I have to say, I'm really happy to see all these great posts. The Facebook group has gone to hell and I would be disappointed to see them flood these boards with posts.
Its basically the same SBing what Rubin and Niklas did combined in the mirror match of the mocs.
I am not sure what to say about that. It is right that on the draw you need to be more reactive, but I think that mostly belongs to removal spells. Thats why I board out discard more and leave in Pulse. I think he is overvaluing discard just like Jadine and Rubin a bit. You cant expect to see a discard spell on turn 1 (when we actually want to see one if we leave it in). Regarding Pulse, I am really not sure why the same threats thing should be a problem. In my years of experience I never had an issue about that.
I feel, he is often comparing the deck to certain standard decks. I think he is a little bit biased there due to Standard.
All in all I think his observations are right, but I would react to them differently.
Interesting to note that his list does not include Abrupt Decay. Aside from that I agree with what Delver was saying, what Seth is advocating for makes sense academically, but it just doesn't really feel rooted in the way Jund mirrors actually play out. I do agree more with him than Jadine about the value of Fulminator in the mirror.
I'm not fan of Hazoreth and while she's good in the mirror I don't think I want her in the sb.
I rather play additional Kitchen Finks which is great card imo. I don't like it against UWx control but I don't like Hazoret there either. I think it's realy good in the mirror (unless they have Ooze in the play) and green mana open and great against Grixis control as well as against other non-white attrition based decks.
I would argue that besides for Burn and Aggro decks, Hazoret has a higher impact than Finks in most matchups. Therefore I think it is an interesting option to have, when you need that extra umph in grindy matches and don't expect Burn/Aggro too much.
Hazoret has a neat advantage compared to Finks that she is a nice way to deal with E-Tron and is even applicable for regular Tron. As for Tron I often get my opponent to a very low life total until they hit an Ugin. Hazoret off the top can seal the deal sometimes.
I'm not fan of Hazoreth and while she's good in the mirror I don't think I want her in the sb.
I rather play additional Kitchen Finks which is great card imo. I don't like it against UWx control but I don't like Hazoret there either. I think it's realy good in the mirror (unless they have Ooze in the play) and green mana open and great against Grixis control as well as against other non-white attrition based decks.
I would argue that besides for Burn and Aggro decks, Hazoret has a higher impact than Finks in most matchups. Therefore I think it is an interesting option to have, when you need that extra umph in grindy matches and don't expect Burn/Aggro too much.
Finks is more versatile, which I agree with.
I agree that Hazoret has higher impact in grindy matches but exactly being more versatile is the reason that I prefer Finks. It's also worth to mention that Finks works better with BBE although this isn't and shouldn't be the (main) reason to play it over Hazoret.
Sure I agree with that. Yeah BBE is an argument, but I am not sure we should start justifying or relying everything on BBE. Some cards can just be run despite some nonbos with BBE. Best example is EE against Bogles if it gets very popular. I am not hesitant to run it then.
Hazoret is still another 4 drop, another card that makes Bob hurt, and has less uses across the board. Finks being cascaded into is just gravy.
I wish I could test extensively in the mirror. Watching Seth play, I feel as though my play and decision making in the mirror is poor. I wish I could test against a friend on mtgo all day long to test and theory craft these sideboard plans.
About playable creatures, just read the wonderful primer that Flying Delver wrote. If the creature isn't listed there, you can assume she isn't good enough.
Would Molten Vortex/Seismic Assault actually be better than Grim Lavamancer especially in 25 land build? My problem with Grim Lavamancer is that it doesn’t have haste and it’s ability requires you to tap it, so you can only activate it once a turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Deck(s): TappedOut Would love to have more input to improve!
What do yoi think about play 2 ooze and 1 Alesha, Who Smiles MB, alesha can be returned all crearure we play from graveyard and put this xreature attacking can be play whit elfs and have frist strike
You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel, we aren't trying to do that. At this point it's about tweaking the cards and numbers.
I think Jace decks, on the other hand, will probably need drastic changes to work
Would Molten Vortex/Seismic Assault actually be better than Grim Lavamancer especially in 25 land build? My problem with Grim Lavamancer is that it doesn’t have haste and it’s ability requires you to tap it, so you can only activate it once a turn.
