Sure, Reveler isn't best supported here, I am totally with you there, so the question is: Is it still worth it? Since a 3/4 prowess with an ancestral recall attached to it for 4 mana seems legit too basically. Obviously for 2 mana only its just insane, which is the reason Mardu is so poweful.
The traverse list looks interesting, but I am not a fan of traverse, is also too inconsistant for me.
Hi there. I've been away from the game for a while, and I noticed that there is a trend to move away from BBE and even Bob sometimes as well. I just noticed these two Jund-ish list on today's league results:
The first looks a bit more like a traditional Jund with some modifications, the second list is more like a Jund version Mardu Pyromancer. Is this the direction we are heading now? I will read the last few pages to caught up to speed, but I would love your insight on these two list, that at least for me, are a novelty.
Thanks!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
The first list is a rock list which was played by Sol Malka at the last GP. It looks particularly weird, but Sol as the creator of Rock always runs well with his own style and card choices.
The second one is by Jaberwocki, more of an experimental list, but he came to the same conclusion we have as that Jund on its own needs some tools to find timely answers. Therefore the hybrid. I am not sure if I like it that much, but I think its a good direction that Jund needs to go.
The first list is a rock list which was played by Sol Malka at the last GP. It looks particularly weird, but Sol as the creator of Rock always runs well with his own style and card choices..
I swear that I saw Bolts in there, totally my bad! Thanks for pointing that out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
The first list is a rock list which was played by Sol Malka at the last GP. It looks particularly weird, but Sol as the creator of Rock always runs well with his own style and card choices.
The second one is by Jaberwocki, more of an experimental list, but he came to the same conclusion we have as that Jund on its own needs some tools to find timely answers. Therefore the hybrid. I am not sure if I like it that much, but I think its a good direction that Jund needs to go.
I like the idea of Jaberwocki. It seem like to create the same CA that mardu has, he opt for red lingering souls (p&k) more recursion (kcommand/lilyhope) to mitigate the faithless looting card disadvantage.
Yeah thats the idea. I dunno if the missing of Terminate hurts though. I like the approach overall. I would probably cut the mountain and play a terminate.
I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just giving an honest opinion. *If* you are wrong about the card selection thing, it’s not a big deal. I’m not accusing you of being incompetent, I’m just suggesting that you might not be correct in this one instance. And I don’t think you’re wrong when it comes to things like identifying why you are losing games (ie, I don’t have the specific answers I need). I think you’re wrong about the disease causing that symptom, ie no card selection vs registering too many low-quality creatures. I take an aggressive tone with chaos because he loves to antagonize, but it’s regrettable if you think I’m throwing that same tone at you. This is me extending an olive branch.
Anyways, about the closed-mindedness issue, I simply can’t respond to every point that everyone lobbies at me, as I’m arguing against at least 3 people at any given time. Ive playtested my deck veeery rigorously and really poured over every card in the maindeck, so I do feel somewhat strongly about ~56 cards of every deck I post. Still, my mind is open to making well-reasoned changes for most of those cards. The fact of the matter is that almost every list on here plays at least 3 confidants, 0-2 flayers, and 14+ creatures. I’ve tested that for over a month in this meta and come to the conclusion that it makes you a dog to humans and hollow one. The rest of the spells in your average deck are thoughtseizes, bolts, pushes, etc. What can I possibly comment on, except that they play the same spells I do, but in lesser quantities? And that’s exactly what I’ve been arguing for this whole time: playing fewer and ultimately higher quality creatures so you can fit more disruption.
In reply to your point about removal, the list you posted should have no issues digging for a spell you need between confidant, flayer, and looting. If you still think the issue persists, at that point I think your problem is with the innate variance of magic and NOT jund. The reason why I didn’t want to talk about these specifics is partly because even though I know my list doesn’t have these issues I don’t know why. Im a touch stumped right now by why we have such different experiences with such similar lists, unless it ultimately boils down to the bobs and flayers. As an aside, it’s worth noting that the difference between 3 and 4 of these unconditional removal spells is big imo. You usually only need one per game, and 3 to 4 seems to be a tipping point between ‘semi-frequently not drawing any’ and ‘usually drawing at least one’.
If I have to offer a reason for the above phenomenon, I’d suggest that it’s because you play too many creatures and not enough disruption, regardless of what those creatures are. If your average opening hand only has 1-2 targeted disruption spells vs 3+, you can’t be as selective about which spell you use for any given problem.
The revelers idea was not me trying to imitate pyromancer, it was me trying to come up with curve toppers other than tireless tracker. I personally think reveler as a 4 drop is perfectly acceptable, and binning 4 instants and sorceries is pretty trivial. If I can cast it for 2-3 (and I don’t think that’s unreasonable), that’s just a bonus.
I just went back and watched the entire league of Logan Nettles' (Jaberwocki) 5-0 league matches and he was flooding on lands in quite a few of the games and looting just fixed his draws. He was able to see a lot more cards and find the specific answers to win the games.
Do you have a link? Thanks!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
I agree with a lot of what your saying if I interpret right, epica. It’s important to consider that magic is a game of variance, and no matter what you put into your deck that’s unavoidable. Still, the things you’re saying are exactly why I’ve been high on tracker and experimenting with sheltered thicket. When you start drawing those lands, they’re functionally a redraw.
Looting is an elegant solution, but the cost of ‘mulligan-ing’ every game is quite real. I think you really have to build around looting to make it work, but if you can it’s obviously only a net benefit. With 3 trackers, 2 revelers, and 3 kcommands Im finally on board with this looting idea, in theory. But I’ll have to playtest I guess.
Im willing to entertain that I’ve just been super lucky, but my ‘luck’ streak came after making radical deck changes, so it’s hard to believe there’s no correlation there.
@chaos021 : so why do you stay in this discussion ? You bring nothing except taunts.
I can understand you disagree with the process of reflexion of Tempest.
