It's exactly as advertised, so pretty much only worth bringing in against blue decks. It was a response to the Jace unban, but seeing as that hype is beginning to die down, I'm more inclined to swap it to the 4th Fulminator. All that being said, it is nice to have another resilient wincon vs Uxx, and is a worthwhile inclusion if you expect a lot of Cryptic Commands.
FlyingDelver, thank you for all the time and effort you put into your response to Perplex11. You have a lot of patience to go through the list as thoroughly as you did! There are little things that I have been trying lately, like siding out the 2x Pulse for 2x Fulminator against Burn, but a lot of it comes down to preference and play/draw. Something I do feel very strongly about is leaving in Kolaghan's Command vs Valakut; they are a critical mass deck, and as such, simply reducing the number of cards in their hand has been the easiest path to victory for me in games. Recurring Fulminator Mage is a nice synergy as well, but taking cards out of their hand is my #1 priority.
I continue to be very happy with the deck. Here are some bullet points on more niche items:
-I am loving the old-school 1x Duress in the sideboard. It comes in for so many matchups and makes boarding plans smoother. Here is an incomplete list of decks I board it in against: Tron, Burn, Storm, Valakut, Uxx control/midrange decks, Grixis Shadow, Ponza, Grishoalbrand, Ad Nauseum, Dredge, Hollow One, Bogles. I love being able to board into 9 discard spells when necessary (6 main +1 Duress +2 Brutality), not to mention how powerful information is.
-2x Maelstrom Pulse continues to impress. To further illustrate why I think it's so great, I played against RG Valakut today. During our match, I Pulsed a Prismatic Omen that was lethal the next turn, and a Titan the next game. Having to keep in Terminate or Abrupt Decay postboard is awkward, and this example is only one of many where the utility of the card can't be overstated.
-The Burn matchup has felt as good as I could hope for, which is to say fairly close to 50%. Sure, they can nut draw (only draw 2 lands, multiple 1-mana burn spells and Boros Charms when removal is rotting in my hand, etc.) but their average draws are very beatable. 2 Finks/2 Brutality split has been working well for me. I understand that Collective Brutality is the better hate card against Burn, but the 2nd Finks has so much utility in other matchups, and the 3rd Brutality only really comes in against Burn (especially since I already have 1x Duress in the board).
-Fulminator Mage is an all-star. I have never been as impressed with the card as I am now. With all the utility lands, control decks, and big mana decks, the card has overperformed for me. I even bring in all 3 against Affinity with my list to clean up manlands, and it has overperformed there. Not to mention it's a safe filler card for the mirror/Burn/Bogles/whenever you have a lot of cards to side out. I believe it was Spsiegel who suggested running 4 in this meta, and I am seriously considering cutting the Thrun from my board for the 4th copy, especially since I bring it in for all the same matchups.
-2x Grafdigger's Cage continues to be my graveyard hate of choice. While it has some weaknesses compared to Nihil Spellbomb, it is the more powerful hate card overall, and has some very nice applications where Spellbomb doesn't (like against CoCo decks). The main reason I'm not a fan of Spellbomb is that it looks like you want it in a bunch of matchups in theory, but it tends to be too medium in my experience to be worth the slot when it actually comes to boarding. Having to spend 2 mana to cantrip with it is just not that exciting when I want to play on curve turns 1-4, and there's also the issue of when to crack it-- more often than not, I find myself using it just to cycle because I really need to draw something else. I totally understand most of you have have better experiences with the card, but that is just where I'm at with it. Other than that, I'm not too interested in beating stuff like Living End, or just dedicating too many sideboard slots to graveyard hate in general. I'm fine with having a poor Dredge matchup if it means having more game vs the rest of the field right now.
As many of you are unfortunately experiencing, Jund is starting to have a target painted on its back. Leyline of Sanctity is a very problematic card for us, and it's starting to see more play. Mirran Crusader, Chameleon Colossus, Obstinate Baloth-- players are becoming very creative with ways to screw us over. And honestly, it doesn't bother me much. Sure, it makes life harder for us Jund players, but don't think it will stay like this for long; Modern is a very wide format, and there are always decks waiting to exploit the meta when people are sacrificing sideboard slots to "beat" Jund. And that's just the thing: while Jund may lose games to these cards, the deck is so powerful that it will win many games regardless! And even then, they have to draw said cards in the first place.
