The Tournament Conduct & Infraction Guide for Vampire: The Eternal Struggle establishes how judges should respond to rules violations that arise during VTES tournaments. Its purpose is twofold: to safeguard players from actions that could compromise fair play, and to protect the competitive integrity of the event as a whole. In an environment where precision and consistency matter, most violations must carry an appropriate consequence—without clear penalties, the rules cannot be meaningfully enforced.

This guide is organized into four primary components:

Section 1 presents the general philosophy, definitions, and principles that support the enforcement system.
Sections 2 through 4 detail the various infraction categories used in VTES tournaments. These infractions fall into three overarching groups:

Procedural Errors,
Tournament Errors, and
Unsportsmanlike Conduct,

Section 5 deals with organizational issues relating to the practical functions of running a tournament.
The appendix contains the penalty summary.

Players and judges who need additional clarity about terminology should consult the VTES Tournament Rules, which serve as the authoritative source for definitions referenced throughout this document.

This guide may appear in languages other than English. In cases where a translation differs from the English version, the English version must be treated as definitive when resolving questions of interpretation.

1. General Philosophy

In tournaments of Vampire: The Eternal Struggle, judges act as impartial overseers whose task is to maintain order, ensure fair competition, and apply the rules consistently. Their involvement in a game should be limited to moments when a player explicitly seeks help, when a potential breach of the rules is observed, or when a developing situation needs to be calmed before it disrupts the event. Judges are not expected to anticipate every mistake or prevent players from committing them; instead, they respond to issues once they occur, determine how to correct them, and guide participants through the process with professionalism and clear communication. They may, however, intervene proactively in matters outside active play—such as registration, deck checks, or card legality questions—where early action prevents avoidable problems.

Penalties in this system exist primarily to teach. Whenever a rule or policy is violated, the judge’s first responsibility is to help the player understand what went wrong. The penalty that follows reinforces that lesson and ensures that the same error is less likely to happen again. Penalties also serve the broader community of competitors by deterring repeat offenses and establishing a record of conduct across the event. Their function is corrective and preventative—not punitive.

Not every minor misstep requires direct judge involvement. If players notice an error immediately and resolve it among themselves in a way all consider fair, a judge need not step in. Likewise, if the players are fully aware of the game state but are communicating in a way that could confuse an observer, the judge’s role is simply to ask for clarification—not to assign a penalty. As long as the game continues smoothly, this lighter touch is both acceptable and encouraged. Significant problems, however, must be handled by identifying the relevant infraction category and following the procedures associated with it.

Because consistency is crucial, the authority to diverge from this guide’s instructions lies solely with the Head Judge. Even then, such departures should occur only in rare, extraordinary circumstances where the guide offers no applicable philosophy—situations well outside normal tournament experience. Routine factors such as the tournament round, the skill or age of a player, a desire to be lenient, or the experience of a judge do not justify deviation. Any judge considering an exception must first consult the Head Judge.

Judges themselves are not exempt from error. When a ruling is made incorrectly or misinformation is given, the judge should acknowledge the mistake and correct it if doing so does not compromise the game. When a player commits a violation specifically because they relied on flawed information provided by tournament staff, the Head Judge may reduce the penalty accordingly. Likewise, if a player takes an action in a game based on mistaken judge advice, the Head Judge may authorize a roll-back to that moment, provided that restoring the game state is practical and does not create further confusion or imbalance.

This document outlines the principles and procedures used to identify, address, and resolve rule violations in VTES tournaments. By applying these guidelines consistently, judges help ensure that every contest within Vampire: The Eternal Struggle remains fair, orderly, and enjoyable for all who take part.

1.1. Definition of Penalties

1.1.1. Caution

A Caution is the lightest penalty available to a judge. It is used for very minor infractions that are immediately fixable, cause no lasting disruption, and do not create strategic advantage (e.g., A player unintentionally picks up two cards from their library when they were supposed to draw only one). A caution is purely verbal. A caution must include:

a brief explanation of what rule or policy was violated,
a clear reminder of the correct procedure, and
information about what could happen if the mistake is repeated.

Cautions do not need to be recorded in the official penalty system, but the floor judge should inform the Head Judge so that patterns of behavior can be noticed if needed.

This penalty encourages education without escalation and is appropriate when a simple clarification is enough to restore proper play.

1.1.2. Warning

A Warning is a formally tracked penalty issued when incorrect play or a procedural problem has occurred and requires some time to fix (e.g., a player performs only a single riffle shuffle of their library after searching for a card before offering it to be cut), or when a minor issue has escalated into something that does affect the game state.

The purposes of a Warning are:

to notify the players and judges that a rules problem occurred,
to ensure the infraction is part of the permanent record in the V:EKN Penalty Database, and
to discourage repeat offenses.

Warnings must be:

communicated clearly to the player,
explained in detail (what happened, why it was wrong, and what the consequences of a repeat are),
reported to the Head Judge, and
submitted for permanent tracking.

If the resolution of the issue takes longer than a minute, judges may grant a time extension (see 1.2.4. Guidelines for Applying Time Extensions), so the penalized table does not lose tournament time due to a ruling.

1.1.3. Standings Adjustment

A Standings Adjustment is a severe, formally tracked penalty issued when a player’s infraction warrants consequences beyond a Warning but does not justify removing the player from the tournament (see Disqualification).

Instead of altering the game state, a Standings Adjustment imposes tournament-level scoring consequences that meaningfully affect standings while preserving the integrity of the multiplayer game.

Purpose of a Standings Adjustment

The purposes of a Standings Adjustment are:

to apply a significant consequence that impacts the player’s ranking without distorting the ongoing table dynamics,
to ensure that serious infractions have measurable effects on tournament progression.

Effect of the Penalty

When a player receives a Standings Adjustment during an ongoing game, the –1 VP penalty applies to that same game.

When a player receives a Standings Adjustment between preliminary rounds or after the last preliminary round, the –1 VP penalty applies to the previous game they played, because there is no guarantee that the player will participate in the upcoming round (if any). That is why, in this exceptional case, the penalty should be applied retroactively.

When a player receives a Standings Adjustment before round 1 pairings are announced, the –1 VP penalty applies to round 1.

Standings Adjustments always affect the player’s standings for the event and may influence qualification, seeding, or placement, because this penalty modifies VP totals, which may in turn alter Game Win (GW) determination and Tournament Points (TP) derived from that round.

A Standings Adjustment does not directly change GWs or TPs.
However, because a GW is awarded to the player with the highest VP total at the table, the –1 VP penalty may change who receives the GW.
Any change in VP status will naturally change the TPs awarded for that round, following the standard Tournament Rules.

Example 1:

If a player wins 3–2 and receives a –1 VP penalty, their final VP becomes 2.

If this causes a tie for highest VP, the result becomes a 2–2 tie (no GW).

TPs are then awarded according to the Tournament Rules for a 2–2 tie.

Example 2:

Player A sweeps a 5-player table and therefore gets 5 VP and the GW. Player E, who scored 0 VP received a Standings Adjustment during this game, and now has –1 VP. Player A receives the full 60 TP for first place. The three players tied for 2nd–4th receive the average of the Tournament Points for those positions—(48 + 36 + 24) / 3 = 36 TP each. The penalized player, now solely in 5th place, receives 12 TP.

Communication and Tracking

Standings Adjustment must be:

clearly communicated to the penalized player,
explained in detail, including what occurred, why it was a severe infraction, and how Standings Adjustment scoring works,
reported immediately to the Head Judge, and
submitted to the V:EKN Penalty Database as part of the permanent disciplinary record.

Additional Considerations

If the judge’s investigation or communication takes more than a minute, a time extension may be granted so the affected table does not lose tournament time due to the ruling (see 1.2.4. Guidelines for Applying Time Extensions).

1.1.4. Disqualification

A Disqualification (DQ) is the most serious tournament penalty. A DQ always includes a Warning and results in the player being removed from the event.

A Disqualification may be issued for:

deliberate cheating,
activity that threatens the competitive integrity of the tournament,
serious or repeated unsportsmanlike conduct,
obstructive or abusive behavior,
actions that endanger others or disrupt the event beyond repair.

Key Details

The penalized player loses their current round and is dropped from the tournament.
Prizes are reassigned according to final standings.

If the disqualified player would have earned a prize not yet awarded, it is passed to the next eligible player.
If the prize was already awarded, the organizer may reclaim it if appropriate (e.g., trophies, finalist prizes). Participation items already distributed to all players (e.g., promo cards) are not subject to reclaiming.

Disqualification may also apply to non-players (spectators, staff, etc.) whose behavior compromises the event.
The Head Judge must determine that the player acted knowingly and intentionally. Once this determination is made, disqualification is mandatory. Definitive proof is not required; the Head Judge need only have sufficient grounds to conclude that the player's conduct threatens the integrity of the event.
Disqualifications must be submitted to the designated penalty database.
Disqualifications arising from intentional acts that compromise competitive integrity or player safety must be reported to the VEKN Ethics Committee. Disqualifications used solely as a tournament control measure, including those resulting from accumulated unintentional infractions or non-malicious safety concerns, do not require escalation.

DQ Effects

The disqualified player is removed from standings entirely.
Remaining players move up in rank and receive any additional prizes or qualifications associated with their new placement.

Game State Adjustment After a Disqualification

When a player is disqualified during an ongoing game, the judge must update the game state in a way that is fair, minimally disruptive, and consistent with VTES ousting rules. A DQ is not an oust and must not award Victory Points or pool as if an oust had occurred.

1. Remove the Player Immediately

The disqualified player’s turn ends immediately.
All of their minions, cards in play, uncontrolled region, pool, hand, and any other game materials are removed from the table.
Ongoing effects controlled by that player end instantly unless the card explicitly states otherwise when its controller leaves play.

