Whew… let me tell you guys. Before I start this article, I have to put it out there that my girlfriend Sarah did an absolutely amazing and nigh-miraculous job putting together Thanksgiving dinner yesterday. She spent three consecutive nights working on different assorted food items, and then yesterday morning, she woke up and just started cooking. Her father came over and started helping, but Sarah was like a madman (well, “madwoman?”), cooking and never taking a break. And it was well worth it, as dinner was absolutely amazing. I still haven’t come off of my tryptophan high, and I’m sitting at the office now typing this rubbing my eyes.
Last thing before I get back to Modern; this holiday was incredibly bittersweet. While I got to see my brothers for the first time since my grandma’s funeral, it was also the first holiday since she passed away. She was the one who made sure family got together on the holidays, and she hosted every holiday get-together until this Thanksgiving. I made sure to continue the tradition by inviting family from both sides over (and Sarah ensured it went off without a hitch, for which I’m going to buy her flowers on the way home today), and I’m still saddened writing this. I miss you, Grandma, and sadly that’s not ever going to go away.
Modern at Worlds (i.e. “Real Content”)
Alright guys. Enough of that stuff! Here we go!
With Modern being the upcoming PTQ season, it seems prudent to check the numbers on this format as well. While we all know that Worlds day three is the place where randomly picked-up decks reside, it also gives a brief insight into “what works” and what doesn’t.
Let me start out by saying that this was a bad idea, waiting until this morning to start crunching numbers for Modern. Still groggy from all that turkey, it’s been fun crunching these numbers. By fun, of course I mean an exercise in checking and double-checking to make sure my sleepy eyes didn’t miss something. This issue is only exacerbated by the fact that trying to classify Modern decks is like trying to put a 500,000 piece puzzle together in which the pieces are almost all shaped similarly. Where do these decks fit in??
Well, so you guys are aware, I classified decks usually by its namesake or lynchpin cards. Tarmogoyf, Vendilion Clique, Noble Hierarch, Lightning Bolt, Punishing Fire/Groves, etc. made their way into a huge percentage of these decks, so after a while, they start looking the same. In order to put some order to this, I first printed out the overall Modern Metagame list that the coverage team put out, since I needed to make sure I was using their naming convention when classifying decks first off (well, I tried doing this numbers analysis without printing out their list as a guide, and I realized that they classified decks completely differently than I did, so I had to scrap my initial numbers and redo this whole thing. I love you, Modern… thanks for wasting hours of my life!).
After doing this, when checking through decklists, I would look for cards like Wild Nacatl in order to identify Zoo decks, Splinter Twin to identify Twin decks (this may seem obvious, but a lot of the same cards in Twin lists are in other lists, like U/R Faeries), Melira for the Melira combo decks, etc… This becomes an issue when trying to differentiate between decks like U/R Storm and Pyromancer Ascension (where do I draw the line!?) and Bant splashing Grove/Fires and Big Zoo splashing Snapcaster Mage/Bant Charm.
Nonetheless, here are the numbers. If you have specific questions about how I classified a deck or how I did my numbers, contact me at mikemartinlfs (at) gmail (dot) com.
First, the overall Metagame analysis done by the coverage team:
| Archetype | Number | % |
|---|---|---|
|
Zoo |
92 |
28.31% |
|
49 |
15.08% |
|
|
Affinity |
29 |
8.92% |
|
16 |
4.92% |
|
|
13 |
4.00% |
|
|
Blue-Red Storm |
12 |
3.69% |
|
Burn |
11 |
3.38% |
|
11 |
3.38% |
|
|
Jund |
11 |
3.38% |
|
Melira Combo |
8 |
2.46% |
|
Next-Level Blue |
8 |
2.46% |
|
Cruel Control |
6 |
1.85% |
|
6 |
1.85% |
|
|
Doran |
5 |
1.54% |
|
Grixis Control |
5 |
1.54% |
|
5 |
1.54% |
|
|
Bant Aggro |
4 |
1.23% |
|
Barely Boros |
4 |
1.23% |
|
Small Pox |
4 |
1.23% |
|
White-Blue Tron |
3 |
0.92% |
|
White-Blue Control |
3 |
0.92% |
|
2 |
0.62% |
|
|
2 |
0.62% |
|
|
Blue-Black Control |
2 |
0.62% |
|
Fair-Fight Faeries |
2 |
0.62% |
|
Blue-Red Delver |
2 |
0.62% |
|
Bant Control |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Elves |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Infect |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Junk |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Kavu Predator Aggro |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Snow White |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Soul Sisters |
1 |
0.31% |
|
1 |
0.31% |
|
|
Blue-Red Faeries |
1 |
0.31% |
|
Red-White-Blue Control |
1 |
0.31% |
And now, for your viewing pleasure, the “winner’s metagame” numbers and the meta percentage gained or lost. Once again, this is compiled from the list of 4-2 decks or better.
