In short, is LtLH almost always a one-of in Mainboard or is there benefit to considering upping her to x2 to attempt to "poor-mans" replace LoTV?
I think you're not asking the question the right way. Sure, they're both 3 mana Lilianas, but they do very different things. Liliana of the Veil fights opponents going tall while Liliana, the Last Hope fights opponents going wide. So if you run for example a 3/2 split you'll also want to adjust other cards in your deck. A second last Hope might mean less Pulse and more unconditional kill for example.
In short, is LtLH almost always a one-of in Mainboard or is there benefit to considering upping her to x2 to attempt to "poor-mans" replace LoTV?
I think you're not asking the question the right way. Sure, they're both 3 mana Lilianas, but they do very different things. Liliana of the Veil fights opponents going tall while Liliana, the Last Hope fights opponents going wide. So if you run for example a 3/2 split you'll also want to adjust other cards in your deck. A second last Hope might mean less Pulse and more unconditional kill for example.
Thank you. I guess I didn't think that through very well. Perhaps I will try a x2 LotV and x2 Last Hope and then try to make up for it with a Terminate or Dreadbore.
I think that's going to depend on how good its matchup with dredge is. Dredge being good hurts the fair decks. Tron will probably have a huge comeback after the meta overcorrected itself
I think that's going to depend on how good its matchup with dredge is. Dredge being good hurts the fair decks. Tron will probably have a huge comeback after the meta overcorrected itself
I'm thinking Tron with 3-4 Relic of Progenitus main deck would be a pretty good place for Tron to start and not that unreasonable. I just keep seeing so many angles where things line up poorly for my current build of Jund by the time GP Atlanta gets here.
@yriel I am being serious. If I can close a game by dealing 4 damage to my opponent or drawing 3 cards, mind you could be lighting bolt or a threat, I'll take either option.
@yriel I'm going to playtest before I draw any conclusions. Just seems like a decent card, especially for any control type/aggressive deck. Assuming we all play 4 bolt, this gives us 20 points of burn or 12 points and refilling our hand. Also a good cascade hit
@yriel I'm going to playtest before I draw any conclusions. Just seems like a decent card, especially for any control type/aggressive deck. Assuming we all play 4 bolt, this gives us 20 points of burn or 12 points and refilling our hand. Also a good cascade hit
You're only thinking of best case scenarios. Against fair midrange and control they'll eat the damage. Against aggro this will he a horrible draw. Against combo you need to RIP their hand apart.
Jund runs on thin margins, bolting their face at the expense of other things isnt good.
Bolt is 1 mana and efficient. K command has the utility. Our 3 mana curve is already high from k command, lillies, and the pulse. I dont want this over any of those mentioned.
Try it out and get back to us, but the long time players kinda have a prediction of those results.
There was a list that went 7-1 shown on mtggoldfish.com that is utilizing Risk Factor as a 2 of and to my understanding it didnt replace any 3 drop you mentioned. To me that shows some merit. I will test it out and see how it plays before I shoot down the prospect.
Edit: I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, just want to see if this card can bring the gas I think it can.
I need repeated results before i take it into consideration
I wouldn't call an experiment a bad rogue deck but I get what you're saying. But I'm also not gonna have someone else do all of the experimenting and work for me :).
Is that deck playing 10 3 mana spells and 4 bbe? On 24 lands? That is ridiculously greedy. And risk factor doesnt impact the board in any way. There might be some merit to the card, but I dont think the deck that includes it looks like that
So taking everything I've been learning about Jund over the last few days, this is where I am currently at with the list I am working on for the Modern GP in Atlanta. I plan to take this exact 75 (or something very close to it) for a test drive this weekend at my local card store.
@docker23 Your list seems very good, I really like the spellsuite and SB a lot, its pretty much what I would recommend.
However, I just want to point one thing out concerning your mana: Its the red sources. Normally your manabase is perfect, however, since we run Anger of the Gods right now we have higher demands for red sources. Your list runs 17 red sources, which could be enough, even for 2 Angers in the SB, but if you want extra consistancy, I would opt for the 18th red source in order to consistantly being able to cast Anger.
