I generally agree that you can run 2 terminates, however, I would be very careful about it. If my meta would allow it, then sometimes Push just is a cheaper Terminate. But triggering revolt is absolutely no guarantee and if there are delve creatures or creatures with CMC higher than 4 in a given meta, I would advice against running only 2 Terminate. I absolutely think we should have at least 3 terminate like effects in our deck, and if Fatal Push effectively acts as a Terminate (due to the prevalent meta) then its fine to cut one terminate for Push (same kinda goes for cutting one terminate for Slaughter Pact).
I disagree with this assessment on one minor point. The decks that are going to play delve creatures against aren't chock full of threats you have to answer. It's usually three or four delve creatures and maybe a few others of 3-CMC or less, and largely they have to recur the few threats they have to win against GB/x decks. That said, even with three Terminate in the main deck, some number of their creatures are more than likely going to die to combat tricks because we don't have access to Snapcaster Mage, and some number of their threats are eaten by Scavenging Ooze. This generally leads me to cut at least one Terminate when going to sideboard because the second one I get usually just sits in my hand. I would hate seeing a third one.
In my experience my Terminates were overperforming and not just sitting in my hand against those decks. If you are up against a deck like Grixis Control I would be very happy with having an additional terminate up for a recurring Tasigur. Idk maybe the ooze strategy worked better for you for the most part, because if I would hope to just exile Tasigur with my ooze, it often just won't work. My ooze often just gets countered or killed before I get to exile tasigur. I personally don't think that justifies that I can cut terminate. That being said I get your point but I think differently here. I would not cut any Terminates when I know I am up against any delve creatures (mostly Delver and Grixis Control is what I am talking about, because those are the big decks running delve creatures). Its not like you guarantee to draw 2 copies if you have 3 copies in. And Terminate also does a fine jop ob killing snapcaster mage if needed.
I see your point. I guess this comes down to how each of us sideboard for them and your strategy for dealing with those decks. All that said, having a base of two Terminate is not detrimental for the field, including delve decks, which was my point in saying two Terminate in the main was fine.
The expeditions are poorly made, some of them have started having issues with the facing in my deck, they'll all double sleeved and I'm not rough with them. I think whatever foiling process is poorly done
It may be too late for me though, I don't know
I'm in the process of selling my Affinity Deck, Infect and fetchlands.
If Splinter Twin ever gets unbanned, I'll play that and foil it up, too, otherwise, I'm just playing GBx decks and a burn deck
I noticed a number of them come out of the package already damaged around the edges. That combined with their fugly card border had me chasing the original foils instead of expeditions. I actually don't think expeditions are going to keep going up in value.
I generally agree that you can run 2 terminates, however, I would be very careful about it. If my meta would allow it, then sometimes Push just is a cheaper Terminate. But triggering revolt is absolutely no guarantee and if there are delve creatures or creatures with CMC higher than 4 in a given meta, I would advice against running only 2 Terminate. I absolutely think we should have at least 3 terminate like effects in our deck, and if Fatal Push effectively acts as a Terminate (due to the prevalent meta) then its fine to cut one terminate for Push (same kinda goes for cutting one terminate for Slaughter Pact).
I disagree with this assessment on one minor point. The decks that are going to play delve creatures against aren't chock full of threats you have to answer. It's usually three or four delve creatures and maybe a few others of 3-CMC or less, and largely they have to recur the few threats they have to win against GB/x decks. That said, even with three Terminate in the main deck, some number of their creatures are more than likely going to die to combat tricks because we don't have access to Snapcaster Mage, and some number of their threats are eaten by Scavenging Ooze. This generally leads me to cut at least one Terminate when going to sideboard because the second one I get usually just sits in my hand. I would hate seeing a third one.
I think Delirium Jund in general is an interesting tangent. I've tinkered with the idea before. The big problem was generally having a pay-out. However, I think what I should have realized is that Traverse the Ulvenwald is a payout in a toolbox Jund setup.
Whatever the case, I think we can safely move Collective Brutality out of the main for now. What about Maelstrom Pulse? I feel it's useful but speed seems to be the name of the game.
That's not a good solution either, there's so many eldrazi and ramp decks that we're not putting a noose on our SB
For the overall field, you are correct. I'm just throwing out ideas I've come up with for this specific match. You know... See what would make it a good match and then see what we could incorporate for a field.
Oh I know. I've seen it online. I was just adding a highlight of what Josh said. I think it's actually better than previous incarnations of Death's Shadow aggro. However, if we were to have more Fatal Push main deck or sideboard, I think we can hang with them more efficiently. It is definitely a close match regardless.
So at this point my primer for the jund deck is up. After I did my sideboard guide, LEH offered me to take over the primer, as there was little time for LEH to keep the primer updated. I immediately started to get my primer finished and worked hard the last couple of days. I hope that I will do a good job of being responsible for the primer.
If there is anything wrong with the primer, pls contact me! Also, am going to include more and more stuff in it, this is just my first draft of the primer, with all the information of LEH's primer included. Big thanks to LEH again!
Would have been a lot less annoying if someone had told us this was happening. Showing up to a locked primer with no explanation and a link to another locked primer is pretty dumb.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see your point. I guess this comes down to how each of us sideboard for them and your strategy for dealing with those decks. All that said, having a base of two Terminate is not detrimental for the field, including delve decks, which was my point in saying two Terminate in the main was fine.
I noticed a number of them come out of the package already damaged around the edges. That combined with their fugly card border had me chasing the original foils instead of expeditions. I actually don't think expeditions are going to keep going up in value.
I disagree with this assessment on one minor point. The decks that are going to play delve creatures against aren't chock full of threats you have to answer. It's usually three or four delve creatures and maybe a few others of 3-CMC or less, and largely they have to recur the few threats they have to win against GB/x decks. That said, even with three Terminate in the main deck, some number of their creatures are more than likely going to die to combat tricks because we don't have access to Snapcaster Mage, and some number of their threats are eaten by Scavenging Ooze. This generally leads me to cut at least one Terminate when going to sideboard because the second one I get usually just sits in my hand. I would hate seeing a third one.
Running two Terminate is fine. The number of Fatal Pushf you put in the main deck should be largely be metagame call though.
For the overall field, you are correct. I'm just throwing out ideas I've come up with for this specific match. You know... See what would make it a good match and then see what we could incorporate for a field.
Would have been a lot less annoying if someone had told us this was happening. Showing up to a locked primer with no explanation and a link to another locked primer is pretty dumb.