2. No Victory Points Are Awarded

The predator of the disqualified player does not gain a Victory Point.
No pool is gained for “ousting” the DQ’d player, because a DQ is not a game action or game result—it is an administrative removal.

3. Table Position Adjustments

The predator and prey of the removed player become adjacent.
The game continues from the next legal opportunity as if the DQ’d player had never been seated between them.
Effects depending on seating order (e.g., The Coven) adapt to this new adjacency.

4. Restarting the Table

Restarting the round is allowed but strongly discouraged, and should only be used during five-player games when:

The DQ occurs very early (e.g., before or during the first round of turns).
The disruption caused by removing the player would destroy reasonable competitive integrity (e.g., vote balance, predator–prey relationships were not yet meaningfully established).

If restarted:

During a Preliminary Round

The table is reseated as a four-player table.
All players rebuild and reshuffle their decks for a new game.
The DQ’d player does not participate.

During a Final Round: If a restart is required during a five-player final, the procedure differs because finals must always consist of five players. In this case, the next highest-ranked player on the premises from the overall standings (e.g., the first player who did not originally make the final) is seated into the game. That player assumes the seat appropriate to their ranking under standard final-round seating rules, as do the other four players, and the entire pre-final seating process (e.g. crypt display and in-order seat selection) must be conducted again.

5. Handling Edge Cases

If a player gained pool or other benefits explicitly caused by an action involving the now-disqualified player (e.g., effects that triggered earlier that turn), those results remain unless they were themselves illegal or corrupted by the infraction that led to the DQ.
Judges should avoid cascading corrections unless a clear unfair advantage exists.
If the DQ occurred because of a corrupted game state (e.g., cheating that affected previous turns), the Head Judge may roll back or partially repair the game state following the rules in Section 1.4.

6. Judge Discretion

The Head Judge may deviate from the above if:

The standard fix produces a clearly inequitable result, or
The timing of the DQ interacts disastrously with multiplayer dynamics.
Any deviation must be explained to the table and reported in the final written DQ report.

1.2. Applying Penalties

The Tournament Conduct & Infraction Guide applies to all sanctioned VTES events. However, certain infractions may not be relevant to every tournament. For instance, events without decklists will naturally exclude decklist-related violations. When an infraction is discovered—whether by a player, a judge, or any tournament official—the appropriate penalty should be applied as soon as possible, ideally during the same round in which the infraction occurred. If a decklist problem or an illegal card is noticed during play, the judge should intervene immediately.

Once a tournament has been concluded and officially approved, infractions that were not identified and ruled upon during the event are not subject to retroactive penalties or standings adjustments, except in cases of proven intentional misconduct handled by the VEKN Ethics Committee.

1.2.1. Escalation of Penalties

Each infraction lists a recommended penalty for the first offense. Repeated offenses of the same infraction should escalate according to the following order:

Warning → Warning → Standings Adjustment → Standings Adjustment → Disqualification

This creates the following structure:

If an infraction has a baseline penalty of Warning:

1st offense: Warning
2nd offense: Warning
3rd offense: Standings Adjustment
4th offense: Standings Adjustment
5th offense: Disqualification

A player disqualified under this provision retains any prizes already awarded and remains eligible to receive any additional prizes earned during the same tournament.

If an infraction has a baseline penalty of Standings Adjustment:

1st offense: Standings Adjustment
2nd offense: Standings Adjustment
3rd offense: Disqualification

Escalation of penalties is applied independently within each tournament event. Penalties recorded at previous events do not automatically advance the escalation sequence in a current event.

However, previously recorded Warnings for the same infraction remain visible to judges and serve as contextual information. For the purposes of judging:

Any number of prior Warnings for the same infraction may be treated collectively as a single pre-existing Warning.
This pre-existing Warning does not count as an additional step in the current event’s escalation sequence.
Judges may take this history into account when evaluating intent, credibility, or whether an infraction represents a recurring behavioral pattern.

If a player demonstrates a consistent pattern of the same infraction across multiple events, the Head Judge may consider whether the behavior warrants closer scrutiny, earlier judge intervention, or reclassification under Unsportsmanlike Conduct where appropriate.

Disqualifications resulting solely from penalty accumulation must be based on infractions committed within the same event.

1.2.2. Issuing Significant Penalties

Any Standings Adjustment or Disqualification should be communicated to the Head Judge. It is strongly recommended that only the Head Judge issue penalties of this magnitude, except in clear decklist errors. The Head Judge is also responsible for approving any deviation from the default procedures.

A player does not need to be registered in the tournament to receive a penalty. If a non-player or unregistered individual incurs a penalty of Standings Adjustment or higher, the judge must (1) temporarily add them to the event roster to record the infraction, and (2) assign them a VEKN number immediately, so the penalty can be properly documented and retained for future escalation.

Penalties remain valid even if the penalized individual drops or withdraws before the penalty would otherwise take effect.

1.2.3. Communication and Transparency

Whenever a penalty is issued, the judge must clearly explain three things to all involved players:

What the infraction was,
How the game state will be corrected or handled, and
What the penalty is, including escalation rules if relevant.

If the Head Judge decides to deviate from the standard Tournament Conduct & Infraction Guide, they must explain both the standard remedy and the reason why the deviation is justified.

1.2.4. Guidelines for Applying Time Extensions

Time extensions exist to ensure that players are not disadvantaged because a judge had to intervene, investigate, or explain a ruling. They do not compensate for time lost due to normal game discussion or table talk—only for time lost specifically because of judge action.

Depending on the tournament logistics, lost time may be compensated either by adding time to the table or by stopping the clock while the judge intervention occurs. Both approaches serve the same purpose and should be applied consistently.

The method used (time extensions, clock stops, or a combination of both) must be clearly announced by the Head Judge at the start of the tournament.

Clock Stopping

If the tournament uses individual table timing or a visible round clock, the Head Judge may establish a clock-stop procedure, such as:

Automatically stopping the clock when a judge is called to the table.
Stopping the clock only when explicitly instructed by a judge.
Not using clock stops at all, relying instead on added time extensions.

When to Issue a Time Extension

A time extension should be granted when:

The judge spent a meaningful amount of time at the table (typically one minute or more) handling a ruling, investigation, clarification, or warning.
The delay was caused by procedures the players could not control, such as:

Slow Play investigation
Game Rule Violation investigation
Player questions requiring judge confirmation
Resolving a dispute or unclear interaction
Issuing a penalty that requires explanation

A time extension should not be granted when the delay was caused by:

Normal table talk or negotiation
Players slowly making decisions (this is part of the game pace, not a judge delay)
Players asking unnecessary questions unrelated to a ruling
Players arriving late (this is covered by tardiness penalties, not extensions)

How Much Time to Add

Use the following baseline:

Brief ruling (30–60 seconds): No extension normally needed.
Standard investigation or ruling (1–3 minutes): +2 minutes
Complex investigation (3–5 minutes): +3 to +5 minutes
Major disruption (over 5 minutes): +5 to +10 minutes, depending on the situation.

Judges should apply extensions conservatively but consistently.

Never add more time than was actually lost due to judge activity.

How to Apply the Extension

Announce clearly to the table: “This table receives a 3-minute time extension due to judge intervention.”
Record the extension:

On the result slip, or
In the judge’s tracking sheet, or
In the software if it supports it.

The table’s new ending time should be communicated clearly and, if possible, written down.

Multiple Time Extensions During the Round

If multiple judge interventions occur during the same round:

Time extensions stack.
Judges may cap extensions at 10 minutes total, unless:

A major disruption occurred (medical emergency, venue issue, etc.), or
The Head Judge authorizes a larger extension.

Example Applications

Example 1: Slow Play Investigation

A judge observes slow play, issues a Caution, and explains expectations.

Total judge time: 2 minutes → +2 minutes extension.

Example 2: Complex Interaction Dispute

Two players disagree about the interaction of multiple replacement effects.

Judge consults rulebook and resolves the issue.

Total judge time: 4 minutes → +4 minutes extension.

Example 3: Quick Clarification

A player asks whether an effect is optional. Judge answers in 20 seconds.

→ No extension.

Example 4: Multiple Rulings

Two different rulings during the round: +3 minutes and +2 minutes.

Total = +5 minutes.

1.2.5. Consistency and Protection Against Bias

Some infractions include mandatory remedies beyond the base penalty. These additional procedures exist to shield tournament officials from accusations of bias, favoritism, or inconsistency. As long as judges follow the written procedures, any dissatisfaction from players is directed toward the policy itself rather than toward the integrity of the judge.

Because of this, judges should not attempt to “improve” or “optimize” a penalty’s effect based on the current game state, seating order, strategic balance, or perceived fairness. Even small deviations—especially when attempting to repair complicated states—create risk of unintentional favoritism or overlooked consequences. Adhering to consistent, text-based procedures preserves the integrity of the tournament.

1.2.6. Handling Linked Infractions

If a single error results in multiple related infractions, judges should issue only the infraction with the most severe penalty. This prevents unnecessary duplicate penalties and ensures clarity for both players and judges.

1.2.7. Assessing Intent

VTES is a highly political and asymmetrical game in which suboptimal, indirect, or counterintuitive plays are often strategically valid. Players may sacrifice short-term advantage, assist another player temporarily, or choose conservative lines of play for long-term survival. For this reason, outcome alone is never sufficient to determine intent.

Judges must assess intent carefully, conservatively, and with an awareness of the game’s political nature.

General principles

Assume good faith by default: Intentional misconduct must be supported by observable behavior, not inferred from disagreement with a player’s strategic choices.
Evaluate patterns, not isolated actions: A single unusual play is rarely sufficient. Repeated behavior that consistently produces the same external benefit or harm is more relevant.
Consider the game context: Pool totals, table position, timing, deck archetype, and remaining time are critical to understanding whether a decision can reasonably advance the player’s interests.
Player explanations matter: Judges should give players an opportunity to explain their reasoning. An explanation does not need to be correct, only plausible within the game state.

