Keep at least 4 discard spells. The early turns are so important against Humans, you need cheap interaction/disruption. If you can disrupt their board progression, you just win in the lategame because of the better card quality. I would cut probably two or three Liliana depending on the sideboard options
Maybe we do but most of the active posters in this forum are well-versed with playing Jund against many different opponents. To me, this is one of the best forums that are focused on a particular deck. The primer is always up to date, the active posters generally stay up to date on their own ways, and we're not that bad about coming up with ideas fo r problems when they arise. We rarely need to spell everything out in analytical way. Most of our questions rarely revolve around analytics, which is why the conversation about the number of lands has been such a bit topic.
Even so, based on what I've seen in the Jeskai forum, seems a bit hypocritical to come here with that sort of talk.
*raises hands defensively*
hey. dont get me wrong. i respect dedication to the craft. the fact that i frequently check this thread and even spoke up at all is testament that i value the opinion of people in this thread. i may not agree with some of the methodology, but thats just my opinion. id never look down on people looking to engage in rational discourse.
as a gesture of solidarity ill attempt to make a contribution to the discussion.
i mentioned before that i know a few jund players. none are pros or anything, but i personally acknowledge their skills. here is what one of them told me about how they approach the mirror:
-if you want the games or the matchup to be consistently decided by good decision making rather than who can peel more gas off the top of their library then you have to aggressively seek an advantage before both players run out of resources. if the configuration of your deck post-board pushes you to remain at parity going into the midgame, ultimately hoping your threat density will win out; then you are conceding that the matchup will never be better than a coin-flip.
specifically he referred to keeping some amount of discard in post-board. you cut down on it for obviously being a bad topdeck; however it is one of the few ways to gain a real edge in the early game. seeing the contents of the opponents hand, and possibly punching a hole in it, lets you sequence in a manner where you get the better end of trades. if you can get them on the backfoot when both players run empty, even in something simple like being considerably behind in lifepoints; this makes your topdecks more relevant than theirs.
anywho, i dont know this persons exact win percentage, so they could just be wrong. however i thought it was a noteworthy line of reasoning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Maybe we do but most of the active posters in this forum are well-versed with playing Jund against many different opponents. To me, this is one of the best forums that are focused on a particular deck. The primer is always up to date, the active posters generally stay up to date on their own ways, and we're not that bad about coming up with ideas fo r problems when they arise. We rarely need to spell everything out in analytical way. Most of our questions rarely revolve around analytics, which is why the conversation about the number of lands has been such a bit topic.
Even so, based on what I've seen in the Jeskai forum, seems a bit hypocritical to come here with that sort of talk.
*raises hands defensively*
hey. dont get me wrong. i respect dedication to the craft. the fact that i frequently check this thread and even spoke up at all is testament that i value the opinion of people in this thread. i may not agree with some of the methodology, but thats just my opinion. id never look down on people looking to engage in rational discourse.
as a gesture of solidarity ill attempt to make a contribution to the discussion.
i mentioned before that i know a few jund players. none are pros or anything, but i personally acknowledge their skills. here is what one of them told me about how they approach the mirror:
-if you want the games or the matchup to be consistently decided by good decision making rather than who can peel more gas off the top of their library then you have to aggressively seek an advantage before both players run out of resources. if the configuration of your deck post-board pushes you to remain at parity going into the midgame, ultimately hoping your threat density will win out; then you are conceding that the matchup will never be better than a coin-flip.
specifically he referred to keeping some amount of discard in post-board. you cut down on it for obviously being a bad topdeck; however it is one of the few ways to gain a real edge in the early game. seeing the contents of the opponents hand, and possibly punching a hole in it, lets you sequence in a manner where you get the better end of trades. if you can get them on the backfoot when both players run empty, even in something simple like being considerably behind in lifepoints; this makes your topdecks more relevant than theirs.
anywho, i dont know this persons exact win percentage, so they could just be wrong. however i thought it was a noteworthy line of reasoning.
It's an interesting line of thought. What about if the opponent has chosen a similar line and also chosen to keep some amount of discard in the deck? Does it then go back to being a "coin flip" (that is, that the game goes to luck of the draw)?
I think these are the key factors in the mirror match:
Factors:
1. Who gets to go first. Not something I consider a player has control over - other than odd situations like deliberately ID'ing, losing, or winning into certain ranks of the Top 8 to manipulate known match-ups/seeding which includes who gets to play first, or Lantern Control where you should choose to draw first
2. Luck of the draw and sequence of draw, mulligans. This includes making needed land drops, when or if a player gets the needed "answer(s)", threats, supply of threats, revealing a string of high CMC cards (or lands) to Dark Confidant, etc. Basically all the things a player has absolutely no control over.
3. The contents of a player's deck. This can have an effect on #2. Players have control over this by sideboarding.
In the mirror, let's assume hypothetically both decks are identical in maindeck and sideboard card choices, and, that post-sideboard configurations will be identical. If either deck chooses to have a "no discard spell" configuration post board then the exact in and out card choices are chosen for either deck. Same goes for any "with discard spells" configuration.
So then there can only be three types of configuration pairings between them:
1. "No discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
2. "With discard spells" vs "With discard spells"
3. "With discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
I think pairing #1 and #2 come down Factors #1 and #2: luck and who got to go first (due to the innate advantage of casting spells first (e.g. a Discard spell in the case where discards spells are still present), and reaching higher impact cards that cost more to cast (e.g. BBE) or activate (e.g. Raging Ravine, Ooze).
Pairing #3 is the more interesting case and the subject of contention:
A point we should consider about the nature of most typical Jund decks: they are not particularly aggressive. This is in stark contrast to other decks like Infect, Storm, Affinity, etc. where it's clear that disrupting and slowing them down is critical to winning the game. Nor is there a definitive late inevitable spell that if not disrupted, will cost the game, like an Emrakul or Second Sunrise or whatever. We all know this, I'm just pointing it out.