Thank you for the kind words, it's good to be back! Regarding 24 lands with 8 3CMC spells: I don't think it is necessarily an issue. I think the more important aspect is the rest of your curve, most notably the number of 1CMC spells. Jund thrives when it's casting multiple spells a turn, and while you do need to make your land drops, you can reliably double-spell on 3 mana with 12 1-drops. For example, when I have 3 mana, I love to go 2-drop + 1-drop (removal + Goyf, discard + Bob, etc). There is so much variance in Magic that it's very hard for me to notice the difference between 7 and 8 3CMC cards-- not to say that there isn't. It's just a much smaller factor in my experience than the number of 1-drops in the deck.
Edit: just to be clear, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't play 25 lands-- only that I have found the number of 1CMC spells in the deck to be a larger factor in considering the land count than 7 vs 8 3CMC cards.
Hi! Great discussions going on here. I haven't posted in years, but back in 2013 I had written the Abzan/BGw primer before passing it on to Mastodon. I'm a long-time BGx player; I started with Jund just after the BBE banning, and switched to BGw when the power of Souls became evident to me. Modern Jund has always been my favourite deck in Magic, and I'm glad that I finally have an excuse to not play Lingering Souls!
I have been been consuming every bit of information I can find about the deck, and I finally feel comfortable sharing my thoughts and experiences with the deck since the unbannings. Please don't take anything I'm saying as gospel; I've done my best to describe my rationale, and I leave it to you to decide what you think
6 discard (4 IOK/2 TS): Turn 1 discard into Goyf/Bob is the reason to play BGx, and I'll almost always keep a hand with the one-two punch in the dark vs an unknown opponent, even if the rest of the hand is 5 lands. 4x IOK is a lock for me as the life loss is incredibly relevant from Thoughtseize, and I think this is a much more significant factor than missing with IOK. Playing 3x Thoughtseize main is a very small hedge against matchups like Tron and Valakut, but will cost you very dearly against the plethora of aggressive decks that are otherwise winnable matchups. Our margins against the aggro decks are very thin, and the life loss from Thoughtseize will cost you many close games, whereas I don't believe the additional Thoughtseize in the maindeck will meaningfully change the already bad big mana matchups.
6 one-mana removal (4 Bolt/2 Push): Tempo-positive plays are how Jund survives against faster decks until its sources of CA and card quality can take over the game. One-mana removal is at a premium and is much more valuable than anything that costs 2+ mana. However, due to the varied nature of threats, some number of more expensive removal spells are required to round out the suite.
Bolts become significantly better the more copies you play; it becomes a more reliable plan B (like the pun?). It is also the best removal spell to cascade into on an empty board. I am playing 4.
Fatal Push: The second best removal spell in the deck. I can't fathom playing less than 2, and I'd sooner trim on copies of the more expensive removal spells to fit them in.
Regarding 12 one-mana spells: playing so many one-mana spells ensures double-spell turns happen earlier and more consistently, as well as filling out the curve when the manabase develops awkwardly (2+ tapped lands in the first 4 turns). In other words, it improves the consistency of the deck. On the flipside, in G1 many of these spells can be a liability when you cascade into them off BBE and they have no targets. I acknowledge this argument, but I am generally just happy in G1 to be able to cast BBE; usually this is the stage of the game Jund has stabilized and begins to turn the corner. In these situations, I am not terribly concerned about what I get off the cascade, as I am likely to be in a decent position already. More importantly, the one-mana spells ensure that we survive until the stage of the game that we can worry about what BBE will cascade into. This also ceases to be an issue in postboard games.
Abrupt Decay: I don't like Abrupt Decay right now. It's most often worse than a 1-mana removal spell, equal to or worse than Terminate, and more narrow than Pulse. I view 1x Pulse in the maindeck as mandatory, but where most people play 1x Decay, I am happy to dedicate that slot to a second Pulse. While it is the clunkier spell, I am never unhappy to see it in my opening hand. I cannot say the same about Decay. Two quick sidenotes: having 2x Pulse is great in matchups like Storm, where you want a good answer for Empty without having to run awkward sideboard cards like Golgari Charm. Additionally, the 2-for-1 potential is definitely there, and playing 2x Pulse, it comes up enough that I consider it to be a real benefit.
