Level Two - Lesson 14
Master Event Document - Backups and Rewinds
Also available are archives of live broadcasts, where the Program Director goes over the lesson, answers any questions that folks may have and sometimes goes on tangets about other elements of judging. You can find the playlist of broadcasts on youtube.
Click for Translation
While proper translation and localization are among our long-term goals, we are currently offering Google Translate on the page. Please keep in mind that the translation is automatic, which means that specific game terms, names of cards or mechanics, or technical language used to describe the game may not translate well. As with the documents for the game itself, the English page is the authoritative document in case of any confusion or discrepancy.Join the discussion in our Discord and talk with other judges about what you learned, and ask any questions you may have!
Hello there!
Welcome back to the level two lessons for the Star Wars™: Unlimited Judge Program!
As always, I’m your host Jonah, and we’re going to talk about the philosophy of backing up and best practices to consider when faced with a decision to either rewind the gamestate or to leave things as they are and utilize a different remedy.
In most policy lessons, I mention that policy continues to evolve. However, the ideas behind what makes a safe backup and what makes a risky backup remain the same, no matter what the policy is.
What Are Rewinds?
We discussed this partially in level two lesson ten, which covered communication and reversing decisions.
It’s important to remember that reversing decisions and rewinds are two very distinct categories. Reversing decisions come about when a player makes a play and realizes that they didn’t want to make that play. Determining whether or not reversing decisions should be allowed is dependent on the information that player gained since they made the decision.
Rewinds, on the other hand, come about from judges when a player takes an illegal action or otherwise breaks the game rules. Rewinds are a tool used to remedy the game.
When to Consider Rewinding
A rewind can be considered for missed mandatory abilities, missed game steps, or inaccurate gameplay. A rewind should not be considered for Card Manipulation Errors, which are handled with separate policy.
When we’re fixing a gamestate, our goal is to get the most natural progression of the game possible. The only thing that should change is whatever illegal event occurred. Ideally, the rest of the game plays out the same the way it would have had the error never been made.
However, let’s say a player plays a unit, but doesn’t exhaust enough resources for it, because they don’t have enough - they forgot about the taxing effect of Qi’ra - Playing Her Part. Since then, the NAP has attacked it with their own unit, but nothing else has changed.
This rewind is relatively straightforward - we undo the attack from NAP, readying the unit and removing damage from it and from it’s target, and then we undo the playing of the unit - readying the resources and returning it to hand (or whatever zone it was played from).
When we move forward, the game changes, because the NAP isn’t going to make the same attack - but this is unavoidable, because leaving the game as is means that the active player would have a unit that they simply shouldn’t have in play.
Gaining Information
If instead of attacking with a unit, the non-active player plays Superlaser Blast. When we rewind here, we rewind the playing of the unit, and it’s back in their hand... but the way the game plays out will be materially different.
Now, the Active Player knows about the Superlaser Blast, which they didn’t have knowledge of, and naturally wouldn’t have knowledge of, had the game continued in the correct manner.
Because players take actions after illegal events occur, it is very common that information is legally revealed during the intervening period. While evaluating whether or not to rewind, you should take this gained information into account, but a player gaining information doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t rewind. Sometimes backing up and letting the game continue with the information isn’t meaningful, and other times it is very disruptive - and again, it comes down to your judgment as to which remedy is ideal.
Cards In Hidden Zones
Another element to consider is whether or not cards have moved between two hidden zones. This generally happens twice in every regroup phase - when players draw cards and when players resource a card from their hand.
In both of these situations, players move cards in a way that can’t be cleanly rewound. We don’t use the card manipulation error tools here, because these cards have been legally drawn or played as a resource, and so we want to preserve the private information.
The way we address cards moving from one hidden zone to another is by randomly selecting a card and then moving that card to the required zone. If cards are moved to a deck, from a hidden zone, they generally should not be shuffled in. This is because the player legally had access to that card, and may have made strategic gameplay decisions based on utilizing that card - shuffling cards away can be very disruptive. However, if many cards were drawn, a card being returned to the deck may be four or five cards deep, which can be very disruptive if it was a card the player has been planning their strategy around.
If there is some information whereby a subset of cards are known - if for example, the opponent has just resolved Spark of Rebellion and noted which cards were in hand at the time, we can use that information to have the cards that are changing zones limited to a subset of cards that we don’t have confirmation on. As always, we want to preserve information as much as possible.
To undo a player learning the location of cards in their deck, we shuffle the random portion of the deck. To clarify, any cards they learned the location of after the error will be randomized. Cards that they knew the location of before the error will be maintained. For example, if a player resolved U-Wing Reinforcement and knew the bottom seven cards of their deck, then committed an error, those seven cards would be maintained. However, if they committed an error and then played U-Wing Reinforcement, those cards would be shuffled into the deck as part of the rewind.
You can see that we’re dealing with recreating random chance and potentially changing the outcome of the game with these rewinds. Furthermore, removing cards from the resource zone and putting them into a player’s hand can be very disruptive - a card that is bad on turn one can be game ending on turn ten. You should only rewind through regroup with extreme caution and when other options are not viable.
Like with information, cards moving between hidden zones should be an indicator that you should consider other options, but it is not a hard line saying that you cannot rewind through regroup.
Random is Random
Sometimes a player may get frustrated because they legally gained information - for example, Inferno Four - Unforgetting being played and the player learning the identity of the top card of their deck. If an error occurred before the Inferno Four was played, and we rewind through it, we include the cards seen with Inferno Four in the shuffle.
If a card left on top is the one that the player needed to win the game, they may be very resistant to the rewind. However, the top card of their deck, as long as it was unknown before the error was simply a random card that is in the player’s deck - not a specific card. If it was a random card before the error, it needs to be a random card after the remedy. Some players may think that it was a specific card that they were entitled to draw, because that’s how the deck was shuffled - but they’re not entitled to the specific card - they’re entitled to a random card.
