Mythic Championship V: Matchup Breakdown
Mythic Championships V left us with a very diverse top eight, with a total of seven different archetypes represented. However, top eights aren't really a great way to determine the success or failure of a deck. While necessary for a tournament to function, cutting to the top eight players is actually fairly arbitrary, and the difference between being eight and ninth is usually tie-breaker match, and this doesn't even consider how a single punt, Arena crash, or game of mana screw can be the difference between playing on Sunday and sitting at home and watching like the rest of us.
Thankfully, the structure of Mythic Championship V allowed us to gather full matchup data on the first two days of the event. Wizards published all of the decklists for Mythic Championship V a few days ago, and then the standings for each round gave us matchups along with which player won and which players lost. By jamming this together, we end up with a very complete look at deck performance from Mythic Championship V on a matchup by matchup level. We'll talk more about it after getting to the numbers, but as you look over the charts below, keep in mind that the number in parenthesis is the number of times the matchup was played. For example, the Bant Food vs Bant Golos cell means that Bant Food beat Bant Golos 60% of the time across five matches.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Bant Food | 56% (32) | 50% (2) | 60% (5) | 75% (4) | 100% (1) | 100% (2) | 0% (2) | 100% (2) | 0% (1) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | 0% (2) | 56% (9) |
| Bant Golos | 49% (188) | 40% (5) | 50% (76) | 36% (14) | 60% (5) | 58% (12) | 56% (18) | 50% (8) | 100% (1) | 50% (2) | 25% (4) | 0% (4) | 100% (1) | 80% (5) | 48% (33) |
| Bant Ramp | 58% (48) | 25% (4) | 64% (14) | 50% (4) | 0% (1) | n/a | 50% (4) | 100% (2) | n/a | n/a | 67% (3) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | 60% (15) |
| Four-Color Golos | 64% (14) | 0% (1) | 40% (5) | 100% (1) | n/a | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 50% (2) | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | 100% (2) |
| Golgari Adventure | 36% (36) | 0% (2) | 42% (12) | n/a | 0% (1) | 50% (2) | 50% (2) | 75% (4) | 50% (2) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 50% (4) | 0% (6) |
| Golos Fires | 50% (48) | 100% (2) | 44% (18) | 50% (4) | 0% (1) | 50% (2) | 50% (4) | 0% (2) | 100% (1) | n/a | 100% (2) | n/a | n/a | 75% (4) | 38% (8) |
| Gruul Aggro | 41% (29) | 0% (2) | 50% (8) | 0% (2) | n/a | 25% (4) | 100% (2) | 50% (2) | 0% (1) | n/a | 100% (2) | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | n/a | 0% (4) |
| Jeskai Fires | 43% (7) | 100% (1) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 50% (2) | 0% (1) | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) |
| Jund Midrange | 57% (7) | 100% (1) | 50% (2) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 33% (3) |
| Mardu Knights | 54% (24) | n/a | 75% (4) | 33% (3) | 50% (2) | n/a | 0% (2) | 0% (2) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | 100% (3) | 71% (7) |
| Mono-Red Cavalcade | 71% (7) | n/a | 100% (4) | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Rakdos Sacrifice | 0% (4) | 0% (1) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) |
| Selesnya Adventure | 42% (26) | 100% (2) | 20% (5) | 0% (1) | n/a | 50% (4) | 25% (4) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (3) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 71% (7) |
| Simic Food | 52% (106) | 44% (9) | 52% (33) | 40% (15) | 0% (2) | 100% (6) | 63% (8) | 100% (4) | 100% (1) | 67% (3) | 29% (7) | n/a | 100% (1) | 29% (7) | 50% (10) |
For the sake of completion, every deck is listed on our chart, but it is worth pointing out that some of data is more valuable than others thanks to sample sizes. Take Rakdos Sacrifice for example. One player played the deck, played a total of four matches against four different decks, and lost all four. While this certainly isn't a great performance, it also doesn't mean that Rakdos Sacrifice will have a 0% win percentage moving forward. A combination of matchups, luck, and player skill could very well explain the Mythic Championship V performance of the deck. All this to say, it's important to keep in mind that Mythic Championship V was a 64 player tournament on day one and a 20 player tournament on day two, which is enough to give us some interesting data—especially for more popular decks—but also not enough to give us a huge sample for each matchup. So outside of the most popular matchups, these numbers are best use to supplement your own playtesting and experiences rather than as your only source of information on Standard.
