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.
As the metagame continues to settle after the unbans of Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Bloodbraid Elf, an interesting dichotomy has arisen: some players claim that the presence of these powerful four-drops has made the format faster and less interactive, while another sector espouses the opposite belief. I took it upon myself to find out which camp has a better read on Modern.
The former group claims that a deck lacking both Jace and the Elf cannot hope to win a grindy, fair game, and must thus resort to trying to get under decks with the cards. The latter holds that because these cards have mostly boosted the fortunes of fair decks, the format is more interactive than it has been in recent memory, resulting in longer, slower games of Magic.
This article lays out the current slate of top decks, then compares it to that of the most recent lineup before the unbans. Next, it attempts to determine whether the most represented decks attempt to win faster than their predecessors did.
The Usual Suspects
In order to establish a frame of reference, we have to establish a baseline of what decks are the most common performers in the current environment. While Wizards' change in policy regarding the publication of Magic Online league data has made direct comparisons with the past somewhat difficult, I think it's reasonable to assume that decks that make their way to the 5-0 listings regularly are at least somewhat well-positioned. With that in mind, a results accumulation resource like MTGGoldfish should still provide a sufficient approximation of what decks to focus on.
Another useful exercise at this stage is to establish a given deck's degree of interactivity. Storm isn't operating on the same axis as Jund, and there are plenty of decks somewhere in between those two that need their place defined. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll use the following categories.
Minimally interactive - These decks pack few or no ways to directly interact with their opponents. Some of their action cards can interact, but the gameplan is mostly to ignore what the opponent is doing.
Examples:Â Ad Nauseam, Gifts Storm
Moderately interactive - These decks tend to have a firmly established gameplan, but are also capable of disrupting opponents if the situation dictates it. The disruption these decks employ is often integrated into their gameplan.
Examples: Hollow One, Humans
Highly interactive - Disrupt early and often is the name of the game here. These decks generally have a small handful of win conditions, and then dedicate the rest of their shell to ensuring that opponents must fight tooth-and-nail to execute their own gameplans.
Examples:Â Jeskai Control, Mardu Pyromancer
The Need for Speed
Last but not least, we have to talk about speed, or proactivity. Decks like Burn aim to win as fast as possible; on the other side of the coin, control decks want to establish themselves on the battlefield and the stack, and then win much later. Here are some broad categories we can use to categorize the speed of the decks we are interested in evaluating:
Fast decks - These are generally looking to win by turn four. Some of them are even capable of finishing the game before then if left to their own devices.
Moderately fast decks - These decks are generally proactive and looking to win the game in a reasonable time frame, but are not quite as "all-in" as the fast decks. Provided they draw the proper tools, these decks are as comfortable winning the game on turn four or five as they are on turn 10.
Examples: Grixis Shadow, RG Ponza
Slow decks - These decks have piles of interaction and a nominal amount of win conditions. Their goal is usually to stymie the opponent's gameplan, eventually find their ways to win, and then close the game out at their leisure.
Examples: UW Control, Lantern Control
Measuring Up
With these categories in mind, let's take a look at the top 15 decks currently on MTGGoldfish and see where things stand in the pre- and post-unban metagames.
| Deck Name | Deck Ranking | Interactivity | Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jund | 1 | Highly interactive | Moderately fast |
| Humans | 2 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Gx Tron | 3 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Burn | 4 | Moderately interactive | Fast |
| Hollow One | 5 | Moderately interactive | Fast |
| Gifts Storm | 6 | Minimally interactive | Fast |
| Affinity | 7 | Minimally interactive | Fast |
| Bogles | 8 | Minimally interactive | Fast |
| Grixis Shadow | 9 | Highly interactive | Moderately fast |
| Jeskai Control | 10 | Highly interactive | Slow |
| U/W Control | 11 | Highly interactive | Slow |
| Eldrazi Tron | 12 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Ad Nauseam | 13 | Minimally interactive | Moderately fast |
| Ponza | 14 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Dredge | 15 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
My prediction prior to putting these lists together was that the average speed and interactivity of a deck in the metagame will not have changed much, but the metagame will have become more polarized. Fast, minimally interactive decks and slow, highly interactive decks would find themselves on the rise, with the middle ground between these extremes eroding to some degree.
