We are aware that Unleashed’s core rules updates caused consternation among some players and judges. This set’s updates had several mitigating factors which came together and impacted how we approached it, among them were changes to our internal processes which were necessary towards us improving our systems for generating and updating our rules documents. We are also improving how we present these changes and communicate them to players and judges. Today’s content will hopefully resolve many of the issues and sources of confusion for the community.

While the updates we released for Unleashed were substantive, it was a first step of a transitional period for Riftbound’s rules and templating, as they are dependent on future sets. Given this limitation, we are going to focus on clarifying points of confusion under the current structures. There will be things which will remain awkward in the meantime and we appreciate everyone’s patience as we forge ahead together.

We’ll start this FAQ out by clearing up a few points that were left confusing from the rules update—if you’re not deeply invested in the rules and just want to see answers to common questions, skip down to the Frequently Asked Questions section in the latter half of the document. For any points that differ between this document and the Core Rules Document, this document will take precedence. When the next rules update is published, this document will become obsolete. You can always visit the Rules Hub to find the current rules documents for Riftbound.

Throughout this document, we use some specific shorthand to represent symbols in card text. Here’s a short guide:

• [E] means “exhaust”
• [M] means “Might”
• [A] means “one power of any domain”
• [C] means “one power of this card’s domain”
  • [C] in Accelerate costs takes on the domain of the unit, or turns into [A] if the unit has no domain or multiple domains.
  • [C] in other cases is treated as the corresponding power symbol in all respects, matching how the cards are actually printed—it’s just a design shorthand!

Revised and Clarified Rulings

Triggered Abilities

We’ll start with the most significant and contextual rules change in this update. As of our third rules update, triggered abilities have been changed in their structure: rather than a one clause condition and a potentially multi-clause effect, there are now multiple pieces that need to be considered when putting a triggered ability on the chain and finalizing it. The easiest way to think about these is shifting where the effect and condition split into two components of the triggered ability: instead of at the first comma, it now depends on how the triggered ability is templated. Triggered abilities will have one or more of the following four items in sequence: 

• A trigger condition
• A conditional statement next to the trigger condition
• A “you may” that appears next to the conditional statement
• A cost within instruction next to the “you may”

We can best see this in the example of Piltover Enforcer, the Vi Legend from Unleashed: “[When you conquer], [if you assigned 3 or more excess damage], [you may] [exhaust me to] ready a unit.” This ability contains all four elements in the sequence. 

• A trigger condition: “When you conquer”
• Extra conditional: “If you assigned 3 or more excess damage,”
• A “you may” that appears next to the conditional: “You may,” - this indicates the decision of whether or not to place the ability on the chain
• A cost within instruction next to the “you may”: “Exhaust me to...” - is the cost within instructions that becomes the base cost of the triggered ability. 

We can imagine splitting this ability into two sections: the part including this sequence and the part after it:

The second section only becomes a finalized chain item when the first section is fulfilled by the process of finalization; that being the process by which players make choices, pay costs, and check legality for cards and abilities. When the trigger condition and extra conditional are fulfilled and the player decides to place it on the chain, it will become a pending chain item and be queued for finalization. If its controller chooses a legal target and pays the cost during the subsequent finalization, the second section will become a finalized chain item. All it says on the chain is “Ready a unit,” where the unit is the one chosen during finalization.

Triggered abilities, however, don’t need to contain all of the above elements in order for the sequence to follow these rules, as long as the elements that do appear are where they would be based on our understanding of the above sequence.

Let’s look at a few examples:

Sona, Harmonious reads “At the end of your turn, if I'm at a battlefield, ready up to 4 friendly runes.” “If I’m at a battlefield,” appears where we would expect it to based on the sequence described above, so it is part of the condition and not the effect. The ability can be split into “At the end of your turn, if I’m at a battlefield,” and “ready up to 4 runes.”

Disarming Rake reads “When you play me, you may kill a gear.” The “you may” appears here where we would expect it to based on the sequence above, so it is the choice of whether or not to place the ability on the chain, and not part of the effect itself. The ability can be split into “When you play me, you may” and “kill a gear.”

Ekko, Recurrent reads, “[Deathknell][>] Recycle me to ready your runes.” Deathknell is functionally short for “When I die, …” We can translate this to our sequence as “When I die, recycle me to ready your runes.” “Recycle me to” is a cost within instructions that appears where we would expect it to based on our sequence, so it becomes the base cost of the ability when it is placed on the chain and is not part of the effect. The ability can be split into “When I die, recycle me to” and “ready your runes.”

