive conversation. I think I have strong anecdotal evidence that a no confidant build is both powerful and in my opinion better than traditional jund.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
I did really think long after my last post and I think I came to the core of the problem we have here. With this post, you pretty much confirmed my thought. The thing is, fundamentally I and you are treating Bob differently and also the whole deck in general. Here you say it in black and white:
"Whereas with bob you invest turn 2 to play extra removal on 3 and 4, I just do the inverse"
That fundamentally requires you to have the necessary removal spells available to you before drawing extra cards with either Bob or Tracker. I have to address this again, Jund has a big problem in card selection. More often than not you are sitting with the wrong kind of answers (or no answers at all) in hand. I am 100 % sure that your plan of naturally drawing/having your needed removal spells to clear the board won't work 100 % of the time against aggro decks like Affinity, Humans or Hollow One. And I am also 100 % sure you won't hard mulligan to removal spells against an unknown opponent game 1 in Jund. And exactly that is my issue. And thats where Bob can help you out. You think of Bob as being the card that you jam to run away with the game and close the game, no, Bob is actually the card here that helps you finding removal spells that can clear the board (we are still talking about aggro to make it clear). Bob is not a finisher like Tracker in your sequencing. Bob's purpose is different. Bob is here that if you don't have the right removal spells for turns 1-3 (like you say) to actually drawing them. And since Bob's drawing ability doesn't cost mana, you can also cast them. As soon as the BF is clear and the aggro deck is in topdeck mode, you don't need bob anymore. Then you can grind yourself back to victory with Ooze, LoTV, Goyf, Tracker or whatever. See? Tracker has not the same role against aggro as bob does. And that is my whole point. Apparantly you seem to want Bob to win you the game. Of course that doesn't work against aggro. You are squeezing Bob into a role it simply isn't here. It seems you don't have that many problems with having the right answers like the actual state of Jund is. This is great for you, but over the longer run, I think you will have more and more hands where you are stuck with the wrong kind of answers and your Trackers won't help you out in that case. That is my whole point.
@EPICAS22: Welcome to our forum, happy to have a new contributer to the discussion of Jund! I have to say, very well done, you made your arguments very clear. I am glad you have similar opinions on the current state of Jund than I have, although sadly enough though. I agree with most of your points, but I would like to comment on one thing:
"2) Drawing multiple Bobs in any match up isn't great, but drawing any Bobs vs. the fast aggro decks (like Burn) sucks bad. Especially, if you don't know they are on Burn until they play Turn 1 goblin guide. Feels bad. I agree with your 2nd point!"
I think using Burn as an example is not a fair assessment to Bob. Burn is not an aggro deck, it is a combo deck which needs to resolve 7 three dmg spells to the face to win the game. Bob naturally is bad against this deck. I don't think we should look at burn for a typical aggro deck. Instead, look at Affinity or Humans instead!
There is no doubt that drawing multiple Bobs against aggro is bad. However, like we agree, Jund is in a weird state where you often don't have your needed removal spells to tackle the aggression of the opponent. Having a single Bob can really help you there sometimes. I really like 1 Bob against Affinity for example. If it means I have a decent chance to draw into Ancient Grudge in time, Bob is amazing then.
You did say neither Bob or Tracker fixes the problems of Jund, since its simple card drawing rather than card selection. I agree 100%. However though, if that is the case, if we take a moment to think about the modern meta as a whole, we see loads of linear aggro or combo decks which all share one big thing that Jund lacks atm: Very high consistancy. Now, neither Bob or Tracker helps finding specific cards, but I simply say: If those were the best cards available to us in the first place then I would choose Bob, just because you draw cards sooner and have therefore more chance to draw the answers you need in the needed timeframe. It is that simple actually.
Regarding your question whether I have played the list (also since Tempest asked actually) I can firmly say I haven't. However, feel free to disagree (and explain to me if you are then), as someone who playtested loads of matches to construct this primer in the first place, I can still share decent evaluation of both cards, since I did play both nevertheless. I don't think I need to necessarily jam a list with 4 Trackers first to be able to have right evaluation of both cards right? Its not that the card is new. I did play with it before and I know what the purpose for the card is in Jund. And like you also said, both are not interchangeable. Tracker is for difference scenarios than Bob and serves different purposes.
Woah, wait. We need to differentiate here a little. Or this would end up in a big confusion!
Originally, we were talking about substituing Bob for Tracker, and I think we still are. This is not the same as saying we need to cut Bob. That is not the same topic here and you changed the topic now. And that is a strawman argument here.
The problem is here, that you are using the absolute powerlevel of Bob (which is obviously rather low) to make look the actual relative powerlevel of tracker way better. Please define, are we talking about relative or absolute power levels? The way this discussion goes, we absolutely speak of relative powerlevels of Bob compared to tracker in aggro matchups! And to make it clear: The absolute powerlevel of both cards against aggro is rather low!
If we are saying we need to cut Bobs because of aggro that is one thing. But that doesn't give you the freedom of playing just about any other card in your deck to make the deck better then. When you want to improve the aggro matchup, the "absence" of Bob won't just do the trick. You actually have to play better aggro cards then. And to make it clear again: I don't think replacing Bob with Tracker allows you do run more answers. You can run the exact same amount of answers like in your list but with Bobs alike.
