Goryo's Vengeance Archaeologist vs Riddler Winrate

What’s the winrate difference of goryos vengeance decks with 4 Fallaji Archaeologists vs that of Goryos Vengeance decks with 4 Quantum Riddler?

Great question! Let me look up the relevant card and archetype IDs, then run the analysis.

Let me search more specifically for the Goryo's Vengeance archetype in Modern.

🛠️QueryFind archetypes containing Goryo

Found it. Now let me run the performance splits for decks with 4x Fallaji Archaeologist vs 4x Quantum Riddler within Goryo Reanimator in Modern over the last 60 days.

🛠️QueryGoryo Reanimator with four Fallaji Archaeologist

🛠️QueryGoryo Reanimator decks with four Quantum Riddler

🛠️QueryArchetype Performance with Specific Card in Summer Tournaments

🛠️QueryArchetype performance with specific card in tournaments

I now have all the raw data. Let me compute the winrates from both result sets.

For the Fallaji Archaeologist group (40 entries), I'll aggregate wins/losses/draws and compute the winrate (excluding draws):

Total wins: 3+2+4+4+0+2+2+2+5+5+2+3+2+0+1+0+0+0+2+3+2+2+2+0+0+2+2+0+6+1+0+6+7+1+1+0+0+5+3+2 = 83
Total losses: 2+2+2+2+4+2+2+2+1+2+2+2+1+3+1+1+0+0+2+1+1+2+3+0+0+2+3+0+1+1+3+1+8+4+2+1+1+4+4+3 = 78
Total draws: 0+0+0+0+0+0+4+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 5
Winrate (excl. draws): 83 / (83+78) = 51.6%

For the Quantum Riddler group (623 entries), I'll calculate aggregated wins/losses from the data. Let me do this via a direct SQL aggregation instead.

🛠️QueryCard Winrate Comparison Summer 2026

Here's the breakdown for Modern Goryo Reanimator over the last 60 days (2026-07-23 to 2026-09-22):

Decks running 4x Fallaji Archaeologist posted a 51.9% winrate (84W-78L-5D) across 40 entries. Decks running 4x Quantum Riddler came in at 49.1% winrate (1391W-1444L-91D) across 623 entries. That's a difference of 2.8 percentage points in favor of the Fallaji Archaeologist builds.

One important caveat: the sample sizes are very unequal. The Quantum Riddler group is roughly 15x larger and gives a much more statistically robust picture of the average performance. The Archaeologist group's 40 entries could reflect a smaller set of pilots running a tech-forward list, so the results may be skewed by player skill or metagame timing rather than the card itself alone.

Sources: Data from 159 Modern tournaments (63.5% MTGO, 36.5% Melee). Recent events include:
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-64-2026-09-1912854505
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-16-2026-09-1912854500
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-64-2026-09-1812854494

Whats the winrate difference of Broodscale decks without Stomping Ground in the maindeck, when grouped by their sideboard land choices. I’m interested in the difference between 1+ Gemstone Cavern versions vs 1+ Ugin’s Labyrinth versions vs No Lands versions in the sideboard.

Interesting question! Let me gather the necessary IDs first.

Got all the IDs. Now let me run the query to split winrates by sideboard land group, filtering out entries that have Stomping Ground in the maindeck.

🛠️QueryBroodscale Sideboard Land Strategy Winrate Comparison

The match join isn't pulling results correctly — likely the matches table joins on entry_id differently. Let me check the schema and fix the join.

🛠️QueryFirst five match records with details

🛠️QueryAll match records with results and participants

Result values are "WIN"/"LOSS"/"DRAW" not "W"/"L"/"D". Let me fix the query.

🛠️QueryArchetype Performance by Side Land Inclusion

Here are the results across the three groups for Broodscale entries without Stomping Ground in the maindeck (mirror matches excluded):

1+ Ugin's Labyrinth (sideboard): 64.29% winrate (90W/50L across 25 entries)
1+ Gemstone Caverns (sideboard): 53.74% winrate (1142W/983L across 502 entries)
No sideboard lands: 53.02% winrate (2785W/2468L across 1246 entries)

The Ugin's Labyrinth group is the standout at 64.29%, nearly 11 points ahead of the other two. However, the sample size is very small at only 25 entries, so that figure should be treated with caution. The Gemstone Caverns group is a much larger sample (502 entries) and edges out the no-lands group by about 0.72 points (53.74% vs 53.02%), a marginal difference with no real practical significance. No entries ran both cards in the sideboard simultaneously.

The no-sideboard-lands group is by far the most popular configuration at 1,246 entries, suggesting most Broodscale pilots simply don't dedicate sideboard slots to lands at all when cutting Stomping Ground from the main.

Sources: Data drawn from 221 Modern tournaments (70.1% MTGO, 29.9% Melee). Recent examples include:
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-96-2026-09-2112854525
https://melee.gg/Decklist/View/77c37df5-8981-49ff-901c-b4ca0183c4fc
https://www.mtgo.com/decklist/modern-challenge-64-2026-09-1912854505