Situations Where Intent Is Commonly Relevant

Intent assessment may be required in several types of rulings, including but not limited to:

Not Playing to Win: Determining whether a player is making genuine attempts to maximize Victory Points or survival, versus deliberately abandoning their own chances in order to affect the outcome for others.
Stalling vs. legitimate Slow Play: Distinguishing between complex decision-making or negotiation and deliberate time manipulation to preserve an advantageous position or deny others scoring opportunities.
Collusion vs. Political Cooperation: Temporary alliances, mutual non-aggression, or reciprocal actions are normal in VTES. Collusion requires evidence of prearranged, outcome-determinative cooperation that persists beyond reasonable in-game incentives.
Cheating vs. Procedural Error: Repeated “mistakes” that always benefit the same player, selective memory of mandatory effects, or inconsistent rules application may indicate intent rather than accident.
Aggressive Behaviour vs. Emotional Frustration: Judges must distinguish between visible frustration and conduct intended to intimidate, disrupt, or pressure other players.
Rage-Quitting vs. Forced Drop: Leaving the table may be due to external emergencies, but abrupt departure in response to game events may indicate unsportsmanlike intent.

What Judges Should Not Do

Do not punish players for poor play.
Do not infer intent solely from table talk, threats, or promises unless they are accompanied by concrete actions.
Do not escalate penalties based on speculation or personal judgment of “how the game should be played.”

Practical Guidance

When intent is unclear:

Ask neutral, factual questions.
Observe subsequent behavior.
Prefer the least severe ruling consistent with the facts.
Document the incident for pattern tracking if necessary.

Only when intent is reasonably established should judges apply penalties that rely on intentional misconduct, especially Standings Adjustments or Disqualifications.

1.3. Randomizing a Library

Several corrective procedures in this document require the judge to re-randomize the library. Before doing so, the judge must determine whether any part of the library is currently known or arranged in a non-random order. Players should be consulted to confirm whether such manipulation has occurred. In addition, the judge should review the cards in the ash heap, the cards removed from the game, and any cards in play that may have influenced the order of the library.

Once the randomized portion has been identified and separated, the judge may shuffle that portion. After the shuffle, any cards whose positions were legally known or fixed are returned to their appropriate locations.

Shuffles carried out by a judge for the purpose of a ruling or infraction remedy do not count as game shuffles and cannot trigger any card effects.

1.4. Game State Corrections

1.4.1. Rolling Back the Game State

Correcting an infraction may require rolling back the game state to the moment immediately before the error occurred. Because VTES involves hidden information, triggered effects, and complex action sequences—particularly during blocks, combat, and reaction timing—roll-backs must be complete and sequential: all actions taken after the error must be reversed in strict reverse order, with no steps skipped, omitted, or selectively preserved.

A proper roll-back must return the game to a state in which:

No player’s subsequent decisions were meaningfully shaped by information gained after the point of error.
The reconstructed sequence of actions—excluding the erroneous one—would plausibly unfold the same way.

Because VTES decision trees branch rapidly, roll-backs should be attempted only in situations with very few subsequent choices or hidden effects.

Only the Head Judge may approve a roll-back. However, at events using the multi-judge system, if a decision is required in a game where the Head Judge is seated as a player, that authority automatically passes to the secondary judge. If both the Head Judge and the secondary judge are seated in the same game, the responsibility passes to the next available judge (third, then fourth, and so on).

To execute a roll-back, the judge reverses each action in precise reverse order from the most recent to the point of the error. When a card that must be returned to a hidden area is unknown to one or more players (e.g., a card drawn into a hand), the judge selects a random card from among all legal candidates in that hidden area.

Cards revealed or known due to the erroneous action must be returned to the random portion of the library and the library shuffled—unless those cards were subsequently drawn into a hand, in which case their identity is now public and shuffling them back would be inappropriate.

Roll-backs involving hidden or random elements should be attempted with extreme caution, particularly if they risk producing a final configuration that differs meaningfully from what the player would have obtained during normal play. For example, judges should generally avoid returning cards to the library when the player controls effects that allow shuffling or searching unless the correction is absolutely necessary.

Some infractions allow a simple roll-back, meaning the judge reverses only the most recently completed game action. A simple roll-back must not involve randomization of any kind and is used only when a small correction cleanly resolves the situation without affecting prior decisions.

If a roll-back would require reconstructing multiple branching decisions, involve heavy randomization, unwind several turns of play, or meaningfully alter decisions based on now-public information, then a strict roll-back is not appropriate. In such cases, the judge must instead apply a Partial Game State Correction (see Section 1.4.2), which modifies the current game state without attempting full reconstruction.

1.4.2. Partial Game State Corrections

In some cases, an illegal game state is discovered long after the original error occurred, making a full roll-back infeasible. Partial game state corrections exist solely to prevent an illegal state from persisting when it is no longer possible to restore the game to a prior point without causing further disruption, randomization, or distortion.

A partial state correction is a remedy applied when:

A strict roll-back (as defined in section 1.4.1) cannot be safely executed due to the amount of hidden information revealed, the number of decisions taken, or the complexity of subsequent game actions, and
Leaving the illegal state in place would grant a continuing advantage or distort the integrity of the game.

A partial correction does not constitute a roll-back, and must not involve reversing sequences of actions, reordering past decisions, or randomizing past draws. Instead, it removes or neutralizes only those elements of the game state that are currently illegal, while altering as few other elements as possible.

A judge applying a partial correction should follow these principles:

Remove the Illegal Element
The illegal card in play, pool or blood counters, or effect must be removed from the game state in the least disruptive way available.

If a card was played without meeting its requirements, the judge typically removes it from play and places it in the ash heap unless the card’s nature requires another destination.
If an effect improperly modified attributes (blood, life, capacity, etc.), the judge may correct the attribute only if doing so does not depend on unwinding past actions.

Minimize Collateral Changes
Judges must adjust only the minimum necessary elements to restore legality. Changes that depend on reconstructing past actions, card draws, or mandatory effects must not be attempted.
Do Not Attempt to Recreate Past Game Flow
Once a partial correction is used, past sequences are accepted "as played," even if those sequences would have unfolded differently had the error been caught immediately.
Avoid Randomization Unless Absolutely Necessary
Partial corrections should not involve shuffling or hidden-information adjustments unless the illegal element currently resides in a hidden area and cannot legally remain there.
Consult the Head Judge
Partial corrections must be approved by the Head Judge whenever possible, as they require significant judgment and can materially affect game outcomes.

2. Procedural Errors

This category covers mistakes arising from incorrect or imprecise execution of game procedures or rules—essentially, anything that disrupts proper play of VTES but does not fall under cheating or unsportsmanlike conduct.

Given that there are many ways a game procedure can be carried out incorrectly, this document cannot list every possible case. Instead, judges should use the following guidelines to evaluate how to treat a procedural mistake and apply an appropriate penalty.

Because deceitful players can exploit procedural errors to gain an advantage or mislead opponents, this category has a strict escalation policy.

2.1. Procedural Error — Missed Mandatory Effect

Definition:

A player commits this infraction when they fail to demonstrate awareness of a mandatory effect generated by a card or game effect under their control before that effect should visibly impact the game.

Examples:

A player forgets to burn 1 pool for an Anarch Revolt in play.
A player controls a ready vampire with no blood, who must hunt as the first action of the turn. Instead, the player announces a bleed action with another vampire as their first action.

Philosophy:

Players are expected to track their own mandatory effects. Minor missed mandatory effects should not generate harsh penalties unless they significantly affect the game state.

If the judge believes the player intentionally ignored their own mandatory effect, see section 4.7. Unsportsmanlike Conduct – Cheating.

Penalty:

Caution.

If the mandatory effect is detrimental to the controlling player, or missing it creates an advantage, the penalty is upgraded to a Warning.

Additional Remedy:

If the missed mandatory effect can still be resolved without major disruption, the judge may instruct the player to apply it immediately. Otherwise, the game continues with the current state.

2.2. Procedural Error — Card Access Error

Definition:

A Card Access Error occurs when a player gains access to cards they were not entitled to see or draw, or fails to access cards they were required to draw, at any point during the game.

This includes looking at extra cards, drawing too many cards, drawing too few cards when required, or drawing cards at an incorrect time (including errors made during the initial draw at the start of the game).

Card Access Errors involve only accidental access or missed access to hidden information. If the judge believes the action was intentional, the infraction should be evaluated under Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Cheating.

Examples:

A player picks up two cards from their library when they were supposed to draw only one.
A player accidentally reveals or looks at the top card of their library while shuffling their hand.
A player forgets to draw to their full hand size at the end of their minion phase.
During setup, a player draws an incorrect number of cards for their initial hand.
A player resolves an effect that instructs them to draw a card but fails to do so, only noticing several turns later.
A player draws a card before fully announcing its effects.

Philosophy:

VTES relies on controlled access to hidden information. Errors involving card access can unintentionally distort strategic decisions, alter bluffing dynamics, and create unfair advantages.

The purpose of this infraction category is to ensure that players handle hidden areas consistently and that gains or losses of information—whether through extra cards or missed draws—are corrected promptly and transparently.

Most Card Access Errors are unintentional. The goal of the judge is to restore as much fairness as possible while maintaining the fluidity of multiplayer play. Repeated carelessness, however, can significantly harm the integrity of the game and must be tracked accordingly.

Penalty:

Caution.

A Caution is issued for a Card Access Error.

Intentional misuse of hidden information must be upgraded to Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Cheating, which carries a Disqualification.

