Behind the Scenes: The Policy Team – Shaping How We Judge Flesh and Blood
When you apply a game loss penalty for a marked card, or navigate the intricacies of a missed trigger, have you ever wondered who shapes those policies? Enter the Policy Team – one of the judge program’s most essential yet behind-the-scenes groups, responsible for reviewing game policies and ensuring they serve both judges and players effectively.
I sat down with Eser Unger, the current Policy Team lead, to understand how this team operates, why it exists, and how judges like you can contribute to shaping the policies we use every day.
What Does the Policy Team Do?
The Policy Team serves as the bridge between the judge community’s real-world experience and Legend Story Studios’ (LSS) policy direction. Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Regular Policy Review: The team reviews and discusses policy updates on a cyclical basis. Typically, there are two smaller updates and one larger update per year; one update per set release. As Eser explained, “It’s always very noticeable that more discussions are happening at the end of a cycle before submitting to LSS, as the team wants to finish all relevant discussions to be considered for the next update to the policies.”
Community Feedback Filter: Judges at all levels can submit feedback through policy@fabjud.ge when they encounter confusing situations or see opportunities for improvement. (This includes small things like spelling errors, confusing policies or examples, up to full suggestions on how to change policies.) The Policy Team evaluates these submissions, opens discussions, and determines which changes would genuinely improve how judges apply policy.
Discussion Facilitation: Currently, the team has about 15 discussions active for the next set – some where everyone agrees immediately, and others where “everyone has a different opinion.” The team’s role is to facilitate these conversations, guide them toward conclusions, and present coherent recommendations to LSS.
Documentation and Submission: The team aggregates all discussions into comprehensive documents linking to forum threads and presenting suggested changes to the Tournament Rules and Policy, as well as the Procedure and Penalty Guide. These submissions go to Joshua Scott and his team at LSS, who use them as a guide for official policy updates.
Why This Team Needs to Exist
The Policy Team exists because of a fundamental truth: the people applying policy in real-world situations often understand its practical implications better than those writing it from a distance.
As Eser noted, “The people at LSS creating and implementing these policies aren’t usually judging on a regular basis. To create policy that aligns with our mission as judges it is necessary to have real life experience with them.” The Policy Team draws from judges with significant event experience, including many Head Judges as well as active Floor Judges who regularly apply policy at events of all sizes. While several members have extensive leadership experience, insight does not flow from title alone. It often emerges from the floor. Judges who are consistently applying procedures, handling investigations, and navigating edge cases in real time bring perspective that is essential to thoughtful policy development.
By combining leadership experience with day-to-day floor application, the team brings practical knowledge to bear in a way that reflects how policy actually lives at events, not just how it reads on the page. The team identifies where written policy doesn’t align with our mission, how judges apply procedures and penalties, where interpretations of the documents vary too widely, and where the game’s evolution requires policy adjustments.
But there’s more to it than just identifying problems. LSS wants regular submissions from the Policy Team but deliberately doesn’t dictate what should be discussed. As Eser explained, “They don’t want to tell the Policy team what they should discuss. They want us to have our own minds.”
Deep Dive: Balancing the Mission Through Policy
One of the most fascinating aspects of the Policy Team’s work is how they approach every decision through the lens of Flesh and Blood’s judging mission: Equity, Education, and the Mission itself.
“The mission is a big part of the discussion,” Eser emphasized. “We want players to be treated fairly and we also want policy to teach people to not repeat preventable errors, as well as equalize advantages and disadvantages from errors. If the policy is not balanced it is not good policy, as all three points are necessary to have a fun game.”
That balance is rarely simple. Competitive equity demands consistency and protection of tournament integrity. Education demands space for growth and learning. Strong policy must serve both, and sometimes those goals pull in different directions.
Should a penalty be harsher to reinforce fairness across the field, or lighter to ensure a player understands their mistake? When does protecting the integrity of the event outweigh the educational opportunity for an individual? These are not abstract debates. They shape real rulings, at real events.
The Philosophy of Deviations
This tension becomes especially visible in the FAB judge program’s approach to deviations. Compared to other trading card games, Flesh and Blood is “much more open for deviations,” according to Eser.
With complex rules and countless possible game states, situations inevitably arise that do not fit neatly into written policy. Rather than forcing every ruling into a rigid box, FAB empowers Head Judges to deviate from standard fixes when doing so better serves the mission.
“If there is a fix better than what is in the policy, a deviation can be a great tool to improve the tournament experience of both players,” Eser explained. “Though, you should keep in mind that sticking to our policy also protects us judges from claims of unfairness. That’s why a deviation always needs to go through the HJ, so that they can evaluate and deliver the ruling with an explanation to why a change from our written policy is done.”
