I never loved Abzan. I don't like lingering souls, I always remember more times that card felt awful to me than good. I play it when I need to, but I never liked it more than Jund.
I think a 1x Duress or 1x Thoughtseize may be correct in the SB
I'm unsure about how my sideboard should look. Like, do we want 2x Last Hopes? Is running 2x Graveyard hate really enough, sounds like a fantastic way to lose to smarter players meta-gaming.
I also think the Jund community is confused as to how to sideboard against blue decks now
I never loved Abzan. I don't like lingering souls, I always remember more times that card felt awful to me than good. I play it when I need to, but I never liked it more than Jund.
I think a 1x Duress or 1x Thoughtseize may be correct in the SB
I'm unsure about how my sideboard should look. Like, do we want 2x Last Hopes? Is running 2x Graveyard hate really enough, sounds like a fantastic way to lose to smarter players meta-gaming.
I also think the Jund community is confused as to how to sideboard against blue decks now
Although it may seem counterintuitive, I think we have to shave some Bolts vs Control. Otherwise I dont see what to cut other than Terminate, Decay, Push.
No Twilight Mire just because I don't have one so I run 9 fetches. My sideboard is just tuned for a small meta I frequent with Storm, Bogles, Affinity, Tron, and Elves. Thanks man, appreciate the inputs.
I'm with Spsiegel1987 on the 3 KCommand main. BBE into KCommand loops is insane. I never felt this dirty playing Jund. I also run 5 discard 1 Brutality, 1 LotH. However I have no room for Push anymore. I know I may get punish for it but I'm thoroughly impressed with LotH and 3 KCommands. If i'm playing into a trap, please talk me out of it.
How many 3 drops are you running? I feel like we need at least 1 pulse MB for Jace, and we probably don’t want to run more than 8 3 drops. Maybe we could get away with 9?
I feel like 24 lands is good for us. We may not run serum visions, but we have Bob. Also, I thought some control lists ran more than 24 lands? My manabase only runs 2 manlands though, and 1 colorless land in Field of Ruin.
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
This is such a silly argument; the question was answered for us long ago. There was actually a time BBE Jund existed before the printing of Deathrite Shaman but after the banning of Punishing Fire. Back then people were running anywhere from ~8-10 three-drops in addition to 4 BBE, not very far away from what is being run today, and you cannot find lists that run less than 25 land. Here are just a few top finishes when I searched only for decklists at Premier events, you can look for less competitive tournaments if you wish:
Unless you're going to argue to me that the entire professional community in 2012 was collectively having a stroke, this is a settled question. Obviously you can always cheat on land and hope to get lucky. After all it's just one card. But don't kid yourself.
This is such a silly argument; the question was answered for us long ago. There was actually a time BBE Jund existed before the printing of Deathrite Shaman but after the banning of Punishing Fire. Back then people were running anywhere from ~8-10 three-drops in addition to 4 BBE, not very far away from what is being run today, and you cannot find lists that run less than 25 land. Here are just a few top finishes when I searched only for decklists at Premier events, you can look for less competitive tournaments if you wish:
Unless you're going to argue to me that the entire professional community in 2012 was collectively having a stroke, this is a settled question. Obviously you can always cheat on land and hope to get lucky. After all it's just one card. But don't kid yourself.
I tend to agree. 25 lands was actually on the low end back then, 26 lands was also played. I think basic maths around that dont change, if we run a similar curve here.
Here the average is 9 3 drops alongside 4 BBE, playing 25 lands.
I also noted that those lists were pretty high on normal discard amount (3/3 splits of TS/IOK)
Control can run 24 lands with ~10 cantrips... We have 4 Bob at max which are unrealiable cantrips.
We're not a Control deck though, we're Midrange, that's an important difference when comparing. Control, ideally, want to hit a land every turn for the first 5-6 turns. We just want to reach 4 as soon as possible.
And still we are very reactive rather than proactive. We run more lands that come into play tapped on turn 4 onwards and our deck gets way more mana hungry than before. I think just having 4 lands on turn 4 wont be enough going forward. You know that Jund wants to play multiple spells a turn, and with that many 2 and 3 drops now that will only work with 5 or 6 mana (just like control).
