I agree with everything said about Tireless Tracker. I currently play two of them in my current build, and it has helped me against UW a lot. That said, you will always be the underdog to UW control no matter what you do to your deck short of change it completely. That's just the nature of the beast. The only decent way to get them is to apply as much pressure as possible, which is why I have gone to cutting Liliana of the Veil against them and some number of discard spells to bring in Fulminator Mage, second Tireless Tracker, Kitchen Finks and almost anything else with leg in my sideboard. This is one of the few decks where I wish I had Nissa, Vital Force in my sideboard. I wouldn't care if it flipped over on a Bob trigger. Short of Teferi coming down, she's going to stick, and the value is incredible. Even with all these things that I do have, I still have to hope they stumble on spells or fall behind on lands. Also (and this is important), don't crack every single fetch land you get once you can comfortably cast your spells. I see people doing this way too often. The deck thinning is so marginal percentage-wise that I think it's better to save fetch lands as a good way to shuffle your deck after a Terminus or +2 from Jace on a crucial turn. Finally, while you don't need to run everything out there on curve into a sweeper, you can still fall behind by just not applying enough pressure.
On a side note, decks with utility lands, such as UW control, are a reason I keep coming back to Alpine Moon for a sideboard consideration.
I find the Jeskai match up far easier. I don't know why everyone feels that Jeskai has an advantage. It's really more about having the right cards to bring in. Play or draw matters way too much in this match though.
I definitely like Nissa and Chandra more than Angrath. On Nilixis was decent as well the couple times I tried it. Playing Angrath for some corner case seems pretty bad and very "anti-Jund." I might try it anyway. This one just feels sketchy.
I honestly rhink too big a deal ia made of the Twilight Mire/Damping Sphere issue. I'm more concerned that it costs 2 mana. That's when I usually want to drop threats. That is also why i prefer Alpine Moon.
The problem is sitting in your own explanation: "The problem with experience is all of us have experience." So what? Your short experience with something told you something counter to what a random person said so you decide it's probably wrong. However, you don't want to listen to people who have properly tested or actually just do legitimate testing of your own and present your results. You don't want to listen to people who are talking theory or statistical represetations of how things generally work. In short, it seems like you're just arguing to argue. So what do you want then? I don't mean in general terms. I mean tell us in very explicit, literal terms what you want, and please do your best with spell checking and grammar. Otherwise, I'm chocking you up to be a troll.
@chaos 021 : my first line is about experience, if i say i have experience and i say "X is right", do you believe me ? No. Hopefully.
"So how can I make judgments on your idea with Thoughtseize just based on your match record ?" Hopefully (and please) don't do that.
Like i said it to FlyingDelver, i think it's useless for us to discuss with you about thoughtseize against Burn/
You have experience with a version of Jund. That doesn't mean you understand how this version would work. I've watched it and tried a rough build myself when someone mentioned that there's even such a build to me. I clearly didn't know what I was doing but there was something to it that did feel powerful.
I have plenty of experience with older forms of Jund, and I'll be the first to tell you that Experimental Frenzy is not my cup of tea. My experience with
Jund doesn't help me with a build that is significantly different and tries to play differently. All my experience can give me is what I expect my opponents to do against a more traditional build of Jund. So if you find all of that reasonable, why would someone proclaim anything about this particular build without having done more work with it (or research)?
It's the samething, you think i can't argue without practice, i disagree. I failed to say in my previous posts to Aazadan, i don't like the card but that wasn't the point
With minor tweaks to forms of Jund that we know? Sure. Do you believe this build to be like typical builds?
So you care of his results no of mine, ok as you want. Sure he gave more than just records, i think his explications are biased and to positive, i talked probably too aggressively and too unconstructed. You disagree with why i say it and what i say, ok that's interesting for me but again i disagree and i guess it's useless to discuss more about that because we will just both loose our time. Moreover i have the feeling it's useless to put my result test with his list.
