Link Tequila Yep a it's new Link -1

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

Link Tequila
Link 1 LIGHT Cyberse Link Effect Monster
ATK 0
Links: Bottom
Materials: 1 Link Monster, except a Link -1 Link Monster
(1) If you would Link Summon a Link Monster, monsters from your hand can also be used Link Material. 
(2) If this card is in your GY, except the turn this card was sent to the GY: You can target 1 Link Monster you control; Special Summon this card to your zone that Link Monster points to. You cannot Special Summon, or activate the effects of monsters, during the turn you activate this effect, except for the Summon and effect activation of Link Monsters.

[Loleo]

Well made! You may call it a link 1 but it still requires at least a link 2. Everything is well balanced, and this looks like a fun card!

[Rayfield Lumina]

If you allow me, some grammar polish. Mostly because of the limiting clause of effect 2, which is a bit ambiguous:

Quote

If you would Link Summon a Link Monster, monsters from your hand can also be used Link Material. If this card is in your GY, except the turn this card was sent to the GY: You can target 1 Link Monster you control; Special Summon this card to your zone that Link Monster points to. You cannot Special Summon, or activate the effects of monsters, during the turn you activate this effect, except for the Summon and effect activation of Link Monsters.

I like the artwork, robot smug chinchilla whose name sounds more like Tequila than anything lol. The use materials from hand to LS is back, I see, but ok, and effect 2 is balanced enough. Yep, I can agree with Loleo here. Pretty damn interesting how it is Link 1 that forces you to use Link 2+, hella original, I don't think there's precedence to this, is there? Noice noice.

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

3 hours ago, Rayfield Lumina said:

If you allow me, some grammar polish. Mostly because of the limiting clause of effect 2, which is a bit ambiguous:

I like the artwork, robot smug chinchilla whose name sounds more like Tequila than anything lol. The use materials from hand to LS is back, I see, but ok, and effect 2 is balanced enough. Yep, I can agree with Loleo here. Pretty damn interesting how it is Link 1 that forces you to use Link 2+, hella original, I don't think there's precedence to this, is there? Noice noice.

Thanks I'll be sure to work on my gammer isuues

[Rayfield Lumina]

Just now, Zefra Zamazenta said:

Thanks I'll be sure to work on my gammer isuues

You're welcome. You have progressed a lot, in this case there was only that adjustment in the clause, the rest was pretty good. We all can improve in our grammar, tbh, Konami keeps making tiny adjustments with each booster pack released, so you could say the learning never ends.

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

2 minutes ago, Rayfield Lumina said:

You're welcome. You have progressed a lot, in this case there was only that adjustment in the clause, the rest was pretty good. We all can improve in our grammar, tbh, Konami keeps making tiny adjustments with each booster pack released, so you could say the learning never ends.

So what is the latest Set that did a Gammer PSCT Update?

[Rayfield Lumina]

Just now, Zefra Zamazenta said:

So what is the latest Set that did a Gammer OSCT Update?

Oh no no, I'm not saying that the overall PSCT had undergone a big change within a given Set, I'd say PSCT has pretty much kept its form since 2011 when it was implemented (primarily, about the wording in regard of punctuation and the like). What I was talking about is that the effects of certain new cards are released with miiiiiinimal changes from the structure they had been typically using, a word less or a word more here and there, in order to make the effect as much specific and free of possible ambiguity and/or polemic as possible.

To name a simple example, things like cards that -even if released after the PSCT era- said something like "If this card is destroyed by battle or by your opponent's card effect". One day, Konami said: meh, we can shorten this crap. And then a card appeared and now it says: if this card in your possession is destroyed by your opponent's card. Both are correct, but the second is better, as it removes the redundant part and adds a specification "in your possession". This kind of thing we got to keep our eyes peeled for xD

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

I've Updated it

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

@The Nyx Avatar Is this card balanced?

[The Nyx Avatar]

10 minutes ago, Zefra Zamazenta said:

@The Nyx Avatar Is this card balanced?

I don't think so. But...I feel more confident in its presence here. While I have seen a high Level Link monster use an opponent's monster as material, I've yet to see....really anything use monsters from the hand as Link material. So it's nice to see you experiment. It's like a modern Tatsunoko. But in that regard, I would personally suggest limiting it to just 1 monster in your hand, as opposed to...everything in your hand. Still too early to go that far.

[Loleo]

The one thing that would make me say this card is definitely not broken, instead of limiting the number of materials, is adding the clause to itself that it cannot be used as link material.