So just try to critic it with examples, counter-examples, with the 2 points of view,.... try to be objective.
Actually you are useless here.
You may want to take some of your own advice.
We don't just disagree with processes. We disagree on the why and how Jund needs to change. That's basically down to our cores. What would be the point in me making the same points for Tempest to make the same counterpoint ad nauseam? I mean you're essentially watching a similar (but not the same) thing happening between FlyingDelver and Tempest for the last how many pages? I don't see any resolution coming soon on philosophy even though they pretty much have developed a similar list. I mean in my testing I've learned the following:
I'm having more fun with Jund the last 3 weeks than I have had prior 5 months.
Tireless Tracker is good enough to be a 2-of in most 75s I come up with but it's just not strong enough for me to ever want more than that. Speed and toughness for the mana cost is a large reason why
Faithless Looting is pretty good but the number you want in the deck varies according to some matches for me. Tuning the number for main deck is one of my higher priorities right now.
I think we should all be playing Pia and Kiran Nalaar in some number. The versatility of this 4-drop in particular has been really good against a wide range of decks.
With all the newer variants, I feel like 7 discard spells is where I want to be but I can't find the space. I specifically mean Inquisition or Thoughtseize because...
Collective Brutality felt mediocre in the main deck even as a 1-of. There's so many matches where you're spending more mana than you should for something that's ineffective or mediocre. When it's good though, it's great! The problem was how often it was actually good. I believe they should stay in the sideboard.
Other things are becoming clearer as days roll on but I'll save them for when I feel more confident about them. That said Tempest's pronouncement that "Confidant is bad and Tracker is great!" just hasn't panned out for me. I could go more into why I think there's a discrepancy but after FlyingDelver and Tempest got into it, I didn't see a point. I still don't.
I quoted that particular line largely because of his/her tendency to make statements that contradict themselves. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe you do not see it, and that's fine, but a taunt it is not. The irony just sort of hit me on other levels as well.
I'm not saying this now to stir up anything so chill folks. I'm just explaining myself probably for the last time. I hate being repetitive.
If it’s not a taunt then you have to seriously work on your phrasing. Your previous comment is dripping with snark, and you would do better to be straight instead of lacing all your replies to me with attitude if you’re not trying to start *****.
Anyways, to use an analogy: if you jumped off a bridge and broke your arms and legs, and then I told you to do it again, how would it be closed-minded for you to say ‘no’? Because I played with confidants and flayers for like 1-2 months after BBE was unbanned and I came to the conclusion that spending maindeck space on these cards makes your hollow one and humans matchups bad. If you put more cheap answers into your deck to beat those decks, then you lose the value game. It’s that simple, and if someone is complaining about their list and it still runs confidants and flayers, I’m going to tell them not to jump off the bridge. If anyone wants to suggest a truly new direction though, I’m more than willing to listen.
Not trying to pick a fight or start something, but it’s a bit irksome to be accused of closed-mindedness when it’s really not true.
In reply to your point about removal, the list you posted should have no issues digging for a spell you need between confidant, flayer, and looting. If you still think the issue persists, at that point I think your problem is with the innate variance of magic and NOT jund. The reason why I didn’t want to talk about these specifics is partly because even though I know my list doesn’t have these issues I don’t know why. Im a touch stumped right now by why we have such different experiences with such similar lists, unless it ultimately boils down to the bobs and flayers. As an aside, it’s worth noting that the difference between 3 and 4 of these unconditional removal spells is big imo. You usually only need one per game, and 3 to 4 seems to be a tipping point between ‘semi-frequently not drawing any’ and ‘usually drawing at least one’.
If I have to offer a reason for the above phenomenon, I’d suggest that it’s because you play too many creatures and not enough disruption, regardless of what those creatures are. If your average opening hand only has 1-2 targeted disruption spells vs 3+, you can’t be as selective about which spell you use for any given problem.
I agree with a lot of what your saying if I interpret right, epica. It’s important to consider that magic is a game of variance, and no matter what you put into your deck that’s unavoidable. Still, the things you’re saying are exactly why I’ve been high on tracker and experimenting with sheltered thicket. When you start drawing those lands, they’re functionally a redraw.
Looting is an elegant solution, but the cost of ‘mulligan-ing’ every game is quite real. I think you really have to build around looting to make it work, but if you can it’s obviously only a net benefit. With 3 trackers, 2 revelers, and 3 kcommands Im finally on board with this looting idea, in theory. But I’ll have to playtest I guess.
Im willing to entertain that I’ve just been super lucky, but my ‘luck’ streak came after making radical deck changes, so it’s hard to believe there’s no correlation there.
I'd like to point out that when we started this discussion (a few pages back already) you did also mention that explanation already. I get that you have a different point of view on this, because apparantly your games pan out fine to the point where you can actually run away with Tracker. I have to repeat it, as I did often times during this discussion (this was also prior to the discussion about the issue with you) I am well aware that variance happens in magic, it is, or lets say it should be part of every deck (if we assume we have a bunch of different, but equally strong and consistant decks in a healthy and balanced format) and therefore on average it affects everybody. However, I did experience excessive variance to the point where it just can't be natural anymore. Technically, nothing changed in Jund so why should it matter now is the question? After all back in 2016 or before Twin was banned Jund was a fantastic deck to play in modern. Let me show you in a more practical way why Jund struggles now:
In the past, Jund as a great deck would face decks like Splinter Twin or Infect, or maybe Affinity. Lets stay with those decks here. If we have a typical game of Jund against Infect for example, and you had an opening hand of: 1 IOK, 1 Bolt, 1 Bob, 1 Blackcleave, 1 Verdant, 2 Bloodstained; you would say that this is a pretty good hand against Infect. You could turn 1 IOK, take their Infect creature or Noble, which pulls a huge whole into their strategy and then follow up with a turn 2 Bob. Bob then would draw some exta cards. Now, even if you were flooding, you had the Bolt as insurance. Eventually Bob would draw past those lands and find extra removal and then you would win the game. Its that simple. One single discard spell, or one single Bolt was much more effective against decks than they are nowadays. Decks become much more resliant to single cards.