Its not only about BBE now, I think that focusing on a single card is not the whole story.
We know now that the deck will likely get more clunky since we will run more 3 drops and less 1 drops, and going up to 25 lands is the only logical consequence to that in the first place. After that we will see how it goes and then adjust to that.
I think if you are playing a 24 land deck with that exact curve, you will have many clunky games ahead of you.
This is such a silly argument; the question was answered for us long ago. There was actually a time BBE Jund existed before the printing of Deathrite Shaman but after the banning of Punishing Fire. Back then people were running anywhere from ~8-10 three-drops in addition to 4 BBE, not very far away from what is being run today, and you cannot find lists that run less than 25 land. Here are just a few top finishes when I searched only for decklists at Premier events, you can look for less competitive tournaments if you wish:
Unless you're going to argue to me that the entire professional community in 2012 was collectively having a stroke, this is a settled question. Obviously you can always cheat on land and hope to get lucky. After all it's just one card. But don't kid yourself.
You can't take information from a meta 5 years ago and directly apply it to current day. The decks that Jund was facing back then could be completely different than what our meta ends up being today. I agree that we should start at 25 lands, and go from there. However, you can use the information from the those decks - but don't apply it as a fact like you seem to be doing.
This is such a silly argument; the question was answered for us long ago. There was actually a time BBE Jund existed before the printing of Deathrite Shaman but after the banning of Punishing Fire. Back then people were running anywhere from ~8-10 three-drops in addition to 4 BBE, not very far away from what is being run today, and you cannot find lists that run less than 25 land. Here are just a few top finishes when I searched only for decklists at Premier events, you can look for less competitive tournaments if you wish:
Unless you're going to argue to me that the entire professional community in 2012 was collectively having a stroke, this is a settled question. Obviously you can always cheat on land and hope to get lucky. After all it's just one card. But don't kid yourself.
You can't take information from a meta 5 years ago and directly apply it to current day. The decks that Jund was facing back then could be completely different than what our meta ends up being today. I agree that we should start at 25 lands, and go from there. However, you can use the information from the those decks - but don't apply it as a fact like you seem to be doing.
In a certain way, you can. Magic never changed and its basic maths behind that. In our realm of midrange, a land will always tap for 1 mana and cast a 1 mana spell. That never changes. If you are running a certain curve with a certain amount of 1, 2, 3 and 4 drops, you would have to play that many lands. Why should that change? If we will see that our curve is too high for the meta going onward, its not the fault that we are running 25 lands, its the fault that we are running that clunky of a curve. And I think people are making excuses here by running 24 lands only. If you fear that you will get overrrun by aggro, then simply dont run that many clunky spells and then you can also cut lands.
Back to old Jund. I play MTGO only, but I'm liking this list so far. I would probably like another Kommand and LilLast somewhere, but sorta pricy. Has anyone considered a Courser or two?
And to add, thats also why articles from Frank Karsten talking about probabilities wont ever change. We always need 19 black sources for Liliana, we always need 14 red sources for bolt on turn 1, we always need 13 green sources for a turn 2 goyf.
As long as decks in magic play 60 cards and lands are in the deck alongside the 60 cards, that will never ever change. Its math, its not about metas.
If we talk about metas you need to question the actual cards that were run back then. Back then Finks main and 2-3 Pulses were run. Those are the things you can question, since those are meta decisions.
But not the amount of lands if we assume the same mana curve.
This is such a silly argument; the question was answered for us long ago. There was actually a time BBE Jund existed before the printing of Deathrite Shaman but after the banning of Punishing Fire. Back then people were running anywhere from ~8-10 three-drops in addition to 4 BBE, not very far away from what is being run today, and you cannot find lists that run less than 25 land. Here are just a few top finishes when I searched only for decklists at Premier events, you can look for less competitive tournaments if you wish:
Unless you're going to argue to me that the entire professional community in 2012 was collectively having a stroke, this is a settled question. Obviously you can always cheat on land and hope to get lucky. After all it's just one card. But don't kid yourself.
