How long have you been playing and how often? It's a challenging deck to pilot because you need to understand the meta, the opposing deck's strategy and weaknesses, and the optimal sequences and branching decisions to make. You rarely "annihilate" or have a lopsided win in your favor - the deck isn't going to give you that experience like an infect deck might have over I dunno, KCI, or something. But you can win.
I don't know about others - but it took me easily a year to begin to do well with the deck (granted I was new to Modern) and another year to begin to *consistently* do well and winning small tournaments. I've been playing the deck for at least 4 years I think it is? My match count is in the thousands - last I checked I had an average match percentage win of I think it was low or mid 70's over the course of that time (not including that first year)? Most of it at my LGS and local tournament scene (I'm not a GP grinder or aspire to be a "pro"). That's quite statistically good - Jund's strength for me has it's been its consistency and I like to pilot it. Success and the measure of it *for me* is over the course of a big sample set and large span of time - not some 15 round GP or what have you.
Hey guys, I really need some help figuring this deck out. I know I went 5-0 a week ago but since then, I have not won a match. I have gone 0-5 3 straight times. I really wonder if this deck is for me. I know at a couple of the card shops, the employees who work there but also play modern, say that Jund is not really a good deck but just a way to show off that you have wealth. I know they are wrong for the most part, but after going 0-15, winning only 3 single games in that span, I am starting to question myself and this entire thread. My record online is 40-112, a winning percentage of just barely 26%.
I seem to constantly flood. I chant land every time I top deck and it is almost always a land. I play 24, I think if I want to continue to try and play this deck, then I will have to cut to 22 lands. I just cannot handle flooding anymore. This land problem is just absolutely devastating.
What is a good hand to keep? When do you know when you need to mulligan to 6? I understand about you want to see a discard, then bob or goyf, but I mostly seem to open 4-6 lands with a couple of 3 or 4 CMC cards.
I really enjoy modern and MTG and I want to be a better player. I don't want to play a no brain deck like bogles or Tron but maybe I need to. I'll take any advice I can. Send some luck my way too if you can.
For quite a long running 13 or even 12 creature spells was quite common. The Raging Ravines are a kind of 4 drop creature as well don't forget. And against certain decks the Lili's are very real threats as well.
If an aggro creature meta is expected then a creature-light deck build is a better choice than a 14 or 15 creature build for sure. Think like Affinity, Infect, Humans, and so on.
Is there any merrit to running just 13 creatures in favor of more removal instead of 14? (In 25 land build with 4 manlands)
Man, I’d hate to not be able to find a clock when you need it. That already happens to me sometimes with 14 creatures. There’s just a lot of inevitability out there. Personally I wouldn’t want to play less. Just my $0.02
I respectfully disagree regarding Treetop Village being better than Raging Ravine. Ravine is a much better closer if left unchecked. This is not an uncommon scenario with both players in or near topdeck mode. The same cannot quite be said for Treetop Village. If anything I have found Treetop a better early game defensive card against small creature decks as often you don't attack with it early in the game when the opponent has cards in hand since you don't want to risk losing a land to a kill spell.
That said, my first thought when I saw this card spoiled was a BG Rock style deck with Ghost Quarters in it.
Other cards red brings us, not already mentioned:
-Ancient Grudge
-Anger of the Gods
-Grim Lavamancer
-Hazoret
-Chandra's
-Huntmaster of the Fells
-Olivia Voldaren
IMO Anger of the Gods only really shines against Dredge and G/W decks with Finks and Voices. Otherwise, the sorcery speed and double red cost is too much - there are better options for the purposes of sweepers: Engineered Explosives, Kozilek's Return, Grim Lavamancer, Maelstrom Pulse, Golgari Charm, etc.
As much as I think BBE is an amazing card, I too have been underwhelmed with her in the current meta. At least where I play at, there is a strong prevalence of Burn, Human, Ponza, CoCo decks (And tron too).
vs. Aggro decks I feel like the sacrifice we make to run 4x BBE's maindeck, that being, having a much clunkier mana-base, with less early interactions and risking some very slow opening hands made us a lot worse in aggro match-ups that, in my opinion, the old Jund with 0-2 4 drops (Like someone mentioned) would have fared better more consistently.
