Penalty Guidelines · v1.1
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.
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.
Infractions are handled by first identifying the issue and then applying the appropriate procedures and/or penalties.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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.
This category of infractions addresses inappropriate actions by players or spectators at an event, always assuming the actions are intentional. A player can receive an Unsporting Conduct penalty even if they are not actively participating in a match. While enjoyment is encouraged, participants must be mindful that their behavior can negatively affect others.
Match and Tournament Manipulation occurs when a player attempts to influence the outcome of a game, match, or tournament through methods other than normal gameplay as intended under the rules.
This category includes actions that undermine competitive integrity through incentives, agreements, coordination, or other external factors. Unless clearly accidental, actions in this category are assumed to be intentional.
Infractions in this category are treated as severe violations of tournament integrity.
Bribery occurs when a player offers, requests, or accepts any incentive, reward, or consideration in order to influence the outcome of a game, match, or tournament decision.
The incentive does not need to be monetary and may be tangible or intangible. Any offer or acceptance of value tied to match outcomes is prohibited.
Examples include:
Collusion occurs when two or more players, or any combination of players and non-players, coordinate actions in order to improperly influence the outcome of games, matches, or tournament standings.
Collusion may occur even if no incentive is offered and even if a specific match outcome is not explicitly decided.
Examples include:
Improperly Determining a Winner occurs when a player attempts to determine the outcome of a game or match by any method other than playing the game as intended under the rules.
A match result must be determined solely through normal gameplay, concessions permitted by tournament rules, or a legal intentional draw declared in accordance with tournament policy. Random methods of determining a winner are not permitted.
Examples include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Because cheating directly undermines the integrity of the game, it is treated with the utmost severity.
A player is considered to be cheating when they intentionally take or omit an action that violates the rules of the game or tournament in order to gain an advantage, or when they lie to a tournament official. For an infraction to be classified as Cheating, the player must be aware that their actions are prohibited and must be actively trying to gain an advantage from those actions. If either of these conditions is not met, the infraction falls under a different category.
Examples include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
An Improper Concession occurs when a player asks for a concession or concedes a match after time is called (after taking an action). It also includes any attempt to pressure, manipulate, or coerce an opponent into conceding. This infraction is separate from Bribery, which involves offering incentives for a concession.
Examples of Improper Concession:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Rules Sharking occurs when a player intentionally manipulates or exploits the rules to cause their opponent to commit an infraction or lose a valid game interaction. This behavior is considered unsporting and unethical, as it aims to gain an advantage through deceptive or predatory play rather than fair competition.
Malicious intent must be present; strict or methodical play alone does not constitute Rules Sharking. It is the Head Judge’s discretion to determine what qualifies as Rules Sharking at an event. It typically results in a Warning or Game Loss, but repeated or particularly egregious cases may lead to Disqualification.
Examples Include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Stalling occurs when a player intentionally slows down gameplay to take advantage of the round time limit. This infraction is distinct from Slow Play, as Stalling requires intent — meaning the player is deliberately delaying actions to gain an unfair tournament advantage.
If a player is playing slowly but without intent to exploit the clock, it should be handled under Slow Play instead. Judges must determine intent by observing patterns of behavior, repeated actions, and timing within the round.
Examples of Stalling:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Unsporting Conduct occurs when a player engages in behavior that is negative, offensive, or disruptive, impacting the safety or enjoyment of others. This conduct also includes actions that undermine the integrity or smooth operation of the event.
Players are expected to treat all attendees and staff with respect at Wonders of The First events. Those who fail to do so should be reminded with an appropriate penalty. Infractions in this category do not disrupt the event’s operation but still require correction.
Examples include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Players must act respectfully towards all attendees and staff at Wonders of The First events. Those who do not should be issued a penalty. Infractions in this category directly affect event operations or cause emotional distress to others.
Examples include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Players must maintain respectful behavior towards all attendees and staff at Wonders of The First events. Penalties will be issued for those who fail to do so. Infractions in this category have a significant impact on event operations, cause major emotional distress, or involve physical altercations.
