[907] Dinomist Rex

[Progenitor]

I've just noticed a weird thing about this card: its Pendulum lore mentions that its effect can only be used once while it's on the Pendulum Zone, but since, according to the current wording, it's immediately destroyed after its effect resolves, rendering the whole point of the restrictive clause moot unless your opponent somehow manages to negate its effect without destroying it. Could it be that there's a translation mistake here?

 

Unless there is some further gimmick of this archetype, this essentially ensures that this effect is a one-and-done.  For example if your opponent has Dracoruler Vector set, and you try to resolve this pend effect, then you just wasted your last bullet.  You had 1 activation, and this thing's effect was negated.  It can no longer be used until you find a way to re-set it

[X-Metaman]

I've just noticed a weird thing about this card: its Pendulum lore mentions that its effect can only be used once while it's on the Pendulum Zone, but since, according to the current wording, it's immediately destroyed after its effect resolves, rendering the whole point of the restrictive clause moot unless your opponent somehow manages to negate its effect without destroying it. Could it be that there's a translation mistake here?

 

Activate "Rex" in the Pendulum Zone and target it with the effect of "Number 66". Now you can negate an effect with "Rex", but it won't destroy itself.

[VCR_CAT]

Activate "Rex" in the Pendulum Zone and target it with the effect of "Number 66". Now you can negate an effect with "Rex", but it won't destroy itself.

 

Re: what Pchi made, the wording is there to prevent stuff like this. Right now with its wording, you have nothing to gain from 66ing this pendulum card since its effect can only be used once while it's face-up. Despite the destruction effect, the wording is there so that even if you negate its destruction and the effect goes through, you can still only use it once. So no, this would not be a translation mistake.

 

Overall, you have nothing to gain from using 66 thanks to this wording; typically it will be better to let it die so that you can put a new one in the pendulum zone so you can use another effect.

[Atypical-Abbie]

Re: what Pchi made, the wording is there to prevent stuff like this. Right now with its wording, you have nothing to gain from 66ing this pendulum card since its effect can only be used once while it's face-up. Despite the destruction effect, the wording is there so that even if you negate its destruction and the effect goes through, you can still only use it once. So no, this would not be a translation mistake.

 

Overall, you have nothing to gain from using 66 thanks to this wording; typically it will be better to let it die so that you can put a new one in the pendulum zone so you can use another effect.

I believe what X-Metaman is trying to say is that if you used 66 you could just use the effect over and over again without that clause.

[Slinky]

I'll withhold any real judgment until we know more about the archetype.

 

However. the monster effect doesn't appear to be OPT. And on top of a pendulum deck, it is a very potent effect, allowing you to pretty much wipe out 2 monsters and a card in your opponents hand, for basically free.

[Atypical-Abbie]

Turns out it's called Dinomist in the TCG. Not a huge change really, though if the dynamos thing is right, it's sad that we get one less pun.

[VCR_CAT]

I'll withhold any real judgment until we know more about the archetype.

 

However. the monster effect doesn't appear to be OPT. And on top of a pendulum deck, it is a very potent effect, allowing you to pretty much wipe out 2 monsters and a card in your opponents hand, for basically free.

 

You'll notice that the effect triggers after the damage step when it attacks the opponent. Now it might not be OPT, but to use its effect twice on its own you would need to tribute two monsters and your opponent would need to control two monsters (min.). Otherwise you're using spells/traps that let you attack multiple times, but those will hurt your consistency and will involve more tributes.

[VCR_CAT]

The card wording has been changed as per the wording submitted to the wiki. Notable change is that the pendulum effect is clarified in that it does not make a chain link. It's worded like Machina Fortress's discard effect; meaning that it negates the targeting effect mid-resolution and does not activate or create a chain link.

[Atypical-Abbie]

The card wording has been changed as per the wording submitted to the wiki. Notable change is that the pendulum effect is clarified in that it does not make a chain link. It's worded like Machina Fortress's discard effect; meaning that it negates the targeting effect mid-resolution and does not activate or create a chain link.

I believe it was worded like that before too.

[VCR_CAT]

The previous wording was a little confusing; it didn't mention anything about negating mid-resolution. At least that was how it was for the initial translation. YGOrg has since then updated their wording as well.