Tenpai Dragon Deck #759396 — Yu-Gi-Oh! Master Duel

Deck — Deck Power Evaluation

Final Contextual Deck Power: 55/100 (±6 · Confidence: Medium)

• Primary strategy: Midrange
• Secondary strategies: Toolbox, Control
• Format: master-duel

Legality

Main 40 / Extra 15 / Side 0 — status: Legal.

Identity & game plan

• Win condition: Tenpai Dragon Genroku / Paidra / Fadra recursion into Sangen and Dragon Synchro or Link boards, closed by Sangenpai Transcendent Dragion's forced-attack and lock effect; Trident Dragion and Baronne de Fleur board control through destruction and negation effects
• Turn 1 (going first): Open with Tenpai Dragon starters and Sangen searchers, use Paidra or Genroku to extend, and hold Infinite Impermanence or Dominus Impulse for the first opposing play
• Turn 2 (going second): Hold hand traps (Ash Blossom, Ghost Ogre, Droll and Lock Bird, Maxx C, Skull Meister) to break the opponent's first action, then rebuild through the GY with Tenpai Dragon recursion
• Recovery: Recover Tenpai Dragon monsters from the GY through Genroku and Fadra, and draw through Pot of Sloth and Maxx C to refill the hand
• After siding: No side deck is registered, so no post-side plan can be evaluated

Why it scores here

The deck reliably opens hand traps and a Tenpai or Sangen starter often enough to answer the opponent's first play, with P(at least one of the 3-copy starters in a 5-card opening hand) at about 0.34 and the 14-card archetype core at about 0.90 (Inferred). Its interaction density is the main strength: 14 hand traps and 12 negation-text cards plus Heavy Storm, Harpie's Feather Duster and Lightning Storm let it break a board on either turn order. Recursion through Tenpai Dragon Genroku and Fadra keeps the engine alive after one disruption, and Sangenpai Transcendent Dragion gives a closing board. The 0.5 median and 50-point matchup read are neutral because there is no combo, tournament or win-rate data, and the lack of any side deck caps tournament reliability. The score comes from consistency, interaction and recovery on the system, not from the archetype's popularity or from averaging the individual card scores.

Dimension scores

How the score was computed

Strategy profile: Midrange. Structural ≈ 59.7, Going First ≈ 65, Going Second ≈ 64, Meta = provisional, Tournament Reliability ≈ 58. Modifiers: no Side Deck (-2); engine_spread (-2). Final formula: 0.80*Structural + 0.20*TournamentReliability + ContextModifiers (Meta provisional): 0.80*59.7 + 0.20*58 - 4 = 55.4, rounded to 55

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

• Dense hand-trap and negation coverage (14 hand traps, 12 negation-text cards) that answers most early plays on either turn
• Recursive Tenpai Dragon engine that recovers from a single disruption through Genroku and Fadra
• Extra Deck with forced-attack and lock options (Sangenpai Transcendent Dragion) for a closing board

Weaknesses

• No side deck registered, so there is no best-of-3 adaptation
• Low archetype purity (14.5%) with a wide spread across unrelated sub-archetypes, which weakens engine coherence
• No recorded combo or win-rate data to confirm the floor and median

Critical choke points

• Tenpai Dragon starters: a 0.34 chance per 3-copy starter in a 5-card hand means the engine may stall on a single missing starter

Recommended changes

Evidence & confidence

• Verified: Master Duel legality: 40 Main, 15 Extra, 0 Side, all Limited and Semi-Limited copies within limits; Exact-name archetype purity 14.5%; 14 hand traps and 12 negation-text cards from card text; Usage stats: 10 of 23 core cards present (43.5%)
• Inferred: Starter consistency from hypergeometric odds (P(at least one of 3-copy starter in 5 cards) = 0.34; core group 0.90); Interaction quality from negation and removal text; Going-second strength from hand-trap probability 0.94
• Provisional: Meta Power and matchup fit (no dated metagame sample); Median combo output (no recorded boards)
• Data gaps: No combos supplied; combo floor, median and ceiling are text-only inference No tournament link; archetype meta-share and per-pilot match record absent No win-rate telemetry for going-first, going-second, matchup, brick or OTK rates No side deck registered, so the best-of-3 plan cannot be evaluated Meta Power is Provisional unless a dated metagame sample is supplied