| Archetype | Total # | Overall % | Winners Total | Winners Meta % | Winner% +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Zoo |
92 |
28.31% |
34 |
35.42% |
+25.11% |
|
49 |
15.08% |
7 |
7.29% |
-51.66% |
|
|
Affinity |
29 |
8.92% |
9 |
9.38% |
~Even (+) |
|
16 |
4.92% |
6 |
6.25% |
+27.03% |
|
|
13 |
4.00% |
1 |
1.04% |
-74% |
|
|
Blue-Red Storm |
12 |
3.69% |
1 |
1.04% |
-71.82% |
|
Burn |
11 |
3.38% |
2 |
2.08% |
-38.47% |
|
11 |
3.38% |
4 |
4.17% |
~Even (+) |
|
|
Jund |
11 |
3.38% |
5 |
5.21% |
+54.14% |
|
Melira Combo |
8 |
2.46% |
6 |
6.25% |
+154.07% |
|
Next-Level Blue |
8 |
2.46% |
2 |
2.08% |
~Even (-) |
|
Cruel Control |
6 |
1.85% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
6 |
1.85% |
3 |
3.13% |
+69.19% |
|
|
Doran |
5 |
1.54% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
Grixis Control |
5 |
1.54% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
5 |
1.54% |
2 |
2.08% |
+35.06% |
|
|
Bant Aggro |
4 |
1.23% |
2 |
2.08% |
+69.11% |
|
Barely Boros |
4 |
1.23% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
Small Pox |
4 |
1.23% |
3 |
3.13% |
+154.47% |
|
White-Blue Tron |
3 |
0.92% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
White-Blue Control |
3 |
0.92% |
2 |
2.08% |
+126.09% |
|
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
|
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
|
Blue-Black Control |
2 |
0.62% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Fair-Fight Faeries |
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Blue-Red Delver |
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Bant Control |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Elves |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Infect |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Junk |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Kavu Predator Aggro |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Snow White |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Soul Sisters |
1 |
0.31% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
|
Blue-Red Faeries |
1 |
0.31% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Red-White-Blue Control |
1 |
0.31% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
Out of the 325 competitors that braved the Standard rounds and survived the Draft rounds (or those who just wanted the Planeswalker Points) to play Modern, 96 posted records of 4-2 or better, or 29.54% of the 325 competitors. Now this doesn’t take into account all of the draws and scoops that occur on the final day of Worlds, but it does give us an idea of which decks were capable of winning on a large scale.
Once again, we have an upper tier of decks in regards to total numbers. Zoo was the top dog, with nearly double the next closest archetype in overall number. Speaking of the next closest archetype, we have the archetype that was able to take down Pro Tour: Philadelphia (before the bannings), Splinter Twin. Lastly, we have Affinity, that deck that just won’t go away. After that, no deck topped 5% of the metagame share. Combined, these top three decks accounted for 52.31% of the decks on day three of Worlds.
Overperforming Decks
| Archetype | Total # | Overall % | Winners Total | Winners Meta % | Winner% +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Zoo |
92 |
28.31% |
34 |
35.42% |
+25.11% |
|
16 |
4.92% |
6 |
6.25% |
+27.03% |
|
|
Jund |
11 |
3.38% |
5 |
5.21% |
+54.14% |
|
Melira Combo |
8 |
2.46% |
6 |
6.25% |
+154.07% |
|
6 |
1.85% |
3 |
3.13% |
+69.19% |
|
|
5 |
1.54% |
2 |
2.08% |
+35.06% |
|
|
Bant Aggro |
4 |
1.23% |
2 |
2.08% |
+69.11% |
|
Small Pox |
4 |
1.23% |
3 |
3.13% |
+154.47% |
|
White-Blue Control |
3 |
0.92% |
2 |
2.08% |
+126.09% |
|
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
|
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
|
Fair-Fight Faeries |
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Blue-Red Delver |
2 |
0.62% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Soul Sisters |
1 |
0.31% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Blue-Red Faeries |
1 |
0.31% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
|
Red-White-Blue Control |
1 |
0.31% |
1 |
1.04% |
N/A |
Out of the “Big Three,” only Zoo overperformed on the day. This should demonstrate the power of the deck moving forward, as even though it’s a known fact that pros will prepare less for day three of Worlds, it was also a known fact that you needed to be able to beat Zoo or you might as well not show up for day three. Even with its opponents armed with that knowledge, Zoo still increased its metagame share by over 25% in regards to the “winner’s metagame,” meaning Wizards finally accomplished its goal of making Wild Nacatl the best card in the format, at least for now (until us PTQers get our grubby little hands on the format during Modern PTQ season).