Not that I don't, but all you presented was a match record. A short record at that for something you want to derive something from regarding Thoughtseize. I'm a huge fan of information and statistics. If you want objective insights and information, I would assume you would offer some up if that's what you're interested in. Maybe that's a poor assumption on my part. I understand that it's a lot of work since it's something I've done before so I really appreciate it when anything like it comes along. However, in all the time you've spent talking about Thoughtseize being decent against Burn, you've never offered any results and/or match notes up that I'm aware of. I also believe you are the same person who brought up a similar discussion on Facebook's Jund City page also without offering up more than your thoughts.
Why i play BBE ? I did a test session with and without her, i did 18/22 without her and 32/9 with her and now my winrate is same as when i played Jund before. I don't understand why she's good, i have the feeling she's bad in this metagame (before AT) so i choosed with a bad math tool. Is it a good kind of choice ? No, can i do better ? I think no.
I literally don't know what the first line is saying. I'm sorry, but yes, you can be winning with your play method, and I can still be adamant that it is wrong. I literally used to think I could save life points and get relevant information by keeping Thoughtseize in a long time ago. For the most part it worked, until a friend I met several years back came in and literally stomped me every time we played. After several months of him stomping me, I asked him to help me test against Burn, luckily he did. It took a month of me arguing, play testing and recording results and things of note before I realized that he was right. There were some games that it helped me, but we noted that in most of those games, Thoughtseize generally wasn't what influenced the outcome. As far as they're concerned, it's a 0-mana play to deal 2 damage and cost a card in a deck where most of the cards are similar. Do they like playing Shock? No, but it still advances their goal, and since the deck absolutely relies on the top of its deck to kill opponents anyway, any play you make that reduces your life needs to have an immediate impact on your longevity or killing them. There were other issues with playing Thoughtseize, such as being a terrible top deck any point past turn 2 (think worse than lands), being absolute garbage on the draw, and sometimes just being fairly weak against certain openings for various reasons. Player skill also influences games just as much as deckbuilding because clearly the guy that mopped the floor with me was far better than all the other Burn players I had met up to that point. Very little has changed with Burn for me to question all of that history. So how can I make judgments on your idea with Thoughtseize just based on your match record?
As for your second point, if it doesn't help, then what's the point? Why even throw anything out there? You're just arguing points when you throw out your own reflections, and then claim the person you're responding to is biased. The person has literal records of what they did and why they think and do what they do. You don't even have the experience of watching someone play said card but make assessments that are just off base. Those assessments are arguments when you construct them as such because you are making a direct judgment based on them. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You're right on your third point, but you literally have no reasonable basis from which to form an argument. At least not one, I believe, most would care about. If you don't like Experimental Frenzy, that's fine. I don't like it either. If this is what takes a different form of Jund to the top, I'm still interested.
You can do whatever you want with your results. Aazadan gave more than just match records. It wasn't a lot, but it was enough to form a rough picture if I were to delve into it myself.
Side note: If you don't know why Bloodbraid Elf is good, why do you even play it?
I should at least note that Aazadan does a good job of at least giving some numbers. It's not a long-term statistical representation, but it's more than just his or her own experience. It's actual numbers that at least point to something! Aazadan is usually pretty good about doing such things.
@chaos021 : thanks for your aggressivity again, i have always the feeling to be aggressive sometimes but each time you show how to be worst.
Do you have try to keep thoughtseize against burn before say i'm wrong ?
Yes, I have. That's why I'm adamant that it's just wrong.
I don't think so but i listen people which test what i say or not. I tested Tempest's list, FlyingDelver's list, Duke's list too.
I don't see when i crap on it, may i have the right to say i think it's bad ? Can i try to justify a little ? Can i have the right to be wrong ?
How can you have any perspective when you clearly haven't tried it?
I have more problem with the justifications of Aazadan than the card itself.
You make just as many more blanket statements than Aazadan does concerning solely the card's relative power to another card, and then go on to talk about why the way Aazadan explains it is poor. You're doing the same thing! More importantly, those are very much connected the way you wrote it.
But 3 people disagree with me so it's totally useless to continue to discuss here i guess except if i say the card is good.