I think what many are unsure of is whether the early or occasional mid and late game disruption of spells via a discard spell makes enough of an impact to over come factor #2: the luck and chance of draws, sequences and mulligans.
In the Jund mirror I suppose one could think of a discard spell as a kind of "answer" or "kill" spell (bolt, decay, pulse, etc.), except it kills spells in the hand, instead of removing a permanent from the battlefield. As such, the only two kinds of cards in the decks are either "answers" or "threats". All the non-discard "answer" spells are likely guaranteed answers. Discard spells are not always going to be answers because they may miss, if the hand is empty, has lands (like a Raging Ravine), and certainly can't deal with a permanent. So the only potential advantages discard spells possess are:
1. tempo advantage
2. mana efficiency (since they only cost 1 or 2)
3. hand information (which I agree is very valuable).
Advantage #3 some may suggest, as described in the post above me, is very valuable because it allows you to sequence your play choices because you now have perfect information of their current hand, and possibly how they may play their next cards (7 at most in the early game). In the mid to late game that would dwindle to 0-3 cards' worth of information - so the info is less valuable. If in the mid to late game they have a high card count and you don't, you have likely lost due to card advantage. If you also have a high card count then it's back to square one.
I think, given that Jund is not typically very aggressive, the odds of using the information advantage to find a game-winning sequence for multiple turns from that point to the end of the game are not likely (because beyond that point every card drawn by you or the opponent is purely chance).
Factor #3 above, in the context of Pairing #3 above, I think is the place where a Jund player can make the most impact to the mirror match: by changing the contents of the deck to have a higher count or proportion of threats and non-discard "answers". Changing the contents of the deck directly impacts the probability of what you will draw: namely, having a higher count of cards that will likely be impactful.
Now, back a bit to reality, outside of my hypotheticals: decks are never true mirrors, and sideboarding choices are never identical, and of course some players make better choices than others. I think with my reasonings above I would, and do, most often choose to side-out all my discard spells in the mirror match, especially if I am on the play. However, on the draw, I often keep in 2-3 discard spells, due to Factor #1 (tempo). A one mana discard spell has the potential to make up the tempo loss you have when going second. I also tend to side out 1-2 Lightning Bolts, because they are not always effective "answers" in the mirror, so I might as well try to regain some tempo by keeping in a little bit of discard.
Ok that's enough writing. But that's what I think.
Against Humans, I play 2 sweepers (1 Anger of the gods and 1 Damnation) post side, LtLH to ping Phantasmal Image and some value spells such as Kitchen Finks or Pulse of Murasa.
I take out all my discards and 2 LotV, I play as a control player : kill everything until they are exausted then kill them with your manland or unanswered creature.
In :
+1 Kitchen Finks
+1 Liliana the Last Hope
+1 Pulse of Murasa
+1 Anger of the gods
+1 Maelstrom Pulse
+1 Damnation
+2 Collective Brutality
Out :
-3 Inquisition of Kozilek
-3 Thoughtseize
-2 Liliana of the Veil
I don't like to cut a small part of my discard (except against Burn) because discard is efficient at the begin of the game so you reduce your probability to have some in your opening hand when you diminish their numbers.
About keeping discard in mirror match, I agree with LEH.
Mirror match is just how do you manage the game, what do you want to "feed" your opponent and what do you want to keep.
And it often finishes in a good old top deck war, in which discard spell are just awful.
For the mirror, here are my In / Out :
In :
+2 Fulminator Mage
+1 Kitchen Finks
+1 Liliana the Last Hope
+1 Pulse of Murasa
+1 Damnation
Out :
-3 Inquisition of Kozilek
-3 Thoughtseize
I bring Fulminator because they are great chump blocker to earn some time when you are behind or to cut a colour.
It permits to deal with manlands too so you can keep your removal spells for creature threats.
LtLH and Pulse of Murasa permit to bring back key creature (Scavenging Ooze, Dark Confidant or Tireless Tracker).
Damnation is a life insurance if we are far behind, to reset the game. As said before, Jund mirror is a top deck war and you can easily flood when your opponent just draw threats.
If your opponent plays a lot of creatures at the beginning of the game and you don't, to clear the board will give you an advantage because you'll have more creatures to draw than him after it.
Isnt there a third alternative, to maybe leave in 1-2 inquisitions or 1 thoughtseize? To be able to nab a threat or spell from opponent late game is kinda good too!
Isnt there a third alternative, to maybe leave in 1-2 inquisitions or 1 thoughtseize? To be able to nab a threat or spell from opponent late game is kinda good too!
In late game when you opponent draw a good spell such as LotV or a creature, he will play it so, because discard is Sorcery speed, it's not interesting.
The only interesting play in late game is playing Kolaghan's Command just after your opponent draw step to make him discard and bring back a creature from your GY.
well one thing id point out is that jund mirrors arent as slow as they used to be because of bbe's haste. regardless im not really in a position to convince you guys that i am right, but ill give a little more explanation on sort of how i processed what my friend was telling me.
first though ill agree that players can have different 75's, which might include more or less cards that are good in the mirror. for the sake of discussion lets assume that it is a true 75 card mirror, just to get rid of some of the variables.
--if both players are employing the jund gameplan - then outside of considerably mismatched draws the game will naturally converge on a point where both players are hellbent. from what im reading it seems like you guys agree that this is true.
--once you get to this gamestate all successive plays are determined by the top of each players deck. so this is the variance part. to combat this you construct the 60 you play post board to be as dense as possible with threats and answers for a higher chance to topdeck them. so your key decision point was deck configuration, after which you just have to hope your deck treats you well.
seems pretty straightforward so far. but this is where my friends reasoning comes in.
--BBE changes the matchup because it is so far and above the other threats in power level, so even if both players draw the same number of threats and answers the first person to find BBE is substantially ahead. which means there is slightly more variance than before.