2 Scooze: I have always felt that the correct number of Scooze is 2.5. I always played 3 in previous Jund and Abzan builds, and it's often a card that is either amazing, or it just doesn't do a lot and I'm annoyed to draw the first copy (much less the second). I have been on 2 copies since the unbanning of BBE and I seem to draw it more or less when I want it, as it is very much a late-game card. As such, I am mostly satisfied with running just 2, though I still think the correct number is 2.5 copies.
0 Liliana, the Last Hope: I think she is very good, albeit very matchup dependent. If I were to move my sideboard copy to the main, it would likely in the place of the second Pulse, but I currently value the removal spell higher. This is the card I am most interested in moving into the mainboard, but I can't seem to find a satisfactory way of doing so without disrupting the careful balance of the rest of the deck. I'd like to reiterate that she is very matchup dependent, which is my main issue with her; I would like my 60-card deck to be very consistent, with as few dead cards as possible in a given matchup. I view Terminate as a necessary evil. Not so much Liliana, the Last Hope.
24 lands (3 Raging Ravine): I like this configuration. I have been playing 24 land BGx decks for many years, and historically, I have felt that I flood more than screw. 24 feels just right for this deck. This is especially the case because of the 12 one-mana spells I'm playing. Playing 24 lands means that I keep more land-heavy hands, but truth be told, playing 25 lands has a very small effect on how often you flood or screw. The real reason I would play 25 lands is to play Treetop Village. That card is nothing short of fantastic. However, I am not prepared to cut any spells for it at this time. I also want 3 Ravines before I add any Treetops, as I find that the closing power of Ravine very important (in addition to the mana-fixing) compared to the efficiency of the latter.
Finally, I want to talk about building the deck around BBE; I think it is a trap. Bloodbraid Elf is Jund's best way to pull ahead/turn the corner, but you have to be close to parity for BBE to have a meaningful impact. I will use Jace, the Mind Sculptor as a parallel-- JtMS is an incredibly powerful card, but even so, you need to be close to parity for it to take over the game. BBE when you are behind is still good, and while having better cascade targets improves your ability to play from behind, I think it can sabotage how the deck functions as a whole. I want my Jund deck to consistently have the ability to dismantle what my opponent is doing so I can stabilize, and I value this consistency over having more raw power in my cascades. Furthermore, the deck already has so many fantastic hits that I don't feel the deck lacking any power as it is. This philosophy explains why I'm playing 2x Pulse instead of 1x Pulse and 1x LtLH.
Thank you to everyone for their fantastic and thoughtful posts in this thread. You are the reason I felt inspired to write this at all.
I don't even think Snap is the issue. We just don't fill up the grave that quickly early game.
I've been really opposed to strictly reactive cards in the Geist list, but running 4x Remand and 3x Mana Leak has been good so far. An issue I have with the deck (coming from Delver variants) is a lack of early game action. 4x Remand and hoping they play a creature we can Bolt until we can flash in a Clique or land a Geist feels clunky and durdly to me. Having a few copies of a counter that fills up our early curve and bins the problematic spell does a lot to reduce variance, such as all the games where we are dead to not having a timely answer, or Remanding only to have to face it again next turn, or just not having a hand with any action until turn 3+. I run 3x Tec Edge, so despite my Paths, the Leaks stay relevant for quite a while (though I make an effort to use them earlier, rather than later).
Not getting blown out by Young Pyro hate is definitely a plus. I just think that it fills an important place on the curve. 3 Mantis, 3 Geist, and 4 Snap is really bloated for a Delver deck, since you can't really apply any pressure without Delver until turn 3. I think that Rider and Geist are completely overlapping slots, and you'd rather have Geist most of the time. I'd cut the Riders for something else for these reasons.
On Friday I am finally buying this deck for use in an SCG IQ with an unknown meta. If anyone is willing to give me advice, it would be much appreciated.
