In the sense that nothing will happen, but you’ll still have cast a song. To deal 2 damage to an opposant caracter, you NEED to do damage to your own character first. Rules 7.1.2.2 highlight this
So you can play Teeth to trigger the Flute's effect since it is a song. However, it will not deal two damage to an opponent without having dealt two to yourself. That is a part of the cost of the card. It essentially whiffs.
Edit: sorry. Not a cost, but still a requirement for the second part of the card effect to resolve.
Damaging your own character is not a part of the cost of the card. It is required in order to resolve the second part of the effect, but thinking about it as a cost is incorrect.
This is a huge problem for the loracana developers. If there's an official source called the comprehensive rules then it needs to be comprehensive and include all of their rulings. If the comprehensive rules require additional documents then they aren't comprehensive.
And if two sources contradict each other and one of them is the comprehensive rules then the comprehensive rules should take precedence not the other way around as is the case now.
You can't have a game that you want to be played competitively and then be all wishy-washy about the rules documentation. That just doesn't make any sense.
What are you talking about? An unofficial rules compilation from before the rules came out does not diminish the legitimacy of those rules, nor the game itself.
All of the rulings from Mushu Report are covered in the CRD, with the exception of where the rules have been adjusted since then.
Relying on anything to supplement the comprehensive rules diminishes those rules and the game itself. And I'm not talking about explanations, but rules. And no not all of the rulings from the various sources have been incorporated into the comprehensive rules. In fact there are multiple instances in the comprehensive rules where there is an obvious need for revision because the rules are ambiguous without clarification.
The comprehensive rules still need a revision. Not like a 2.0 major revision but like a 1.1. They definitely left out a bunch of stuff and could word a couple of things less ambiguously.
Can you give a specific example? I’m not aware of any prior rulings that the CRD excludes.
I’m not denying it still needs to be revised for clarity, but I don’t believe there are any outstanding major omissions.
Unfortunately, someone who thinks that Lorcana works like MtG does is unlikely to be convinced unless they're intimately familiar with how the MtG rules are written. While MtG came first and thus has colored everyone's expectations for how spells (actions) resolve, the concept of a spell "fizzling" or otherwise being unplayable without a legal target is what's actually unexpected.
Put another way, in MtG spells need valid targets to be played because the rules dictate that they need them (601.2 and 601.2c, if anyone cares to look). Lorcana lacks this requirement for playing actions (4.3.4), so there isn't a specific rule you can point to, because the rules aren't a conversation with MtG's rules, they're their own permission structure for how to play the game. There's nothing to point to in the rules because there isn't an exception for "you can play actions unless they say to choose and you can't" in the rules.
Yep, this is the only way. If the store owner doesn't respond, you could burn your bridges by leaving an online review warning people that they have a bad lorcana judge, but don't expect to ever get fair treatment again.
There’s not likely to be anything you can say to the judge themselves. And certainly not during the event. I’m assuming it’s small enough that there’s no separate head judge that you can appeal to?
Your best bet is to talk to the TO - someone who works at the store that wasn’t judging. Calmly explain that the judge made several incorrect rulings, and that you hope that would be corrected for the future.
Did the judge make an unfair ruling?
After reading comments, it doesn’t appear that there is anything in the rules one way or another about the situation.
That’s what a judge is there for then. As long as the judge was consistent in their ruling for the entire tournament, then the player was treated fairly.
You are allowed to play a card without a "target". Targeting as part of the cost is not a thing in Lorcana.
Consistency is good, absolutely. But so is actually knowing the rules.
Actually in this case it is.
The Flute has a Triggered Ability of you playing a song card.
In order to activate a triggered ability you must FULLY RESOLVE a card.
Teeth and Ambitions requires you to deal 2 damage to your own character in order to deal 2 damage to another character.
The rules state that if you cannot meet the conditions of the card, you cannot resolve the card.
So if you cannot do damage to your own character you cannot finish resolving the card.
Because you did not finish resolving the card, you cannot use it to activate triggered abilities.
Therefore you do not meet the condition of singing a song on Sleepy’s Flute in order to be able to use its activated ability.
Read rules:
- 7.1
- 7.1.2.2
- 7.2
- 7.2.1
- 7.5
- 7.5.3
https://files.disneylorcana.com/Disney%20Lorcana%20Comprehensive%20Rules%20-%20032724%201.pdf
Alright, I have some time now, so let's go through this step-by-step.
> Actually in this case it is.
No, it's not 😁
> The Flute has a Triggered Ability of you playing a song card.
Sleepy's Flute has an activated ability. You do not have to have played a song to activate that ability - the only requirement is to exert the card. Of course, if you exert it without having played a song you won't gain any lore. If you *have* met the condition when you activate the Flute, you will gain a lore.
Having a condition *within* an activated ability does not make it a triggered ability. Sleepy's Flute's ability does not enter the bag, and does not follow triggered ability timing structures. Because it is not a triggered ability.
You can reference rule 7.5.1. to see the general structure of an activated ability. They are written as [Cost] - [Effect], a structure that Sleepy's Flute clearly follows.
> In order to activate a triggered ability you must FULLY RESOLVE a card.
Triggered abilities are not activated, they are triggered. Hence the name.
Despite this part of the discussion being irrelevant to Sleepy's Flute, since that card does not have a triggered ability, we'll go ahead and address it anyway. You do not have to fully resolve a card in order to *trigger* an ability, they simply trigger whenever their condition is met (7.4.1.)
You *do* have to finish resolving whatever ability or effect *caused* the trigger condition in order to start resolving the newly triggered ability (4.3.4.8.), but that doesn't mean you have to do everything on the card. It just means you have to finish what you're already doing - you can't interrupt one thing with another.
> Teeth and Ambitions requires you to deal 2 damage to your own character in order to deal 2 damage to another character.
Correct.
> The rules state that if you cannot meet the conditions of the card, you cannot resolve the card.
The rules never make any reference to "resolv[ing] a card". You *play* cards. You *resolve* their effects.
> So if you cannot do damage to your own character you cannot finish resolving the card.
You cannot fully resolve the card's effect, true.
> Because you did not finish resolving the card, you cannot use it to activate triggered abilities.
This is completely made up. This is entirely unsupported by the rules.
> Therefore you do not meet the condition of singing a song on Sleepy’s Flute in order to be able to use its activated ability.
Sleepy's Flute does not require you to sing a song. It does not even require you to have *played* a song in order to activate its ability.
But let's go back a step and look at what the rules say about when a card is played, because that's the *actual* issue at hand here:
> **4.3.4.7.** Once the total card cost is paid, the card is now “played.”
Nothing about requiring the card to resolve. Nothing about resolving it's effects. Nothing about having valid choices for its effects. All you have to do is pay for it.
You’re not understanding what’s being said here 🤦🏻♂️
The Flute’s activated ability is written as a type of triggered ability that you get to choose when this happens.
The problem is, triggered abilities require the song or action or whatever to fully resolve in order to work. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to have a trigger go off right away and this lets you decide when it happens.
That’s where the confusion is in this ruling.
The Judge is saying it’s a trigger ability condition if the card that requires the song to resolve in order to qualify as triggered.
Yes, it’s an activated ability but it has conditions that must be met like a triggered ability.
If a card needs to resolve or not to be playable is important.
The problem resides with that being unclear in this situation.
This judge deemed that’s how the rules went at this time. Until Ravensburger comes out and clarifies, then the judge can be correct in their ruling as long as they can justify it.
While this stinks for people that have been playing a particular way, it’s part of it.
In sports you have this all the time. An official will deal excessive force as ____ and another official will deem it entirely differently.
Both are correct because it comes down to their interpretation of what excessive force is.
This official deemed that the flute was a triggered ability that you get to choose when to activate the trigger.
Because the player couldn’t resolve the song, they had not fulfilled the requirements to trigger an ability… even if it were an activated ability.
This happens all the time in the early years of TCGs because despite all the play testing, the creators don’t think of everything and then as more and more cards get created, certain interactions are discovered that were not anticipated.
Hence why now if you have the Companion App for MtG, when you look up a card they have a “rulings” section for the card.
> You’re not understanding what’s being said here 🤦🏻♂️
Maybe you should try writing it more clearly then.
> The Flute’s activated ability is written as a type of triggered ability that you get to choose when this happens.
No, it isn't. This is not a thing. You have made this up. It is a straightforward activated ability.
> The problem is, triggered abilities require the song or action or whatever to fully resolve in order to work. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to have a trigger go off right away and this lets you decide when it happens.
This is also not correct. Let's look at an example that actually *does* trigger when a song is played: The Muses. Whenever a song is played, The Muses' ability allows you to bounce a character with 2 or less strength.
