Running Modern Jund

Art credit: Scott M. Fischer & WotC I've taken several weeks off from playing magic since GP Detroit to get a breather and focus on work. In that time, I've been brewing blue control. At first, I wanted to do something like mono-blue control/tempo. But that deck relies too heavily on Thing in the Ice to stay alive in creature matchups, and I've always been low on Thing after Push was printed and Probe was banned. I was also trying hard to get Jace to fit that archetype, but a 4-mana walker is slow for a deck looking to move fast. If there is one thing Jace can't do, it's aggro. After running around and around the attempt at mono-u, I decided to move to blue-white, and focus hard on maximizing Jace's power. UW obviously fixes all the creature/go-wide issues, and opens up the powerhouse sideboard options. But I was also inspired to take a slightly oblique angle on the deck by a half-remembered statement from the fiendishly intelligent mtg mind of ...

Art Credit: WotC & Seb McKinnon This week, Assassin's Trophy was spoiled for the new Guild of Ravnica set. There have been thousands of words written already about how much of an impact this card will have, but I'd like to share some of my thoughts about it which I think are importantly different from what I have read so far. But first! A couple friends and I went to GP Detroit this past weekend and got our collective butt kicked, going (I think?) 1-6-1. Ouch. I brought traverse shadow, splashing white in the main for lingering souls, and siding a watery grave and two stubborn denials. The deck felt good. Lack of threat density did me in a couple times, but otherwise the deck felt fine . More on how it might have felt great later. My matchups were (in roughly the right order): Bant Spirits, BG Elves, Blue Moon, Eldrazi Tron, GB Tron, Classic Affinity, GW Value Town, and Hardened Scales Affinity. I was running hotter than the sun in the first two rounds, takin...

Art Credit: Victor Adame Minguez & WotC This is a follow up to last post where I mentioned I was switching from classic Jund to Traverse Shadow to scratch the midrange/modern black itch until further notice. Here's the list I ran at a Modern Monday last week: ------------ 4 verdent catacombs, 4 polluted delta, 3 bloodstained mire 2 overgrown tomb, 1 watery grave, 1 blood crypt, 1 breeding pool 1 swamp, 1 forest 4 street wraith, 4 mishra's bauble, 4 traverse the ulvenwald 4 death's shadow, 4 tarmogoyf, 1 snapcaster mage, 1 tasigur, the golden fang 4 thoughtseize, 2 inquisition of kozilek, 2 collective brutality 3 stubborn denial, 2 temur battle rage 3 fatal push, 1 nameless inversion, 1 abrupt decay, 2 dismember Sideboard: 2 surgical extraction, 2 liliana, the last hope, 2 ancient grudge, 1 hurkyl's recall, 1 hazoret the fervent, 1 snapcaster mage, 1 scavenging ooze, 1 shriekmaw, 1 reclamation sage, 1 bontu's last reckoni...

Art Credit: WotC and Howard Lyon Where modern (midrange) is at Midrange isn't doing so hot in modern right now. The most successful midrange deck in the format is Mardu Pyromancer, and though it performed admirably over the last month or so, it was utterly stomped at the 25th Anniversary Pro-Tour just recently. I struggle to even call Mardu a midrange deck, to be honest. It is so grindy and gives up so much of its speed to stay in the game that it verges on what you might call "non-U control". The talk of the town at PT25A were decks that took strong stances as either combo, aggro, or control. Anything trying to be a mix of one thing or the other was sorely disadvantaged, at least in their pre-sideboard games. It seems perhaps, that this is the necessary, if unavoidable, progression of modern. In my estimation (and many a redditor's much more fatalistic estimation), the format revolves around Tron, and as it revolves it gets closer and closer to an end poi...

Art Credit: Steve Argyle & WotC Well, WotC banned Deathrite Shaman in legacy (along with Gitaxian probe ). It seems the king of creatures and fair magic is just a little too fair for anything but vintage. Although I do not have much experience in the legacy format, I am confident in saying that "Punishing Jund," a deck which did not exist pre-DRS, will now die a sudden and painful death. This raises a question which I posed once in a pre-BBE unban world : are there certain decks in certain formats that WotC does not want to exist? Based on the phrasing of the B&R announcement ,  the answer is "yes." And it seems that in both modern and legacy, one of the decks that cannot exist is the deck that uses disruption and fair win conditions efficiently and simultaneously. But hey, I play modern, so at least things are stable for me. Here is my current deck list: It has felt really good, and that is in large part because I am doing my best to play ...

Image Credit: Chris Rahn & WoTC. Sideboarding is a science and an art. The science part is playing the right cards. Useful, effective, and easy to utilize cards are at a premium in sideboard slots. The art part is predicting what the meta will be at your particular tournament...or at least the decks that you  will face. This part is obviously harder. There is some sideboarding advice that is eternal, and well established. If you can't take my word for it, you can read the pros talk about it too. These laws  of sideboarding (building and  boarding) are: ALWAYS sideboard, or at least fake it. Remember to hide the number of cards you switch out. Board against their sideboarded deck, not their main deck.^ Board based on the opponent's play, not just their deck.^ Consider whether you are on the play or the draw.^ Don't over sideboard. Your deck still needs to work.^ Consider whether sideboarding a land or two out is worth it.^ Favor value over synergy pos...

Image Credit: Todd Lockwood, Kev Walker, & WotC I am no Frank Karsten, so I won't pretend to be proficient in the hypergeometric calculations required to say truly insightful things about card choice and deck-building minutia. However, I have played a lot of jund, and I have spent a LOT of time brewing with jund, so that has to count for something. I have a hypothesis about removal suites in modern midrange decks. Namely, that consistency  is king, and breadth is important, but quickly yields diminishing returns. But finding sufficient evidence  for this hypothesis would take waaaay more testing than I could ever do. So I'll let you readers do that while I just present my logical case for consistency over breadth. So let's begin. *** We're talking about dedicated removal here, which I will define as cards that are for changing the  board state . Ideally, a piece of removal removes an opponent's board-based card advantage, and finishes the tr...