Any of these elements that appear later in the ability than where you would expect based on the sequence do not function in this way. 

Loose Cannon, the Jinx Legend, reads “At the start of your Beginning Phase, draw 1 if you have one or fewer cards in your hand.” The conditional statement “if you have one or fewer cards in your hand,” does not appear where we would expect in the sequence described above, so it is considered part of the effect and not the condition. This ability can be split into “At the start of your Beginning Phase,” and “draw 1 if you have one of fewer cards in your hand.”

Ornn, Blacksmith reads “When you play me or when I hold, look at the top 4 cards of your Main Deck. You may reveal a gear from among them and draw it. Then recycle the rest.” The “you may” here doesn’t appear in the appropriate place to be part of the sequence, so it is not a decision made when the ability triggers and instead is made when ability resolves. This ability can be split into “When you play me or when I hold,” and “look at the top 4 cards of your Main Deck. You may reveal a gear from among them and draw it. Then recycle the rest.”

Insightful Investigator reads “When you play me, choose an opponent. They reveal their hand. You may pay 2 XP to choose a card from their hand. If you do, they discard that card and draw 1.” Here we see the final example, where the ability contains a cost within instructions that does not fall where we would expect it to be for the sequence. This cost within instructions is paid on resolution and not as the base cost of the triggered ability. The ability can be split into “When you play me,” and “Choose an opponent. They reveal their hand. You may pay 2 XP to choose a card from their hand. If you do, they discard that card and draw 1.” The second part of the ability is all one chain item—it resolves it one go, and cannot be reacted to partway through resolution.

One notable effect of this change is that we see a larger difference between two previously similar templates: costs within instructions (“[do X] to [do Y]”) and “if you do” templates. The two templates had some overlap, in that they asked players to perform an action in order to get an effect. The templates, however, were still functionally different before this rules update. Costs don’t care if the game action being performed is replaced, as long as an attempt was made to perform the action.

“If you do” templating is more particular, as seen in cards like Jayce, Man of Progress whose triggered ability begins with, “When you play me, you may kill a friendly gear. If you do, …” Killing the friendly gear in this case is not a cost for the ability, but a game action that a later instruction checks. If the game action is not performed or is replaced, the later instruction will not have its condition fulfilled - the player didn’t “do” it, so “if you do” is not true. 

While this was always the case, now there is even more differentiation, as “if you do” templating isn’t a cost within instructions and therefore cannot be the base cost of the triggered ability. Even if resources are instructed to be spent, as in the case of Draven, Vanquisher (RIP), who reads “When I attack or defend, you may pay [C]. If you do, …” those resources are not a cost and are paid on resolution of the ability and not finalization.

Control of Battlefields and Showdowns

Two areas that were unclear in the rules update were control of battlefields and when Showdowns open. How battlefield control is managed is contradictory in two places: in the control rules under rule 187.4.c., and in the cleanup rules under rule 323.6. To clarify this: rule 323.6. should read, “Players lose control of any controlled battlefields without their Units occupying them if the turn is in an open state and there is no Showdown or Combat ongoing there.” This was our intent, as seen in the patch notes, and the wording of rule 323.6 lagged behind it.

The second of these areas is how Showdowns are opened. Here, the cleanup rules are correct and take precedence over the other rules. Rule 316.5.b. should read, “A Showdown is marked as staged at a battlefield in the cleanup after the Contested status is applied to that battlefield.” Rule 344.2. should read, “If Control of a battlefield is Contested and there aren’t units controlled by different players there, a Showdown is opened during the Cleanup at the end of the action that caused the battlefield to become Contested.”

For example, if a player moves a unit to a battlefield they don’t control, they will apply the Contested status to that battlefield immediately upon becoming located there, regardless of whether there are units controlled by another player there or not. The battlefield having the Contested status causes a Showdown to be staged there in the following cleanup per rule 323.8. The previous wording of 316.5.b. implied that a Showdown will only be staged at a battlefield if that battlefield is uncontrolled, but the change to how Showdowns become Combats means Showdowns need to be able to be staged when the battlefield is still controlled.

Mandatory Actions and Private Information

Rift Herald is an interesting card. Usually, we don’t print effects like Rift Herald’s Deathknell that don’t say “may.” However, even without the “may,” an important principle that we want to hold for Riftbound is that game effects cannot force a player to perform a game action on an object with specific characteristics whose information status is private.