Lets look at Hollow One here. In theory, this deck is similar to Infect, as it can have a pretty explosive start and win the game quite fast. However, if you have the same hand (or even a better one, lets say: 1 IOK, 1 Bolt, 1 Bob, 1 Verdant, 1 Black, 1 Blood, 1 Terminate) you definitely are not gonna win the game with just those cards in hand. Just think about it. I want everyone to think about that actually. If you imagine you have this hand against Hollow One, you would not think: "Okay I have basically won", but rather: "Okay, this hand is good, but Bob needs to dodge an opposing Bolt and needs to find me an Ooze or an extra hard removal in case of multiple Hollow Ones or delve threats". And if they start with turn 1 Flamblade adept, you already are in an awkward position. Against Infect you just bolt the Glistener Elf. But against Hollow One, do you Bolt the Flameblade to prevent 4+ dmg coming in next turn or do you IOK to potentially snap Looting/Goblin Lore/Burning. If they have 2 of their enablers, you are pretty scrwed if you IOK. On turn 2 you could then face a Gurmag Angler or Hollow One already. Here you have the Terminate for that, but whats next? What if they have a simple other devle threat or hollow one? What if they have Lingering Souls. And now your next 2 turns you topdeck freaking lands. It is turn 3 at that point, so no tracker to ditch those lands to. You killed an flameblade adept and an turn 2 Gurmag, and have nothing left besides Bob. So you just play him and hope to draw into more removal. If they play anoterh big threat on turn 3 you are in a pretty tough position. No tracker could help you here, even Bob does not do the job consistantly enough. That is exactly the situations I had to face over and over again, and I am pretty certain that this does not come down to which creature you play. My point is, after all this discussion, that a hand of 1 Bolt, 1 IOK, 1 Verdant, 2 Bloodstained, 1 Black and 1 Bob was great in the past, and is a "good start" nowadays. Opposing decks play more and more recursive threats (or more sticky threats) or simply more diverse threats (like delve threats as well as small threats like Bloodghast) which makes our single cards less valuable. And ultimately this is due to the whole format developing better and better linear strategies and Jund ultimately stays the same. In that sense, yes, Jund absolutely has to change. It can't stay the same or it will just be eaten up by the increasing powerlevel of linear strategies. Proactive is always better than reactive, and this naturally leads to such an outcome where reactive strategies need either better tools or go under. And thats what I meant. And thats what is in my mind the reality (which was also confirmed by other fellow Junders). So to come back to your statement, I really don't think this is natural variance anymore, I really don't.
For those who are interested in that list and it's development, I'd strongly recommend watching. Logan Nettle during points in that video shows quite a few important things:
- He explains the development and his train of thought while tweaking his list.
- He discusses the choices for his creatures (in particular why no tracker and why he included PnK)
- He explains his sideboarding plan (he never boarded out looting in any game).
I just started watching the first two games against the Vengevine deck, especially game 2, it is just soo unbelieveable to me that how a freaking deck can be so ungenerous that until turn 9 or so he did literally draw absolutely nothing besides the 3 spells in his opening hand. Honestly that can't be true. Its just lucky that this vengevine deck basically falls apart on a few relevant removal spells, against a good deck this is just hilarius.
Perfect example of what happens now, and this is even in a looting build. How can a normal jund build even compete anyway close. If that happens even only once per 5 games I am just done honestly. I know this is an extreme situation, but I feel this is not a coincidance that this happens all over the place with Jund right now (good fellow Junders report similar things, the last Reid Duke record was exactly like that game 2, and now this one as well) Anyone should really show me footage of a Hollow One deck punting that hard, I bet there is none abailable, lol.
Can you say which one ? (it's not an ironic question, i hope your line is not just a other taunt)
Quote from chaos021 » »
We don't just disagree with processes. We disagree on the why and how Jund needs to change. That's basically down to our cores. What would be the point in me making the same points for Tempest to make the same counterpoint ad nauseam? I mean you're essentially watching a similar (but not the same) thing happening between FlyingDelver and Tempest for the last how many pages? I don't see any resolution coming soon on philosophy even though they pretty much have developed a similar list.
Ok, totally agree with you when i read the previous page, it's why i proposed to do a comparaison between these points on all the matchs and try to give a mark.
Quote from chaos021 » »
I mean in my testing I've learned the following:
I'm having more fun with Jund the last 3 weeks than I have had prior 5 months.
Tireless Tracker is good enough to be a 2-of in most 75s I come up with but it's just not strong enough for me to ever want more than that. Speed and toughness for the mana cost is a large reason why
Faithless Looting is pretty good but the number you want in the deck varies according to some matches for me. Tuning the number for main deck is one of my higher priorities right now.
I think we should all be playing Pia and Kiran Nalaar in some number. The versatility of this 4-drop in particular has been really good against a wide range of decks.
With all the newer variants, I feel like 7 discard spells is where I want to be but I can't find the space. I specifically mean Inquisition or Thoughtseize because...
Collective Brutality felt mediocre in the main deck even as a 1-of. There's so many matches where you're spending more mana than you should for something that's ineffective or mediocre. When it's good though, it's great! The problem was how often it was actually good. I believe they should stay in the sideboard.
Thanks for your feedback but you keep the same problem as the previous pages, just conclusion with no real justification, comparaison or any analysis match by match, you just say some pretty obvious fact on each card for me (so true things but not really help imo).
Quote from chaos021 » »
Other things are becoming clearer as days roll on but I'll save them for when I feel more confident about them. That said Tempest's pronouncement that "Confidant is bad and Tracker is great!" just hasn't panned out for me. I could go more into why I think there's a discrepancy but after FlyingDelver and Tempest got into it, I didn't see a point. I still don't.