Examples include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Wagering occurs when a player, or spectator, places or offers bets on any aspect of the tournament, match outcome, or game-related event. This includes financial bets, item-based wagers, or any other form of stake. Betting by players and spectators is strictly prohibited as it undermines the competitive integrity of the tournament and can lead to conflicts of interest or external pressure on players. Any instance of betting should be immediately reported to a judge or Tournament Organizer for investigation.
Examples Include:
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Gameplay infractions occur when a player unintentionally violates the game’s rules as outlined in the Wonders of The First Comprehensive Rules.
These infractions are generally assumed to be accidental, but if a judge believes the infraction was deliberate, it may be classified as Cheating, which carries more severe consequences.
Gameplay infractions are common mistakes but must be addressed consistently to ensure fair play and maintain the integrity of the tournament.
Judges should track repeated infractions to ensure that penalties scale appropriately. If a player commits three or more gameplay infractions of the same type during a tournament day (excluding Failure to Maintain Game State), the penalty for that infraction is upgraded by one severity level.
A Failure to Maintain Game State infraction occurs when a player, by their inaction, does not acknowledge an opponent’s gameplay infraction (other than a Missed Trigger).
Players are expected to maintain game integrity by catching illegal plays as soon as possible. The earlier an infraction is caught, the easier it is to rewind and correct without major disruption. If an infraction is allowed to continue, both players share responsibility for the resulting state advantage.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Issue a Warning to the player in addition to the procedure and penalty for the original gameplay infraction. This Warning is never upgraded, even if repeated.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A Game Rules Violation occurs when a player fails to correctly apply the game rules to an element of the game they are responsible for, and the infraction does not fall under another specific Gameplay Infraction.
Players must ensure their actions (or inactions) follow the rules, and they also share responsibility when their effects interact with an opponent or instruct an opponent to perform an action.
If an opponent allows a Game Rules Violation to occur (and they are not responsible for it), they have committed a Failure to Maintain Game State. However, if both players share responsibility, then both have committed a Game Rules Violation.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If the infraction was caught immediately do a simple rewind to the moment before the infraction was committed. If additional actions have occurred after the infraction apply a Partial Fix, treating the game as if the rules were followed correctly. If a Partial Fix is not possible perform a Full Rewind to before the infraction occurred. If the game state cannot be fixed (partially or fully) take no further action, and the game continues despite the infraction.
If the game state cannot be rewound or partially fixed, and the player has gained a significant advantage from the infraction, upgrade to an AP1.
If the opponent had a reasonable opportunity to acknowledge the infraction but did not, issue a Warning for Failure to Maintain Game State.
If there is shared responsibility for the error, issue the opponent a Warning for Game Rules Violation.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player, through their own actions, has made a mistake involving private cards that cannot be rectified using only public information.
If a player mixes private cards from multiple zones but they can still be properly sorted back into their original locations without revealing additional information, this is not classified as a Hidden Card Error.
If a player accidentally views cards they were not permitted to see, but those cards can still be correctly separated, the infraction falls under Looking at Extra Cards instead.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If a player has mistakenly combined private cards from multiple zones into a single group, they must reveal the entire combined set of cards to their opponent. The opponent will then determine how the cards should be redistributed, ensuring that each zone retains the correct number of cards as before the error occurred. Once the opponent makes their decision, the cards are returned accordingly. If one of the affected zones is the deck, the opponent chooses whether the card(s) should be placed on the top or bottom of the deck, in any order.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player, through their own actions, unintentionally views cards they were not permitted to see, provided that the cards remain in their original zone.
If the mistakenly viewed cards become mixed with another set of cards and cannot be distinctly separated, the infraction is instead considered a Hidden Card Error.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If the extra cards belong to the player’s non-randomized deck and were previously known to the player (due to effects like Reveal), leave the cards in their correct location. If the extra cards were not previously known, reveal them to the opponent, who will then decide whether each card should be placed on the top or bottom of the deck.