Additional Remedy:

The judge should do the following:

Reverse or mitigate information gain whenever possible.
Return extra cards to the appropriate area (library, hand, ash heap) in a fair manner.

If the extra cards are identifiable (verified by a judge or witnesses), return those specific cards to the appropriate hidden area and shuffle, ensuring the player retains no illegal knowledge.
If the extra cards are unidentifiable, remove the appropriate number of cards at random from the hidden area (e.g., the hand) and shuffle them into the appropriate hidden area (e.g., the library).

Complete required draws if the player failed to draw when obligated.
Reconstruct the game state only insofar as it does not compromise the integrity of hidden information.

If any fix requires additional clarification or unusual correction, the Head Judge makes the final determination.

2.3. Procedural Error — Game Rule Violation

Definition:

This infraction covers most situations in which a player violates the rules of VTES or performs a game procedure incorrectly, when the error is not covered by another specific category.

Examples:

A player pays an incorrect blood cost for a card.
A player plays a legal card (Conditioning) but incorrectly declares its effect, applying the text of a different card (Bonding). This is a straightforward misapplication of card text and game rules.
A player attempts to perform an action that their minion is not allowed to perform.
A player plays a master card whose requirements does not meet (e.g., they play an Art Museum when they do not control a ready Toreador.)
A player attempts to play Parity Shift when there is no legal target available.
A player places a card in the wrong area (e.g., a Dark Influences card in the ash heap instead of in play).

Philosophy:

Although the violation is attributable to one player, VTES’s multiplayer structure means that all players must remain attentive to the shared game state. This infraction must be handled consistently regardless of impact.

Penalty:

Caution, if the violation can be fixed with a simple roll-back, or with a correct declaration of the played card’s effect.

Warning, if the violation cannot be fixed with a simple roll-back.

Additional Remedy:

The judge should attempt to correct the game state with the least disruptive option available. The following hierarchy applies:

Simple Roll-back

Undo the action to the point just before the error:

If the correct card was played but its effect was declared incorrectly, require the player to correctly declare the effect of the played card.
If the player clearly and unambiguously declared a legal card, but mistakenly placed a different legal card from their hand, treat the declared card as the card played, provided that:

the declared card is legal and was in the player’s hand at the time,
the declaration unambiguously identifies a single card,
no replacement card has been drawn,
no hidden information has been revealed,
and no player decisions were made that depended on which physical card was played.

Partial Fix

Apply a targeted correction when the error fits a basic reversible pattern, such as:

A minion failed to unlock during their unlock phase (same turn).
An illegal mandatory choice was made (e.g., invalid target).
A card is in an incorrect area and can be cleanly moved to the correct one.
A card was illegally played and can be shuffled back into the library if hidden information was revealed.

Structured Forward Fix

If a roll-back is too disruptive and no partial fix applies, apply a forward correction that removes any advantage gained: unlock minions improperly locked, restore costs, return resources, or randomize hidden areas as needed.

If the correction would be too disruptive, the judge may leave the game state as-is.

If the opponent(s) could reasonably have noticed the error but failed to do so, they may also receive a Procedural Error — Failure to Maintain Game State.

2.4. Procedural Error — Failure to Maintain Game State

Definition:

A player fails to assist in maintaining an accurate and legal game state when they notice a visible, relevant, and ongoing Game Rule Violation made by another player and reasonably have the opportunity to speak up, but do not do so.

This infraction applies only when the judge determines that the player actually noticed the error (through clear evidence, statements, or circumstances). It does not apply to situations where the player was distracted, did not observe the action, or could not reasonably be expected to recognize the mistake.

This infraction also does not apply to missed mandatory effects, which are handled separately.

Examples:

A player sees their predator announce a Govern the Unaligned bleed action with a vampire who is already locked, but says nothing and lets the action proceed.
A player plays a second master card in the same turn without an extra master-phase-action–granting effect in play, and the additional master card is plainly visible to everyone at the table; another player notices but remains silent.
A player notices that an acting vampire performs a non-repeatable action twice in the same turn and does not call attention to the mistake.
A player realizes that another player sent a vampire into torpor without paying the cost of Claws of the Dead but does not mention the oversight.
A player attempts to transfer more pool than allowed to an uncontrolled vampire, and another player sees the incorrect number of pool counters moved but says nothing even though this is a highly visible part of the turn sequence.

Philosophy:

VTES is a shared-information multiplayer game in which all participants have a collective responsibility to maintain a correct and fair game state. While players are not expected to monitor every detail at all times, they are expected to speak up when they recognize a clear and ongoing violation.

This penalty exists to reinforce the cooperative nature of game-state maintenance, not to punish players for being momentarily inattentive or for failing to perceive subtle interactions. Judges should only issue this infraction when it is evident that the player actually noticed the error and chose not to intervene. It is not intended to create cascading penalties for every mistake—only to address situations where silence allows an illegal state to persist.

Penalty:

Standings Adjustment.

Repeated offenses in Procedural Error — Failure to Maintain Game State will never escalate in severity.

3. Tournament Errors

3.1. Tournament Errors — Deck Problems

This section addresses issues involving deck construction and deck integrity at both Constructed and Limited events. The primary purpose of deck checks and decklist use is to ensure that decks remain legal and unaltered for the duration of the tournament.

3.1.1. Deck Problem — Illegal Decklist

Definition:

This infraction only applies at tournaments where decklists are required.

A decklist is considered illegal if any of the following conditions apply:

The list contains fewer cards than the format minimum or otherwise violates card-count requirements.
The list includes cards that are banned or not legal in the format.
The list is unclear or ambiguous in a way that would allow a player to alter the deck after submission.

This infraction also covers cases where the decklist must be corrected due to unavoidable card loss during the tournament (e.g., a card goes missing and cannot be replaced).

Examples:

A player registers 58 library cards for a Constructed event (minimum is 60).
A player lists Madness of the Bard, which is banned.
A player writes “Haven” when the format contains multiple cards with that name fragment (“Haven Affinity”, “Haven Hunting”, “Haven Uncovered”).
A player lists Arika (a group-2 vampire) and Lutz von Hohenzollern (a group-4 vampire).
A player loses some cards mid-event and cannot produce legitimate replacements, making it impossible for the deck to match the submitted list.

Philosophy:

The decklist is the authoritative reference for what the player intends to play throughout the event. Because a list that is illegal, unclear, or mismatching can provide opportunities for abuse, judges must ensure lists are accurate and unambiguous.

A Standings Adjustment is appropriate only when decklist errors harm tournament integrity or cannot be corrected without disadvantage to opponents.

If the Head Judge determines that a shorthand name on the decklist clearly and unambiguously refers to a specific card—based solely on what is written—the penalty may be reduced.

Decklist errors found outside a game (e.g., during routine deck counting) are normally applied at the start of the player’s next round, unless there is clear evidence that the actual deck being used was itself illegal.

Penalty:

Warning, unless the main deck and decklist are both illegal and cannot be reconciled without substantially altering the deck; in that case:

Standings Adjustment, and the player receives five minutes to adjust the decklist so the physical deck becomes legal.

Additional Remedies:

Remove banned or illegal cards from the decklist.
Correct unclear entries when their meaning is unambiguous.
If the player is short of cards and cannot replace them with the intended originals, they must add basic, universally available cards (e.g., simple “Blood Doll”, “Wake with Evening’s Freshness”...) to reach the minimum deck size, and the decklist is updated accordingly. These substitutions may be reverted later without penalty if identical originals are found.
Modify the decklist to match the legal deck the player is actually playing, provided that does not conceal misconduct.
For incorrect crypt grouping:

If the decklist includes vampires from illegal crypt groups, the Head Judge must correct the crypt to a legal configuration.

The judge determines the correction.
Any substituted vampire must be legal, unambiguous, and no more advantageous than the original.
Common neutral substitutions (such as Anarch Convert) may be used only if they do not confer a strategic benefit in the current game context.

If the illegal vampire has already entered play:

The judge may replace them with a legal vampire of equal or greater capacity.
Excess pool spent is not refunded, and blood may be adjusted to avoid advantage.
If a fair correction is not possible, the judge may require the vampire to be removed from play.

All corrections must aim to restore legality while preserving competitive integrity and avoiding retroactive optimization.

3.1.2. Deck Problem — Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist)

Definition:

This infraction applies only when decklists are in use.

A player has an illegal main deck even though the decklist is legal if:

The deck’s card count is illegal (too few or too many cards).
The deck contains cards that are illegal for the event.
The deck contains vampires with incorrect crypt grouping.
The deck’s contents do not match the registered decklist.

This includes misplaced cards from previous games or missing cards from the player’s own deck.

Examples:

A player presents 59 library cards while 60 appear on the decklist.
A player has “Anthelios: The Red Star” (a banned card) in their deck.
A player has both Enkidu (a group-4 vampire) and Beast, The Leatherface of Detroit (a group 2-vampire) in their deck.
A card from a previous opponent is accidentally mixed into the deck.
An altered card whose artwork makes the card unrecognizable.

Philosophy:

When the decklist is legal but the deck itself is not, the priority is to restore the deck to match the list.

For differences where the listed card has requirements incompatible with the deck crypt, and the actual card in deck matches the crypt (e.g., a player running only Gangrel crypt cards listed "Campground Hunting Ground" instead of "Zoo Hunting Ground"), the judge corrects the decklist instead.

Penalty:

Standings Adjustment.

After the penalty, the player must adjust the deck to match the list (or vice versa, if the judge determined that the decklist was the source of the error). All corrections must be complete before the next round begins for the player to continue.

Additional Remedies:

Retrieve any out-of-place cards (e.g., in other players’ decks, on tables, etc.).
Identify all incorrect cards in all areas, reveal them to opponents, and replace them with the correct cards.
If more cards are being removed than added, remove non-library cards first; if replacements still exceed removals, replace cards using random cards from the library.
If the missing card came from another player’s deck, issue penalties to both players.