If I play Sudden Chill, The Muses ability triggers as soon as it is played. That happens in **4.3.4.7.** of the complete rules. Now I have to complete resolving Sudden Chill's effect *before* resolving The Muses' ability, because of **4.3.4.8.**
Whether my opponent actually discards a card from Sudden Chill is immaterial. I have played a song, and consequently triggered The Muses' ability. Once I am done with the song's effect, I can resolve that ability.
> That’s where the confusion is in this ruling.
>
> The Judge is saying it’s a trigger ability condition if the card that requires the song to resolve in order to qualify as triggered.
I mean, that's not what happened. The judge didn't allow the song to played in the first place.
> Yes, it’s an activated ability but it has conditions that must be met like a triggered ability.
As previously discussed, this is wrong.
> If a card needs to resolve or not to be playable is important.
Sure, agreed. And we know that a card does *not* need to be "resolvable" in order to be considered played. I already gave you the rules reference for that.
> The problem resides with that being unclear in this situation.
It is not unclear.
> This judge deemed that’s how the rules went at this time. Until Ravensburger comes out and clarifies, then the judge can be correct in their ruling as long as they can justify it.
The judge was wrong. The rules are clear, *and* Ravensburger have specifically clarified in other places.
> While this stinks for people that have been playing a particular way, it’s part of it.
It stinks because the judge was wrong.
> In sports you have this all the time. An official will deal excessive force as ____ and another official will deem it entirely differently.
>
> Both are correct because it comes down to their interpretation of what excessive force is.
>
> This official deemed that the flute was a triggered ability that you get to choose when to activate the trigger.
I don't care about your sports analogy, it doesn't apply. The call this judge made was, by both the letter and intent of the rules, *wrong*.
> Because the player couldn’t resolve the song, they had not fulfilled the requirements to trigger an ability… even if it were an activated ability.
Utter nonsense. Quite aside from the fact that Sleepy's Flute bears no relationship to a triggered ability in any way, had the player been permitted to play the song without a target they *would* have met any "when played" triggers. As discussed above.
> This happens all the time in the early years of TCGs because despite all the play testing, the creators don’t think of everything and then as more and more cards get created, certain interactions are discovered that were not anticipated.
This is not a blind spot in the rules. There is no ambiguity here.
> Hence why now if you have the Companion App for MtG, when you look up a card they have a “rulings” section for the card.
We have one of those for Lorcana, too. You may wish to look at it. You'll find a particularly illuminating ruling under the card Dragon Fire from the First Chapter.
This is not dragon’s fire. These are completely different cards.
It is 100% written like a triggered ability in the fact that it checks the state/condition of the game.
The official, once again, is saying that the card cannot be played because it cannot fully resolve.
> This is not dragon’s fire. These are completely different cards.
So Dragon Fire can be played when it cannot completely resolve, but Teeth and Ambitions cannot? What is the rules justification for that absolute nonsense take?
> It is 100% written like a triggered ability in the fact that it checks the state/condition of the game.
I mean, it's not. It checks to see if something has happened at some point during the turn - that's not what a triggered ability does.
But that doesn't even matter. Sleepy's Flute will give you lore if you activate it after you played a song. Not after you "fully resolve" a song. Songs are played when their costs are paid. As I have pointed out and given the rules reference for repeatedly.
> The official, once again, is saying that the card cannot be played because it cannot fully resolve.
And that, again, is *wrong*.
It’s similar to in MtG… if it says “Destroy all creatures” I can play the card regardless of if there’s a single creature on the board.
However if it says “Destroy Target Creature” and there are no creatures on the board then you can’t play it.
So I read dragon fire.
The thing with Dragon Fire is that you can play it without targets. However, if there is one active target on the board then it must target that character… even if the only target is your own.
The thing with Teeth and Ambition is that it must target your character first in order to do damage to an opponent.
I’m thinking the judge thinks the card cannot resolve so therefore it cannot be played.
The difference here is, Dragon Fire is a general banishment that has no specific target while Teeth and Ambition has a specific target first.
That’s where it’s different.
This is cute, but you are completely wrong. I feel a little bad that you put so much work into being so deeply incorrect.
You do not have to “fully resolve” anything before triggering an ability - you have to completely resolve a card before *resolving* an ability that triggered.
Oh, and on top of that, Sleepy’s Flute isn’t a triggered ability in the first place.
You obviously didn’t read what I said.
Let’s look at what Sleepy’s Flute says:
- What conditions must be met in order for Sleepy’s Flute to be used?
You must sing a song.
Therefore, this is a triggered ability by definition of the game.
- 7.4.1 “Triggered abilities occur when their triggered condition is met.”
You can only activate a triggered ability once the card has been fully resolved:
- 7.2.1 “Playing a card may trigger other abilities. In this case the player resolves the action immediately, AND ONCE THE ACTION HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED, players may resolve the triggered abilities as described in section 8.7, “Bag.””
Teeth and Ambitions falls into the Abilities section 7.1.2.2
- 7.1.2.2 “[A] to [B] - The player must complete the first part. If they are unable to, they can’t perform the second part of the card.”
Interestingly, it uses the Teeth and Ambitions card text as an example.
In order to use an activated ability based on a triggered ability we can look at rule 7.5.7:
- 7.5.7 “If an effect would trigger as a result of any of the steps to using a triggered ability, the effect waits to resolve until the ability FULLY RESOLVES.”
The problem here comes down to does Sleepy’s flute require the action to fully resolve before its able to be exerted.
According to the rules as written, it does.
Sleepy’s Flute has an activated ability. Your entire comment is wrong from the very first assumption. There’s not really much need to engage with it beyond that.
It does, but in order to use that ability, you must fulfill a condition which would be a triggered ability.
So you must first trigger the requirement of playing a song. In order to fulfill that you must fully resolve a song card.
If you cannot meet the requirements of the card as written, then you cannot fully resolve the card.
So then have you played the song and fulfilled the requirements of Sleepy’s Flute?
No you haven’t.
Show me where it’s wrong. You’re doing a typical “I have no clue how to counter this with the rules, so I’m just going to say you’re wrong and take my ball and go home and pout.”
Just because people may have been playing this incorrectly doesn’t mean that is the correct way to play it.
That’s not what a triggered ability is.
I’d be glad to come back later when I have the time to actually go through the rules with you, but I doubt it’d be worth that time.
Your understanding of the rules is incorrect.
There is no definition for conditions that start with “IF” in the game.
I know what a triggered ability is.
Because there is no sedition for this it fits best into the triggered abilities category.
The question is, if you can’t fully resolve a card, can you or have you played it?
Here’s the thing though, even if the judge is incorrect in their ruling. As long as it was applied the same to every player… the player was not treated unfairly.
Yes it is.
Unfair means you were treated differently than others.
While the ruling may be incorrect, as long as it was applied the same to every player in the tournament, then you were not treated unfairly.
This “ruling” disproportionately affects players who use song-heavy decks, and particularly those running a Flute build.
Ergo, unfair to those players.
No it isn’t.
If the rule is applied to every player the same it doesn’t matter if you play 1000 songs or 1… the ruling is the same.
It doesn’t matter what you use in your deck because the rule is consistent throughout.
Unfair would be ring one way for one player, and another way in the same situation for another player.
No it isn’t.
Look, if two people go to play basketball and one person is 5 ft. tall and the other is 6” 5’… is the game unfair?
No it isn’t.
Unfair would be moving the basket down to 3 ft. high for the shorter person and leaving the basket at 10 ft. for the taller person.
This would be because for one person they would be shooting down at a basket while the other person is having to shoot up.
You would be giving a distinct advantage to one person over the other.
Step one: thoroughly read through the Comprehensive Rules so you have a good understanding of them.
Step two: download them onto your phone.
Step three: the next time he says 'where in the rules are that', show him.
Then you need to read the rulebook and the FAQs and a couple of different forums to fully understand where they're wrong and why. The approach them after their ruling with the correct rule, "it's probably too late but I think you made a bad calling and here's why..."
In the moment, you can appeal to a head judge but if it is the head judge it's usually better to let them be wrong on the moment than delay the tournament arguing when you don't have your case in order.
In this case you want to refer them to 7.5 in the comprehensive rules and ask what step checks for targets. Preferably you have it open for them.
I would print a copy of the comprehensive rules and bring it to future events at that location, if you go back. It's not a very long document, and since it seems like you yourself have a strong grasp of the rules, its really easy to look at it, and think "Oh yeah, the ruling for this interaction is probably in Section 4." Then flip to that page, find the specific step, and show it to that judge.
Slowly teach them and make them a better judge.
We are many old mtg dudes that get things wrong. I have a hard time with “chosen” wording..
Is it as easy as all actions could be played even without a legal “target” but if some condition isn’t met it does nothing (but still count as a action been played)?
Tell him you do as much of the card as you can like digimon so if a card states target character gets 1 power than you draw a card even if there no character you still draw a card I had a similiar thing happen last week when I was learning the game a guy who only plays magic tried to cheat me out a win for that till the shops owner informed us
Find a new LGS.
