Quote from MemoryLapseSo your plan is to try and race Jund or trade with them? I think you are going to have a very hard time with that. They have as much burn as you have, more discard than you have counterspells and creatures that are too big to simply Bolt away. I'm sorry but this sounds like a bad plan. UWR control is the better approach to beating Jund. Drag Jund into a late game and beat them there. If you try and fight them in a midrange war they are going to steamroll you. Jund is the best midrange deck in the format.
Jund tends to pack 6 burn spells at most (4 Bolt, maybe 1 Pillar of Flame, maybe 1 Blightning, does Chandra 4.0 count as burn?), while UWR Midrange runs at least 8 (4 Bolt, 2 Helix, 2 Electrolyze), and I personally run 11 burn spells (4 Bolt, 4 Helix, 3 Electrolyze). Add in Tiago (vs. Bob who likes flipping threats/lands and can die to removal for no value) and we have way more burn than they do.
Jund likely wins on their discard vs. our counterspells (roughly equal targeted discard vs. counterspells numbers, 4 Bob less reliably poops discard than 4 Tiago poops counterspells, but Liliana spans more discard than V. Clique spot hand disrupts), though.
Jund also wins on the threat count (they play at least 1 more creature and often play 4 more creatures, manland counts are about equal), but UWR wins on the removal count!
I've commonly used up Electrolyze + burn to kill stuff that Bolt can't kill alone without incurring card disadvantage.
With that being said, I am generally uncomfortable with all-out racing Jund--the only burn I aim at heads either add up to lethal that or next turn or are spare Electrolyze pings. I've won loads of games against Jund as UWR Midrange by smashing fliers in their face--that's my way of racing.
I still doubt that UWR Control fares better against Jund; UWR Midrange takes advantage of Jund's weak times faster by smashing in with creatures while it's vulnerable. I play both UWR versions and I don't recall either deck as having a significantly better or worse time against Jund (although both feel close to even--they never feel like 30/70 match-ups to me, unlike Melira Pod vs. combo).
IMO, the main reason to play UWR Midrange over UWR Control is the significantly better Tron match-up--and I've also generally had a better time against Cryptic Scapeshift as Midrange than Control because Midrange can actually kill them before Scapeshift finds its combo with protection. (I still prefer UWR over UW because of the better aggro and significantly better Pod match-ups--the higher removal density against them is key.)
1
The silence+scepter (or any other 2 cmc spell, for that matter) is actually virtual CA, and not real one.
Think of it this way: If you cast the spell, you get its effect and a -1 CA (unless the spell also replaces itself)
If you cast it from a scepter, you get a -2 that turn (ther spell and the scepter). But with each activatation, you get a +1, since you ARE casting the spell therefore getting its benefits, and its not costing you cards from your hand.
1
1
Dude, people here are not saying explosives will solve the match up, but it will certainly help, totem armor or no.
As i see it, you have 3 choices:
1) you ignore the deck, since its tier 2 at most and accept an eventual loss should you cross it.
2) you play generalist cards that may help, but wont guarantee you winning (explosives)
3) you play bad cards designed to hose the deck, using valuable sb slots to win and leave yourself open to other match ups.
If it were me, i would chose 1. Maybe 2, if the cards are good in a few other match ups. NEVER choose 3.
1
well, i run shock as a SB x2, so i can tell you why.
Turn 2 shock with a shockland/scryland. Thats the reason.
T1 youplay a shockland or a scryland. T2 youplay another one of those, then shock the attacking dude with the other land. You just took 0 damage over the course of 2 turns, fixied yourmana (and possibly) your next draw.
On the matter of mortars Vs Devour flesh, i run both. 2 mortars/1 flesh, and while i see why you want an out to rootborn i cant say i agree to cutting mortars. Devour flesh is only the same as mortars as long as your opponent doesnt have 2 dudes.
If a loxodon smither and say, an experiment one with 1 counter are gonna hityou next turn, which one do you want to remove?
I would say, 8 times out of 10, the loxodon, which probably wont happen with devour flesh.
1
Off the top of my head you can use it to blank a pod activation, a kiki copy, a shaman/ooze activation, fetches, and there might be more.
Still, in that sense, maybe trickband is a better card even if it doesnt replace itself, and if that that doesnt see play, maybe we are trying to push it too far here.
1
Jund stopped being the top dog with the elf ban, and nothing has changed to make it the best deck again.
the fact that "all pros" play jund isnt because its the best the (its good enough tough) but because its the most simple deck out of all the top tier ones, therefore they dont even need to test too much with it.
Most of the people recognised as "the pros" have stated once and again that they dont like modern, and dont want to play/test for it, but do so to get more pro points.
This just means they grab an easy to pilot, solid deck, and just go with the flow.
No, jund is not "too strong", a ban is not necessary, and tough a few unbans would breathe a bit of fresh air into modern, that is in no way related to jund, or even the B/G shell.
A few months ago everyone and their moms was cmplaining about how "melira pod was too strong, omg omg omg" and now, suddenly that has changed into jund being too strong?
What did jund get in the last few months to make it "too strong"? ooze is a good card, but certainly not enough to warrant that change.
So enough of this ban this ban that crap.
1
1
Why pay 5, when i can pay 3? Why pay 5 for tusk, when i can pay 5 for batterskull?
It doesnt have a home not because its bad, but because we have bigger toys in modern to play with.
1
Yup, the same i was thinking. I like snare since it lets me save my answers for other things, but that just fits my playstyle.
If T1 discard scares you so much, then play spellpierce, seems like you want to anyways.
Now, if you want my opinion, spellpierce belongs in the sb.
Conditional as it may be, snare is always going to hit something, since every deck in the format has turn 2 plays, many of which are REALLY relevant.
As you said, answering goyf for 1 mana is great, and lets me save paths for finks. Answering bob lets me have a tempo win, and i can save electrolizes for my opponent´s face/DRS/walkers, it wins counetr wars, stops snapcaster, thalia/leonin/quasali/wall of roots/etc etc etc, so its always live.
On the otehr hand, pierce anwsers noncreature spells only, and while every deck plays non-creature spells, in most cases they are not as relevant as creature spells, except in control/combo match ups.
And lets be honest here, those 2 arent the majority of the metagame.
So just SB for the matches you want them in, and you wont have dead cards in your hand as often.
Still, i wouldnt cut mana leaks for spellpierce if you want an answer to liliana.
And why sowing salt? Tron?
1
In standard you need to change decks every 8 months or so, since the card pool is so small that all new sets impact it greatly, and you also have the rotation, making 1/3 of your cards useless.
In modern, once you get the staples (yes, some are expensive) you are good to go, no rotating, no huge surprise price drops/increases, and no new super expensive cards entering the pool, since the power-entry level is higher than in standard.
You wont see $50 bonfires or Jaces in modern, i promise you that.
The worst that can happen is a cool set like RTR introducing a lot of new important cards, but guess what? standard does that with every new set.
So yes, over the course of 1-2 years, modern ends up being cheaper than standard. The same argument could be made for legacy, but the list screws that, making the return estimate something like 5 years.