2 Gameplay Infractions§

Gameplay infractions are caused by play that violates the rules of the game as defined by the Flesh and Blood Comprehensive Rules. Gameplay infractions are assumed to be committed unintentionally, but if a judge suspects that the infraction was intentional then it could be considered Cheating.^[6.2]

If a player commits 3 or more gameplay infractions of the same type (except for Failure to Maintain Game State) on a given tournament day, the penalty that would be given for that infraction should be upgraded by 1 severity level (up to a maximum of a Game Loss). This penalty count does not accumulate over multiple days and is reset at the end of each day for a multi-day tournament.

2.1 Game Rules Violation§

Warning

The player, in some capacity, fails to apply the rules correctly to elements of the game they are responsible for in a way that is not specified by another Gameplay Infraction.

Players are responsible for ensuring that their actions, or inaction, follow the rules of the game. Players have a shared responsibility for the rules of the game when they introduce effects that interact with their opponent, or when they instruct their opponent to perform certain actions.

If an opponent allows the player to commit a Game Rules Violation (that the opponent is not responsible for), the opponent has committed Failure to Maintain Game State^[2.2], except in cases where there is a shared responsibility so both players have committed a Game Rules Violation.

Examples:

A player plays a card or activates an ability without paying the full cost to do so.

A player defends with a card from their arsenal.

A player plays an action card on their opponent's turn without playing it as an instant.

A player forgets to draw up to their hero's intellect at the end of their turn.

A player plays a card when an opponent's card prevents them from doing so (shared responsibility).

Procedure and Penalty
Issue the player a Warning for Game Rule Violation.

If the infraction was caught immediately, do a simple rewind to before the infraction was committed.

If either player has made additional actions after the infraction, apply a partial fix as though the game rules were applied correctly. If the game state cannot be partially fixed, do a full rewind to before the infraction was committed. If the game state cannot be partially fixed or rewound, take no further action, and the game continues despite the infraction.

Upgrade: If the game state cannot be rewound or partially fixed, and the player has gained a significant advantage from the infraction, upgrade to an IP2.

Addition: If the opponent had a reasonable opportunity to acknowledge the infraction but did not, issue the opponent a Warning for Failure to Maintain Game State. If there is shared responsibility for the error, instead issue the opponent a Warning for Game Rule Violation.

Philosophy
In the most typical case, when the player commits a Game Rule Violation, they potentially gain a state advantage and/or information advantage. While it is the responsibility of each player to ensure that the rules of the game are correctly applied to their actions/inaction, all players are responsible for maintaining the shared game state.

If an infraction is caught immediately, rewinding can remove any state advantage gained by the player and prevents additional information or strategic advantage from being gained by the opponent responding to an incorrect game state. As soon as additional actions have been made by either player, fixing the issue becomes more nuanced. The Judge must assess the game state and partial fix the game state, or if the game state cannot be partially fixed, rewind the game to the point of the mistake, in order to achieve a more equitable situation.

If the procedures cannot be applied without significantly disrupting the game, mostly due to too many plays made after the infraction has been made, issuing an IP2 can help balance the game state and reduce the advantage gained from the infraction.

2.2 Failure to Maintain Game State§

Warning

The player(s), through their own inaction, has not acknowledged an opponent's gameplay infraction other than Missed Trigger.

Failure to Maintain Game State cannot be committed alone. It is not considered a Failure to Maintain Game State if there is no other gameplay infraction committed by the opponent.

Examples:

The opponent defends with a card without the defense property, and the player does not notice until after the turn is over.

The opponent plays and resolves a card and starts searching through their deck, and then the player notices that they don't have enough resources to play the card.

Procedure and Penalty
Addition: Issue a Warning to the player in addition to the procedure and penalty for the original gameplay infraction. Unlike other gameplay infractions, this penalty is never upgraded for being repeated.

Philosophy
In situations where an opponent commits a gameplay infraction, a player may consequently gain a state advantage by allowing the game to proceed. If a gameplay infraction is caught earlier, the potential state advantage gained by either player is minimized and can possibly be rewound without issue. However, if the game continues then the fault lies with both players. For a player who intentionally fails to acknowledge an opponent's gameplay infraction (other than Missed Trigger) in order to gain a state, information, and/or strategic advantage, see ^[6.2].

2.3 Missed Trigger§

Caution

The player, by their own inaction, has not acknowledged the resolution of a triggered effect they control by the time its effects become relevant.