Golos Decks
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Bant Golos | 49% (188) | 40% (5) | 50% (76) | 36% (14) | 60% (5) | 58% (12) | 56% (18) | 50% (8) | 100% (1) | 50% (2) | 25% (4) | 0% (4) | 100% (1) | 80% (5) | 48% (33) |
- Heading into Mythic Championship V, Bant Golos was the talk of Standard as the most popular variant of the most popular archetype (with Golos decks making up almost 43% of the meta) in the field. The good news is that the numbers on Bant Golos are pretty bland, with a middle of the road 49% match win percentage overall, which stands even when you remove the 76 mirror matches from the equation.
- One of the biggest questions heading into the weekend was whether the results of the tournament would lead to a banning on Monday. Field of the Dead has been the most talked-about banning target, but I'm not sure that Mythic Championship V actually helped clear things up on this front. On one hand, Golos Field decks made up 43% of the meta, which is a very bannable metagame percentage (roughly where decks like Aetherworks Marvel were when they were banned) and it is also true that there aren't many Field of the Dead answers in Standard. On the other hand, a 49% match win percentage isn't great, or even very good. Basically, whether you are in the "ban Field of the Dead" camp or the "Standard is fine" camp, you can use the numbers from Mythic Championship V to support your argument.
- While the sample sizes are small, Mythic Championship V did seemingly confirm the conventional wisdom that the best way to beat Bant Golos is by going aggro. While Selesnya Adventures is a joke (as an aggro deck that loses to Golos), both Mono-Red Cavalcade (winning 100% of its 4 matches) and Mardu Knights (winning 75% of its four matches) performed well against Golos.
- Perhaps more surprising, a couple of proposed Golos assassins fell flat. Gruul Aggro only managed to beat Bant Golos 50% of the time, which technically means Golos did better against Gruul Aggro than it did against the field at large. Meanwhile, the Fires of Invention builds of Golos, which are specifically supposed to win the Golos mirror, were actually one of the better matchups for Bant Golos, with Bant winning 58% of the time across 12 matches.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Golos Fires | 50% (48) | 100% (2) | 44% (18) | 50% (4) | 0% (1) | 50% (2) | 50% (4) | 0% (2) | 100% (1) | n/a | 100% (2) | n/a | n/a | 75% (4) | 38% (8) |
- Heading into Mythic Championship V, the word on the street was that Golos Fires was the Golos deck you play to beat other Golos decks, but its performance this weekend doesn't seem to back up the hype. Oddly, Bant Golos was one of the worst matchups for Golos Fires (along with Simic Food), with Golos Fires winning just 44% of its 18 matches.
- Perhaps even more troubling for Golos Fires, it posted a lackluster 38% win rate against Simic Food, which was its second-most played deck apart from Bant Golos. Meanwhile, Bant Golos beat Simic Food 48% of the time, which isn't great, but is much better than 38%. This means that Golos Fires was bad against the two most popular decks in the format, which isn't a great place to be in Standard.
- Without beating Bant Golos or Simic Food, it's really hard to make a solid argument as to why Golos Fires is a good choice moving forward. It did manage to beat up on lesser-played decks like Selesnya Adventures and Mardu Knights across a small number of matches, which helped the deck post a 50% match win percentage overall. But if you can't beat the two most played decks in the format (including one that you're specifically designed to beat in Bant Golos), winning against fringe decks isn't really something to get that excited about. Unless there's a big Standard shakeup with tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement, I'd expect to see Golos Fires start to fade moving forward.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Four-Color Golos | 64% (14) | 0% (1) | 40% (5) | 100% (1) | n/a | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 50% (2) | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | 100% (2) |
- Four-Color Golos performed quite well at Mythic Championship V, although since it was only played by one player (Kenji Egashira), it's hard to read too much into the numbers. Is the deck good, or is Kenji good with the deck? It's hard to say for sure. The only matchup that Four-Color Golos played more than twice was Bant Golos, where it won just 40% of its five matches, although it is worth pointing out that the build seemed to perform decently against aggro, winning its only matchup against Cavalcade and Golgari Adventures, while splitting two matches with Mardu Knights.
