Trap
NormalLinear Equation Cannon
View:
2917
During the Battle Phase: Declare a whole number from 1 to 6; choose 1 Effect Monster your opponent controls. Multiply the Effect Monster's Level x the declared number, then add the number of cards your opponent controls, and check if the result equals the number of cards in your GY. ● If yes: Send cards from the top of your Deck to the GY, up to the declared number, and if you do, shuffle cards your opponent controls into the Deck, up to the number sent to the GY. ● If no: You lose LP equal to the declared number x 500. You can only activate 1 "Linear Equation Cannon" per turn.
Linear Equation Cannon — Power Evaluation
Final Score: 25 ± 8 · Confidence: Medium
- Intrinsic: 30 · Deck: 27 · Meta: provisional
- Primary role: Board Breaker / Going-Second · Secondary: Control, Removal
Why it scores here
Linear Equation Cannon provides targeted board disruption by shuffling opponent's cards back to their deck, but its extreme condition-dependence severely limits practical utility. The effect requires satisfying a complex mathematical equation (Monster Level × declared number + opponent's card count = your GY size) that must align perfectly, and failure results in significant LP loss with no benefit. Despite appearing as a tech include across six different archetypes, the absence of any recorded combos and sparse one-copy deck inclusion suggest this is an experimental card that has not found consistent utility.
Axis scores
| Axis | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | 10 | Not searchable and dead outside the Battle Phase; only 6 total deck appearances with 1-of inclusion suggests poor draw consistency. (observed) |
| Combo & Conversion | 5 | Zero recorded combo appearances across the entire evidence set, indicating no established synergy with combo shells. (verified) |
| Resource Economy | 15 | Milling 1-6 cards is a loss unless filling graveyard for synergy, and shuffling back provides removal without card advantage; failed activation costs 500-3000 LP. (inferred) |
| Effect & Interaction | 35 | Provides conditional targeted removal when the math aligns, but the complex condition and timing restriction to Battle Phase only make it unreliable disruption. (verified) |
| Material Utility | 8 | As a Normal Trap with zero ATK/DEF and no synergistic text, it provides no material value and cannot serve as combo fodder. (verified) |
| Resilience & Flexibility | 20 | Activation limited to Battle Phase and once per turn; failure incurs LP cost; lacks protection or recursion pathways for multi-turn relevance. (verified) |
| Deck-Building Efficiency | 30 | Generic Trap inclusion with no archetype lock or searchability; appears as 1-2 copies per deck, suggesting low reliance despite diverse archetype inclusion. (observed) |
Calculation
Weight profile: Board Breaker / Going-Second primary role. Intrinsic ≈ 30, Deck ≈ 27, Meta = provisional. Modifiers: Severe conditional effect (-5); Portable archetype diversity (2). Final formula: 0.40*Intrinsic + 0.60*Deck
Strengths
- Unique board disruption targeting opponent's field presence
- Can remove multiple cards in single activation if mathematical condition is satisfied
- Generic Normal Trap that splashes into diverse archetype homes
- Activation cost is once per turn, not hand-based
Weaknesses
- Extremely conditional activation based on complex mathematical equation requiring precise alignment
- Only activates during Battle Phase, highly timing-restricted
- Requires opponent to control an Effect Monster
- Failed activation results in 500-3000 LP loss with zero benefit
- Zero combo presence indicates poor synergy with established combo lines
- Sparse deck inclusion (1-of in 6 decks) limits practical reliability
Counters / choke points
- Non-Effect Monsters (Fusion, Synchro, XYZ, Link) eliminate targets
- Cards that prevent Battle Phase entry eliminate activation window
- Protected Effect Monsters that cannot be shuffled back
- Cards that cause damage during your turn compound LP loss penalty
Best use
Situational board disruption and control piece. Decks: Sinful Spoils, Clear, Labrynth, Runick, Paleozoic, Subterror.
Evidence & gaps
- Verified: Card text is present and unambiguous describing mathematical condition and removal effect (description); Appears in 6 decks across TCG, OCG, and MasterDuel formats (deck data); Found in 6 distinct archetypes: Sinful Spoils, Clear, Labrynth, Runick, Paleozoic, Subterror, each with one deck (deck data); Once per turn activation restriction (card text); Normal Trap type with no ATK/DEF (card frame)
- Observed: Appears as 1-2 copies per deck (average 1.33) in main deck only (deck data); Top partners are primarily control and disruption cards: Nibiru (5 decks), Maxx C (4 decks), Droll & Lock (4 decks), Infinite Impermanence (4 decks) (deck data); Zero combo appearances across entire evidence corpus (combo data); Distributed across gameplay types: 50% control-style (type 4), 50% other (type 7) (deck data)
- Inferred: Math-based activation requirement makes consistent disruption unreliable due to precision needed for equation to resolve (inference from card text mechanics); Primary role is Board Breaker/Go-second conditional removal based on effect mechanics and partner card pattern (inference from text and top partners); Low 6-deck total count across 6 archetypes suggests experimental tech inclusion rather than established staple (inference from sparse distribution); Zero combo presence indicates poor fit with typical combo-centric shells and starter lines (inference from empty combo data); Generic splash potential supported by diverse archetypes despite low per-archetype inclusion suggests testing across homes (inference from distinct archetypes=6 with 1 deck each)
- Data gaps: No combos supplied — combo conversion assessment is text-only inference No guides supplied — no human strategy context available No banlist token — assumed unlimited (3+ copies legal) No usage statistics (StatisticsCard) — archetype inclusion percentage inferred from deck sample only Small deck sample (6 total) — insufficient to determine whether tech inclusion reflects viability or experimental testing