Tournament Rules
Last Updated: 2026-07-16
# 000. Golden Rule
# 100. Introduction
# 200. Definitions
# 300. Eligibility
# 400. Policies
# 500. Communication
# 600. Competition Formats
# 700. Enforcement and Penalties
This is a point that really deserves to be highlighted. The vast majority of errors are unintentional and not cheating. Don't just blindly assume malice.
Some things to look for to make this distinction:
How advantageous was the error? (small incremental or game winning)
How easy is it to make the error?
Did they need to do this now or risk losing?
If we see a player about to make an error and we say something in an effort to prevent that, we can easily end up in a situation where we've accidentally provided them outside assistance. As described below, we shouldn't be interjecting ourselves until we've been asked to or until we see something that needs to be fixed.
Whether a player is a seasoned veteran or new to the game or competitive scene does not change whether or not they have broken the rules of the game. However, when a player claims they did not know the rule that they broke, we are allowed to believe the new player and cast doubt on the seasoned veteran when deciding if the violation was intentional.
As judges versed in rules and tournament, we understand the severity and impacts to match and tournament integrity implicated by some errors and violations a player can commit. Players, conversely, often do not. However, players do understand that being issued a [Game Loss] is a worse outcome for them than being issued a [Warning], and they will make a greater effort to avoid the former.
Penalties also serve to function as a safety net in case we miss something. As judges are neither omnipresent nor omniscient, we cannot catch every instance of Cheating. Harsher penalties for more abusable situations change the risk/reward/cost evaluation to potentially nefarious players and protect the rest of the tournament from the damage they can cause if we do not detect intentionally malicious behavior.
Penalties are tracked throughout an event not only because of the potential for upgrading, but also to help us detect a pattern. If we see the same player is consistently receiving penalties for the same or similar circumstances, it communicates to us the need to pay attention for potential Cheating or education.
Every judge will make mistakes and give a wrong ruling or incorrectly give a player a penalty they should not have received. This is part of why we have the process of appealing to the head judge at events with multiple judges.
If you make a mistake during an event, and you realize that mistake during the event, you should let the head judge know if you are not the head judge. If you gave a player a penalty in error, that penalty needs to be reversed if possible. You should also try to find those players to own up to it and let them know what the correct ruling should have been. This prevents them from acting on your previous ruling and committing misplays or errors in the future.
If you realize the mistake after the event, and you know and have regular contact with the players involved, it is still a good idea to own up to it and let them know what the correct ruling should have been.
These are typically going to be served for small easy to make infractions. The game rules and tournament rules are complicated; this is why we get hired as expert judges. It wouldn't make sense to overly penalize a player for not perfectly computing the entire ruleset while trying to play a game.
Game losses serve to negate situations where major unfixable advantage has occurred. Continuing that game would not make sense in terms of fairness so we end it and start anew from a fully even state.
These also serve as the first line of upgrade. The upgrades apply as a player has continually made errors that may have created advantages and we want to offset the advantage that has been occurring with this penalty.
Match losses mean something *severe* has happened. Most commonly, we have a player who is so late it would cause an untenable delay to the entire event, a situation where it would be unreasonable to have 2 people keep playing the match together, a player has run afoul of unsporting conduct rules or has received an upgrade for repeated severe infractions.
In these cases the best thing for the integrity of the event is to end the match.
The game mechanic of recycling creates an interesting play dynamic where players are potentially tracking information about their deck. "Knowable" is an important word here - if we know a player has recycled cards but since forgotten which cards they recycled, we still want to preserve them having been recycled. Just because the player does not remember them anymore does not mean that they were not part of a player's decision making that led to the current and potential future state of the game.
If we have to shuffle cards into either the Main Deck or Rune Deck, we want to be sure to look at all cards in all players' Board and Trash as well as all Battlefields to make sure we are not missing potential sources of cards having previously been recycled (such as an opponent having played a card that recycles cards from the hand or having a unit that has Deflect). If a card as a repeatable effect that can cause recycling, we should try to determine how many times that effect has been used. We should also consider how cards a player recycled during the mulligan process.