Golos Deck Summary
- In general, Golos decks were middling at Mythic Championship V. While their metagame percentage was historic, their win rate was average. Where this leaves us in terms of tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement is up for debate. Does Field of the Dead get banned because it's an unacceptably high percentage of the meta? Does it survive since its win percentage was just average? We'll know in a few hours.
- Maybe the most important take-aways about Golos decks is that while extremely aggressive decks (like Mono-Red Cavalcade or Mardu Knights) seem to be a good way to beat them, more midrange-focused aggro decks like Golgari Adventures and Gruul Aggro don't actually have that good of a matchup against Golos. While Questing Beast has been hyped as an answer to Golos, in practice it doesn't seem to be enough.
- While the sample size is small, if you're concerned about beating aggro, it seems that either Golos Fires or Four-Color Golos is the way to go. Apparently just a couple of copies of Deafening Clarion in the main deck go a long way in the aggro matchups.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Simic Food | 52% (106) | 44% (9) | 52% (33) | 40% (15) | 0% (2) | 100% (6) | 63% (8) | 100% (4) | 100% (1) | 67% (3) | 29% (7) | n/a | 100% (1) | 29% (7) | 50% (10) |
- Simic Food is odd. While it posted a (just barely) positive record against Bant Golos, it was beaten fairly badly by both Bant Food and Bant Ramp, meaning that it had either an okay or poor matchup against the most popular decks in the field.
- On the other hand, Simic Food made up for its weakness against Bant by absolutely dominating most of the other decks in the format, going a perfect 12-0 against Golgari Adventures, Gruul Aggro, Jeskai Fires, and Rakdos Sacrifice to give the deck a positive win percentage overall at 52%.
- The biggest problem with Simic Food moving forward is that it's really, really difficult to find a reason to play it over Bant Food. Technically Simic was better against Golos Fires and in one match against Jeskai Fires, but Bant Food performed better against all of the important deck in the format, while also beating Simic Food in the head to head matchups. Basically, while Simic Food was fine, it wasn't as good as Bant Food overall, or in any important individual matchup, so moving forward you probably should splash some white in your Food deck.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Bant Food | 56% (32) | 50% (2) | 60% (5) | 75% (4) | 100% (1) | 100% (2) | 0% (2) | 100% (2) | 0% (1) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | 0% (2) | 56% (9) |
- While the story heading into Mythic Championship V was Field of the Dead and Golos, Tireless Pilgrim, the story heading out of the event is Oko, Thief of Crowns and Nissa, Who Shakes the World. Out of decks with a meaningjul number of players at the start of the tournament, by far the two biggest winners were Bant Food and Bant Ramp. By the numbers, playing Oko, Thief of Crowns on turn two or Nissa, Who Shakes the World on turn three was just as dominant as it feels when an opponent does it to you on Magic Arena.
- While not a huge sample size (32 total matches), Bant Food was legitimately great at Mythic Championship V, posting a 60% win rate against Bant Golos and a 75% win rate against Bant Ramp, clearly marking Bant Food the best deck for Bant mirrors.
- More impressively, Bant Food posted a positive win rate against every major deck at the event, with its only poor matchups being to lower-tier decks like Golos Fires, Jeskai Fires, and Selesnya Adventures, all in very small sample sizes.
- It's also worth mentioning that Bant Food wasn't the only Food deck in the tournament. While Simic Food was more heavily-played at Mythic Championship V, it performed worse in general, while Bant Food posted a solid 56% win percentage in the Food mirror.
Food Deck Summary
- The bottom line for food decks is simple: while both Simic and Bant Food were solid at Mythic Championship V, Bant was better almost across the board. While changes in the metagame could change things in the future, for now, if you want to play Food, splash white.