I quoted that particular line largely because of his/her tendency to make statements that contradict themselves. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe you do not see it, and that's fine, but a taunt it is not. The irony just sort of hit me on other levels as well.
I'm not saying this now to stir up anything so chill folks. I'm just explaining myself probably for the last time. I hate being repetitive.
I don't see the contradictions indeed and you explain yourself (for me) to the first time.
-do you think a more closer mardu version can be interesting ? (play tarmogoyf, some tracker, bedlam and looting)
3 weeks and 10 pages before, i asked that aha
I understand that I'm not giving all of the analysis. There's a reason: if it's not even remotely statistically relevant or tested as such, it's just more hunches and sentiment. I think we're all full up on that. For the ones I have tested enough, there's not much analysis to be made for Tron, Jeskai and Humans or at least I don't think there's any thing new. We have more toys to kick around. Strategy is still the same.
While I did start my build based on Jaberwocki's Spicy Jund, I've leaned more towards traditional Jund elements I guess one would say. To that end, I really haven't been a fan of Bedlam Revelers and have cut it from my continued testing. There's merit to it, but more often than not I'm looking for a haymaker to close games out rather trying to go longer and grindier in an already grindy deck.
If it’s not a taunt then you have to seriously work on your phrasing. Your previous comment is dripping with snark, and you would do better to be straight instead of lacing all your replies to me with attitude if you’re not trying to start *****.
Anyways, to use an analogy: if you jumped off a bridge and broke your arms and legs, and then I told you to do it again, how would it be closed-minded for you to say ‘no’? Because I played with confidants and flayers for like 1-2 months after BBE was unbanned and I came to the conclusion that spending maindeck space on these cards makes your hollow one and humans matchups bad. If you put more cheap answers into your deck to beat those decks, then you lose the value game. It’s that simple, and if someone is complaining about their list and it still runs confidants and flayers, I’m going to tell them not to jump off the bridge. If anyone wants to suggest a truly new direction though, I’m more than willing to listen.
Not trying to pick a fight or start something, but it’s a bit irksome to be accused of closed-mindedness when it’s really not true.
And how would you view this comment objectively? I'm just curious.
If you could read my comments without assumptions, you would realize there is no snark. When I said that we're beating a dead horse, we have been doing do for a while and I said that I'm going to do what works for me. Now that I take more than one line to say something similar, you're cool (maybe?). That makes no sense to me. I feel any conversation between us is just a waste of time because of previously stated reasons reasons. Watching you and FlyingDelver go back and forth just cements it for me.
But see, this is why I think you’re complaining moreso about variance than anything else. He plays 4 faithless looting and he flooded out all the same. You can only run from variance so much, and if these are the kinds of situations you’re complaining about then I’m sorry to say that they aren’t going anywhere. I’ve won multiple games against tron decks that kept a hand with tron and no threat and then proceeded to draw 6 lands and die, and tron is legimimately one of the most consistent decks in the format.
As to your previous example about hollow one, I feel like more than anything else you’re helping prove my point that dark confidant is mediocre. Between iok, bolt, and terminate you should have ample time to durdle up before you’re in any real danger. If that dark confidant is instead a tracker, ooze, tarmogoyf, hazoret, or even something like a kcommand then I’d feel much more comfortable with my position.
To reiterate, this all feels like “I don’t like variance” talk. And I’m all down for reducing variance, absolutely, but not at the cost of the deck’s power level. Playing looting with no solid plan about how you’re going to dig yourself out of the card disadvantage is not good enough imo, and why I haven’t been so thrilled with the look of most of these looting builds. That’s why at the very beginning I said “you can’t just jam looting into a jund deck”, because if you assume that confidant will die before you ever untap (and you *should* probably assume that), you’re not going to have the CA to offset looting. Builds leaning on confidant are already medium against mardu and control, and adding looting just excentuates those problems.
And yes chaos, there’s a big difference between taking the time to reply with a well thought out comment like you’re kinda sorta doing now, and just shooting off one-liners in response to a long post which half of the time isn't even directed at you, such as the following:
Good for you.
Are we all reading the same words?
That you think you're providing anything constructive for me based on past conversations is laughable and largely my issue with you.
As to your previous example about hollow one, I feel like more than anything else you’re helping prove my point that dark confidant is mediocre. Between iok, bolt, and terminate you should have ample time to durdle up before you’re in any real danger. If that dark confidant is instead a tracker, ooze, tarmogoyf, hazoret, or even something like a kcommand then I’d feel much more comfortable with my position.
Turn 1 opponent: So my opponent plays a flamblade turn 1.
Turn 1 me: I then either bolt it or Iok. Lets say I IOK and take looting/lore.
Turn 2 opponent: My opponent casts either looting/lore (which was left) then attacks for 3-4 dmg and plays hollow one. I am at 16 max.
Turn 2 me: I need to terminate the hollow one on my turn 2 (in his actual turn 3 then)
Turn 3 opponent: My opponent attacks with flamblade + hollow for at least another 1, I terminate and then he drops gurmag. I am at 16 as of now.
Turn 3 me: In my turn I then have to play bob to find more answers.
Turn 4 opponent: In the meanwhile I get hit by Gurmag for 5 down to 11. Bob mght die to a bolt or won't.
Turn 4 me: If Bob dies, I am pretty much dead now. If he doesn't, I could flip a terminate/pulse/bolt to deal with gurmag and be back in the game a little.
So the endline is, yeah, bob is pretty unreliable since he must live. okay, now to your version of replacing bob with tracker:
Same hands for both except you have tracker over bob:
Turn 1 opponent: Flameblade adept.
Turn 1 me: IOK Looting/Lore.
Turn 2 opponent: Lore/Looting, attack for 3-4 and drop Hollow One.
Turn 2 me: Need to hold up terminate.