This philosophy reflects a mature understanding of what policy actually is.
“The Procedure and Policy Guide is exactly that, a guide on how to solve situations. Not all situations fit into our documents and judges need to have an open mind when assessing situations.”
Policy is not a script to be followed blindly; but a framework designed to support fair, educational, and consistent outcomes. Deviations are not shortcuts around the rules; they are disciplined tools used carefully and transparently when the written fix would undermine the mission.
Judges must apply policy with judgment, context, and alignment with the mission.
Policy lives in people, not just in documents.
How Discussions Actually Work
Understanding the team’s process demystifies how policy evolves. When a topic is raised – whether from a Head Judge’s experience, a judge’s email submission, or a team member’s observation – it’s posted to the team forum with context and a suggested change.
Some discussions are straightforward. Others? “Sometimes there are discussions that are 50 comments long.” The team’s role is to guide these conversations toward productive conclusions, even when that conclusion is “we can’t agree, so LSS needs to decide what they want the policy to be.”
Not every suggested change makes it into official policy. “Sometimes topics don’t get addressed by Josh,” Eser acknowledged. But the team’s philosophy is that “It’s better to address everything that could be changed and improved” – comprehensive submissions give LSS more to work with.
The team typically doesn’t receive detailed feedback from LSS on why certain suggestions weren’t implemented, but they maintain a record of previous submissions, allowing them to reframe and resubmit topics in future cycles if the need persists.
Who's On the Team?
The Policy Team is led by Eser Unger (in the role for 3-4 months, on the team for an unspecified amount of time), taking over from the previous lead, Emilien, who has built the project. The team composition is unique: all Head Judges get invited, as their experience is invaluable to the discussions, though not everyone is active at all times. In addition, a few non-Head Judges are also part of the project and contribute to discussions as well as helping with the organisational aspect of the project.
This Head Judge–heavy composition makes sense given the team’s focus on high-level policy interpretation and application. However, the discussions benefit from the diversity of perspectives that different judges bring: varying philosophies about rules interpretation, different regional experiences, and contrasting approaches to balancing equity and education.
Learning Through Policy Discussion
Even if you’re not on the Policy Team, engaging with policy discussions makes you a better judge. As Eser put it:
“I suggest to all people who want to be better at policy to have discussions with other judges, online or in person. Why did you do this fix? Why did you apply this penalty? What would you do in this situation?”
“The better you understand why we do certain things, the better you can apply the policies. This is not only good for judges but also for players.”
Eser’s experience as Policy lead has reinforced this:
“Talking about the procedures and policies made me re-evaluate rulings I have made in the past and has been the key to my current understanding of these documents. And I am still learning.”
The Policy Lead role requires guiding discussions, articulating positions clearly, and motivating people to engage – skills that develop through practice.
How You Can Get Involved
You don’t need to be on the Policy Team to contribute to policy improvement. Here’s how any judge can participate:
- Submit Feedback: Encountered a confusing situation? See a way policy could be clearer? Email policy@fabjud.ge with your observations and suggestions.
- Engage in Discussions: Talk with other judges about policy decisions. Why did you rule that way? What would a better fix look like? These conversations often surface insights that make their way to the Policy Team.
- Apply Policy Thoughtfully: When you’re judging, think critically about how policy serves the mission. Your real-world experience applying policy is valuable data.
- Read and Learn: When policy updates are released, don’t just memorize changes – understand the “why” and talk with other judges about them. (Link to tournament rules and policy documents)
The Takeaway
The Policy Team operates at the intersection of game theory, practical application, and community needs. It’s not just interpreting rules; the team is actively shaping how Flesh and Blood judging balances fairness, education, and fun. Every penalty guide update, every clarification in the tournament rules, and every nuanced fix you apply has likely passed through hours of discussion among experienced judges who care deeply about getting it right.
The next time you apply a policy and think, “There might be a better way to handle this,” don’t keep it to yourself. The Policy Team exists precisely to surface and evaluate those insights. Your perspective matters. The program improves when judges engage thoughtfully with how and why we do what we do.
Ready to contribute? Email policy@fabjud.ge with your policy feedback and suggestions, or reach out to the current team lead if you are interested in deeper involvement.
Special thanks to Eser Unger for sharing insights into the Policy Team’s work and to Emilien for building the foundation of this essential project.
Featured image by Carlos Cruchaga. Photos in article taken by John Brian McCarthy at Judges at Work.
This article is part of our Judge Projects Series, highlighting the different ways judges contribute to the Flesh and Blood community. Stay tuned for more articles!
Spanish 
English 
Japanese 
German 
Korean 
French 
Italian 
Chinese 
Portuguese