--then there is the cascade mechanic. if both players draw the same number of threats and answers AND BBEs, one player could have a substantially better cascade than the other. so the variance increases even further.
what i believe my friend was trying to convey is that this increase in the luck factor diminishes the percentages gained by deck configuration, which was previously the key decision point. it still matters but just less so, which is why he said he doesnt keep in all the discard. this is the best example i can think of:
--you and your opponent are in topdeck mode. the opponent rips a goyf off the top, and you draw one of the discard spells left in. seems awful right? the opponent then rips a bob, so they are pretty far ahead at this point. however you draw a BBE and cascade into K-command, killing the opposing bob, and getting a creature back from the GY. so the boardstate is now you having a BBE plus whatever creature, against a single goyf. (but didnt you draw a discard spell?)
so this jund player i know is telling me that if you walk willingly to the place where both players are at parity and start topdecking, then you resign yourself to having these massive swings, which are greater than before, on both sides of the table.
based on this he wants to do more to not get to that point, and having a few discard spells is an avenue to do that. if he can get an edge earlier it means that even if the opponent gets the better end of variance, he is still in a position to possibly find a win.
right or wrong, well im not sure. but i figured i owed him at least an attempt at explaining, just so you wouldnt think he is a lackwit or something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
A Jund veteran at my LGS and me have been discussing if it is right to choose to be on the draw game 2 in the mirror since there is no turn 1 play and we get an extra card... What is your opinion on this we are torn (but we still choose to be on the play when we can)
You absolutely go first.
Having your opponent playing Goyf and then you playing LOTV with an empty board is a blowout.
Getting to play BBE first
Getting to play Last Hope and tick down on their Bob
also just for some reference on this discussion, it was after watching him get absolutely murdered in a game 3 of the mirror. this is what happened:
>friend swings in with goyf and ravine on an empty board, giving him lethal next turn
>opponent BBEs into fulminator, blocks the goyf with the mage, saccs it killing the ravine negating all damage
>friend pulls a terminate off the top for the BBE, but is just shy of lethal with the goyf swing
>opponent BBEs into lotv down tick
>friend never recovers even after drawing a fulminator and a bob, liliana takes over the game.
tilted he tells me about the discard still in the deck, and how drawing it at any point in that sequence would have been irrelevant. it was BBE or bust.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
For the sake of the argument, lets assumwe you replaced all discard with finks (wich is not realistic, in kow, but it is the power average of a good 3 drop sideboard card, i think)
Yes BBE is crazy good, and the number of bbes is very importenat, so is the ammount of kolaghans command (with out bbe it would be nearly just as good in the situation).
But that is not the point, your argument is not very good, you have the exact best card combo on top, that we have in the match. Lets say you dont cascade into kcommand but rather you hit anothere discard, or just a bolt, than you are still behind (you bolt the bob and goyf is bigger than elf). Your argument is just that the worst draw in the deck followed by the absoulte best is better than two average draws.
As PremuimShine already explained unless you draw a discard spell in the first few turns it is just dead. Even if you cast turn one discard you just traded one for one.
If both players draw exactly the same, but one has discard and the other has finks, the player with the discard takes finks (or a better card) from the start hand, but as soon as both players are hellbent, the player that draws finks is miles ahead (not even talking about hazoret, tracker, LtlH)
i wouldnt get too caught up on the example, i added it to illustrate how polarizing BBE can be in the matchup. you and your opponent can be drawing "normal" jund stuff, but one lucky BBE cascade and you are in an unwinnable position.
there are definitely some holes in my friends argument, and in the game i watched him lose im not sure if there was some line he could have taken to mitigate what ended up happening (i didnt see the beginning of the game).
one things for sure. id be dead before you caught me playing a jund mirror. nooooo thanks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
ive just been perusing what is going on in other threads more because jeskai is kind of stagnating at the moment. the deck itself is doing alright, but we have like zero room to adapt to what is going on. any significant changes just leaves us way too wide open in other matchups. we go one direction and we end up a bad version of UW, we go another direction and we are just a bad version of midrange, we go tempo then just get dumpstered by the popular midrange decks right now. not much to be done outside a pretty big overhaul.
im just hoping to find some inspiration.
yeah you definitely wouldnt see me complaining if SFM got unbanned lol. though tbh id be more scared of what abzan and mardu lists would look like with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I own the blue staples, and I wonder why. It just feels like it's usually doing things worse than a midrange GBX deck. UW itself takes forever to win, Jace isn't as good without daze's and FOW.
I'm thinking of selling my blue staples and never buying into it again. I'll keep some blue staples, and anything that could be used for something like Shadow and whatnot. But playing a true blue deck like Jeskai and UW just seems pointless.
I noticed in the jeskai forums and on the Facebook UWx group---it seems like the communities don't know where the deck should go, what the archetypes should look like, constant tweaking, etc.
The keeping in hand disruption in the mirror is largely just pros that have picked up Jund and been criticized for keeping in hand disruption. Their response, rather than admit that they're wrong, is to proceed writing articles on why they kept discard in and why it's good. I mean, taking out discard has always been the correct play for as long as Jund has been a deck - including back when we had BBE the first time. The most knowledgeable pros (Reid, etc.) on Jund still all advocate taking out discard. I think this theory will blow over when people realize that although, admittedly, discard is good in the earlier turns it then becomes awful later on due to you needing to answer an opponents threat (needing removal) or needing to have a threat (creature/planeswalker) to pressure your opponent with, I mean, that's the only way you win the mirror and discard doesn't provide that in any way, shape, of form, outside of the first few turns.
Yeah I think that's part of it. Many skilled players and pros have a problem admitting something: this game is heavily reliant on luck and no matter how good you are or think you are there is very little one can do about it. That hurts the ego.
