Luisa Madrigal - Confident Climber | The DLC NAC ruling in Top 4

No witch hunts

I am writing this to explain what I saw on stream. Many people disagree in Twitch chat and in Discord chats. This article is based on my understanding of the rules as well as others that I have spoken with to confirm this. Googly Glimmers made a video on this topic at some point as well.

I urge folks to not come out and try and dox the stream judge nor come for Dillon or S4iler for "THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT". A judge call was made, the judge made what I believe to be a mistake, and ultimately the course of that game was changed due to it. We're all human. We make mistakes. The intent here is to explain a ruling and why it is incorrect, and not to attack or demean any one person. Hundreds of people give their time, energy, and effort to make these events happen, and I genuinely appreciate each of them for doing so.

Statements from S4iler and Dillon:

A quote from S4iler in 20Lore Discord, posted per his permission:

Want to share some context based on what happened in our match vs Dillon:

Anybody who knows me, I don’t play much purple and legit didn’t know if luisa could or not. As ppl said here, Dillon asked, I said I don’t know, we should ask a judge. And they gave the wrong judging and we said well maybe duels ink is wrong. And that’s it. They since apologized to both of us about it.

Dillon replied on X after the initial posting of this article with S4iler's comment quoted, and said:

I can confirm this is 100% accurate. Although I did receive a confusing answer from the judge, I should have appealed. Lesson learned

The semi-finals ruling I believe the table judge got wrong.

Game 3 of the semi finals, Dillon attempted to pay 1 ink to activate Luisa Madrigal - Confident Climber's ability, desiring to move 3 existing damage on Luisa to S4iler's lone Vixey - Forest Friend on board. Dillon asks S4iler if he can do that in this board state, S4iler says he is unsure and to call judge to confirm/deny.

The judge ruled that Dillon could not. I believe that judge ruling was wrong. Context comments from both players at the table after the fact indicate that the ruling was wrong. Again, no witch hunts folks.

Let's look at both sentences of Luisa's I CAN TAKE IT ability here. Note that the cost is 1. That's it. It's not 1 & move a damage, it's just 1.

Move up to 1 damage from chosen character of yours to this character.

I see a lot of people arguing that because there is not "another" in this, that you can choose Luisa for this half of the ability and move 0-1 damage from Luisa to Luisa. This is not the case. 1.9.2.4 of the Comprehensive Rules Document reads:

1.9.2.4. Move– Removing (1.9.2.3) a number of damage counters from one character or location and putting (1.9.2.2) them on another character or location as a result of an effect that moved damage to them. Damage moved from a character or location can’t be moved back onto that character or location by the same effect.

Note that move specifically requires 2 characters to function. You cannot move damage from Luisa to Luisa. This would be relevant in cases like Grand Pabbie - Oldest and Wisest, you could not move 1 damage from Luisa to the same Luisa, then 3 to an opposing character to gain 4 total lore, though you would get 2 lore if you moved 3 from her to an opposing character.

The second half:

Then, if this character has 3 or more damage, move all damage from this character to chosen opposing character.

This is the important part. There is not an intervening if clause in this half of the ability. That means when you read the ability as a whole, you do as much as you can. This is the same as the Let the Storm Rage On ruling most everyone is familiar with. If there is not a valid character to choose with the first half, you still do the second half.