Trusting a RNG card to save us when playing vs. Decks like Human where we need a very specific card, and the likeability that such card will get pulled in cascade is around 30ish % is bad.
BBE Jund shines more than old jund vs. Midrange and Control decks, where card-advantage matters a lot more, and where we dont get punished as much for playing tapped lands or having a slow opening hand. Matchups where our Raging Ravines actually eventually turn into creatures and card advantage, rather than matches where we're suffocating by turn 4.
vs. Tron, I'm on the boat that, while BBE has made the match slightly better, its still bloody bad. And our hope vs. Tron remains the same as before: Sideboard and/or Tron losing to themselves.
vs. Ponza (There are plenty at my local shop) BBE rarelly feels like a game-changer. Odds are high that Ponza wont let me get to 4cmc so soon. So its often a dead card. What DOES win the matchup for me is an early bolt to their mana-dorks or a discard followed by a Goyf or Bob early.
I personally have decided that I'll try forgetting BBE for a bit until I start seeing more MIdrange/Control decks again, and instead I'll just run a old Jund decklist with 1 or 2x Huntmasters as my only 4cmc drops, 23 or 24 lands, And +2~3 reliable interactions. Maybe play Grim Lava main deck again.
I really like my Huntmasters, they're reliable and consistent, and since Humans and Hollow Ones run none or close to no removal, I get to flip him a lot. If a burn spends a spell to kill him, then I pretty much got a body to block, 1 spell minus to my face, and +2 health. Which is awesome. He is kinda slow vs. Combo and Tron, but like I said, what beats these decks most of the time for us is Sideboard + Luck + A turn 2 big goyf anyway. (Although if allowed to Flip a huntmaster hits for 8)
I feel like the card I deeply wish we'd have unbanned for our list is DeathRite Shaman over BBE. Heheh!
Would be lovelly to have a faster tempo vs. Decks like Humans and be able to cast a turn 3 HuntM and completelly control the board from there, or a turn 2 Lili.
versus Hollow Ones it'd offer extra Grave hate for Vengevines and Blodghasts, vs. Burn it'd heal us up. And it'd even help with our "too many lands and tapped lands" issue as we maybe could run less lands thanks to having Mana-Dorks.
Regardless, I surelly would trade DeathRite for BBE in the current meta any day. Well, one can only dream, right?
I have begun coming to the same conclusion myself (that building around 3-4 BBE's) is not that good, at least in the current meta. The problem, as you point out, is not only the high casting cost, tap out nature of BBE, as well as the other deck building constraints - but also that you can't plan your lines of play due to the random luck factor of what you may or may not cascade into.
Also, while BBE, at its best gives you a one-time tempo and card advantage (sometimes great, sometimes not - again you can't predict) - it itself does not offer the potential for having great board presence for a four drop (unless you play multiples within a game). Whereas other 4 drops, like Huntmaster, Olivia, Kalitas, Chandra, Hazoret typically provide ongoing value, advantage, or pressure from that point forward - in a predictable manner you can craft lines of play with.
Lately I've been testing with deck builds similar to my pre-unban configuration (2 Huntmasters, more kill spells) and it's been better. Except with the notable exception of playing versus Jund BBE decks and Blue control decks.
Even if there was a Noble Hierarch that produced Jund colored mana it would still not be worthwhile: a mana dork, even with exalted, is too low impact of a top deck draw and also a bad cascade for BBE. Any other mythical dork would either be as good as Deathrite Shaman, Deathrite Shaman itself, or better than Deathrite Shaman. And that's simply not going to happen in Modern any time soon - DRS already nearly warps Legacy many argue.
I've played a few Hollow One matchups - I found it wasn't so bad actually as I was able to consistently get 5/6 Tarmogoyfs since they have so many spells that dump cards into the graveyard you end up with a high chance of planeswalkers and artifacts in the graveyards. Once a Goyf is at 5/6 you get much more breathing room as you then have a wall.