Mantis Rider is in there instead of Brimaz because all of my local stores are out of stock. Would Kitchen Finks be better here (I can't afford Vendilion Clique)? And I am not sure if I should cut a Path for the 19th land. Also, what would you guys advise as a sideboard for an unknown meta?
I'd cut the Mantis Rider, Sceptres, and a Snare for Young Pyro. I can't see a Delver deck without it!
As a UWR Delver player who is transitioning into UWR Midrange, your list doesn't have a lot of advantages over, say, one that would cut the 2 Cliques and Colonnades for Delvers. You'd have 28 cards to flip Delver, an aggressive turn 1 play (which is very important, IMO), and it plays well with the rest of the deck, more or less.
I personally want to make the change to midrange because I see UWR Midrange as the bigger brother of the American Delver deck I'm already playing. And really, running 4 Helix, 4 Remand, 4 Young Pyro, 4 Snap, and any number of Geists makes for a clunky Delver deck. I think that, as someone who wants to run a card suite like that, I'm much better off with a non Delver list because a higher land count let's me comfortably resolve all my spells without worrying about cantripping into land drops.
Another thing is that Delver itself rarely presents a lasting advantage in a format full of ways to neutralise it. Without another strong aggressive 1 drop, like Swiftspear, you can't depend on having an early clock. For these reasons, if it is your interest to eschew Delver, I would simply go bigger. Any shell where Delver could easily fit in, it probably should, so that's the issue I see with running a lean Young Pyromancer deck.
I have been trying to find a way to integrate Young Pyro into UWR midrange, but unfortunately, the lack of 1 mana cantrips renders it an unviable engine. And when you start adding 1 mana cantrips and cutting lands, we return to square one!
Going bigger than Delver (namely, with Resto and a multitude of 5 drop options) is a good game plan, with removal and counters to flesh out the early game. My main gripe with the deck is having very little early pressure and seeing hands so full of lands (I'm accustomed to Delver decks!), but on the whole, the deck seems to make up for it when it stabilises, and then you can just go over the top, which is nice. And c'mon-- Resto Angel!
Electrolyze is certainly good against Delver (and Affinity and Pod), but outside of that, I see Dig being the better card. Delver decks are already metagaming against themselves, so I expect things to slow down a little in that sense. And unfortunately, Electrolyze feels bad on a flipped Delver or Swiftspear, the latter sometimes not even dying to it. I like Electrolyze a lot, especially in Geist lists to clear the way, but Dig is shaping up to be the next coming of Fact or Fiction (except better!). I can't imagine any of us looking back a few months from now and being glad we didn't get on the boat earlier.
I'm sure it's good but I think our graveyard is a much too important a resource to justify any more than 2 dig through time, personally I wouldnt go more than 1.
The deck's only interaction with the grave is Snap. I'm not advocating running 4, but 1 or 2 copies can add a lot of punch to the deck. I think it's pretty hard to debate running none, and it's almost certainly better than Electrolyze, if people still have room in their lists for that.
Some posters, such as Sasky and Spooly, have reported very positive results with Dig in UR and RUG Delver, respectively. Dig seems especially better here with 25 lands (vs 18-19) and an overall higher power level and answer suite. I definitely think it's worth testing as a 2-of, for starters. The card is nuts.
i am not saying it is not a very good card.
i am saying UR delver is not URW midrange. it's like saying serum visions is good for UR twin, i am sure it is. I would never play it in my URW midrange, though.
I'm not making anyone run anything, but I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't encourage you to give Dig a try (or another, if you have already).
I love your forward thinking and the list. My only changes are -4 Bob (he's my favourite card, the meta is just awful for him right now!) for 3 Finks and 1 Ooze, and perhaps 2 more Ooze for -2 Dismember (you're running Paths main, and the life loss is too significant right now). While Ooze isn't an early game card, it can come down early to trade with aggressive drops on the ground, and it can be very good for helping you stabilise and hate on graves.
I continue to be very happy with the deck. Here are some bullet points on more niche items:
-I am loving the old-school 1x Duress in the sideboard. It comes in for so many matchups and makes boarding plans smoother. Here is an incomplete list of decks I board it in against: Tron, Burn, Storm, Valakut, Uxx control/midrange decks, Grixis Shadow, Ponza, Grishoalbrand, Ad Nauseum, Dredge, Hollow One, Bogles. I love being able to board into 9 discard spells when necessary (6 main +1 Duress +2 Brutality), not to mention how powerful information is.
