Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
April is the start of the only non-Standard RCQ season this year. I'm glad it's Modern, but Wizards had better be really sure that Standard is actually good or there'll be problems. As for how Modern looks for this RCQ season, it's a question of are you playing in paper or online? If you're an online player, things aren't looking good. If you're in paper, this looks like a pretty healthy metagame.
The Lone Outlier
To quickly deal with that foreshadowing, Boros Energy is the only outlier in April. It happened in both play mediums, asterisk. It was extremely clear that would happen for Magic Online, which will make perfect sense once we get to the data. If you ignore what Boros is doing there, the online metagame looks pretty good, but you can't ignore Boros.
Asterisk: paper having any outliers wasn't clear, and the number is disputable. Every outlier test gave me different numbers of outliers, ranging from 1 to 4. I thought there might not even be one, but there are gaps, and the data is oddly skewed, which is probably what's confusing the outlier tests. As Boros Energy was the only deck that all the tests agreed was an outlier, I treated it as such.
Outliers are removed from the data analysis but are reported in their correct place on the Tier Lists.
April Population Metagame
To make the tier list, a given deck has to beat the overall average population for the month. The average is my estimate for how many results a given deck "should" produce in a given month. To be considered a tiered deck, it must perform better than "good enough". Every deck that posts at least the average number of results is "good enough" and makes the tier list.
Then we go one standard deviation (STdev) above average to set the limit of Tier 3 and the cutoff for Tier 2. This mathematically defines Tier 3 as those decks clustered near the average. Tier 2 goes from the cutoff to the next standard deviation. These are decks that perform well above average. Tier 1 consists of those decks at least two standard deviations above the mean result, encompassing the truly exceptional performing decks.
The MTGO data nearly exclusively comes from official Preliminary, Qualifiers, and Challenge results. Leagues are excluded, as they add analytically useless bulk data to both the population and power tiers. The paper data comes from any source I can find, with all reported events being counted.
While the MTGO events report predictable numbers, paper events can report anything from only the winner to all the results. In the latter case, if match results aren't included, I'll take as much of the Top 32 as possible. If match results are reported, I'll take winning record up to Top 32, and then any additional decks tied with 32nd place, as tiebreakers are a magic most foul and black.
The MTGO Population Data
March's adjusted average population for MTGO is 12.03. I always round down if the decimal is less than .20. Tier 3, therefore, begins with decks posting 12 results. The adjusted STdev was 23.90, so add 24 and that means Tier 3 runs to 36 results. Again, it's the starting point to the cutoff, then the next whole number for the next Tier. Therefore Tier 2 starts with 37 results and runs to 61. Subsequently, to make Tier 1, 62 decks are required.
The sample population rose significantly, from 1440 in March to 1500. Challenges are regularly firing again, and we had a number of LCQs to bring the numbers up. I have 98 unique decks in my sample, which equates to a unique deck ratio of .065, which is back to what it was in February. 21 decks made the tier list, which is slightly below average for MTGO.
| Deck Name | Total # | Total % |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ||
| Boros Energy | 333 | 22.20 |
| Green-Based Eldrazi | 123 | 8.20 |
| Frogtide | 105 | 7.00 |
| Ruby Storm | 93 | 6.20 |
| Izzet Prowess | 88 | 5.87 |
| BW Blink | 71 | 4.73 |
| Amulet Titan | 70 | 4.67 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 67 | 4.47 |
| Tier 2 | ||
| Domain Zoo | 51 | 3.40 |
| Kappa | 47 | 3.13 |
| Broodscale Combo | 42 | 2.80 |
| Tier 3 | ||
| Sam Ritual | 33 | 2.20 |
| UW Control | 28 | 1.87 |
| Mill | 23 | 1.53 |
| Burn | 21 | 1.40 |
| MB Saga | 18 | 1.20 |
| Living End | 16 | 1.07 |
| Ascendancy Combo | 15 | 1.00 |
| Tribal Eldrazi | 14 | 0.93 |
| Mardu Energy | 14 | 0.93 |
| MG Etron | 14 | 0.93 |
So, yeah, that's an absurd amount of Energy. However, there are reasons for this unique to MTGO, which I'll discuss in the analysis section. I know that based on these numbers there will be those calling Boros Tier 0, but it doesn't meet the definition. Remember, to be Tier 0 a deck must not only have numbers far above the rest of Tier 1, but it also has to blow them away on average points. Boros Energy has the first half on lock, but it failed the second half as you'll see below. Therefore, it's just an absurdly popular deck.