The definition of "simple" is very specific here. Simple doesn't mean easy to do but instead is limited to *exactly the last actions done*. I.e. undoing an object illegally put on the chain, readying a object that has just been exhausted etc. These can include readying and unrecycling runes in their fixes.
For everything else see 701.5.c
Start here:
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2014/12/30/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths/
Clarification:
"Have an observable impact on the game," an be a bit of a confusing phrase for many. If a trigger would have a player take an immediate physical action like draw a card, buff or move a unit that trigger is considered missed if another game action is taken by the controlling player that couldn't have happened with that trigger still on the Chain. For example if a player plays a Lecturing Yordle ("When you play me, draw a card.") and does not draw a card before moving a unit to a battlefield to start a showdown, that trigger has been missed.
Any triggers that target or have a cost to be paid must be announced immediately as they must have a legal target and their costs paid to be finalized on the Chain.
Triggers that do not have an observable impact on the game are often triggers that modify the might of a unit without targeting such as Ravenbloom Student, or Thousand-Tailed Watcher. These triggers must be acknowledged by the first time the might change would have a visible impact, such as a player asking about the unit's might, an effect that references the might of the unit, or assigning damage in combat. Other examples of triggers that do not create observable impacts of the game include triggers that stun units without targeting or a trigger that creates a delayed effect to discount the cost of the next card played.
Ultimately, players control the pace of their own effects. Riftbound is not a competition to see who is the fastest player in the tournament.
If a player, during a showdown in their opponent's turn, plays Ride the Wind to move their Qiyana, Victorious to an empty battlefield and conquers that battlefield, the opponent cannot rush to play a unit and claim the Qiyana trigger was missed. That player has the opportunity to pause their opponent to score their trigger. If, however, they acknowledge the units being played, then they have demonstrated that the trigger has been missed.
This prevents players from "accidentally" missing a trigger that can only happen a limited number of times in order to "remember" the trigger at more opportune moment later.
A good way to evaluate whether a trigger being missed was advantageous is to ask ourselves whether we expect the opponent will choose to resolve the trigger or not (see 702.2.f.2). If we expect the opponent will choose to resolve the trigger, that is a sure sign it is advantageous for the player to have missed the trigger. If we expect the opponent will choose to not resolve the trigger, we should probably not be giving a [Warning] for the trigger being missed. It is not relevant whether the opponent actually chooses to resolve the trigger or not, as sometimes opponent's will choose to resolve a trigger that is beneficial to the player who missed the trigger out of a feeling of sportsmanship.
We should not tell the players we are giving the Warning for missing the trigger being advantageous until we have given the opponent the option to resolve the trigger or not! We do not want to be giving the opponent outside assistance.
If a player is intentionally not drawing cards to avoid Burning Out, the penalty is Cheating.
In important distinction is that they player must be taking a legal game action to let them look at the cards. If the player looks at cards not due to a game action, such as accidentally knocking over the top of their Main Deck, the penalty is Looking at Secret Information. If the player looks at cards due to an illegal game action, assess the penalty for that illegal game action. For example, if they Predict 2 for a trigger that should not have triggered, it is a General Error.
Looking at more cards than a player is entitled to can create a powerful advantage, and there is generally no way for the opponent to verify which card is the extra card. Allowing the opponent to look at and choose the card to return to the deck offsets any potential advantage that could be gained by the erring player.
For example, if a player resolving Stacked Deck looks at four cards and puts one into their hand before the error is discovered, we will apply this remedy first to the hand to return one of the cards to the set of four and then also to the set of four to return one to the random portion of the Main Deck.
For example, if a player pays [4] for a spell that should have cost [3] and it causes Virtuoso (Jhin) to trigger when it should not have, this is a General Error.