The hypothesis ended up only half-right. A look at the high-ranking decks in a vacuum instead favors the view that the metagame has gotten faster; while most of the decks here are interactive to some degree, they are all looking to win quickly. Cards like Bloodbraid Elf have injected speed into the likes of Jund and RG Ponza. Uxx control decks seem to be the only representatives of the slower side of the spectrum that are performing at a high level, as prison strategies like Lantern Control are pushed out by the re-emergence of decks heavy on artifact hate.
However, we cannot definitively state that the meta has gotten faster until we take a look at a snapshot of the metagame prior to the Jace and Bloodbraid unban:
| Deck Name | Deck Ranking | Interactivity | Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gx Tron | 1 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Humans | 2 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Grixis Shadow | 3 | Highly interactive | Moderately fast |
| Burn | 4 | Moderately interactive | Fast |
| Affinity | 5 | Minimally interactive | Fast |
| Eldrazi Tron | 6 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Mardu Pyromancer | 7 | Highly interactive | Slow |
| Dredge | 8 | Moderately interactive | Moderately fast |
| Jeskai Control | 9 | Highly interactive | Slow |
| Titanshift | 10 | Minimally interactive | Moderately fast |
| Traverse Shadow | 11 | Highly interactive | Moderately fast |
| Counters Company | 12 | Minimally interactive | Fast |
| UR Madcap Moon | 13 | Highly interactive | Moderately fast |
| UW Control | 14 | Highly interactive | Slow |
| Abzan | 15 | Highly interactive | Moderately fast |
This list of decks does confirm the assertion that the current metagame has gotten faster and less interactive. Not only are there more representatives for the decks I consider fast (five examplars now to three previously), there's also a dip in decks that could be thought of as highly interactive (we went from seven decks in that ledger to four). Given this information, it's reasonable to conclude that one of the major ways decks have adapted to the rise of Bloodbraid and Jace is to speed up and duck under them.
Drilling Deeper
While our categorization does a reasonable job of illustrating broad trends in the metagame, we can also narrow our focus by examining the decklists of various archetypes one might expect to see in each metagame and how they have changed.
Let's begin the comparison with one of the pillars of Modern: BGx Rock. This is an Abzan list from just before the unban announcement.
Abzan, by ef_apostrophe (6-1, MTGO Modern Challenge #11145571)
Compare this Abzan list to a Jund one from the latest MTGO Competitive League list dump.
Jund, by cliang (5-0, MTGO Competitive League)
Jund has classically been considered to be a more aggressive deck than Abzan, and a look at these two lists illustrates why very well: its removal spells can double as reach, its manlands are more offensively slanted, and Dark Confidant provides a strong impetus for closing out games before its drawback kills its controller. As Jund is currently ascendant, players can expect more offensive pop when opponents open with Swamp into Thoughtseize.
Next, let's look at some of the more aggressive decks. Here's the Bogles list Dmitriy Butakov piloted to a win in this year's Magic Online World Championship.
Bogles, by Dmitriy Butakov (1st Place, Magic Online World Championship)
Bogles was fringe at best in the recent past, but now it's back with a vengeance, and one of the big reasons why is that it demands a very specific type of interaction. Spot removal spells are often useless, while black discard spells and sacrifice effects can be shut off with Leyline of Sanctity. Countermagic or enchantment destruction still stops Bogles, but only when paired with a clock, or the Bogles player will eventually draw through such disruption.
Compare this deck to a fast one from the previous metagame, Counters Company.
"Counters Company, by Steve Campen (1st Place, SCG IQ Bernardsville)
Bogles is built with the idea of invalidating spot removal in mind, whereas Counters Company's combo finishes are highly vulnerable to that very type of card. Furthermore, the toolbox nature of Company decks allows room for a few cards that push a plan other than the combo (such as Fiend Hunter, Tireless Tracker, Tidehollow Sculler, and Voice of Resurgence), but the all-in nature of a deck like Bogles does without such luxuries; virtually every inclusion in that deck is either part of the primary gameplan, or protects the primary gameplan.
These differences are only part of why Company is in the outhouse while Bogles is in the penthouse. More importantly, they establish a clear trend reinforced by the uptick in decks with recurring threats like Hollow One's Flamewake Phoenix and Bloodghast, or redundant proaction like Burn's removal-proof reach. Bloodbraid Elf and Jace, the Mind Sculptor have indeed primarily boosted slower decks, and the field has adjusted by rewarding decks that complicate interacting.
Running Off
Changes in the highest echelons of the metagame are increasingly apparent. But whether these development are good, bad, or neutral for format health and diversity remains to be seen. If you have any opinions on the current state of the format, or on the analyses I performed to arrive at my conclusions, drop me a line in the comments.




