Artifact decks are not played an awful lot at my store currently, but I will always respect these decks. Therefore I am not going to cut a Grudge anytime soon.
I would also not advise cutting a Grudge from your board since you only play 1 KCommand. If you would play 2, cutting 1 Grudge is okay to do if you don't expect many artifact decks.
Dark Steel, while I was on the 25 land build, my opponent boarded in 3 or 4 fulminators against me. He hit me 3 times in fairly quick succession, but It ended up hurting him and he lost.
After reading top player articles on the mirror, I'm not 100% sure we should side out ALL the discard in the mirror, unless we have good cards like Finks, Hazoret, etc. I'm actually off the fulminator plan now for the mirror.
The way I see it, I think discard is bad in the mirror because it's dead late. The idea in general with Jund is that your cards are either threats or answers. So in the mirror, you want to make your deck have the most powerful threats and answers. Generally speaking, your 2-for-1 cards are super powerful. BBE is a good threat because it's literally a 2-for-1. Discard can remove any threat proactively, even removal, but if you draw it at the wrong time it's super weak and does literally nothing. That's why I think it's bad, I don't want to run the risk of drawing it late game. As long as my threats and answers line up in a way where we're drawing a good number (minus variance) and can stonewall each other at points, then there's no benefit to the discard.
The other major thing is that outside of the discard, there's isn't a lot you dislike. Maybe you think Bolt is bad when creatures like Goyf get big or something, but it's still good at killing other things. Maybe you think Maelstrom Pulse is bad because it kills your things too, but you can force situations where it's good. What I find is that the core is generally not bad and I don't have a lot that I think sideboard cards are better than.
When it came to Fulminator Mages, I didn't think that they were better than existing things. What would I cut? Bolt? Bob? Maelstrom Pulse? These all don't seem worth it to me. Mage seemed like a "good when you have a best case scenario" that I wasn't sure I liked. In some cases it does kill a threat (i.e. manland) but you also have to telegraph it. Opponents can opt not to animate them and play out other cards instead.
My mirror results are very mixed right now, and I think perhaps I'm being a little too active in using removal rather than being selective. I haven't played enough to conclusively determine anything though, and a fair chunk of them were lost by mana issues (i.e. flooding / screw).
I messed around with basically your 75 this morning and it just functioned really well. I was just curving out really well. 3x pushes and 3x bolts have been amazing.
Honestly, I'm extremely happy with the mainboard. All I would like at this point is finding room for a 2nd decay but I'm perfectly fine accepting that loss.
I wasn't impressed with the deck quality my opponents played but I was paying attention to how the deck was curving and drawing.
I'm absolutely experimenting with the sideboard. I cut a bomb for an anger and cut hazoret and something else to play 2x trackers.
I have a feeling the community is going to start shifting to what we've all started to construct.
25 lands and going in a very different direction from the 1 drop heavy lists. You can check above for my listing of how many of each card I and some others played but here's the breakdown for Reids
1 - 9
2 - 13
3 - 9
4 - 4
My opinion on this is that Reid's mana curve is pushing too high with too many 3's. He's playing into the Jund idea of high card equity but I wonder if it's too inconsistent.
Another question for those who have watched Reid Duke's latest video: Do you agree with how he sideboarded against Bogles? I am all for cutting different cards.
How do you guys feel about the criticism about lists and the evaluation process here?
On Facebook a few days ago, some guy posted a list he won a pptq with, it only ran 3 discard in the main board and 2x rabblemasters, when I said I wouldn't suggest any jund player to run that in any situation he got a little defensive and said it was a metw call because he wanted aggression on games 1 and to become more reactive if needed postboard
He basically made a Facebook post kinda passively aggressively saying no card choice is wrong in jund
...am I going crazy here, guys? I know there's some respectable choices I won't always agree with, but 3x mainboard discard is fundamentally wrong, right?
Should we be validating everyones choices? Is there a thing as being too critical?
I want someone to tell me if my deck list sucks.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are with the deck, it seems more about just good deck building and theory.
I'm liking the discussion this past month in this thread, I'm just wondering if we should be validating more peoples choices and card choice decisions
FlyingDelver, it is interesting that we both came to the same conclusion (even with you running 25 lands at the moment and me running 23 back then). We both ended up with the same list, -1 twilight mire +1 treetop village and -1 fatal push +1 abrupt decay. Even Liliana, the last hope in the side. I really think we are reaching a concensus.
In my current meta, Tron and Junk are starting to creep up to prey on the (many many) Jund decks. I'll give Blood Moon a try, even tough the Master has already ruled this one out.
How do you guys feel about the criticism about lists and the evaluation process here?
