IEM Cologne 2025: Structural Breakdown of FaZe, NiP and GamerLegion’s 2–0 Play-In Wins

Three teams FaZe, NiP, and GamerLegion – advanced from the Play-In stage of IEM Cologne 2025 with 2–0 records. The results may appear clean, but the nature of those wins tells a deeper story. This report dissects how each team approached their maps, how they behaved across key phases, and what these outcomes actually mean ahead of the group stage.

FaZe – Controlled Execution Dependent on Map Pool

Match Results:
vs TheMongolz — Vertigo 13:6
vs Virtus.pro — Overpass 13:9

FaZe played two maps they are heavily favored on. On Vertigo, they relied on delayed utility usage and passive ramp setups. Rain and frozen consistently reset space rather than contesting ramp early. Their CT rounds were defined by late map control and conservative crossfire positioning.

On Overpass, FaZe avoided mid control entirely. Most rounds were executed through short and long A with no pressure on connector. The structure worked against slow opponents but revealed a lack of depth in adaptation.

Concerns: Outside of Vertigo and Overpass, FaZe has not shown LAN success in recent months. Their system lacks visible recovery patterns after early disadvantage. Karrigan’s mid-round calling remains heavily map-dependent and does not scale well into veto instability.

NiP — Outcome Without Structure

Match Results:
vs Imperial — Mirage 13:7
vs 3DMAX — Inferno 13:10

NiP posted two clean scorelines but showed minimal strategic depth. On Mirage, they ignored mid entirely. No connector control, no map pressure. A-site entries were based on dry walks and minimal utility.

Inferno showed similar simplicity. They ran 2-1-2 defaults with no tempo variation. Their banana control was passive and predictable. The few successful rounds came from isolated trades rather than coordinated calls.

Conclusion: NiP lacks structure in both execution and call timing. Brollan provides mechanical presence but does not lead mid-round phases. Without external map control or framed site entries, their wins feel contingent rather than reproducible. Betting confidence remains low.

GamerLegion — Disciplined Play With Real Tactical Layering

Match Results:
vs Eternal Fire — Ancient 13:11
vs BIG — Anubis 13:8

GamerLegion produced the most tactically coherent Play-In run. On Ancient, they anchored B with cave freezes and maintained mid presence without overcommitting. Their CT setups delayed utility until 30s phases, allowing layered retakes with support from mid and temple rotations.

On Anubis, they ran clean map control to canal and used delayed site transitions. No dry entries, no unnecessary swings. Every execute occurred on structured timing and with full resource coverage.

Analysis: GL does not rely on firepower peaks. They win rounds by sustaining map pressure and responding to information. The team shows real IGL behavior — adjustments on timeout, post-death round resets, and system calls. Their ceiling may be limited, but their floor is higher than expected.

Team Comparison Matrix

Summary

All three teams advanced 2–0, but only one did so with a fully formed structure. FaZe can win maps when conditions favor their system, but lack resilience outside their pool. NiP currently operate without a macro shell and should be faded in any structured matchup. GamerLegion while less explosive are the only team in this trio showing tactical reliability across rounds and maps. That matters more than scorelines.