Turn 3 opponent: attacks with adept + hollow one, I terminate the hollow one. He then drops grumag.
Turn 3 me: I now need to play tracker.
Turn 4 opponent: Gurmag hits me for 5 down to 11. If they have a bolt Tracker dies immediatly.
Turn 4 me: Again, if tracker is dead, I am also pretty dead. If tracker lives, I am able to exactly have one landdrop, crack the clue and find exactly terminate or bolt. So Pulse is no out to be drawn from the clue, since I need to spend 2 mana for the clue. And if I don't draw terminate, I need to chump with my 4/3 tracker the next turn.
End of the line. So tell me, why should my example now enhance your bob is weak argument? How is having tracker more comfortable? I showed you now one specific game which is not that unlikely to happen in that way. I thin that same would happen if you had Ooze instead of Bob/Tracker. And Hazoret would just never come down early enoguh in the first place. And of course Goyf would be better here, nobody is talking about goyf, we all run 4 copies of that card.
This example was also not about bob in the first place, until you brought it up again. It just should show that an identical hand of jund was much better in the past than it is now. Regardless of which 2 drop you have in there.
To reiterate, this all feels like “I don’t like variance” talk. And I’m all down for reducing variance, absolutely, but not at the cost of the deck’s power level. Playing looting with no solid plan about how you’re going to dig yourself out of the card disadvantage is not good enough imo, and why I haven’t been so thrilled with the look of most of these looting builds. That’s why at the very beginning I said “you can’t just jam looting into a jund deck”, because if you assume that confidant will die before you ever untap (and you *should* probably assume that), you’re not going to have the CA to offset looting. Builds leaning on confidant are already medium against mardu and control, and adding looting just excentuates those problems.
Maybe you didn't understand me enough, I did also never occupy the position of "just jamming Looting into a jund deck". I have very well a plan for compromizing with the negative CA. I don't see why you now accuse me of this out of nowhere.
Did you remember my build? You still do treat Bob and Tracker as being in the same slot. They just aren't. I play 3 Bobs and 3 Tracker. Bob is here in the "bob" slot and tracker here is in the "bbe" slot. Why do you just not understand how I am treating Bob and Tracker? Its baffling for me. To make it clear: Bob is here to help in the early turns and Tracker is here to acoomodate for negative CA and for winning the game. However, this is also theoretical. I know Bob is unreliable, and therefore I am now shifting gears towards having Looting for the early turns and ending the game with tracker (or maybe Bedlam, who knows).
Tempest's point would be that the Bob spot is just weak if Bob is still occupying it. He feels Bob is just a weak card overall. From what I understand, you could basically replace it with removal and/or discard spells and be better off iirc. This is also why I think Tempest is after more versatile cards.
To be clear, I don't subscribe to this notion, but this is just my understanding.
First off, this example is kind of the junds nightmare and even if you have faithless looting you’re likely to lose. That aside, you don’t chump with the tireless tracker in your provided example. You hope to hit a removal spell for their second biggest attacker (you have far more outs to that), then on turn 5 you crack a second clue and hope to trade the tracker for the angler, or you could do this on your turn 4 if you have a fetchland. And anyways I’d probably open up the game with the bolt and not the iok, but I see the logic behind iok.
I have to draw parallels between tracker and bob cause it’s the closest parallel available. Yes, I understand that you see tracker as BBEs cousin, and if you want to make that comparison instead and not draw parallels to bob, then the cards we’re actually arguing over are hazoret, kcommand #3, lavamancer, or brutality in hand vs bob.
-if it’s hazoret, you live to turn 4 and have an indestructible 5/4 vs an angler
-if bob is now kcommand, you take a hit from the hollow one with the intention of kcommanding it next turn and holding terminate for a delve threat.
-if the card is brutality, you have to tag team the angler with that+bolt. This is probably the least good card here.
-if the card is lavamancer, same answer as brutality if you can fade a bolt on the grim.
I don’t generally make this comparison though because it feels a lot like comparing apples to oranges. Even if they occupy different cmc slots, tracker and bob have a very similar effect and make for a better comparison than bob vs kcommand or what have you.
And the reason I “accuse” you (you use very strong words) is because until about the latest list you posted, every list has been super traditional jund (with the usual core of goyf, confidant, lili, plus flayer) with looting thrown in. The last list you posted with 3 trackers is the first I remember seeing that struck me as having a legit plan to mitigate the card disadvantage, and even then I think you still need more 2-for-1s (and since bob often dies for no value, I don’t think he realistically qualifies).
The traverse list looks interesting, but I am not a fan of traverse, is also too inconsistant for me.
4 Dark Confidant
1 Eternal Witness
3 Scavenging Ooze
4 Tarmogoyf
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
2 Tireless Tracker
2 Collective Brutality
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Thoughtseize
1 Traverse the Ulvenwald
4 Abrupt Decay
2 Fatal Push
2 Mishra's Bauble
4 Blooming Marsh
2 Forest
3 Ghost Quarter
3 Hissing Quagmire
2 Marsh Flats
2 Overgrown Tomb
3 Swamp
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Ghost Quarter
1 Damnation
2 Duress
1 Flaying Tendrils
1 Gaze of Granite
1 Golgari Charm
2 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
1 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Shadow of Doubt
1 Slaughter Pact
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Liliana, the Last Hope
2 Bedlam Reveler
2 Pia and Kiran Nalaar
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Faithless Looting
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Maelstrom Pulse
3 Thoughtseize
2 Fatal Push
3 Kolaghan's Command
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
1 Blood Crypt
4 Bloodstained Mire
1 Blooming Marsh
1 Forest
1 Mountain
2 Overgrown Tomb
3 Raging Ravine
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Fatal Push
3 Ancient Grudge
2 Collective Brutality
4 Fulminator Mage
1 Huntmaster of the Fells
4 Leyline of the Void
Thanks!