Good maindeck cards were: Terminate for the Hollow Ones and Anglers, Scavenging Ooze, K Commands for the Hollow Ones and returning discarded Goyfs and Oozes, Lili the last Hope (to neuter the Blood Ghasts and blunt their attacks and take away their phoenix recurrence ability).
Sideboard cards that were good: Ancient Grudge (since you can also flash it back if ends up getting discarded to Burning Inquiry), Lili, the Last Hope if in the sideboard, Grafdigger's, Nihil Spellbomb.
I haven't played Anger of the Gods in a while due to the double-red - or more specifically the difficulty of predicting needing to be able to cast LoTV or Finks as well and it's very hard to move from a double green or double black spell to a double red spell on time or at all. Also, decks it is strong against (Company, Elves, and Merfolk) are less prevalent these days. Other creature heavy decks get around or outgrow Anger quickly (e.g. Humans, Affinity).
Decks with Angler/Hollow One/Tasigur/Eldrazi are one of the major reasons I find it bizarre and difficult to move to less than 2 Terminates (and I find it odd that some people have done so). In fact I still sometimes play 3 Terminates (I can count on some form of Eldrazi decks in my local meta). Terminate has always been one of the major reason to play red for me, the unconditional removal is a great asset.
The keeping in hand disruption in the mirror is largely just pros that have picked up Jund and been criticized for keeping in hand disruption. Their response, rather than admit that they're wrong, is to proceed writing articles on why they kept discard in and why it's good. I mean, taking out discard has always been the correct play for as long as Jund has been a deck - including back when we had BBE the first time. The most knowledgeable pros (Reid, etc.) on Jund still all advocate taking out discard. I think this theory will blow over when people realize that although, admittedly, discard is good in the earlier turns it then becomes awful later on due to you needing to answer an opponents threat (needing removal) or needing to have a threat (creature/planeswalker) to pressure your opponent with, I mean, that's the only way you win the mirror and discard doesn't provide that in any way, shape, of form, outside of the first few turns.
Yeah I think that's part of it. Many skilled players and pros have a problem admitting something: this game is heavily reliant on luck and no matter how good you are or think you are there is very little one can do about it. That hurts the ego.
Imagine this: tournament byes, pro points, etc. are eliminated. You advance only due to your actual match results in a given event.
I think top 8/32 appearances, wins, etc. would then be far more diverse. You wouldn't see the same "pro" players month over month or year over year as consistently we do now.
All things being equal I think the Jund mirror as well as many other types of mirrors come down largely to pure chance.
It might feel like bull***** because often magic does take skill to play. But, after a point, and all things being equal like when both players are highly skilled and playing the same deck, it's largely out of anyone's control no matter how many years of hard work and accomplishments one has put in.
Many people have a hard time admitting that to themselves or others.
Want to prove your skill? Play sports or chess or something.
Maybe we do but most of the active posters in this forum are well-versed with playing Jund against many different opponents. To me, this is one of the best forums that are focused on a particular deck. The primer is always up to date, the active posters generally stay up to date on their own ways, and we're not that bad about coming up with ideas fo r problems when they arise. We rarely need to spell everything out in analytical way. Most of our questions rarely revolve around analytics, which is why the conversation about the number of lands has been such a bit topic.
Even so, based on what I've seen in the Jeskai forum, seems a bit hypocritical to come here with that sort of talk.
*raises hands defensively*
hey. dont get me wrong. i respect dedication to the craft. the fact that i frequently check this thread and even spoke up at all is testament that i value the opinion of people in this thread. i may not agree with some of the methodology, but thats just my opinion. id never look down on people looking to engage in rational discourse.
as a gesture of solidarity ill attempt to make a contribution to the discussion.
i mentioned before that i know a few jund players. none are pros or anything, but i personally acknowledge their skills. here is what one of them told me about how they approach the mirror:
-if you want the games or the matchup to be consistently decided by good decision making rather than who can peel more gas off the top of their library then you have to aggressively seek an advantage before both players run out of resources. if the configuration of your deck post-board pushes you to remain at parity going into the midgame, ultimately hoping your threat density will win out; then you are conceding that the matchup will never be better than a coin-flip.
specifically he referred to keeping some amount of discard in post-board. you cut down on it for obviously being a bad topdeck; however it is one of the few ways to gain a real edge in the early game. seeing the contents of the opponents hand, and possibly punching a hole in it, lets you sequence in a manner where you get the better end of trades. if you can get them on the backfoot when both players run empty, even in something simple like being considerably behind in lifepoints; this makes your topdecks more relevant than theirs.
anywho, i dont know this persons exact win percentage, so they could just be wrong. however i thought it was a noteworthy line of reasoning.