-2x Maelstrom Pulse continues to impress. To further illustrate why I think it's so great, I played against RG Valakut today. During our match, I Pulsed a Prismatic Omen that was lethal the next turn, and a Titan the next game. Having to keep in Terminate or Abrupt Decay postboard is awkward, and this example is only one of many where the utility of the card can't be overstated.
-The Burn matchup has felt as good as I could hope for, which is to say fairly close to 50%. Sure, they can nut draw (only draw 2 lands, multiple 1-mana burn spells and Boros Charms when removal is rotting in my hand, etc.) but their average draws are very beatable. 2 Finks/2 Brutality split has been working well for me. I understand that Collective Brutality is the better hate card against Burn, but the 2nd Finks has so much utility in other matchups, and the 3rd Brutality only really comes in against Burn (especially since I already have 1x Duress in the board).
-Fulminator Mage is an all-star. I have never been as impressed with the card as I am now. With all the utility lands, control decks, and big mana decks, the card has overperformed for me. I even bring in all 3 against Affinity with my list to clean up manlands, and it has overperformed there. Not to mention it's a safe filler card for the mirror/Burn/Bogles/whenever you have a lot of cards to side out. I believe it was Spsiegel who suggested running 4 in this meta, and I am seriously considering cutting the Thrun from my board for the 4th copy, especially since I bring it in for all the same matchups.
-2x Grafdigger's Cage continues to be my graveyard hate of choice. While it has some weaknesses compared to Nihil Spellbomb, it is the more powerful hate card overall, and has some very nice applications where Spellbomb doesn't (like against CoCo decks). The main reason I'm not a fan of Spellbomb is that it looks like you want it in a bunch of matchups in theory, but it tends to be too medium in my experience to be worth the slot when it actually comes to boarding. Having to spend 2 mana to cantrip with it is just not that exciting when I want to play on curve turns 1-4, and there's also the issue of when to crack it-- more often than not, I find myself using it just to cycle because I really need to draw something else. I totally understand most of you have have better experiences with the card, but that is just where I'm at with it. Other than that, I'm not too interested in beating stuff like Living End, or just dedicating too many sideboard slots to graveyard hate in general. I'm fine with having a poor Dredge matchup if it means having more game vs the rest of the field right now.
As many of you are unfortunately experiencing, Jund is starting to have a target painted on its back. Leyline of Sanctity is a very problematic card for us, and it's starting to see more play. Mirran Crusader, Chameleon Colossus, Obstinate Baloth-- players are becoming very creative with ways to screw us over. And honestly, it doesn't bother me much. Sure, it makes life harder for us Jund players, but don't think it will stay like this for long; Modern is a very wide format, and there are always decks waiting to exploit the meta when people are sacrificing sideboard slots to "beat" Jund. And that's just the thing: while Jund may lose games to these cards, the deck is so powerful that it will win many games regardless! And even then, they have to draw said cards in the first place.
Just my 2 cents. Keep the change!
Edit: just to be clear, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't play 25 lands-- only that I have found the number of 1CMC spells in the deck to be a larger factor in considering the land count than 7 vs 8 3CMC cards.