Imagine this: tournament byes, pro points, etc. are eliminated. You advance only due to your actual match results in a given event.
I think top 8/32 appearances, wins, etc. would then be far more diverse. You wouldn't see the same "pro" players month over month or year over year as consistently we do now.
All things being equal I think the Jund mirror as well as many other types of mirrors come down largely to pure chance.
It might feel like bull***** because often magic does take skill to play. But, after a point, and all things being equal like when both players are highly skilled and playing the same deck, it's largely out of anyone's control no matter how many years of hard work and accomplishments one has put in.
Many people have a hard time admitting that to themselves or others.
Want to prove your skill? Play sports or chess or something.
i have a general question because i was curious about something
every time i check in to see what you guys are talking about, you are engrossed in this never ending process of tuning. making 1 or 2 card changes in your list, maybe tweak the mana base a little bit. or you discuss various lists that show up online critiquing card choices and whether or not you agree with them.
so i guess my question is this: what do you guys think the theoretical metagame looks like? making card choices in a vacuum seems like a dubious approach. so what are the decks you are trying to be good against, or if not outright good then less bad against?
im interested in a different perspective on what the format looks like.
Sorry guys, i will not attack you and normaly i dont wrote here because i dont own jund, but i read all Decks in mtg salvation and no deck just talk as an example several pages if 24 or 25 lands. Maybe it can help you reading an oppinion From outside? I learn a lot reading other topics, but reading Here doesnt help me in any way. You talk to much about tuning 0,02% with lands and to less about playstyles and Tipps against several other opponents
As for the topic of about what issues we discuss in this thread, basically the most important stuff has been said. My personal impression on this is that our thread seems to be very enthusiastic about small details of the deck. We keep discussing about seemingly pointless stuff like playing 24 or 25 lands. From outside, this may seem too much detailed, or too confusing even. I personally can understand that. However, as the one creating the content of this primer I am actually very happy about those detailed discussions. And there is a simple reason for that: The quality of the primer. I do see many other threads in this forum which keep discussing on various matchups and how to approach them or basic deckbuilding, which is of course interesting for the newcomer, but which ultimately won't help improving the deck, as I feel much of that discussed information gets often lost in the traffic and things tend to be repeated because of that. I am personally very eager to hold onto new insights about some issue with the deck, and incoorporate this in the primer.
I think it is sometimes sad that people have to discuss more or less "basic" stuff like how to sideboard in that matchup or how to actually construct the deck for a certain meta. Now dont get me wrong, we also do that and every deck has to do that, but I think for already known and existing matchups and concerning the deckbuilding every person should be able to simply look at the primer and get a satisfyingly enough answer. For my Primers, I try to do that (which is of couse not always easy to do). And if a Primer is updated and providing basic already known info about the deck (which a Primer should do in my opinion) then it doesn't make sense to discuss those topics for the biggest proportion of the time, since you can simply look at the primer and get the answer.
So this means we can dedicate our time to discuss more detailed issues with the deck. I know this is pretty deep down in the matter of Jund, but I personally like that the community is dedicated even beyond the simple stuff about the deck. Even if it is tougher for newcomers to follow. Which doesn't mean no basic topics should be discussed. I am always trying to answer any, which we might consider "basic" questions, from lurkers or first time posters or whatever.
To conclude, the discussions seem very picky and too much detailed for newer people here, but I think its important to note I personally am not picky about certain card choices, I accept different playstyles and opinions of cards. This is after all the beaty of the deck, as its highly customizable. And I think not using this abiltity of customizability is actually a waste of potential. However, for those detailed discussions, we need to speak in a more common sense, from which every Junder should draw his/her own conclusions. We simply may be discussing about the 24/25 land issue for 5 pages, but ultimately some people decide to play 24 lands and others to play 25. And I don't think thats particularly wrong for one half of those people. I think its important to follow the discussion, think about the arguments made and be aware of the advantages and disadvantages which follow from decisions made afterwards. I want players to play 24 lands for a reason, and not because most players do so. And more importantly, I want Jund players to be able to adapt to problems, if something doesn't work.
What are your sideboard plans against humans? Do we shave some lotv on the play or side? Taking out all discard has to be wrong, right?
Taking out Thoughtseize is a nobrainer for me. Taking out LoTV is a little bit dicey for me. I personally believe in that matchup we want all cards that can kill a creature, just like Reid Duke sides. However, LoTV is a very big investment if it just kills a Hierarch. The tempoloss can definitely be a liability there. I think shaving 1-2 LoTV and the TS is a good start due to this. Then it depends on what cards we have to bring in. Lavamancer, LtLH, EE and Anger are the best options commonly used now. After that, the extra Ooze and Kitchen Finks are good options. But I think I would rather have LoTV than Finks if it came down to that. I think removal is more important than threat. But since most lists don't have all LtLH, Lavamancer, EE and Anger in the side, you can usually bring in some Finks anyway, without cutting all LoTV. But I would cut 1-2 IOK over the third or 4th LoTV for sure.
2. Luck of the draw and sequence of draw, mulligans. This includes making needed land drops, when or if a player gets the needed "answer(s)", threats, supply of threats, revealing a string of high CMC cards (or lands) to Dark Confidant, etc. Basically all the things a player has absolutely no control over.
Like you said in point 3, this is actually very controllable, simply through the deck construction and sideboard plans.
what i believe my friend was trying to convey is that this increase in the luck factor diminishes the percentages gained by deck configuration, which was previously the key decision point. it still matters but just less so, which is why he said he doesnt keep in all the discard. this is the best example i can think of:
--you and your opponent are in topdeck mode. the opponent rips a goyf off the top, and you draw one of the discard spells left in. seems awful right? the opponent then rips a bob, so they are pretty far ahead at this point. however you draw a BBE and cascade into K-command, killing the opposing bob, and getting a creature back from the GY. so the boardstate is now you having a BBE plus whatever creature, against a single goyf. (but didnt you draw a discard spell?)
so this jund player i know is telling me that if you walk willingly to the place where both players are at parity and start topdecking, then you resign yourself to having these massive swings, which are greater than before, on both sides of the table.
based on this he wants to do more to not get to that point, and having a few discard spells is an avenue to do that. if he can get an edge earlier it means that even if the opponent gets the better end of variance, he is still in a position to possibly find a win.
right or wrong, well im not sure. but i figured i owed him at least an attempt at explaining, just so you wouldnt think he is a lackwit or something.
