Full composition
Traits
Juggernaut2/4
Inferno2/3
Vanguard2/4
Bounty Seeker1
Old Growth1
Greenfather1
Apex Predator1
Emerald Aspect1
Riftbeast2/3
Invoker1/2
Executioner1/2
Item combos — main carries (top 10)
| Combo | Avg placement |
|
1.67 |
|
8.00 |
| Combo | Avg placement |
|
4.00 |
|
1.00 |
|
6.00 |
Seen on the TOP ladders
EUW
ViggoZe#EUW
CHALLENGER
929 LP
1
EUW
Tsundere DeinaL#EUW
MASTER
292 LP
1
EUW
Ariana Grande#Livie
MASTER
160 LP
1
NA
junglebook1#NA1
CHALLENGER
636 LP
1
NA
满船清梦压星河#cyy
MASTER
204 LP
1
NA
mali QAQ#Ornn
MASTER
97 LP
1
NA
弈梦 小飞#2025
MASTER
74 LP
1
KR
Maladjust#1rdie
CHALLENGER
614 LP
1
KR
Maladjust#1rdie
CHALLENGER
614 LP
1
KR
토실꿀단지#2257
GRANDMASTER
364 LP
1
KR
Chun Gum#천 검
GRANDMASTER
275 LP
1
KR
너무멋있어영#KR1
MASTER
209 LP
1
KR
김준민보고떨굼#KR1
MASTER
184 LP
1
NA
Filup#TFT
GRANDMASTER
507 LP
2
KR
BearRock#곰돌돌
GRANDMASTER
176 LP
3
BR
GVidigal#br1
MASTER
179 LP
4
KR
Ssiel#3132
CHALLENGER
616 LP
4
EUW
Rubic#1453
GRANDMASTER
226 LP
5
KR
BearRock#곰돌돌
GRANDMASTER
176 LP
5
NA
EricWei#1412
GRANDMASTER
306 LP
6
Matchups vs
Board variants
Baseline
32% of games
3.58 avg placement
5% of games
1.44 avg placement
2% of games
1.75 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
3.58 avg placement · 55 games
+1 unit (9 total)
Alune
1.44 avg placement · 9 games
Ezreal
1.75 avg placement · 4 games
Gnar
1.33 avg placement · 3 games
Kog'Maw
6.00 avg placement · 3 games
Lux
1.00 avg placement · 2 games
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.