1 General

1.1 Introduction

This guide serves as a framework for handling rule violations in Wonders of The First during in-person play. Infractions — errors that break game or tournament rules — are categorized into three types: Conduct (player behavior), Gameplay (violations of the Comprehensive Rules), and Tournament (violation of the Tournament Rules and Policy). This document outlines the most common infractions, provides procedures for addressing them, and defines appropriate penalties to maintain fair and consistent rulings.

The procedures and penalties in this guide serve two key purposes: educating judges on the recommended rulings for common infractions and protecting them from personal liability when enforcing these rulings. If a judge follows the guidelines outlined in this document, any disputes or complaints are directed at the policy itself, rather than the individual judge.

Additionally, this guide establishes clear expectations for players, promoting better gameplay by ensuring consistent enforcement of procedures and penalties. However, deviations from this guide do not offer the same level of protection or consistency, and judges should carefully consider this before applying a modified ruling.

There are three distinct Rules Enforcement Levels (RELs): Casual, Competitive, and Professional. Each REL has unique expectations, and player infractions are addressed differently depending on the level.

Casual REL: Tailored for local in-store play, this level focuses on fostering a welcoming environment for player education and enjoyment.
Competitive REL: Designed for structured competition, this level aims to balance player education, enjoyment, and maintaining tournament integrity.
Professional REL: Reserved for the most elite levels of competitive play, this level prioritizes tournament integrity above all else.

The Wonders of The First — Penalty Guide establishes the procedures and penalties for judges to enforce at official tournaments with competitive or professional rules enforcement. This document ensures consistency in handling infractions, maintaining fairness, and preserving the integrity of the tournament.

1.2 Addressing Infractions

Infractions are handled by first identifying the issue and then applying the appropriate procedures and/or penalties.

Judges should only intervene in a game if an infraction occurs or an investigation is required.
Judges should not intervene for Missed Trigger infractions that warrant only a Caution, or for minor infractions resolved promptly by both players.
When issuing a penalty, the judge must explain the infraction, resolution procedure, and penalty to all involved players.
Any AP1 or higher penalty must be confirmed with the Head Judge, except for Tardiness and Decklist infractions.
If multiple related infractions occur, each is addressed separately, but only the highest penalty is issued.
If a ruling takes longer than one minute, a time extension (rounded up to the nearest minute) should be given.

Judges can make mistakes. If a mistake happens, the judge should acknowledge it, apologize, and correct it if possible. If a judge’s error causes a player to commit an infraction, the Head Judge may consider it as grounds for deviation from standard penalties.

Deviations

In rare cases, an infraction may not fit neatly into the categories outlined in this document, or the standard procedure and penalty may not fairly address the situation while maintaining tournament integrity.

In such cases, the Head Judge has the authority to deviate from the recommended guidelines by applying a modified procedure or penalty. When a deviation occurs, the Head Judge must explain the standard policy and the reason for the deviation to all involved players.

Judges may consult the Head Judge and suggest a deviation when necessary, but the final decision rests with the Head Judge to ensure consistent application throughout the tournament.

Common Reasons for Deviation:

A Warning is issued for a gameplay infraction, but adjusting the procedure results in a more equitable game state.
The standard procedure or penalty does not fairly address the unique circumstances of an infraction.
A player commits multiple related infractions at once, requiring an increased penalty to equalize the advantage gained.

Infractions in this guide are outlined in their most common forms. When an infraction occurs that does not fit neatly into these categories, judges must determine the appropriate fix and/or penalty, with final approval from the Head Judge.

When adjusting a ruling, judges should begin with the most relevant infraction and consider these three key questions:

Will this help players learn?
Will this ensure fairness?
Will the integrity of the tournament be maintained?

Repeated Infractions

If a player repeatedly commits the same infraction or fails to correct their behavior after receiving a penalty, the judge or Tournament Organizer should escalate the penalty level for each recurrence to reinforce the importance of following the rules. This results in a progressively harsher penalty for repeated offenses.

Generally, increasing the penalty by one step per repeated infraction is sufficient. For example, a fourth instance of an infraction that initially warranted a Caution may result in a Game Loss. In some cases, a larger escalation may be necessary.

Judges and Tournament Organizers should also consider a player’s history beyond the current event. If a player has a pattern of repeated infractions at previous tournaments, it may be appropriate to start with a higher penalty than what is outlined in this guide. For instance, a player with a history of Unsporting Conduct: Minor may receive a Warning or Action Penalty instead of a Caution for their first offense at a new event.

Multiple Infractions

Players who commit multiple different infractions during an event are often simply uninformed or inexperienced. However, it is also important to recognize that some players may deliberately commit various errors under the guise of mistakes to gain an unfair advantage. These players should be firmly discouraged from continuing such behavior.