Your "idea" of discussion is kinda poor. You want to someone to justify every aspect of what they're testing and deliver it to you how you want to receive it. It's like someone came to you with a flying car. Now you want them to present a detailed presentation on the pros and cons like they're at a science convention. The best part is that you usually present your own sentiment as an argument when that's clearly what you will not accept from anyone else. At some point, it's up to you to justify your own concepts of a thing.
"I will give a short try to your list"
Always after you want to crap on something. That's my problem. I seriously don't mind a critical discussion, but if all you're coming armed with is a boatload of "no's," I'll pass.
This whole argument is hilarious. If you think Experimental Frenzy and Outpost Siege are the same card, then you're either talking out of your ass because you have no experience with Frenzy or you just don't understand. When you build around Frenzy, it straight up just blows out anything Outpost Siege ever did because what Outpost Siege does is locked in. It's pretty obvious that if you're only playing from the top of your library, you may end up not getting cards that you can cast for whatever reason or just aren't good in a particular situation. That is why you do have to build around it in the same way we try to choose our cards for a BloodBraid Elf build. This is why Aazadan plays Grim Flayer in the deck. I've seen others play surveil cards in Sultai builds. It still isn't my preferred way to play Jund, but it has some potential for sure.
I mean the only naysayer so far seems to be yriel. How about you just try something before you crap on it for once?
Ok. Between discard spells, Scavenging Ooze and spot removal, K-Command and Pulse (sometimes acting as a sweeper), I find ir extremely easy to keep them off their game plan long enough to kill them or just end their chance at putting their combo together. You cant just fire off spells without knowing what you're doing but the onus is definitely on the Jund pilot to not screw up that match. The only cards I bring in are some number of Ancient Grudge and maybe Nihil Spellbomb if I have enough things to remove (depends on current build).
The problem is that FlyingDelver didn't just say "it's just wrong." Neither did Ayiluss. They told you why they thinks it's wrong.
For you to attempt to simplify the arguments on Thoughtseize by comparing to the previous arguments about Dark Confidant and Tireless Tracker is really lazy and just bad. There's nothing that Thoughtseize hits in a Humans hand that Inquisition of Kozilek will also not hit. These two cards are directly relatable as opposed to the other two. There's no question about why we play either card. So if there's nothing they both don't hit that you care about, why would you offer up 2 life points for no (or little) upside? That seems like bad statistics to me, especially when we want to cut the number of bad top decks after sideboarding. That aside, are you trying to say that you like having discard spells against an aggro deck (so the more, the better)? If so, then that's a whole different problem, and I doubt you will have many takers on that philosophy.
You can't always assume you will have delirium with a currently typical Jund build against either of those decks. I've played against Hollow One enough now to know that sometimes a 4/4 Grim Flayer really isn't that good against them either. In other terms, how often do you have a 4/5 Tarmogoyf in the early game (before turn 4) based purely on your own graveyard? Without delirium, Grim Flayer is rated appropriately I think for what it's capable of. In the late game, it's alright, but I would rather have Tireless Tracker against control and Scavenging Ooze against Hollow One.
The article isn't behind paywall, it was posted 15 days ago so everyone can see it.
Again, he brought in 1 against Jeskai Control, which is fine, I didn't suggest bringing in multiples. I'd bring 1 in against any gy reliant control strategy still.
Bringing in a card, to disrupt your opponent's trump card, which is a 1-mana sweeper is fine. Terminus is the best card in UW control shell anyway and he suggests bringing in 3, which I think is overkill and 1 should be fine.
Apologies. I still have premium, and I saw the premium tag in the header. More to the point, you missed the part where he wouldn't even bring it in now that he has Dromoka's Command in that list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On a side note, decks with utility lands, such as UW control, are a reason I keep coming back to Alpine Moon for a sideboard consideration.
I find the Jeskai match up far easier. I don't know why everyone feels that Jeskai has an advantage. It's really more about having the right cards to bring in. Play or draw matters way too much in this match though.
