← Back to Sessions

Amulet Titan Variants Cave Reclaimer Analysis

1 requestsStarted 9/18/2025, 3:39:52 AM
compare amulet titan lists with and without urza’s cave, with and without icetill explorer, w/ and w/o elvish reclaimer and matchups where they differ

I'll analyze Amulet Titan variants by comparing lists with and without these key cards, and examine their matchup differences. Let me start by gathering the data.

Now let me search for the specific cards to get their IDs for detailed analysis:

Now let me analyze the adoption of these cards in Amulet Titan over the last 60 days:

🛠️Get Archetype Cards

Let me check for Icetill Explorer and Elvish Reclaimer specifically:

🛠️QueryCard Usage in Specific Tournament Archetype

The query shows neither Icetill Explorer nor Elvish Reclaimer are being played in Amulet Titan in recent tournaments. Let me analyze the performance differences for lists with and without Urza's Cave:

🛠️QueryUrzas Cave Impact on Tournament Performance

Now let me analyze matchup performance differences for these variants:

🛠️QueryUrza's Cave Impact on Amulet Archetype Matchups

Let me try a simpler approach to see what matchups have sufficient data:

🛠️QueryMost Common Opponent Archetypes by Match Count

Now let me analyze the key matchup differences for Urza's Cave variants:

🛠️QueryCave Card Impact on Matchup Winrates

Let me get some recent tournament sources and try a different approach:

Let me check recent sideboard cards too to get a complete picture:

🛠️Get Archetype Cards

Now let me analyze the performance impact of different configurations by looking at specific high-performing lists:

🛠️QueryHigh-Performing Modern Tournament Decks Performance Analysis

Based on my analysis of Amulet Titan variants over the last 60 days, here's what the tournament data shows:

Amulet Titan Variant Analysis

Card Adoption Rates:

  • Urza's Cave: 80.5% adoption (140/174 decks) - clearly mainstream
  • Icetill Explorer: 0% adoption - not played in recent tournaments
  • Elvish Reclaimer: 27.6% sideboard adoption (48/174 decks) - niche tech piece

Performance Comparison:

Overall Winrates (last 60 days):

  • With Urza's Cave: 50.65% (311-303 record across 140 entries)
  • Without Urza's Cave: 52.41% (87-79 record across 34 entries)

The lists without Urza's Cave show a slightly better winrate (+1.76%), but this represents a much smaller sample size.

High-Performing Lists Analysis:

Looking at entries with 4+ wins or top 8 finishes:

  • Cave + Reclaimer builds: Multiple 7-0 and 6-1 finishes, including the 10-4-1 Nordic Masters performance
  • Cave-only builds: Consistent 4-6 win performances
  • Reclaimer-only builds: 7-0-2 MEGA Modern finish and several solid results
  • Neither card builds: Still competitive with multiple 4+ win finishes

Key Insights:

  1. Urza's Cave is the dominant variant (80%+ adoption) but doesn't show superior performance
  2. Elvish Reclaimer appears as sideboard tech in successful builds, often paired with Green Sun's Zenith packages
  3. Icetill Explorer sees zero competitive play in recent tournaments
  4. The most successful configurations tend to use both Cave and Reclaimer or Reclaimer alone

Matchup Differences:

The data suggests different variants may be meta-positioned differently, but sample sizes for specific matchups are too small to draw definitive conclusions about where Cave vs non-Cave builds excel.

Sources: Data from 84 tournaments (84.5% MTGO, 15.5% Melee) including recent events like Modern Challenge 32, Modern Showcase Challenge, and 1º Torneio Super Modern.