I think that Magic players are quick to cargo cult anything that does well without taking into account the variance in the game. The oscillation between 24 and 25 lands based on what Reid or Jadine play and a handful of anecdotal games with flood/screw for example. That's not something specific to this thread though, but rather Magic players in general.
This belief works out poorly for me because I think I'm a fantastic deck builder but only an average player, so I tend to lean more on deck construction. Most pro's though aren't good deck builders and instead are just very good players and as much as it pains me to say it, finding lines is really much more important than what 75 you run, and many of the exact card numbers in your 75 like total threat or land counts aren't quite as important as we often like to believe.
I've been running variants of my Magic simulator for something like two years now, maybe two and a half, across 4 decks (Jund, Burn, Knightfall, and Infect). What I've found more than anything is that numbers between various cards are really a lot more fluid than we like to believe. I've always been into deck building, but ever since I was able to generate data on probably a billion games across all decks, and actually start analyzing it, it totally changed my view about what is and isn't important.
What I've learned, is that the best lists aren't necessarily set in stone in a particular configuration, but that there will be several configurations that are all pretty much equal (or at least, equal enough that there's no statistically significant difference between them over a million games). That's where player skill really comes in, you can have different curves and different cards and achieve near equal results. At that point it merely comes down to player preference. The only real rules that I've noticed are that certain curves tend to be innately more powerful than others regardless of deck played, and that having the chance to draw an out to an obscure card by including an answer vs not having an answer and never having that chance is probably the most under rated aspect by the community in deck building.
So in summation, while I'm skeptical of the list you're describing I don't think there's enough data here to accurately say if the deck is good or bad. And that response tends to be true of most lists on the forum. Though I am of the belief that eventually a community can and will converge on a very good stock list... I just don't think the stock list, or the stock list +/- a card or two is necessarily the only optimal build for a deck.
How do you guys feel about the criticism about lists and the evaluation process here?
On Facebook a few days ago, some guy posted a list he won a pptq with, it only ran 3 discard in the main board and 2x rabblemasters, when I said I wouldn't suggest any jund player to run that in any situation he got a little defensive and said it was a metw call because he wanted aggression on games 1 and to become more reactive if needed postboard
He basically made a Facebook post kinda passively aggressively saying no card choice is wrong in jund
...am I going crazy here, guys? I know there's some respectable choices I won't always agree with, but 3x mainboard discard is fundamentally wrong, right?
Should we be validating everyones choices? Is there a thing as being too critical?
I want someone to tell me if my deck list sucks.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are with the deck, it seems more about just good deck building and theory.
I'm liking the discussion this past month in this thread, I'm just wondering if we should be validating more peoples choices and card choice decisions
If the meta was honestly expected to be bg/x i would say it was an okish call. I would say with only 3 discard i personally would want all 3 to be thoughtseize to make up for the lack of possible turn 1 disruption. When you cast it you want it to be able to hit otherwise it's largely pointless. The idea of only 3 mb feels like he was playing the game SB for g1.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: No Time
Modern: Jund Midrange BRG
Legacy: Shardless Bug BUG
What are our thoughts on Tireless Tracker? I’m speaking predominantly about it as a one or two-of in the SB. When would we want it if we were to side it? Just for games where we want grind? What about against big mana?
And now, for thoroughness’ sake, what do we think about it as a one-of in the MB? I think it fits our strategy just fine. It’s an independently powerful card that generates value, sometimes absurd amount of value. There’s just no room for it. I feel like that’s the only thing holding us back from playing him, albeit that’s the only reason needed. There’s just no room. He would be an absolutely disgusting cascade though; just saying.
Im not trying to be avant-garde or anything here. Honestly I’m just a little salty that I keep losing to Junk and I’m a little jealous of this weapon in particular. I also just like bouncing ideas off y’all. I value the conglomeration of opinions on this thread quite a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN: BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG EDH: BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
How do you guys feel about the criticism about lists and the evaluation process here?
On Facebook a few days ago, some guy posted a list he won a pptq with, it only ran 3 discard in the main board and 2x rabblemasters, when I said I wouldn't suggest any jund player to run that in any situation he got a little defensive and said it was a metw call because he wanted aggression on games 1 and to become more reactive if needed postboard
He basically made a Facebook post kinda passively aggressively saying no card choice is wrong in jund
...am I going crazy here, guys? I know there's some respectable choices I won't always agree with, but 3x mainboard discard is fundamentally wrong, right?
Should we be validating everyones choices? Is there a thing as being too critical?
I want someone to tell me if my deck list sucks.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are with the deck, it seems more about just good deck building and theory.