- What makes Bant better? As far as main decks are concerned, there really aren't a ton of difference between the two decks. White primarily adds Deputy of Detention, where the Simic builds often play Disdainful Stroke in that slot. While both cards are good against Golos, Deputy of Detention does more in other matchups. Plus, it doesn't seem like the Disdainful Stroke tech is actually that important since Bant Food actually posted a better win percentage against Bant Golos than straight Simic Food.
- The biggest question for Food decks (and also Bant Ramp, which we'll talk about momentarily) is whether these results will lead to a banning. It's easier to forget that Oko, Thief of Crowns/Gilded Goose and Nissa, Who Shakes the World decks made up almost as much of the metagame as Golos when you combine Bant Food, Simic Food, and Bant Ramp together. Combine this with the fact that Food outpaced Golos in terms of win percentage, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that something from the Oko/Nissa/Goose shell gets banned instead of or along with Field of the Dead. If they dodge the bannings tomorrow, an Oko/Nissa/Goose deck is a solid bet for best deck in Standard moving forward, whether Field of the Dead is banned or not.
Other Decks
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Bant Ramp | 58% (48) | 25% (4) | 64% (14) | 50% (4) | 0% (1) | n/a | 50% (4) | 100% (2) | n/a | n/a | 67% (3) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | 60% (15) |
- While Bant Food was one of the big winners at Mythic Championship V, Bant Ramp was even better. It's 58% overall win percentage paced the field for all decks that had more than one player and it was good to great in every important matchup except one.
- If you're looking to beat Bant Golos but don't want to go with a fringe aggro strategy (which likely struggles in the Food matchup), Bant Ramp is the place to start, with the deck winning 64% of its 14 matches against Bant Golos, giving it by far the highest win percentage against Bant Golos outside of Mono-Red Cavalcade and Mardu Knights (both of which posted really great win percentages against Bant Golos, but in samples of four matches or less).
- Much like Bant Food, Bant Ramp really doesn't have any bad matchups based on the data from Mythic Championship V, with one exception: it lost to Bant Food itself 75% of the time (in a four match sample). Otherwise, Bant Ramp's worse matchup was Golos Fires, where it still won 50% of the time. It posted win rates of 60% or better against literally every other deck it faced at Mythic Championship V.
- We'll talk more about this in the wrap up section, but based on the performance of Bant Food and Bant Ramp, there's a very strong argument that if Wizards does decide to ban something tomorrow, it should target something from the Oko/Nissa shell. If Field of the Dead gets banned but decks like Bant Ramp and Bant Food are left intact, there's a very real risk that Standard gets worse rather than better since the aggro decks that tend to answer Golos seem to have worst matchups against the Oko/Nissa shell.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Golgari Adventure | 36% (36) | 0% (2) | 42% (12) | n/a | 0% (1) | 50% (2) | 50% (2) | 75% (4) | 50% (2) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 50% (4) | 0% (6) |
- Golgari Adventure was the biggest bust of the tournament, and it's not even close. While there was some hype for the archetype heading into the weekend, apparently it doesn't beat any of the decks that actually matter in Throne of Eldraine Standard. It only beat Bant Golos 42% of the time and managed to post a shockingly bad 0% win percentage across eight matchups against Food decks. All together this lead to a 36% win percentage, making it the worst deck of the entire tournament outside of Rakdos Sacrifice which only had a single player.
- In all honesty, Golgari Adventure's best chance for relevance is bannings. If we get a "no changes" banned and restricted update tomorrow, Bant/Simic Food, Bant Ramp, and Bant Golos seem poised to make up the top tier of the Standard meta, and Golgari Adventure looks to be somewhere between bad and downright unplayable in all of those matchups.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Gruul Aggro | 41% (29) | 0% (2) | 50% (8) | 0% (2) | n/a | 25% (4) | 100% (2) | 50% (2) | 0% (1) | n/a | 100% (2) | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | n/a | 0% (4) |
- Gruul Aggro illuminates a sad truth about our current Standard format: aggro decks can't beat food decks. In fact, if you toss Gruul Aggro, Golgari Adventures, and Rakdos Aristocrats together, they went a combined 0-14 against Simic and Bant Food, which is so bad it's almost impressive. In 14 matches, you'd think that team aggro would steal at least one from mana screw or other variance, but apparently the matchup is horrible.