3.1.3. Deck Problem — Illegal Main Deck (No Decklists Used)

Definition:

This applies at events where decklists are not used (e.g., some storyline events, small store events).

A deck is illegal if:

The deck’s card count is illegal (too few or too many cards).
The deck contains cards that are illegal for the event.
The deck contains vampires with illegal grouping.
The deck contains improper proxy cards (black and white, unclear printing, etc.) and/or Dark Pack cards.

Examples:

A Constructed deck has only 58 library cards.
A player includes a banned card such as Madness of the Bard.

Philosophy:

Even without decklists, players must begin the tournament with a legal deck.

Disqualification is not appropriate for unintentional deck errors; instead, judges should correct the deck swiftly and prevent abuse.

Penalty:

Standings Adjustment.

After the penalty, the player must adjust the deck to make it legal. All corrections must be complete before the next round begins for the player to continue.

Additional Remedies:

Remove all illegal cards immediately.
If the deck is below the minimum legal size, add cards using a neutral, objective, and non–strategy-altering procedure. Judges must follow one of the following methods (chosen before making any additions and applied without deviation):

Add copies of a neutral filler card, such as a Burn-Option card or Anarch Convert, until the minimum deck size is reached.
Add additional copies of the card that already appears in the highest quantity in the player’s library, repeating this card until the deck reaches the minimum size.
Add cards in descending order of frequency already present in the library (e.g., if the deck contains 8 × Govern the Unaligned, then 7 × Conditioning, then 6 × Deflection, add one copy of each in that order until the required size is met).
Filler cards must be proxy cards provided by tournament organizers, only valid for use in that event and must be either discarded after the tournament or returned to the tournament organizers.

These procedures must be applied strictly and without tailoring to the specific matchup or game situation, ensuring no targeted strategic advantage is created.

If cards must be removed to fix the deck (e.g., the deck is oversized), remove random cards until the deck meets all requirements.
Once corrected, the player continues in the next round with a legal deck.
For incorrect crypt grouping:

If the deck contains vampires from illegal crypt groups, the Head Judge must correct the crypt to a legal configuration.

The judge determines the correction.
Any substituted vampire must be legal, unambiguous, and no more advantageous than the original.
Common neutral substitutions (such as Anarch Convert) may be used only if they do not confer a strategic benefit in the current game context.

If the illegal vampire has already entered play:

The judge may replace them with a legal vampire of equal or greater capacity.
Excess pool spent is not refunded, and blood may be adjusted to avoid advantage.
If a fair correction is not possible, the judge may require the vampire to be removed from play.

All corrections must aim to restore legality while preserving competitive integrity and avoiding retroactive optimization.

3.2. Tournament Error — Outside Assistance

Definition:

A player, spectator, or other tournament participant commits Outside Assistance if, after a game has started, they provide or receive strategic, tactical, or hidden-information input that could influence decisions in an ongoing game, or if they reference pre-prepared strategic materials while the round is in progress.

Outside Assistance includes any attempt to gain or transmit information originating outside the current game’s natural flow of table talk or outside what a player may legally know at that moment.

Outside Assistance does not include:

Reviewing one’s own decklist during an event.
Taking notes about the ongoing game, as long as doing so does not slow play.
Discussing finals seating choices before players sit down at the finals table.
Ordinary table talk (including negotiation, speculation, or commentary) occurring naturally among the players currently seated at the same table.

Outside Assistance does include:

Receiving strategic or tactical advice from anyone not seated in the current ongoing game.
Giving strategic or tactical advice to someone already seated for their ongoing game.
Sharing private or hidden information (hand contents, uncontrolled region contents, top card of the deck, master phase options, etc.).
Referring during the round to notes, documents, guides, or analyses created before the round began (other than official card text and/or your own decklist).

These criteria also apply during deck construction or crypt/library review in limited formats. No notes of any kind may be taken during a draft. Notes created outside the current round may only be referenced between games and must have been in the player’s possession since the beginning of the round.

Examples:

A player asks a friend standing behind them, “Should I rescue my vampire or let him torpor?” during an ongoing game.
A spectator whispers to a player, “Your prey has a Deflection in hand; don’t bleed yet.”
During a draft, a player secretly writes down which clans they see being passed to track signals.
A player discreetly text-messages a teammate asking what the correct line of play is in the current situation.
A player who has already finished their game quietly indicates to a friend at the same table which minion is the biggest threat.

Philosophy:

VTES tournaments are designed to evaluate each player’s own skill, decision-making, and table negotiation abilities—not their ability to follow external advice.

Any strategic suggestion, tactical recommendation, or construction advice from an outside source undermines competitive integrity.

Minor card annotations that clarify game text or provide very simple reminders are acceptable; however, detailed strategy notes or instructions written on cards are not.

The Head Judge is the final authority on what constitutes acceptable card markings or notes. Spectators who commit this infraction may be removed from the venue if they are not participants in the event.

Responsibility:

When Outside Assistance occurs, responsibility is assigned based on each participant’s role in the infraction:

The individual who provides unsolicited strategic, tactical, or hidden-information assistance is considered the primary offender.
A player who solicits, accepts, or knowingly benefits from Outside Assistance is also committing this infraction.
If both the provider and the recipient are players in the event, both may be penalized, with penalty severity determined by intent, impact on the game state, and whether the assistance was solicited.
If a player immediately rejects the assistance and calls a judge, the judge may mitigate or waive penalties for that player.

Penalty:

Standings Adjustment. The penalty is applied to the offending party or parties as determined under Responsibility above.

3.3. Tournament Error — Slow Play

Definition:

A player is committing Slow Play when they take significantly more time than is reasonably necessary to perform game actions, make decisions, or maintain the natural pace of the table.

In VTES, this includes delaying actions, reactions, or referendum decisions beyond what is appropriate for a multiplayer environment.

If the judge believes the player is deliberately consuming time to influence the outcome of the round or to protect their tournament position, the appropriate infraction is Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Stalling, not Slow Play.

Examples:

A player repeatedly rereads minion cards in another player’s ash heap or uncontrolled region without relevant changes in game state.
A player excessively hesitates before announcing basic decisions (e.g., whether to block, whether to make transfers, how to cast votes) while the table waits.
A player takes an unreasonable amount of time to shuffle their library after an effect requiring a shuffle.
A player leaves the table to check standings or go to the bathroom without judge approval, causing the table to wait.
A player consistently delays announcing the target of an action, or repeatedly asks for clarifications they do not act upon, slowing down the game for the entire table.

Philosophy:

VTES is a multiplayer game where slow decisions do not just affect one opponent—they disrupt the pacing for all other players at the table. Players must act within a reasonable timeframe so that the game can progress naturally and fairly within the round limit.

Slow Play is not intended to punish thoughtful decisions—it penalizes unreasonable delays that negatively impact the game experience for the table.

Penalty:

Caution.

A Caution is issued when a player’s pace of play is excessively slow and has required judge intervention. Judges issuing this penalty should abstain from using the word “stalling” in their verbal reminders, and should use expressions like these instead: "Please play faster" or "you are playing a little slow, please increase the pace."

Additional Remedy:

If Slow Play has consumed significant round time, the judge may issue a time extension to the table (see 1.2.4. Guidelines for Applying Time Extensions) so players are not disadvantaged by the ruling process.

3.4. Tournament Error — Limited Procedure Violation

Definition:

A Limited Procedure Violation occurs when a player makes a technical or procedural mistake during a VTES draft portion of an event.

These errors involve handling boosters, picks, or draft timing incorrectly, but do not involve gaining unauthorized information or attempting to cheat.

This category applies only to draft-based limited formats.

Examples:

A player passes a booster to the left when that round of the draft requires passing to the right.
A player takes longer than the allotted time to make their pick.
A player places a card on top of their drafted pile, then tries to take it back and change their pick.
A player tilts their head or eyes to look toward other players’ hands or draft piles at inappropriate times (without actually seeing hidden information).

Philosophy:

Draft procedures must run smoothly and consistently so that all players receive the same information and timing.

Even small disruptions—passing in the wrong direction, falling behind the timer, or mishandling picks—can cause confusion and compromise fairness for the entire pod.

The goal of this infraction category is not to punish honest mistakes, but to maintain order and pacing in the draft, ensuring every player has a fair drafting environment.

Events may include additional draft instructions, and the Head Judge has final authority to clarify and enforce them.

Penalty:

Caution.

A Caution alerts the player that they have disrupted the draft procedure and must correct their behavior immediately.

If the judge believes the error resulted in gaining unintended information, the infraction may instead fall under Card Access Error or Outside Assistance, depending on the circumstances.

Additional Remedy:

The judge should:

Correct the draft flow (direction, timing, or pick order).
Restore the booster or card to the appropriate place if possible.
Provide a brief reminder of draft procedures to the pod if needed.
Apply a time extension (see 1.2.4. Guidelines for Applying Time Extensions) only when the judge’s intervention has meaningfully slowed the pod.

3.5. Tournament Error — Public Information Miscommunication

Definition:

A Public Information Miscommunication occurs when a player provides incorrect, misleading, or incomplete information about publicly available game elements.

This infraction does not apply to general misunderstandings or ambiguous board states.

Examples:

A player is asked how much pool they have and replies “eleven,” but they actually have nine.
A player asks, “How much blood is on your vampire?”, and the controller replies “Two” when the vampire actually has three.
A player claims that their minion has +1 intercept from a permanent effect when it does not.
A player announces a "bleed for 1" with a minion that bleeds for 2 because they have a bleed bonus.
A player incorrectly states which Methuselah currently has the Edge.