In other developments, Cori-Steel Cutter has brought Prowess back after years of irrelevance. However, at time of writing I have doubts Prowess will remain relevant. Cutter's a very good card, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't fix any of Prowess' problems. Prowess is as vulnerable to Prismatic Ending now as before. It put up impressive numbers overall, but Prowess was incredibly streaky, tending to cluster in a few events rather than consistently put up numbers. While Wrath of the Skies doesn't see much maindeck play, it's in a lot of sideboards and that will increase if Prowess sticks around. I think some combo build will be a more permanent home.
The Paper Population Data
Meanwhile, Paper's population rose fell from 1028 to 795. There were more events in April than March, but they're all small events rather than RCs and RC side events. There are tons of RCQs happening and some even get reported (angry glance at lazy Tournament Organizers) but only report the Top 8, and frequently less. I recorded 93 unique decks for a ratio of .117, which is up considerably from March.
21 decks made the tier list, which is low for paper, but again the data is weird. The adjusted average population is 17.48, so 8 results make the list. The adjusted STDev is 14.33, so the increment is 15. Therefore, Tier 3 runs from 8 to 23, Tier 2 is 24 to 39, and Tier 1 is 40 and over.
| Deck Name | Total # | Total % |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ||
| Boros Energy | 107 | 13.46 |
| Base-Green Eldrazi | 81 | 10.19 |
| Frogtide | 68 | 8.55 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 49 | 6.16 |
| BW Blink | 44 | 5.53 |
| Amulet Titan | 43 | 5.41 |
| Domain Zoo | 42 | 5.28 |
| Tier 2 | ||
| Izzet Prowess | 35 | 4.40 |
| Kappa | 31 | 3.90 |
| Tier 3 | ||
| Ruby Storm | 22 | 2.77 |
| UW Control | 17 | 2.14 |
| Burn | 17 | 2.14 |
| Colorless Etron | 13 | 1.63 |
| Broodscale Combo | 13 | 1.63 |
| Yawgmoth | 13 | 1.63 |
| Hollowvine | 12 | 1.51 |
| Mill | 10 | 1.26 |
| Merfolk | 9 | 1.13 |
| Bant Urza | 9 | 1.13 |
| Sam's Ritual | 9 | 1.13 |
Boros is on top again, but it's followed far more closely by Green-based Eldrazi and Frogtide. I expect these three to stay on top in May. Boros is the premier aggro deck, Eldrazi is strong against the decks Boros is weaker to, and Frogtide is a way of life.
BW Blink continues to hold on, but it is steadily drifting towards Tier 2. A lot of this is Blink players stubbornly holding onto their Ketramose, the New Dawn dreams. They paid a lot for him and are determined to get their money's worth, but trying to grind value with him just isn't as good as it was against Underworld Breach. The players reverting back to Aether Vial and Recruiter of the Guard are having far more success in paper.
April Power Metagame
Tracking the metagame in terms of population is standard practice. But how do results actually factor in? Better decks should also have better results. In an effort to measure this, I use a power ranking system in addition to the prevalence list. By doing so, I measure the relative strengths of each deck within the metagame so that a deck that just squeaks into Top 32 isn't valued the same as one that Top 8's. This better reflects metagame potential.
For the MTGO data, points are awarded based on the population of the event. Preliminaries and similar events award points based on record (1 for 3 wins, 2 for 4 wins, 3 for 5), and Challenges are scored 3 points for the Top 8, 2 for Top 16, and 1 for Top 32. If I can find them, non-Wizards events will be awarded points the same as Challenges or Preliminaries depending on what the event in question reports/behaves like. Super Qualifiers and similar higher-level events get an extra point and so do other events if they’re over 200 players, with a fifth point for going over 400 players.
