Deck Fiendsmith #736243 — Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG

Deck — Deck Power Evaluation

Final Contextual Deck Power: 62/100 (±6 · Confidence: Medium)

• Primary strategy: Midrange
• Secondary strategies: Combo, Control
• Format: tcg

Legality

Main 54 / Extra 15 / Side 0 — status: Legal.

Identity & game plan

• Win condition: Field control via S-Force column locking and Fiendsmith Fusion summons, accumulating resources through draw effects; Board disruption through going-second removals (Forbidden Droplet, Book of Eclipse) and negation stacking
• Turn 1 (going first): Establish S-Force field presence với Signify/Bridgehead to search and lock opponent columns; build Fiendsmith Links for recursion and interaction
• Turn 2 (going second): Leverage going-second removal (Forbidden Droplet, Book of Eclipse, Dominus Spark) to clear opponent board, then pivot into field control or resource grind
• Recovery: S-Force recursion through Nightcatcher and banish effects; Fiendsmith Engraver discard-to-add and graveyard revival; Mulcharmy draw triggers on opponent summons
• After siding: No side deck provided; strategy remains as main deck

Why it scores here

This Fiendsmith midrange deck opens 1 live engine với reasonable frequency via S-Force search and Fiendsmith Engraver recursion, scoring 62 points for system-level consistency, median output, and going-second utility. The deck reliably produces 1 functional board combining column locking (S-Force) với graveyard-powered recovery and hand traps, but lacks explosive ceiling plays and routes through key early disruption are limited. Popularity and meta-share did not factor into the score; card power was evaluated on deck architecture cohesion, not averaged. The deck's reliance on column mechanics, absence of combo-to-negate density, and 1 notably underfilled core (47% of 19 core cards present) constrains both T1 resilience and T2 conversion.

Dimension scores

How the score was computed

Strategy profile: 0.70 Midrange + 0.30 Combo. Structural ≈ 62, Going First ≈ 65, Going Second ≈ 67, Meta = provisional, Tournament Reliability ≈ 60. Modifiers: Core card absence penalty (-3); No side deck (-2); Column-lock dependence (-1); Going-second coverage (1). Final formula: 0.80Structural (62) + 0.20TournamentReliability (60) = 61.6 ≈ 62 (Meta provisional)

Probability & combo summary

• Opening 1 starter: P(≥1) ≈ 0.84 · key two-card combo ≈ 0.62 · full-brick estimate ≈ 0.12 (all Inferred)
• Combo output: best PowerIndex —, median —, board-per-starter —
• Turn order: 0 going-first lines vs 0 going-second lines

Strengths

• Efficient S-Force search and field control via column locking reduces early-game fragility
• Robust going-second removal suite (Forbidden Droplet, Book of Eclipse, Dominus Spark) enables reasonable T2 answers
• Mulcharmy and Fiendsmith recursion provide graveyard-powered recovery and hand advantage generation
• Hand-trap density (6 copies Ash/Droll) supports early interruption on both turns
• Link-based Extra Deck (Mystify, Justify, Nightcatcher, Requiem) allows flexible recursion routes

Weaknesses

• 47% core card presence (9 of 19 archetype standards) eliminates key fusion summons (Desirae, Lacrima) and Extra-Deck negation (Requiem, Sequence)
• Column-lock strategy creates single-point-of-failure dependence on S-Bridgehead and Signify; early disruption collapses many lines
• Modest T1 board power (2700 ATK Mystify/Justify) and no layer-stacking negation vớiout Desirae severely limits T1 resilience
• No inherent +1 advantage generation; resource grind slower than pure control or pure combo builds
• High garnet density from triple Droplet, Eclipse, and Spark in going-first hands (25.7% per card, limited interaction)
• Zero side deck reduces post-side adaptability in tournament formats
• Modest pilotability — column positioning errors and Fiendsmith recursion sequencing can stall lines

Critical choke points

• S-Force Bridgehead or Signify negation/removal on T1 setup turn cripples the entire field-locking axis
• Early Ash Blossom on Signify or Engraver search chokes recursion and field generation
• Fiendsmith Fusion summoning blocked by maindeck space constraints and missing Sequence/Requiem links
• Dependence on graveyard accumulation; banish effects (Shifter, Macro) create structural problems
• No hard negation vớiout Desirae (missing); vulnerable to spell-speed-3 combos and FTK lines

Recommended changes

Evidence & confidence

• Verified: Deck is Legal (54 main, 15 extra, 0 side); Card text and banlist status read from evidence.json; Usage statistics: 47% of 19 core cards present; Ash/Droll/Engraver/Fuwalos are standard; Composition: 31 distinct main-deck cards, 14 distinct extra-deck cards; type/attribute spread verified; Restricted cards: Dimension Shifter (Limited 1), Lacrima (Limited 1), ROTA (Limited 1), Solemn Judgment (Limited 1), Terraforming (Limited 1), Triple Tactics Talent (Limited 1), Droll (Semi-Limited 2) — all vớiin limits
• Observed: S-Force Signify, Bridgehead, Retroactive, Gravitino, Lapcewell, Nightcatcher, Mystify, Justify all present — core archetype cards confirmed in decklist; Mulcharmy Fuwalos, Purulia present — draw-trigger engine in deck; Fiendsmith Engraver, Lacrima the Crimson Tears, Fiendsmith's Tract present — fusion recursion package; Forbidden Droplet, Book of Eclipse, Dominus Spark all at 3 copies — going-second removal suite confirmed; Ash Blossom, Droll & Lock Bird at appropriate counts — hand-trap layer verified
• Inferred: P(≥1 S-Force starter in opening 5) ≈ 0.84 from hypergeometric; archetype core P ≈ 0.84; hand-trap P(≥1 in hand 6) ≈ 0.52; Brick estimate ~12% from garnet clustering (triple Droplet, Eclipse, Spark) and conflicting mechanics; T1 board ceiling ~75 PowerIndex via Mystify/Justify links + one hand-trap negate layer (Desirae missing); T1 median output ~60 from column-lock setup + minimal negation (Inferred board per starter: 1–2 links + search); Interruption resilience limited; 2 independent Fiendsmith routes, 3–4 S-Force continuations; early choke-point disruption drops floor sharply; Resource economy neutral-to-positive after full combo sequence due to Mulcharmy and Engraver; grind viability moderate; Going-second power higher than T1 due to removal suite; T2 conversion ~68 (Inferred); Tournament reliability constrained by zero side deck and 47% core card absence; estimated ~60 với full preparation
• Provisional: Meta Power is null; no dated metagame sample supplied. Archetype meta-share and tournament link absent. Format fit inferred as moderate TCG alignment.; Post-side adaptability is zero; no side deck provided, so D12 side-deck adaptability cannot be measured in tournament context.
• Data gaps: No combos supplied — combo floor/median/ceiling derived entirely from card text and architecture (Inferred) No tournament context — archetype meta-share, per-pilot match record, and format-specific performance absent No win-rate telemetry — opening-hand brick rate, going-first/second game outcomes, matchup spread, time-rule suitability unknown No side deck — post-side strategy, matchup adaptation, and tournament reliability cannot be measured No guides or strategy snippets — strategic intent and advanced line discovery absent from evidence 47% core card absence — impact on T1 resilience and fusion summon access cannot be precisely quantified vớiout combo examples