Philosophy:

Accurate communication is essential in VTES, especially in a multiplayer environment where table decisions rely heavily on shared, public information.

Although some communication errors may involve intent, many are honest mistakes that should not be punished excessively. The purpose of this infraction is to maintain clarity and fairness, not to assume malice.

Penalty:

Warning.

The player receives a Warning, which is logged and tracked. Repeated violations will never escalate, unless they significantly impact gameplay or tournament fairness.

Additional Remedy:

If the faulty communication directly led to a specific in-game action (or clear non-action), the judge may consider a roll-back to the point of the affected action, not to the moment when the incorrect communication occurred. Roll-backs should be used carefully to avoid revealing information that could alter decision-making.

3.6. Tournament Error — Obscuring Game State

Definition:

A player creates or maintains an ambiguous, confusing, or misleading physical game layout that obscures public information or makes it difficult for others to correctly interpret the game state. This infraction applies only when the issue is caused by unclear presentation rather than incorrect verbal communication (which is covered under 3.5. Tournament Error — Public Information Miscommunication).

Obscuring the game state includes, but is not limited to:

Overlapping or stacking cards in a way that hides information normally visible to all players.
Placing cards in non-standard positions that blur the distinction between controlled, uncontrolled, locked, ready, or torpor cards.
Failing to clearly separate minions, equipment, and other attachments, causing confusion about which cards are associated with which vampire.
Grouping or positioning pool/blood/life counters in a way that creates uncertainty or risks creating an erroneous game state, such as placing active pool counters and "blood bank" counters too close together.
Persistently presenting the play area in a disorganized manner after being instructed to clarify it.

Philosophy:

Clear visual presentation is essential in VTES. The game relies heavily on publicly visible information, and ambiguous layouts can lead to misunderstandings or unintentional advantage. While such issues may not involve deception, they degrade the clarity of shared game state and must be corrected promptly.

This infraction exists to ensure the physical layout remains readable and standardized. It does not assume malicious intent, nor is it appropriate for situations where a player verbally communicates incorrect information (handled by Public Information Miscommunication). Instead, it addresses the physical clarity of the play area itself.

Penalty:

Caution.

Additional Remedies:

The judge instructs the player to immediately reorganize the play area into a clear, conventional layout, separating minions, attachments, locked states, and areas as appropriate. If necessary, the judge may physically assist in reorganizing the cards (with player consent) to restore clarity.

3.7. Tournament Error — Marked Cards

Definition:

A player’s cards or sleeves show physical inconsistencies that could allow the player (or an opponent) to identify specific cards or groups of cards while they are in the library, crypt, or hand.

These inconsistencies may include—but are not limited to—scuffs, bends, fading, nail marks, curvature, or differences in card backs, thickness or sleeves.

If opaque sleeves are used, the sleeves are evaluated instead of the cards. If clear sleeves are used, both sleeves and actual cards are considered.

This infraction covers two severities:

Minor (No Significant Pattern): Some cards are marked, but not in a way that correlates to card type, clan, discipline, card function, or game relevance.
Patterned (Significant Pattern): The markings correspond clearly to card categories or to specific impactful cards, offering meaningful advantage.

Examples:

Minor / No Significant Pattern

A few sleeves have small scuff marks distributed across random library and crypt cards with no obvious correlation.
Three cards show slight corner wear, but they belong to unrelated card types (e.g., one master, one action, one action modifier).

Patterned / Significant Pattern

All reaction cards with wake effects have slightly bent corners.
A deck contains several Jyhad-backed reaction cards within an otherwise fully VTES-backed library.
All copies of a key card (e.g., Deep Song or Deflection) are in sleeves that curve noticeably more than the rest.
All crypt cards with titled vampires show a slight, consistent right-edge wear.

Philosophy:

Cards and sleeves naturally accumulate wear over the course of a tournament.

If the markings do not form a pattern, the potential for advantage is minimal, and educating the player plus correcting the issue is usually sufficient.

However, when the markings form a pattern that correlates to card functionality, the potential for advantage becomes substantial. Being able to identify when a player is about to draw a bleed card, a wake, a master, or a critical vampire undermines fair play.

This infraction assumes the markings were created unintentionally unless there is strong evidence otherwise.

Penalty:

Minor / No Significant Pattern: Warning.
Patterned / Significant Pattern: Standings Adjustment.

Additional Remedy:

The player must replace the marked sleeves or cards with unmarked versions as soon as possible.
If clear sleeves are used and the cards themselves are worn, the Head Judge may issue proxies for damaged cards.
If the player cannot fix the problem (e.g., they lack replacement sleeves), they must re-sleeve the entire deck or obtain sleeves from judge staff if available.

If a player cannot bring their deck into a legal, unmarked, and uniform state within a reasonable timeframe, and no replacement sleeves can be procured by either the player or tournament staff, the player must be removed from the event.

If the deck must be modified because certain cards cannot be replaced, the penalty is upgraded to a Standings Adjustment, and the decklist is updated to match the new configuration. This modification may be reverted later if suitable replacements are found.

3.8. Tournament Error — Insufficient Shuffling

Definition:

A player unintentionally fails to sufficiently shuffle their library or crypt, or a portion of either, before presenting it for additional randomization by another player.

A deck (library or crypt) is not considered shuffled if the judge believes the player could know the position or distribution of one or more cards.

This includes situations in which the player forgets to shuffle after an effect that requires it, or uses shuffling procedures that do not adequately randomize the cards.

Examples:

A player searches their library during an action (e.g., Magic of the Smith) and forgets to shuffle afterwards.
A player performs only a single riffle shuffle of their library after searching for a card before offering it to be cut.
A player pile-shuffles their library mid-game in a patterned manner and does not follow it with sufficient randomization.

Philosophy:

Players are expected to know how to shuffle and to apply proper randomization whenever required.

Because any other player may cut (or shuffle, if offered) the deck afterwards, the potential for advantage is reduced if tournament procedure is followed correctly.

However, any time cards in a deck become visible, whether during manipulation, searching, or careless shuffling, the deck is no longer considered randomized, even if only a few positions are known.

Patterned pile-shuffling is permitted only at the start of the game.

Stacking, weaving, or similar manipulations are acceptable only if followed by thorough randomization.

Judges should educate players when this infraction occurs, as improper shuffling often results from misunderstanding rather than intent.

If the judge believes the player is manipulating the deck intentionally to control draws, this should be upgraded to Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Cheating.

Penalty:

Warning.

Additional Remedy:

Thoroughly shuffle the affected portion of the deck (library or crypt).

If only a subset of cards became unrandomized, only that portion needs to be shuffled, but the judge may require a full shuffle if deemed necessary for game integrity.

4. Unsportsmanlike Conduct

4.1. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Minor

Definition:

This conduct refers to behavior that is disruptive, disrespectful, or emotionally charged, but does not target a specific individual with the intent or effect of harassment, intimidation, or coercion.

It typically involves brief lapses in etiquette, such as raised voices, rude remarks, or emotional outbursts, that negatively impact the environment of the table but do not create a hostile or unsafe atmosphere.

The key elements are that the behavior is non-targeted, situational, and easily correctable once the player is made aware of the issue.

Examples:

A player becomes visibly irritated during a rules discussion or negotiation and speaks in an overly loud or hostile tone, causing discomfort at the table but not directing personal insults at anyone.
A player uses indecent tournament items, e.g., playmats or sleeves with explicit nudity or otherwise excessively provocative or insulting/inflammatory imagery.
A player improperly demands that a judge issue a penalty to another participant.
A player appeals directly to the Head Judge without allowing the floor judge to deliver a ruling first.
A player reacts to an in-game setback—such as a failed action or a bad combat result—by expressing frustration in a disruptive way (slamming a hand on the table, muttering angrily), but without targeting another player.
A player reacts disrespectfully to another player's decisions (eye-rolling, sarcastic remarks, visibly annoyed gestures), creating an unpleasant environment but not directing hostility personally at someone.
A player briefly adopts an intimidating posture—leaning forward abruptly, pointing aggressively, or crowding the table space—but the behavior does not persist or directly target a specific opponent.
A player leaves significant trash, food containers, or personal items in the play area after leaving the table.
A player fails to follow a tournament official’s instruction to leave or temporarily step away from the play area.
A player repeatedly interrupts negotiations or discussions between other players at the table without being directly involved.
A player slams their cards on the table and says loudly: “This table is ridiculous! Nothing is going my way today!”.
An altered card contains offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive content.

Philosophy:

VTES tournaments rely heavily on social interaction, negotiation, and a cooperative atmosphere. All participants are entitled to a safe, respectful, and enjoyable environment. When a player’s conduct crosses acceptable boundaries—whether through language, attitude, or disruptive actions—they must be made aware that such behavior is unacceptable so that the overall tournament environment can be maintained.

Penalty:

Warning.

Additional Remedy:

The player must immediately correct the disruptive behavior.

4.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Major

Definition:

This conduct involves targeted, aggressive, or coercive actions directed at another player, judge, or participant in a way that creates a hostile, unsafe, or intimidating environment.

This includes persistent or escalated verbal aggression, personal insults (related to race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.), intimidation during negotiations, or any conduct that reasonably makes another participant feel harassed, threatened, or singled out.

The focus is on behavior that goes beyond emotional disruption and becomes personal, pressuring, or humiliating, even if the offender did not intend malice; the impact on other participants is the determining factor.

Threats or attempts at physical violence must be treated as Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Aggressive Behavior.

This infraction can occur even if the offender did not intend harm; impact takes precedence over intent.