Due to paper reporting being inconsistent and frequently full of data gaps compared to MTGO, its points work differently. I award points based on the size of the tournament rather than placement. For events with no reported starting population or up to 32 players, one point is awarded to every deck. Events with 33 players up to 128 players get two points. From 129 players up to 512 players get three. Above 512 is four points, and five points is reserved for Modern Pro Tours. When paper reports more than the Top 8, which is rare, I take all the decks with a winning record or tied for Top 32, whichever is pertinent.
The MTGO Power Tiers
As with the population numbers, total points are up from 2584 to 2612. The adjusted average points were 20.72, therefore 21 points made Tier 3. The adjusted STDev was 41.20, so add 41 to the starting point, and Tier 3 runs to 62 points. Tier 2 starts with 63 points and runs to 104. Tier 1 requires at least 105 points. While there's a lot of movement inside each tier, the only change from population is that Mono-Green Etron fell off and was replaced by Jeskai Prowess.
| Deck Name | Total Points | Total % |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ||
| Boros Energy | 602 | 23.05 |
| Green-Based Eldrazi | 215 | 8.23 |
| Frogtide | 181 | 6.93 |
| Izzet Prowess | 158 | 6.05 |
| Ruby Storm | 144 | 5.51 |
| Amulet Titan | 126 | 4.82 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 118 | 4.52 |
| BW Blink | 115 | 4.40 |
| Tier 2 | ||
| Domain Zoo | 87 | 3.33 |
| Broodscale Combo | 86 | 3.29 |
| Kappa | 79 | 3.02 |
| Tier 3 | ||
| Sam Ritual | 55 | 2.11 |
| UW Control | 44 | 1.68 |
| Mill | 44 | 1.68 |
| MB Saga | 33 | 1.26 |
| Burn | 30 | 1.15 |
| Ascendancy Combo | 28 | 1.07 |
| Tribal Eldrazi | 27 | 1.03 |
| Mardu Energy | 27 | 1.03 |
| Living End | 25 | 0.96 |
| Jeskai Prowess | 23 | 0.88 |
To reinforce what I said above, Blink is sliding out of Tier 1 and needs to seriously rethink what it's doing. Far too many lists look like they're still optimized for the Breach metagame and just lose to Eldrazi. That was a strength of the deck when it first came out and really needs to be addressed.
The Paper Power Tiers
Paper's total points are 1328. Again, most of the data is coming from RCQ's so fewer points per event. The average points were 12.50, setting the cutoff at 13 points. The STDev was 25.74, so add 26 to the starting point and Tier 3 runs to 39 points. Tier 2 starts with 40 points and runs to 66. Tier 1 requires at least 67 points.
There's a lot of movement within the Tier list and Ruby Storm moved up to Tier 2. However, both Mill and Bant Urza fell off and weren't replaced.
| Deck Name | Total Power | Total % |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ||
| Boros Energy | 178 | 13.40 |
| Base-Green Eldrazi | 155 | 11.67 |
| Frogtide | 115 | 8.66 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 89 | 6.70 |
| BW Blink | 79 | 5.95 |
| Domain Zoo | 72 | 5.42 |
| Amulet Titan | 71 | 5.35 |
| Tier 2 | ||
| Izzet Prowess | 56 | 4.22 |
| Kappa | 55 | 4.14 |
| Ruby Storm | 42 | 3.16 |
| Tier 3 | ||
| UW Control | 28 | 2.11 |
| Burn | 26 | 1.96 |
| Colorless Etron | 23 | 1.73 |
| Broodscale Combo | 23 | 1.73 |
| Yawgmoth | 19 | 1.43 |
| Merfolk | 19 | 1.43 |
| Hollowvine | 18 | 1.35 |
| Sam's Ritual | 15 | 1.13 |
Composite Metagame
That's a lot of data, but what does it all mean? When Modern Nexus was first started, we had a statistical method to combine the MTGO and paper data, but the math of that system doesn't work without big paper events. I tried. Instead, I'm using an averaging system to combine the data. I take the MTGO results and average the tier, then separately average the paper results, then average the paper and MTGO results together for final tier placement.
