Spell
NormalFifty Fifty?
View:
387
Take 1 monster and 2 Traps from your Deck and reveal them, your opponent randomly picks 1 and you look at the remaining 2 to banish 1 Trap from it, then your opponent chooses 1 of these effects for you to apply. ● Reveal the card picked by your opponent, and if it was a monster, add it to your hand or Special Summon it, or if it wasn't, banish it, also shuffle the rest into the Deck. ● Reveal the card that was not picked by your opponent nor banished by you, and if it was a monster, add it to your hand, or if it wasn't, banish it, also shuffle the rest into the Deck.
Fifty Fifty? — Power Evaluation
Final Score: 43 ± 8 · Confidence: Medium
- Intrinsic: 42.6 · Deck: 43.1 · Meta: provisional
- Primary role: Searcher/Tutor
Why it scores here
Fifty Fifty? is a searcher, but the opponent chooses which of the revealed cards you get, and the choice that denies the monster is available in both branches as written, so its reliable value is close to zero. It spends the card and banishes one of your own Traps, so resource economy is low. Its presence in 4 recent decks confirms it is played, not that it is strong, and the high deckbuilding score reflects only that it costs one slot.
Axis scores
| Axis | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | 45 | Text lets the opponent pick the outcome, so a monster is not reliably reached; deck sample shows it is run in 4 of 4 decks at 2 copies on average (verified/observed). |
| Combo & Conversion | 35 | No combo boards are supplied, so conversion rests on text alone: at best one monster to hand or Special Summon (inferred). |
| Resource Economy | 25 | Costs the card itself and banishes one of your own Traps, with no guaranteed refuel or card advantage (verified text, inferred net). |
| Effect & Interaction | 10 | No negation, removal, or opponent-facing disruption in the text (verified). |
| Material Utility | 35 | A monster may be gained, but which one is random and the opponent can deny it, so material value is unreliable (inferred). |
| Resilience & Flexibility | 30 | Single-spell line with a branch the opponent can steer; no redundancy or multi-zone presence in the evidence (inferred). |
| Deck-Building Efficiency | 65 | One slot, no garnets, locks, or self-restriction; runs at 1 to 3 copies in the sample (verified/observed). |
Calculation
Weight profile: Searcher/Tutor pure weights, no secondary blend. Intrinsic ≈ 42.6, Deck ≈ 43.1, Meta = provisional. Modifiers: none. Final formula: 0.40*Intrinsic + 0.60*Deck
Strengths
- Cheap to run in a single slot with no garnet or lock cost
- Generic spell seen across 3 archetypes in the deck sample
- Can yield a monster or Trap if the opponent's choice does not deny it
Weaknesses
- Opponent chooses which revealed card you receive, and the choice that denies the monster is open in each branch as written
- Costs the card and banishes one of your own Traps
- No combo, guide, or usage-statistics evidence to show practical conversion
Counters / choke points
- Opponent's own choice of the denying branch
- Generic spell negation (inferred, no card-specific evidence)
Best use
Situational Searcher/Tutor gamble. Decks: Argostars, Vaalmonica, Fiendsmith. Suggested copies: 1.
Evidence & gaps
- Verified: Card text: reveal 1 monster and 2 Traps, opponent picks 1, you banish 1 Trap from the remaining 2, opponent chooses one of two effects; Run in 4 of 4 sampled decks, 2 copies average, 3 distinct archetypes; Top partners include Maxx "C" and Ash Blossom & Joyous Spring in all 4 decks
- Observed: Recency of sampled decks: 2026-01-29 to 2026-01-31; Copies distribution across sampled decks: 1 copy in 2 decks, 3 copies in 2 decks
- Inferred: Opponent can choose the branch that shuffles the monster back, leaving no gain in each branch; Real searcher value is contingent on the opponent's choice, so reliable value is close to zero
- Data gaps: No combos supplied, so combo conversion and starter/material shares are unmeasured No guides supplied No usage statistics (StatisticsCard) available No banlist token; assumed 3 copies (unlimited) Official rulings for the opponent-choice ordering are unknown Deck sample is small (4 decks over 3 days)