Acknowledging a triggered effect requires either a visible change to the game state from its effect or communication between the players confirming that it has been triggered. Visible changes include changes to the existence and location of physical objects such as cards, tokens, macros, and counters; and changes to life totals for heroes. Any player can acknowledge a triggered effect, not just its controller. The point when a triggered layer becomes relevant is different for different triggers - if any of the following criteria are met, the trigger is not considered to be missed:

A triggered effect that requires its controller to make decisions (such as choose targets or modes) must be acknowledged before the controller next passes priority.
A triggered effect that affects the rules of the game must be acknowledged before an action is taken, or acknowledged by stopping an action taken by a player, that otherwise would be made illegal by the triggered effect.
A triggered effect that affects the game state in a visible way upon resolution, or requires any player to make decisions upon resolution, must be acknowledged before any player takes an in-game action that could only be taken after the triggered effect has resolved.
A triggered effect that affects the game state in a non-visible way must be acknowledged before it first visibly affects the game state.

In addition, the following cases are not considered a Missed Trigger infraction:

If the resolution of a triggered effect would have no impact on the game, failing to acknowledge it is not considered an infraction.
If the only part of a triggered effect that would have an impact on the game is optional and it is not acknowledged, it is assumed that the controlling player decided to not generate that effect and it is not considered an infraction.
If part of a triggered effect can be considered resolved and had a visible impact on the game, the trigger is considered acknowledged and any unresolved part(s) of the trigger being missed is considered a Game Rules Violation instead.^[2.1]

Players are responsible for the resolution of any triggered effects they control. Players are not required to acknowledge triggered effects they don't control even if they are involved in the resolution of the effect, though they may still do so. The controlling player is responsible for ensuring that any decisions or actions taken by the opponent for the resolution of the effect are legal and appropriate; they may not assume their opponent chooses not to take any optional action.

While it may benefit a player not to acknowledge the triggered effects of their opponents, they may not intentionally cause them to be missed. As such the trigger is only considered missed if the controlling player acknowledges or allows the progression of the game state passed the point of trigger relevancy without first acknowledging the triggered effect. Intentionally progressing the game state to cause another player to miss a triggered effect is considered Rules Sharking.^[4.10]

Examples:

A player attacks with Crane Dance and then Heron's Flight and forgets to declare the mode of the triggered effect. They only realize after they've acknowledged the opponent's defending cards.

A player hits their opponent with Red in the Ledger, forgets to declare the triggered effect, and does not stop the opponent from playing and resolving a second action during their turn.

A player controls a Soul Shackle, forgets to banish a card at the start of their turn, and plays an action card.

A player hits their opponent with Brandish, then attacks them again with a weapon. When applying changes to the life total from the weapon attack, the player forgets to add +1\power{} into the calculation.

Procedure and Penalty
Issue the player a Caution for Missed Trigger.

If the infraction was caught immediately, do a simple rewind to before the infraction was committed.

If either player has made additional actions after the infraction, apply a partial fix as if the triggered effect has been resolved at the correct point in the game. If the game state cannot be partially fixed, do a full rewind to the latest point in the game the trigger should have been acknowledged. If the game state cannot be partially fixed or rewound, take no further action, and the game continues as though the effect had been triggered but failed to resolve.

Upgrade: If the player would have gained a advantage from missing the trigger, and the triggered effect was ultimately created by the player (and not the opponent), upgrade to a Warning.

Philosophy
Similar to Game Rules Violations, missing the resolution of a trigger compromises the integrity of the game state and may create a state advantage for the player. Unlike playing a card or activating an ability, triggered-effects (and the resolution of triggered-layers) are only relevant as the consequence of other actions and events within the game, as opposed to direct actions taken by the player. Because they are so common and often invisible to the game state, players should not be harshly penalized when one is missed. However, intentionally ignoring a triggered effect that the player controls is considered Cheating.

In some cases, players may be responsible for detrimental triggered effects imposed by the opponent. Because the triggered effect was introduced by the opponent, it's more likely that the player will miss it triggering, which can lead to unfair compounding penalties for players who aren't familiar with effects from their opponent's card-pool. Missed trigger infractions are punished less harshly for this reason.

2.4 Looking at Extra Cards§

Warning

The player, by their own action, has unintentionally seen cards that were not allowed to be seen but the cards have not changed zone.

If the cards that the player has seen are combined with and cannot be separated from another set of cards, it is considered a Hidden Card Error infraction instead.^[2.5]

Examples:

A player sees extra cards when drawing.

A player sees extra cards when revealing/looking at cards from their, or their opponent's, deck.

A player sees cards from their opponent's deck while shuffling it.

A player accidentally knocks some cards off the top of their deck face-up.

Procedure and Penalty
Issue the player a Warning for Looking at Extra Cards.

If the extra cards are seen as part of the player drawing cards as an end-of-turn procedure, but the opponent has not acknowledged the change of phase (the opponent wants to play/activate cards/abilities), leave the cards as they were on the top of the deck.

If the extra cards are part of the player's fully randomized deck, shuffle the extra cards into the deck.

If the extra cards are part of the player's non-randomized deck and were previously known to the player (through effects like opt or reveal), leave the cards in the correct location, otherwise, reveal the cards to the opponent who chooses for each of those cards to go to the top or bottom of the deck.

If the extra cards were part of the player's non-deck zones or are owned by the opponent, reveal the cards to the opponent and leave the extra cards where they were.

Upgrade: If the extra cards include 5 or more cards in the player's non-randomized deck, upgrade to an IP2 and shuffle the deck.

Philosophy
When the player sees cards that were initially hidden from them, they gain information about the private state of the game and therefore gain an information advantage. When the card is owned by the player, they only gain an advantage of knowing the relative position of the card, but if the card is owned by the opponent, then they also gain information about the opponent's card-pool and the current locations of those cards (especially if they're in the deck).

If the cards were from the player's randomized deck, shuffling them back into the deck removes the information advantage entirely, as they already knew what cards were in their deck. The issue with this approach is that decks are rarely randomized at any point during the game, especially with the pitching mechanic of Flesh and Blood. The method of putting the extra card to the top or bottom (directed by the opponent) does not remove the information advantage, but it does balance the advantage by giving an equivalent or greater advantage to the opponent; knowing the card and choosing its position in the zone.

If the number of extra cards seen is large, rather than allow the opponent to stack an entire portion of the player's deck, shuffling the deck removes the significant information advantage gained by the player and avoids issues with the typical procedure where the opponent would gain an unfair advantage.

2.5 Hidden Card Error§

Warning

A player, by their own action, made an error with private cards that cannot be corrected with public information alone.

If the player has combined private cards from two or more zones into a single collection of cards, but they can still be correctly separated into their original zones without revealing additional information about those cards, it is not considered a Hidden Card Error.

If the player has unintentionally seen cards that were not allowed to see, but the cards can be separated this way, it is considered a Looking at Extra Cards infraction instead.^[2.4]

Examples:

A player draws to their intellect of 4 at the end-of-turn but accidentally draws up to 5 cards.

A player hits with Snatch and draws 2 cards as the card sleeves were stuck together. The cards touch the player's hand.

A player plays Whispers of the Oracle, and the cards they "opt" are mixed in with their hand.

A player picks up a card from their arsenal and adds it to their hand.

A player equips an equipment card face-down without an effect that allows it to be equipped face-down.

A player places face-down equipment in an incorrect zone.

Procedure and Penalty
Issue the player a Warning.

If the player has combined private cards from two or more zones into a single collection, reveal the combined collection of private cards to the opponent. The opponent decides which cards should be returned to each zone, ensuring that the number of cards in each zone is the same as before the infraction was committed. The cards are then returned to the zones as designated by the opponent. If one of the zones is the deck, the opponent chooses for the card(s) to go to the top and/or bottom of the deck in any order.

If the player has prematurely combined the cards before other actions involving that the cards should have been performed first, instead return the cards to the zones as designated by the opponent, then perform all pending actions in the correct sequence.

If a face-down card has been equipped without an effect that allows it to be equipped face-down, or a face-down card has been equipped to an incorrect zone, remove that card from the game.

Upgrade: If the infraction cannot be resolved because one or more cards have been remove from the single collection, reveal the remaining cards in the collection and upgrade to an IP2.

Philosophy
When the player combines sets of cards that are private from the opponent, the integrity of the game state becomes compromised and the player gains a possible state advantage - specifically, they are the only one who knows what the correct state is and that state cannot be verified by the opponent. If the player were to fix this themselves, they could gain a state advantage by separating the private cards incorrectly to create a favorable state. If the private cards were not known to the player, they have also gained an information advantage by being aware of the position of a card.