This generates a lot of partial Tiers. That's not a bug, but a feature. The nuance separates the solidly Tiered decks from the more flexible ones and shows the true relative power differences between the decks. Every deck in the paper and MTGO results is on the table, and when they don't appear in a given category, they're marked N/A. This is treated as a 4 for averaging purposes.
| Deck Name | MTGO Pop Tier | MTGO Power Tier | MTGO Average Tier | Paper Pop Tier | Paper Power Tier | Paper Average Tier | Composite Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boros Energy | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Green-Based Eldrazi | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Frogtide | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| BW Blink | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Amulet Titan | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Izzet Prowess | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.50 |
| Domain Zoo | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.50 |
| Ruby Storm | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | 1.75 |
| Kappa | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.00 |
| Broodscale Combo | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.50 |
| Sam Ritual | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.00 |
| Mill | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.00 |
| Burn | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.00 |
| UW Control | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3.5 | 3.25 |
| Mono-Black Saga | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.50 |
| Living End | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.50 |
| Ascendancy Combo | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.50 |
| Tribal Eldrazi | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.50 |
| Mardu Energy | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.50 |
| Colorless Etron | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.50 |
| Yawgmoth | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.50 |
| Hollowvine | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.50 |
| Merfolk | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.50 |
| Mono-Green Etron | 3 | N/A | 3.5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.75 |
| Jeskai Prowess | N/A | 3 | 3.5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.75 |
| Bant Urza | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | N/A | 3.5 | 3.75 |
Average Power Rankings
Finally, we come to the average power rankings. These are found by taking the total points earned and dividing them by total decks, to measure points per deck. I use this to measure strength vs. popularity. Measuring deck strength is hard. There is no Wins-Above-Replacement metric for Magic, and I'm not certain that one could be credibly devised. The game is too complex, and even then, power is very contextual.
Using the power rankings helps to show how justified a deck’s popularity is. However, more popular decks will still necessarily earn a lot of points. Therefore, the top tier doesn't move much between population and power and obscures whether its decks really earned their position.
This is where the averaging comes in. Decks that earn a lot of points because they get a lot of results will do worse than decks that win more events, indicating which deck actually performs better.
A higher average indicates lots of high finishes, whereas low averages result from mediocre performances and a high population. Lower-tier decks typically do very well here, likely due to their pilots being enthusiasts. Bear this in mind and be careful about reading too much into these results. However, as a general rule, decks that place above the baseline average are over-performing, and vice versa.
How far above or below that average a deck sits justifies its position on the power tiers. Decks well above baseline are undervalued, while decks well below baseline are very popular, but aren't necessarily good.
The Real Story
When considering the average points, the key is looking at how far off a deck is from the Baseline stat (the overall average of points/population). The closer a deck’s performance to the Baseline, the more likely it is to be performing close to its "true" potential.
A deck that is exactly average would therefore perform exactly as well as expected. The greater the deviation from the average, the more a deck under or over-performs. On the low end, a deck’s placing was mainly due to population rather than power, which suggests it’s overrated. A high-scoring deck is the opposite of this.
First, the averages for MTGO:
| Deck Name | Average Points | Power Tier |
|---|---|---|
| Jeskai Prowess | 2.30 | 3 |
| Broodscale Combo | 2.05 | 2 |
| Tribal Eldrazi | 1.93 | 3 |
| Mardu Energy | 1.93 | 3 |
| Mill | 1.91 | 3 |
| Ascendancy Combo | 1.87 | 3 |
| MB Saga | 1.83 | 3 |
| Boros Energy | 1.81 | 1 |
| Amulet Titan | 1.80 | 1 |
| Izzet Prowess | 1.79 | 1 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 1.76 | 1 |
| Green-Based Eldrazi | 1.75 | 1 |
| Frogtide | 1.72 | 1 |
| Domain Zoo | 1.71 | 2 |
| Baseline | 1.69 | |
| Kappa | 1.68 | 2 |
| Sam Ritual | 1.67 | 3 |
| BW Blink | 1.62 | 1 |
| UW Control | 1.57 | 3 |
| Living End | 1.56 | 3 |
| Ruby Storm | 1.55 | 1 |
| Burn | 1.43 | 3 |
| Mono-Green Etron | 1.43 | N/A |
Congratulations Boros, you just barely beat out Amulet Titan to win MTGO Deck of April. Seriously, it was much closer before rounding happened.
