Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Deck Wins | luffydochapeudepalha | 9-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765769 |
| Gruul Aggro | mogged | 8-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765784 |
| Red Deck Wins | numberonenoob | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769907 |
| Red Deck Wins | kablewire | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769892 |
| Red Deck Wins | latorretta | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769073 |
| Gruul Aggro | mogged | 7-1 | None |
| Red Deck Wins | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | junkmener | 7-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765778 |
| Red Deck Wins | pedrastone | 7-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769073 |
| Red Deck Wins | mortaa | 7-3 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 64 #12769925 |
Performance Stats (Last 14 Days)
Win Rate Impact
Top Table Win Rate
Meta Trend
Sample Size
Tournament Results
Average Copies
Archetypes Using This Card:
Big Red , Boros Aggro , Boros Auras , Boros Burn , Boros Convoke , Boros Discover , Boros Forge , Boros Mice , Boros Monument
Meta Performance Analysis
Screaming Nemesis ranks #285 out of approximately 413 cards in raw efficiency (top 69%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Red average: 63.8%
Performance compared to other Red cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Screaming Nemesis is an underperforming card in the current meta.
Recommended number of copies: 1
Win Rate Timeline
Card Efficiency Analysis
Raw Efficiency (Win Rate/Mana)
Relative Efficiency
Performance Efficiency: 14.91 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 3 mana, the average win rate in the format is 74.0%. Screaming Nemesis has a win rate of 73.0%, making it 1.4% worse than other 3-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helping Hand | Sorcery | 6 | 81.3% | 3 |
| Phyrexian Dragon Engine | Artifact Creature — Phyrexian Dragon | 6 | 81.3% | 3 |
| Recommission | Sorcery | 6 | 81.3% | 3 |
| Bulwark Ox | Creature — Ox Mount | 5 | 80.0% | 3 |
| Guardian of New Benalia | Creature — Human Soldier | 5 | 77.6% | 2 |
| Bruse Tarl, Roving Rancher | Legendary Creature — Human Warrior | 6 | 77.4% | 3 |
| Quintorius Kand | Legendary Planeswalker — Quintorius | 9 | 70.1% | 4 |
| Leyline of the Void | Enchantment | 35 | 69.9% | 8 |
| Beza, the Bounding Spring | Legendary Creature — Elemental Elk | 12 | 69.6% | 6 |
| Tersa Lightshatter | Legendary Creature — Orc Wizard | 62 | 69.3% | 18 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Screaming Nemesis than they do on average. A positive synergy score indicates stronger performance together.
| Card Name | Type | Mana | Decks | Win Rate Together | Win Rate Apart | Synergy Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turn Inside Out | Instant | 1 | 6 | 84.6% | 75.9% | +8.7% |
| Destroy Evil | Instant | 2 | 7 | 80.0% | 73.0% | +7.0% |
| Shock | Instant | 1 | 6 | 85.7% | 78.8% | +6.9% |
| Ral, Crackling Wit | Legendary Planeswalker — Ral | 4 | 5 | 80.8% | 76.2% | +4.6% |
| Obstinate Baloth | Creature — Beast | 4 | 8 | 76.7% | 74.5% | +2.3% |
| Monastery Swiftspear | Creature — Human Monk | 1 | 61 | 78.2% | 76.6% | +1.6% |
| Spell Pierce | Instant | 1 | 33 | 76.8% | 75.2% | +1.6% |
| Pyroclasm | Sorcery | 2 | 50 | 76.6% | 75.8% | +0.8% |
| Slickshot Show-Off | Creature — Bird Wizard | 2 | 35 | 76.8% | 76.2% | +0.6% |
| Stock Up | Sorcery | 3 | 34 | 74.8% | 74.6% | +0.2% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gruul Aggro | 1892 | 90.8% | 46.5% |
| Red Deck Wins | 1362 | 97.9% | 53.0% |
| Boros Burn | 302 | 75.9% | 52.3% |
| Temur Otters | 98 | 29.2% | 41.2% |
| Gruul Delirium | 90 | 58.4% | 41.0% |
Statistics Explanation
| Statistic | Description | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Win Rate Impact | How much this card increases or decreases the win rate of decks that include it, compared to the average deck in the format. | (Win rate of decks with this card) - (Average win rate of all decks) |
| Top Table Win Rate | A weighted win rate that gives more significance to performance in higher tournament placements. First place finishes count for 2x, with diminishing weight down to 8th place. | ∑(wins × placement_weight) / ∑((wins + losses) × placement_weight) |
| Meta Trend | Shows if the card is performing better or worse in the most recent period compared to earlier periods. Positive values indicate improving performance. | (Win rate in recent half of time period) - (Win rate in earlier half of time period) |
| Confidence Factor | A measure of statistical reliability based on sample size. The progress bar indicates how confident we are in the statistics (with larger sample sizes providing higher confidence). | log10(Number of decks + 1) |
| Average Copies | The average number of copies of this card included in decks that use it. | ∑(Copies in each deck) / (Number of decks) |
| Card Synergy Score | Measures how well this card performs with other cards compared to their individual performance. | (Win rate together) - (Average of individual win rates) |
| Raw Efficiency | Win rate points per mana invested. Higher values indicate better returns on mana investment. | (Win rate) / (Mana value) |
| Relative Efficiency | How efficient this card is compared to the average card of the same mana value. | ((Win rate) / (Format average win rate for same mana)) / (Mana value) |
| Performance Efficiency | Combined metric that accounts for win rate, tournament success, and mana investment. | (Win rate × Top 8 placement rate) / (Mana value) |
| Game Impact Factor | A measure of how much this card affects game outcomes, based on win rate adjusted by its deviation from the format average. | Win rate × (1 + (Win rate - Format average) / 100) |
| Color Differential | How this card's win rate compares to the average win rate of other cards of the same color. | Win rate - Average win rate for same color |
All statistics are calculated using tournament data from the selected time period. Sample sizes below 10 decks may not provide statistically significant results.