From this given example, there is also a chance that instead of the opponent ripping goyf off the top he/she actually rips a BBE cascading into KCommand as well. If you now draw your said discard spell, its basically game over instantly.
I think instead of making arguments in favor of keeping discard, I think exactly those arguments are making me board out discard even more now.
BBE makes games be more swingy naturally, since the the difference of cascades also start to matter. Thats the argument. Now imagine how big the gap would be if a player plays BBE and cascades into the nuts of KCommand and you topdeck your discard afterwards. Exactly because of that high variance, keeping discard is exceptively bad for me because it opens up the possiblity of insta loose if your opponent hits nut BBE and you draw discard. This gap is almost unsurmountable in that case. I personally don't want to loose that way.
Like it was already mentioned, the only purpose of keeping discard in in the mirror is the impact of the early turns. That means if you keep discard you want to have it in the early turns or the opening hand at best. However, to consistantly be able to do that, you actually need to play a decent amount of discard in the first place. If I want a card/type of card good in the early game I simply cannot play it in miser amounts like 1-2 copies. I need to play 4+ copies. And this is not going hand in hand with the philosophy to keep some amount of discard in the deck. The chance to draw it early or have it in the opener decreases heavily due to that. But the possibility to draw it somewhere deeper in the game never goes away. I think the upside doesn't outweigh the downside.
Keeping in discard against the mirror because you want to win by “skill” is just stupid. It’d be like refusing to play help defense in a basketball game, thinking that involves more skill.
And if you happen to get extremely lucky and win a match against the mirror by keeping in discard, making the opponent discard their only removal in hand and then land a bob and bury them in CA, is that really a super skilled match?
I’ve always won the mirror match when my opponent kept in discard, and then I advised them to side out their discard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Hey guys, here is the current list I'm on now. Couple of possibilities I have been considering.
- Can this list do 24 lands? I've been very comfortable at 25, especially with the 4 man lands but I'm looking to see if I can squeeze something else in.
- recently took out a 3rd K command and replaced with 2nd Maelstrom pulse. Still testing but I think this is correct. Thoughts on that?
- and lastly, I added LTLH to my sideboard but now I have no room for a sweeper. Is there anything I can cut? Is it needed? If I do, should I go anger or Damnation? Or any other sideboard suggestions? So many choices lol. Thanks everyone! Jund em' out!
Hey guys, here is the current list I'm on now. Couple of possibilities I have been considering.
- Can this list do 24 lands? I've been very comfortable at 25, especially with the 4 man lands but I'm looking to see if I can squeeze something else in.
- recently took out a 3rd K command and replaced with 2nd Maelstrom pulse. Still testing but I think this is correct. Thoughts on that?
- and lastly, I added LTLH to my sideboard but now I have no room for a sweeper. Is there anything I can cut? Is it needed? If I do, should I go anger or Damnation? Or any other sideboard suggestions? So many choices lol. Thanks everyone! Jund em' out!
If you want to cut a land and add a card, I would only add a 6th discard spell. This would also make room for a sweeper you want in the SB instead of the TS.
Legacy: UWR Miracles [https://deckstats.net/decks/44442/1092831-uwr-miracles-2]
*raises hands defensively*
hey. dont get me wrong. i respect dedication to the craft. the fact that i frequently check this thread and even spoke up at all is testament that i value the opinion of people in this thread. i may not agree with some of the methodology, but thats just my opinion. id never look down on people looking to engage in rational discourse.
as a gesture of solidarity ill attempt to make a contribution to the discussion.
i mentioned before that i know a few jund players. none are pros or anything, but i personally acknowledge their skills. here is what one of them told me about how they approach the mirror:
-if you want the games or the matchup to be consistently decided by good decision making rather than who can peel more gas off the top of their library then you have to aggressively seek an advantage before both players run out of resources. if the configuration of your deck post-board pushes you to remain at parity going into the midgame, ultimately hoping your threat density will win out; then you are conceding that the matchup will never be better than a coin-flip.
specifically he referred to keeping some amount of discard in post-board. you cut down on it for obviously being a bad topdeck; however it is one of the few ways to gain a real edge in the early game. seeing the contents of the opponents hand, and possibly punching a hole in it, lets you sequence in a manner where you get the better end of trades. if you can get them on the backfoot when both players run empty, even in something simple like being considerably behind in lifepoints; this makes your topdecks more relevant than theirs.
anywho, i dont know this persons exact win percentage, so they could just be wrong. however i thought it was a noteworthy line of reasoning.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It's an interesting line of thought. What about if the opponent has chosen a similar line and also chosen to keep some amount of discard in the deck? Does it then go back to being a "coin flip" (that is, that the game goes to luck of the draw)?
I think these are the key factors in the mirror match:
Factors:
1. Who gets to go first. Not something I consider a player has control over - other than odd situations like deliberately ID'ing, losing, or winning into certain ranks of the Top 8 to manipulate known match-ups/seeding which includes who gets to play first, or Lantern Control where you should choose to draw first
2. Luck of the draw and sequence of draw, mulligans. This includes making needed land drops, when or if a player gets the needed "answer(s)", threats, supply of threats, revealing a string of high CMC cards (or lands) to Dark Confidant, etc. Basically all the things a player has absolutely no control over.
