I'll analyze the performance of Affinity decks based on their main deck interaction choices. Let me start by getting the archetype overview and then examine the card composition.
Now let me get the recent card breakdown for Affinity to identify interaction spells:
Now I need to identify which cards count as interaction and search for some key interaction cards to get their IDs for analysis:
Now let me query the database to compare performance of Affinity decks with and without main deck interaction:
Let me get more specific information about what interaction cards are being played:
Now let me get sources to cite this analysis:
Yes, Affinity decks running main deck interaction perform significantly better than those without interaction. Based on analysis of 572 Affinity entries, decks with main deck interaction cards achieve a 41.95% winrate compared to only 31.64% for decks without interaction - a substantial 10.31 percentage point difference.
The vast majority of successful Affinity builds (511 out of 572 decks, or 89.3%) include some form of main deck interaction. The most common interaction pieces are Metallic Rebuke (appearing in 485 decks with an average of 3.17 copies), Portable Hole (365 decks with 3.82 average copies), Pithing Needle (296 decks with 1 copy), and Aether Spellbomb (233 decks with 1 copy). This suggests that having answers to opposing threats or problematic permanents is crucial for Affinity's success in the current Modern meta.
The performance gap indicates that pure combo/goldfish builds of Affinity struggle against the interaction and disruption prevalent in Modern, while builds incorporating counterspells, removal, and utility artifacts maintain better game against a wider field of opponents.
Sources: Data from 81 tournaments: 86.4% MTGO, 13.6% Melee. Recent events include:
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-32-2025-09-1512814298
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-showcase-challenge-2025-09-1412814234
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-32-2025-09-1412814287