After that, we see decks of yore. Teachings? Jund? They’re back!?
Not so much. The numbers for these decks aren’t enough to say for sure that they’re where you want to be. I will say that the Teachings decks seemed well positioned against the Zoo decks based on looking over the lists. The successful Teachings lists looked heavily metagamed for aggro, which turned out to be a great idea between Zoo and Affinity taking up such a huge percentage of the overall metagame.
As for Jund, Bloodbraid Elf cascading into Liliana of the Veil seems to be a “thing.” And by “thing” I mean incredibly powerful. After spending a year cascading into Blightning and Maelstrom Pulse, being able to hit Liliana of the Veil even feels unfair to me. How does a Zoo deck compete with a deck meant to remove everything you do, play a creature (and get a Liliana with it, making you sacrifice a dude), then continue to gradually push those incremental advantages until you’re out of cards altogether, and they’re still above 10 life. It just seems unfair…
What about this Melira combo deck? In case you haven’t seen it yet:
Creatures (28)
- 4 Birds of Paradise
- 1 Eternal Witness
- 4 Wall of Roots
- 1 Shriekmaw
- 1 Reveillark
- 1 Fulminator Mage
- 4 Kitchen Finks
- 1 Murderous Redcap
- 1 Ranger of Eos
- 1 Tidehollow Sculler
- 1 Noble Hierarch
- 1 Linvala, Keeper of Silence
- 3 Viscera Seer
- 1 Sun Titan
- 3 Melira, Sylvok Outcast
Lands (22)
Spells (10)
This deck aims to get a Melira, Viscera Seer, and a creature with persist into play; after that, you continuously sacrifice the creature infinitely (either gaining life with Finks or shocking the opponent to death with Murderous Redcap) since they never get a -1/-1 counter with Melira in play and will always return to play.
If that doesn’t work? You’re still a Birthing Pod deck that can pod up to Sun Titan and get back Fulminator Mage every turn until your opponent is dead with no lands on board.
Against Zoo? Podding Wall of Roots into Kitchen Finks into Murderous Redcap (Finks persists, 2 more life) into Shriekmaw (Redcap persists, shocking again) into Sun Titan getting back Wall/Finks is nigh unbeatable.
Perhaps that’s why this deck had 6 of its 8 pilots post 4-2 records or better. That’s significant; a theory put forth by the coverage team is that this deck is impossible to play (in a timely manner) on Magic Online. People couldn’t test against it. While this probably had a lot to do with it, it also helps that this deck has multiple ways to gain a ton of life while throwing roadblocks in front of Zoo’s creatures.
Lastly, once the decks got down to the archetypes that only had one or two pilots, I simply compiled all of the decks that put a pilot into the winner’s metagame into the “overperforming” lists. Here are those lists for your reference:
(Why Day of Judgment over Wrath of God?!)
Creatures (31)
- 4 Street Wraith
- 2 Ingot Chewer
- 2 Shriekmaw
- 4 Fulminator Mage
- 2 Jungle Weaver
- 3 Architects of Will
- 4 Monstrous Carabid
- 2 Valley Rannet
- 4 Deadshot Minotaur
- 4 Bloodbraid Elf
Lands (19)
Spells (10)
Sideboard
Creatures (21)
- 1 Weathered Wayfarer
- 4 Martyr of Sands
- 2 Figure of Destiny
- 4 Ranger of Eos
- 2 Student of Warfare
- 4 Serra Ascendant
- 4 Squadron Hawk
Planeswalkers (2)
Lands (23)
Spells (14)
Sideboard
In a field full of Zoo, it’s no wonder a MartyrProc deck went 6-0. Great call by Alan.