3. The contents of a player's deck. This can have an effect on #2. Players have control over this by sideboarding.
In the mirror, let's assume hypothetically both decks are identical in maindeck and sideboard card choices, and, that post-sideboard configurations will be identical. If either deck chooses to have a "no discard spell" configuration post board then the exact in and out card choices are chosen for either deck. Same goes for any "with discard spells" configuration.
So then there can only be three types of configuration pairings between them:
1. "No discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
2. "With discard spells" vs "With discard spells"
3. "With discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
I think pairing #1 and #2 come down Factors #1 and #2: luck and who got to go first (due to the innate advantage of casting spells first (e.g. a Discard spell in the case where discards spells are still present), and reaching higher impact cards that cost more to cast (e.g. BBE) or activate (e.g. Raging Ravine, Ooze).
Pairing #3 is the more interesting case and the subject of contention:
A point we should consider about the nature of most typical Jund decks: they are not particularly aggressive. This is in stark contrast to other decks like Infect, Storm, Affinity, etc. where it's clear that disrupting and slowing them down is critical to winning the game. Nor is there a definitive late inevitable spell that if not disrupted, will cost the game, like an Emrakul or Second Sunrise or whatever. We all know this, I'm just pointing it out.
I think what many are unsure of is whether the early or occasional mid and late game disruption of spells via a discard spell makes enough of an impact to over come factor #2: the luck and chance of draws, sequences and mulligans.
In the Jund mirror I suppose one could think of a discard spell as a kind of "answer" or "kill" spell (bolt, decay, pulse, etc.), except it kills spells in the hand, instead of removing a permanent from the battlefield. As such, the only two kinds of cards in the decks are either "answers" or "threats". All the non-discard "answer" spells are likely guaranteed answers. Discard spells are not always going to be answers because they may miss, if the hand is empty, has lands (like a Raging Ravine), and certainly can't deal with a permanent. So the only potential advantages discard spells possess are:
1. tempo advantage
2. mana efficiency (since they only cost 1 or 2)
3. hand information (which I agree is very valuable).
Advantage #3 some may suggest, as described in the post above me, is very valuable because it allows you to sequence your play choices because you now have perfect information of their current hand, and possibly how they may play their next cards (7 at most in the early game). In the mid to late game that would dwindle to 0-3 cards' worth of information - so the info is less valuable. If in the mid to late game they have a high card count and you don't, you have likely lost due to card advantage. If you also have a high card count then it's back to square one.
I think, given that Jund is not typically very aggressive, the odds of using the information advantage to find a game-winning sequence for multiple turns from that point to the end of the game are not likely (because beyond that point every card drawn by you or the opponent is purely chance).
Factor #3 above, in the context of Pairing #3 above, I think is the place where a Jund player can make the most impact to the mirror match: by changing the contents of the deck to have a higher count or proportion of threats and non-discard "answers". Changing the contents of the deck directly impacts the probability of what you will draw: namely, having a higher count of cards that will likely be impactful.
Now, back a bit to reality, outside of my hypotheticals: decks are never true mirrors, and sideboarding choices are never identical, and of course some players make better choices than others. I think with my reasonings above I would, and do, most often choose to side-out all my discard spells in the mirror match, especially if I am on the play. However, on the draw, I often keep in 2-3 discard spells, due to Factor #1 (tempo). A one mana discard spell has the potential to make up the tempo loss you have when going second. I also tend to side out 1-2 Lightning Bolts, because they are not always effective "answers" in the mirror, so I might as well try to regain some tempo by keeping in a little bit of discard.
Ok that's enough writing. But that's what I think.
I take out all my discards and 2 LotV, I play as a control player : kill everything until they are exausted then kill them with your manland or unanswered creature.
In :
+1 Kitchen Finks
+1 Liliana the Last Hope
+1 Pulse of Murasa
+1 Anger of the gods
+1 Maelstrom Pulse
+1 Damnation
+2 Collective Brutality
Out :
-3 Inquisition of Kozilek
-3 Thoughtseize
-2 Liliana of the Veil
I don't like to cut a small part of my discard (except against Burn) because discard is efficient at the begin of the game so you reduce your probability to have some in your opening hand when you diminish their numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------
About keeping discard in mirror match, I agree with LEH.
Mirror match is just how do you manage the game, what do you want to "feed" your opponent and what do you want to keep.
And it often finishes in a good old top deck war, in which discard spell are just awful.
For the mirror, here are my In / Out :
In :
+2 Fulminator Mage
+1 Kitchen Finks
+1 Liliana the Last Hope
+1 Pulse of Murasa
+1 Damnation
Out :
-3 Inquisition of Kozilek
-3 Thoughtseize
I bring Fulminator because they are great chump blocker to earn some time when you are behind or to cut a colour.
It permits to deal with manlands too so you can keep your removal spells for creature threats.
LtLH and Pulse of Murasa permit to bring back key creature (Scavenging Ooze, Dark Confidant or Tireless Tracker).
Damnation is a life insurance if we are far behind, to reset the game. As said before, Jund mirror is a top deck war and you can easily flood when your opponent just draw threats.
If your opponent plays a lot of creatures at the beginning of the game and you don't, to clear the board will give you an advantage because you'll have more creatures to draw than him after it.
Gus
Yep you are completly right, I bring Kitchen Finks instead of the 3rd mage, the card is stronger in mirror.
I correct my previous post
---------------------------------------------
In late game when you opponent draw a good spell such as LotV or a creature, he will play it so, because discard is Sorcery speed, it's not interesting.
The only interesting play in late game is playing Kolaghan's Command just after your opponent draw step to make him discard and bring back a creature from your GY.
Gus
first though ill agree that players can have different 75's, which might include more or less cards that are good in the mirror. for the sake of discussion lets assume that it is a true 75 card mirror, just to get rid of some of the variables.