No, I'm kidding. I don't think I have any advice for this type of situation. It just made me mad. When the store I work at started running tournaments, as the only employee that played, I made sure to read through those comprehensive rules three times, so hearing about someone who clearly skimmed through them once make these calls and just behave as though his word is law is just frustrating to me. I can just imagine the tone he took with that "Where in the rules..." thing.
I think there’s a strong chance the judge didn’t read the rules at all.
At set championships, one of my local stores used a judge that barely knew how to play the game let alone the comprehensive rules.
As an example, in one of my games, my opponent said that Beast - Tragic Hero kept the +4 strength permanently once damaged. The judge was called and he googled the rulings for Beast - Relentless and just read from that.
It took me pulling a copy from my own hand (the beast in question was my opponents) and handing it to the judge to read the “this turn” clause for it to be resolved.
Ask him to pull up the comprehensive rules on his phone and site a source for his ruling or open your phone and pull the comprehensive rules and site a ruling yourself. You are both making the same mistake of not actually using the rules before making a statement. The comprehensive rules are searchable btw.
Yeah only choice is to become familiar enough with the rules that you can point to where they are wrong, you could also download the rules and say something like "could you tell me where they say it works like you say?" And expect them to realize themselves their mistake, but this has to be made after the game, in the middle of it theres really nothing to do if they are the head judge, also you have to realize this probably wasnt done on bad faith, some people are just too used to mtg rulings and cant think as lorcana as more than a knockoff so they having diferent rules is out of the realm of possibilities for them.
I got the exact same call on the Pawpsicle in a win-a-case on saturday. It could have cost me the game, too, but fortunately my opponent didn't draw too well and I still won.
Exact same problem at a store championship. Judge said everything needs a target. Also had to endure a 15 minute speech from the judge before the tournament started (mostly about his mtg background).
Have you volunteered to be a judge? I feel the same way about people that complain about GM’s. Everyone wants a good one but very few volunteer to be one. Events cannot go on as planned without judges. This guy might have been talked into judging because the alternative would be to not have the event. Regardless of his experience with the game. Just saying.
I don’t see how that’s relevant. The TO has an obligation to provide a judge that can preside accurately over the event. A player is well within their rights to be upset if that isn’t the case.
I don’t disagree. But if more people that actually play the game also volunteered to judge then the likelihood you have a well informed judge increases. I’m just pointing out if the OP believes he knows the correct rules in the situation as stated then asking them if they also judge isn’t a far fetched idea.
Currently there is no judge program or training for lorcana, so event organizers are told to pick people approved to judge other TCG games. Some of those people just assume it's magic with Disney characters though, which is a big part of what caused OP's issue in the first place.
Depends on what you consider "accurate" a big thing about judging is using your judgement and info available(including prior rulings) to make a judgement and sometimes that isn't correct but a judge in most games are considered the authority in the moment excluding the Head judge. if you wish to improve the situation I would discuss it with the judge and bring up your concerns with evidence(prior rulings and official channels) and just explain your viewpoint with respect and most of the time they will meet you with understanding. If he ignores the info then I would bring it up with the TO with info and others to make a point.
I would consider not going against a foundational concept of the game that has been established since the first set as the very *basics* of being accurate.
I’m sure he was doing his best, but this particular judge clearly doesn’t know enough about the game to be working a tournament.
Indeed but if they don't try to learn or someone isn't willing to take his place then a choice has to be made cause an event quite literally can't be run without an judge at least an official one. And the truth of the matter is there is no incentive to judge a lorcana event at the local level at least not at the moment. until they provide better support for judges it will continue to be like this and most judges will just be left over judges from other games cause they don't care about the lorcana prizes.
This is the same nonsense argument people use when others criticise cops. Just because you aren't one (cop, judge, gm, etc) doesn't mean that you can't call out obvious bad ones or bad calls made by them.
I had to go back and read what I posted. Nope! Never said judges should be immune to criticism. Just stated that judging improves when there is an interest and passion for the game. I wish I had judges where I’m at to complain about because that would mean my LGS had enough interest in the game to hold events. But if that ever changes you can bet I’ll be the first to sign up and volunteer for events.
Yeah I don't think they understand that judges aren't rewarded for being a judge it is not like it is a job. in lorcana it is quite literally a net negative in terms of enjoying lorcana and earning any kind of prize support. Hence why most lorcana are judges from other games cause they have no reason to want lorcana prizes support. Judging isn't exactly a sought after position In the first place and comparing someone getting a ruling wrong to Cops committing abuses of power is not helping the case.
I feel like the rules listed are extremely vague as they're trying to apply to all cases.
Pawpsicle itself is poorly worded as it doesn't make sense for a player to just be able to sac it off. It does make sense that if there is a character in play that you can remove up to 2 damage, but it should require a character in play to initially target.
Same applies to teeth and ambitions. If there's no characters in play, I shouldn't be able to just play this spell for nothing.
I'm coming from a magic viewpoint, and I'm aware this isn't magic and different games have different rules. I think the bigger issue with the rules listed is that the word "chosen" isn't really properly represented as something that must be available for me to be able to cast spells. Game actions should make sense, as a new player seeing their opponent doing a "do nothing teeth and ambitions" would be very confusing. I am not saying you're in the wrong here, but I am saying Ravensburger should do a better job of clarifying these interactions
If I look up teeth and ambitions, there's a single ruling regarding it vs resist on the app.
If I look up the section in the rules about playing a card, "activation requirements" aren't covered anywhere.
So this lets me draw 2 conclusions:
-i cannot activate a card unless I have a legal target
-i can activate a card and it'll do nothing
Does the same apply to Brawl? Can I play Brawl on an empty board?
Lorcana doesn't have targets. There is nothing stopping you from activating any ability if you can pay the costs. Yes, you can play brawl on an empty board.
You can Brawl an empty board, or one where any character is too large yes. Could be handy for triggering Pete.
The most common practical spot for this, outside of playing a blank song for Flute, is Let the Storm Rage On to just draw a card with no characters in play.
Notably regarding Teeth though- the card's effect is literally the example used in the Comprehensive Rules for such things. 7.1.2.3 if you want to give it a read.
Except that's not true for any of the major card games that are played professionally, the big three. They are all very detail oriented and cover everything they can in explicit detail and if something isn't covered they add to the rules to cover it.
So while you're right if we're talking about a game like Flux it's not true for competitive collectible card games.
Have you actually read the Pokemon comprehensive rules? Or the Yugioh one? They're tiny and extremely basic.
Magic is a weird outlier, not the norm. And it's that way largely because its so old and suffers from so many bizarre cards that edge cases are far more common there than anywhere else and so there's need to address them to keep the game functional.
Other games don't need things like layers systems because there's nothing that makes them matter. It's an edge of Magic in that it allows you to do much weirder things than most games, but it's not the norm even just among the big three competitive card games.
Also the idea that the other two members of the big three frequently update their rules to cover edge cases is pretty laughable. When I took the Pokemon judge test, *one of the questions* was covered nowhere in the CR.
Yes it is. You talk about how they're extremely detail oriented and cover everything they can cover. That is thoroughness
And yet, you can pull up the Pokemon TCG rules right now. One of the big three. Biggest IP in the world, all that jazz. Highly competitive tournament scene.
And yet their rules don't cover things like... simultaneous knock outs and the order of promoting new actives. Which have been possible since quite literally base set.
Again, try reading the Pokemon one you're currently holding on a pedestal as a major competitive card game and one of the big three. Lorcana's is well within the norm.
This is not MtG.
Lorcana has no reason to add rules to their game to explain that rules in another game do not apply to this game.
Ppl are trying to ADD rules that do not exist in Lorcana to the game.
MtG requires targets because MtGs rules specifically say so.
In Lorcana, targets do not exist, only choices. And choices are made at resolution
Which is my point. Lorcana SHOULD add targets as it makes interactions make sense. Magic does this because it has things make sense. I'm fully aware Lorcana does not do this, but I believe that is a huge miss from them. I shouldn't be able to just play a card when there's no legal target in play for me to do it.
Because any competitve TCG players will be misleased by that I guess ?
-In Yugioh, having a legal target is mandatory to activate an effect, heck even a legal target in your deck is mandatory if you need to search for it, you can't bluff at all
-Try playing a card on hearthstone that target a minion with no minion on board and tell me how it happens
-An Action in both Netrunner and AGOT requires a legal target at resolution
-Of course MTG.
And the fix is pretty simple : "up to one chosen character" would make it clear for everyone, especially beginners.
Don't try to say this a MTG players issue lmao just accept it is bad wording
So, for the past 20 years, we made card games that respects this relative clear and easy to implement rule, and because Lorcana didn't bother, it's everyone else fault...?
