This report compares two periods: Oct 27 – Nov 9 and Oct 13 – Oct 26. Copy counts combine Main Deck and Sideboard. Where two Performance scores are given, the first is for decks running the card at that count and the second for decks not running it.
Rarely played cards that won or made top cut
The card's Play rate within the Legend is 25% or lower, but between Oct 27 and Nov 9 a deck running it won a tournament, or at least 2 decks running it made top cut and its Top cut play rate is at least twice its Play rate. No minimum Sample.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 28 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 6%), Top cuts 4, Wins 2 (City Challenge · Beijing · 10.31, 128 players, Oct 31; Convergence IV, 272 players, Oct 31). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 42. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 9%.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 29 decks at 2 copies (Play rate 7%), Top cuts 5, Wins 1 (Convergence IV, 272 players, Oct 31). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 42. Top cut play rate at 2 copies: 11%.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 18 decks at 2 copies (Play rate 4%), Top cuts 2, Wins 1 (【城市挑战赛】-苏州站-10.31, 128 players, Oct 31). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 42. Top cut play rate at 2 copies: 4%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 6 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 2%), Top cuts 1, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Beijing · 11.8, 128 players, Nov 8). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 22. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 4%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 17 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 8%), Top cuts 2, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Chengdu · 11.7, 122 players, Nov 7). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 17. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 11%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 12 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 5%), Top cuts 2, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Chengdu · 11.7, 122 players, Nov 7). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 17. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 11%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 21 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 14%), Top cuts 4, Wins 2 (City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.1, 128 players, Nov 1; City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.7, 128 players, Nov 7). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 11. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 36%.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 21 decks at 2 copies (Play rate 14%), Top cuts 2, Wins 2 (City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.1, 128 players, Nov 1; City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.7, 128 players, Nov 7). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 11. Top cut play rate at 2 copies: 18%.
— · 3 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 21 decks at 3 copies (Play rate 14%), Top cuts 2, Wins 2 (City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.1, 128 players, Nov 1; City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.7, 128 players, Nov 7). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 11. Top cut play rate at 3 copies: 18%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 13 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 14%), Top cuts 2, Wins 2 (City Challenge · Fuzhou · 10.31, 115 players, Oct 31; City Challenge · Guangzhou · 11.08, 128 players, Nov 8). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 9. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 22%.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 3 decks at 2 copies (Play rate 3%), Top cuts 1, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Guangzhou · 11.08, 128 players, Nov 8). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 9. Top cut play rate at 2 copies: 11%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 5 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 11%), Top cuts 1, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Wuhan · 11.08, 128 players, Nov 8). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 2. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 50%.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 2 decks at 2 copies (Play rate 4%), Top cuts 1, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Wuhan · 11.08, 128 players, Nov 8). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 2. Top cut play rate at 2 copies: 50%.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Sample 3 decks at 1 copy (Play rate 6%), Top cuts 1, Wins 1 (City Challenge · Wuhan · 11.08, 128 players, Nov 8). All decks in the same two weeks: Top cuts 2. Top cut play rate at 1 copy: 50%.
Performed well for four weeks, Play rate still under 50%
In both periods, decks running this number of copies had a clearly higher Performance score than decks not running the card. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate is 50% or lower, Top cut play rate is not below Play rate, and at least 2 of these decks made top cut.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 40% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 25% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 30%, Top cuts 13, Wins 1. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 48.1 / 42.1 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 45.3 / 29.0 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Performs well in all four weeks; consider running more copies.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 30% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 24% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 35%, Top cuts 6, Wins 1. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 51.7 / 44.3 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 56.7 / 45.8 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Performs well in all four weeks; consider running more copies.
Performed poorly for four weeks, but most decks run it
More than half of the Legend's decks run the card, and in both periods the most common number of copies had a clearly lower Performance score than decks not running the card.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 65% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 44% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 50%, Top cuts 11, Wins 1. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 45.6 / 54.6 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 46.9 / 58.8 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Performs poorly in all four weeks; consider running fewer copies.
— · 2 copies. Play rate at 2 copies: 37% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 39% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 47%, Top cuts 8, Wins 0. Performance score, 2 copies / not played: 48.8 / 56.4 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 42.2 / 59.7 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Performs poorly in all four weeks; consider running fewer copies.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 43% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 52% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 60%, Top cuts 3, Wins 0. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 43.8 / 55.2 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 44.3 / 56.0 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Performs poorly in all four weeks; consider running fewer copies.
High Performance score, but no top cut
Decks running this number of copies have a Performance score at least 8 points higher than decks not running the card, with a Sample of 15 decks or more, but none of them made top cut between Oct 27 and Nov 9 (the Legend had at least 4 top cut decks in that time).
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 2 copies 6%, Top cut play rate 0%, Top cuts 0, Wins 0; Performance score 37.9, against 28.6 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. Avg. placement is good, but none of these decks made top cut; not a reason to run more copies.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 1 copy 15%, Top cut play rate 0%, Top cuts 0, Wins 0; Performance score 63.2, against 36.5 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. Avg. placement is good, but none of these decks made top cut; not a reason to run more copies.
Performed well between Oct 13 and Oct 26, poorly between Oct 27 and Nov 9
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 37% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 18% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 11%, Top cuts 5, Wins 0. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 56.4 / 46.5 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 38.3 / 53.0 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Play rate at 1 copy fell by 18 percentage points between the two periods. The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 10% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 7% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 2%, Top cuts 1, Wins 0. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 57.3 / 49.2 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 39.0 / 52.2 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 74% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 52% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 47%, Top cuts 8, Wins 0. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 58.8 / 32.5 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 45.4 / 55.1 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Play rate at 1 copy fell by 21 percentage points between the two periods. The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 64% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 44% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 41%, Top cuts 7, Wins 0. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 57.8 / 40.2 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 48.0 / 51.6 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Play rate at 1 copy fell by 19 percentage points between the two periods. The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— Evelynn · 3 copies. Play rate at 3 copies: 34% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 27% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 0%, Top cuts 0, Wins 0. Performance score, 3 copies / not played: 63.2 / 41.6 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 39.7 / 54.4 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— Evelynn · 3 copies. Play rate at 3 copies: 28% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 27% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 100%, Top cuts 1, Wins 0. Performance score, 3 copies / not played: 54.7 / 44.3 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 45.1 / 55.2 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
Performed poorly between Oct 13 and Oct 26, well between Oct 27 and Nov 9
— · 3 copies. Play rate at 3 copies: 34% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 56% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 59%, Top cuts 25, Wins 3. Performance score, 3 copies / not played: 38.5 / 53.2 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 53.8 / 49.6 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Play rate at 3 copies rose by 22 percentage points between the two periods. The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 26% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 11% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 14%, Top cuts 6, Wins 1. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 46.8 / 54.9 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 54.9 / 49.6 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Play rate at 1 copy fell by 15 percentage points between the two periods. The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 15% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 17% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 17%, Top cuts 3, Wins 1. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 38.7 / 55.9 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 62.2 / 46.7 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
— · 1 copy. Play rate at 1 copy: 42% (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 48% (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Oct 27 – Nov 9: Top cut play rate 100%, Top cuts 2, Wins 0. Performance score, 1 copy / not played: 42.2 / 56.6 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 52.6 / 45.0 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). The two periods disagree, so no conclusion yet; we will check again next week.
Number of copies: a clear difference for four weeks
— . Performance score, 2 copies / 1 copy: 79.0 / 32.1 (Oct 13 – Oct 26), 53.4 / 41.7 (Oct 27 – Nov 9). Play rate (Oct 27 – Nov 9): 69% at 2 copies, 21% at 1 copy. Decks running 2 copies performed better in all four weeks; consider running 2 copies.
New cards, Oct 27 – Nov 9
Fewer than 10 decks ran these cards between Oct 13 and Oct 26; between Oct 27 and Nov 9 their Play rate rose clearly and they perform well. Listed for reference.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 1 copy 26%, Top cut play rate 36%, Top cuts 4, Wins 1; Performance score 69.0, against 37.1 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 1 copy 10%, Top cut play rate 18%, Top cuts 2, Wins 0; Performance score 76.5, against 44.4 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 2 copies 34%, Top cut play rate 85%, Top cuts 6, Wins 0; Performance score 62.8, against 42.3 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 3 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 3 copies 29%, Top cut play rate 50%, Top cuts 2, Wins 1; Performance score 69.4, against 42.5 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 1 copy 17%, Top cut play rate 100%, Top cuts 2, Wins 0; Performance score 72.4, against 24.7 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 2 copies 48%, Top cut play rate 100%, Top cuts 2, Wins 0; Performance score 68.2, against 29.5 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 1 copy. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 1 copy 26%, Top cut play rate 50%, Top cuts 1, Wins 0; Performance score 66.4, against 26.3 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
— · 2 copies. Oct 27 – Nov 9: Play rate at 2 copies 31%, Top cut play rate 50%, Top cuts 2, Wins 0; Performance score 66.0, against 29.6 for decks not running the card. Fewer than 10 decks ran it between Oct 13 and Oct 26, so there is no earlier data to compare with. To be reviewed next week.
By Domain: cards that perform well across several Legends
Three single-Domain cards per Domain. Cards whose decks perform better across several Legends come first (Performance score at least 3 points higher between Oct 27 and Nov 9, and not lower between Oct 13 and Oct 26); the remaining places go by the number of Legends where the card performs better, then by the score difference. Performance score here covers all copy counts together.
Fury
— Fury Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 3. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: Mordekaiser (Play rate 53%, Performance score 11.7 points higher); (Play rate 86%, Performance score 6.5 points higher); (Play rate 30%, Performance score 6.0 points higher). Play rate is still low in: ; consider running more copies.
— Fury Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 2 of them: (Play rate 36%, Performance score 24.2 points higher); Mordekaiser (Play rate 81%, Performance score 12.3 points higher). Not better in: , .
— Fury Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 3. Decks running it perform better in 2 of them: (Play rate 27%, Performance score 7.2 points higher); Mordekaiser (Play rate 14%, Performance score 4.5 points higher). Not better in: . Play rate is still low in: , Mordekaiser; consider running more copies.
Mind
— Mind Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 2. Decks running it perform better in 2 of them: (Play rate 65%, Performance score 26.3 points higher); Orianna (Play rate 37%, Performance score 12.9 points higher).
— Mind Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 1. Decks running it perform better in 1 of them: (Play rate 74%, Performance score 31.4 points higher).
— Mind Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 1. Decks running it perform better in 1 of them: (Play rate 81%, Performance score 23.2 points higher).
Calm
— Calm Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 7. Decks running it perform better in 7 of them: (Play rate 72%, Performance score 31.0 points higher); (Play rate 73%, Performance score 25.8 points higher); (Play rate 42%, Performance score 25.7 points higher); (Play rate 90%, Performance score 15.3 points higher); (Play rate 62%, Performance score 9.7 points higher); (Play rate 63%, Performance score 7.9 points higher); Orianna (Play rate 62%, Performance score 4.9 points higher).
— Calm Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: (Play rate 18%, Performance score 15.8 points higher); Orianna (Play rate 28%, Performance score 14.6 points higher); (Play rate 56%, Performance score 3.2 points higher). Not better in: . Play rate is still low in: , Orianna; consider running more copies.
— Calm Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 2. Decks running it perform better in 2 of them: (Play rate 95%, Performance score 41.9 points higher); (Play rate 37%, Performance score 19.8 points higher).
Body
— Body Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: (Play rate 14%, Performance score 24.1 points higher); Evelynn (Play rate 48%, Performance score 18.0 points higher); (Play rate 13%, Performance score 8.0 points higher). Not better in: . Play rate is still low in: , ; consider running more copies.
— Body Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 3. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: (Play rate 17%, Performance score 8.3 points higher); Evelynn (Play rate 14%, Performance score 7.0 points higher); (Play rate 43%, Performance score 6.5 points higher). Play rate is still low in: , Evelynn; consider running more copies.
— Body Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 2. Decks running it perform better in 2 of them: (Play rate 68%, Performance score 8.4 points higher); Evelynn (Play rate 35%, Performance score 4.7 points higher).
