Gradius: Rush! Deck #718199 — Yu-Gi-Oh! Rush Duel Sevens

Deck — Deck Power Evaluation

Final Contextual Deck Power: 32/100 (±12 · Confidence: Low)

• Primary strategy: Combo
• Secondary strategies: Tempo, Beatdown
• Format: rush-duel-sevens

Legality

Main 36 / Extra 0 / Side 0 — status: Legal with warning.

Identity & game plan

• Win condition: Spam Machine-type monsters onto the field, rename them to Gradius or Gradius' Option variants, and synergize via Contact Fusion or fusion-mechanic payoffs.; Beatdown via accumulated ATK from multiple copies of the same or similar monsters.
• Turn 1 (going first): Open a hand containing Gradius-core starters (cards -551, -555, -547, -548, -549, -556, -552, -762) and establish a board of multiple Machine monsters, searching/setting up fusion payoffs or follow-up options.
• Turn 2 (going second): Unknown; no second-player board-breaker or removal strategy is discernible from the unresolved card text.
• Recovery: Not observable; card text is unavailable. Presumed to rely on recursion or search from Contact Fusion mechanics.
• After siding: Unknown; no side deck is present (0 cards).

Why it scores here

This Gradius Rush Duel deck suffers from critical resolution gaps that prevent a confident evaluation. The core engine is internally consistent (11/13 archetype-standard cards present, 36-card main with heavy 3-of saturation on 10 distinct cards), and opening-hand consistency to hit a Gradius starter is strong (~0.37 per distinct card at 3 copies). However, no combo evidence, no card text, and no tournament results are supplied—meaning the deck's actual conversion rate from starter to meaningful board, resource generation, interaction quality, and going-second capability are completely unknown. The deck earns points for archetype alignment and probability-based starter access, but scores low across mediocre output, resilience, interaction, and side-deck adaptability due to missing evidence. This is primarily a structural evaluation based on list composition; no popularity or meta-share boosted the score.

Dimension scores

How the score was computed

Strategy profile: Combo. Structural ≈ 30, Going First ≈ 52, Going Second ≈ 15, Meta = provisional, Tournament Reliability ≈ 28. Modifiers: Unresolved card list (15 passcodes) (-8); Zero combo evidence (-6); No going-second plan discernible (-5); Archetype purity and core alignment (4); No side deck (-3). Final formula: 0.80*Structural + 0.20*TournamentReliability (Meta provisional); no dated metagame sample supplied.

Probability & combo summary

• Opening a starter: P(≥1) ≈ 0.9 · 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 alignment: 11 of 13 standard cards present; strong engine coherence.
• Opening-hand starter consistency: ~90% probability to draw at least one Gradius-core card in the opening 5.
• Archetype redundancy: 10 cards at three copies each provide multiple copies of the same effect, reducing dead draws within the core.
• Compact format fit: 36 cards within the Rush Duel 30–60 range; reasonable density.

Weaknesses

• Zero combo evidence: no recorded boards, no median/ceiling output, no documented lines—structural power is completely unknown.
• Unresolved card text: 15 cards (41.7% of the main deck) could not be resolved, preventing role analysis and interaction assessment.
• No going-second plan: no visible removal, board-breaker, or interaction strategy; going-second viability is unvalidated.
• No side deck: zero cards in the side; no best-of-3 adaptation or meta-specific tuning.
• Low interaction density: no negation, floodgate, or removal text hints visible; presumed defensive weakness.
• Unknown grind/recovery: without card text, recursion, search, and resource economy are unassessable.

Critical choke points

• Card text unavailability: 15 unresolved passcodes mean the deck's actual strategy, roles, and interactions are opaque.
• Combo ceiling unknown: no evidence of what the deck actually produces turn-1 or turn-2; best line is unproven.
• No going-second resilience: the deck appears built for going-first only; no documented second-player strategy or recovery.
• Dependence on fusion mechanics: guide emphasizes fusion/name-change synergy, but Contact Fusion resolution and payoff structure are unconfirmed.

Recommended changes

Evidence & confidence

• Verified: Legality status: Legal with warning (36 cards, within 30–60 range; no banlist violations).; Composition: 36 main, 0 extra, 0 side; 15 distinct cards; 10 at 3 copies, 1 at 2 copies, 4 at 1 copy.; Archetype core: 11 of 13 standard cards present (84.6%); missing refs 772417 (100% inclusion) and 1152382 (66.7% inclusion).; Copy histogram: Verified from evidence.json composition.; Format: Rush Duel Sevens (rush-duel-sevens); hand sizes 5 going-first, 6 going-second.
• Observed: Usage statistics: 13 rows in archetype stats; 11 core cards (100% inclusion) and 1 at 66.7% inclusion observed.
• Inferred: Opening-hand starter consistency: P(≥1 distinct Gradius-core card in hand-5) ≈ 0.90 by cumulative hypergeometric; assumes unresolved cards do not conflict.; Primary strategy: Combo (inferred from guide snippet 'spam monsters' + 'fusion' + 'name-change synergy').; Going-first power: ~52, grounded in starter access (~62 on D1) and presumed end-board from guide hints; no interaction quality confirmed.; Pilotability: Presumed moderate (~30) due to 'spam monsters' phrasing suggesting simplicity; actual complexity unknown.; Brick rate: Unknown; estimated as moderate due to 10 three-copies and 4 one-copies without conflicting-Normal-Summon text visible.; Offensive closing power: ~40, inferred from 'beatdown' and 'accumulated ATK' mentions in guide; no max-ATK or boss-monster text confirmed.
• Provisional: Meta Power: null; no dated metagame sample supplied; Gradius archetype meta-share in Rush Duel is unknown.; Format fit: Rush Duel Sevens is a niche format; competitive context absent.; Tournament reliability: ~28, based on missing combo evidence and no go-second plan; high variance expected.
• Data gaps: 15 unresolved passcodes prevent card-text analysis of 41.7% of the main deck. Zero combo evidence: no best line, no median output, no board-per-starter; combo floor/median/ceiling are unknown. No going-second strategy: no board-breaker, removal, or disruption-resilience plan visible. No tournament link: archetype meta-share and competitive performance absent. No win-rate telemetry: opening-hand brick rate, starter reliability in practice, matchup results, and game-level statistics are absent. No side deck: no best-of-3 tuning or post-side plan. Guide language: guide snippet is in Vietnamese; full guide content not supplied in English.