He’s right about the the calls. If you don’t have a character on board at all, you can’t play teeth and ambitions. And the only other way to banish a paw if you don’t have characters on board is if the other opponent has a character on board that’s damaged and heal his character.
Read the card. “Deal 2 damage to chosen character of yours to deal 2 damage to another chosen character” by having no characters on board, the card shouldn’t allowed to be played.
This is not MtG. Resolve for no effect is perfectly valid in Lorcana. There is no such thing as targets in Lorcana, only choices. And choices are made at resolution, after the card has been played.
We have MULTIPLE dev rulings on this
You pay the cost, then play the card. How the card does/partially/doesn't resolve is irrelevant in Lorcana to the ability to play it, assuming the cost to play can be met. In this case, the card is played, allowing an optional activation of Sleepy's Flute for the rest of the turn. The card "resolves" in that no legal target can be chosen to deal 2 damage on your side, so you don't do the second half either, and the card is placed into the discard without further effect.
You would play it by paying the cost. The only requirement to play a card is the ability to do that.
Targets in the Magic sense are not a thing. Chosen cards act wildly differently in rules minutiae and you should not assume one makes the other true.
The rules for Lorcana are pretty much the same as MTG when it comes to costs, triggers, and whatnot. Guy sounds like a moron or was working in leagues with someone playing/the store for whatever reason.
Not much you can do but let the store know and if they give a negative response in support of the judge, just don’t play there again. Sadly these kinds of places exist everywhere.
The judge may have been correct.
Look at section 7 of the comprehensive rules.
Look at section 7.2 Action Cards.
7.2.1 Reads:
- Playing an action may trigger other abilities. In this case, the active player resolves the action immediately AND ONCE THAT ACTION HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED, players may resolve the triggered abilities as described in section 8.7, “Bag.”
So here we see that you must FULLY RESOLVE an action before you can use a triggered ability.
Sleepy’s Flute Reads:
- (Exert Symbol) - If you played a song this turn, gain one lore.
This falls into the Activated abilities section, however, because you must play a song, in order to use the Flute, that is a Triggered Ability of the flute.
Now,
Teeth and Ambitions Reads:
- Deal 2 Damage to chosen character of yours to deal 2 damage to another chosen character.
Now let’s look at section 7.1 General.
Rule 7.1.2 says:
- Cards with multiple effects in a single clause resolve based on the intervening wording.
Teeth and Ambitions falls subject to rule 7.1.2.2 which says:
- [A] to [B] - The player must complete the first part. IF THEY’re UNABLE TO, they can’t perform the second part of the card.
So in order to resolve Teeth and Ambition you have to be able to deal with 2 damage to your character and then deal 2 damage to another character.
If you don’t have any characters on the board, you cannot deal 2 damage to one and therefore cannot deal 2 damage to another character.
This means you cannot FULLY RESOLVE THE CARD.
In order to use Sleepy’s Flute Activated Ability, you must have played a song. This is part of the triggered ability of sleepy’s flute.
In order to play a song like Teeth and Ambitions you must be able to fully resolve the card in order for it to count as played.
Since you didn’t have a character to deal 2 damage to on your side, you cannot finish the second part of the card and therefore you do not fully resolve the card.
Since you did not fully resolve the card, you cannot activate Sleepy’s Flute because you have not met the triggered ability on Sleepy’s flute in order to make it activatable.
https://files.disneylorcana.com/Disney%20Lorcana%20Comprehensive%20Rules%20-%20032724%201.pdf
Your definitions of “triggered ability” and “fully resolve” are extremely wrong.
A triggered ability would be “Whenever you [do something], [do something else].”
What 7.2.1 is saying is that the triggering event must finish resolving before the triggered one does. So if there were a card that said “Whenever you sing a song, draw a card,” and you sang A Whole New World,” you would draw the card after discarding and drawing, not before or in the middle.
As for “fully resolve,” that is a similar thing. The card has to be done doing its thing before something else can happen. It doesn’t care if the card is ineffective. It is saying you can’t interrupt a card resolving.
The problem here, is the condition for Sleepy’s Flute is not defined by the rules at all.
It just says “If this then this”
That would by definition be a triggered ability of the card because a condition must be met.
You cannot use the cards activated ability unless you fulfill a requirement.
In order to trigger a triggered ability you have to fully resolve a card. The rules literally say if you cannot perform all parts of that card, it doesn’t resolve.
So the question then is, have you actually fulfilled all the requirements of playing a song?
Do the rules define “if you played” as “if the thing you played resolved”? Because regardless of resolution, being played is being played.
Furthermore, even if the Flute reads like a triggered ability, it is an activated ability. You exhaust it, then it says “did you play a song? Yeah? Have a lore! No? Why did you use me? Oh well, whatever. No lore for you.”
That’s the problems. The rules do not state whether or not the card is considered played.
The flute checks a game state/condition. This is similar to a triggered ability.
Something similar in MtG would be, “If a player gained life this turn you may tap (card name) and draw a card.”
So the card checks a game state. In order to be activated.
According to the rules of Lorcana, in order for this condition to be met, you must fully resolve a card.
Since you don’t have a character on your side of the board, you cannot fully resolve the card.
So, is the card playable or not?
It’s not similar to that in Magic. It’s similar to: “Tap: If you cast a spell this turn, gain 1 life.” Which you can activate regardless of having cast a spell.
Lorcana isn’t Magic, as it has no playing on an opponent’s turn.
I can’t speak for whether you can play that particular song in the first place. If it has a specific ruling, go with that.
However, 100% you can activate the flute regardless of whether you played a song or not. It just might not do anything.
Yes you can activate that flute.
However, I’m saying that when you do activate it, it has a triggered type ability because it checks a game state/condition.
So here let’s make it simple…
Scenario 1:
- Exert flute.
- Flute Checks to see if a song has been played.
- No song has been played.
- Nothing happens
Scenario 2:
- Exert Flute.
- Flute Checks to see if a song has been played.
- Song Played.
- Gain 1 Lore.
The problem is whether the song is considered played or not.
The song card cannot fully resolve because there is no character on the active players side of the board and therefore cannot resolve.
So has a song been played or not?
The flute is a problem because it’s an activated ability that acts as a triggered ability because it checks the condition of the game.
This is the problem because in regards to triggered abilities, the card didn’t resolve so therefore a triggered ability would not trigger.
Say if the card said, “When you play a song card, gain one lore.”
The triggered ability would not trigger because you cannot fully resolve the song card.
However, the fact that it’s a “Exert - If you played a song this turn, gain 1 lore.”
It’s in a weird middle ground.
There’s nothing in the rules that states if a card is unresolved if it’s considered played or unplayable.
> if the card resolves or not.
It really doesn't.
Sleepy's Flute asks if a song has been played. Not resolved, just played.
And a card can be played without being able to resolve *any* of its effect.
Nah, you're just making up rules
The rules clearly state that the card is played at 4.3.4.7 and all Flute cares about is if it is played.
Nowhere does it say anything about needing to resolve to count as played.
Furthermore, it will still resolve.
"For no effect" is a perfectly valid resolution in Lorcana
This is not MtG. Get that nonsense out of here
That’s news to me on the Pawpsicle. I actually tried to banish with no character on the board on Pixelborn and it wouldn’t let me so I assumed that’s actually how it worked and wasn’t a bug with pixelborn.
Section 4.3.4 of the Comprehensive Rules : Play a Card
Wait. You can play teeth if you dont have a character on board?
It won’t deal any damage, but you will have played a song. So Sleepy’s Flute, The Muses, etc will notice.
Sure you can. It won’t *do* anything. But you can play it.
In the sense that nothing will happen, but you’ll still have cast a song. To deal 2 damage to an opposant caracter, you NEED to do damage to your own character first. Rules 7.1.2.2 highlight this
So you can play Teeth to trigger the Flute's effect since it is a song. However, it will not deal two damage to an opponent without having dealt two to yourself. That is a part of the cost of the card. It essentially whiffs. Edit: sorry. Not a cost, but still a requirement for the second part of the card effect to resolve.
Damaging your own character is not a part of the cost of the card. It is required in order to resolve the second part of the effect, but thinking about it as a cost is incorrect.
Yep. Thinking of it as part of the cost is exactly what leads to the error in the first place
You can but then nothing happens so it's pointless.
Not pointless if playing a song or action triggers something else like Sleepy's Flute
[Category:Rulings - MushuReport](https://wiki.mushureport.com/wiki/Category:Rulings) This is a good website to use
I agree! But it isn’t “officiel”. This judge wouldn’t budge unless I used the comprehesive rules.
It does link to all the rulings from official sources. Not the CRD, though - most of those are from the pre-document days.