It's an interesting line of thought. What about if the opponent has chosen a similar line and also chosen to keep some amount of discard in the deck? Does it then go back to being a "coin flip" (that is, that the game goes to luck of the draw)?
I think these are the key factors in the mirror match:
Factors:
1. Who gets to go first. Not something I consider a player has control over - other than odd situations like deliberately ID'ing, losing, or winning into certain ranks of the Top 8 to manipulate known match-ups/seeding which includes who gets to play first, or Lantern Control where you should choose to draw first
2. Luck of the draw and sequence of draw, mulligans. This includes making needed land drops, when or if a player gets the needed "answer(s)", threats, supply of threats, revealing a string of high CMC cards (or lands) to Dark Confidant, etc. Basically all the things a player has absolutely no control over.
3. The contents of a player's deck. This can have an effect on #2. Players have control over this by sideboarding.
In the mirror, let's assume hypothetically both decks are identical in maindeck and sideboard card choices, and, that post-sideboard configurations will be identical. If either deck chooses to have a "no discard spell" configuration post board then the exact in and out card choices are chosen for either deck. Same goes for any "with discard spells" configuration.
So then there can only be three types of configuration pairings between them:
1. "No discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
2. "With discard spells" vs "With discard spells"
3. "With discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
I think pairing #1 and #2 come down Factors #1 and #2: luck and who got to go first (due to the innate advantage of casting spells first (e.g. a Discard spell in the case where discards spells are still present), and reaching higher impact cards that cost more to cast (e.g. BBE) or activate (e.g. Raging Ravine, Ooze).
Pairing #3 is the more interesting case and the subject of contention:
A point we should consider about the nature of most typical Jund decks: they are not particularly aggressive. This is in stark contrast to other decks like Infect, Storm, Affinity, etc. where it's clear that disrupting and slowing them down is critical to winning the game. Nor is there a definitive late inevitable spell that if not disrupted, will cost the game, like an Emrakul or Second Sunrise or whatever. We all know this, I'm just pointing it out.
I think what many are unsure of is whether the early or occasional mid and late game disruption of spells via a discard spell makes enough of an impact to over come factor #2: the luck and chance of draws, sequences and mulligans.
In the Jund mirror I suppose one could think of a discard spell as a kind of "answer" or "kill" spell (bolt, decay, pulse, etc.), except it kills spells in the hand, instead of removing a permanent from the battlefield. As such, the only two kinds of cards in the decks are either "answers" or "threats". All the non-discard "answer" spells are likely guaranteed answers. Discard spells are not always going to be answers because they may miss, if the hand is empty, has lands (like a Raging Ravine), and certainly can't deal with a permanent. So the only potential advantages discard spells possess are:
1. tempo advantage
2. mana efficiency (since they only cost 1 or 2)
3. hand information (which I agree is very valuable).
Advantage #3 some may suggest, as described in the post above me, is very valuable because it allows you to sequence your play choices because you now have perfect information of their current hand, and possibly how they may play their next cards (7 at most in the early game). In the mid to late game that would dwindle to 0-3 cards' worth of information - so the info is less valuable. If in the mid to late game they have a high card count and you don't, you have likely lost due to card advantage. If you also have a high card count then it's back to square one.
I think, given that Jund is not typically very aggressive, the odds of using the information advantage to find a game-winning sequence for multiple turns from that point to the end of the game are not likely (because beyond that point every card drawn by you or the opponent is purely chance).