Imagine if we lived in such a world. When Rift Herald’s Deathknell resolves, your opponent claims to not have a unit in their hand. But what if they do have a unit and they want to try to save it for a more opportune moment? What if playing it would be actively detrimental to them? Suddenly, every time your opponent says they don’t have a card to play that matches the appropriate characteristics it makes you wonder if they’re lying to you. How do you hold them accountable? Do you go over and look at their hand? Do you call a friend to check their hand? If you’re at a tournament, do you call a judge? This is an unsustainable level of paranoia to subject players to. We don’t want that and neither do you.

The following rule will be added in the next rules update and will go into effect now:

A player cannot be compelled to perform an action on cards whose privacy is secret or private if that action specifies a type or quality of card. If an effect would compel a player to perform an action on cards whose privacy is secret or private, and if that effect specifies a type or quality of card, the player in question may ignore it instead.

Lethal Damage Modification

Elder Dragon’s passive ability reads, “Any amount of your damage is enough to kill enemy units.” This functions to change the definition of lethal damage for those units that have damage marked by you on them. In order to break that down in a technical way, we’ll have to define a few terms.

Lethal damage is an amount of damage such that a unit with it marked will die in a cleanup. This value is defined as being a non-zero amount greater than or equal to a unit’s Might by default. However, some effects may alter it. Any reference to lethal damage, including in the cleanup tasks in rule 323.5. and when assigning Combat damage in rule 460.2.c.3., will be altered in this way. Damage is marked on a unit by a player when a deal action that player is responsible for damages that unit. Damage marked by players is “their damage.”

The combination of these two concepts codifies how Elder Dragon functions. This means Elder Dragon can check damage marked on units by its controller before it enters the board, and that players need only assign one damage to units during the Combat Damage step while they control Elder Dragon.

Control of Battlefield Abilities

Our first battlefield with a triggered ability anyone can trigger that targets game objects was printed in Unleashed and it has unearthed some strangeness in the battlefield control rules. That battlefield is Abandoned Hall.

Normally, control of a battlefield ability is awarded to the battlefield’s controller, or the turn player if it is uncontrolled, but there are cases where that might not be the case. The intent of the current rules is that a player making choices for a triggered ability of a battlefield means that player controls that ability. This is reflected in a small but easily neglected part of the battlefield ability control rules in “unless otherwise specified.” That should be treated as the following: If an Ability of a Battlefield indicates that a specific player makes a choice, that player takes responsibility for adding it to the chain if applicable and makes all choices required by the ability. They and only they control the ability.

Note that if a battlefield ability requires more than one player to make a choice, that ability will still be controlled by the controller of the battlefield.

Legion

Legion’s change in this rules update is a byproduct of the transition that Riftbound finds itself in. To pull back the curtain, our hope in the future is to reduce the confusion around “play” meaning different things in templating. Unfortunately, this rules update has pulled us in three directions and made things temporarily more confusing. We will communicate these rules in a more comprehensible way in the next rules update. That being said, we recognize that these three technical meanings of play are quite frustrating for players and we’re in the process of paring them down.

For this rules update, we’ll address three functional meanings of “play”, though two of them are aligned in a way that should make them feel like they are functionally similar.

The first meaning is, “resolve an item on the chain.” This is the play that appears in trigger conditions, in cards like Darius, Trifarian and Ravenbloom Student. 

The second meaning is, “finalize an item on the chain.” This is the play that appears in other conditional statements and effects that check if cards have been played, in cards like Battering Ram, Crescent Guardian, and the Legion dependent keyword.

The final meaning of play is, “place an item on the chain and queue it for finalization.” This is the version of play that we see in all other contexts in which play is used as a verb, in cards like Here to Help, Raging Firebrand, and Void Drone.

Having three technical usages of the same word is not ideal, to say the least. This can be seen in the most egregious case with Brynhir Thundersong’s play effect, which reads, “When you play me, opponents can’t play cards this turn.” Using play to mean resolve and also “perform the play game action” in the same card effect has been an abiding source of confusion among players since Origins.

That being said, the usages of “play as game action” and “play as finalize” are functionally aligned---finalizing a card and putting a card on the chain to be queued for finalization are similar actions. Even if we wanted an effect to check for the game action, it would ultimately have to check for finalization because the process of play could be undone during finalization. These timings are similar enough that we hope it will be relatively easy for players to develop an intuition for them. “Play as resolution” is an outlier and it will remain so for this transition period.