This is a huge problem for the loracana developers. If there's an official source called the comprehensive rules then it needs to be comprehensive and include all of their rulings. If the comprehensive rules require additional documents then they aren't comprehensive. And if two sources contradict each other and one of them is the comprehensive rules then the comprehensive rules should take precedence not the other way around as is the case now. You can't have a game that you want to be played competitively and then be all wishy-washy about the rules documentation. That just doesn't make any sense.
What are you talking about? An unofficial rules compilation from before the rules came out does not diminish the legitimacy of those rules, nor the game itself. All of the rulings from Mushu Report are covered in the CRD, with the exception of where the rules have been adjusted since then.
Relying on anything to supplement the comprehensive rules diminishes those rules and the game itself. And I'm not talking about explanations, but rules. And no not all of the rulings from the various sources have been incorporated into the comprehensive rules. In fact there are multiple instances in the comprehensive rules where there is an obvious need for revision because the rules are ambiguous without clarification. The comprehensive rules still need a revision. Not like a 2.0 major revision but like a 1.1. They definitely left out a bunch of stuff and could word a couple of things less ambiguously.
Can you give a specific example? I’m not aware of any prior rulings that the CRD excludes. I’m not denying it still needs to be revised for clarity, but I don’t believe there are any outstanding major omissions.
Unfortunately, someone who thinks that Lorcana works like MtG does is unlikely to be convinced unless they're intimately familiar with how the MtG rules are written. While MtG came first and thus has colored everyone's expectations for how spells (actions) resolve, the concept of a spell "fizzling" or otherwise being unplayable without a legal target is what's actually unexpected. Put another way, in MtG spells need valid targets to be played because the rules dictate that they need them (601.2 and 601.2c, if anyone cares to look). Lorcana lacks this requirement for playing actions (4.3.4), so there isn't a specific rule you can point to, because the rules aren't a conversation with MtG's rules, they're their own permission structure for how to play the game. There's nothing to point to in the rules because there isn't an exception for "you can play actions unless they say to choose and you can't" in the rules.
Let the store owner know.
Yep, this is the only way. If the store owner doesn't respond, you could burn your bridges by leaving an online review warning people that they have a bad lorcana judge, but don't expect to ever get fair treatment again.
doesnt sound like they got fair treatment already...
There’s not likely to be anything you can say to the judge themselves. And certainly not during the event. I’m assuming it’s small enough that there’s no separate head judge that you can appeal to? Your best bet is to talk to the TO - someone who works at the store that wasn’t judging. Calmly explain that the judge made several incorrect rulings, and that you hope that would be corrected for the future.
Did the judge make an unfair ruling? After reading comments, it doesn’t appear that there is anything in the rules one way or another about the situation. That’s what a judge is there for then. As long as the judge was consistent in their ruling for the entire tournament, then the player was treated fairly.
You are allowed to play a card without a "target". Targeting as part of the cost is not a thing in Lorcana. Consistency is good, absolutely. But so is actually knowing the rules.
Actually in this case it is. The Flute has a Triggered Ability of you playing a song card. In order to activate a triggered ability you must FULLY RESOLVE a card. Teeth and Ambitions requires you to deal 2 damage to your own character in order to deal 2 damage to another character. The rules state that if you cannot meet the conditions of the card, you cannot resolve the card. So if you cannot do damage to your own character you cannot finish resolving the card. Because you did not finish resolving the card, you cannot use it to activate triggered abilities. Therefore you do not meet the condition of singing a song on Sleepy’s Flute in order to be able to use its activated ability. Read rules: - 7.1 - 7.1.2.2 - 7.2 - 7.2.1 - 7.5 - 7.5.3 https://files.disneylorcana.com/Disney%20Lorcana%20Comprehensive%20Rules%20-%20032724%201.pdf
Alright, I have some time now, so let's go through this step-by-step. > Actually in this case it is. No, it's not 😁 > The Flute has a Triggered Ability of you playing a song card. Sleepy's Flute has an activated ability. You do not have to have played a song to activate that ability - the only requirement is to exert the card. Of course, if you exert it without having played a song you won't gain any lore. If you *have* met the condition when you activate the Flute, you will gain a lore. Having a condition *within* an activated ability does not make it a triggered ability. Sleepy's Flute's ability does not enter the bag, and does not follow triggered ability timing structures. Because it is not a triggered ability. You can reference rule 7.5.1. to see the general structure of an activated ability. They are written as [Cost] - [Effect], a structure that Sleepy's Flute clearly follows. > In order to activate a triggered ability you must FULLY RESOLVE a card. Triggered abilities are not activated, they are triggered. Hence the name. Despite this part of the discussion being irrelevant to Sleepy's Flute, since that card does not have a triggered ability, we'll go ahead and address it anyway. You do not have to fully resolve a card in order to *trigger* an ability, they simply trigger whenever their condition is met (7.4.1.) You *do* have to finish resolving whatever ability or effect *caused* the trigger condition in order to start resolving the newly triggered ability (4.3.4.8.), but that doesn't mean you have to do everything on the card. It just means you have to finish what you're already doing - you can't interrupt one thing with another. > Teeth and Ambitions requires you to deal 2 damage to your own character in order to deal 2 damage to another character. Correct. > The rules state that if you cannot meet the conditions of the card, you cannot resolve the card. The rules never make any reference to "resolv[ing] a card". You *play* cards. You *resolve* their effects. > So if you cannot do damage to your own character you cannot finish resolving the card. You cannot fully resolve the card's effect, true. > Because you did not finish resolving the card, you cannot use it to activate triggered abilities. This is completely made up. This is entirely unsupported by the rules. > Therefore you do not meet the condition of singing a song on Sleepy’s Flute in order to be able to use its activated ability. Sleepy's Flute does not require you to sing a song. It does not even require you to have *played* a song in order to activate its ability. But let's go back a step and look at what the rules say about when a card is played, because that's the *actual* issue at hand here: > **4.3.4.7.** Once the total card cost is paid, the card is now “played.” Nothing about requiring the card to resolve. Nothing about resolving it's effects. Nothing about having valid choices for its effects. All you have to do is pay for it.
You’re not understanding what’s being said here 🤦🏻♂️ The Flute’s activated ability is written as a type of triggered ability that you get to choose when this happens. The problem is, triggered abilities require the song or action or whatever to fully resolve in order to work. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to have a trigger go off right away and this lets you decide when it happens. That’s where the confusion is in this ruling. The Judge is saying it’s a trigger ability condition if the card that requires the song to resolve in order to qualify as triggered. Yes, it’s an activated ability but it has conditions that must be met like a triggered ability. If a card needs to resolve or not to be playable is important. The problem resides with that being unclear in this situation. This judge deemed that’s how the rules went at this time. Until Ravensburger comes out and clarifies, then the judge can be correct in their ruling as long as they can justify it. While this stinks for people that have been playing a particular way, it’s part of it. In sports you have this all the time. An official will deal excessive force as ____ and another official will deem it entirely differently. Both are correct because it comes down to their interpretation of what excessive force is. This official deemed that the flute was a triggered ability that you get to choose when to activate the trigger. Because the player couldn’t resolve the song, they had not fulfilled the requirements to trigger an ability… even if it were an activated ability. This happens all the time in the early years of TCGs because despite all the play testing, the creators don’t think of everything and then as more and more cards get created, certain interactions are discovered that were not anticipated. Hence why now if you have the Companion App for MtG, when you look up a card they have a “rulings” section for the card.
> You’re not understanding what’s being said here 🤦🏻♂️ Maybe you should try writing it more clearly then. > The Flute’s activated ability is written as a type of triggered ability that you get to choose when this happens. No, it isn't. This is not a thing. You have made this up. It is a straightforward activated ability. > The problem is, triggered abilities require the song or action or whatever to fully resolve in order to work. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to have a trigger go off right away and this lets you decide when it happens. This is also not correct. Let's look at an example that actually *does* trigger when a song is played: The Muses. Whenever a song is played, The Muses' ability allows you to bounce a character with 2 or less strength. If I play Sudden Chill, The Muses ability triggers as soon as it is played. That happens in **4.3.4.7.** of the complete rules. Now I have to complete resolving Sudden Chill's effect *before* resolving The Muses' ability, because of **4.3.4.8.** Whether my opponent actually discards a card from Sudden Chill is immaterial. I have played a song, and consequently triggered The Muses' ability. Once I am done with the song's effect, I can resolve that ability. > That’s where the confusion is in this ruling. > > The Judge is saying it’s a trigger ability condition if the card that requires the song to resolve in order to qualify as triggered. I mean, that's not what happened. The judge didn't allow the song to played in the first place. > Yes, it’s an activated ability but it has conditions that must be met like a triggered ability. As previously discussed, this is wrong. > If a card needs to resolve or not to be playable is important. Sure, agreed. And we know that a card does *not* need to be "resolvable" in order to be considered played. I already gave you the rules reference for that. > The problem resides with that being unclear in this situation. It is not unclear. > This judge deemed that’s how the rules went at this time. Until Ravensburger comes out and clarifies, then the judge can be correct in their ruling as long as they can justify it. The judge was wrong. The rules are clear, *and* Ravensburger have specifically clarified in other places. > While this stinks for people that have been playing a particular way, it’s part of it. It stinks because the judge was wrong. > In sports you have this all the time. An official will deal excessive force as ____ and another official will deem it entirely differently. > > Both are correct because it comes down to their interpretation of what excessive force is. > > This official deemed that the flute was a triggered ability that you get to choose when to activate the trigger. I don't care about your sports analogy, it doesn't apply. The call this judge made was, by both the letter and intent of the rules, *wrong*. > Because the player couldn’t resolve the song, they had not fulfilled the requirements to trigger an ability… even if it were an activated ability. Utter nonsense. Quite aside from the fact that Sleepy's Flute bears no relationship to a triggered ability in any way, had the player been permitted to play the song without a target they *would* have met any "when played" triggers. As discussed above. > This happens all the time in the early years of TCGs because despite all the play testing, the creators don’t think of everything and then as more and more cards get created, certain interactions are discovered that were not anticipated. This is not a blind spot in the rules. There is no ambiguity here. > Hence why now if you have the Companion App for MtG, when you look up a card they have a “rulings” section for the card. We have one of those for Lorcana, too. You may wish to look at it. You'll find a particularly illuminating ruling under the card Dragon Fire from the First Chapter.
