Lorcana has developed a structural problem over the past few weeks. Amethyst sits at 35.73% average card popularity, more than double the next closest colour. This isn't just about one card being strong. It's that the entire colour has become the default, and every other ink must now justify why it's worth the disadvantage.
The question facing competitive players right now isn't "should I run Amethyst?" It's "what am I giving up by not running it?" This constraint has reshaped the format. Players are either building Amethyst shells, racing to win before Amethyst takes over, or accepting that they're playing at a fundamental disadvantage. The middle ground has collapsed.
Meta Pressure Read
The pressure comes from depth, not just peak performance. Cheshire Cat sits at 100% popularity, but that's expected for format-defining cards. What matters more is that Amethyst offers Demona (96.64%), Hades (88.33%), and a suite of supporting options that no other colour can match. Players gravitate towards Amethyst because it offers both inevitability and flexibility.
This creates what feels like a tax on deckbuilding. Every non-Amethyst colour must answer the question: "How do I justify losing access to the best card advantage engine, the most efficient board control, and the deepest card pool?" Sapphire attempts to match velocity with Sail the Azurite Sea (71.2%). Steel commits to removal with Strength of a Raging Fire (63.11%). But these aren't solutions, they're survival mechanisms.
Ruby and Amber have effectively priced themselves out of competitive consideration. Ruby's most popular card, Daisy Duck, barely reaches 21.75%. Amber sits at 32% with Mowgli. Neither colour has tools that justify paying the Amethyst tax. They're not weak colours in isolation, they're weak colours in a format where Amethyst defines what "strong enough" means.
Cards That Mattered This Week
Under the Sea
At 35.63% popularity, Under the Sea represents Emerald's attempt to ramp past Amethyst's crucial turns. The card theoretically solves the inevitability problem by accelerating into overwhelming board states before Cheshire Cat stabilises. But Emerald's average popularity sits at just 16.92%, suggesting most players have dismissed this approach.
The question isn't whether Emerald ramp can work in theory. It's whether the risk of stumbling justifies avoiding Amethyst's consistency. Right now, players have answered "no." That makes Under the Sea the most interesting under-explored angle in the current meta.
Sail the Azurite Sea
Sapphire's response to the card advantage arms race. At 71.2% popularity and effectively maxed out at 3.99 copies per deck, Sail is the closest thing to a non-Amethyst staple. The card doesn't solve the Amethyst problem, but it acknowledges it. Players running Sapphire have accepted that they need to match Amethyst's velocity to stay competitive.
What makes Sail significant this week is what it represents. It's not a counter-strategy, it's a concession. Sapphire players are saying "we can't beat Amethyst's card advantage, so we'll try to match it." That's the Amethyst tax in action.
Strength of a Raging Fire
Steel's most efficient removal sits at 63.11% popularity with 3.89 copies per deck. In any other format, this would signal a healthy metagame where removal matters. In this format, it signals that Steel is desperately trying to answer threats it can't keep pace with through card advantage alone.
The card is popular because it's necessary. Steel decks need to remove Demona, Hades, and eventually Cat itself, and they need to do it efficiently enough to stay ahead of Amethyst's resource generation. But "necessary" isn't the same as "sufficient." Steel is paying the tax by committing deck slots to answers that buy time without solving the fundamental problem.
Practical Implications
If you're building for competitive play right now, you're making a choice about how to pay the Amethyst tax.
You can run Amethyst and accept that you're playing the same core package as most of the field. The mirror match becomes about small optimisations and tech choices. This is the safest route, but it means competing in the most crowded space in the meta.
Alternatively, you can commit to aggressive strategies that aim to win before Amethyst stabilises. This means accepting fragility. One stumble, one missed removal spell, one turn where you can't apply pressure, and Amethyst buries you in card advantage. The speed required to outrace the tax leaves little room for interaction.
The third option is to explore Emerald ramp or other unconventional approaches. This accepts high variance and meta resistance in exchange for playing a strategy most opponents aren't prepared for. Few players are testing this seriously, which makes it worth investigating if you're willing to lose more but learn faster.
The most constrained decision right now is ink colour itself. Amethyst creates pressure simply by existing. Every other colour must justify the disadvantage, and right now, most can't. That's not a sustainable meta state, but it's the reality of this week.
Creative Space
Emerald ramp remains the most under-explored competitive archetype. With average popularity of just 16.92%, the colour is being dismissed wholesale. But the tools exist to theoretically accelerate past Amethyst's key turns. Under the Sea at 35.63% suggests some players are testing it, but the archetype hasn't broken through.
The question for Emerald is whether it can establish inevitability faster than Amethyst. If you can ramp into overwhelming board states by turn 6 or 7, Cheshire Cat never gets the chance to take over. The risk is that Emerald's acceleration requires setup, and setup gives Amethyst time to establish control. But few players are seriously testing this angle, which makes it the most interesting unexplored space in the current meta.
There's also room for hyper-aggressive strategies that ignore the Amethyst tax entirely. Instead of trying to match or outpace card advantage, what about builds that simply don't interact with the opponent's gameplan and aim to deal 20 damage as fast as possible? The data doesn't show anyone testing this seriously, but the absence of cheap, efficient aggro tools in Ruby and Amber might explain why. If those tools existed, someone would be trying to race past the tax completely.
What's Coming
Winterspell releases in two weeks (February 15, 2026). Early previews suggest Ruby and Steel are getting significant support for aggressive strategies. These are exactly the tools needed to pressure Amethyst before it stabilises. Whether these cards are fast enough to close games by turn 6 or 7 will determine if the Amethyst tax becomes more manageable.
If Winterspell doesn't provide efficient answers or faster clocks, the next two months will look identical to this week. The Amethyst tax isn't a temporary spike, it's a structural problem. The format requires either disruption that doesn't exist yet or acceleration that Ruby and Amber currently lack. The question isn't whether Amethyst is strong, it's whether Winterspell can create viable alternatives that don't require paying the tax.
Major tournaments in the next month will largely be decided by how well players navigate the tax decision. Mirror matches will matter, but so will the few players who find ways to dodge or exploit the constraint. If you're preparing for competitive play, understanding how to think about the tax is more important than optimising any specific deck.
•