I am curious why I'm seeing this uptick in interest for Angrath, the Flame-Chained. It seems subpar to other choices we currently have available. For instance, why Angrath instead of Ob Nixilis Reignited, Chandra, Pyromaster or Chandra, Torch of Defiance?
You have experience with a version of Jund. That doesn't mean you understand how this version would work. I've watched it and tried a rough build myself when someone mentioned that there's even such a build to me. I clearly didn't know what I was doing but there was something to it that did feel powerful.
I have plenty of experience with older forms of Jund, and I'll be the first to tell you that Experimental Frenzy is not my cup of tea. My experience with
Jund doesn't help me with a build that is significantly different and tries to play differently. All my experience can give me is what I expect my opponents to do against a more traditional build of Jund. So if you find all of that reasonable, why would someone proclaim anything about this particular build without having done more work with it (or research)?
With minor tweaks to forms of Jund that we know? Sure. Do you believe this build to be like typical builds?
Not that I don't, but all you presented was a match record. A short record at that for something you want to derive something from regarding Thoughtseize. I'm a huge fan of information and statistics. If you want objective insights and information, I would assume you would offer some up if that's what you're interested in. Maybe that's a poor assumption on my part. I understand that it's a lot of work since it's something I've done before so I really appreciate it when anything like it comes along. However, in all the time you've spent talking about Thoughtseize being decent against Burn, you've never offered any results and/or match notes up that I'm aware of. I also believe you are the same person who brought up a similar discussion on Facebook's Jund City page also without offering up more than your thoughts.
Interesting way to go about it.
As for your second point, if it doesn't help, then what's the point? Why even throw anything out there? You're just arguing points when you throw out your own reflections, and then claim the person you're responding to is biased. The person has literal records of what they did and why they think and do what they do. You don't even have the experience of watching someone play said card but make assessments that are just off base. Those assessments are arguments when you construct them as such because you are making a direct judgment based on them. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You're right on your third point, but you literally have no reasonable basis from which to form an argument. At least not one, I believe, most would care about. If you don't like Experimental Frenzy, that's fine. I don't like it either. If this is what takes a different form of Jund to the top, I'm still interested.
You can do whatever you want with your results. Aazadan gave more than just match records. It wasn't a lot, but it was enough to form a rough picture if I were to delve into it myself.
Side note: If you don't know why Bloodbraid Elf is good, why do you even play it?
Yes, I have. That's why I'm adamant that it's just wrong.
How can you have any perspective when you clearly haven't tried it?
You make
just as manymore blanket statements than Aazadan does concerning solely the card's relative power to another card, and then go on to talk about why the way Aazadan explains it is poor. You're doing the same thing! More importantly, those are very much connected the way you wrote it.Your "idea" of discussion is kinda poor. You want to someone to justify every aspect of what they're testing and deliver it to you how you want to receive it. It's like someone came to you with a flying car. Now you want them to present a detailed presentation on the pros and cons like they're at a science convention. The best part is that you usually present your own sentiment as an argument when that's clearly what you will not accept from anyone else. At some point, it's up to you to justify your own concepts of a thing.
Always after you want to crap on something. That's my problem. I seriously don't mind a critical discussion, but if all you're coming armed with is a boatload of "no's," I'll pass.
I mean the only naysayer so far seems to be yriel. How about you just try something before you crap on it for once?
For you to attempt to simplify the arguments on Thoughtseize by comparing to the previous arguments about Dark Confidant and Tireless Tracker is really lazy and just bad. There's nothing that Thoughtseize hits in a Humans hand that Inquisition of Kozilek will also not hit. These two cards are directly relatable as opposed to the other two. There's no question about why we play either card. So if there's nothing they both don't hit that you care about, why would you offer up 2 life points for no (or little) upside? That seems like bad statistics to me, especially when we want to cut the number of bad top decks after sideboarding. That aside, are you trying to say that you like having discard spells against an aggro deck (so the more, the better)? If so, then that's a whole different problem, and I doubt you will have many takers on that philosophy.
Apologies. I still have premium, and I saw the premium tag in the header. More to the point, you missed the part where he wouldn't even bring it in now that he has Dromoka's Command in that list.