If the extra cards were seen during the drawing phase at the start of the turn, but the opponent has not yet acknowledged the change of phase (for example, if the opponent intends to play or activate cards or abilities), leave the cards on top of the deck as they were.
If the extra cards are part of the player’s fully randomized deck, issue the player a Caution and shuffle the extra cards back into the deck.
If the extra cards include five or more cards in the player’s non-randomized deck, upgrade the penalty to an AP1 and shuffle the deck.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player, by their own inaction, fails to acknowledge the resolution of a triggered effect they control when it becomes relevant.
Acknowledging a triggered effect requires either a visible change to the game state or communication between the players confirming that it has triggered. Visible changes include alterations to the existence and location of physical objects such as cards, tokens, and counters. Any player can acknowledge a triggered effect, not just its controller.
A triggered effect is considered missed if the player does not acknowledge it in a timely manner. However, it is not considered missed if any of the following conditions are met:
In addition, the following cases are not considered a Missed Trigger infraction:
Players are responsible for ensuring the resolution of any triggered effects they control. While players are not required to acknowledge triggered effects they do not control, they may still choose to do so. The controlling player is responsible for ensuring that any decisions or actions taken by the opponent during the resolution of the effect are legal and appropriate; they cannot assume the opponent will choose not to take any optional action.
Although it may be beneficial for a player to not acknowledge the triggered effects of their opponents, they may not intentionally cause the effects to be missed. A trigger is only considered missed if the controlling player acknowledges or allows the game state to progress past the point where the trigger is relevant, without acknowledging the effect first. Intentionally progressing the game state to cause an opponent to miss a triggered effect is considered Rules Sharking.
Missing the resolution of a triggered effect, like a Game Rules Violation, can undermine the integrity of the game and potentially create an advantage for the player. However, unlike deliberate actions such as playing a card or activating an ability, triggered effects occur as a result of other in-game events rather than direct player decisions. Due to their frequency and the fact that they often do not visibly alter the game state immediately, players should not face severe penalties for missing them. That said, deliberately ignoring a triggered effect a player controls is considered Cheating.
Examples:
Recommended Procedure:
If the infraction is caught immediately, rewind the game to before the infraction occurred.
If additional actions have been taken, apply a partial fix as though the triggered effect resolved at the appropriate time.
If a partial fix is not possible, rewind the game to the latest point where the trigger should have been acknowledged.
If neither a partial fix nor a full rewind is feasible, take no further action, and the game continues as if the effect was triggered but did not resolve.
If the player would have gained a significant advantage from missing the trigger, and the effect was originally created by the player (not the opponent), issue a Warning.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player, by their own action, has presented an illegal set of cards or cards in an illegal state during the start-of-game procedure, despite having a legal decklist and card pool.
This infraction only applies once the player has a legal decklist and card pool. If the cards presented are deemed illegal, it is typically considered a Card-Pool Contents Error.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If the game has not started and the presented deck does not contain the correct number of cards, the player must add cards from their card pool to reach the minimum required or remove cards to meet the maximum deck size.
If the game has not started and tokens are discovered in the deck, remove the tokens, and the deck should be reshuffled. Downgrade the penalty to a caution.
If tokens are discovered after the game has begun, carefully remove the tokens while maintaining the order of the deck.
At a Professional REL, for all infractions except those involving tokens being removed, upgrade the penalty to an AP1.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player, through their own action, illegally randomizes an ordered set of cards, such as a deck, in a way that violates game rules or tournament policies.
When a player shuffles a non-randomized set of cards, the integrity of the game state is irreparably compromised. This action may result in one of the players gaining an unfair advantage due to the redistribution of cards in the shuffled set.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Ensure the affected deck is sufficiently randomized before proceeding.
If the player has gained a significant strategic advantage through improper shuffling, upgrade the penalty to a Game Loss.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tournament infractions occur when a player violates the rules of the tournament as outlined in the Wonders of the First Tournament Rules and Policy. These infractions are presumed to be unintentional, but if a judge suspects intent, the infraction may be escalated to Cheating.
