Enneacraft Deck #730504 — Yu-Gi-Oh! Master Duel

Enneacraft — Deck Power Evaluation

Final Contextual Deck Power: 50/100 (±8 · Confidence: Medium)

• Primary strategy: Control
• Secondary strategies: Stun, Burn
• Format: master-duel

Legality

Main 60 / Extra 15 / Side 0 — status under the rules at evaluation time: Illegal. 1 violation(s).

Identity & game plan

• Win condition: Burn damage via Enneapolis E.C. counter accumulation at End Phase; Attrition and control via soft interaction and floodgates
• Turn 1 (going first): Set Enneapolis field spell, accumulate E.C. counters via Level-9 Enneacraft flips, establish Infinite Impermanence soft lock, build hand trap defensibility
• Turn 2 (going second): Activate hand traps to disrupt opponent combo, use Mulcharmy Fuwalos to draw on opponent Extra Deck summons, attempt board break with available removal
• Recovery: Reverth from GY shuffles Enneacraft cards back and draws; Release from GY banishes to add face-up Extra Deck monster to hand; Reset and Release from GY maintain recursive access to core effects
• After siding: Unable to evaluate — no side deck provided (0/15 slots)

Why it scores here

This Enneacraft control deck opens with exceptional consistency (P≥1 starter = 99.63%) and establishes soft interaction via Infinite Impermanence, hand traps, and Enneacraft conditional removal effects, creating a mid-power control board with burn scaling via Enneapolis E.C. counters. The structural design is sound for control-mirror and combo-disruption matchups, with strong resource recursion (Reverth loops) and nine independent Level-1 searcher lines providing route redundancy. However, the evaluation is capped at 50 due to illegality: Pot of Desires is present at 3 copies when Master Duel limits it to 1, and the absence of a side deck (0/15) eliminates best-of-3 adaptation entirely. Under legal 1x Pot of Desires and a constructed side deck, the deck's structural power would approximate 73; the current illegal configuration prevents competitive submission and forces a theoretical-only assessment.

Dimension scores

How the score was computed

Strategy profile: Control. Structural ≈ 75, Going First ≈ 79, Going Second ≈ 71, Meta = provisional, Tournament Reliability ≈ 65. Modifiers: Pot of Desires illegal overcount (-15); Zero side deck penalty (-5); Going-second vulnerability (-3). Final formula: 0.80*Structural (75) + 0.20*TournamentReliability (65) = 73, then -23 (illegality −15, no side −5, T2 weakness −3) = 50 (Theoretical/Structural-only due to illegal Pot of Desires configuration)

Probability & combo summary

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

Strengths

• Exceptional opening-hand consistency: 99.63% P(≥1 starter in opening 5) driven by 39 archetype copies at high density; near-guaranteed T1 engine activation
• Multiple independent searcher lines: nine distinct Level-1 Enneacraft variants provide route redundancy; losing one line does not collapse engine
• Strong soft interaction suite: Infinite Impermanence (3x), Ash Blossom (3x), Effect Veiler (3x) form comprehensive combo-disruption coverage; complements Enneacraft conditional removal effects
• Resource recursion and grind capacity: Reverth shuffles cards back and draws (loop potential); Reset and Release provide GY recursion; Mulcharmy Fuwalos conditional draw on opponent summons; E.C. counter burn provides alternative win condition (900 per counter)
• Well-optimized 60-card main for intended control strategy: high archetype saturation with intentional 60-card frame to maximize hand trap and tech slots; no wasted slots
• Established archetype with known strategy: guide evidence and usage statistics (70% core cards) confirm deck is real, known, and viable within community

Weaknesses

• CRITICAL ILLEGALITY: Pot of Desires at 3 copies exceeds Master Duel Limited list (1 copy only); deck cannot be submitted to any tournament in current form
• Zero side deck (0/15 slots): complete inability to post-game adapt eliminates best-of-3 tournament viability; forced to play identical G2 and G3 against any opponent without tuning
• Going-second weakness: D8 board-breaking 60 and D9 closing power 58 indicate T1-optimized design; lacks dedicated board wipe or forced removal finisher; reliant on hand traps (68% ≥1 in 6) to break established boards
• No parsed combo boards: inferred T1 line is mid-power control, not high-ceiling combo; median board strength estimated at moderate without measured data to validate
• Enneapolis dependency: field spell at only 2 copies creates singular payoff choke point; loss of Enneapolis to hand/disruption forces lower-velocity grind via combat damage alone
• 60-card deck dilutes consistency compared to 40–43 card builds: Pot of Desires banish-10 mechanic adds variance and increases brick risk; extra 20 cards dilute probability of key starters in late-game draws

