Forum:Lumenize versus Odin

From Yugipedia
Jump to: navigation, search


So, my question; my opponent plays odin, Father of the Aesir, which is immune to spells and traps during my opponents turn. I had used Photon current to destroy it, because Photon Current only focuses on my monster, causing Odin to ram right into a monster that suddenly had 3000 more ATK than it did. I was wondering if Lumenize would be a better trap to run, and if so, would it work on Odin? Lumenize requires me to target a monster and negate its attack, an effect odin would be immune too; however, my monster gains the same ATK boost that it would have gotten from photon Current. Would my monster still gain an ATK boost even if Odin's attack wasn't negated by Luminize, or would the whole card be rendered unusable by odin's invulnerability? —This unsigned comment was made by 24.236.156.246 (talkcontribs) 13:59, May 21, 2012

Please sign your edits with four tildes (Look like this:~~~~) before you publish the edits.
"Photon Current" only work like "Honest" only for specify type. If your LIGHT Dragon-Type Monster is attacked, you activate "Photon Current" on that monster, it gains whatever ATK equal to the attacking monster's. So Odin dead to that, immune or not.
"Lumenize" is actually weakly version of "Photon Current", if you used it on same Dragon that was attacked. So Odin can bypassing this trap card and kill your Dragon monster. --iFredCat 14:07, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
"Photon Current" cannot be compared to "Lumenize" in this situation. It really could go either way, (either resolve as best it can, or if it can't negate the attack the ATK gain cannot be applied), best to wait for Konami to provide a ruling. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:01, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
I know, I only notice that they are very similar, yet beyond from specify same. "Lumenize" does target while "Photon Current" is Specify-Type Honest Trap Card. But I can't argue with you as we need a rulings from silly Company such as Konami. They always making silly cards like this. --iFredCat 11:03, May 22, 2012 (UTC)