Creatures (17)
Lands (21)
Spells (22)
The coverage lists this as a U/R Delver list, but let’s be serious here; in higher powered formats with fetches/shocks/duals, adding Tarmogoyf doesn’t change the color identity of a deck. My friend Jesse Oliff once made a joke that he saw a deck listed as mono-blue control with Tropical Islands and Tarmogoyfs.
Creatures (27)
- 4 Soul Warden
- 4 Martyr of Sands
- 3 Kitchen Finks
- 4 Ranger of Eos
- 4 Soul's Attendant
- 4 Serra Ascendant
- 4 Ajani's Pridemate
Lands (23)
Spells (10)
Another Martyr of Sands deck, another successful showing in Modern? Coincidence? I think not…
Creatures (16)
Lands (24)
Spells (20)
- 4 Lightning Bolt
- 3 Mana Leak
- 1 Remand
- 3 Repeal
- 3 Spell Snare
- 4 Cryptic Command
- 1 Basilisk Collar
- 1 Splinter Twin
Sideboard
Creatures (3)
Planeswalkers (8)
Lands (25)
Spells (24)
You can never really go wrong with Ajani Vengeant, right?? That card is just too good not to be played, am I right?
Underperforming Decks
| Archetype | Total # | Overall % | Winners Total | Winners Meta % | Winner% +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
49 |
15.08% |
7 |
7.29% |
-51.66% |
|
|
13 |
4.00% |
1 |
1.04% |
-74% |
|
|
Blue-Red Storm |
12 |
3.69% |
1 |
1.04% |
-71.82% |
|
Burn |
11 |
3.38% |
2 |
2.08% |
-38.47% |
|
Cruel Control |
6 |
1.85% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
Doran |
5 |
1.54% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
Grixis Control |
5 |
1.54% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
Barely Boros |
4 |
1.23% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
White-Blue Tron |
3 |
0.92% |
0 |
0% |
-100% |
|
Blue-Black Control |
2 |
0.62% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Bant Control |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Elves |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Infect |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Junk |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Kavu Predator Aggro |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
Snow White |
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
|
1 |
0.31% |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
The “sore thumb” here is Splinter Twin. The deck not only lost Ponder and Preordain, but it also lost its brother in arms, Cloudpost, which helped hold the Zoo decks in check. Now, Zoo decks are free to attack and hold up their instant-speed removal for whatever the Twin player decides to do, if they even get the time to do it.
Unlike the Teachings decks, Gifts decks weren’t able to put up a positive showing. Honestly I couldn’t tell you why, as a well-tuned control list seemed optimal here, but variance may be to blame. Or the Gifts players just weren’t as well prepared as Teachings pilots. I can’t really say, as I wasn’t there and didn’t see it myself.
As a continuing theme, U/R Combo (in this case, Storm) didn’t perform well on the weekend. Another continuing theme? Burn sucks.
After that, we see a lot of decks that simply didn’t show up in the winner’s metagame at all. Does this mean you shouldn’t play them come PTQ season? I’d say no, but I’d also append that by saying “make sure you know what you’re doing and plan out your deck accordingly. Don’t come unprepared with one of these lists.”
In fact, just don’t show up to a PTQ unprepared at all. Probably bad juju to begin with.
Decks that Broke Even
| Archetype | Total # | Overall % | Winners Total | Winners Meta % | Winner% +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Affinity |
29 |
8.92% |
9 |
9.38% |
~Even (+) |
|
11 |
3.38% |
4 |
4.17% |
~Even (+) |
|
|
Next-Level Blue |
8 |
2.46% |
2 |
2.08% |
~Even (-) |
Affinity, the last of the “Big Three,” broke just about even on the day, coming out just slightly ahead of its metagame share of 8.92%.
With Modern PTQs coming soon, it would be irresponsible to ignore the data from a pro-level event with the same format. However, I’d like to caution you guys; there are a lot of outside variables “playing” with this data, in that pros draw/scoop a lot on day three, and that’s even after picking up the deck the morning of. Take this data with a grain of salt; check it for the decks you’d be interested in playing, and be prepared for Zoo.
If you take nothing else from this article, make sure you take that.
Be prepared for Zoo. In all forms. Wild Nacatl Cometh.
@Mikemartinlfs on the Twitter