I have been been consuming every bit of information I can find about the deck, and I finally feel comfortable sharing my thoughts and experiences with the deck since the unbannings. Please don't take anything I'm saying as gospel; I've done my best to describe my rationale, and I leave it to you to decide what you think
My list at this time:
// 60 Maindeck
// 14 Creature
4 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Scavenging Ooze
// 10 Instant
2 Fatal Push
2 Kolaghan's Command
2 Terminate
4 Lightning Bolt
// 24 Land
3 Raging Ravine
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Wooded Foothills
3 Bloodstained Mire
2 Swamp
1 Forest
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
1 Blood Crypt
1 Twilight Mire
1 Mountain
// 4 Planeswalker
4 Liliana of the Veil
// 8 Sorcery
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Thoughtseize
2 Maelstrom Pulse
// 15 Sideboard
// 2 Artifact
SB: 2 Grafdigger's Cage
// 7 Creature
SB: 2 Kitchen Finks
SB: 3 Fulminator Mage
SB: 1 Thrun, the Last Troll
SB: 1 Grim Lavamancer
// 2 Instant
SB: 2 Ancient Grudge
// 1 Planeswalker
SB: 1 Liliana, the Last Hope
// 3 Sorcery
SB: 2 Collective Brutality
SB: 1 Duress
My choices:
6 discard (4 IOK/2 TS): Turn 1 discard into Goyf/Bob is the reason to play BGx, and I'll almost always keep a hand with the one-two punch in the dark vs an unknown opponent, even if the rest of the hand is 5 lands. 4x IOK is a lock for me as the life loss is incredibly relevant from Thoughtseize, and I think this is a much more significant factor than missing with IOK. Playing 3x Thoughtseize main is a very small hedge against matchups like Tron and Valakut, but will cost you very dearly against the plethora of aggressive decks that are otherwise winnable matchups. Our margins against the aggro decks are very thin, and the life loss from Thoughtseize will cost you many close games, whereas I don't believe the additional Thoughtseize in the maindeck will meaningfully change the already bad big mana matchups.
6 one-mana removal (4 Bolt/2 Push): Tempo-positive plays are how Jund survives against faster decks until its sources of CA and card quality can take over the game. One-mana removal is at a premium and is much more valuable than anything that costs 2+ mana. However, due to the varied nature of threats, some number of more expensive removal spells are required to round out the suite.
Bolts become significantly better the more copies you play; it becomes a more reliable plan B (like the pun?). It is also the best removal spell to cascade into on an empty board. I am playing 4.
Fatal Push: The second best removal spell in the deck. I can't fathom playing less than 2, and I'd sooner trim on copies of the more expensive removal spells to fit them in.
Regarding 12 one-mana spells: playing so many one-mana spells ensures double-spell turns happen earlier and more consistently, as well as filling out the curve when the manabase develops awkwardly (2+ tapped lands in the first 4 turns). In other words, it improves the consistency of the deck. On the flipside, in G1 many of these spells can be a liability when you cascade into them off BBE and they have no targets. I acknowledge this argument, but I am generally just happy in G1 to be able to cast BBE; usually this is the stage of the game Jund has stabilized and begins to turn the corner. In these situations, I am not terribly concerned about what I get off the cascade, as I am likely to be in a decent position already. More importantly, the one-mana spells ensure that we survive until the stage of the game that we can worry about what BBE will cascade into. This also ceases to be an issue in postboard games.
Abrupt Decay: I don't like Abrupt Decay right now. It's most often worse than a 1-mana removal spell, equal to or worse than Terminate, and more narrow than Pulse. I view 1x Pulse in the maindeck as mandatory, but where most people play 1x Decay, I am happy to dedicate that slot to a second Pulse. While it is the clunkier spell, I am never unhappy to see it in my opening hand. I cannot say the same about Decay. Two quick sidenotes: having 2x Pulse is great in matchups like Storm, where you want a good answer for Empty without having to run awkward sideboard cards like Golgari Charm. Additionally, the 2-for-1 potential is definitely there, and playing 2x Pulse, it comes up enough that I consider it to be a real benefit.
2 Scooze: I have always felt that the correct number of Scooze is 2.5. I always played 3 in previous Jund and Abzan builds, and it's often a card that is either amazing, or it just doesn't do a lot and I'm annoyed to draw the first copy (much less the second). I have been on 2 copies since the unbanning of BBE and I seem to draw it more or less when I want it, as it is very much a late-game card. As such, I am mostly satisfied with running just 2, though I still think the correct number is 2.5 copies.
0 Liliana, the Last Hope: I think she is very good, albeit very matchup dependent. If I were to move my sideboard copy to the main, it would likely in the place of the second Pulse, but I currently value the removal spell higher. This is the card I am most interested in moving into the mainboard, but I can't seem to find a satisfactory way of doing so without disrupting the careful balance of the rest of the deck. I'd like to reiterate that she is very matchup dependent, which is my main issue with her; I would like my 60-card deck to be very consistent, with as few dead cards as possible in a given matchup. I view Terminate as a necessary evil. Not so much Liliana, the Last Hope.