Factor #3 above, in the context of Pairing #3 above, I think is the place where a Jund player can make the most impact to the mirror match: by changing the contents of the deck to have a higher count or proportion of threats and non-discard "answers". Changing the contents of the deck directly impacts the probability of what you will draw: namely, having a higher count of cards that will likely be impactful.
Now, back a bit to reality, outside of my hypotheticals: decks are never true mirrors, and sideboarding choices are never identical, and of course some players make better choices than others. I think with my reasonings above I would, and do, most often choose to side-out all my discard spells in the mirror match, especially if I am on the play. However, on the draw, I often keep in 2-3 discard spells, due to Factor #1 (tempo). A one mana discard spell has the potential to make up the tempo loss you have when going second. I also tend to side out 1-2 Lightning Bolts, because they are not always effective "answers" in the mirror, so I might as well try to regain some tempo by keeping in a little bit of discard.
Ok that's enough writing. But that's what I think.
- What are your basics of choice (as in what sets) for this deck and why?
For a long time I was running Unhinged basics. I recently stepped away from the full arts and went with the old border basics. The shiny rectangular frames match my other cards and I find it has a more classic look.
- Which Terminate do y’all run?
Alara Reborn. The color of the gold border matches the rest of the other gold cards in the deck. The old frame gold cards don't and I find are washed out and less colorful.
- Has anyone sprung for fancy Lightning Bolts?
Yes - Judge Rewards foil bolts only way to go and look awesome with the BBE's
- Does everyone run the FNM BBE’s? If not, is it because you prefer another set/art or you just can’t find them at the moment?
I like the FNM Bloodbraid Elf. The picture and the red background go well with the Lightning Bolts in my deck - very complemetary.
Here is a pic of my current list. I have been trying to consolidate the choice between 25 or 24 lands, supporting four 4-drops, and still wanting some sort of card advantage engine that the fourth BBE would have. So I chose a Tireless Tracker which I ran before the unbans. Fatal Push is still excellent and the Jund mirror is more common now. Two forests instead of a mountain because feeding Scooze and playing Kitchen Finks on curve without shocking is more likely to need to happen then a Field of Ruin situation or a Bolt (and there's only 3).
Also, watching the MOCS right now, anyone else feeling that we are in a different dimension right now? Sooooo many strange things happening from Jund players, like right now, both players keep discard in the mirror, siding our Pulse and Bob. Where am I right now?
Also loving Rietzl at commentating and feeling with him every time he predicts the correct play and players do completely other stuff.
Really! They side out bob & pulse?! How can this be correct? I am not watching and have trouble to understand!
Can you explain me?
They aren't experienced Jund players. There's your explanation.
I don't know about others - but it took me easily a year to begin to do well with the deck (granted I was new to Modern) and another year to begin to *consistently* do well and winning small tournaments. I've been playing the deck for at least 4 years I think it is? My match count is in the thousands - last I checked I had an average match percentage win of I think it was low or mid 70's over the course of that time (not including that first year)? Most of it at my LGS and local tournament scene (I'm not a GP grinder or aspire to be a "pro"). That's quite statistically good - Jund's strength for me has it's been its consistency and I like to pilot it. Success and the measure of it *for me* is over the course of a big sample set and large span of time - not some 15 round GP or what have you.
If an aggro creature meta is expected then a creature-light deck build is a better choice than a 14 or 15 creature build for sure. Think like Affinity, Infect, Humans, and so on.
That said, my first thought when I saw this card spoiled was a BG Rock style deck with Ghost Quarters in it.
Other cards red brings us, not already mentioned:
-Ancient Grudge
-Anger of the Gods
-Grim Lavamancer
-Hazoret
-Chandra's
-Huntmaster of the Fells
-Olivia Voldaren
I have begun coming to the same conclusion myself (that building around 3-4 BBE's) is not that good, at least in the current meta. The problem, as you point out, is not only the high casting cost, tap out nature of BBE, as well as the other deck building constraints - but also that you can't plan your lines of play due to the random luck factor of what you may or may not cascade into.