You can either achieve that by cutting the Twilight Mire and play a 9th fetchland (2nd Wooded in your case) or you can run a Mountain instead of your second Forest. This is up to you however.
As this decision might not be that easy, here is what is implied by them:
When you cut the Twilight Mire and add a 9th fetchland, your manabase is as consistant as it gets. You have your 18 red sources and you will have the least awkward opening hands with this manabase. However, this manabase is more painful than the other options, as you often have to fetch + shock to get red, and you also have no twilight mire to get painfree double green or double black. Against aggro this matter.
When you cut the second forest and add a mountain, your manabase is as painfree as possible (in the realm of being consistant at least) which means you can have red with only 1 point of life fetches, you can have your twilight mire to get painfree double green and double black and that is very good agaisnt aggro. However, Mountain and Twilight Mire make your opening hands worse, as you will more often have to mulligan any hands with a Ravine and one of those lands in hand. Its a lower consistancy overall.
You could also just leave your manabase as is. This is the "middle way" to say, as you dont have your mountain for awkward opening hands, but still have the twilight mire. So its a balance of painfree and consistancy, however, the consistancy is worse concerning the red mana, because like already mentioned you have only 17 red sources this way.
Another option is to play a mountain as well as no twilight mire, 9 fetchlands. Being able to fetch for red for 1 mana also helps to prevent lifeloss and you have only mountain that way to have in awkward opening hands.
So with all that thought in mind, its up to you for which manabase you are deciding for. I personally am a big fan of high consistancy, but the painfree approach is also pretty nice as aggro decks are very tough to beat if you have to at least deal say 4 dmg to you by fetching (speaking of the classic basic swamp + stomping ground combo). So as you can see, there is a lot to think about when it comes down to the manabase. Its because its the fundamental part of the deck.
Sadly people dont put enough thinking into the manabase and just focus on the spells. THats why you often see builds with 24 lands and 4 manlands in it (= greedy) or you also see mana curves with 4 four drops and 7 three drops alongside 4 manlands (= greedy as hell) but people just don't pay enough attention.
I think it is important to talk about this, therefore I am spending most of my time evaluating landbases when people ask me about the decklists. Spells are ultimately always metagame dependant and preference dependant. There is a lot more wiggle room there. Like, I for example am not a fan of Leyline. However, I am not addressing this, since I think this is just preference and since Dredge is a beating now, there is nothign wrong in running Leyline. Therefore I find it wrong to just push someone into another ones opinion based on pure preference. However, if you give me a certain spell suite, and your focus for the build, the manabase always gets very clear based on that 2 things. Thats why I always focus on the manabase first.
However, I digress, overall your list is very good. Just think about the aspect I talked about.
@FlyingDelver : what's serious math/number do you use for number of manlands ? i have some problems to say 4 manlands for 24 lands is greedy.
About the manabase, i don't think people don't care about that, you want 95% of consistency when other people are ok with 90% (like me i guess), i am happy to loose 5% of consistency to have more threats and a more painfree manabase by example. For these kind of things, i think anyone can't easily say "that is the good choice", one manabase configuration is better than others fore sure but consistency is not the unique argument to build a manabase. You say people don't pay enough attention about manase, i want to say you don't pay enough attention to other characteristics of manabase. It doesn't mean your manabase is bad obviously.
Since i play magic, i like to play manabase at the limit of greedy (or maybe just greedy for you), exchange some consistency against more weapons ? Greatest at any cost no ?
I think we have a different point of view when it comes down to what manabases are essentially here for. I repeatedly said I am always arguing in favor of consistancy and have stated why I do that. I think being on the limit of greed is not the best approach in these times where the modern format is getting more and more consistant.
I will admit that I don't pay that much attention when it comes to manabase but at least I agree with 4 manlands in 24 lands being greedy. I don't play more than 3 manlands when I'm on 24 lands and not more than 4 when I'm on 25.
I play 4 four drops and 7 three drops along with 25 lands (four of them are manlands). 7 three drops with 24 lands is on the greedy side but I think it still works fine, but with less manlands (too many manlands cause some other issues too). It's safer to play 25 lands with this configuration for sure but it doesn't mean that 24 lands doesn't work.
I agree with your assessment. 4 four drops with 7 three drops is also my personal line for a 24 landbase.