That's all fine but there are a lot more streamlined cards these days than back then - see Abrupt Decay and Fatal Push in comparison to Pulse, Augermage and/or Jund Charm. You can't just pull up a bunch of decklists from 5-6 years ago and suggest that because they played 25 lands back then decks these days should automatically be doing the same. I'm not arguing that 25 lands isn't the right call, it's just most of us that have tried 25 so far seem to be having issues with it in comparison to the regular 24 land builds.
See my post, you are comparing the older worse cards to the one of today and thats mislaeding. You need to look at the manacurve. Its not about the actual cards, everbody knows that we dont run those cards from back then anymore.
But if we run the same amount of 1 drops, the same amount of 2 drops, the same amount of 3 drops and the same amount of 4 drops (regardless of what cards) why should we know be able to run 24 lands? Tell me, the maths dont change.
Back then decks tend to actually run more 1 drops than we are, we are running more 2 drops instead. Now, I dont think that the curves are that different (except for the last one, that curve is kinda weird I think). On average back then they had more 1 drops and 1 more 3 drop, but we have more 2 drops instead. The curve is very similar imo.
Now, I personally am not against 24 lands in the long run. But I think with that actual manacurve many lists are proposing, 25 lands is certainly the way to go. Unless we change the curve a bit, I dont think running 24 lands is viable in the long run.
Time will tell if I am wrong. But I personally believe in the maths behind that, which will not change.
Control can run 24 lands with ~10 cantrips... We have 4 Bob at max which are unrealiable cantrips.
We're not a Control deck though, we're Midrange, that's an important difference when comparing. Control, ideally, want to hit a land every turn for the first 5-6 turns. We just want to reach 4 as soon as possible.
And still we are very reactive rather than proactive. We run more lands that come into play tapped on turn 4 onwards and our deck gets way more mana hungry than before. I think just having 4 lands on turn 4 wont be enough going forward. You know that Jund wants to play multiple spells a turn, and with that many 2 and 3 drops now that will only work with 5 or 6 mana (just like control).
Its not only about BBE now, I think that focusing on a single card is not the whole story.
We know now that the deck will likely get more clunky since we will run more 3 drops and less 1 drops, and going up to 25 lands is the only logical consequence to that in the first place. After that we will see how it goes and then adjust to that.
I think if you are playing a 24 land deck with that exact curve, you will have many clunky games ahead of you.
You have many valid points, however, you are also ignoring the fact that some of our card options have become more mana efficient (see Decay, Push, Scooze) than our previous options (Pulse, Terminate, Finks). I completely agree that if people want to fill their deck up with 3 drops then they need to add lands to compensate but many of the cards that were used back then can be replaced with more efficient cards and, as a result, it's not an automatic fact that we should be running 25 lands or your deck is going to get screwed.
It certainly is not an automatic fact like you said. If we adjust the manacurve accordingly. You are very right about the cards being more efficient. But people nowadays propose decklists which have about the same manacurve like back then.
I think if we would go down to 7 3 drops or so, higher the amount of 1 drops, then 24 lands might be ok. But with 8-9 3 drops and only 9-10 1 drops, I dont see 24 lands here.
All depends after all about what is needed for the meta though. So where we want to go with our curve is depedning on which decks arise and which cards we will need.
But you also advocated for 24 lands when Goblin Rabblemasters were in Jund----and I thought that was completely wrong, between my results and play and everyone else's time with that version of the deck.
I'm really impressed that Reid Duke's Abzan list did so well at todays GP (even if it was kind of a meaningless GP). Everyone laughed at Reid Duke for playing no path to exiles, and some people on the Facebook community laughed at him, too---but the guy knows how to make a deck, he's not the ranked 2 player for nothing.
If after testing Reid says play 25 lands, I'm playing 25 lands. Everytime I've disliked his decision, I always realized after stubbornly trying something else that he's right
I'm really hoping that he'll write another article this week with some testing under his belt.
With Field of Ruin gaining popularity in quite a few builds, what are your guys' thoughts on a single Mountain in the main board?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard // nRG Aggro
Modern // Burn (main) and Living End (secondary) now Jund.
For fun check out my janky combo primer: Turn 3 Grixis Combo
"Can't beat em' Jund em'!"
I really like having the Mountain. I also make sure to run a Wooded Foothills. In addition to Path to Exile and FoR being pretty heavy in my meta, I like to be able to fetch for Mountain in the matchups where my life total is a big factor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think a 1x Duress or 1x Thoughtseize may be correct in the SB
I'm unsure about how my sideboard should look. Like, do we want 2x Last Hopes? Is running 2x Graveyard hate really enough, sounds like a fantastic way to lose to smarter players meta-gaming.
I also think the Jund community is confused as to how to sideboard against blue decks now
Although it may seem counterintuitive, I think we have to shave some Bolts vs Control. Otherwise I dont see what to cut other than Terminate, Decay, Push.
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Blooodstained Mire
1 Wooded Foothills
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
1 Blood Crypt
3 Raging Ravine
1 Treetop Village
2 Swamp
1 Forest
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Dark Confidant
4 Bloodbraid Elf
2 Scavenging Ooze
22 Spells
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Thoughtseize
1 Collective Brutality
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Terminate
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Maelstrom Pulse
3 Kolaghan's Command
4 Liliana of the Veil
1 Liliana, The Last Hope
4 Fulminator Mage
2 Anger of the gods
2 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Surgical Extraction
2 Ancient Grudge
1 Liliana, The Last Hope
1 Maelstrom Pulse
1 Back to Nature
1 Collective Brutality
No Twilight Mire just because I don't have one so I run 9 fetches. My sideboard is just tuned for a small meta I frequent with Storm, Bogles, Affinity, Tron, and Elves. Thanks man, appreciate the inputs.
How many 3 drops are you running? I feel like we need at least 1 pulse MB for Jace, and we probably don’t want to run more than 8 3 drops. Maybe we could get away with 9?
I feel like 24 lands is good for us. We may not run serum visions, but we have Bob. Also, I thought some control lists ran more than 24 lands? My manabase only runs 2 manlands though, and 1 colorless land in Field of Ruin.
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
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2817&d=218178&f=MO
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2804&d=218107&f=MO
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2776&d=217954&f=MO
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2641&d=217158&f=MO
Unless you're going to argue to me that the entire professional community in 2012 was collectively having a stroke, this is a settled question. Obviously you can always cheat on land and hope to get lucky. After all it's just one card. But don't kid yourself.
I tend to agree. 25 lands was actually on the low end back then, 26 lands was also played. I think basic maths around that dont change, if we run a similar curve here.
Here the average is 9 3 drops alongside 4 BBE, playing 25 lands.
I also noted that those lists were pretty high on normal discard amount (3/3 splits of TS/IOK)
And still we are very reactive rather than proactive. We run more lands that come into play tapped on turn 4 onwards and our deck gets way more mana hungry than before. I think just having 4 lands on turn 4 wont be enough going forward. You know that Jund wants to play multiple spells a turn, and with that many 2 and 3 drops now that will only work with 5 or 6 mana (just like control).
Its not only about BBE now, I think that focusing on a single card is not the whole story.
We know now that the deck will likely get more clunky since we will run more 3 drops and less 1 drops, and going up to 25 lands is the only logical consequence to that in the first place. After that we will see how it goes and then adjust to that.
I think if you are playing a 24 land deck with that exact curve, you will have many clunky games ahead of you.
You can't take information from a meta 5 years ago and directly apply it to current day. The decks that Jund was facing back then could be completely different than what our meta ends up being today. I agree that we should start at 25 lands, and go from there. However, you can use the information from the those decks - but don't apply it as a fact like you seem to be doing.
Modern
UWGB 4c Snow Control BGWU
In a certain way, you can. Magic never changed and its basic maths behind that. In our realm of midrange, a land will always tap for 1 mana and cast a 1 mana spell. That never changes. If you are running a certain curve with a certain amount of 1, 2, 3 and 4 drops, you would have to play that many lands. Why should that change? If we will see that our curve is too high for the meta going onward, its not the fault that we are running 25 lands, its the fault that we are running that clunky of a curve. And I think people are making excuses here by running 24 lands only. If you fear that you will get overrrun by aggro, then simply dont run that many clunky spells and then you can also cut lands.
3x Blackcleave Cliffs
1x Blood Crypt
4x Bloodstained Mire
2x Forest
2x Overgrown Tomb
3x Raging Ravine
1x Stomping Ground
2x Swamp
4x Verdant Catacombs
2x Wooded Foothills
Instant (9)
2x Fatal Push
2x Kolaghan's Command
4x Lightning Bolt
1x Terminate
4x Bloodbraid Elf
4x Dark Confidant
2x Scavenging Ooze
4x Tarmogoyf
Planeswalker (5)
4x Liliana of the Veil
1x Liliana, the Last Hope
Sorcery (8)
2x Collective Brutality
4x Inquisition of Kozilek
2x Maelstrom Pulse
2x Abrupt Decay
1x Ancient Grudge
2x Anger of the Gods
1x Back to Nature
4x Fulminator Mage
1x Terminate
4x Thoughtseize
BRGLiving EndBRG
As long as decks in magic play 60 cards and lands are in the deck alongside the 60 cards, that will never ever change. Its math, its not about metas.
If we talk about metas you need to question the actual cards that were run back then. Back then Finks main and 2-3 Pulses were run. Those are the things you can question, since those are meta decisions.
But not the amount of lands if we assume the same mana curve.
See my post, you are comparing the older worse cards to the one of today and thats mislaeding. You need to look at the manacurve. Its not about the actual cards, everbody knows that we dont run those cards from back then anymore.
But if we run the same amount of 1 drops, the same amount of 2 drops, the same amount of 3 drops and the same amount of 4 drops (regardless of what cards) why should we know be able to run 24 lands? Tell me, the maths dont change.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2817&d=218178&f=MO
1 drops: 12
2 drops: 10
3 drops: 9
4 drops: 4
manlands: 4
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2804&d=218107&f=MO
1 drops: 12
2 drops: 10
3 drops: 9
4 drops: 4
manlands: 4
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2776&d=217954&f=MO
1 drops: 10
2 drops: 11
3 drops: 9
4 drops: 5
manlands: 5
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=2641&d=217158&f=MO
1 drops: 10
2 drops: 8
3 drops: 13
4 drops: 4
manlands: 6
So compare that to the manacurve which we basically have now:
1 drops: 9-10
2 drops: 13-14
3 drops: 8-9
4 drops: 4
manlands: 3-4
Back then decks tend to actually run more 1 drops than we are, we are running more 2 drops instead. Now, I dont think that the curves are that different (except for the last one, that curve is kinda weird I think). On average back then they had more 1 drops and 1 more 3 drop, but we have more 2 drops instead. The curve is very similar imo.
Now, I personally am not against 24 lands in the long run. But I think with that actual manacurve many lists are proposing, 25 lands is certainly the way to go. Unless we change the curve a bit, I dont think running 24 lands is viable in the long run.
Time will tell if I am wrong. But I personally believe in the maths behind that, which will not change.
It certainly is not an automatic fact like you said. If we adjust the manacurve accordingly. You are very right about the cards being more efficient. But people nowadays propose decklists which have about the same manacurve like back then.
I think if we would go down to 7 3 drops or so, higher the amount of 1 drops, then 24 lands might be ok. But with 8-9 3 drops and only 9-10 1 drops, I dont see 24 lands here.
All depends after all about what is needed for the meta though. So where we want to go with our curve is depedning on which decks arise and which cards we will need.
I'm really impressed that Reid Duke's Abzan list did so well at todays GP (even if it was kind of a meaningless GP). Everyone laughed at Reid Duke for playing no path to exiles, and some people on the Facebook community laughed at him, too---but the guy knows how to make a deck, he's not the ranked 2 player for nothing.
If after testing Reid says play 25 lands, I'm playing 25 lands. Everytime I've disliked his decision, I always realized after stubbornly trying something else that he's right
I'm really hoping that he'll write another article this week with some testing under his belt.
Modern // Burn (main) and Living End (secondary) now Jund.
For fun check out my janky combo primer: Turn 3 Grixis Combo
"Can't beat em' Jund em'!"