If a tournament rule is violated but is not listed as an infraction, the judge should educate and correct the player without issuing a penalty.
Ignoring a judge’s instructions is considered Unsporting Conduct and will be penalized accordingly.
If a player commits the same tournament infraction twice in a single day, the second penalty should be upgraded by one severity level.
Tardiness and Slow Play are exceptions and do not escalate in severity.
For multi-day tournaments, the penalty count resets at the end of each day and does not carry over.
The player, through their own actions, has presented cards that do not match their submitted decklist, even though the decklist accurately reflects what the player intended to play.
This infraction applies both when a player presents cards during a game and when they submit their card-pool to a judge for inspection. If there are cards stored near the player’s card-pool that could reasonably be considered part of the registered card-pool due to their proximity, they are treated as part of the player’s card-pool unless they are:
These cards must be sleeved in a way that clearly distinguishes them from the actual cards in the registered cardpool to avoid confusion.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Have the player remove any extra cards from their card-pool that are not listed on their decklist. Take note of any missing cards and educate the player that they may find replacements at their convenience.
If only cards are missing, downgrade to a Caution.
If the extra cards removed do not provide any strategic advantage, downgrade to a Warning.
If the player has extra copies of a card that did not impact the game, and the player reports the error immediately, downgrade to a Warning. If this was noticed while drawing or revealing cards, replace the draw/reveal with the next card instead.
If there is a significant discrepancy between the card-pool and the decklist, or the player has gained a strategic advantage from the card-pool, upgrade to a Match Loss. At professional REL, upgrade to a Disqualification.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player, through their own action or inaction, has misrepresented non-private information or failed to fully answer a question regarding visible or public information, leading their opponent to make a decision based on incorrect or incomplete information.
Clear and accurate communication is crucial in Wonders of The First. Players are expected to maintain a transparent game state through effective communication and address any ambiguities or uncertainties. However, players may unintentionally make communication errors, particularly across cultural or language differences, and should not be penalized harshly for these mistakes.
Communication is not limited to verbal statements; it can also include physical representations, such as the positioning of cards in the play area or the use of counters or markers.
If an opponent makes an assumption about ambiguous information without seeking clarification, or if the incorrect or missing information does not impact their decisions, it is not considered a violation of Communicating Incorrect Game Information.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If the game has not progressed too far to be rewound, revert the game state to the point just before the affected action occurred, rather than to the point of miscommunication.
At a competitive REL, if the miscommunication was caused by the player failing to update or remove a marker representing visible or public information, consider downgrading the penalty to a Caution.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player, through their own actions, has submitted a card-pool registration sheet (decklist) that either does not match the cards they intend to use or is otherwise illegal.
Decklists are crucial in competitive tournaments as they ensure that the cards a player uses (their card-pool) remain consistent throughout the event. This prevents any potential strategic advantages that could arise from altering the card-pool during the tournament.
If the decklist is legal and reflects what the player intended to play with, but there is an issue with the card-pool itself, it is considered a Card-Pool Contents Error.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If the decklist does not reflect the cards the player intends to use, update the decklist to match the player’s intent.
If the decklist error is minor and is caught before the first round begins, or if the player reports the error themselves, issue a Warning.
If the discrepancy between the decklist and the player’s deck is significant, upgrade the penalty to a Match Loss.
If a player’s deck contains tokens and removing them reduces the deck’s card count to an illegal state, add token lands until the deck has at least 50 cards.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player, through their own action, commits a procedural infringement during a draft.
Drafting is a critical procedure that occurs outside of the actual gameplay and involves strategic decisions that can influence the outcome of future games. Because of this, it should be monitored with the same level of scrutiny as the actual game itself. Players may gain an unfair advantage, information, or alter the state of the draft by failing to follow the established rules. Infractions are generally viewed as the result of ignorance of the draft procedures, but any deliberate violation to gain an advantage is considered Cheating.
In certain situations, it’s crucial for the Judge to avoid interrupting the player’s thought process, as doing so could slow down or disrupt the draft. The Judge should wait until the current pack, or in some cases, the entire draft, has concluded before imposing any penalties. This is particularly important if the penalty could result in disqualification, as interfering with the drafting process would not be ideal.
