This comp was Tier C in a previous refresh (last seen Sep 14), but doesn't get enough recent games to stay actively ranked this cycle. Kept here for reference.
Full composition
Traits
Sprykin
6/7
Brawler
3/4
Invoker
2/3
Blackthorn
2/4
Defender
2/4
Spellweaver
2/4
Caustic
1
Flora Fatalis
1/2
Elderwood
1/3
Adaptor
1/2
Hunter
1/2
Fae
1/2
Item combos — main carries (top 10)
| Combo | Avg placement |
|---|
|
4.93 |
|
3.69 |
|
4.75 |
|
4.71 |
|
4.83 |
|
4.00 |
|
5.33 |
|
6.33 |
|
5.67 |
|
3.67 |
| Combo | Avg placement |
|---|
|
2.50 |
|
5.00 |
|
4.50 |
| Combo | Avg placement |
|---|
|
5.08 |
|
3.62 |
|
5.50 |
|
5.75 |
|
3.75 |
|
4.33 |
|
5.00 |
|
5.00 |
|
6.00 |
|
4.50 |
Seen on the TOP ladders
No leaderboard player has played this comp in the last 10 observed games.
Matchups vs
Not enough shared-lobby encounters for this comp in this sample.
Board variants
Baseline
16% of games
5.17 avg placement
12% of games
6.00 avg placement
7% of games
2.64 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 — 9 units
Not enough games with exactly this board, no add-ons
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.
Incomplete attempts grouped here
Sprykin Kog'Maw
8 units
9 games · 3.56 avg placement
These comps share a strict subset of the units above (never an extra one) — likely attempts at this same comp, stopped partway rather than distinct archetypes.
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.
Broken.gg