Order
— Order Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 4 of them: (Play rate 20%, Performance score 21.2 points higher); Mordekaiser (Play rate 18%, Performance score 14.9 points higher); (Play rate 15%, Performance score 11.0 points higher); (Play rate 32%, Performance score 8.5 points higher). Play rate is still low in: , , Mordekaiser, ; consider running more copies.
— Order Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 3. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: Mordekaiser (Play rate 81%, Performance score 17.5 points higher); (Play rate 12%, Performance score 6.1 points higher); (Play rate 47%, Performance score 3.8 points higher). Play rate is still low in: ; consider running more copies.
— Order Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: Mordekaiser (Play rate 40%, Performance score 24.8 points higher); (Play rate 30%, Performance score 10.0 points higher); (Play rate 62%, Performance score 6.9 points higher). Not better in: . Play rate is still low in: ; consider running more copies.
Chaos
— Chaos Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: (Play rate 95%, Performance score 31.7 points higher); (Play rate 50%, Performance score 18.1 points higher); (Play rate 56%, Performance score 14.5 points higher). Not better in: Evelynn.
— Chaos Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: (Play rate 94%, Performance score 30.3 points higher); Evelynn (Play rate 82%, Performance score 17.1 points higher); (Play rate 75%, Performance score 5.1 points higher). Not better in: .
— Chaos Legends with enough decks both running and not running the card: 4. Decks running it perform better in 3 of them: (Play rate 96%, Performance score 24.1 points higher); (Play rate 26%, Performance score 13.7 points higher); (Play rate 75%, Performance score 11.8 points higher). Not better in: Evelynn. Play rate is still low in: ; consider running more copies.
Legends
Site data for the last 7 days. Average Conversion rate across all Legends: 6.9%. Meta share = the Legend's decks ÷ all decks; Top cut share = the Legend's top cut finishes ÷ all top cut finishes; Conversion rate = top cut finishes ÷ the Legend's decks. Top cut means Day 2 or playoffs: top 8 at city and store events, top 64 at regionals, top 128 at nationals.
| Legend | Tier | Meta share | Top cut share | Conversion rate | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | 20.5% | 31.2% | 10.5% | 1.0 | |
| Tier 1 | 11.6% | 10.9% | 6.5% | 1.0 | |
| Tier 1 | 9.6% | 15.6% | 11.2% | 1.0 | |
| Tier 2 | 8.1% | 7.8% | 6.6% | 2.0 | |
| Tier 2 | 5.6% | 4.6% | 5.7% | 0.0 | |
| Tier 3 | 3.7% | 4.6% | 8.8% | 1.0 | |
| Tier 3 | 2.9% | 1.5% | 3.7% | 0.0 | |
| Evelynn | Tier 3 | 2.8% | 1.5% | 3.8% | 0.0 |
| Tier 2 | 2.7% | 4.6% | 12.0% | 0.0 | |
| Mordekaiser | Tier 4 | 2.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Tier 3 | 2.1% | 3.1% | 10.0% | 0.0 | |
| Tier 3 | 2.1% | 1.5% | 5.0% | 0.0 |
Conversion rate clearly above the average: (12.0%), (11.2%), (10.5%).
Tournament winners, Nov 3 – Nov 9
| Tournament | Players | Winner | Legend |
|---|---|---|---|
| City Challenge · Beijing · 11.8 | 128 | 泽萱.流浪巫妖 | |
| City Challenge · Guangzhou · 11.08 | 128 | lbw | |
| City Challenge · Wuhan · 11.08 | 128 | No.Sensai | |
| City Challenge · Hangzhou · 11.7 | 128 | 梦之星.河道蟹🐦🔥 | |
| City Challenge · Shanghai · 11.7 | 128 | XXT·∀·雷公 | |
| City Challenge · Chengdu · 11.7 | 122 | TDF.忘了@Anakin | |
| City Challenge · Tianjin · 11.7 | 85 | 神奥空间.极手感.JINX希尔 | |
| City Challenge · Foshan · 11.7 | 71 | NGNL·咕嘎雨辰 |