Maokai_UniqueTrait Morgana= 0.07

Level 9

Placement

4.62

Top 4

51%

Contest.

Full composition

Item combos — main carries (top 10)

Morgana

Combo	Avg placement
	4.00
	5.33
	5.00
	1.50
	6.00
	5.00
	3.00
	6.00
	4.00
	3.00

Sentinel

Combo	Avg placement
	3.00
	3.00
	4.00
	3.00
	7.00
	5.00
	4.00

Seen on the TOP ladders

NA Filup#TFT GRANDMASTER 507 LP 2

NA spethom#him GRANDMASTER 244 LP 3

EUW Hypno#6666 GRANDMASTER 262 LP 5

EUW TTV Jordan4am#4am GRANDMASTER 200 LP 6

NA KBM Toddy#tftbr GRANDMASTER 233 LP 6

Matchups vs

vs Summoner Zyra 20 encounters 50%

vs Solar Kayle 18 encounters 67%

vs Summoner Soraka 18 encounters 78%

vs Battlemage Sivir 15 encounters 33%

vs Defender Cassiopeia 15 encounters 53%

vs Solar Xayah 11 encounters 36%

vs Riftbeast Pebbles 10 encounters 50%

vs Executioner Zyra 9 encounters 33%

vs Battlemage Nidalee 8 encounters 75%

vs Emerald Aphelios 7 encounters 100%

vs Rival Rengar 7 encounters 14%

vs Primal Sivir 6 encounters 67%

vs Fae Tristana 6 encounters 50%

vs Riftbeast Cinderling 6 encounters 83%

vs Executioner Soraka 5 encounters 60%

vs FloraFatalis Soraka 5 encounters 80%

vs Invoker Morgana 5 encounters 0%

Board variants

Baseline

3.33 avg placement

→

5.00 avg placement

→

6.00 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 — 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.

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.