If you plan on pitching that many lands, you're doing something wrong or you really want to play a different deck.
Hi! Great discussions going on here. I haven't posted in years, but back in 2013 I had written the Abzan/BGw primer before passing it on to Mastodon. I'm a long-time BGx player; I started with Jund just after the BBE banning, and switched to BGw when the power of Souls became evident to me. Modern Jund has always been my favourite deck in Magic, and I'm glad that I finally have an excuse to not play Lingering Souls!
I have been been consuming every bit of information I can find about the deck, and I finally feel comfortable sharing my thoughts and experiences with the deck since the unbannings. Please don't take anything I'm saying as gospel; I've done my best to describe my rationale, and I leave it to you to decide what you think
6 discard (4 IOK/2 TS): Turn 1 discard into Goyf/Bob is the reason to play BGx, and I'll almost always keep a hand with the one-two punch in the dark vs an unknown opponent, even if the rest of the hand is 5 lands. 4x IOK is a lock for me as the life loss is incredibly relevant from Thoughtseize, and I think this is a much more significant factor than missing with IOK. Playing 3x Thoughtseize main is a very small hedge against matchups like Tron and Valakut, but will cost you very dearly against the plethora of aggressive decks that are otherwise winnable matchups. Our margins against the aggro decks are very thin, and the life loss from Thoughtseize will cost you many close games, whereas I don't believe the additional Thoughtseize in the maindeck will meaningfully change the already bad big mana matchups.
6 one-mana removal (4 Bolt/2 Push): Tempo-positive plays are how Jund survives against faster decks until its sources of CA and card quality can take over the game. One-mana removal is at a premium and is much more valuable than anything that costs 2+ mana. However, due to the varied nature of threats, some number of more expensive removal spells are required to round out the suite.
Bolts become significantly better the more copies you play; it becomes a more reliable plan B (like the pun?). It is also the best removal spell to cascade into on an empty board. I am playing 4.
Fatal Push: The second best removal spell in the deck. I can't fathom playing less than 2, and I'd sooner trim on copies of the more expensive removal spells to fit them in.
Regarding 12 one-mana spells: playing so many one-mana spells ensures double-spell turns happen earlier and more consistently, as well as filling out the curve when the manabase develops awkwardly (2+ tapped lands in the first 4 turns). In other words, it improves the consistency of the deck. On the flipside, in G1 many of these spells can be a liability when you cascade into them off BBE and they have no targets. I acknowledge this argument, but I am generally just happy in G1 to be able to cast BBE; usually this is the stage of the game Jund has stabilized and begins to turn the corner. In these situations, I am not terribly concerned about what I get off the cascade, as I am likely to be in a decent position already. More importantly, the one-mana spells ensure that we survive until the stage of the game that we can worry about what BBE will cascade into. This also ceases to be an issue in postboard games.
Abrupt Decay: I don't like Abrupt Decay right now. It's most often worse than a 1-mana removal spell, equal to or worse than Terminate, and more narrow than Pulse. I view 1x Pulse in the maindeck as mandatory, but where most people play 1x Decay, I am happy to dedicate that slot to a second Pulse. While it is the clunkier spell, I am never unhappy to see it in my opening hand. I cannot say the same about Decay. Two quick sidenotes: having 2x Pulse is great in matchups like Storm, where you want a good answer for Empty without having to run awkward sideboard cards like Golgari Charm. Additionally, the 2-for-1 potential is definitely there, and playing 2x Pulse, it comes up enough that I consider it to be a real benefit.
2 Scooze: I have always felt that the correct number of Scooze is 2.5. I always played 3 in previous Jund and Abzan builds, and it's often a card that is either amazing, or it just doesn't do a lot and I'm annoyed to draw the first copy (much less the second). I have been on 2 copies since the unbanning of BBE and I seem to draw it more or less when I want it, as it is very much a late-game card. As such, I am mostly satisfied with running just 2, though I still think the correct number is 2.5 copies.
