Ban List Update at the start of the week, with no foreseeable changes for a Standard that's leaning into triggered abilities, forcing control archetypes to question their own viability. On the fringes, alternative game plans are emerging that involve using Monument to Endurance, making rummaging an elective affinity. Format prices continue to walk a tightrope between perceived expense and actual affordability.
NUMBER 1: The week of February 9-15, 2026, opens with the first Ban List Update of 2026 from Wizards of the Coast (February 9). No changes were expected this time around, but the willingness to increase the annual frequency of the Ban List Update is noteworthy. The mindset has shifted from bans as an extreme measure to bans as a scalpel, making minor adjustments whenever formats become imbalanced. Lifesaving treatment gives way to cosmetic surgery. The body must always be perfect and not just saved when in deep agony. We will see how this new vision will influence format dynamics. For now, the parent company justifies the no changes decision by stating that the format is seen as varied and creative, full of answers even to the most oppressive strategies, such as those based on Badgermole Cub. A statement of intent regarding thematic decks; we will see them often.
NUMBER 2: Triggered Abilities are increasingly present on tabletops. Taking a sample composed only of archetypes with:
A) a presence percentage equal to or greater than 5%, calculated across all online and physical tournaments with more than 8 players from the last three weeks;
B) a W/L percentage of at least 60% positive in tournaments with triple-digit players, also held in the last three weeks,
it is clear that deckbuilding is increasingly enamored with the terms "when," "whenever," or "at." Looking only at game-impactful ETBs, their moving average shows an 8.9% increase since the release of Lorwyn Eclipsed, establishing an ETB presence in decks of approximately 21.3%.
This is a particularly significant data point that doesn't seem to explain the strong presence of Jeskai (U/W/R) Control in the current metagame. The overall win rate percentage of Jeskai (U/W/R) Control has dropped, yet it still appears to be an archetype heavily supported by player confidence. In the last two weeks, its performance at the tables hasn't been brilliant against the two archetypes most elevated by the new resources introduced in Lorwyn: Reanimator and Elementals. At the same time, this archetype still manages to positively handle the relatively older part of the deck field. However, the prospect of a less-than-rosy future remains for the archetype, considering the imprint left by the present. But the Player Base clashes with destiny and shouts a hoarse “Sieglinde lebe, und Siegmund lebe mit ihr! Beschlossen ist’s; das Schlachtlos wend’ ich”. It wants to believe either that new brews of Jeskai (U/W/R) Control will find a way to withstand the collision with the most recent threats (which, however, requires acquiring new spells capable of offering a comparable advantage to those threats and at a more convenient mana cost), or that the archetype will change its face and reach out towards the U/B dimension. This latter configuration seems capable of enjoying a more agile and dynamic set of answers, which should make it preferable to the alternatives.
NUMBER 3: Meanwhile, in the shadow of the forest surrounding the known, new predators are stamping their paws and scratching the ground. New brews of Monument to Endurance are starting to appear on tables, and not just the low ones. From the Lorwyn Eclipsed Pro Tour (Day 2), a first list of Rakdos (B/R) Monument emerged that exploits the discard effects of cards like Iron-Shield Elf, Tersa Lightshatter, and Bloodthorn Flail to activate the Monument's triggered abilities. A similar concept is exploited by recent experimental brews of Esper (U/B/W) Oculus, which combine the art of turning drawbacks into advantage engines with the technique of using multiple game zones as a pool of expendable resources. Essentially, a new deck that gains from field synergies, but reanimates what it needs when necessary. Rummaging seems to have captured the hearts of the most synergistic players in the format, and it must be said that it is a truly balanced mechanic for Standard. As long as there are cards and conditions to play them advantageously, we will see this approach to the game seasoned in every way. Because love is eternal, as long as it lasts.
NUMBER 4: Finally, a concise overview of the format's economy. In some communities, the opinion is often voiced that "Standard is an expensive format," without further details beyond the price of certain specific decks. But is this really the case? To contribute to the discussion in a more mathematical way, I devised a system based on constructing a traceable financial index, parameterized to field values. First, I sampled the top 10 most present decks in the game field from two very famous metagame tracking sites. I narrowed the search to the last two weeks to include all the most recent variances. I excluded identical archetypes between the two sites, resulting in 12 different strategies to analyze. I then selected several decklists for each archetype that had a win/loss percentage greater than 70% in tournaments of at least 100 people. I uploaded all lists to the CardTrader wishlist and optimized them with the Zero cart. I set the values as: edition indifferent, English language, condition at least SP, NO Foil. I averaged their overall values and took the results as "observed points."
Once the observed points were established within a sufficiently large sample, I extrapolated the upper and lower outliers. Subsequently, I calculated the geometric mean (i.e., the average of the extremes), the arithmetic mean (sensitive to outliers), and the resistant median (insensitive to outliers). After that, I needed a reasonable and as agile as possible benchmark. Noting that the price distribution of decks across various Magic formats is more symmetrical than skewed, I decided to use the geometric mean of the value of official, 60-card formats widely played in paper as a benchmark. Over time, the index can be constantly updated to show the future historical trend of prices.
The result is that Standard has a geometric mean of €581.92, an arithmetic mean of €506.94, a median of €436.91, a lower outlier of €231.68 (U/R Spellementals) and an upper outlier of €932.17 (4c Rhythm). The fact that the median is lower than the mean, in abstract, means that most of my observed points fall into medium-low values, but I have a "tail" of some data extending upwards. Indeed, among the twelve observed points, I find:
A) points 1 to 4 with a value between 200 and 300 euros (U/B Midrange 297.27; MonoR 288; W/R Dragons 285.28; U/R Spellementals 231.68);
B) points 5 to 8 with a value between 400 and 500 euros (R/G Landfall 435.95; U/R Lessons 437.87; U/B Control 442.27; U/W/R Control 477.12);
C) points 9 to 12 with a value between approximately 600 and 900 euros (U/B Excruciator 595.69; U/B/G Reanimator 799.45; U/G Ouroboroid-Cub 860.49; 4c Rhythm 932.17).
An internal asymmetrical distribution that, therefore, favors the lower end, also considering the much wider price gap between decks in band C compared to those in other bands. From this alone, one could say that Standard is, all in all, an economical format. However, to better define the argument, let's compare it to other formats as mentioned above. The set of geometric mean points for the various official 60-card formats, played in paper, is composed as follows: Vintage (here I forced the system by imposing card conditions starting from poor, to avoid market failures) €24,707.10; Legacy €4,825.79; Modern €994.51; Standard €581.92; Pioneer €370.38; Pauper €127.88.
Even without delving into the specifics of the data, which could be done by considering the non-mathematical reasons for the low cost of Pioneer and Pauper and the high cost of Vintage, a clear conclusion can be drawn: Standard falls into the economical price range of Magic formats. And if we had used the arithmetic mean, it would appear even more economical. Therefore, it can be said that, even if adverse arguments are often heard, Standard is an economical format at the time of observation, both based on its internal value distribution and in comparison with the rest of the current playable field.
“See You Space Cowboy”
Francesco