Results of Combat

A final point of clarification, the Determine Combat Result task is currently missing a minor but very important part. Rule 461.3.d. should read: There is “No Result” if units were recalled during the Combat Cleanup, if both Players have units present during this task, or if neither player has units present during this task.

For example, if a tie occurred after the Combat Damage step—as in, there were Attackers and Defenders still remaining at the battlefield in the Combat Cleanup and the Attackers were recalled—under the previous wording of rule 461.3.d., the defending player will win the Combat because there are only units controlled by one player located at the battlefield as the task occurs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens when you conquer Aspirant’s Climb with Green Father and Brush the battlefield when both players are at 8 points? 

If this is the first battlefield that player has scored, they'll draw 1 and the game will continue with both players at 8 points.

If you replace Aspirant’s Climb with Brush via Green Father’s conquer or hold effect, the Victory Score will change immediately as the passive ability of Aspirant’s Climb is no longer in effect, bringing both players to the Victory Score simultaneously. Rules 323.1. and 467. define winning the game as happening during a cleanup when one player has points greater than or equal to the Victory Score and greater than any opponent. If both players are at 8 points, they have not fulfilled both requirements for winning the game. They will need to score additional points in order to win. When they do so, 466.1.b. says “when a player tries to gain a point through a Score, and their current point total is one point from the Victory Score for their Mode of Play or higher, do the following: …” If the point is from Conquering, they will draw 1 instead of gaining the point unless they have scored each battlefield that turn. In effect, every point at or above the Victory Score becomes the final point.

How does HOT FEPR actually work?

HOT FEPR stands for Handle Outstanding Tasks; then Finalize, Execute, Pass, Resolve. Outstanding Tasks include the various procedures of the turn: things like readying all of your game objects on the board in the Awakening Phase, scoring battlefields in the Beginning Phase, drawing 1 in the Draw Phase, the steps of a cleanup, and the substeps of the Combat Phase, among other procedures. Each of these tasks is made outstanding when a player is expected to perform them, and a player must handle any outstanding tasks before proceeding to the next substep, step, phase, or turn.

FEPR is the process by which items on the chain are processed. Finalizing an item on the chain involves making choices, paying costs, and checking legality. Executing items to the chain means a player adding an item to the chain when they have priority, or passing priority. When all players Pass priority in a row, the topmost finalized item on the chain Resolves. While there are tasks outstanding, the FEPR process will be paused in place until all tasks are handled. 

An initial question many players are going to have is why add this system at all? Wasn’t FEPR good enough on its own? The reason we implemented the HOT part of HOT FEPR is that prior to this system, the game only had one rule to address how and when items on the chain interact with the procedures of the game: what is now rule 305. It says “when there are no items on the chain and the turn player cannot or chooses not to perform any discretionary actions, the current phase or step of the turn ends and the next phase, step, or turn begins.” 

FEPR was a great starting point, but there were several places that were unclear about how it functioned. Primarily, for our purposes, how we approached the sub-rules of a given step. Do we pause to FEPR items between each sub-rule and procedure? Or between several procedures? We realized that it needed more clarity.

HOT FEPR as a system tells us precisely when the FEPR process can occur during the turn and when it is precluded from occurring. While tasks are outstanding, pause FEPR and handle those tasks. Once all outstanding tasks are handled, any items on the chain undergo the FEPR process. Then when there are no more items on the chain and no outstanding tasks, we can move to the next procedure of the turn, per rule 335.3.

An important point that is easy to miss in the HOT FEPR system is that it is recursive, that is the procedures which designate tasks as outstanding are themselves steps or substeps. Anytime the Core Rules Document says “the following task(s) become outstanding,” that step itself waits until any outstanding tasks and any items on the chain are completed. This will hopefully help make sense of the various procedures where HOT FEPR orders the turn. 

Let’s look at two examples to illustrate this:

The Resolution Step of Combat can be broken down into four subsections: 

1. The Combat Cleanup
2. Determine Combat Result
3. Establish Control
4. Combat Ends

As we move between each of these subsections, there will be a window to perform the FEPR process on chain items, and only after the chain is empty and there are no outstanding tasks, would we proceed to the next subsection.

The second example is that cleanups work in the inverse, where several tasks are queued at once and all must be completed before the FEPR process will initiate.