Examples:

A player uses a racial or discriminatory slur toward another participant.
A player deliberately uses threatening body language or an intense, confrontational tone aimed at a specific opponent to pressure them into making a deal or avoiding certain actions.
A player directs demeaning or hostile comments specifically at another participant—about their decisions, play skill, or personal traits—in a way that is intended to influence gameplay or undermine the opponent emotionally.
A player repeatedly directs anger at the same person, escalating from frustration into a sustained, personal attack that creates an unsafe or hostile atmosphere at the table.
A player attempts to force another participant into compliance by behaving aggressively—leaning in, speaking in a sharp or menacing tone, or using threatening gestures—making the targeted person feel unsafe or pressured.
A player repeatedly misgenders another player or spectator.
A player takes photos or videos of another participant without their explicit permission, including during negotiations at the table.
A player pursues unwanted personal interactions (such as romantic advances).
A player intentionally blocks another participant’s movement, attempting to provoke physical contact.
A spectator uses social media or public chat channels connected to the event to mock, threaten, or harass a participant.

Philosophy:

A VTES tournament must provide a safe and respectful environment for all attendees.

Harassment—whether verbal, digital, or physical—undermines both the safety and the integrity of the event. Because VTES relies heavily on social interaction and negotiation, maintaining a respectful atmosphere is essential for fair play.

When a player creates a harmful or hostile situation, judges must intervene immediately.

Matches involving this infraction should be stopped, and the involved individuals separated. The offender should be removed from the immediate area to receive the penalty and to prevent further escalation. Education about why the behavior is unacceptable should be provided, regardless of the offender’s intent.

If an investigation shows that the actions do not meet the threshold for Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Major, judges should still talk with the involved parties to prevent further issues or misinterpretations.

Penalty:

Standings Adjustment.

Additional Remedy:

The player must correct the behavior immediately, and a written report of the incident should be submitted to the VEKN Ethics Committee.

Upgrade:

If the behavior was committed with malicious intent, the player shows no remorse, or the offense occurs again at a later time, the penalty is Disqualification and removal from the venue, and the behaviour must be reported to the VEKN Ethics Committee.

4.3. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Aggressive Behaviour

Definition:

A player engages in behavior that is physically threatening, violent, or intentionally damaging toward another person, their belongings, or tournament property.

This includes any action that could reasonably make another individual fear for their safety or that constitutes physical intimidation.

Examples:

A player threatens physical harm to another player who refuses to support a deal or concede an endgame situation.
A player forcibly pulls a chair away from another participant, causing them to fall.
A player verbally threatens a judge after an unfavorable ruling.
A player destroys or attempts to destroy another player’s cards or materials.
A player intentionally flips or strikes a game table.
A spectator aggressively confronts a player in a way that causes fear of physical escalation.

Philosophy:

Maintaining a safe and respectful environment at VTES events is absolutely essential.

Physical intimidation, violence, or threats—whether directed at people or property—are never tolerated. The multiplayer and socially interactive nature of VTES does not excuse hostile conduct under any circumstances.

This infraction requires immediate removal of the offending individual to protect the tournament community.

Penalty:

Disqualification.

Additional Remedy:

The tournament organizer must instruct the offender to leave the venue immediately. Further action, including reporting the incident to the VEKN Ethics Committee may be necessary depending on severity.
Table-Flipping:

The judge must immediately halt the game, ensure the safety of all participants, and secure the area. If there is any risk of injury or further disruption, the table is closed until the situation is fully under control.
If possible, the judge should attempt to reconstruct the game state using reliable information (visible cards, known pool totals, counters, and unanimous player agreement). Reconstruction is only acceptable if it can be done with high confidence and minimal dispute.
If the game state can be reliably reconstructed, the game may resume with a time extension sufficient to compensate for the interruption.
If the game state cannot be reliably reconstructed, the judge must terminate the game.
Judges should take reasonable steps to avoid penalizing the remaining players for the disruption. This may include awarding a time extension, adjusting seating if the round must be restarted, or applying tournament-level remedies defined for irrecoverable game interruptions.
The incident and all remedial actions must be documented in the tournament report, including whether the game was resumed, terminated, or otherwise adjusted.

4.4. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Bribery and Wagering

Definition:

A player offers, requests, hints at, or accepts any out-of-game incentive intended to influence the outcome of a game or match—such as encouraging an opponent to concede, intentionally alter their play, agree to a particular oust order, or manipulate victory point distribution.

This includes any attempt to trade prizes, cards, favors, or other benefits in exchange for a specific in-game or match result.

Wagering occurs when any player or spectator places, accepts, or offers a bet on the outcome of a VTES tournament, a round, or any portion of play (e.g., number of Victory Points achieved, which player will be ousted first, etc.). The wager does not need to be monetary, and it does not matter whether the bettor is involved in that particular game.

Examples:

During a preliminary round, a player offers their predator a cash payment to concede so they can secure a spot in the finals.
A player offers to give a rare VTES card to their prey if the prey agrees to allow an unopposed oust.
A player suggests that they will concede “if you give me part of your prize support.”
Two players agree before the match that the winner will receive a card or booster pack from the loser’s belongings.
Two spectators make a wager on how many Victory Points a particular player will score during the round.
A player attempts to negotiate an intentional draw in exchange for non-game benefits.

Philosophy:

Bribery and wagering undermine the competitive integrity of a VTES event, especially given the importance of social negotiation in normal gameplay. Negotiation about in-game actions is a fundamental part of VTES, but negotiation about match results, concessions, or prize outcomes is strictly prohibited.

Any attempt to influence tournament results through incentives, rewards, or outside agreements severely compromises the fairness and legitimacy of the competition and must be penalized immediately.

Penalty:

Disqualification. A written report of the incident should be submitted to the VEKN Ethics Committee.

4.5. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Theft of Tournament Material

Definition:

A player takes, conceals, or intentionally retains materials that do not belong to them and that are part of the tournament environment. This includes cards, tokens, counters, seating materials, or any equipment provided by the event or belonging to other participants.

Examples:

A player removes cards from another player’s crypt or library between rounds.
A player takes a table number or other tournament property.
A player notices that they have an opponent’s card after the round and chooses to hide it rather than informing a judge.
A player pockets communal components (e.g., blood counters or pool counters) that were supplied by the organizer.

Philosophy:

Tournament participants must be able to trust that their cards, deck boxes, and any materials provided for play will remain secure. While players are responsible for monitoring their belongings, they should never have to worry about theft within the event.

Theft erodes the integrity of the tournament environment and is completely unacceptable.

Theft of non-tournament personal property is primarily the responsibility of the Tournament Organizer, though judges should assist when appropriate.

Penalty:

Disqualification.

Additional Remedy:

The Tournament Organizer must require the offender to leave the venue immediately. Further reporting to the VEKN Ethics Committee may be warranted depending on the severity of the incident.

4.6. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Stalling

Definition:

A player intentionally delays the progress of the game—through inaction, excessively slow decision-making, or unnecessary procedural delays—in order to take advantage of the round time limit.

If the slow pace is not intentional, refer to Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.

Intentional stalling in VTES is particularly harmful because game outcomes, table VPs, and tournament standings can all be influenced by the passage of time.

Examples:

A player is in a favorable board position and repeatedly “thinks” for long periods during trivial decisions to reduce the likelihood that other players can meaningfully respond before time expires.
A player who is currently leading the table in Victory Points deliberately slows down their influence phase or minion phase to avoid giving others a chance to catch up.
A player who is close to being ousted intentionally prolongs their decisions to run down the clock, hoping the game will time-out before they are eliminated.
A player intentionally takes excessive time resolving mandatory effects or sequencing actions, without any strategic purpose other than consuming time.
A player performs all steps in the last few minutes, when they used routine shortcuts earlier in the game, e.g., “ready for strikes” to “nothing before range, waiting on the response, no maneuver, waiting on the response, no pre-strike, waiting on the response” or “any blocks” to “block from prey, waiting on response, block from predator, waiting on response”.

Philosophy:

Stalling attacks the fundamental fairness of VTES. Because time management significantly affects scoring and tournament advancement, intentionally manipulating the pace of play is considered cheating.

What is important to note is the behavior change, especially when a player is in an advantageous position or near the end of the game. If a player has been consistent about the time taken between steps throughout the game, they should not be forced to alter their normal pace just so another player can get a turn.

Any deliberate effort to exploit the clock—whether to protect an advantage, avoid an oust, or deny others opportunities to score—is intolerable.

Stalling is a severe infraction and is always treated as an intentional act. Judges must investigate promptly when suspicious patterns occur, especially in timed rounds or final tables.

Penalty:

Disqualification.

Additional Remedy:

The player must leave the venue if instructed by the Tournament Organizer. Judges should document the incident thoroughly for reporting purposes.

4.7. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Cheating

Definition:

A person intentionally violates the rules or tournament policies, lies to a tournament official, or becomes aware of a significant offense occurring in their game, and chooses not to report it.

For an action to be considered Cheating, the following must be true: The player is aware that their action is illegal and either attempts to gain an advantage or engages in conduct explicitly defined as Cheating in the policy (including lying to a tournament official or failing to report a known significant offense).

If these criteria are not met, the offense is not Cheating and should be handled as another infraction (e.g., Procedural Error, Tournament Error, or Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Minor/Major).

Cheating in VTES may initially resemble a simple procedural or gameplay mistake; judges must investigate intent and awareness before determining the appropriate infraction.

Examples:

A player intentionally alters the results on a game report without the other players at the table knowing.
A player lies to a judge about the game state or the order of actions to influence a ruling in their favor.
A player knowingly allows another player to lock, burn blood, or resolve an action incorrectly in a way that benefits them, and chooses not to report the error.
A player notices that an opponent failed to apply a mandatory effect—such as burning blood for a card cost or resolving a combat effect fully—and intentionally decides not to call attention to it.
A player secretly looks at another player’s crypt or library cards during deck setup or shuffling.
A player adds cards to their library or crypt that were not part of their registered decklist.
A player realizes they have drawn an extra card from their library or crypt, or manipulated the order of cards, and chooses not to call a judge to avoid receiving a penalty.