The decision to escalate a penalty for a player who has committed different infractions throughout the event is left to the discretion of the judge or Tournament Organizer. While repeated infractions of the same type typically warrant escalating penalties, multiple different infractions may not always require increased penalties unless there is reason to believe the player is acting in bad faith.

1.3 Types of Penalties

Penalties serve as a tool for judges to track infractions, educate players to prevent future violations, and balance any advantages gained from infractions.

All penalties, except “Caution,” should be recorded during the tournament to track player errors. When a penalty is upgraded or downgraded, the judge issues a more or less severe penalty, respectively. The penalties are listed below in ascending order of severity.

Caution

A Caution is a verbal warning for a minor infraction. It is used when the infraction does not provide the player with an advantage or when the issue can be resolved through the procedure and education without needing to be recorded for the tournament.

Warning

A Warning is a formal notice for a minor infraction. Repeated Warnings for the same or similar infractions may result in a more severe penalty.

Action Penalty (AP)

An Action Penalty (AP) reduces the number of actions a player starts with for a set number of rounds. It is more severe than a Warning but less severe than a Game Loss, making it especially relevant in best-of-one formats.

An AP functions as a game macro with the following effect:

“Reduce the penalized player’s current actions by 1. If that player has no actions, reduce their actions gained at the beginning of the next round by 1.”

Game Loss

A Game Loss immediately ends the current game, and the player is considered to have lost. It is issued when the integrity of the game is significantly compromised or as a severe penalty to emphasize the seriousness of the player’s actions.

If a Game Loss is issued between games, it applies to the player’s next game. In a best-of-1 format, a Game Loss results in the player losing the match. If Game Losses are issued to all players simultaneously, the infractions are recorded, but the game proceeds as if no player lost.

Match Loss

A Match Loss results in the player losing the match, regardless of the game score. It is used when the integrity of the match is irreversibly compromised or as a more severe penalty than a Game Loss. If the player is between matches or the round time has ended, the Match Loss applies to their next match in the event. If all players are simultaneously issued a Match Loss, the match is recorded as a double match loss.

Disqualification

Disqualification results in a player being removed from the tournament. It is the most severe penalty and is applied for actions that compromise the integrity of the tournament or for serious conduct violations. A disqualified player loses their current match (if in progress) and is dropped from the tournament. They forfeit any prizes they were due, but may keep any prizes received up until that point.

Once disqualified, the player is no longer part of the standings, and all players below them move up by one position. However, if the disqualification occurs after a cut, no additional players will advance into the cut.

1.4 Types of Procedures

Procedures allow judges to adjust the game state to maintain its integrity. They should only be applied when relevant to the specific infraction. Judges should not use an unrelated procedure as a substitute for a penalty (e.g., destroying a Wonder to correct drawing an extra card).

Cards to the Top or Bottom of the Deck

This procedure moves specific cards to either the top or bottom of the deck, as chosen by one player. If multiple cards are moved, the opponent decides the order and placement of each card. When applied correctly alongside other procedures, this helps balance information and strategic advantages gained through game or tournament errors.

Due to effects like seek, shuffling cards into the randomized portion of the deck is often impractical for many infractions. This procedure offers an alternative approach to restore game balance more effectively.

Partial Fix

A partial fix artificially adjusts the game state to correct an infraction while minimizing disruption. When applied correctly, it helps balance an unfair advantage without requiring a full rewind or a harsher penalty like an AP1.

Partial fixes should not be used if a player likely made a strategic decision based on the infraction or if the illegal action and its consequences are too complex to address in isolation.

Examples of partial fixes include:

Correcting an incorrect action or energy total.
Moving a card to the correct zone if it was placed incorrectly, remains known to all players, and does not majorly disrupt the game.
Revealing a card that should have been previously shown to a player.
Adjusting counters if the affected cards are known to all players and the change does not significantly impact the game.

Rewind the Game State

Rewinding the game state restores the game to a previous legal state, removing any potential advantage gained from an infraction. However, it does not erase information a player has learned and, in some cases, may introduce unintended strategic advantages.

Simple Rewind: Reverses the last action(s) and is used when an infraction is caught immediately.
Full Rewind: Reverses multiple actions when the game has progressed beyond the infraction. A full rewind should only be performed if the judge can accurately reconstruct the previous legal game state without revealing additional information to either player.

Shuffle into a Random Portion of the Deck

Shuffling into a random portion of the deck involves taking the contiguous randomized portion of the deck, adding or removing cards, shuffling it, and then returning it to its proper place while keeping the non-randomized portions intact. When done correctly, this procedure eliminates any state or information advantage gained through an infraction. However, due to the presence of seek effects, the deck’s position may not be fully randomized, making this procedure difficult to apply. Therefore, it should only be used as part of a deviation when appropriate for the specific game state and infraction.