Snake-Eyes Deck #768180 — Yu-Gi-Oh! OCG

Deck — Deck Power Evaluation

Final Contextual Deck Power: 25/100 (±8 · Confidence: Low)

• Primary strategy: Midrange
• Secondary strategies: Tempo, Toolbox
• Format: ocg

Legality

Main 40 / Extra 15 / Side 0 — status under the rules at evaluation time: Illegal. 3 violation(s).

Identity & game plan

• Win condition: Extra Deck Fire King / Charmer / Flamberge boss monsters (Garunix Eternity, Flamberge Dragon, Dark Magician of Destruction) pressuring through Link and Xyz summons; Snake-Eye recursion and Diabellstar board pressure, with the Forbidden cards removed
• Turn 1 (going first): Open a Fire King or Snake-Eye starter (Kirin, Ash, Poplar) and search a second Level 1 FIRE or Fire King through Ponix/Ulcanix, then Link or Xyz into a 2700+ ATK boss. Projected only; no recorded boards exist.
• Turn 2 (going second): Hold Ash Blossom, Impermanence, Maxx C, Droll and Linkuriboh to stop the opponent's first summon, then rebuild through Fire King recursion and Flamberge. Projected only.
• Recovery: Fire King monsters destroyed by effect re-summon from GY (Garunix, Ponix, Barong); Snake-Eye Ash and Poplar float or search again.
• After siding: Not evaluable: the deck runs no side deck (side_count 0), so there is no post-side plan.

Why it scores here

The list is illegal in OCG: three Forbidden cards (Original Sinful Spoils - Snake-Eye, Red-Eyes Dark Dragoon, Azamina Ilia Silvia) are run at 1 copy each, and the deck has no side deck, so the score is structural and theoretical only. Its engine is three sub-archetypes (Fire King 16, generic 13, Snake-Eye 4, Azamina 3, Diabellstar 3, Mulcharmy 3, Charmer 2) with 0% exact-name purity, so consistency is only moderate. The main strengths are interaction density (7 hand traps, 9 negation texts, 18 removal texts) and Fire King recursion, which together make the deck reasonable on the draw. No recorded boards, tournament record or guides exist, so floor, median and ceiling are text-only inference and are scored low. The score was built from the 14 dimensions weighted as a Midrange deck, not by averaging card scores, and the archetype's popularity earned no points.

Dimension scores

How the score was computed

Strategy profile: Midrange. Structural ≈ 48, Going First ≈ 45, Going Second ≈ 52, Meta = provisional, Tournament Reliability ≈ 40. Modifiers: Banlist exposure (-8); Engine conflicts (-4); Illegal cap (0). Final formula: No reliable metagame: 0.80*Structural(48) + 0.20*TournamentReliability(40) = 46.4, plus modifiers -12 = 34.4, then capped to 25 because the list is Illegal (theoretical/structural only)

Probability & combo summary

• Opening a starter: P(≥1) ≈ 0.34 · 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

• Seven hand traps and 9 negation texts across multiple lines give strong going-second interaction
• Fire King recursion and searchers (Ponix, Ulcanix, Snake-Eye Ash, Poplar) make the deck resilient to one disruption
• Boss monsters at 2800-3000 ATK provide closing power

Weaknesses

• Illegal in OCG: three Forbidden cards run at 1 copy each
• No side deck, so no post-side plan
• Three or more sub-archetypes with 0% exact-name purity hurt engine coherence
• No recorded combos or tournament data to validate the ceiling or median

Critical choke points

• Fire King Ponix / Kirin starter access, with only three copies of Kirin and Ulcanix
• Snake-Eye Ash and Poplar each run 1 copy, so the Snake-Eye engine has no redundancy
• Two Forbidden Extra Deck fusions cannot be legally used

Recommended changes

Evidence & confidence

• Verified: Legality: three Forbidden cards at 1 copy each; OCG size 40/15/0 is within size rules; Card text for the 40 Main and 15 Extra cards was read from the excerpts; Composition: 0% exact-name archetype purity; 55 off-archetype copies
• Inferred: Starter P(>=1) and archetype-core P(open) from hypergeometric estimates; Midrange strategy, interaction quality and going-second hand-trap coverage from card text; Floor, median and ceiling from text only (no boards)
• Provisional: Meta Power and matchup fit (no dated metagame sample); Tournament Reliability (no tournament data)
• Data gaps: No combos supplied: floor, median and ceiling are text-only inference No tournament link: archetype meta-share and pilot record absent No win-rate telemetry, brick rate or going-first/second split No side deck, so post-side adaptability cannot be measured Meta Power is Provisional without a dated metagame sample