The player commits a violation of the draft procedure that can be easily corrected or does not give them a significant advantage or negatively impact the fairness of the draft.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If necessary, pause the draft and issue the player a Warning. Ensure that pausing the draft happens at an appropriate moment, such as during or after a pick, at the end of a pack, or after the entire draft process, to avoid disrupting the players or the overall flow of the draft.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player commits a violation of the draft procedure that significantly disrupts the integrity of the draft process or gives the player a clear and unfair advantage, which cannot be easily corrected or reversed.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If the infraction requires immediate attention, pause the draft at an appropriate time and address the player’s behavior. After the draft concludes, issue the player a Match Loss. This ensures the player does not influence the draft knowing they have already received a loss, preventing any unfair advantage for themselves or disruption to other players still in the draft.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player, through their own inaction, fails to shuffle a deck of cards to sufficiently randomize the order of the cards.
Players can randomize their deck using various shuffling methods, such as riffle, overhand, or wash shuffling, and should use more than one technique for proper randomization. A final cut is recommended. Methods like pile counting or other deterministic shuffling techniques are not sufficient on their own. Players must shuffle thoroughly and efficiently to ensure a fair game.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Supervise the player as they shuffle their deck and provide guidance if their technique is insufficient. Educate them on proper shuffling methods to ensure they understand what constitutes acceptable randomization.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player, by their own action, presents a deck where one or more cards are easily distinguishable from the others while they are in the deck or face-down.
Players must ensure that all cards and card sleeves in their deck are in good condition and free from markings or features that make them identifiable while face-down or within the deck. This includes, but is not limited to, scuff marks, nail indents, bent corners, and card curvature.
If a player has deliberately marked their cards or intentionally exploited marked cards for an advantage, it is considered Cheating and will be penalized accordingly.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Require the player to re-sleeve or replace any marked cards to ensure no cards are distinguishable. The Head Judge may issue a proxy for the affected cards. The player cannot begin another match until the issue is resolved.
If marked cards are identified during a game and can be corrected quickly without disrupting play, the player must address them immediately. Otherwise, wait until the match is completed before informing the player and requiring corrections.
If the Head Judge determines that the marked cards could have provided a significant strategic advantage, the penalty is upgraded to a Match Loss.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
The player, by their own actions, receives strategic help from someone or something that is not part of the game, or provides strategic help to another player in a game they are not involved in.
If a player receives outside assistance during a game that provides them with a strategic advantage, the infraction will result in a Game Loss. This penalty ensures the advantage is completely negated, awarding the win to the opponent.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
If a spectator is also a player in the same event, issue them a Game Loss for their next match and remove them from the play area.
If the outside assistance is harmless or was done out of ignorance, downgrade the penalty to a Warning.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player, through their own actions, takes an unreasonably long time to make a decision that advances the game state, without the intent to gain an advantage.
Slow Play typically occurs without the player’s awareness (unlike Stalling). A simple educational reminder is often enough to improve the player’s pace and ensure the game completes within the time limit.
A Slow Play infraction should only be penalized if confirmed by a Judge through direct observation of the game’s progression. Spectators or player testimony alone should not be used as the basis for the infraction.
Judges should not provide additional time to the table based solely on reports or accusations of Slow Play.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Educate the player on the importance of playing at a reasonable pace. Observe the game to ensure the player makes one or two decisions at a reasonable speed.
If the player continues to play too slowly after receiving a Caution, issue a Warning and monitor their pace.
If the player receives two Warnings for Slow Play during the tournament, upgrade the penalty to a Game Loss.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A player is considered tardy if they are not at their assigned table when the round timer starts or if they have not completed a required tournament procedure on time.
If a decklist is required and has not been submitted, the player cannot start their match and is considered tardy until the tournament organizer receives the decklist.
If a round begins earlier than scheduled (such as when all matches from the previous round finish early), tardiness is measured from the scheduled end time of the previous round.