When I approached removing bobs, my initial approach was to substitute bobs with cards like tasigur, BBE, and 2 trackers since that’s what I had on hand. When I did so, I found that I was playing whole games desperately waiting to draw tracker and thought to myself ‘maybe this card is just great and I need more’. So when I added more trackers, I realized I needed more low end to compensate for a more expensive CA engine so I put in more removal. Given that there are 13 targeted removal spells and a grim lavamancer vs aggro decks, and 8 targeted discard spells vs combo decks, plus 3 lilianas to round out both, you would actually be pretty unlucky to draw a no-disruption hand.
I guess we sorta view dark confidant in different lights? But for me personally, I feel like if your opener needs bob to draw you the disruption you need vs aggro, you’re probably just gonna die. You’d have to both get lucky to draw the removal and hope that your first removal spell on turn 3 is good enough. On the play that could work? On the draw that’s almost certainly too slow. Now replace the bobs with a Swiss Army knife like brutality and you don’t have to go digging anymore. Problem solved.
Like I said, I don’t think you can play a ton of spot removal in jund and play bob. That’s basically what the deck was before BBE unban, and it was pretty mediocre. Try that build and I can almost guarantee you’ll lose every match to control and mardu. And once again because tracker is so much better vs midrange I can comfortably drop durdly value cards and find space for MD lavamancer and 2 brutalities. That alone has made a toooooon of difference.
EDIT: Good old chaos. Interrupting this interesting discussion for your daily dose of “you’re bad and wrong”. Thanks bro. And for clarities sake, you cannot just 1:1 substitute bob for tracker because your curve will start to look gross. Which is I think what you were talking about in your last post Delver? To be honest, the conceptual start to this deck was actually more about cutting bob than substituting him.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Anyways, when deathrite shaman was around aggro just didn’t even exist as an archetype. Nacatl was still banned for much of that time and affinity and burn were the best decks. Burn and affinity are better now than they were then, and hollow one and humans are even stronger. That time does not qualify in my mind as aggro being good.
The best example I can give is when khans was released and Delver with cruise was a top deck. Abzan decks adopted siege rhino, a 4 drop that gained 3 life, and bob was still not particularly good. Now we run 3-4 4 drops again with lots of 3’s, and none of them gain life, in a meta that’s different but has parallels. Why would it be any better now than it was then?
Having the only repeatable CA card in my deck get 1-for-1d by any removal spell sounds unappealing to me. You’re not losing, sure, but you’re definitely not winning. Compared with tracker who eats removal and often leaves 2 clues in his wake, it’s really not close which id rather have in midrange matchup.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
EDIT: Try it epica, it’s sweet.
To your points, treasure cruise was indeed nuts, but to be honest if you put Delver with cruise up against hollow one or humans, I think the matchup would be somewhat close. People forget this, but even though Delver-cruise was busted, it had a substantial amount of competition with Abzan and and pod decks. It was probably the best deck, but not by a mile.
Also 1-for-1’ing is what you want your 1-for-1 spells to do, not your value cards. Jund is not the undisputed top deck king anymore so I’d much rather be up on cards at all times vs midrange. The difference between tracker and bob is that if you play tracker and immediately play a fetchland, tracker has already you given you the means to draw a card. And if they then kill your tracker immediately, you fetch in response. Now tracker has 1-for-1d your opponent and given you two extra cards. In that sense, tracker is most often a turn 4 play except in some corner cases where your hand is top-heavy.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
In general: If removing Bobs worked for you its okay, don't feel discouraged to play your playstyle. If it works it works. When we are specifically talking about removing Bob to improve our aggro matchups (I feel that this was the claim, right?) then I would not at all look at BBE, Tasigur or Tracker. I would look at Grim Lavamancer, extra Oozes, Grim Flayers or Kitchen Finks. What I do like about your list are the CBs maindeck. I think they could fit nicely as they are really good against Control and have potential against aggro decks (although they can sometimes be very low powerlevel too). So I think your experience of Tracker being great may only be due to your playstyle or your meta. This is fine to note, but might not be for everyone then.
Thats the story of Jund in general right now, thats exactly the problem Jund has. You haven't experienced it yourself yet as it seems.
Well except you need to have your 2-of brutality in hand still. However, I stated that I like CB main, but I don't understand why you brought that up beforehand? You were only talking about your Tracker. It seems CB has actually been the card that helped you stabilize better against aggro. Its not about Tracker.
BUT even still I prefer having at least 3 trackers and no bobs vs aggro because he’s a better win con. Tracker vs confidant in a vacccuum against aggro I’m willing to believe is personal preference, but being able to fit CB and lavamancer maindeck without sacrificing the midrange matchups is I think objectively a massive point in this list’s favor.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Could be too fancy. Any thoughts? My gut says cycle land is better because cascading into a traverse without delirium sounds terrible.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Was hoping to come back to you all with another nice result, but that’s life I guess.
EDIT: left the tournament after 0-2-1. Went to time vs skred because both my opponent and I drew nothing but lands game 2. I did draw a cycle land and it would likely have been better that game as a manland, but idk. Given a sample size of 1 and some really insane circumstances I think I’ll say jury is still out. This match would have been a win but just came up 1 combat step short of bringing it home. Oh well. Also sorry for the triple post. I’ll make myself scarce for now unless anyone wants to keep discussing. As a consolation prize I beat up on tron just now on cockatrice. Damping sphere is great.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh