Fire Crux MageTier 2

Winrates vs every other archetype, sorted by the opponent's field share. Mirrors excluded. Shrunk WR uses a Beta(2, 2) prior so a 1-0 cell doesn't read as 100%; it feeds the EV calc above. Adj WR is the skill-controlled view: derived from per-match ELO deltas (0.5 + avg ELO Δ / K=32, same shrinkage), so it tells you what would have happened on equal-rating play. A faded Raw WR means under 10 matches — lean on the Shrunk WR column there.

The 13 public Fire Crux Mage decklists from this event, ordered by final placement — click a pilot for the full list.

• SkYyeung 83 cards · placed #5
• Raypig 85 cards · placed #7
• IanChan 87 cards · placed #15
• HydraRS 87 cards · placed #35
• TOMLI 85 cards · placed #42
• JYCheung 81 cards · placed #54
• VitaL 85 cards · placed #59
• SergioCi 85 cards · placed #63
• HayHay0127 85 cards · placed #66
• AmuroTM 80 cards · placed #67
• Kent 85 cards · placed #77
• fishball13 85 cards · placed #83
• Lamgor 72 cards · placed #88

In 6 mirror matches (2 draws excluded), here are the card-count differences that most often separated the winning deck from the losing one. Staples (cards both decks run at the same count) are filtered out — only flex slots show up below. Cards whose count only differed in fewer than 3 mirrors are also held back as too sparse to call a pattern (still visible in the raw table further down). Small sample warning: 6 mirrors is borderline; treat these as suggestive, not conclusive.

Winners more often ran: Gentle Respite, Resolute Stand, Mnemonic Charm. Losers more often ran: Reprogram, Nullifying Lantern, Potion Infusion: Seal.

↑ Played more by winners

Gentle Respite

Winning decks ran 2.8 copies on average, losing decks 0.5.

Of 6 mirrors: the winner ran more in 5, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 1.

Resolute Stand

Winning decks ran 2.3 copies on average, losing decks 1.0.

Of 6 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 3.

Mnemonic Charm

Winning decks ran 3.5 copies on average, losing decks 3.0.

Of 6 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 3.

Sudden Steel

Winning decks ran 1.3 copies on average, losing decks 0.8.

Of 6 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 3.

Viridian Protective Trinket

Winning decks ran 1.0 copy on average, losing decks 0.5.

Of 6 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 3.

Under Fire

Winning decks ran 1.2 copies on average, losing decks 0.0.

Of 6 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 3.

↓ Played more by losers

Reprogram

Losing decks ran 1.3 copies on average, winning decks 0.0.

Of 6 mirrors: the loser ran more in 4, the winner ran more in 0, both ran the same in 2.

Nullifying Lantern

Losing decks ran 0.5 copies on average, winning decks 0.0.

Of 6 mirrors: the loser ran more in 3, the winner ran more in 0, both ran the same in 3.

Potion Infusion: Seal

Losing decks ran 1.2 copies on average, winning decks 0.7.

Of 6 mirrors: the loser ran more in 3, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 2.

Fast Cure

Losing decks ran 2.5 copies on average, winning decks 2.3.

Of 6 mirrors: the loser ran more in 3, the winner ran more in 2, both ran the same in 1.

Library Witch

Losing decks ran 2.3 copies on average, winning decks 2.0.

Of 6 mirrors: the loser ran more in 2, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 3.

Sable Remnant

Losing decks ran 0.7 copies on average, winning decks 0.3.

Of 6 mirrors: the loser ran more in 2, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 3.