The player who is present should notify a Judge if their opponent is late or arrives late so the correct penalty can be applied.
Judges may grant round start extensions for players needing extra time between rounds.
Examples:
Recommended procedure:
Extend the round time by the total amount of time the player was delayed since the round started.
If the player is less than 1 minute tardy, issue a Warning.
If the player is more than 10 minutes tardy, issue a Match Loss. If both players are more than 10 minutes late, issue a Match Loss to both players. The tardy player(s) should be dropped from the tournament before the next round pairing unless they report to the scorekeeper before that time.
If a player mistakenly completes an entire match against the wrong opponent, only the player at the incorrect table will receive a penalty; the opponent at the correct table will not be penalized.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
A quick lookup table for the most common situations a judge will encounter. Always consult the full infraction text in the relevant section for procedure details and deviation guidance.
| Situation | Infraction | Competitive | Professional |
|---|---|---|---|
| A player performs an illegal gameplay action | Game Rules Violation | Warning | Warning |
| A player resolves an effect incorrectly | Game Rules Violation | Warning | Warning |
| A player fails to maintain correct game state | Failure to Maintain Game State | Warning | Warning |
| A player ignores opponent’s illegal action | Failure to Maintain Game State | Warning | Warning |
| A player forgets a required trigger | Missed Trigger | Caution | Caution |
| A player sees cards they should not see | Looking at Extra Cards | Warning → AP1 (if severe) | Warning → AP1 (if severe) |
| Hidden/private cards become mixed | Hidden Card Error | Warning | Warning |
| Deck does not match decklist | Card Pool Contents Error | AP1 → Match Loss (if major) | AP1 → Disqualification (if major) |
| Decklist is illegal or incorrect | Decklist Error | AP1 → Match Loss (if major) | AP1 → Match Loss (if major) |
| Player presents deck incorrectly | Presenting Cards Error | Warning (tokens may be Caution) | Warning → AP1 |
| Player shuffles improperly | Shuffling Error | AP1 → Game Loss (if advantage) | AP1 → Game Loss (if advantage) |
| Deck not sufficiently randomized | Insufficient Shuffling | Warning | Warning |
| Cards are distinguishable | Marked Cards | Warning → Match Loss (if advantage) | Warning → Match Loss (if advantage) |
| Draft rules violated (minor) | Draft Procedure Violation — Minor | Warning | Warning |
| Draft rules violated (major) | Draft Procedure Violation — Major | Match Loss | Match Loss |
| Player is late to match | Tardiness | AP1 (<1 min = Warning, >10 min = Match Loss) | AP1 (<1 min = Warning, >10 min = Match Loss) |
| Player gives incorrect public info | Communicating Incorrect Game Information | Warning → Game Loss (if advantage) | Warning → Game Loss (if advantage) |
| Player plays slowly (no intent) | Slow Play | Caution → Warning → Game Loss | Caution → Warning → Game Loss |
| Player receives outside help | Outside Assistance | Game Loss (downgrade possible) | Game Loss |
| Disruptive or disrespectful behavior | Unsporting Conduct — Minor | Warning | Warning |
| Severe disruption or harassment | Unsporting Conduct — Major | Game Loss | Game Loss |
| Extreme behavior or escalation | Unsporting Conduct — Severe | Disqualification | Disqualification |
| Player pressures opponent to concede | Improper Concession | Game Loss | Game Loss |
| Player exploits rules to trap opponent | Rules Sharking | Warning | Game Loss |
| Player delays to run out clock | Stalling | Match Loss | Disqualification |
| Betting on tournament outcomes | Wagering | Match Loss | Disqualification |
| Player offers incentive for result | Bribery | Disqualification | Disqualification |
| Player intentionally breaks rules for advantage | Cheating | Disqualification | Disqualification |
Initial port from PDF (Wonders-of-The-First-penalty-guidelines-v1.1.pdf, internal title “Wonders of The First Penalty and Procedure Guide v1.1.1”, updated 2026-03-24).