The second one is by Jaberwocki, more of an experimental list, but he came to the same conclusion we have as that Jund on its own needs some tools to find timely answers. Therefore the hybrid. I am not sure if I like it that much, but I think its a good direction that Jund needs to go.
I swear that I saw Bolts in there, totally my bad! Thanks for pointing that out.
I like the idea of Jaberwocki. It seem like to create the same CA that mardu has, he opt for red lingering souls (p&k) more recursion (kcommand/lilyhope) to mitigate the faithless looting card disadvantage.
I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just giving an honest opinion. *If* you are wrong about the card selection thing, it’s not a big deal. I’m not accusing you of being incompetent, I’m just suggesting that you might not be correct in this one instance. And I don’t think you’re wrong when it comes to things like identifying why you are losing games (ie, I don’t have the specific answers I need). I think you’re wrong about the disease causing that symptom, ie no card selection vs registering too many low-quality creatures. I take an aggressive tone with chaos because he loves to antagonize, but it’s regrettable if you think I’m throwing that same tone at you. This is me extending an olive branch.
Anyways, about the closed-mindedness issue, I simply can’t respond to every point that everyone lobbies at me, as I’m arguing against at least 3 people at any given time. Ive playtested my deck veeery rigorously and really poured over every card in the maindeck, so I do feel somewhat strongly about ~56 cards of every deck I post. Still, my mind is open to making well-reasoned changes for most of those cards. The fact of the matter is that almost every list on here plays at least 3 confidants, 0-2 flayers, and 14+ creatures. I’ve tested that for over a month in this meta and come to the conclusion that it makes you a dog to humans and hollow one. The rest of the spells in your average deck are thoughtseizes, bolts, pushes, etc. What can I possibly comment on, except that they play the same spells I do, but in lesser quantities? And that’s exactly what I’ve been arguing for this whole time: playing fewer and ultimately higher quality creatures so you can fit more disruption.
In reply to your point about removal, the list you posted should have no issues digging for a spell you need between confidant, flayer, and looting. If you still think the issue persists, at that point I think your problem is with the innate variance of magic and NOT jund. The reason why I didn’t want to talk about these specifics is partly because even though I know my list doesn’t have these issues I don’t know why. Im a touch stumped right now by why we have such different experiences with such similar lists, unless it ultimately boils down to the bobs and flayers. As an aside, it’s worth noting that the difference between 3 and 4 of these unconditional removal spells is big imo. You usually only need one per game, and 3 to 4 seems to be a tipping point between ‘semi-frequently not drawing any’ and ‘usually drawing at least one’.
If I have to offer a reason for the above phenomenon, I’d suggest that it’s because you play too many creatures and not enough disruption, regardless of what those creatures are. If your average opening hand only has 1-2 targeted disruption spells vs 3+, you can’t be as selective about which spell you use for any given problem.
The revelers idea was not me trying to imitate pyromancer, it was me trying to come up with curve toppers other than tireless tracker. I personally think reveler as a 4 drop is perfectly acceptable, and binning 4 instants and sorceries is pretty trivial. If I can cast it for 2-3 (and I don’t think that’s unreasonable), that’s just a bonus.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
Do you have a link? Thanks!
Looting is an elegant solution, but the cost of ‘mulligan-ing’ every game is quite real. I think you really have to build around looting to make it work, but if you can it’s obviously only a net benefit. With 3 trackers, 2 revelers, and 3 kcommands Im finally on board with this looting idea, in theory. But I’ll have to playtest I guess.
Im willing to entertain that I’ve just been super lucky, but my ‘luck’ streak came after making radical deck changes, so it’s hard to believe there’s no correlation there.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
You may want to take some of your own advice.
We don't just disagree with processes. We disagree on the why and how Jund needs to change. That's basically down to our cores. What would be the point in me making the same points for Tempest to make the same counterpoint ad nauseam? I mean you're essentially watching a similar (but not the same) thing happening between FlyingDelver and Tempest for the last how many pages? I don't see any resolution coming soon on philosophy even though they pretty much have developed a similar list. I mean in my testing I've learned the following:
Other things are becoming clearer as days roll on but I'll save them for when I feel more confident about them. That said Tempest's pronouncement that "Confidant is bad and Tracker is great!" just hasn't panned out for me. I could go more into why I think there's a discrepancy but after FlyingDelver and Tempest got into it, I didn't see a point. I still don't.
I quoted that particular line largely because of his/her tendency to make statements that contradict themselves. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe you do not see it, and that's fine, but a taunt it is not. The irony just sort of hit me on other levels as well.
I'm not saying this now to stir up anything so chill folks. I'm just explaining myself probably for the last time. I hate being repetitive.
Anyways, to use an analogy: if you jumped off a bridge and broke your arms and legs, and then I told you to do it again, how would it be closed-minded for you to say ‘no’? Because I played with confidants and flayers for like 1-2 months after BBE was unbanned and I came to the conclusion that spending maindeck space on these cards makes your hollow one and humans matchups bad. If you put more cheap answers into your deck to beat those decks, then you lose the value game. It’s that simple, and if someone is complaining about their list and it still runs confidants and flayers, I’m going to tell them not to jump off the bridge. If anyone wants to suggest a truly new direction though, I’m more than willing to listen.
Not trying to pick a fight or start something, but it’s a bit irksome to be accused of closed-mindedness when it’s really not true.