I definitely like your list, its clean and consistant. How has Chandra been for you? I am afraid she doesn't pull her weight in the mirror actually, because she cant deal with a simple goyf and when you are facing a goyf it is really bad to drop her on an empty board of yours. But I would love her against control. Just think I need a threat which is both good against control and the mirror, for which reason I am hesitant to include chandra.
The amount of manlands is an experience based one. I can't tell you exact numbers, but what I know is this: In the recent past, Jund's manabase was always 24 lands pretty much (speaking before the BBE unban) and in this manabase, you mainly find 3 manlands as opposed to 4 manlands. Pretty much nobody touched the 4th manlands back then. Now, if you consider the overall speed of the modern format back then and compare this to the overall speed of the modern format right now, I think we can agree that the modern format has become faster. And if we agree on the fact that more manlands are worse than fewer manlands specifically for aggro matchups (the fast matchups) it is particularly odd to me that in the past (the slower modern format) people played 3 manlands only and now (the faster modern format) people just play 4 manlands in the same manabase. So thats one point that I think Jund should not be greedy. We need to be lean and low to the ground in order to keep up with aggro decks. And this is a thing that gets worse and worse over time since aggressive decks are getting faster and faster as the format progresses.
However, in addition to that, people did not play more than 2 four drops and 6-8 three drops in the 24 lanbase with 3 manlands. This was more or less the standard. Like said, again, the format was slower back then. And now, the format is faster and people should be able to play 4 manlands AND a higher curve? How is that gonna be possible is what I am asking then. Thats why I am not a fan of it. Its the simple comparison of the past and now. Plus, I do have my personal experience based backups for that premise. I often hate the 3 manlands in my 24 landbase alone. They are clunky so many times and hinder me on curving out properly and I think I have lost quite a few games based on that fact. So I am really not interested in making this issue worse.
Concerning the question on when I think 25 lands are needed, I would bind this to the overall mana curve. Like Frank Karsten says, the most attention should be paid to the curve topenders concerning consistancy. Which means, in the past he was fine with 90 % consistancy for every card. However, I think it is absolutely right to have a gradient in consistancy increasing upon increasing mana cost. Which means the higher the manacost, the more consistancy should be aimed for. However, I think for our case, it is not primarily true for BBE alone. BBE is not a card we absolutely want to cast on turn 4 always. However, I think what our main aim is that we should be consistantly able to double spell. This is the situation where you are winning on thin margins, like Reid Duke said. If you are able to deploy a goyf as well as hold up KCommand you are likely in a good spot. If you only have 4 mana due to missing landdrops you have to decide between one of those 2 and are in a worse spot. Again, thin margins is how you win with Jund. So, again, if you play a relatively high mana curve (typically about 10-11 one drops, 13 two drops, 7 three drops and 4 four drops) then, considering you play your one mana spells early, you often have your 2 mana, 3 mana and 4 mana spells left in your hand. If you have more of the higher mana cost spells in your deck, the probability is higher for your to have those in your hand. And if the goal is to being able to win on thin margin (which means, getting to double spell consistantly) then you need more lands to more consistantly get to 4 and 5 lands. If you however play more 1 drops, say up to 13 one drops, then the probability is of course higher to have more one mana spells in the mix of curving out. The need to have 4 or 5 mana is less high then, as you are able to play a one mana spell and 2 mana spell on turn 3, and a 24 landbase is pretty consitant at reaching 3 mana. So thats how I kinda think about it. I hope this gets the idea, it is a matter of mana curve and how likely it is to have a certain amount of play in conjunction with how likely it is to being able to cast certain spells with specific cmc in order to get ahead and curve out properly.
Hmm, I think that dockers manabase was perfect. I'd run that exact land base if I were going 25 lands. With trophy released jund has strayed even further from red and I believe it's a mistake to even think of including that mountain.
Modern has sped up, less damage is a very real concern. The consistency is solid enough to warrant only 8 fetch lands. If modern becomes more midrange and combo then perhaps we discuss a slightly more painful base.
I agree that 4 manlands in a 24 land deck is too much. We did that when twin dominated.