--if both players are employing the jund gameplan - then outside of considerably mismatched draws the game will naturally converge on a point where both players are hellbent. from what im reading it seems like you guys agree that this is true.
--once you get to this gamestate all successive plays are determined by the top of each players deck. so this is the variance part. to combat this you construct the 60 you play post board to be as dense as possible with threats and answers for a higher chance to topdeck them. so your key decision point was deck configuration, after which you just have to hope your deck treats you well.
seems pretty straightforward so far. but this is where my friends reasoning comes in.
--BBE changes the matchup because it is so far and above the other threats in power level, so even if both players draw the same number of threats and answers the first person to find BBE is substantially ahead. which means there is slightly more variance than before.
--then there is the cascade mechanic. if both players draw the same number of threats and answers AND BBEs, one player could have a substantially better cascade than the other. so the variance increases even further.
what i believe my friend was trying to convey is that this increase in the luck factor diminishes the percentages gained by deck configuration, which was previously the key decision point. it still matters but just less so, which is why he said he doesnt keep in all the discard. this is the best example i can think of:
--you and your opponent are in topdeck mode. the opponent rips a goyf off the top, and you draw one of the discard spells left in. seems awful right? the opponent then rips a bob, so they are pretty far ahead at this point. however you draw a BBE and cascade into K-command, killing the opposing bob, and getting a creature back from the GY. so the boardstate is now you having a BBE plus whatever creature, against a single goyf. (but didnt you draw a discard spell?)
so this jund player i know is telling me that if you walk willingly to the place where both players are at parity and start topdecking, then you resign yourself to having these massive swings, which are greater than before, on both sides of the table.
based on this he wants to do more to not get to that point, and having a few discard spells is an avenue to do that. if he can get an edge earlier it means that even if the opponent gets the better end of variance, he is still in a position to possibly find a win.
right or wrong, well im not sure. but i figured i owed him at least an attempt at explaining, just so you wouldnt think he is a lackwit or something.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You absolutely go first.
Having your opponent playing Goyf and then you playing LOTV with an empty board is a blowout.
Getting to play BBE first
Getting to play Last Hope and tick down on their Bob
Fulminator, if you chose to do so.
>friend swings in with goyf and ravine on an empty board, giving him lethal next turn
>opponent BBEs into fulminator, blocks the goyf with the mage, saccs it killing the ravine negating all damage
>friend pulls a terminate off the top for the BBE, but is just shy of lethal with the goyf swing
>opponent BBEs into lotv down tick
>friend never recovers even after drawing a fulminator and a bob, liliana takes over the game.
tilted he tells me about the discard still in the deck, and how drawing it at any point in that sequence would have been irrelevant. it was BBE or bust.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)i wouldnt get too caught up on the example, i added it to illustrate how polarizing BBE can be in the matchup. you and your opponent can be drawing "normal" jund stuff, but one lucky BBE cascade and you are in an unwinnable position.
there are definitely some holes in my friends argument, and in the game i watched him lose im not sure if there was some line he could have taken to mitigate what ended up happening (i didnt see the beginning of the game).
one things for sure. id be dead before you caught me playing a jund mirror. nooooo thanks.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)The ban-thread seems pointless now that Jace and BBE are unbanned. I'm sure SFM will be unbanned next year when WOTC shakes things up.
ive just been perusing what is going on in other threads more because jeskai is kind of stagnating at the moment. the deck itself is doing alright, but we have like zero room to adapt to what is going on. any significant changes just leaves us way too wide open in other matchups. we go one direction and we end up a bad version of UW, we go another direction and we are just a bad version of midrange, we go tempo then just get dumpstered by the popular midrange decks right now. not much to be done outside a pretty big overhaul.
im just hoping to find some inspiration.
yeah you definitely wouldnt see me complaining if SFM got unbanned lol. though tbh id be more scared of what abzan and mardu lists would look like with it.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I'm thinking of selling my blue staples and never buying into it again. I'll keep some blue staples, and anything that could be used for something like Shadow and whatnot. But playing a true blue deck like Jeskai and UW just seems pointless.
I noticed in the jeskai forums and on the Facebook UWx group---it seems like the communities don't know where the deck should go, what the archetypes should look like, constant tweaking, etc.
Yeah I think that's part of it. Many skilled players and pros have a problem admitting something: this game is heavily reliant on luck and no matter how good you are or think you are there is very little one can do about it. That hurts the ego.
Imagine this: tournament byes, pro points, etc. are eliminated. You advance only due to your actual match results in a given event.
I think top 8/32 appearances, wins, etc. would then be far more diverse. You wouldn't see the same "pro" players month over month or year over year as consistently we do now.
All things being equal I think the Jund mirror as well as many other types of mirrors come down largely to pure chance.
It might feel like bull***** because often magic does take skill to play. But, after a point, and all things being equal like when both players are highly skilled and playing the same deck, it's largely out of anyone's control no matter how many years of hard work and accomplishments one has put in.
Many people have a hard time admitting that to themselves or others.
Want to prove your skill? Play sports or chess or something.
As for the topic of about what issues we discuss in this thread, basically the most important stuff has been said. My personal impression on this is that our thread seems to be very enthusiastic about small details of the deck. We keep discussing about seemingly pointless stuff like playing 24 or 25 lands. From outside, this may seem too much detailed, or too confusing even. I personally can understand that. However, as the one creating the content of this primer I am actually very happy about those detailed discussions. And there is a simple reason for that: The quality of the primer. I do see many other threads in this forum which keep discussing on various matchups and how to approach them or basic deckbuilding, which is of course interesting for the newcomer, but which ultimately won't help improving the deck, as I feel much of that discussed information gets often lost in the traffic and things tend to be repeated because of that. I am personally very eager to hold onto new insights about some issue with the deck, and incoorporate this in the primer.