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
I'd like to point out that when we started this discussion (a few pages back already) you did also mention that explanation already. I get that you have a different point of view on this, because apparantly your games pan out fine to the point where you can actually run away with Tracker. I have to repeat it, as I did often times during this discussion (this was also prior to the discussion about the issue with you) I am well aware that variance happens in magic, it is, or lets say it should be part of every deck (if we assume we have a bunch of different, but equally strong and consistant decks in a healthy and balanced format) and therefore on average it affects everybody. However, I did experience excessive variance to the point where it just can't be natural anymore. Technically, nothing changed in Jund so why should it matter now is the question? After all back in 2016 or before Twin was banned Jund was a fantastic deck to play in modern. Let me show you in a more practical way why Jund struggles now:
In the past, Jund as a great deck would face decks like Splinter Twin or Infect, or maybe Affinity. Lets stay with those decks here. If we have a typical game of Jund against Infect for example, and you had an opening hand of: 1 IOK, 1 Bolt, 1 Bob, 1 Blackcleave, 1 Verdant, 2 Bloodstained; you would say that this is a pretty good hand against Infect. You could turn 1 IOK, take their Infect creature or Noble, which pulls a huge whole into their strategy and then follow up with a turn 2 Bob. Bob then would draw some exta cards. Now, even if you were flooding, you had the Bolt as insurance. Eventually Bob would draw past those lands and find extra removal and then you would win the game. Its that simple. One single discard spell, or one single Bolt was much more effective against decks than they are nowadays. Decks become much more resliant to single cards.
Lets look at Hollow One here. In theory, this deck is similar to Infect, as it can have a pretty explosive start and win the game quite fast. However, if you have the same hand (or even a better one, lets say: 1 IOK, 1 Bolt, 1 Bob, 1 Verdant, 1 Black, 1 Blood, 1 Terminate) you definitely are not gonna win the game with just those cards in hand. Just think about it. I want everyone to think about that actually. If you imagine you have this hand against Hollow One, you would not think: "Okay I have basically won", but rather: "Okay, this hand is good, but Bob needs to dodge an opposing Bolt and needs to find me an Ooze or an extra hard removal in case of multiple Hollow Ones or delve threats". And if they start with turn 1 Flamblade adept, you already are in an awkward position. Against Infect you just bolt the Glistener Elf. But against Hollow One, do you Bolt the Flameblade to prevent 4+ dmg coming in next turn or do you IOK to potentially snap Looting/Goblin Lore/Burning. If they have 2 of their enablers, you are pretty scrwed if you IOK. On turn 2 you could then face a Gurmag Angler or Hollow One already. Here you have the Terminate for that, but whats next? What if they have a simple other devle threat or hollow one? What if they have Lingering Souls. And now your next 2 turns you topdeck freaking lands. It is turn 3 at that point, so no tracker to ditch those lands to. You killed an flameblade adept and an turn 2 Gurmag, and have nothing left besides Bob. So you just play him and hope to draw into more removal. If they play anoterh big threat on turn 3 you are in a pretty tough position. No tracker could help you here, even Bob does not do the job consistantly enough. That is exactly the situations I had to face over and over again, and I am pretty certain that this does not come down to which creature you play. My point is, after all this discussion, that a hand of 1 Bolt, 1 IOK, 1 Verdant, 2 Bloodstained, 1 Black and 1 Bob was great in the past, and is a "good start" nowadays. Opposing decks play more and more recursive threats (or more sticky threats) or simply more diverse threats (like delve threats as well as small threats like Bloodghast) which makes our single cards less valuable. And ultimately this is due to the whole format developing better and better linear strategies and Jund ultimately stays the same. In that sense, yes, Jund absolutely has to change. It can't stay the same or it will just be eaten up by the increasing powerlevel of linear strategies. Proactive is always better than reactive, and this naturally leads to such an outcome where reactive strategies need either better tools or go under. And thats what I meant. And thats what is in my mind the reality (which was also confirmed by other fellow Junders). So to come back to your statement, I really don't think this is natural variance anymore, I really don't.
I just started watching the first two games against the Vengevine deck, especially game 2, it is just soo unbelieveable to me that how a freaking deck can be so ungenerous that until turn 9 or so he did literally draw absolutely nothing besides the 3 spells in his opening hand. Honestly that can't be true. Its just lucky that this vengevine deck basically falls apart on a few relevant removal spells, against a good deck this is just hilarius.
Perfect example of what happens now, and this is even in a looting build. How can a normal jund build even compete anyway close. If that happens even only once per 5 games I am just done honestly. I know this is an extreme situation, but I feel this is not a coincidance that this happens all over the place with Jund right now (good fellow Junders report similar things, the last Reid Duke record was exactly like that game 2, and now this one as well) Anyone should really show me footage of a Hollow One deck punting that hard, I bet there is none abailable, lol.
I understand that I'm not giving all of the analysis. There's a reason: if it's not even remotely statistically relevant or tested as such, it's just more hunches and sentiment. I think we're all full up on that. For the ones I have tested enough, there's not much analysis to be made for Tron, Jeskai and Humans or at least I don't think there's any thing new. We have more toys to kick around. Strategy is still the same.
While I did start my build based on Jaberwocki's Spicy Jund, I've leaned more towards traditional Jund elements I guess one would say. To that end, I really haven't been a fan of Bedlam Revelers and have cut it from my continued testing. There's merit to it, but more often than not I'm looking for a haymaker to close games out rather trying to go longer and grindier in an already grindy deck.
And how would you view this comment objectively? I'm just curious.
If you could read my comments without assumptions, you would realize there is no snark. When I said that we're beating a dead horse, we have been doing do for a while and I said that I'm going to do what works for me. Now that I take more than one line to say something similar, you're cool (maybe?). That makes no sense to me. I feel any conversation between us is just a waste of time because of previously stated reasons reasons. Watching you and FlyingDelver go back and forth just cements it for me.
But see, this is why I think you’re complaining moreso about variance than anything else. He plays 4 faithless looting and he flooded out all the same. You can only run from variance so much, and if these are the kinds of situations you’re complaining about then I’m sorry to say that they aren’t going anywhere. I’ve won multiple games against tron decks that kept a hand with tron and no threat and then proceeded to draw 6 lands and die, and tron is legimimately one of the most consistent decks in the format.