Now the paper averages:
| Deck Name | Average Power | Power Tier |
|---|---|---|
| Merfolk | 2.11 | 3 |
| Base-Green Eldrazi | 1.91 | 1 |
| Ruby Storm | 1.91 | 2 |
| Tameshi Belcher | 1.82 | 1 |
| BW Blink | 1.79 | 1 |
| Kappa | 1.77 | 2 |
| Colorless Etron | 1.77 | 3 |
| Broodscale Combo | 1.77 | 3 |
| Domain Zoo | 1.71 | 1 |
| Frogtide | 1.69 | 1 |
| Sam's Ritual | 1.67 | 3 |
| Boros Energy | 1.66 | 1 |
| Amulet Titan | 1.65 | 1 |
| UW Control | 1.65 | 3 |
| Izzet Prowess | 1.60 | 2 |
| Baseline | 1.54 | |
| Burn | 1.53 | 3 |
| Hollowvine | 1.50 | 3 |
| Yawgmoth | 1.46 | 3 |
| Bant Urza | 1.33 | N/A |
| Mill | 1.20 | N/A |
Eldrazi wins paper Deck of April by an impressive amount. I also want to highlight that Boros and Amulet are the worst performing Tier 1 decks in a complete reversal of MTGO.
Analysis
As promised, let's talk about how ridiculous Boros Energy is online and why it isn't doing the same thing in paper. Short answer: prize structure.
Long answer: MTGO is a very different place than paper Magic. I've banged on about it having an infinitely smaller player base and the presence of rental services plenty, but that's just the first layer. The tournament and their associated prize structure are much different, and gameplay is affected by multiple things unique to online play. This means that online Magic is not the same as paper.
The fact that games are always available and tournaments are constantly firing is the biggest difference. There are numerous ways to monetize time spent on MTGO beyond simply trading in an online complete set for a real one, but they all require making a lot of content which means playing games. This incentivizes players to play as many games as possible. Faster decks have always tended to be more popular online so that players can grind through as many games as possible per day. Boros being an aggro deck is perfect for sitting around grinding games, and since it's also really good players win a lot and will keep playing that deck.
The other big consideration is the chess clock. You've only got 25 minutes to win the game. That's a very strong incentive to play fast and relatively uncomplicated decks. There's a longstanding belief that decks that require a lot of game actions don't do as well online as they do in paper because of all the clicking required. We saw this with Underworld Breach decks being far less popular online than it was in paper. I suspect that it's happened before, but don't have the data. Finally, and this is likely tangential, MTGO does Ocelot Pride math for you.
In summary: Boros Energy is a nearly perfect deck for MTGO. It's good without being complicated and plays very quickly, enabling quick wins to maximize the games played per day. As it being good is the only relevant consideration for paper, it is nowhere near as popular there.
Combo on the Horizon
What this translates into metagame-wise is that Boros Energy is the targeted deck. Eldrazi is the secondary deck as it's quite strong against control and other big-mana decks which would normally prey on an aggro deck like Boros. It's a duopoly, and they're protecting each other.
However, they have the same weakness to combo. Neither can meaningfully interact with combos like Tameshi Belcher or Ruby Storm game one, so both decks and some other combos have been popular. It's the Old-Affinity strategy of winning game one and the stealing one of the sideboard games, and it's working well enough that combo decks should continue to thrive through RCQ season.
This is also incentivizing decks that are combo-like as they also largely ignore Boros and Eldrazi's gameplans. Prowess is the headliner of this strategy, but I think Kappa Cannoneer is doing it better. Having a really hard to interact with kill condition while playing your own interaction is very solid. The only problem being how doomed it is to Affinity hate.
Financial Implications
The big incoming opportunity is the Final Fantasy set.
The very limited spoilers we've seen so far haven't contained anything Modern playable, but that's not a problem The set is preordering better than anything before it thanks to Final Fantasy fans and collectors.
You should do well just reselling sealed product to them.
However, this also provides a long-term opportunity. With players focusing on Final Fantasy frenzy, demand for Modern cards should fall. This may be a Modern RCQ season, but most players got their decks sorted right after the last banning. There should be a price decline, which will reverse at some point in the future.
Watch the trends carefully and you should be able to buy low to sell high down the line.