0 Liliana, the Last Hope: I think she is very good, albeit very matchup dependent. If I were to move my sideboard copy to the main, it would likely in the place of the second Pulse, but I currently value the removal spell higher. This is the card I am most interested in moving into the mainboard, but I can't seem to find a satisfactory way of doing so without disrupting the careful balance of the rest of the deck. I'd like to reiterate that she is very matchup dependent, which is my main issue with her; I would like my 60-card deck to be very consistent, with as few dead cards as possible in a given matchup. I view Terminate as a necessary evil. Not so much Liliana, the Last Hope.
24 lands (3 Raging Ravine): I like this configuration. I have been playing 24 land BGx decks for many years, and historically, I have felt that I flood more than screw. 24 feels just right for this deck. This is especially the case because of the 12 one-mana spells I'm playing. Playing 24 lands means that I keep more land-heavy hands, but truth be told, playing 25 lands has a very small effect on how often you flood or screw. The real reason I would play 25 lands is to play Treetop Village. That card is nothing short of fantastic. However, I am not prepared to cut any spells for it at this time. I also want 3 Ravines before I add any Treetops, as I find that the closing power of Ravine very important (in addition to the mana-fixing) compared to the efficiency of the latter.
Finally, I want to talk about building the deck around BBE; I think it is a trap. Bloodbraid Elf is Jund's best way to pull ahead/turn the corner, but you have to be close to parity for BBE to have a meaningful impact. I will use Jace, the Mind Sculptor as a parallel-- JtMS is an incredibly powerful card, but even so, you need to be close to parity for it to take over the game. BBE when you are behind is still good, and while having better cascade targets improves your ability to play from behind, I think it can sabotage how the deck functions as a whole. I want my Jund deck to consistently have the ability to dismantle what my opponent is doing so I can stabilize, and I value this consistency over having more raw power in my cascades. Furthermore, the deck already has so many fantastic hits that I don't feel the deck lacking any power as it is. This philosophy explains why I'm playing 2x Pulse instead of 1x Pulse and 1x LtLH.
Thank you to everyone for their fantastic and thoughtful posts in this thread. You are the reason I felt inspired to write this at all.
With how much you cut your curve down, I can see the justification in 24 lands.
I also feel like 2.5 Scooze is what we want, drawing 2x copies is usually very annoying.
I've also started to see some people arrive at the conclusion that Last Hope is great, but should be relegated to the board. We never wanted her in the main now, and should we really compromise this just because it's for BBE?
It's possible we are warping too much around BBE.
If we cut the mainboard curve significantly, it would make me consider 24 lands.
I'm currently running 25 lands and 4 manlands (2 ragine ravine 2 treetop) and am planning for some of the grindier matchups like control and midrange mirrors to board out a land. Question is, which land should I be cutting? I had a couple friends told me to board out a fetch but wondering if people had other suggestions.
I would not suggest to do that. In attrition based matchups you actually want to grind and hit landdrops. Plus, with FoR being popular, you cant do that.
Its actually the opposite: Against fast aggro and combo matches where you can cut a land. And in that case, I would cut the fourth basic primarily.
Hmm maybe I'm looking at it differently, cause couldn't you make the argument of taking out a land to reduce the chance of drawing a land when you're in a topdeck war? Hm I also never considered taking out a land for aggro and combo matches.
We are literally running one extra 4 drop than in 2016 with that build, while upping the 1 drops to to 12 cards. 25 lands increase hitting land on turn 4 by five percent. A lower curve mitigates this
It's possible we are all consumed about when last hope combos with bbe.
I wish I could test extensively in the mirror. Watching Seth play, I feel as though my play and decision making in the mirror is poor. I wish I could test against a friend on mtgo all day long to test and theory craft these sideboard plans.
I would test with you, but I dont have Jund on mtgo unfortunately
I'm currently running 25 lands and 4 manlands (2 ragine ravine 2 treetop) and am planning for some of the grindier matchups like control and midrange mirrors to board out a land. Question is, which land should I be cutting? I had a couple friends told me to board out a fetch but wondering if people had other suggestions.
I would not suggest to do that. In attrition based matchups you actually want to grind and hit landdrops. Plus, with FoR being popular, you cant do that.
Its actually the opposite: Against fast aggro and combo matches where you can cut a land. And in that case, I would cut the fourth basic primarily.