I'm a huge advocate for mire. I've been running that land base for years and think its solid (taking into account before we went up to 25 lands). I do believe running a mountain in jund is a huge mistake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you're not asking the question the right way. Sure, they're both 3 mana Lilianas, but they do very different things. Liliana of the Veil fights opponents going tall while Liliana, the Last Hope fights opponents going wide. So if you run for example a 3/2 split you'll also want to adjust other cards in your deck. A second last Hope might mean less Pulse and more unconditional kill for example.
Thank you. I guess I didn't think that through very well. Perhaps I will try a x2 LotV and x2 Last Hope and then try to make up for it with a Terminate or Dreadbore.
Appreciate it.
I think that's going to depend on how good its matchup with dredge is. Dredge being good hurts the fair decks. Tron will probably have a huge comeback after the meta overcorrected itself
Because we arent a quick damage mass deck? This card gives the opponent a choice and they'll usually eat the 3 damage.
It's definitely a trap for jund decks
I'm thinking Tron with 3-4 Relic of Progenitus main deck would be a pretty good place for Tron to start and not that unreasonable. I just keep seeing so many angles where things line up poorly for my current build of Jund by the time GP Atlanta gets here.
You're only thinking of best case scenarios. Against fair midrange and control they'll eat the damage. Against aggro this will he a horrible draw. Against combo you need to RIP their hand apart.
Jund runs on thin margins, bolting their face at the expense of other things isnt good.
Bolt is 1 mana and efficient. K command has the utility. Our 3 mana curve is already high from k command, lillies, and the pulse. I dont want this over any of those mentioned.
Try it out and get back to us, but the long time players kinda have a prediction of those results.
Edit: I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, just want to see if this card can bring the gas I think it can.
I need repeated results before i take it into consideration
I wouldn't call an experiment a bad rogue deck but I get what you're saying. But I'm also not gonna have someone else do all of the experimenting and work for me :).
For reference this is the list I'm referring to. I'm gonna take this list with a grain of salt but still do some play testing of my own.
One would want a play-set of this thing in the Lantern match-up!
Frenzy-Affinity-Ghost Quarter-Rock-Tokens- RGWPhyrexian Zoo- WVial KnightsStandard:
BW Knights(Rotated)Pioneer: RW Knights - BW Rally Zombies - UW Heroes
Commander:WUG
Jenara, Asura of War- WGSigarda, Host of HeronsCasualties of economicsLegacy: Good-night, sweet prince. Mono-R Burn
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
1 Blood Crypt
3 Bloodstained Mire
2 Forest
2 Overgrown Tomb
3 Raging Ravine
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
1 Treetop Village
1 Twilight Mire
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Wooded Foothills
4 Bloodbraid Elf
3 Dark Confidant
3 Scavenging Ooze
4 Tarmogoyf
Spells 21
3 Assassin's Trophy
1 Fatal Push
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Kolaghan's Command
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Liliana of the Veil
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
1 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Thoughtseize
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Anger of the Gods
2 Collective Brutality
3 Fulminator Mage
1 Choke
1 Nissa, Vital Force
4 Leyline of the Void
However, I just want to point one thing out concerning your mana: Its the red sources. Normally your manabase is perfect, however, since we run Anger of the Gods right now we have higher demands for red sources. Your list runs 17 red sources, which could be enough, even for 2 Angers in the SB, but if you want extra consistancy, I would opt for the 18th red source in order to consistantly being able to cast Anger.
You can either achieve that by cutting the Twilight Mire and play a 9th fetchland (2nd Wooded in your case) or you can run a Mountain instead of your second Forest. This is up to you however.
As this decision might not be that easy, here is what is implied by them:
So with all that thought in mind, its up to you for which manabase you are deciding for. I personally am a big fan of high consistancy, but the painfree approach is also pretty nice as aggro decks are very tough to beat if you have to at least deal say 4 dmg to you by fetching (speaking of the classic basic swamp + stomping ground combo). So as you can see, there is a lot to think about when it comes down to the manabase. Its because its the fundamental part of the deck.
Sadly people dont put enough thinking into the manabase and just focus on the spells. THats why you often see builds with 24 lands and 4 manlands in it (= greedy) or you also see mana curves with 4 four drops and 7 three drops alongside 4 manlands (= greedy as hell) but people just don't pay enough attention.
