Lawless Time

Policy Update

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.
Below is the full script of the lesson, if you learn or process material better through the written word!

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 to the Lawless Time policy update lesson! Today we’re going to go over both the policy documents, covering what has changed, and what that means for the game!

We have more changes to the Policy documents this time than we did with the Comprehensive Rules, but the changes to the CEG are much smaller than they were last set. Because of the scope of the Secrets of Power overhaul, there were a ton of small grammatical and formatting errors, but you don’t really need to know where commas have been added or removed, as they don’t meaningfully change the document.

We’re just going to go through these in order, and then tie things together as it makes sense to do so. We’ve added some new lines here and there to provide more structure and to clarify questions people had after reviewing the updated documents.

TR Section 3 - Roles and Responsibilities

Before the CEG, there was a hygiene infraction that was removed with the launch of the CEG. There’s now language in player responsibilities that says players need to be aware of their personal presentation to not negatively impact other participants. Similarly, TOs can remove players who are negatively impacting the play environment.

TR Section 4 - Material Legality

The CEG was developed before the first large-scale Limited events, and so the document had several gaps in that regard, which are covered by the Lawless Time update. Here, there’s clarification that cards stamped for use in official drafts can be used in other events, despite the markings potentially partially obscuring card information.

TR Section 5 - Tournament Concepts and Mechanics

Section 5.9 sees some clarification for events that utilized open decklists. Competitive and Master-tier Constructed events should use them in the top cut, and Limited events of those tiers should use open pool lists in the top cut. It also clarifies that some events may use open deck lists during the swiss rounds, but currently no events are mandated to do so.

CPG Section 3 - Gameplay Disruptions

Moving to the Competitive Policy Guide, the language around “optional” or “missable” abilities has been revised and expanded. It previously included all abilities with “may” or “up to”, which was too broad, as it made triggers that had non-optional components like Ezra Bridger - Resourceful Troublemaker be treated as though the whole ability were optional. It also allowed players to avoid pointing out their own triggers that their opponent should have the opportunity to make a choice on.

Previously, it read “Some abilities include the phrase 'may' or 'up to’. These abilities are optional and do not have to be resolved, and a player does not have to remind their opponent of these abilities.”

Now, the text is a lot more complicated: "Some effects use phrases like 'may' or 'up to,' without an ‘if you don’t’ clause, indicating that those parts of the effect are optional and do not need to be performed. A player does not have to remind their opponents of these optional choices, except when the decision is made by a player who does not control the effect.”

Abilities that say ‘may’ or ‘up to’ are optional, and players don’t have to remind their opponents unless:

Moving on to section 3.3, Hidden Card Manipulation Error, we have some refinement of policy.

The first is a paragraph added for when a player is supposed to reveal a card, but doesn’t. For example, a player searches the top eight cards of their deck for an upgrade, and puts it into their hand. The opponent isn’t able to verify this information. However, by using the HCME fix, we can have the player reveal their hand, and allow the opponent to choose which cards were “selected” for the search effect. If they match the requirements, the game continues. If they don’t, those cards are combined with the rest of the original set of cards that was searched, and the effect is resolved anew.

This mitigates the potential advantage for a player sneaking in a card that didn’t meet the criteria into their hand, by allowing the opponent to remove it. However, if the search was for a unit, and all cards in hand are units, then it effectively reveals to the opponent that the search was legal. This sort of fix does put the player who committed the error on the backfoot and disrupts the organic outcome of the game, but drastically less so than if players were able to resolve searches and other similar effects illegally.

HCME also has a new example, where a player draws extra cards while drawing their opening hand.

This leads directly into 3.4, where Mulligan Error has been reworked. Rather than being any error during opening hands, it’s specifically taking a mulligan when not allowed to. Drawing too many cards has been moved to HCME, and drawing too few cards or mulliganing early are not infractions.

However, taking a second mulligan, or waiting for NAP to make a choice before making your own, is not allowed and extremely disruptive. A potential fix is to utilize a fix akin to the HCME fix, but allowing a player to craft their opponent’s opening hand with no possibility of a mulligan is effectively a Game Loss, and so the penalty cuts to the chase.

CPG Section 4 - Event Disruptions

Section 4.2, Deck Error, has a new example for players unwittingly playing with counterfeit cards, as another example of illegal cards.

Section 4.3, Decklist Error, looks like it has a lot of changes, but it’s really just moving text from one place to another. There are, however, a couple of additions for limited events. First, if a player’s decklist is missing cards, rather than adding cards randomly from the sideboard, they are added randomly from the cards that match the registered leader and base first.

Second, a new downgrade clause has been added - if a leader and base are not registered in a limited list and there is only one possible combination, the penalty can be downgraded to a warning. For example, if a player registers cunning, command, and heroism cards, and has one cunning/heroism leader and no command/heroism leaders, it can be safely assumed that the player intended to register the cunning/heroism leader and the common command base. If there are two different eligible leaders, even if one mechanically makes more sense than the other, or if there’s a rare base in the pool of the appropriate aspects, the downgrade doesn’t apply.

Section 4.5, Slow Play, has a quick clarification that “play more quickly” reminders come with Tracking Penalties, instead of Warnings. Reminders aren’t infractions, and so don’t come with a penalty that upgrades. It also has a bit more of a remedy - when Slow Play is issued, players should receive one more action phase during overtime procedures, in addition to the one allotted to all players. This helps balance out the time available to the player who was disadvantaged by their opponent’s more methodical pace of play.

CPG Section 5 - Unsporting Conduct

Unsporting Conduct sees several clarifications and refinements, most of which provide further information around determining match outcomes. We’ll cover those as a batch, but first a few quick hits.

Unsporting Conduct - Insulting Behavior gets the same upgrade as USC-Minor, if it happens on an officially recorded match, going immediately to a Match Loss.

Furthermore, as a parallel to the example in section 4.2 - Deck Error, section 5.7 - Cheating, has a new example as well - a player who is playing counterfeit cards, knows that they’re not authentic, and knows that they’re not allowed to do so is cheating.

And then we get to the rules regarding determining match outcomes. The policy seen in sections 5.5 and 5.6 - Illegally Determining a Result and Bribery, Collusion & Gambling has some more explicit clarification on what is and is not allowed.

It is reinforced that players are allowed to discuss the game state, including both open and game information, and can reveal hidden information that they have access to. They can use this information to make a decision, but can not ask their opponent to concede - and asking for a concession is attempting collusion.

However, there’s a new downgrade. If a player asks for a concession and is unaware it’s against the rules to do so receives a match loss instead of a disqualification. However, that is only applicable if there was no offer or additional conversation regarding the match outcome.

And that’s it! Thanks so much for joining us, and I encourage you to take the Lawless Time mastery quiz after you’ve looked at the rules updates. This quiz is not required, but it’s a good way to make sure you’re up to date with the new rules and mechanics! You can find more details about mastery quizzes on nexus.cascadegames.com/exams/mastery.

Until next time, good luck and have fun!