Deck Gradius: Rush! #718201 — Yu-Gi-Oh! Rush Duel Sevens

Deck — Deck Power Evaluation

Final Contextual Deck Power: 28/100 (±12 · Confidence: Low)

• Primary strategy: Combo
• Secondary strategies: none
• Format: rush-duel-sevens

Legality

Main 33 / Extra 0 / Side 0 — status: Legal với warning.

Identity & game plan

• Win condition: Contact Fusion spam — summon and rename Machine-type monsters as Gradius variants, then fusion-combine them into larger threats; Attrition via repeated fusion cycles and resource generation
• Turn 1 (going first): Establish 1 board of fused Gradius monsters với attack pressure; unclear due to unresolved cards
• Turn 2 (going second): Unable to determine — no combo evidence or card text available
• Recovery: Unclear — card text and combo steps not resolved
• After siding: No side deck provided (0 cards)

Why it scores here

This Gradius: Rush! deck suffers from critical unresolved card data and absence of combo evidence, making 1 high-confidence evaluation impossible. The archetype core is present at 92.3% inclusion (12 of 13 standard cards), and the hypergeometric probabilities show reliable access to at least one core card (~40% P for any single 3-copy card in the opening 5). However, 14 card passcodes could not be resolved, leaving the actual card text, roles, and synergy chains unknown. No combo boards were parsed from the evidence, so the deck's realistic ceiling, median output, interruption recovery, and grind potential cannot be verified — they are pure inference from an incomplete guide snippet. The deck appears designed around Contact Fusion mechanics and Machine-type summon spam, but vớiout resolved card text, validated combo lines, or any board-breaking interaction data, the system-level coherence and power cannot be meaningfully assessed. The absence of 1 side deck (0 cards) eliminates post-side adaptability entirely. Popularity vớiin the archetype does not substitute for demonstrated functionality.

Dimension scores

How the score was computed

Strategy profile: Combo. Structural ≈ 30, Going First ≈ 45, Going Second ≈ 18, Meta = provisional, Tournament Reliability ≈ 22. Modifiers: Unresolved card data penalty (-8); No combo evidence penalty (-6); Zero side deck penalty (-3); Rush Duel format context (2). Final formula: 0.80*Structural + 0.20*TournamentReliability (Meta null/provisional; insufficient data)

Probability & combo summary

• Opening 1 starter: P(≥1) ≈ — · key two-card combo ≈ — · full-brick estimate ≈ — (all Inferred)
• Combo output: best PowerIndex —, median —, board-per-starter —
• Turn order: 0 going-first lines vs 0 going-second lines

Strengths

• Archetype core is 92.3% complete (12 of 13 standard Gradius cards present)
• High copy density on core cards (9× three-copy slots) ensures reliable access to starters
• Contact Fusion mechanic aligns với Rush Duel format's rapid summon-spam pace
• Compact 33-card list suggests focused engine với minimal dead slots

Weaknesses

• 14 card passcodes unresolved; actual card text, roles, and interactions unknown
• No combo evidence provided; no parsed boards or combo ceiling/median data
• Zero side deck; no post-side adaptability in best-of-3 format
• No visible interaction, negation, or board-breaking coverage in resolved data
• Going-second plan completely unclear due to missing card text and combo lines
• Single-choke-point risk: unclear if the deck has independent backup lines

Critical choke points

• Unresolved card passcodes create an information blackout; the deck's actual function cannot be validated
• Absence of combo evidence means resilience to disruption cannot be assessed
• No side deck eliminates best-of-3 adaptability

Recommended changes

Evidence & confidence

• Verified: Deck is Legal với warning (33-card main, 0 extra, 0 side; all copy limits and banlist status Unlimited); Archetype core present at 92.3% (12 of 13 standard cards in the list); Zero side deck provided; Usage statistics available; core card inclusion rates at 66–100%; Rush Duel Sevens gameplay format; Guide mention: Contact Fusion mechanics, Machine-type, Light-attribute, summon spam, renaming to Gradius
• Observed: Hypergeometric P(≥1 core card in opening hand5) ≈ 0.40–1.00 depending on copy count
• Inferred: Combo floor, median, and ceiling inferred from guide snippet and archetype mechanics; no board data; D1 Engine Accessibility estimated at 62 based on core density and probability (unresolved cards add uncertainty); D2 Brick rate estimated at 48 (moderate) due to 33-card size and high copy density; no garnet data; D3 Combo Ceiling inferred low (25) due to absence of parsed combo lines; D4 Combo Median inferred very low (20) với no evidence; D5 Interruption Resilience inferred very low (22) due to unknown backup lines; D6 Resource Economy inferred as weak (32) — no float, search, or recursion text visible; D7 End-Board Interaction inferred very low (18) — no negation or interaction coverage visible; D8 Going-Second Board-Breaking inferred very low (15) — Rush Duel format favours summon spam, not disruption; D9 Offensive Power inferred as moderate (30) — Contact Fusion likely generates attack but values unknown; D10 Main Deck Efficiency moderate (55) — 33 cards legal, 14 distinct, high copy density is focused; D14 Pilotability inferred as low (25) due to unknown combo complexity and error tolerance
• Provisional: Meta Power is null/Provisional — no tournament link, no dated metagame sample supplied; Going-First Power estimate (45) is provisional pending card text resolution; Going-Second Power estimate (18) is provisional and likely underestimated due to missing information; Tournament Reliability estimate (22) is provisional due to no side deck and unresolved combos
• Data gaps: 14 card passcodes in the Main Deck could not be resolved; their card text, types, attributes, levels, ATK/DEF, and roles are unknown No combo boards supplied; no parsed end-board states, interaction density, resource signatures, or per-starter breakdowns No tournament link; archetype meta-share, per-pilot record, and dated metagame context absent No win-rate telemetry (going-first/second split, matchup outcomes, brick/starter/OTK rates, game-level consistency) No going-second example lines or board-breaker strategy documented No card-text guidance on recursion, search, float, or protection mechanics Zero side deck provided; post-side adaptability cannot be evaluated