Hmm maybe I'm looking at it differently, cause couldn't you make the argument of taking out a land to reduce the chance of drawing a land when you're in a topdeck war? Hm I also never considered taking out a land for aggro and combo matches.
The reason for this is, that grindy matchups tend to go longer, which benefits hitting landdrops. It is not a problem to be a little flooded usually, since the games play out longer. Flooding against aggro decks which pressure you hard is much more devastating.
Hi! Great discussions going on here. I haven't posted in years, but back in 2013 I had written the Abzan/BGw primer before passing it on to Mastodon. I'm a long-time BGx player; I started with Jund just after the BBE banning, and switched to BGw when the power of Souls became evident to me. Modern Jund has always been my favourite deck in Magic, and I'm glad that I finally have an excuse to not play Lingering Souls!
I have been been consuming every bit of information I can find about the deck, and I finally feel comfortable sharing my thoughts and experiences with the deck since the unbannings. Please don't take anything I'm saying as gospel; I've done my best to describe my rationale, and I leave it to you to decide what you think
6 discard (4 IOK/2 TS): Turn 1 discard into Goyf/Bob is the reason to play BGx, and I'll almost always keep a hand with the one-two punch in the dark vs an unknown opponent, even if the rest of the hand is 5 lands. 4x IOK is a lock for me as the life loss is incredibly relevant from Thoughtseize, and I think this is a much more significant factor than missing with IOK. Playing 3x Thoughtseize main is a very small hedge against matchups like Tron and Valakut, but will cost you very dearly against the plethora of aggressive decks that are otherwise winnable matchups. Our margins against the aggro decks are very thin, and the life loss from Thoughtseize will cost you many close games, whereas I don't believe the additional Thoughtseize in the maindeck will meaningfully change the already bad big mana matchups.
6 one-mana removal (4 Bolt/2 Push): Tempo-positive plays are how Jund survives against faster decks until its sources of CA and card quality can take over the game. One-mana removal is at a premium and is much more valuable than anything that costs 2+ mana. However, due to the varied nature of threats, some number of more expensive removal spells are required to round out the suite.
Bolts become significantly better the more copies you play; it becomes a more reliable plan B (like the pun?). It is also the best removal spell to cascade into on an empty board. I am playing 4.
Fatal Push: The second best removal spell in the deck. I can't fathom playing less than 2, and I'd sooner trim on copies of the more expensive removal spells to fit them in.
Regarding 12 one-mana spells: playing so many one-mana spells ensures double-spell turns happen earlier and more consistently, as well as filling out the curve when the manabase develops awkwardly (2+ tapped lands in the first 4 turns). In other words, it improves the consistency of the deck. On the flipside, in G1 many of these spells can be a liability when you cascade into them off BBE and they have no targets. I acknowledge this argument, but I am generally just happy in G1 to be able to cast BBE; usually this is the stage of the game Jund has stabilized and begins to turn the corner. In these situations, I am not terribly concerned about what I get off the cascade, as I am likely to be in a decent position already. More importantly, the one-mana spells ensure that we survive until the stage of the game that we can worry about what BBE will cascade into. This also ceases to be an issue in postboard games.
Abrupt Decay: I don't like Abrupt Decay right now. It's most often worse than a 1-mana removal spell, equal to or worse than Terminate, and more narrow than Pulse. I view 1x Pulse in the maindeck as mandatory, but where most people play 1x Decay, I am happy to dedicate that slot to a second Pulse. While it is the clunkier spell, I am never unhappy to see it in my opening hand. I cannot say the same about Decay. Two quick sidenotes: having 2x Pulse is great in matchups like Storm, where you want a good answer for Empty without having to run awkward sideboard cards like Golgari Charm. Additionally, the 2-for-1 potential is definitely there, and playing 2x Pulse, it comes up enough that I consider it to be a real benefit.
2 Scooze: I have always felt that the correct number of Scooze is 2.5. I always played 3 in previous Jund and Abzan builds, and it's often a card that is either amazing, or it just doesn't do a lot and I'm annoyed to draw the first copy (much less the second). I have been on 2 copies since the unbanning of BBE and I seem to draw it more or less when I want it, as it is very much a late-game card. As such, I am mostly satisfied with running just 2, though I still think the correct number is 2.5 copies.