I think it is sometimes sad that people have to discuss more or less "basic" stuff like how to sideboard in that matchup or how to actually construct the deck for a certain meta. Now dont get me wrong, we also do that and every deck has to do that, but I think for already known and existing matchups and concerning the deckbuilding every person should be able to simply look at the primer and get a satisfyingly enough answer. For my Primers, I try to do that (which is of couse not always easy to do). And if a Primer is updated and providing basic already known info about the deck (which a Primer should do in my opinion) then it doesn't make sense to discuss those topics for the biggest proportion of the time, since you can simply look at the primer and get the answer.
So this means we can dedicate our time to discuss more detailed issues with the deck. I know this is pretty deep down in the matter of Jund, but I personally like that the community is dedicated even beyond the simple stuff about the deck. Even if it is tougher for newcomers to follow. Which doesn't mean no basic topics should be discussed. I am always trying to answer any, which we might consider "basic" questions, from lurkers or first time posters or whatever.
To conclude, the discussions seem very picky and too much detailed for newer people here, but I think its important to note I personally am not picky about certain card choices, I accept different playstyles and opinions of cards. This is after all the beaty of the deck, as its highly customizable. And I think not using this abiltity of customizability is actually a waste of potential. However, for those detailed discussions, we need to speak in a more common sense, from which every Junder should draw his/her own conclusions. We simply may be discussing about the 24/25 land issue for 5 pages, but ultimately some people decide to play 24 lands and others to play 25. And I don't think thats particularly wrong for one half of those people. I think its important to follow the discussion, think about the arguments made and be aware of the advantages and disadvantages which follow from decisions made afterwards. I want players to play 24 lands for a reason, and not because most players do so. And more importantly, I want Jund players to be able to adapt to problems, if something doesn't work.
Taking out Thoughtseize is a nobrainer for me. Taking out LoTV is a little bit dicey for me. I personally believe in that matchup we want all cards that can kill a creature, just like Reid Duke sides. However, LoTV is a very big investment if it just kills a Hierarch. The tempoloss can definitely be a liability there. I think shaving 1-2 LoTV and the TS is a good start due to this. Then it depends on what cards we have to bring in. Lavamancer, LtLH, EE and Anger are the best options commonly used now. After that, the extra Ooze and Kitchen Finks are good options. But I think I would rather have LoTV than Finks if it came down to that. I think removal is more important than threat. But since most lists don't have all LtLH, Lavamancer, EE and Anger in the side, you can usually bring in some Finks anyway, without cutting all LoTV. But I would cut 1-2 IOK over the third or 4th LoTV for sure.
So in conclusion, this is my order of cutting:
1)2 TS
2)1-2 LoTV
3)1-2 IOK
Like you said in point 3, this is actually very controllable, simply through the deck construction and sideboard plans.
From this given example, there is also a chance that instead of the opponent ripping goyf off the top he/she actually rips a BBE cascading into KCommand as well. If you now draw your said discard spell, its basically game over instantly.
I think instead of making arguments in favor of keeping discard, I think exactly those arguments are making me board out discard even more now.
BBE makes games be more swingy naturally, since the the difference of cascades also start to matter. Thats the argument. Now imagine how big the gap would be if a player plays BBE and cascades into the nuts of KCommand and you topdeck your discard afterwards. Exactly because of that high variance, keeping discard is exceptively bad for me because it opens up the possiblity of insta loose if your opponent hits nut BBE and you draw discard. This gap is almost unsurmountable in that case. I personally don't want to loose that way.
Like it was already mentioned, the only purpose of keeping discard in in the mirror is the impact of the early turns. That means if you keep discard you want to have it in the early turns or the opening hand at best. However, to consistantly be able to do that, you actually need to play a decent amount of discard in the first place. If I want a card/type of card good in the early game I simply cannot play it in miser amounts like 1-2 copies. I need to play 4+ copies. And this is not going hand in hand with the philosophy to keep some amount of discard in the deck. The chance to draw it early or have it in the opener decreases heavily due to that. But the possibility to draw it somewhere deeper in the game never goes away. I think the upside doesn't outweigh the downside.
And if you happen to get extremely lucky and win a match against the mirror by keeping in discard, making the opponent discard their only removal in hand and then land a bob and bury them in CA, is that really a super skilled match?
I’ve always won the mirror match when my opponent kept in discard, and then I advised them to side out their discard.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
- Can this list do 24 lands? I've been very comfortable at 25, especially with the 4 man lands but I'm looking to see if I can squeeze something else in.
- recently took out a 3rd K command and replaced with 2nd Maelstrom pulse. Still testing but I think this is correct. Thoughts on that?
- and lastly, I added LTLH to my sideboard but now I have no room for a sweeper. Is there anything I can cut? Is it needed? If I do, should I go anger or Damnation? Or any other sideboard suggestions? So many choices lol. Thanks everyone! Jund em' out!
4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Verdant Catacombs
4x Blackcleave Cliffs
2x Overgrown Tomb
1x Stomping Ground
1x Blood Crypt
3x Raging Ravine
1x Treetop Village
2x Swamp
1x Forest
1x Mountain
1x Teilight Mire
4x Tarmogoyf
4x Dark Confidant
4x Bloodbraid Elf
2x Scavenging Ooze
Spells 21
3x Inquisition of Kozilek
2x Thoughtseize
4x Lightning Bolt
1x Fatal Push
2x Kolaghan's Command
2x Maelstrom Pulse
2x Terminate
1x Abrupt Decay
4x Liliana Of The Veil
3x Fulminator Mage
2x Collective Brutality
2x Kitchen Finks
2x Ancient Grudge
2x Nihil Spellbomb
1x Grafdigfer's Cage
1x Golgari Charm
1x Liliana, The Last Hope
1x Thoughtseize
If you want to cut a land and add a card, I would only add a 6th discard spell. This would also make room for a sweeper you want in the SB instead of the TS.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB