Rewinds
Where people meet to play games of Flesh and Blood it can happen that players commit errors within or outside of a game. These errors are called infractions and are the breaking of the Comprehensive Rules or the Tournament Rules and Policy. Infractions committed within a game often alter the course of the game, giving one player an advantage because of the error they or their opponent committed.
The judges responsibility at events is to educate players, record the infraction and repair the game as best as possible.
One of the ways to repair a game is rewinding the game to the point before an error happened. This article aims to be a guide on making the decision if rewinding is an appropriate course of action.
“Rewinds” are referenced in the Procedure and Penalty Guide (1.3), and describes the procedure of undoing all game actions to the point just before the infraction happened, to repair an illegal gamestate.
Before Judges decide if a rewind is appropriate, they should talk with both players and read all the cards involved to make sure they understand the situation correctly. To carry out a rewind, the judge should propose the rewind to the players first, to make sure both players agree on all the actions that need to be undone. It can happen that players realize they forgot to mention actions taken as they didn’t seem to matter much to them, but these may alter the decision if rewinding is appropriate. It is better to find that out sooner than later. Then, if the rewind is still appropriate, the judge should methodically reverse every action taken in reverse order to prevent anything being missed.
There are 3 key questions a judge should ask themself before proposing a rewind:
- Can a partial fix restore the game?
- Would a rewind disrupt the game less than letting play continue with the error?
- Would a rewind be fair?
1. Can a Partial Fix Restore the Game?
A partial fix is another way judges can repair an illegal gamestate, and is referenced in the Procedure and Penalty Guide (1.3). A partial fix changes only the infraction, to artificially create a legal gamestate without interrupting the game in a significant way.
If a partial fix can be applied, it should be the preferred method unless a player is likely to have made strategic decisions based on the infraction or if the action, and the consequences it had within the game, are too complex to be fixed this way.
A simple rewind (rewinding the current / last action) can aid a partial fix implementation, especially if one player currently is performing an action that would be influenced by the partial fix.
Example: Tyler Attacks Nic with their Beckoning Mistblade. Nic defends with a Blade Beckoner Helm and puts one -1 defense counter on their equipment. Three turns later Tyler attacks Nic with their Beckoning Mistblade again and Nic blocks again with their Blade Beckoner Helm. During damage calculation Tyler notices that the Helm should have two -1 defense counters on it as it had blocked a weapon before.
In this case, a simple rewind to before Nic declared their blocking cards and then partial fixing the situation by adding a second -1 defense counter to the equipment should be sufficient enough to bring the game back to the point it should have been. After the fix Nic then can choose their blocking cards with a corrected game state.
2. Would a Rewind Disrupt the Game Less?
Rewinding is a great tool to restore the game, but there are scenarios in which rewinding, or attempting to, can be quite disruptive or not possible at all.
Examples of difficult rewind scenarios include but are not limited to:
- the deck being shuffled and the pitch stack being lost in a way that can’t be rewound.
- cards being drawn in a way that can’t be rewound.
- information being revealed, both hidden or public information, which have the potential of changing the game plan of one or both players in a major way.
The pitch stack being lost is something that in the majority of cases judges can’t rewind, exceptions may be when no or very few cards (that both players remember being pitched) have been pitched. If a rewind includes fixing the pitch stack, the judge should make sure that not only the cards are ordered in the correct way, but that the right copies are used ( foil, different languages, …). This prevents players gauging the amount of copies of a card included within the deck.
Example: Tyler plays an Imposing Visage, pitching a blue and a yellow card, not having any cards left in their hand. They search their deck and find a Crash Down and put it into the arena and shuffle their deck. Tyler ends their turn and draws up to their intellect. As they have drawn 4 cards they realize that they could not have searched for Crash Down as it costs 3 resources but X was only 2.
In this situation we can propose a rewind. The infraction here is Tyler finding an illegal card. The pitch stack has been lost but not as part of the infraction itself, and drawing the 4 cards at the end of his turn happened from the randomized deck. Letting Tyler put Crash Down back into the deck, just as the hand Tyler has drawn, would be sufficient to recover the situation smoothly, as Tyler then can search their deck for an Aura that costs 2 or less resources to be placed into the arena (or fail to find).
Example: Tyler plays as Katsu. They activate their Harmonized Kodachi, pitching a 0 cost card. Nic does not block and the dagger hits. Tyler proceeds to discard a 0 cost card and starts to search their deck for a card with combo, only realising after they searched half of their deck, that they were not allowed to as Katsu’s ability needs an attack action card hitting for the trigger condition being met.
In this case, we can’t rewind. Tyler was not allowed to look at their deck and while they have not yet lost their pitch stack, they have seen too many cards within their deck. In casual this is addressed by the “A player sees a card they shouldn’t have seen” fix and in competitive and professional play by an upgraded “2.4. Looking at Extra Cards” infraction, with the remedy of shuffling their deck and getting an Intellect Penalty for the major disruption to the game.
Example: Tyler is playing Lesson in Lava, dealing 3 arcane damage to Nic. Nic pitches a yellow card to arcane barrier 2, taking 1 arcane damage. Tyler searches their deck for a Reverberate and puts it on top of the now shuffled deck. Tyler then plays the Reverberate with Kano’s ability, dealing 3 arcane damage. As the players record the damage, Nic realizes they have a Spectral Shield that they forgot about. It would have prevented 1 arcane damage from the Lesson in Lava and Tyler would not have been able to search their deck.
Here we can’t rewind. The loss of the pitch stack can’t be restored and partial fixing this situation is not possible. The prevention effect of the spectral shield should be used for the damage from Reverberate that is being currently recorded.
Drawing cards can be quite difficult to fix as often the gained information is too much to address without interrupting the game drastically. If combining sets of hidden cards happened as a direct result of the infraction, the fix is depending on the Rules Enforcement Level and can be found in the corresponding documents (Casual Procedure Guide: “A player sees a card they shouldn’t have seen” or in the Procedure and Penalty Guide: “2.5. Hidden Card Error”). It is no infraction if combining sets of hidden cards is a result of the game naturally progressing after an error occurred, but it makes rewinding most often not possible.
Example: Tyler plays a Tome of Imperial Flame, drawing two cards, then pitching two red cards. They then proceed to play Brand with Cinderclaw, Scar for a Scar with go again and Thaw. Nic starts their turn with two cards left in their hand and uses both of them in their turn. In Tyler’s turn they attack three times, getting two more cards out of Nic‘s hand. Tyler only then realizes that they were not supposed to draw two cards from their Tome, but one, as Nic had destroyed their Crown of Dominion with a Mangle a few turns ago.
In this game, too much has happened for a rewind. Both players have drawn up to their intellect, played and defended with cards. Rewinding all of this would be very disruptive so it should be avoided. In casual games, play should simply proceed. In Competitive and Professional Rules Enforcement Level an IP2 for Tyler as an Upgrade for Game Rule Violation would be justified to mitigate the advantage of the additional card drawn.
Judges should keep in mind that players are not obligated to play the same line of play as they did before a rewind. Players can realise that their line of play was faulty or the information that has been revealed, if we chose to make a backup, may make them adjust their strategy. Most often rewinding the game gives one or both players information on cards and strategy, and players can’t be made to forget this information.
The value of the information being gained since an infraction is hard to interpret and generalize, as every judge brings their own experience to the table. A player might interpret certain information much more valuable than other players. For considering a rewind it may be useful to ask both players on how the newly gained information is influential to their gameplan. This should not be used to allow players to decide if a rewind is appropriate, but to allow the judge to gain more perspectives on a situation before potentially proposing a rewind that harms the game more than letting play continue as it is.
Example: Tyler is pitching an earth card for their Staff of Verdant Shoots, then is dealing 4 Arcane Damage with a red Arcane Twinning. Tyler ends their turn. Nic uses their Runehold Release to create a Runechant token and then Attacks with an Arcanic Spike. Tyler marks down the one Arcane Damage from the Runechant token and as they are considering their blocking options they realize that they have forgotten to create their Embodiment of Earth.
In this case, the judge can ask Nic if the Embodiment of Earth would have changed their game plan. Depending on Nic‘s answer the token could be added into the game right now or the game could be reversed to the point before Nic would have made a different decision in their gameplan, to then implement the partial fix of creating the token at that point moment.
Example: Tyler is activating their Fyendal’s Spring Tunic to use the resource for their Death Dealer activation. They place a resource counter into their pitch zone and then proceed to load Remorseless into the arsenal and draw a card. Then Tyler quickly places their last two cards from hand into the arena, as they want to both play Premediate and Lace with Bloodrot, to then immediately attack with Remorseless from their arsenal. Nic calls a judge and points out that Tyler didn’t have enough resources as Tyler forgot to remove their resource marker to pay for their bow.
The error originates from wrongly displayed public information which has been leading to a gameplay error. A rewind to the point where Tyler resolved their Death Dealer would bring the game back to the original state while being only minimally disruptive to the game.
3. Would a Rewind Be Fair?
When Judges help players with an infraction, there are 3 philosophy pillars on which judges should base their decision on.
- Education
- Equity
- Mission
This can be read in depth in the “1.1. Philosophy” of the Penalty and Procedure Guide. Especially relevant for the decision to rewind is Equity. Rewinds can restore the Equity in a game, to even out the advantage / disadvantage that has been gained.
This advantage / disadvantages within a game can be:
- Hidden information a player has gained
- The game state having shifted favourably / unfavourably due to the infraction.
- Strategic information that influences the gameplay
If an infraction has occurred, the integrity of the game has been compromised. The goal of a rewind is to restore the game as closely as possible to the original game, yet this is very unlikely to happen fully. If a rewind is deemed unfair towards one player, it should not be proposed.
Example: Tyler is attacking Nic for 3 damage, but says “attack for 4”. Nic blocks for 4. During damage calculation, Nic realizes that Tyler’s attack only has 3 power and wants to change their blocking cards.
In this situation Tyler has caused their opponent to make gameplay based on information they have communicated and the error has impacted the decision Nic would have made. A rewind to when blocking cards are declared would be the right course of actions, as leaving the game as it is would not be fair towards Nic.
The following graphic summarizes and visualizes the key points of this article:
Featured Image: Rewind by Riordan Delmiro
English 
Japanese 
German 
Korean 
French 
Italian 
Spanish 
Chinese 
Portuguese 
