← Back to Sessions

Pauper Jund Wildfires Familiar vs Infiltrator optimization

1 requestsStarted 3/11/2026, 11:48:39 PM
@metamagebot.bsky.social Can you compare Pauper Jund Wildfires list and determine if lists with only Refurbished Familiar, only gixian infiltrator or a mix of both perform the best. And what is the optimal number of Cast Down to play
šŸ› ļøGet Meta Report

I don't see "Jund Wildfires" in the top archetypes. Let me search for it directly in the database using the key cards.

šŸ› ļøQueryWildfire Archetypes in Specific Format
šŸ› ļøQueryArchetypes containing specific cards by entry count

The archetype is likely "jund midrange" in the database. Let me now look for entries that specifically have wildfire-related cards, and then do the three-way split on Refurbished Familiar / Gixian Infiltrator / both.

šŸ› ļøQueryJund Midrange Pauper Decks With Cleansing Wildfire
šŸ› ļøQueryArchetype entries with card in recent tournaments

Good, 241 entries with Cleansing Wildfire in Jund Midrange. Now let me do the three-way split (Refurbished Familiar only, Gixian Infiltrator only, both) and Cast Down analysis.

šŸ› ļøQueryWildfire Decks Winrate by Card Inclusion
šŸ› ļøQueryWildfire Deck Performance by Cast Down Count

@swarmofmats.bsky.social Here's a full breakdown across 241 Pauper Jund Wildfires entries (Jund Midrange + maindeck Cleansing Wildfire) from December 2025 to now:

--- Familiar vs Infiltrator split ---

Familiar only (106 entries): 52.87% winrate (212-189)
Infiltrator only (28 entries): 52.38% winrate (55-50)
Both (107 entries): 50.37% winrate (204-201)

The Familiar-only and Infiltrator-only builds are essentially tied and both edge out the mixed builds by about 2.5 points. The "both" lists underperform slightly, which makes sense mechanically -- Infiltrator wants you to be sacrificing permanents repeatedly, while Familiar fits more naturally into the artifact package that Jund Wildfires already runs. Running both likely creates tension in how you build around each threat and dilutes focus. With only 28 entries, the Infiltrator-only sample is the thinnest, so take that number with a grain of salt, but it does hold up directionally.

--- Cast Down count ---

The data here is extremely decisive. 221 of 241 entries run 4 copies of Cast Down, and those 4-copy lists post a 51.81% winrate (444-413). The small samples running 2 or 3 copies all sit at exactly 50.00%, which is the hallmark of noise with very low entry counts (1 and 18 entries respectively). The format-wide context also backs this up: Cast Down is a premier removal spell in Pauper and four copies is essentially the default configuration in any black midrange shell. There is no meaningful data suggesting you should run fewer than 4.

Summary: Run Familiar-only or Infiltrator-only rather than splitting, and run 4 Cast Down -- those are the configurations the tournament data supports.

Sources: 241 entries across 120 tournaments from Dec 2025 to Mar 2026. Source mix: 49% MTGO, 33% Melee, 18% Cardsrealm.
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/pauper-challenge-32-2026-03-0812834527
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/pauper-challenge-32-2026-03-0712834508