0 Liliana, the Last Hope: I think she is very good, albeit very matchup dependent. If I were to move my sideboard copy to the main, it would likely in the place of the second Pulse, but I currently value the removal spell higher. This is the card I am most interested in moving into the mainboard, but I can't seem to find a satisfactory way of doing so without disrupting the careful balance of the rest of the deck. I'd like to reiterate that she is very matchup dependent, which is my main issue with her; I would like my 60-card deck to be very consistent, with as few dead cards as possible in a given matchup. I view Terminate as a necessary evil. Not so much Liliana, the Last Hope.
24 lands (3 Raging Ravine): I like this configuration. I have been playing 24 land BGx decks for many years, and historically, I have felt that I flood more than screw. 24 feels just right for this deck. This is especially the case because of the 12 one-mana spells I'm playing. Playing 24 lands means that I keep more land-heavy hands, but truth be told, playing 25 lands has a very small effect on how often you flood or screw. The real reason I would play 25 lands is to play Treetop Village. That card is nothing short of fantastic. However, I am not prepared to cut any spells for it at this time. I also want 3 Ravines before I add any Treetops, as I find that the closing power of Ravine very important (in addition to the mana-fixing) compared to the efficiency of the latter.
Finally, I want to talk about building the deck around BBE; I think it is a trap. Bloodbraid Elf is Jund's best way to pull ahead/turn the corner, but you have to be close to parity for BBE to have a meaningful impact. I will use Jace, the Mind Sculptor as a parallel-- JtMS is an incredibly powerful card, but even so, you need to be close to parity for it to take over the game. BBE when you are behind is still good, and while having better cascade targets improves your ability to play from behind, I think it can sabotage how the deck functions as a whole. I want my Jund deck to consistently have the ability to dismantle what my opponent is doing so I can stabilize, and I value this consistency over having more raw power in my cascades. Furthermore, the deck already has so many fantastic hits that I don't feel the deck lacking any power as it is. This philosophy explains why I'm playing 2x Pulse instead of 1x Pulse and 1x LtLH.
Thank you to everyone for their fantastic and thoughtful posts in this thread. You are the reason I felt inspired to write this at all.
Cheers!
Awesome to see an old GBx player come back to the forums, while I was not really active at your time when you hold the torch for the Abzan forum, I am more than honored and thrilled to have you join our conversions in the Jund forum. It is especially exciting for me since I took over Mastodons work for Abzan just recently.
I like your reasoning and your explanations. Its probably a great starting point. I just love those openers of turn 1 IOK into Goyf/Bob. That is GBx for me at heart. Its why I love the deck.
I gotta say, I just love your manabase. It is the perfect manabase for a traditional 24 land build. Thats what I am talking about. No messing around with Blooming Marsh, no greedy Treetops. With 24 lands, you gotta be old fashioned.
What I am not quite sure is that your 24 land build is gonna work with 8 three drops.
I am personally higher on LtLH, I really love her, its in my ranking the third best PW ever printed. But its fine to run her in the SB, at least make sure to always run one copy in the 75 at least.
With lower curve 24 lands would be the real possibility.
@Spsiegel: how many 3 drops do you think is the highest to comfortably play 24 lands? I'm not sure just yet but I'm also thinking about cutting LtLH in the main deck (I'll give it a try at least) but I assume this isn't enough for 24 lands?
I personally think 7 is the most we would want in that case. 8 is the normal number of 25 land builds right now (5 Lili PWs, 2 KCommand and 1 Pulse). I have felt that with that 8 24 lands are too few. Therefore my guess is 7.
We are literally running one extra 4 drop than in 2016 with that build, while upping the 1 drops to to 12 cards. 25 lands increase hitting land on turn 4 by five percent. A lower curve mitigates this
It's possible we are all consumed about when last hope combos with bbe.
That test could be worth trying.
I am open for it. But if I remember correctly, 2 four drops was more the norm than 3. And to add, we did run only about 7 three drops. Not 8, like now. I think those things add up. It is true that we would have more 1 drops now, since back then we ran more Decays and basically replaced them with Push.
