Battlemage Aphelios= 0.04

Level 8

Placement

5.29

Top 4

37%

Contest.

Full composition

Item combos — main carries (top 10)

Hecarim

Combo	Avg placement
	7.00

Aphelios

Combo	Avg placement
	3.80
	4.50
	4.33
	6.00
	4.33
	4.00
	7.00
	6.00
	3.00
	5.00

Seen on the TOP ladders

EUW Rayan Cherki#PAWS MASTER 274 LP 3

NA MrBombastic#NA1 MASTER 134 LP 4

KR 종 범#TFT MASTER 236 LP 4

NA corduroy#euhh MASTER 110 LP 8

Matchups vs

vs Summoner Zyra 28 encounters 32%

vs Battlemage Sivir 19 encounters 63%

vs Summoner Soraka 18 encounters 72%

vs Riftbeast Pebbles 16 encounters 25%

vs Solar Kayle 15 encounters 53%

vs Defender Cassiopeia 14 encounters 36%

vs Emerald Aphelios 11 encounters 73%

vs Caustic Kog'Maw 11 encounters 73%

vs Elderwood Ezreal 10 encounters 60%

vs Executioner Zyra 9 encounters 11%

vs Fae Tristana 9 encounters 22%

vs Invoker Morgana 9 encounters 22%

vs Solar Akali 8 encounters 62%

vs Solar Xayah 7 encounters 57%

vs Greenfather Amumu 7 encounters 57%

vs Solar Camille 7 encounters 57%

vs Executioner Soraka 7 encounters 0%

vs Greenfather Sivir 7 encounters 14%

vs Rival Master Yi 6 encounters 17%

vs Primal Sivir 6 encounters 33%

Board variants

Baseline

6.00 avg placement

→

6.00 avg placement

→

4.00 avg placement

Real versions of this comp's final board: which exact group of champions shows up together, how often, and the average placement of those games. Not a game-by-game history (Riot only exposes the end-of-game board, never how it got there): a comparison of builds, not a timeline.

Board add-ons (9th/10th unit)

Base board — 8 units 7.00 avg placement · 3 games

Not enough games with an extra unit for a reliable signal.

The main board above stops at 9 units: reaching a 10th slot needs level 10, which on its own already correlates strongly with a good placement. Below, the average placement of games with this base board plus one or two extra units, shown as a correlation to interpret, not a causal recommendation.

Augment path

Data unavailable. Riot's API doesn't populate the augments field for this set — verified directly on the collected sample (the "augments" field doesn't even appear in the response, across 23,000+ real participants checked). The field does exist in the official schema and worked on older sets, so this probably isn't permanent — this section will activate automatically as soon as it fills in again.