I'm liking the discussion this past month in this thread, I'm just wondering if we should be validating more peoples choices and card choice decisions
I saw the post you're referring to. While I agree with you personally, they also aren't wrong. I feel that the truly offensive part was your tone really. I've done some crazy things with my traditional Jund list to attack specific metagames when things lean towards a particular archetype too heavily (at major events). If I can damn near guarantee what a large portion of the metagame will be, I build my deck accordingly. In this vein, watching and playing online has done me a tremendous service. That doesn't mean I throw all common-sense, logic and experience out the window, but I definitely become far more flexible on what I'm willing to sleeve for my main. It's often why I ask about specific cards in different forums than posts my lists. I already know from past experience that my lists would just get crapped on even if they were only a theoretical start point for a particular tourney I'm working toward. A lot of the decks I like to play can take on many configurations because I used to be a brewer/tinkerer. I'm obviously off brewing in most formats now largely due to time constraints but remaining flexible has led me to some interesting ideas over the last few years. Some were obvious. Some weren't. That said, I feel a little differently from Aazadan. I really do feel that being able to get the most from your deck in every game is just as important as deckbuilding. That's also why I focus so much on knowing how to sideboard appropriately as well.
I would also not advise cutting a Grudge from your board since you only play 1 KCommand. If you would play 2, cutting 1 Grudge is okay to do if you don't expect many artifact decks.
The other major thing is that outside of the discard, there's isn't a lot you dislike. Maybe you think Bolt is bad when creatures like Goyf get big or something, but it's still good at killing other things. Maybe you think Maelstrom Pulse is bad because it kills your things too, but you can force situations where it's good. What I find is that the core is generally not bad and I don't have a lot that I think sideboard cards are better than.
When it came to Fulminator Mages, I didn't think that they were better than existing things. What would I cut? Bolt? Bob? Maelstrom Pulse? These all don't seem worth it to me. Mage seemed like a "good when you have a best case scenario" that I wasn't sure I liked. In some cases it does kill a threat (i.e. manland) but you also have to telegraph it. Opponents can opt not to animate them and play out other cards instead.
My mirror results are very mixed right now, and I think perhaps I'm being a little too active in using removal rather than being selective. I haven't played enough to conclusively determine anything though, and a fair chunk of them were lost by mana issues (i.e. flooding / screw).
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
I messed around with basically your 75 this morning and it just functioned really well. I was just curving out really well. 3x pushes and 3x bolts have been amazing.
Honestly, I'm extremely happy with the mainboard. All I would like at this point is finding room for a 2nd decay but I'm perfectly fine accepting that loss.
I wasn't impressed with the deck quality my opponents played but I was paying attention to how the deck was curving and drawing.
I'm absolutely experimenting with the sideboard. I cut a bomb for an anger and cut hazoret and something else to play 2x trackers.
I have a feeling the community is going to start shifting to what we've all started to construct.
Damn it man, I'm trying to get work done today.
4 Verdant Catacombs
3 Bloodstained Mire
1 Wooded Foothills
1 Blood Crypt
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
2 Forest
1 Twilight Mire
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
3 Raging Ravine
1 Treetop Village
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Scavenging Ooze
4 Bloodbraid Elf
Spells 20
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Thoughtseize
1 Terminate
1 Abrupt Decay
4 Liliana of the Veil
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
2 Kolaghan's Command
2 Maelstrom Pulse
1 Fatal Push
2 Collective Brutality
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
1 Thoughtseize
1 Kitchen Finks
1 Huntmaster of the Fells
2 Ancient Grudge
1 Deglamer
3 Fulminator Mage
1 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Nihil Spellbomb
25 lands and going in a very different direction from the 1 drop heavy lists. You can check above for my listing of how many of each card I and some others played but here's the breakdown for Reids
1 - 9
2 - 13
3 - 9
4 - 4
My opinion on this is that Reid's mana curve is pushing too high with too many 3's. He's playing into the Jund idea of high card equity but I wonder if it's too inconsistent.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
Look at his mana base, it's basically the base this whole thread decided on in day 1.
He's playing push and 1x seize in the side, which makes me wonder if his main configuration needs work
I also thought his main deck and sideboard were a bit curious.
Adopting this list would feel like making a step backwards to me.
I'm still on it, but there's a lot of tokens/Bogles in my meta.
On Facebook a few days ago, some guy posted a list he won a pptq with, it only ran 3 discard in the main board and 2x rabblemasters, when I said I wouldn't suggest any jund player to run that in any situation he got a little defensive and said it was a metw call because he wanted aggression on games 1 and to become more reactive if needed postboard
He basically made a Facebook post kinda passively aggressively saying no card choice is wrong in jund
...am I going crazy here, guys? I know there's some respectable choices I won't always agree with, but 3x mainboard discard is fundamentally wrong, right?
Should we be validating everyones choices? Is there a thing as being too critical?
I want someone to tell me if my deck list sucks.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are with the deck, it seems more about just good deck building and theory.