I think it is important to talk about this, therefore I am spending most of my time evaluating landbases when people ask me about the decklists. Spells are ultimately always metagame dependant and preference dependant. There is a lot more wiggle room there. Like, I for example am not a fan of Leyline. However, I am not addressing this, since I think this is just preference and since Dredge is a beating now, there is nothign wrong in running Leyline. Therefore I find it wrong to just push someone into another ones opinion based on pure preference. However, if you give me a certain spell suite, and your focus for the build, the manabase always gets very clear based on that 2 things. Thats why I always focus on the manabase first.
However, I digress, overall your list is very good. Just think about the aspect I talked about.
I think we have a different point of view when it comes down to what manabases are essentially here for. I repeatedly said I am always arguing in favor of consistancy and have stated why I do that. I think being on the limit of greed is not the best approach in these times where the modern format is getting more and more consistant.
I agree with your assessment. 4 four drops with 7 three drops is also my personal line for a 24 landbase.
I definitely like your list, its clean and consistant. How has Chandra been for you? I am afraid she doesn't pull her weight in the mirror actually, because she cant deal with a simple goyf and when you are facing a goyf it is really bad to drop her on an empty board of yours. But I would love her against control. Just think I need a threat which is both good against control and the mirror, for which reason I am hesitant to include chandra.
However, in addition to that, people did not play more than 2 four drops and 6-8 three drops in the 24 lanbase with 3 manlands. This was more or less the standard. Like said, again, the format was slower back then. And now, the format is faster and people should be able to play 4 manlands AND a higher curve? How is that gonna be possible is what I am asking then. Thats why I am not a fan of it. Its the simple comparison of the past and now. Plus, I do have my personal experience based backups for that premise. I often hate the 3 manlands in my 24 landbase alone. They are clunky so many times and hinder me on curving out properly and I think I have lost quite a few games based on that fact. So I am really not interested in making this issue worse.
Concerning the question on when I think 25 lands are needed, I would bind this to the overall mana curve. Like Frank Karsten says, the most attention should be paid to the curve topenders concerning consistancy. Which means, in the past he was fine with 90 % consistancy for every card. However, I think it is absolutely right to have a gradient in consistancy increasing upon increasing mana cost. Which means the higher the manacost, the more consistancy should be aimed for. However, I think for our case, it is not primarily true for BBE alone. BBE is not a card we absolutely want to cast on turn 4 always. However, I think what our main aim is that we should be consistantly able to double spell. This is the situation where you are winning on thin margins, like Reid Duke said. If you are able to deploy a goyf as well as hold up KCommand you are likely in a good spot. If you only have 4 mana due to missing landdrops you have to decide between one of those 2 and are in a worse spot. Again, thin margins is how you win with Jund. So, again, if you play a relatively high mana curve (typically about 10-11 one drops, 13 two drops, 7 three drops and 4 four drops) then, considering you play your one mana spells early, you often have your 2 mana, 3 mana and 4 mana spells left in your hand. If you have more of the higher mana cost spells in your deck, the probability is higher for your to have those in your hand. And if the goal is to being able to win on thin margin (which means, getting to double spell consistantly) then you need more lands to more consistantly get to 4 and 5 lands. If you however play more 1 drops, say up to 13 one drops, then the probability is of course higher to have more one mana spells in the mix of curving out. The need to have 4 or 5 mana is less high then, as you are able to play a one mana spell and 2 mana spell on turn 3, and a 24 landbase is pretty consitant at reaching 3 mana. So thats how I kinda think about it. I hope this gets the idea, it is a matter of mana curve and how likely it is to have a certain amount of play in conjunction with how likely it is to being able to cast certain spells with specific cmc in order to get ahead and curve out properly.
Modern has sped up, less damage is a very real concern. The consistency is solid enough to warrant only 8 fetch lands. If modern becomes more midrange and combo then perhaps we discuss a slightly more painful base.
I agree that 4 manlands in a 24 land deck is too much. We did that when twin dominated.
I'm a huge advocate for mire. I've been running that land base for years and think its solid (taking into account before we went up to 25 lands). I do believe running a mountain in jund is a huge mistake.