Functionally, Mox Sapphire is an Island that you cast, meaning it replaces Island. This is how
enter play. This means you need extra lands in your hand when you play it, and as a result, you couldn't cut lands for the mox. Thus, it never saw widespread play, instead serving as an accelerant in
close to the originals as any mox has come and Chrome Mox has seen widespread play. In Standard it was everywhere.
Next is the only Modern-legal mox. Mox Opal is designed to be the most niche mox ever, and it succeeds. Keying off the artifacts matter theme in Scars block, Opal only produces mana when you have metalcraft. Which isn't a big deal, as it counts itself, but most decks don't play many artifacts to begin with so they can't utilize Opal. The biggest change from Chrome to Opal was the addition of legendary. This appears to be Wizards' new balancing strategy, and it makes sense. Multiple moxen are extremely powerful after all, and legendary status means that any extra copies will be Lotus Petals at best. Which is still pretty good, but not five-jewels good.
Colorless is not a color, so Karn and Hope of Ghirapur don't work.
That's not great. As to whether it replaces lands, the answer is no. In order for Mox Amber to do anything, you have to have already played a spell, so your demand for land on turn one remains the same. After that turn, Mox Amber becomes more like a land, but the value of the acceleration also substantially decreases.
makes it far more likely to hit a turn one Blood Moon. This requires a land, two Simians, and the Moon compared to three moxes, a red land, a red legend, and the Moon. Simian also has other benefits, like easier turn one Thalias or just being a creature that can be played to deal damage. The versatility and greater speed are more valuable than the permanent mana boost.















misunderstanding, and I've watched pros and Modern dabblers alike experiment with misguided technology "upgrades" to the deck like Cavern of Souls and Sorcerous Spyglass. I'm excited the deck has struck a chord in the Modern community, and for innovations regarding its future developments to eventually roll in from elsewhere. But as things currently stand, I want those picking it up to have access to where I stand on card choice, since I've already tested most possible includes in my two years on the deck.
From a non-virtual card advantage viewpoint, Void is worse than many of our other lands. I've heard players, after much deliberation, roughly equate "draw a card" with "scry 3;" in that sense, Void counts for just a third of an extra card. Compare with Mutavault, which is a creature and can often trade with opposing removal; Scavenger Grounds, which says "draw X cards" depending on the amount of Eternal Scourges in our graveyard; and Sea Gate Wreckage, which literally draws us cards every turn once its condition is met.
a mana investment of some sort to trade up into an extra card's worth of value. Not so with Void, which scrys upon battlefield entry and never asks for a single mana in return. That's huge in our many mana-light games. In the first few turns of most games, we're casting the disruption and Eldrazi in our hand, not activating our lands; that's a plan for later in the game. Void improves this stage by smoothing out our draws at no immediate cost. The cost is paid much later, when (and if) the game devolves into a topdeck war; that's the scenario that calls for spell-lands. On the other hand, Void's efficiency makes it one of our best lands in faster games.
Scavenger Grounds is a must when our deck's so apt at finding Eternal Scourge. It gives us a powerful mainboard way to hose attrition decks while buffing our graveyard-based matchups like Storm and Traverse Shadow. I tried a third Wastes after Worcester, and found it superfluous in a lot of matchups; it was best against UW Control, but a third Grounds shines there, too, and has wider applications overall. Still, we can't drop below 2 Wastes, as we need ways to punish players for firing off Path to Exile, Field of Ruin, and Ghost Quarter against us.
After Worcester, I was itching to cut one of these. I originally liked 2 Sea Gate to ensure I could draw into one after exiling a copy to Powder, but it's dead in so many matchups that I now think 2 is too many. Scavenger Grounds largely fulfills the same purpose against attrition decks, and does more elsewhere, too. The main benefit of Sea Gate is that it's a recurring value engine that attacks from a unique angle: drawing us cards from the deck. It can also be activated on an opponent's turn after representing other utility lands activations for a cycle (i.e. Ghost Quarter for a petrified Raging Ravine).
One of the exciting things about Colorless Eldrazi Stompy is that it will always receive playable cards through Standard, even if we're done getting literal Eldrazi creatures for a while. Wizards still has a ton of design space to explore when it comes to colorless cards like lands and artifacts;Â Damping Sphere, Karn, Scion of Urza, and now Zhalfirin Void all speak to that.