Also, while BBE, at its best gives you a one-time tempo and card advantage (sometimes great, sometimes not - again you can't predict) - it itself does not offer the potential for having great board presence for a four drop (unless you play multiples within a game). Whereas other 4 drops, like Huntmaster, Olivia, Kalitas, Chandra, Hazoret typically provide ongoing value, advantage, or pressure from that point forward - in a predictable manner you can craft lines of play with.
Lately I've been testing with deck builds similar to my pre-unban configuration (2 Huntmasters, more kill spells) and it's been better. Except with the notable exception of playing versus Jund BBE decks and Blue control decks.
Good maindeck cards were: Terminate for the Hollow Ones and Anglers, Scavenging Ooze, K Commands for the Hollow Ones and returning discarded Goyfs and Oozes, Lili the last Hope (to neuter the Blood Ghasts and blunt their attacks and take away their phoenix recurrence ability).
Sideboard cards that were good: Ancient Grudge (since you can also flash it back if ends up getting discarded to Burning Inquiry), Lili, the Last Hope if in the sideboard, Grafdigger's, Nihil Spellbomb.
I haven't played Anger of the Gods in a while due to the double-red - or more specifically the difficulty of predicting needing to be able to cast LoTV or Finks as well and it's very hard to move from a double green or double black spell to a double red spell on time or at all. Also, decks it is strong against (Company, Elves, and Merfolk) are less prevalent these days. Other creature heavy decks get around or outgrow Anger quickly (e.g. Humans, Affinity).
Decks with Angler/Hollow One/Tasigur/Eldrazi are one of the major reasons I find it bizarre and difficult to move to less than 2 Terminates (and I find it odd that some people have done so). In fact I still sometimes play 3 Terminates (I can count on some form of Eldrazi decks in my local meta). Terminate has always been one of the major reason to play red for me, the unconditional removal is a great asset.
Thoughts?
Yeah I think that's part of it. Many skilled players and pros have a problem admitting something: this game is heavily reliant on luck and no matter how good you are or think you are there is very little one can do about it. That hurts the ego.
Imagine this: tournament byes, pro points, etc. are eliminated. You advance only due to your actual match results in a given event.
I think top 8/32 appearances, wins, etc. would then be far more diverse. You wouldn't see the same "pro" players month over month or year over year as consistently we do now.
All things being equal I think the Jund mirror as well as many other types of mirrors come down largely to pure chance.
It might feel like bull***** because often magic does take skill to play. But, after a point, and all things being equal like when both players are highly skilled and playing the same deck, it's largely out of anyone's control no matter how many years of hard work and accomplishments one has put in.
Many people have a hard time admitting that to themselves or others.
Want to prove your skill? Play sports or chess or something.
It's an interesting line of thought. What about if the opponent has chosen a similar line and also chosen to keep some amount of discard in the deck? Does it then go back to being a "coin flip" (that is, that the game goes to luck of the draw)?
I think these are the key factors in the mirror match:
Factors:
1. Who gets to go first. Not something I consider a player has control over - other than odd situations like deliberately ID'ing, losing, or winning into certain ranks of the Top 8 to manipulate known match-ups/seeding which includes who gets to play first, or Lantern Control where you should choose to draw first
2. Luck of the draw and sequence of draw, mulligans. This includes making needed land drops, when or if a player gets the needed "answer(s)", threats, supply of threats, revealing a string of high CMC cards (or lands) to Dark Confidant, etc. Basically all the things a player has absolutely no control over.
3. The contents of a player's deck. This can have an effect on #2. Players have control over this by sideboarding.
In the mirror, let's assume hypothetically both decks are identical in maindeck and sideboard card choices, and, that post-sideboard configurations will be identical. If either deck chooses to have a "no discard spell" configuration post board then the exact in and out card choices are chosen for either deck. Same goes for any "with discard spells" configuration.
So then there can only be three types of configuration pairings between them:
1. "No discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
2. "With discard spells" vs "With discard spells"
3. "With discard spells" vs "No discard spells"
I think pairing #1 and #2 come down Factors #1 and #2: luck and who got to go first (due to the innate advantage of casting spells first (e.g. a Discard spell in the case where discards spells are still present), and reaching higher impact cards that cost more to cast (e.g. BBE) or activate (e.g. Raging Ravine, Ooze).
