Fire RileTier 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 14 public Fire Rile decklists from this event, ordered by final placement — click a pilot for the full list.

• SkYyeung 83 cards · placed #3
• marupiyo 83 cards · placed #4
• Pizza 83 cards · placed #6
• Hm773 85 cards · placed #8
• YOUCAN8J 84 cards · placed #13
• Raylam 83 cards · placed #16
• z12zz123 88 cards · placed #19
• Jason0117 83 cards · placed #20
• Kin 81 cards · placed #21
• NewJeansHanni 83 cards · placed #23
• Samson 83 cards · placed #25
• fishball13 85 cards · placed #26
• JYCheung 81 cards · placed #27
• KeithCY 83 cards · placed #31

In 15 mirror matches, 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: Reduce to Ash, Staggering Strike, Fluffy Shopkeep. Losers more often ran: Tariff Ring, Fast Cure, Cheshire Cat, Impish Grin.

↑ Played more by winners

Reduce to Ash

Winning decks ran 3.3 copies on average, losing decks 2.9.

Of 15 mirrors: the winner ran more in 8, the loser ran more in 4, both ran the same in 3.

Staggering Strike

Winning decks ran 1.3 copies on average, losing decks 0.7.

Of 15 mirrors: the winner ran more in 5, the loser ran more in 2, both ran the same in 8.

Fluffy Shopkeep

Winning decks ran 1.5 copies on average, losing decks 0.8.

Of 15 mirrors: the winner ran more in 5, the loser ran more in 2, both ran the same in 8.

Regal Inquisition

Winning decks ran 2.3 copies on average, losing decks 1.9.

Of 15 mirrors: the winner ran more in 7, the loser ran more in 4, both ran the same in 4.

Flame Sweep

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

Of 15 mirrors: the winner ran more in 6, the loser ran more in 4, both ran the same in 5.

Nullifying Mirror

Winning decks ran 0.3 copies on average, losing decks 0.2.

Of 15 mirrors: the winner ran more in 4, the loser ran more in 2, both ran the same in 9.

↓ Played more by losers

Tariff Ring

Losing decks ran 0.6 copies on average, winning decks 0.3.

Of 15 mirrors: the loser ran more in 7, the winner ran more in 3, both ran the same in 5.

Fast Cure

Losing decks ran 1.6 copies on average, winning decks 0.5.

Of 15 mirrors: the loser ran more in 5, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 9.

Cheshire Cat, Impish Grin

Losing decks ran 0.5 copies on average, winning decks 0.1.

Of 15 mirrors: the loser ran more in 4, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 10.

Annul Spell

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

Of 15 mirrors: the loser ran more in 5, the winner ran more in 2, both ran the same in 8.

Striking Illuminance

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

Of 15 mirrors: the loser ran more in 4, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 10.

Turbo Charge

Losing decks ran 0.5 copies on average, winning decks 0.3.

Of 15 mirrors: the loser ran more in 3, the winner ran more in 1, both ran the same in 11.