Allowing the opponent to choose how they split the collection of cards does not strictly remove the information advantage, but provides equity by giving an equivalent information advantage to the opponent; knowing the card, its zone, and its position in that zone.

2.6 Shuffling Error§

IP2

The player, by their own action, illegally randomizes an ordered set of cards, such as a deck.

Examples:

A player shuffles their pitched cards into their deck.

A player absent-mindedly shuffles their deck mid-game.

A player counts the cards in their opponent's deck, then shuffles it out of habit.

Procedure and Penalty
Issue the player an IP2. Ensure the set of cards is sufficiently randomized.

Philosophy
When the player shuffles a non-randomized set of cards, the integrity of the game state has been irreversibly compromised and either player may gain a state advantage from a redistribution of cards throughout the randomized set.

Because there is no procedure to repair the game state or remove the potential advantage gained, and shuffling the deck is a deliberate action, issuing an Intellect Penalty is a fair way to educate the player and help equalize the advantage they may have gained over the opponent.

2.7 Presenting Cards Error§

Warning

The player, by their own action, has a legal decklist and legal card-pool but has presented an illegal set of cards, or has presented cards in an illegal state, during the start-of-game procedure.

A player has committed a Presenting Cards Error infraction only after they are considered to have a legal decklist and card-pool. Illegal cards are typically considered a Card-Pool Contents Error infraction^[3.5].

Examples:

A player presents a 55-card starting deck in a game of Classic Constructed.

A player presents a 25-card starting deck in a game of Limited.

A player presents their starting deck which accidentally contains equipment.

A player presents a Brute card in their deck while playing as a Guardian hero in a limited format.

A player presents a starting card that cannot legally start the game in the arena.

A player presents a 1H and 2H card as their starting weapons.

A player presents a double-sided card in their deck sleeved with its back-face instead of its front-face.

Procedure and Penalty
Issue the player a Warning for Presenting Cards Error.

Re-orientate double-faced cards to have the correct active face and remove any cards that cannot start the game in the deck.

If the player has presented an illegal card that starts the game outside of their deck, remove the card (if the card is a legal deck-card it is put back into the player's deck, otherwise, it is put into the player's inventory.)

If the player has presented an ambiguous set of cards that start the game outside of their deck, present the set of cards as several legal options the player would have started the game with, and then the opponent decides on the option for the starting cards for the player. Remove any remaining cards.

If the game has not started and the presented deck does not contain the correct number of cards, the player adds (from their card-pool) until they have the minimum number of cards or removes cards until they have the maximum number of cards required for their deck. The player may not swap cards between their deck and inventory. Cracked Baubles may be used if there are insufficient cards in the player's card-pool.

Downgrade: If a flip-card has an incorrect active face, downgrade to a Caution for all RELs.

Upgrade: If one or more transcend-cards has an active face that cannot be corrected by the procedure, upgrade to an IP2.

Upgrade: At a professional REL, for all infractions except double-sided cards that have an incorrect active face, upgrade to an IP2.

Upgrade: If the deck after all procedures has two or more cards than the maximum or two or fewer cards than the minimum for the format, upgrade to a Game Loss. There is mo upgrade if the fixed deck is only off by one card.

Philosophy
Players are responsible for ensuring that the cards that they intend to play the game with follow the rules of the format and the start-of-game procedure. When the player presents an illegal set of cards in the start-of-game procedure (or cards in an illegal state) they may gain a state and/or strategic advantage.

Presenting a starting deck with illegal cards creates an incorrect game state and is a common occurrence, especially when created cards and non-deck cards (equipment/weapons) use the same sleeves. Presenting double-sided cards with the incorrect active face (the back-face is shown instead of the front-face) may cause miscommunication and/or create a state-advantage.

Presenting more or fewer cards than the rules of the format specify creates a state advantage because they can create a state of the game that would otherwise not exist. This is especially relevant for strategies that want to increase the likelihood of drawing certain cards or to fatigue an opponent. Presenting a card that cannot legally start the game in play creates a state advantage that couldn't otherwise be gained by following the rules of the game.

Presenting legal cards that can't start the game in play together creates an ambiguous situation where the player may gain a strategic advantage by selecting the best legal option after they've gained additional information about the opponent's starting cards.

Any advantage gained by presenting more or fewer cards, or presenting an illegal or ambiguous set of cards, should be addressed by negating that advantage and educating the player on the proper procedure.