Hazoret is a nice mirror breaker, but I don't want mirror breakers, I want sideboard cards that improve matchups across the board.
Its basically the same SBing what Rubin and Niklas did combined in the mirror match of the mocs.
I am not sure what to say about that. It is right that on the draw you need to be more reactive, but I think that mostly belongs to removal spells. Thats why I board out discard more and leave in Pulse. I think he is overvaluing discard just like Jadine and Rubin a bit. You cant expect to see a discard spell on turn 1 (when we actually want to see one if we leave it in). Regarding Pulse, I am really not sure why the same threats thing should be a problem. In my years of experience I never had an issue about that.
I feel, he is often comparing the deck to certain standard decks. I think he is a little bit biased there due to Standard.
All in all I think his observations are right, but I would react to them differently.
Interesting to note that his list does not include Abrupt Decay. Aside from that I agree with what Delver was saying, what Seth is advocating for makes sense academically, but it just doesn't really feel rooted in the way Jund mirrors actually play out. I do agree more with him than Jadine about the value of Fulminator in the mirror.
I would argue that besides for Burn and Aggro decks, Hazoret has a higher impact than Finks in most matchups. Therefore I think it is an interesting option to have, when you need that extra umph in grindy matches and don't expect Burn/Aggro too much.
Hazoret has a neat advantage compared to Finks that she is a nice way to deal with E-Tron and is even applicable for regular Tron. As for Tron I often get my opponent to a very low life total until they hit an Ugin. Hazoret off the top can seal the deal sometimes.
Finks is more versatile, which I agree with.
Sure I agree with that. Yeah BBE is an argument, but I am not sure we should start justifying or relying everything on BBE. Some cards can just be run despite some nonbos with BBE. Best example is EE against Bogles if it gets very popular. I am not hesitant to run it then.
Spirits
I wish I could test extensively in the mirror. Watching Seth play, I feel as though my play and decision making in the mirror is poor. I wish I could test against a friend on mtgo all day long to test and theory craft these sideboard plans.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#paper
TappedOut
Would love to have more input to improve!
You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel, we aren't trying to do that. At this point it's about tweaking the cards and numbers.
I think Jace decks, on the other hand, will probably need drastic changes to work
If you plan on pitching that many lands, you're doing something wrong or you really want to play a different deck.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I'm also on Springbreak and bored, and should be writing about the dangers of elderly abuse
I have been been consuming every bit of information I can find about the deck, and I finally feel comfortable sharing my thoughts and experiences with the deck since the unbannings. Please don't take anything I'm saying as gospel; I've done my best to describe my rationale, and I leave it to you to decide what you think
My list at this time:
// 60 Maindeck
// 14 Creature
4 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Scavenging Ooze
// 10 Instant
2 Fatal Push
2 Kolaghan's Command
2 Terminate
4 Lightning Bolt
// 24 Land
3 Raging Ravine
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Wooded Foothills
3 Bloodstained Mire
2 Swamp
1 Forest
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
1 Blood Crypt
1 Twilight Mire
1 Mountain
// 4 Planeswalker
4 Liliana of the Veil
// 8 Sorcery
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Thoughtseize
2 Maelstrom Pulse
// 15 Sideboard
// 2 Artifact
SB: 2 Grafdigger's Cage
// 7 Creature
SB: 2 Kitchen Finks
SB: 3 Fulminator Mage
SB: 1 Thrun, the Last Troll
SB: 1 Grim Lavamancer
// 2 Instant
SB: 2 Ancient Grudge
// 1 Planeswalker
SB: 1 Liliana, the Last Hope
// 3 Sorcery
SB: 2 Collective Brutality
SB: 1 Duress
My choices:
6 discard (4 IOK/2 TS): Turn 1 discard into Goyf/Bob is the reason to play BGx, and I'll almost always keep a hand with the one-two punch in the dark vs an unknown opponent, even if the rest of the hand is 5 lands. 4x IOK is a lock for me as the life loss is incredibly relevant from Thoughtseize, and I think this is a much more significant factor than missing with IOK. Playing 3x Thoughtseize main is a very small hedge against matchups like Tron and Valakut, but will cost you very dearly against the plethora of aggressive decks that are otherwise winnable matchups. Our margins against the aggro decks are very thin, and the life loss from Thoughtseize will cost you many close games, whereas I don't believe the additional Thoughtseize in the maindeck will meaningfully change the already bad big mana matchups.