- Maybe more troubling for Gruul Aggro is the 50% win rate against Bant Golos. While winning 50% of the time isn't bad by any means, it does suggest that playing a bunch of hasty Gruul threats and Embercleave isn't a gauranteed way to take down the Zombie horde of Field of the Dead.
- Where Gruul Aggro did shine (although in a small number of matches) was against other aggro decks, beating up on Mardu Knights, Mono-red Cavalcade, and Rakdos Sacrifice. This makes a lot of sense: in aggro matches being a little big bigger is typically a good way to win.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Jeskai Fires | 43% (7) | 100% (1) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 50% (2) | 0% (1) | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) |
- Jeskai Fires is a deck that's hard to say much about because it only played a total of seven matches. Only winning 43% of them isn't great, but in such a small sample size it's hard to put to much weight in the performance.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Jund Midrange | 57% (7) | 100% (1) | 50% (2) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 33% (3) |
- Much like Jeskai Fires, Jund Midrange has too small of a sample size to really matter. A 57% win rate means it technically performed better than Jeskai Fires, but in reality the difference is one more match win across seven total matches.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Mardu Knights | 54% (24) | n/a | 75% (4) | 33% (3) | 50% (2) | n/a | 0% (2) | 0% (2) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | 100% (3) | 71% (7) |
- Mardu Knights is one of the most interesting decks to come out of Mythic Championship V. It had three total players heading into the event, one scrubbed out, one performed in the middle of the pack, and one made the top eight. While a 54% win rate would make it one of the better decks at the event with more than one player, a 24 match sample isn't huge by any means.
- Further complicating matters, Mardu Knights managed to play Selesnya Advantures (one of the worst decks at the event) an astounding 12.5% of the time. Meanwhile, decks like Bant Golos only played against it 2.6% of the time while Simic Food played it 6.6% of the time. As such, it feels like Mardu Knights might have benefited from some favorable matchups along the way.
- Despite the small sample size, there are some interesting numbers here, with the most important being a 71% win rate against Food and a 75% win rate against Bant Golos. While the Bant Ramp matchup might be more problematic, performing well against the two most-played archetypes of the weekend means that Mardu Knights is certainly a deck to keep an eye on moving forward. Assuming no massive shakeup with tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement, a deck that can beat Bant Golos and Food is where you want to be in Throne of Eldraine Standard.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Mono-Red Cavalcade | 71% (7) | n/a | 100% (4) | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | 100% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
- Let's start with the good news: Mono-Red Cavalcade crushed Bant Golos, going 4-0 against the format's boogieman.
- Now for the bad news: Mono-Red Cavalcade didn't actually play against a Food deck a single time at Mythic Championship V, and as we've seen with other aggro decks, the problem with aggro in the format isn't beating Golos. Most of the aggro decks can beat Golos; it's beating Food, which seems likely to be a deck on the rise heading out of Mythic Championship V. If Mono-Red Cavalcade can keep up with Food decks, it seems like it might be a very solid option moving forward, but if it struggles against Food like the rest of the aggro decks in the format, it's unlikely to be a real player in the format.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Rakdos Sacrifice | 0% (4) | 0% (1) | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (1) |
- Not much to say about this one: Rakdos Sacrifice played four matches against four different decks and it lost them all. That was the totality of Witch's Oven and Cauldron Familiar fun at Mythic Championship V.
|
|
Overall
|
||||||||||||||
| Selesnya Adventure | 42% (26) | 100% (2) | 20% (5) | 0% (1) | n/a | 50% (4) | 25% (4) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0% (3) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 71% (7) |
- Selesnya Adventure is the strangest aggro deck from Mythic Championship V. You can basically take everything we've been saying about the other aggro decks (that they beat Golos but lose to Food) and flip it on its head. Selesnya Adventures managed to crush Food decks (going 7-2 against them), but also managed to get absolutely crushed by Golos decks (going 2-7 against them).
