Fire AggroTier 1

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 26 public Fire Aggro decklists from this event, ordered by final placement — click a pilot for the full list.

• SenseiShari 86 cards · placed #6
• GeauxDew 81 cards · placed #7
• Cyan 83 cards · placed #9
• Ymes 83 cards · placed #19
• TlsoVotl 81 cards · placed #20
• Tarvis 81 cards · placed #28
• Ver 81 cards · placed #36
• Chuunibyou 79 cards · placed #47
• Glass 81 cards · placed #55
• UnsungCrown 83 cards · placed #61
• Drakenfort 83 cards · placed #64
• Ashe 83 cards · placed #71
• Utility 83 cards · placed #73
• xStoarm 81 cards · placed #75
• Gestalt 81 cards · placed #77
• rexaren 83 cards · placed #82
• h4mx0r 81 cards · placed #84
• AnnaxElsa69 83 cards · placed #103
• supersand24 82 cards · placed #116
• NightShadowz 85 cards · placed #124
• Pavonee 83 cards · placed #128
• Trazy 82 cards · placed #132
• DeeJus 77 cards · placed #138
• Chibison 83 cards · placed #145
• Steve2012 82 cards · placed #150
• TeamAkroJam 83 cards · placed #152

In 13 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).

Winners more often ran: Demolition, Flame-Rune Swordsman, Tariff Ring. Losers more often ran: Clumsy Apprentice, Rending Flames, Strapping Conscript.

↑ Played more by winners

Demolition

Winning decks ran 1.2 copies on average, losing decks 0.7.

Of 13 mirrors: the winner ran more in 6, the loser ran more in 3, both ran the same in 4.

Flame-Rune Swordsman

Winning decks ran 2.5 copies on average, losing decks 1.9.

Of 13 mirrors: the winner ran more in 6, the loser ran more in 3, both ran the same in 4.

Tariff Ring

Winning decks ran 0.5 copies on average, losing decks 0.3.

Of 13 mirrors: the winner ran more in 6, the loser ran more in 3, both ran the same in 4.

Cinder Geyser

Winning decks ran 1.1 copies on average, losing decks 0.4.

Of 13 mirrors: the winner ran more in 4, the loser ran more in 1, both ran the same in 8.

Spark Alight

Winning decks ran 0.5 copies on average, losing decks 0.0.

Of 13 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 0, both ran the same in 10.

Vermilion Decree

Winning decks ran 3.9 copies on average, losing decks 3.5.

Of 13 mirrors: the winner ran more in 3, the loser ran more in 1, both ran the same in 9.

↓ Played more by losers

Clumsy Apprentice

Losing decks ran 3.1 copies on average, winning decks 2.2.

Of 13 mirrors: the loser ran more in 6, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 6.

Rending Flames

Losing decks ran 3.5 copies on average, winning decks 2.7.

Of 13 mirrors: the loser ran more in 5, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 7.

Strapping Conscript

Losing decks ran 0.9 copies on average, winning decks 0.3.

Of 13 mirrors: the loser ran more in 5, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 7.

Zander, Deft Executor

Losing decks ran 0.2 copies on average, winning decks 0.0.

Of 13 mirrors: the loser ran more in 3, the winner ran more in 0, both ran the same in 10.

Xiao Qiao, Cinderkeeper

Losing decks ran 3.4 copies on average, winning decks 2.9.

Of 13 mirrors: the loser ran more in 5, the winner ran more in 2, both ran the same in 6.

Lurking Assailant

Losing decks ran 0.7 copies on average, winning decks 0.2.

Of 13 mirrors: the loser ran more in 3, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 9.