6 one-mana removal (4 Bolt/2 Push): Tempo-positive plays are how Jund survives against faster decks until its sources of CA and card quality can take over the game. One-mana removal is at a premium and is much more valuable than anything that costs 2+ mana. However, due to the varied nature of threats, some number of more expensive removal spells are required to round out the suite.
Bolts become significantly better the more copies you play; it becomes a more reliable plan B (like the pun?). It is also the best removal spell to cascade into on an empty board. I am playing 4.
Fatal Push: The second best removal spell in the deck. I can't fathom playing less than 2, and I'd sooner trim on copies of the more expensive removal spells to fit them in.
Regarding 12 one-mana spells: playing so many one-mana spells ensures double-spell turns happen earlier and more consistently, as well as filling out the curve when the manabase develops awkwardly (2+ tapped lands in the first 4 turns). In other words, it improves the consistency of the deck. On the flipside, in G1 many of these spells can be a liability when you cascade into them off BBE and they have no targets. I acknowledge this argument, but I am generally just happy in G1 to be able to cast BBE; usually this is the stage of the game Jund has stabilized and begins to turn the corner. In these situations, I am not terribly concerned about what I get off the cascade, as I am likely to be in a decent position already. More importantly, the one-mana spells ensure that we survive until the stage of the game that we can worry about what BBE will cascade into. This also ceases to be an issue in postboard games.
Abrupt Decay: I don't like Abrupt Decay right now. It's most often worse than a 1-mana removal spell, equal to or worse than Terminate, and more narrow than Pulse. I view 1x Pulse in the maindeck as mandatory, but where most people play 1x Decay, I am happy to dedicate that slot to a second Pulse. While it is the clunkier spell, I am never unhappy to see it in my opening hand. I cannot say the same about Decay. Two quick sidenotes: having 2x Pulse is great in matchups like Storm, where you want a good answer for Empty without having to run awkward sideboard cards like Golgari Charm. Additionally, the 2-for-1 potential is definitely there, and playing 2x Pulse, it comes up enough that I consider it to be a real benefit.
2 Scooze: I have always felt that the correct number of Scooze is 2.5. I always played 3 in previous Jund and Abzan builds, and it's often a card that is either amazing, or it just doesn't do a lot and I'm annoyed to draw the first copy (much less the second). I have been on 2 copies since the unbanning of BBE and I seem to draw it more or less when I want it, as it is very much a late-game card. As such, I am mostly satisfied with running just 2, though I still think the correct number is 2.5 copies.
0 Liliana, the Last Hope: I think she is very good, albeit very matchup dependent. If I were to move my sideboard copy to the main, it would likely in the place of the second Pulse, but I currently value the removal spell higher. This is the card I am most interested in moving into the mainboard, but I can't seem to find a satisfactory way of doing so without disrupting the careful balance of the rest of the deck. I'd like to reiterate that she is very matchup dependent, which is my main issue with her; I would like my 60-card deck to be very consistent, with as few dead cards as possible in a given matchup. I view Terminate as a necessary evil. Not so much Liliana, the Last Hope.
24 lands (3 Raging Ravine): I like this configuration. I have been playing 24 land BGx decks for many years, and historically, I have felt that I flood more than screw. 24 feels just right for this deck. This is especially the case because of the 12 one-mana spells I'm playing. Playing 24 lands means that I keep more land-heavy hands, but truth be told, playing 25 lands has a very small effect on how often you flood or screw. The real reason I would play 25 lands is to play Treetop Village. That card is nothing short of fantastic. However, I am not prepared to cut any spells for it at this time. I also want 3 Ravines before I add any Treetops, as I find that the closing power of Ravine very important (in addition to the mana-fixing) compared to the efficiency of the latter.