- While maybe not relevant yet, this odd matchup breakdown does present a glimmer of hope for Selesnya Adventures moving forward, despite the 42% overall win percentage: if tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement bans Field of the Dead but leaves the Simic cards untouched, Selesnaya Adventures could be the go-to aggro strategy in the format, since its worst matchup would be gone, while its best matchup would theoretically be even more popular.
Moving Forward
On one hand, Throne of Eldraine Standard is pretty simple. In general, here's the equation: extremely aggressive decks beat Golos decks but get crushed by Food decks. Golos decks beat random midrangy piles and semi-aggressive decks, even ones that people seem to think beat Golos, but lose to Bant Food and Bant Ramp. Bant Food and Bant Ramp beat both aggro and Golos and appear to have very few weaknesses outside of beating up on each other. While small sample sizes complicate matters, heading out of Mythic Championship V, it's hard to draw any conclusion except that Bant Food and Bant Ramp are the best decks in the format, and it's not especially close.
Whether Bant Food or Bant Ramp is better is harder to say. Bant Food wins in a head to head matchup, which probably bodes well for it moving forward, but Ramp Ramp posted a better win percentage overall, and basically crushed everything except for Bant Food. Maybe it's silly to even have this debate, considering that both decks are built around the same cores of Gilded Goose, Oko, Thief of Crowns, Nissa, Who Shakes the World, and Hydroid Krasis. The differences are basically whether you play more ramp spells to get to your top-end quicker, or play more Food synergies like Wicked Wolf. While the decks are technically different, they share the same core, so rather than trying to figure out which support cards are better, maybe we just say that the Bant Oko/Nissa/Goose/Krasis shell is the best in Throne of Eldraine Standard and leave it at that. Honestly, if you're playing the core along with some additional mana dorks like Paradise Druid, you can probably fill the last 14-ish slots of your deck with whatever random blue, white, and green cards you want and still win a lot of matches — the shell is that good.
This brings us to tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement. While anything from "no bannings" to several bannings is possible, there's one thing I'm fairly confident in at this point: just banning Field of the Dead is a very bad idea. In reality, it's possible that Field of the Dead and Golos, Tireless Pilgrim have been saving us from having a one-archetype meta featuring the Bant shell we were just talking about. If Wizards does think that banning Field of the Dead is necessary (and there is a reasonable argument for it, based on metagame percentage alone) they must also ban something from the Bant shell. We already know that aggro can't beat Food, and that the Bant Ramp deck doesn't really have any bad matchups outside of other Bant decks. If Field of the Dead goes but the Bant shell remains intact, there's a real risk that Standard devolves into choosing what you fill your 14 flex slots with alongside the Bant shell. This isn't to say we need to have a banning tomorrow, just that the equation needs to either be banning nothing, or banning Field of the Dead plus something from the Bant shell (or maybe just something from the Bant shell, although Field of the Dead is so heavily played and so disliked, it might be too late for it to dodge a banning).
So what should you play in Throne of Eldraine Standard moving forward? It really all depends on tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement. With no changes, it's the Bant Shell vs Golos, with Mardu Knights maybe having a chance to sneak in as the aggro deck in the format, since it seems to have a chance against both Golos and Food (although it's worse against Bant Ramp). If just Field of the Dead is banned, Selesnya Adventures might be a dark horse breakout candidate since it's one of the only aggressive decks that beats Food consistently, but loses hard to Golos decks. If Field of the Dead and at least one card from the Bant shell is banned, then all bets are off. We'd be losing roughly 80% of the Mythic Championship V metagame, which means we'd basically be starting Throne of Eldraine Standard over again a month after the set released. Any and every deck would be worth reevaluating, and who knows what would end up on top.
Conclusion
Anyway, that's all for today. What do you make of these numbers? How do you feel about Throne of Eldraine Standard coming out of Mythic Championship V? What are you expecting (and what are you hoping for) with tomorrow's banned and restricted announcement? Let us know in the comments! As always, leave your thoughts, ideas, opinions, and suggestions, and you can reach me on Twitter @SaffronOlive or at SaffronOlive@MTGGoldfish.com.