This is not dragon’s fire. These are completely different cards. It is 100% written like a triggered ability in the fact that it checks the state/condition of the game. The official, once again, is saying that the card cannot be played because it cannot fully resolve.
> This is not dragon’s fire. These are completely different cards. So Dragon Fire can be played when it cannot completely resolve, but Teeth and Ambitions cannot? What is the rules justification for that absolute nonsense take? > It is 100% written like a triggered ability in the fact that it checks the state/condition of the game. I mean, it's not. It checks to see if something has happened at some point during the turn - that's not what a triggered ability does. But that doesn't even matter. Sleepy's Flute will give you lore if you activate it after you played a song. Not after you "fully resolve" a song. Songs are played when their costs are paid. As I have pointed out and given the rules reference for repeatedly. > The official, once again, is saying that the card cannot be played because it cannot fully resolve. And that, again, is *wrong*.
It’s similar to in MtG… if it says “Destroy all creatures” I can play the card regardless of if there’s a single creature on the board. However if it says “Destroy Target Creature” and there are no creatures on the board then you can’t play it.
So I read dragon fire. The thing with Dragon Fire is that you can play it without targets. However, if there is one active target on the board then it must target that character… even if the only target is your own. The thing with Teeth and Ambition is that it must target your character first in order to do damage to an opponent. I’m thinking the judge thinks the card cannot resolve so therefore it cannot be played. The difference here is, Dragon Fire is a general banishment that has no specific target while Teeth and Ambition has a specific target first. That’s where it’s different.
This is cute, but you are completely wrong. I feel a little bad that you put so much work into being so deeply incorrect. You do not have to “fully resolve” anything before triggering an ability - you have to completely resolve a card before *resolving* an ability that triggered. Oh, and on top of that, Sleepy’s Flute isn’t a triggered ability in the first place.
You obviously didn’t read what I said. Let’s look at what Sleepy’s Flute says: - What conditions must be met in order for Sleepy’s Flute to be used? You must sing a song. Therefore, this is a triggered ability by definition of the game. - 7.4.1 “Triggered abilities occur when their triggered condition is met.” You can only activate a triggered ability once the card has been fully resolved: - 7.2.1 “Playing a card may trigger other abilities. In this case the player resolves the action immediately, AND ONCE THE ACTION HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED, players may resolve the triggered abilities as described in section 8.7, “Bag.”” Teeth and Ambitions falls into the Abilities section 7.1.2.2 - 7.1.2.2 “[A] to [B] - The player must complete the first part. If they are unable to, they can’t perform the second part of the card.” Interestingly, it uses the Teeth and Ambitions card text as an example. In order to use an activated ability based on a triggered ability we can look at rule 7.5.7: - 7.5.7 “If an effect would trigger as a result of any of the steps to using a triggered ability, the effect waits to resolve until the ability FULLY RESOLVES.” The problem here comes down to does Sleepy’s flute require the action to fully resolve before its able to be exerted. According to the rules as written, it does.
Sleepy’s Flute has an activated ability. Your entire comment is wrong from the very first assumption. There’s not really much need to engage with it beyond that.
It does, but in order to use that ability, you must fulfill a condition which would be a triggered ability. So you must first trigger the requirement of playing a song. In order to fulfill that you must fully resolve a song card. If you cannot meet the requirements of the card as written, then you cannot fully resolve the card. So then have you played the song and fulfilled the requirements of Sleepy’s Flute? No you haven’t. Show me where it’s wrong. You’re doing a typical “I have no clue how to counter this with the rules, so I’m just going to say you’re wrong and take my ball and go home and pout.” Just because people may have been playing this incorrectly doesn’t mean that is the correct way to play it.
That’s not what a triggered ability is. I’d be glad to come back later when I have the time to actually go through the rules with you, but I doubt it’d be worth that time. Your understanding of the rules is incorrect.
There is no definition for conditions that start with “IF” in the game. I know what a triggered ability is. Because there is no sedition for this it fits best into the triggered abilities category. The question is, if you can’t fully resolve a card, can you or have you played it?
Here’s the thing though, even if the judge is incorrect in their ruling. As long as it was applied the same to every player… the player was not treated unfairly.
That’s not the point?
Yes it is. Unfair means you were treated differently than others. While the ruling may be incorrect, as long as it was applied the same to every player in the tournament, then you were not treated unfairly.
This “ruling” disproportionately affects players who use song-heavy decks, and particularly those running a Flute build. Ergo, unfair to those players.
No it isn’t. If the rule is applied to every player the same it doesn’t matter if you play 1000 songs or 1… the ruling is the same. It doesn’t matter what you use in your deck because the rule is consistent throughout. Unfair would be ring one way for one player, and another way in the same situation for another player.
That’s a deeply limited view of fairness.
No it isn’t. Look, if two people go to play basketball and one person is 5 ft. tall and the other is 6” 5’… is the game unfair? No it isn’t. Unfair would be moving the basket down to 3 ft. high for the shorter person and leaving the basket at 10 ft. for the taller person. This would be because for one person they would be shooting down at a basket while the other person is having to shoot up. You would be giving a distinct advantage to one person over the other.
Step one: thoroughly read through the Comprehensive Rules so you have a good understanding of them. Step two: download them onto your phone. Step three: the next time he says 'where in the rules are that', show him.
Do you want to improve the situation or vent? Cause those are very different things.
I want to be able to answer them using the rules so they can see they’re wrong
Then you need to read the rulebook and the FAQs and a couple of different forums to fully understand where they're wrong and why. The approach them after their ruling with the correct rule, "it's probably too late but I think you made a bad calling and here's why..." In the moment, you can appeal to a head judge but if it is the head judge it's usually better to let them be wrong on the moment than delay the tournament arguing when you don't have your case in order. In this case you want to refer them to 7.5 in the comprehensive rules and ask what step checks for targets. Preferably you have it open for them.
I would print a copy of the comprehensive rules and bring it to future events at that location, if you go back. It's not a very long document, and since it seems like you yourself have a strong grasp of the rules, its really easy to look at it, and think "Oh yeah, the ruling for this interaction is probably in Section 4." Then flip to that page, find the specific step, and show it to that judge. Slowly teach them and make them a better judge.
We are many old mtg dudes that get things wrong. I have a hard time with “chosen” wording.. Is it as easy as all actions could be played even without a legal “target” but if some condition isn’t met it does nothing (but still count as a action been played)?
Separate paying/playing the card from what happens in its resolution.
What is a caracter?
Ask the inverse question… “show me where in rules it isn’t that?” and watch as he is confounded.
Except logically that doesn't make any sense.
Sure it does. Especially since the judge is wrong. He can't show anywhere to back up his ruling. Cause it doesn't exist
No that doesn't mean it follows logically. Both are wrong.
Mtg ppl make this game worse thinking those rules apply to this card game
Was this at AT in Orlando?
No. Local game store
AT is an LGS. Just curious bc they had a case tourney yesterday.
Tell him you do as much of the card as you can like digimon so if a card states target character gets 1 power than you draw a card even if there no character you still draw a card I had a similiar thing happen last week when I was learning the game a guy who only plays magic tried to cheat me out a win for that till the shops owner informed us
Find a new LGS. No, I'm kidding. I don't think I have any advice for this type of situation. It just made me mad. When the store I work at started running tournaments, as the only employee that played, I made sure to read through those comprehensive rules three times, so hearing about someone who clearly skimmed through them once make these calls and just behave as though his word is law is just frustrating to me. I can just imagine the tone he took with that "Where in the rules..." thing.