Critical choke points

• Pot of Desires illegal overcounting (3 copies vs 1 copy limit) is the primary blocker preventing competitive submission; this single violation caps the entire evaluation at low score
• Enneapolis singleton (2 copies): only field spell enabling burn win-con; loss to disruption or hand-state forces sub-optimal grind; no alternate payoff card
• Zero side deck: any post-game pivot is impossible; deck is locked into G1 strategy across all three games; unfeasible for best-of-3 tournament format
• No combo ceiling data: T1 line strength is inferred from guide (which may contain sarcasm re: '36 negate') and card text; if actual T1 board is weaker than estimated, deck power drops 5–10 points
• Going-second adaptation limited: hand trap density (68% ≥1 in 6) is functional but no forced removal or board wipe means any set board stalls T2 momentum; requires hand traps to resolve (not guaranteed)

Recommended changes

Evidence & confidence

• Verified: Legality status: ILLEGAL — Pot of Desires at 3 copies exceeds Master Duel ban list limit of 1 copy; Deck size: 60 main, 15 extra, 0 side (all within legal ranges; only card copy-limit violation present); Card text resolved for all 36 distinct cards in main + extra deck; Archetype: Enneacraft confirmed via card names, archetype field, and usage statistics; Format: Master Duel (gameplay_slug, ban_field_used = BanMasterDuel); Copy histogram: 19 cards at 3x, 1 card at 2x, 1 card at 1x
• Observed: Hand trap density: 10 distinct hand trap cards (Impermanence, Ash, Veiler, Maxx C) at high copy counts for going-second defense; Usage statistics: 70% core card inclusion (14/20 core cards present); archetype is real, known, and community-validated; Role tag counts: 24 negation-text cards, 39 removal-text cards, 10 hand trap designations (via composition table); Composition spread: 32 Machine-race cards, 30 Pendulum Flip Effect Monsters, 17 Spells, high LIGHT/EARTH attribute concentration
• Inferred: Opening-hand consistency P(≥1 starter in 5) = 0.9963 derived from hypergeometric distribution with 39 archetype copies; Brick probability = 0.0037 (inverse of consistency); Combo ceiling (65) inferred from single-card Level-1 searcher into Enneapolis + 1–2 soft negates, guide snippet reference to '1 card combo', and Level-9 Enneacraft payoff structure; Combo floor/median (70) inferred from control archetype design philosophy and consistent effect patterns (not high-variance); Interruption resilience (72) inferred from 9 independent Level-1 searcher variants providing route redundancy and GY recursion (Reverth, Reset, Release); Resource economy (68) inferred from Reverth loops offsetting Pot of Desires banish cost, Mulcharmy conditional draw, and hand trap GY recycle; Going-first power (79) = blend of D1 consistency (85), D7 interaction (74), D5 resilience (72) weighted for control profile; Going-second power (71) = blend of hand trap probability (68% ≥1 in 6), moderate board-breaking tools, and D9 closing power (58); Tournament reliability (65) = blend of strong opening stability (D1/D2 avg 80) penalized by zero side deck (35) and going-second weakness (avg D8/D9 59); Control archetype classification inferred from guide snippet ('pure control, heavy negation, burn wincon, floodgate lock') and card composition (10 hand traps, 24 negation-text, Enneapolis); Missing core cards (Dimension Shifter, TY-PHON, Garura, etc.) inferred as intentional tech choices rather than deck-building errors
• Provisional: Meta Power = null — no dated metagame sample supplied; no archetype meta-share data from tournament data; Master Duel meta assumed balanced but unconfirmed; Matchup coverage (D13 = 60) provisional without dated meta sample; control archetype is generally meta-flexible but specific Master Duel matchup fit unknown; Going-second power (71) provisional due to no parsed going-second combo data; inferred from hand trap probability (68%) and card text only; Combo ceiling/floor both provisional — inferred from guide + text, not measured from parsed boards
• Data gaps: No parsed combo boards (combo data.total combos = 0): cannot measure T1 best-line power, median board state, or going-second combo performance; all combo analysis inferred from card text and guide snippet No tournament context: archetype meta-share, per-pilot match record, and format-specific win rate absent; Meta Power remains Provisional No win-rate telemetry in YGOVN: going-first win rate, going-second win rate, brick rate, OTK rate, matchup-specific win rate all unknown No dated metagame sample: cannot compute format-fit, common-interaction resilience, or speed alignment with meta; matchup coverage remains Provisional Side deck absent (0/15): unable to evaluate post-game adaptation strategy, B03 reliability, or boarding plan; forced to assess as B01 ladder deck Guide snippet brief and partially sarcastic: '36 negate' likely flavor text, making precise T1 gameplan extraction difficult