Finally, I want to talk about building the deck around BBE; I think it is a trap. Bloodbraid Elf is Jund's best way to pull ahead/turn the corner, but you have to be close to parity for BBE to have a meaningful impact. I will use Jace, the Mind Sculptor as a parallel-- JtMS is an incredibly powerful card, but even so, you need to be close to parity for it to take over the game. BBE when you are behind is still good, and while having better cascade targets improves your ability to play from behind, I think it can sabotage how the deck functions as a whole. I want my Jund deck to consistently have the ability to dismantle what my opponent is doing so I can stabilize, and I value this consistency over having more raw power in my cascades. Furthermore, the deck already has so many fantastic hits that I don't feel the deck lacking any power as it is. This philosophy explains why I'm playing 2x Pulse instead of 1x Pulse and 1x LtLH.
Thank you to everyone for their fantastic and thoughtful posts in this thread. You are the reason I felt inspired to write this at all.
Cheers!
With how much you cut your curve down, I can see the justification in 24 lands.
I also feel like 2.5 Scooze is what we want, drawing 2x copies is usually very annoying.
I've also started to see some people arrive at the conclusion that Last Hope is great, but should be relegated to the board. We never wanted her in the main now, and should we really compromise this just because it's for BBE?
It's possible we are warping too much around BBE.
If we cut the mainboard curve significantly, it would make me consider 24 lands.
Hmm maybe I'm looking at it differently, cause couldn't you make the argument of taking out a land to reduce the chance of drawing a land when you're in a topdeck war? Hm I also never considered taking out a land for aggro and combo matches.
In early 2016 most decks ran something like
2x huntmaster of the fells and 1x Olivia with 24 lands.
Why can't jund look something like this
4x dark confidant
4x tarmogoyf
2x scavenging ooze
4x bloodbraid elf
Spells
4x inquisition of kozilek
2x thoughtseize
4x lightning bolt
2x fatal push
1x abrupt decay
1x terminate
1x dreadbore
2x kolaghan's command
1x maelstrom pulse
4x liliana of the veil
4x verdant catacombs
3x bloodstained mire
1x wooded foothills
2x overgrown tomb
1x blood crypt
1x stomping ground
4x blackcleave cliffs
3x raging ravine
1x twilight mire
2x swamp
1x forest
1x mountain
4x fulminator mage
2x nihil spellbomb
1x grafdigger's cage
2x ancient grudge
2x collective brutality
2x kitchen finks
1x grim lavamancer
1x liliana, the last hope
We are literally running one extra 4 drop than in 2016 with that build, while upping the 1 drops to to 12 cards. 25 lands increase hitting land on turn 4 by five percent. A lower curve mitigates this
It's possible we are all consumed about when last hope combos with bbe.
That list could be worth trying.
I would test with you, but I dont have Jund on mtgo unfortunately
The reason for this is, that grindy matchups tend to go longer, which benefits hitting landdrops. It is not a problem to be a little flooded usually, since the games play out longer. Flooding against aggro decks which pressure you hard is much more devastating.
Awesome to see an old GBx player come back to the forums, while I was not really active at your time when you hold the torch for the Abzan forum, I am more than honored and thrilled to have you join our conversions in the Jund forum. It is especially exciting for me since I took over Mastodons work for Abzan just recently.
I like your reasoning and your explanations. Its probably a great starting point. I just love those openers of turn 1 IOK into Goyf/Bob. That is GBx for me at heart. Its why I love the deck.
I gotta say, I just love your manabase. It is the perfect manabase for a traditional 24 land build. Thats what I am talking about. No messing around with Blooming Marsh, no greedy Treetops. With 24 lands, you gotta be old fashioned.
What I am not quite sure is that your 24 land build is gonna work with 8 three drops.
I am personally higher on LtLH, I really love her, its in my ranking the third best PW ever printed. But its fine to run her in the SB, at least make sure to always run one copy in the 75 at least.
I personally think 7 is the most we would want in that case. 8 is the normal number of 25 land builds right now (5 Lili PWs, 2 KCommand and 1 Pulse). I have felt that with that 8 24 lands are too few. Therefore my guess is 7.
I am open for it. But if I remember correctly, 2 four drops was more the norm than 3. And to add, we did run only about 7 three drops. Not 8, like now. I think those things add up. It is true that we would have more 1 drops now, since back then we ran more Decays and basically replaced them with Push.