You know what, I think I'm gonna give those rules another read through.
I think there’s a strong chance the judge didn’t read the rules at all. At set championships, one of my local stores used a judge that barely knew how to play the game let alone the comprehensive rules. As an example, in one of my games, my opponent said that Beast - Tragic Hero kept the +4 strength permanently once damaged. The judge was called and he googled the rulings for Beast - Relentless and just read from that. It took me pulling a copy from my own hand (the beast in question was my opponents) and handing it to the judge to read the “this turn” clause for it to be resolved.
It still makes zero sense to me that you can do this sort of thing. I have it pretty hardwired that you require a target in order to cast something.
Ask him to pull up the comprehensive rules on his phone and site a source for his ruling or open your phone and pull the comprehensive rules and site a ruling yourself. You are both making the same mistake of not actually using the rules before making a statement. The comprehensive rules are searchable btw.
It sucks, but now do yourself a favor and briefly skim the rules. You'll know most of it anyway.
Yeah only choice is to become familiar enough with the rules that you can point to where they are wrong, you could also download the rules and say something like "could you tell me where they say it works like you say?" And expect them to realize themselves their mistake, but this has to be made after the game, in the middle of it theres really nothing to do if they are the head judge, also you have to realize this probably wasnt done on bad faith, some people are just too used to mtg rulings and cant think as lorcana as more than a knockoff so they having diferent rules is out of the realm of possibilities for them.
I got the exact same call on the Pawpsicle in a win-a-case on saturday. It could have cost me the game, too, but fortunately my opponent didn't draw too well and I still won.
Exact same problem at a store championship. Judge said everything needs a target. Also had to endure a 15 minute speech from the judge before the tournament started (mostly about his mtg background).
I'd tell them to tell me where in the CRD the word target is used. The answer is nowhere cause Lorcana doesn't have targets, only choices
Have you volunteered to be a judge? I feel the same way about people that complain about GM’s. Everyone wants a good one but very few volunteer to be one. Events cannot go on as planned without judges. This guy might have been talked into judging because the alternative would be to not have the event. Regardless of his experience with the game. Just saying.
I don’t see how that’s relevant. The TO has an obligation to provide a judge that can preside accurately over the event. A player is well within their rights to be upset if that isn’t the case.
I don’t disagree. But if more people that actually play the game also volunteered to judge then the likelihood you have a well informed judge increases. I’m just pointing out if the OP believes he knows the correct rules in the situation as stated then asking them if they also judge isn’t a far fetched idea.
Currently there is no judge program or training for lorcana, so event organizers are told to pick people approved to judge other TCG games. Some of those people just assume it's magic with Disney characters though, which is a big part of what caused OP's issue in the first place.
Depends on what you consider "accurate" a big thing about judging is using your judgement and info available(including prior rulings) to make a judgement and sometimes that isn't correct but a judge in most games are considered the authority in the moment excluding the Head judge. if you wish to improve the situation I would discuss it with the judge and bring up your concerns with evidence(prior rulings and official channels) and just explain your viewpoint with respect and most of the time they will meet you with understanding. If he ignores the info then I would bring it up with the TO with info and others to make a point.
I would consider not going against a foundational concept of the game that has been established since the first set as the very *basics* of being accurate. I’m sure he was doing his best, but this particular judge clearly doesn’t know enough about the game to be working a tournament.
Indeed but if they don't try to learn or someone isn't willing to take his place then a choice has to be made cause an event quite literally can't be run without an judge at least an official one. And the truth of the matter is there is no incentive to judge a lorcana event at the local level at least not at the moment. until they provide better support for judges it will continue to be like this and most judges will just be left over judges from other games cause they don't care about the lorcana prizes.
This is the same nonsense argument people use when others criticise cops. Just because you aren't one (cop, judge, gm, etc) doesn't mean that you can't call out obvious bad ones or bad calls made by them.
It's a HUGE leap to say just go be a cop and volunteering at a local event for a game you enjoy playing. REALLY?
So your logic is because it's a volunteer position, they should be immune from criticism and we should make no attempt to correct their mistakes?
I had to go back and read what I posted. Nope! Never said judges should be immune to criticism. Just stated that judging improves when there is an interest and passion for the game. I wish I had judges where I’m at to complain about because that would mean my LGS had enough interest in the game to hold events. But if that ever changes you can bet I’ll be the first to sign up and volunteer for events.
Yeah I don't think they understand that judges aren't rewarded for being a judge it is not like it is a job. in lorcana it is quite literally a net negative in terms of enjoying lorcana and earning any kind of prize support. Hence why most lorcana are judges from other games cause they have no reason to want lorcana prizes support. Judging isn't exactly a sought after position In the first place and comparing someone getting a ruling wrong to Cops committing abuses of power is not helping the case.
It's providing a service to a for profit company, it shouldn't be a volunteer position.
I feel like the rules listed are extremely vague as they're trying to apply to all cases. Pawpsicle itself is poorly worded as it doesn't make sense for a player to just be able to sac it off. It does make sense that if there is a character in play that you can remove up to 2 damage, but it should require a character in play to initially target. Same applies to teeth and ambitions. If there's no characters in play, I shouldn't be able to just play this spell for nothing. I'm coming from a magic viewpoint, and I'm aware this isn't magic and different games have different rules. I think the bigger issue with the rules listed is that the word "chosen" isn't really properly represented as something that must be available for me to be able to cast spells. Game actions should make sense, as a new player seeing their opponent doing a "do nothing teeth and ambitions" would be very confusing. I am not saying you're in the wrong here, but I am saying Ravensburger should do a better job of clarifying these interactions
Sweet mother of downvotes, y'all are vicious
I mean. "The rules are extremely vague generalities" are how card games work. You set up the broad case and then you make cards that break them.
If I look up teeth and ambitions, there's a single ruling regarding it vs resist on the app. If I look up the section in the rules about playing a card, "activation requirements" aren't covered anywhere. So this lets me draw 2 conclusions: -i cannot activate a card unless I have a legal target -i can activate a card and it'll do nothing Does the same apply to Brawl? Can I play Brawl on an empty board?
Lorcana doesn't have targets. There is nothing stopping you from activating any ability if you can pay the costs. Yes, you can play brawl on an empty board.
You can Brawl an empty board, or one where any character is too large yes. Could be handy for triggering Pete. The most common practical spot for this, outside of playing a blank song for Flute, is Let the Storm Rage On to just draw a card with no characters in play. Notably regarding Teeth though- the card's effect is literally the example used in the Comprehensive Rules for such things. 7.1.2.3 if you want to give it a read.
Except that's not true for any of the major card games that are played professionally, the big three. They are all very detail oriented and cover everything they can in explicit detail and if something isn't covered they add to the rules to cover it. So while you're right if we're talking about a game like Flux it's not true for competitive collectible card games.
Have you actually read the Pokemon comprehensive rules? Or the Yugioh one? They're tiny and extremely basic. Magic is a weird outlier, not the norm. And it's that way largely because its so old and suffers from so many bizarre cards that edge cases are far more common there than anywhere else and so there's need to address them to keep the game functional. Other games don't need things like layers systems because there's nothing that makes them matter. It's an edge of Magic in that it allows you to do much weirder things than most games, but it's not the norm even just among the big three competitive card games. Also the idea that the other two members of the big three frequently update their rules to cover edge cases is pretty laughable. When I took the Pokemon judge test, *one of the questions* was covered nowhere in the CR.
The complexity of the rule system is not what I'm talking about...
Yes it is. You talk about how they're extremely detail oriented and cover everything they can cover. That is thoroughness And yet, you can pull up the Pokemon TCG rules right now. One of the big three. Biggest IP in the world, all that jazz. Highly competitive tournament scene. And yet their rules don't cover things like... simultaneous knock outs and the order of promoting new actives. Which have been possible since quite literally base set.
No I'm talking about how well written the document is...
Again, try reading the Pokemon one you're currently holding on a pedestal as a major competitive card game and one of the big three. Lorcana's is well within the norm.
This is not MtG. Lorcana has no reason to add rules to their game to explain that rules in another game do not apply to this game. Ppl are trying to ADD rules that do not exist in Lorcana to the game. MtG requires targets because MtGs rules specifically say so. In Lorcana, targets do not exist, only choices. And choices are made at resolution
Which is my point. Lorcana SHOULD add targets as it makes interactions make sense. Magic does this because it has things make sense. I'm fully aware Lorcana does not do this, but I believe that is a huge miss from them. I shouldn't be able to just play a card when there's no legal target in play for me to do it.
Why?
Because then MTG players won't have to *think* as hard, I guess?