If we leave the card where it was, now the player doesn’t need to play the Inferno Four to gain that information, which could change their lines of play in an unnatural way.
Unchanged Timelines
If a rewind would result in neither player changing their decisions, it’s potentially a good candidate for resolving now, instead of rewinding. If the only thing that happens is that players would make the same plays, but with an additional resource exhausted, going through the process of rewinding everything between the error and the present is likely unnecessary.
To determine this, ask the players away from each other how the rewind would impact their lines of play. If a player is uncertain, or is confident that their lines of play would change if things had happened legally, that is a reason to strongly consider rewinding, even if resolving now would wholly fix the situation, especially if that player is the opponent of the player who made the error.
While we want the game to progress naturally, as though no error had ever occurred, we leave that perfect timeline as soon as the error is made. Holding players to decisions that were made based on untrue information leads to frustrated players, especially if we’re otherwise changing this timeline.
Communication Errors
Sometimes, a player won’t take an illegal action, but will instead communicate something inaccurately - they may say that they have two cards in hand when they have three, or that a unit has four damage on it when it has five.
Often, these errors are caught quickly or as soon as a player makes a decision based on them - a player choosing to play an event that forces their opponent to discard a card will see that they have two cards in hand after it resolves, and realize the error. A player who attacks a unit, and then sees that it’s not defeated will realize that the amount of damage on it was incorrect.
These communication errors are a branch of gameplay disruptions, as the miscommunication has changed how the game plays out, and proper communication about the game state is a part of not only the tournament regulations, but the comprehensive rules as well.
However, the remedy for these is slightly different than most other gameplay disruptions. Because a decision was made based on poor information, “resolve now” isn’t going to be a fix that remedies these situations. Similarly, leaving as is doesn’t help address the situation, and the player who is disadvantaged did everything right - they asked for information to make a decision - they didn’t just make an assumption.
This category of communication errors can feel related to reversing decisions as well. A player says “how many cards do you have in your hand?”. NAP says “Two.” AP plays Spark of Rebellion, and NAP reveals three cards. AP says “wait, if you have three cards, I don’t want to play Spark.”
How is this different than AP simply playing Spark of Rebellion without asking any questions, and then after NAP reveals three cards, AP saying “Wait, I thought you had two cards. I don’t want to play Spark anymore.”?
In both situations, the active player wants to change their line of play, both times because they gained the information that their opponent has three cards in hand, not two.
However, in the first example, the NAP took an active role in providing this information, and provided incorrect information. This makes the situation a gameplay disruption and not a reversing decisions situation.
To fix a communication error, we have to perform a rewind - but not to the point where the communication was made. Rewinding all the way back to where the incorrect communication occurs doesn’t matter, because while that was illegal, we can’t actually change the words that the players said, and the first impact of the error is when the AP made a decision based on the faulty information.
Therefore, in the above example, we would rewind to right before the AP played Spark of Rebellion. Even if the sequence was AP asking how many cards NAP had in hand, then attacking, and then AP playing Spark, if playing Spark was the first action they took that was based off the information the player received from their opponent, that’s how far back we go.
Like with other situations, this is something that you’ll have to actively investigate, to identify the player’s communication and decision making process. Sometimes, the action happens immediately after the communication and so the rewind does go all the way to where the information was communicated. Other times, the information was never acted on, and so you don’t need to rewind at all. However, even if you’re not rewinding, it is generally correct to issue a gameplay disruption for the communication error.
Note that a player choosing to not do something is equally relevant as a player choosing to take a specific action - it only matters if the decision was based on the faulty communication or not.
Consultations and Rewinds
Sometimes, at larger events, judges are asked to consult with some sub-section of the judge staff whenever they’re considering a rewind.
Sometimes this is restricted to just the Head Judge, sometimes it’s the Head Judge and their Team Leads, and sometimes it’s “consult with any other judge”.
As we’ve mentioned several times throughout this lesson, rewinds can be very disruptive and judges may have different tolerances and judgments of the feasability of a rewind. Inversely, some judges with less experience may be more hesitant to rewind a situation that can be resolved, because they feel uncomfortable with the level of disruption to the match, and a more experienced judge can more smoothly navigate the remedy.
By consulting with other judges - frequently more experienced judges - it creates a smoother and more consistent experience for players. Over time, you will begin to develop an understanding of when you can and should rewind, and what circumstances you shouldn’t rewind.
When coming to another judge to consult for a rewind, if they haven’t been involved in the call, there are a few best practices
- Identify that you’re consulting for a rewind and that this is a live call
- Indicate whether you think a rewind is feasible and correct or not
- State the error, and the actions that followed, chronologically
- Explain the rewind, step by step
- (Optional - Recommended) Bring the judge to the table where the players are, so they can observe the game state directly
- (Optional) Take a picture of the boardstate so that you can show it to the judges you’re consulting with, rather than trying to memorize everything
Of course, as soon as you return to the match with a rewind in hand, the players will add “oh, and one more thing...” or “is it important for you to know that...”
That about wraps us up on this lesson - of course, there’s more to talk about, and future lessons will have more explicit examples and scenarios. Our next lesson covers Card Manipulation Errors, which have a similar level of potential complexity and can be disruptive to the match. If you’re watching this on YouTube, and you want more level two lessons in your feed, go ahead and subscribe. Join us Tuesdays and Fridays on twitch.tv/swu_judges for live broadcasts covering the content of these lessons as they are released, and join the Star Wars: Unlimited Judge Program Discord to join the community in discussion of this and much, much more.
As always, good luck, and have fun.