Quote from Grindor11 »Quote from FlyingDelver »Ravine matters in all matchups and its not only about hitting 5 lands. Its about playing bob and still hold up terminate, its about playing a discard and still have kcommand up. Playing goyf and have decay up. I guess you get it, we want to hit our landdrops and also ideally untapped. I think you cant compare this to abzan bc abzan is often fine just casting souls and thats it. Jund is more reactive and thus tapped lands and missing lands hurts more. We want to do multiple stuff a turn. Unused mana is often occuring in jund due to it being more reactive. I cant tell how often i would have liked to play a threat in 23 land jund but couldn bc I needed to hold up kcommand against affinity. Missing landdrops hurts here quite a bit since threats could have come down earlier otherwise. In abzan you just jam souls on 3 and thats it.
No, really, in my experience, I was too frustrated in 23 land builds since I basically had all the answers, but was too slow to cast all them, because my hand was too clunky and not efficient enough. I was often stuck on 3 untapped lands on turn 4 or 5 even. Thats not how I want to play my deck.
Agreed I'm on the "24-lands or bust" train.
I'm a numbers guy, and over 4 4-round FNM like tournaments, the recorded number of mulligans were significantly higher when playing 23 lands. Also, reasons that I lost were very often "not able to keep up" with the other deck because of sitting on 3 or 4 lands. That was enough to turn me off of the 23 land package, even though it created the "ideal" list for me. Statistically this should not create that drastic of a change, but you know what they say, something on paper may not exactly what you experience.
I've found the opposite to be true. On 24 lands, I felt like I couldn't keep up because I didn't draw enough action spells. Playing a larger sample size of games online, 23 lands seems appropriate. But to each their own