I'm liking the discussion this past month in this thread, I'm just wondering if we should be validating more peoples choices and card choice decisions
FlyingDelver, it is interesting that we both came to the same conclusion (even with you running 25 lands at the moment and me running 23 back then). We both ended up with the same list, -1 twilight mire +1 treetop village and -1 fatal push +1 abrupt decay. Even Liliana, the last hope in the side. I really think we are reaching a concensus.
In my current meta, Tron and Junk are starting to creep up to prey on the (many many) Jund decks. I'll give Blood Moon a try, even tough the Master has already ruled this one out.
I think that Magic players are quick to cargo cult anything that does well without taking into account the variance in the game. The oscillation between 24 and 25 lands based on what Reid or Jadine play and a handful of anecdotal games with flood/screw for example. That's not something specific to this thread though, but rather Magic players in general.
This belief works out poorly for me because I think I'm a fantastic deck builder but only an average player, so I tend to lean more on deck construction. Most pro's though aren't good deck builders and instead are just very good players and as much as it pains me to say it, finding lines is really much more important than what 75 you run, and many of the exact card numbers in your 75 like total threat or land counts aren't quite as important as we often like to believe.
I've been running variants of my Magic simulator for something like two years now, maybe two and a half, across 4 decks (Jund, Burn, Knightfall, and Infect). What I've found more than anything is that numbers between various cards are really a lot more fluid than we like to believe. I've always been into deck building, but ever since I was able to generate data on probably a billion games across all decks, and actually start analyzing it, it totally changed my view about what is and isn't important.
What I've learned, is that the best lists aren't necessarily set in stone in a particular configuration, but that there will be several configurations that are all pretty much equal (or at least, equal enough that there's no statistically significant difference between them over a million games). That's where player skill really comes in, you can have different curves and different cards and achieve near equal results. At that point it merely comes down to player preference. The only real rules that I've noticed are that certain curves tend to be innately more powerful than others regardless of deck played, and that having the chance to draw an out to an obscure card by including an answer vs not having an answer and never having that chance is probably the most under rated aspect by the community in deck building.
So in summation, while I'm skeptical of the list you're describing I don't think there's enough data here to accurately say if the deck is good or bad. And that response tends to be true of most lists on the forum. Though I am of the belief that eventually a community can and will converge on a very good stock list... I just don't think the stock list, or the stock list +/- a card or two is necessarily the only optimal build for a deck.
If the meta was honestly expected to be bg/x i would say it was an okish call. I would say with only 3 discard i personally would want all 3 to be thoughtseize to make up for the lack of possible turn 1 disruption. When you cast it you want it to be able to hit otherwise it's largely pointless. The idea of only 3 mb feels like he was playing the game SB for g1.
Modern: Jund Midrange BRG
Legacy: Shardless Bug BUG
And now, for thoroughness’ sake, what do we think about it as a one-of in the MB? I think it fits our strategy just fine. It’s an independently powerful card that generates value, sometimes absurd amount of value. There’s just no room for it. I feel like that’s the only thing holding us back from playing him, albeit that’s the only reason needed. There’s just no room. He would be an absolutely disgusting cascade though; just saying.
Im not trying to be avant-garde or anything here. Honestly I’m just a little salty that I keep losing to Junk and I’m a little jealous of this weapon in particular. I also just like bouncing ideas off y’all. I value the conglomeration of opinions on this thread quite a bit.
BRGJUNDGRB---BRHOLLOW ONERB---BGELVESGB---BRGLIVING ENDGRB---GWBOGLESWG
EDH:
BRGKARRTHUS, TYRANT OF JUNDGRB
I saw the post you're referring to. While I agree with you personally, they also aren't wrong. I feel that the truly offensive part was your tone really. I've done some crazy things with my traditional Jund list to attack specific metagames when things lean towards a particular archetype too heavily (at major events). If I can damn near guarantee what a large portion of the metagame will be, I build my deck accordingly. In this vein, watching and playing online has done me a tremendous service. That doesn't mean I throw all common-sense, logic and experience out the window, but I definitely become far more flexible on what I'm willing to sleeve for my main. It's often why I ask about specific cards in different forums than posts my lists. I already know from past experience that my lists would just get crapped on even if they were only a theoretical start point for a particular tourney I'm working toward. A lot of the decks I like to play can take on many configurations because I used to be a brewer/tinkerer. I'm obviously off brewing in most formats now largely due to time constraints but remaining flexible has led me to some interesting ideas over the last few years. Some were obvious. Some weren't. That said, I feel a little differently from Aazadan. I really do feel that being able to get the most from your deck in every game is just as important as deckbuilding. That's also why I focus so much on knowing how to sideboard appropriately as well.