Pairing #3 is the more interesting case and the subject of contention:
A point we should consider about the nature of most typical Jund decks: they are not particularly aggressive. This is in stark contrast to other decks like Infect, Storm, Affinity, etc. where it's clear that disrupting and slowing them down is critical to winning the game. Nor is there a definitive late inevitable spell that if not disrupted, will cost the game, like an Emrakul or Second Sunrise or whatever. We all know this, I'm just pointing it out.
I think what many are unsure of is whether the early or occasional mid and late game disruption of spells via a discard spell makes enough of an impact to over come factor #2: the luck and chance of draws, sequences and mulligans.
In the Jund mirror I suppose one could think of a discard spell as a kind of "answer" or "kill" spell (bolt, decay, pulse, etc.), except it kills spells in the hand, instead of removing a permanent from the battlefield. As such, the only two kinds of cards in the decks are either "answers" or "threats". All the non-discard "answer" spells are likely guaranteed answers. Discard spells are not always going to be answers because they may miss, if the hand is empty, has lands (like a Raging Ravine), and certainly can't deal with a permanent. So the only potential advantages discard spells possess are:
1. tempo advantage
2. mana efficiency (since they only cost 1 or 2)
3. hand information (which I agree is very valuable).
Advantage #3 some may suggest, as described in the post above me, is very valuable because it allows you to sequence your play choices because you now have perfect information of their current hand, and possibly how they may play their next cards (7 at most in the early game). In the mid to late game that would dwindle to 0-3 cards' worth of information - so the info is less valuable. If in the mid to late game they have a high card count and you don't, you have likely lost due to card advantage. If you also have a high card count then it's back to square one.
I think, given that Jund is not typically very aggressive, the odds of using the information advantage to find a game-winning sequence for multiple turns from that point to the end of the game are not likely (because beyond that point every card drawn by you or the opponent is purely chance).
Factor #3 above, in the context of Pairing #3 above, I think is the place where a Jund player can make the most impact to the mirror match: by changing the contents of the deck to have a higher count or proportion of threats and non-discard "answers". Changing the contents of the deck directly impacts the probability of what you will draw: namely, having a higher count of cards that will likely be impactful.
Now, back a bit to reality, outside of my hypotheticals: decks are never true mirrors, and sideboarding choices are never identical, and of course some players make better choices than others. I think with my reasonings above I would, and do, most often choose to side-out all my discard spells in the mirror match, especially if I am on the play. However, on the draw, I often keep in 2-3 discard spells, due to Factor #1 (tempo). A one mana discard spell has the potential to make up the tempo loss you have when going second. I also tend to side out 1-2 Lightning Bolts, because they are not always effective "answers" in the mirror, so I might as well try to regain some tempo by keeping in a little bit of discard.
Ok that's enough writing. But that's what I think.
- What are your basics of choice (as in what sets) for this deck and why?
For a long time I was running Unhinged basics. I recently stepped away from the full arts and went with the old border basics. The shiny rectangular frames match my other cards and I find it has a more classic look.
- Which Terminate do y’all run?
Alara Reborn. The color of the gold border matches the rest of the other gold cards in the deck. The old frame gold cards don't and I find are washed out and less colorful.
- Has anyone sprung for fancy Lightning Bolts?
Yes - Judge Rewards foil bolts only way to go and look awesome with the BBE's
- Does everyone run the FNM BBE’s? If not, is it because you prefer another set/art or you just can’t find them at the moment?
I like the FNM Bloodbraid Elf. The picture and the red background go well with the Lightning Bolts in my deck - very complemetary.
Here is a pic of my current list. I have been trying to consolidate the choice between 25 or 24 lands, supporting four 4-drops, and still wanting some sort of card advantage engine that the fourth BBE would have. So I chose a Tireless Tracker which I ran before the unbans. Fatal Push is still excellent and the Jund mirror is more common now. Two forests instead of a mountain because feeding Scooze and playing Kitchen Finks on curve without shocking is more likely to need to happen then a Field of Ruin situation or a Bolt (and there's only 3).
They aren't experienced Jund players. There's your explanation.