24 lands (3 Raging Ravine): I like this configuration. I have been playing 24 land BGx decks for many years, and historically, I have felt that I flood more than screw. 24 feels just right for this deck. This is especially the case because of the 12 one-mana spells I'm playing. Playing 24 lands means that I keep more land-heavy hands, but truth be told, playing 25 lands has a very small effect on how often you flood or screw. The real reason I would play 25 lands is to play Treetop Village. That card is nothing short of fantastic. However, I am not prepared to cut any spells for it at this time. I also want 3 Ravines before I add any Treetops, as I find that the closing power of Ravine very important (in addition to the mana-fixing) compared to the efficiency of the latter.
Finally, I want to talk about building the deck around BBE; I think it is a trap. Bloodbraid Elf is Jund's best way to pull ahead/turn the corner, but you have to be close to parity for BBE to have a meaningful impact. I will use Jace, the Mind Sculptor as a parallel-- JtMS is an incredibly powerful card, but even so, you need to be close to parity for it to take over the game. BBE when you are behind is still good, and while having better cascade targets improves your ability to play from behind, I think it can sabotage how the deck functions as a whole. I want my Jund deck to consistently have the ability to dismantle what my opponent is doing so I can stabilize, and I value this consistency over having more raw power in my cascades. Furthermore, the deck already has so many fantastic hits that I don't feel the deck lacking any power as it is. This philosophy explains why I'm playing 2x Pulse instead of 1x Pulse and 1x LtLH.
Thank you to everyone for their fantastic and thoughtful posts in this thread. You are the reason I felt inspired to write this at all.
Cheers!
I've been really opposed to strictly reactive cards in the Geist list, but running 4x Remand and 3x Mana Leak has been good so far. An issue I have with the deck (coming from Delver variants) is a lack of early game action. 4x Remand and hoping they play a creature we can Bolt until we can flash in a Clique or land a Geist feels clunky and durdly to me. Having a few copies of a counter that fills up our early curve and bins the problematic spell does a lot to reduce variance, such as all the games where we are dead to not having a timely answer, or Remanding only to have to face it again next turn, or just not having a hand with any action until turn 3+. I run 3x Tec Edge, so despite my Paths, the Leaks stay relevant for quite a while (though I make an effort to use them earlier, rather than later).
I'd cut the Mantis Rider, Sceptres, and a Snare for Young Pyro. I can't see a Delver deck without it!
I personally want to make the change to midrange because I see UWR Midrange as the bigger brother of the American Delver deck I'm already playing. And really, running 4 Helix, 4 Remand, 4 Young Pyro, 4 Snap, and any number of Geists makes for a clunky Delver deck. I think that, as someone who wants to run a card suite like that, I'm much better off with a non Delver list because a higher land count let's me comfortably resolve all my spells without worrying about cantripping into land drops.
Another thing is that Delver itself rarely presents a lasting advantage in a format full of ways to neutralise it. Without another strong aggressive 1 drop, like Swiftspear, you can't depend on having an early clock. For these reasons, if it is your interest to eschew Delver, I would simply go bigger. Any shell where Delver could easily fit in, it probably should, so that's the issue I see with running a lean Young Pyromancer deck.
I have been trying to find a way to integrate Young Pyro into UWR midrange, but unfortunately, the lack of 1 mana cantrips renders it an unviable engine. And when you start adding 1 mana cantrips and cutting lands, we return to square one!
Going bigger than Delver (namely, with Resto and a multitude of 5 drop options) is a good game plan, with removal and counters to flesh out the early game. My main gripe with the deck is having very little early pressure and seeing hands so full of lands (I'm accustomed to Delver decks!), but on the whole, the deck seems to make up for it when it stabilises, and then you can just go over the top, which is nice. And c'mon-- Resto Angel!
-Mark
Cheers!
The deck's only interaction with the grave is Snap. I'm not advocating running 4, but 1 or 2 copies can add a lot of punch to the deck. I think it's pretty hard to debate running none, and it's almost certainly better than Electrolyze, if people still have room in their lists for that.
I'm not making anyone run anything, but I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't encourage you to give Dig a try (or another, if you have already).
Cheers!