As to your previous example about hollow one, I feel like more than anything else you’re helping prove my point that dark confidant is mediocre. Between iok, bolt, and terminate you should have ample time to durdle up before you’re in any real danger. If that dark confidant is instead a tracker, ooze, tarmogoyf, hazoret, or even something like a kcommand then I’d feel much more comfortable with my position.
To reiterate, this all feels like “I don’t like variance” talk. And I’m all down for reducing variance, absolutely, but not at the cost of the deck’s power level. Playing looting with no solid plan about how you’re going to dig yourself out of the card disadvantage is not good enough imo, and why I haven’t been so thrilled with the look of most of these looting builds. That’s why at the very beginning I said “you can’t just jam looting into a jund deck”, because if you assume that confidant will die before you ever untap (and you *should* probably assume that), you’re not going to have the CA to offset looting. Builds leaning on confidant are already medium against mardu and control, and adding looting just excentuates those problems.
And yes chaos, there’s a big difference between taking the time to reply with a well thought out comment like you’re kinda sorta doing now, and just shooting off one-liners in response to a long post which half of the time isn't even directed at you, such as the following:
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh
The situation I brought up:
My opening hand: 1 bolt, 1 Iok, 1 terminate, 1 bob, 1 verdant, 1 Black, 1 bloodstained.
Opponents hand: Flameblade, 2 lands, goblin lore, looting, gurmag, hollow one.
Turn 1 opponent: So my opponent plays a flamblade turn 1.
Turn 1 me: I then either bolt it or Iok. Lets say I IOK and take looting/lore.
Turn 2 opponent: My opponent casts either looting/lore (which was left) then attacks for 3-4 dmg and plays hollow one. I am at 16 max.
Turn 2 me: I need to terminate the hollow one on my turn 2 (in his actual turn 3 then)
Turn 3 opponent: My opponent attacks with flamblade + hollow for at least another 1, I terminate and then he drops gurmag. I am at 16 as of now.
Turn 3 me: In my turn I then have to play bob to find more answers.
Turn 4 opponent: In the meanwhile I get hit by Gurmag for 5 down to 11. Bob mght die to a bolt or won't.
Turn 4 me: If Bob dies, I am pretty much dead now. If he doesn't, I could flip a terminate/pulse/bolt to deal with gurmag and be back in the game a little.
So the endline is, yeah, bob is pretty unreliable since he must live. okay, now to your version of replacing bob with tracker:
Same hands for both except you have tracker over bob:
Turn 1 opponent: Flameblade adept.
Turn 1 me: IOK Looting/Lore.
Turn 2 opponent: Lore/Looting, attack for 3-4 and drop Hollow One.
Turn 2 me: Need to hold up terminate.
Turn 3 opponent: attacks with adept + hollow one, I terminate the hollow one. He then drops grumag.
Turn 3 me: I now need to play tracker.
Turn 4 opponent: Gurmag hits me for 5 down to 11. If they have a bolt Tracker dies immediatly.
Turn 4 me: Again, if tracker is dead, I am also pretty dead. If tracker lives, I am able to exactly have one landdrop, crack the clue and find exactly terminate or bolt. So Pulse is no out to be drawn from the clue, since I need to spend 2 mana for the clue. And if I don't draw terminate, I need to chump with my 4/3 tracker the next turn.
End of the line. So tell me, why should my example now enhance your bob is weak argument? How is having tracker more comfortable? I showed you now one specific game which is not that unlikely to happen in that way. I thin that same would happen if you had Ooze instead of Bob/Tracker. And Hazoret would just never come down early enoguh in the first place. And of course Goyf would be better here, nobody is talking about goyf, we all run 4 copies of that card.
This example was also not about bob in the first place, until you brought it up again. It just should show that an identical hand of jund was much better in the past than it is now. Regardless of which 2 drop you have in there.
Maybe you didn't understand me enough, I did also never occupy the position of "just jamming Looting into a jund deck". I have very well a plan for compromizing with the negative CA. I don't see why you now accuse me of this out of nowhere.
Did you remember my build? You still do treat Bob and Tracker as being in the same slot. They just aren't. I play 3 Bobs and 3 Tracker. Bob is here in the "bob" slot and tracker here is in the "bbe" slot. Why do you just not understand how I am treating Bob and Tracker? Its baffling for me. To make it clear: Bob is here to help in the early turns and Tracker is here to acoomodate for negative CA and for winning the game. However, this is also theoretical. I know Bob is unreliable, and therefore I am now shifting gears towards having Looting for the early turns and ending the game with tracker (or maybe Bedlam, who knows).
To be clear, I don't subscribe to this notion, but this is just my understanding.
I have to draw parallels between tracker and bob cause it’s the closest parallel available. Yes, I understand that you see tracker as BBEs cousin, and if you want to make that comparison instead and not draw parallels to bob, then the cards we’re actually arguing over are hazoret, kcommand #3, lavamancer, or brutality in hand vs bob.
-if it’s hazoret, you live to turn 4 and have an indestructible 5/4 vs an angler
-if bob is now kcommand, you take a hit from the hollow one with the intention of kcommanding it next turn and holding terminate for a delve threat.
-if the card is brutality, you have to tag team the angler with that+bolt. This is probably the least good card here.
-if the card is lavamancer, same answer as brutality if you can fade a bolt on the grim.
I don’t generally make this comparison though because it feels a lot like comparing apples to oranges. Even if they occupy different cmc slots, tracker and bob have a very similar effect and make for a better comparison than bob vs kcommand or what have you.
And the reason I “accuse” you (you use very strong words) is because until about the latest list you posted, every list has been super traditional jund (with the usual core of goyf, confidant, lili, plus flayer) with looting thrown in. The last list you posted with 3 trackers is the first I remember seeing that struck me as having a legit plan to mitigate the card disadvantage, and even then I think you still need more 2-for-1s (and since bob often dies for no value, I don’t think he realistically qualifies).
UMerfolkGBW
Melira PodRIPGBW Abzan Midrange
GBR Jund Midrange
EDH
GBR Prossh