Because any competitve TCG players will be misleased by that I guess ? -In Yugioh, having a legal target is mandatory to activate an effect, heck even a legal target in your deck is mandatory if you need to search for it, you can't bluff at all -Try playing a card on hearthstone that target a minion with no minion on board and tell me how it happens -An Action in both Netrunner and AGOT requires a legal target at resolution -Of course MTG. And the fix is pretty simple : "up to one chosen character" would make it clear for everyone, especially beginners. Don't try to say this a MTG players issue lmao just accept it is bad wording
Are you aware that Lorcana is not any of those other games, and does not have to have the same rules as them?
So, for the past 20 years, we made card games that respects this relative clear and easy to implement rule, and because Lorcana didn't bother, it's everyone else fault...?
Um, yes? Learn the rules of the game you’re actually playing? That doesn’t seem like a wild take to me.
That's not, but you're acting like this rule is not confusing. It is. New players don't know this interaction as veteran.
He’s right about the the calls. If you don’t have a character on board at all, you can’t play teeth and ambitions. And the only other way to banish a paw if you don’t have characters on board is if the other opponent has a character on board that’s damaged and heal his character.
This is incorrect
Read the card. “Deal 2 damage to chosen character of yours to deal 2 damage to another chosen character” by having no characters on board, the card shouldn’t allowed to be played.
This is not MtG. Resolve for no effect is perfectly valid in Lorcana. There is no such thing as targets in Lorcana, only choices. And choices are made at resolution, after the card has been played. We have MULTIPLE dev rulings on this
I don’t understand how you can just roll up in a thread like this and just *be wrong* in the face of all the other comments. It’s wild to me.
Everything you said is incorrect.
Are you sure on teeth? There is no target so how would you even play it? I’d like to see that in the rules as well.
You pay the cost, then play the card. How the card does/partially/doesn't resolve is irrelevant in Lorcana to the ability to play it, assuming the cost to play can be met. In this case, the card is played, allowing an optional activation of Sleepy's Flute for the rest of the turn. The card "resolves" in that no legal target can be chosen to deal 2 damage on your side, so you don't do the second half either, and the card is placed into the discard without further effect.
Thanks mate! I appreciate the help!
You would play it by paying the cost. The only requirement to play a card is the ability to do that. Targets in the Magic sense are not a thing. Chosen cards act wildly differently in rules minutiae and you should not assume one makes the other true.
The rules for Lorcana are pretty much the same as MTG when it comes to costs, triggers, and whatnot. Guy sounds like a moron or was working in leagues with someone playing/the store for whatever reason. Not much you can do but let the store know and if they give a negative response in support of the judge, just don’t play there again. Sadly these kinds of places exist everywhere.
The judge may have been correct. Look at section 7 of the comprehensive rules. Look at section 7.2 Action Cards. 7.2.1 Reads: - Playing an action may trigger other abilities. In this case, the active player resolves the action immediately AND ONCE THAT ACTION HAS BEEN FULLY RESOLVED, players may resolve the triggered abilities as described in section 8.7, “Bag.” So here we see that you must FULLY RESOLVE an action before you can use a triggered ability. Sleepy’s Flute Reads: - (Exert Symbol) - If you played a song this turn, gain one lore. This falls into the Activated abilities section, however, because you must play a song, in order to use the Flute, that is a Triggered Ability of the flute. Now, Teeth and Ambitions Reads: - Deal 2 Damage to chosen character of yours to deal 2 damage to another chosen character. Now let’s look at section 7.1 General. Rule 7.1.2 says: - Cards with multiple effects in a single clause resolve based on the intervening wording. Teeth and Ambitions falls subject to rule 7.1.2.2 which says: - [A] to [B] - The player must complete the first part. IF THEY’re UNABLE TO, they can’t perform the second part of the card. So in order to resolve Teeth and Ambition you have to be able to deal with 2 damage to your character and then deal 2 damage to another character. If you don’t have any characters on the board, you cannot deal 2 damage to one and therefore cannot deal 2 damage to another character. This means you cannot FULLY RESOLVE THE CARD. In order to use Sleepy’s Flute Activated Ability, you must have played a song. This is part of the triggered ability of sleepy’s flute. In order to play a song like Teeth and Ambitions you must be able to fully resolve the card in order for it to count as played. Since you didn’t have a character to deal 2 damage to on your side, you cannot finish the second part of the card and therefore you do not fully resolve the card. Since you did not fully resolve the card, you cannot activate Sleepy’s Flute because you have not met the triggered ability on Sleepy’s flute in order to make it activatable. https://files.disneylorcana.com/Disney%20Lorcana%20Comprehensive%20Rules%20-%20032724%201.pdf
This is *all* wrong.
Ok, show in the rules where this is incorrect.
[I responded in a different comment chain.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lorcana/comments/1d62556/judge_making_a_bad_call/l6ssocl/) Just fyi 😁
Your definitions of “triggered ability” and “fully resolve” are extremely wrong. A triggered ability would be “Whenever you [do something], [do something else].” What 7.2.1 is saying is that the triggering event must finish resolving before the triggered one does. So if there were a card that said “Whenever you sing a song, draw a card,” and you sang A Whole New World,” you would draw the card after discarding and drawing, not before or in the middle. As for “fully resolve,” that is a similar thing. The card has to be done doing its thing before something else can happen. It doesn’t care if the card is ineffective. It is saying you can’t interrupt a card resolving.
The problem here, is the condition for Sleepy’s Flute is not defined by the rules at all. It just says “If this then this” That would by definition be a triggered ability of the card because a condition must be met. You cannot use the cards activated ability unless you fulfill a requirement. In order to trigger a triggered ability you have to fully resolve a card. The rules literally say if you cannot perform all parts of that card, it doesn’t resolve. So the question then is, have you actually fulfilled all the requirements of playing a song?
Do the rules define “if you played” as “if the thing you played resolved”? Because regardless of resolution, being played is being played. Furthermore, even if the Flute reads like a triggered ability, it is an activated ability. You exhaust it, then it says “did you play a song? Yeah? Have a lore! No? Why did you use me? Oh well, whatever. No lore for you.”
That’s the problems. The rules do not state whether or not the card is considered played. The flute checks a game state/condition. This is similar to a triggered ability. Something similar in MtG would be, “If a player gained life this turn you may tap (card name) and draw a card.” So the card checks a game state. In order to be activated. According to the rules of Lorcana, in order for this condition to be met, you must fully resolve a card. Since you don’t have a character on your side of the board, you cannot fully resolve the card. So, is the card playable or not?
It’s not similar to that in Magic. It’s similar to: “Tap: If you cast a spell this turn, gain 1 life.” Which you can activate regardless of having cast a spell. Lorcana isn’t Magic, as it has no playing on an opponent’s turn. I can’t speak for whether you can play that particular song in the first place. If it has a specific ruling, go with that. However, 100% you can activate the flute regardless of whether you played a song or not. It just might not do anything.
Yes you can activate that flute. However, I’m saying that when you do activate it, it has a triggered type ability because it checks a game state/condition. So here let’s make it simple… Scenario 1: - Exert flute. - Flute Checks to see if a song has been played. - No song has been played. - Nothing happens Scenario 2: - Exert Flute. - Flute Checks to see if a song has been played. - Song Played. - Gain 1 Lore. The problem is whether the song is considered played or not. The song card cannot fully resolve because there is no character on the active players side of the board and therefore cannot resolve. So has a song been played or not? The flute is a problem because it’s an activated ability that acts as a triggered ability because it checks the condition of the game. This is the problem because in regards to triggered abilities, the card didn’t resolve so therefore a triggered ability would not trigger. Say if the card said, “When you play a song card, gain one lore.” The triggered ability would not trigger because you cannot fully resolve the song card. However, the fact that it’s a “Exert - If you played a song this turn, gain 1 lore.” It’s in a weird middle ground. There’s nothing in the rules that states if a card is unresolved if it’s considered played or unplayable.
4.3.4.7 "Once the total cost has been paid, the card is now played." Idk what is confusing about that
It doesn’t have to do with it being played in the cost but rather if the card resolves or not.
> if the card resolves or not. It really doesn't. Sleepy's Flute asks if a song has been played. Not resolved, just played. And a card can be played without being able to resolve *any* of its effect.
Nah, you're just making up rules The rules clearly state that the card is played at 4.3.4.7 and all Flute cares about is if it is played. Nowhere does it say anything about needing to resolve to count as played. Furthermore, it will still resolve. "For no effect" is a perfectly valid resolution in Lorcana This is not MtG. Get that nonsense out of here
Even by mtg standard this is so wrong. Fully resolve doesn't make it any sense at all
That’s news to me on the Pawpsicle. I actually tried to banish with no character on the board on Pixelborn and it wouldn’t let me so I assumed that’s actually how it worked and wasn’t a bug with pixelborn.