Philosophy:

Cheating destroys the integrity of VTES as a social and competitive game.

Because VTES relies heavily on negotiation, trust, and shared information about the game state, intentional deception or manipulation outside the permitted boundaries of gameplay is especially harmful.

Players who knowingly break rules for personal advantage—whether by action or deliberate inaction—undermine the fairness of the entire event. These behaviors cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.

Judges must investigate potential cheating carefully, separating genuine mistakes from intentional misconduct. Once intent and awareness are established, the penalty is mandatory.

Penalty:

Disqualification.

Additional Remedy:

The offender should be removed from the venue at the Tournament Organizer’s discretion.

A written report of the incident should be submitted to the VEKN Ethics Committee.

4.8. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Fraud

Definition:

A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other information relevant to the tournament.

Examples:

A player registers for a tournament using a false name or an incorrect VEKN ID.
A player falsely claims that a commonly played card works in a completely different way, hoping their opponent will not check the card text.
A player knowingly explains a tournament procedure incorrectly (e.g., seating rules, time extensions, tiebreakers) to gain an advantage.
A player pretends to misunderstand the current game state to justify an illegal action they already planned to take.
A player hides the fact that they received additional boosters or promo cards at a limited event and secretly adds them to their deck.
A player forges or alters information on an Archon sheet, such as VP totals or final standings.
A player intentionally misreports the result of a game to improve their own standings or hurt another player’s ranking.

Philosophy:

Fraud undermines the integrity of the tournament and the trust of the community. There is zero tolerance for this behavior.

Penalty:

Disqualification. A written report of the case should be submitted to the VEKN Ethics Committee.

4.9. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Collusion

Definition:

Players deliberately agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the outcome of a game or match.

This includes any agreement intended to manipulate standings, table results, or tournament progression outside the normal and permitted negotiation that occurs during VTES gameplay.

Examples:

A player agrees to let a friend oust them without resistance in order to improve the friend’s chances of making the final table.
With two players remaining, both agree to flip a coin to decide which one will concede and grant the other the Game Win.
Two players at different tables coordinate concessions to influence who advances to the finals.
Players privately agree before a round begins on who will “take the table” regardless of in-game dynamics.

Philosophy:

Because VTES is a negotiation-based multiplayer game, table talk and in-game deals are expected, provided they follow strict limitations.

A deal or agreement is not Collusion as long as all of the following are true:

No incentives outside the current game are offered (no money, cards, favors, etc.).
Everything is discussed openly at the table, with no secret arrangements or off-table conversations.
No random method (coin flip, die roll, drawing a card, etc.) is used to determine a winner or concession.
The agreement does not attempt to predetermine tournament outcomes beyond what is possible through normal, legal in-game play.

If an agreement or behavior violates any of these conditions, it ceases to be acceptable negotiation and becomes Collusion.

Penalty:

Disqualification. A written report of the case should be submitted to the VEKN Ethics Committee.

4.10. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Health & Safety Disruption

Definition:

A player commits a Health & Safety Disruption infraction when their physical condition or behavior creates an unsafe, unsanitary, or severely uncomfortable environment for other participants, or when it prevents them from reasonably participating in the event.

This includes (but is not limited to):

extreme hygiene issues that significantly disturb other players,
visible intoxication or substance impairment that affects gameplay or conduct,
any behavior that poses a health or safety risk to participants.

Philosophy:

Tournament organizers must maintain a safe, respectful, and comfortable play environment. While minor personal issues or harmless discomforts are not penalized, situations that materially affect other players’ ability to participate or concentrate must be addressed promptly and discreetly.

The goal is correction, not punishment; judges should handle these cases with professionalism and confidentiality.

Penalty:

Warning → Removal from the venue (if uncorrected).

The judge should first give a private request to correct the issue (e.g., stepping outside to freshen up, taking a break to recover, etc.).

If the problem cannot be corrected quickly or is severe, the proper remedy is removing the player from the tournament with no additional penalties.

Additional Notes:

Judges must treat these cases respectfully and avoid shaming language.
Medical conditions must be handled sensitively; if in doubt, default to accommodation rather than punishment.
Alcohol and substance policies must follow the venue’s legal rules.

4.11. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Rage-Quitting

Definition:

A player commits Rage-Quitting when they intentionally abandon an ongoing game in anger or frustration—by leaving the table, refusing to continue play, or otherwise making it impossible for the game to proceed—without judge authorization and outside of legitimate event procedures (e.g., medical emergency).

Examples:

A player stands up, packs their cards, and leaves the table mid-game after an unfavorable outcome.
A player verbally refuses to take further game actions and ignores judge instructions to continue play.
A player intentionally concedes by departing the venue or going absent without notifying a judge, causing the table to halt.
A player forcefully ends their participation (e.g., scooping cards and walking away) as a reaction to being targeted, before the game state can be properly resolved.

Philosophy:

VTES tournaments rely on all players remaining engaged until the game ends through normal ousting procedures or judge-approved resolutions. Rage-Quitting undermines competitive integrity, disrupts the experience of the other players at the table, and can unfairly affect scoring, timing, and tournament standings. This behavior is unsportsmanlike and intentional by nature.

Penalty:

Disqualification.

Additional Remedies:

The disqualified player is immediately removed from the game and the event.
The judge must update the game state in a fair and minimally disruptive way, treating the player as no longer present at the table (see 1.1.4. Disqualification: Game State Adjustment After a Disqualification).
The judge may issue a time extension to the table if the disruption consumed significant round time.
Additional sanctions may be considered if the behavior is aggressive or disruptive to staff or players.

4.12. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Failure to Play to Win

Definition:

In a tournament setting, each player is expected to make game decisions aimed at maximizing their own success according to the rules. A player commits Failure to Play to Win when they intentionally play in a way that does not.

For the purposes of VTES, playing to win means the following, in descending order of priority:

The player must attempt to win the table (game win) by achieving a strict majority of victory points (at least 2 VP, and more than any other player).
If a game win is no longer realistically achievable, the player must attempt to gain as many victory points as possible.
If the player cannot reasonably gain a full victory point, they should attempt to secure a half victory point by surviving until the game ends by time.

Examples of playing to win:

A player who already has the game win with 3 victory points concedes the remaining victory points to their opponent, who currently has 0 victory points, for a 3–2 victory.
A player with no ready minions, 3 pool, and who cannot reasonably expect to survive until the time limit with 30 minutes remaining, self-ousts by transferring their 3 pool to an uncontrolled vampire.
A player openly states that they are no longer trying to improve their result (e.g., threatening to self-oust or to “kingmake”), but continues to take reasonable in-game actions toward survival or scoring. This, by itself, is not an infraction, as table talk, posturing, and negotiation are part of normal VTES play.

A player is not required to succeed in these goals, but is required to genuinely pursue them.

Negotiation, table talk, and deal-making are permitted and unrestricted. Entering into a deal—including a disadvantageous or “losing” one —is not, by itself, an infraction.

Failure to Play to Win occurs only if a player knowingly executes or honors a deal that does not improve, at the time it was made, their chances of winning the game or of maximizing their achievable victory points.

Examples of violations of the play-to-win rule:

A player intentionally refuses to take an obvious oust that would get them the game win, despite having no strategic downside, in order to favor or punish another player.
A player who can no longer win the table deliberately accelerates their own elimination rather than attempting to survive for a half victory point, when the game is close to the time-out.
A player openly states that they are no longer trying to improve their result (e.g., threatening to self-oust or to “kingmake”), and the player’s subsequent actions clearly demonstrate that they have abandoned any attempt to improve their own result—such as deliberately self-ousting or consistently making plays that cannot reasonably increase their chances of scoring.
A player agrees to a deal that, at the time it is made, does not reasonably improve their chances of achieving a game win or maximizing their victory points, and later deliberately follows through on that deal.

These examples assume intent. Suboptimal play due to poor skill, miscalculation, or incorrect game assessment does not constitute this infraction.

Philosophy:

VTES is a multiplayer game where individual decisions have cascading effects on all players at the table. Tournament integrity depends on the assumption that every participant is acting in pursuit of their own best result within the rules of the game.

Failing to play to win artificially alters incentives, rewards or punishes other players unfairly, and can invalidate the competitive meaning of the outcome. While VTES allows for negotiation, diplomacy, and temporary alliances, these must always be tools used in service of one’s own success—not replacements for it.

Judges must evaluate deals based on the player’s intent and reasonable perception of the game state at the time the deal is made. Making deals of any kind is always legal, including deals that may appear unfavorable or “losing,” as players are not obligated to honor them.

A deal is only relevant for this infraction if a player both accepts and deliberately honors it, and doing so cannot reasonably be understood, given the information available at the time, as improving their chances of achieving a game win or maximizing their victory points.

Judges must exercise restraint when applying this infraction. Disagreement with a line of play or unconventional strategy is not sufficient. This infraction applies only when the player’s intent to abandon their own competitive goals is clear.

Penalty:

Warning.

If the player has already acted in multiple self-diminishing ways that cannot be corrected, upgrade to a Standings Adjustment instead.

5. Event Organization

This section generally deals with organizational issues relating to the practical functions of running a tournament.

5.1. Event Organization — Unexpected Drop

Description:

A player leaves the tournament unexpectedly and can no longer continue playing.

Resolution:

If the drop occurs during seating for a 5-player table: Convert the table into a 4-player table.
If the drop occurs during seating for a 4-player table: Re-seat players as needed to form legal table sizes (4 or 5 players), following the procedures in V:EKN Tournament Rules, Section 3.1.2 (Seating).
At large events (such as the European Championship) not using the multi-judge system, if a player drops at a four-player table after all other tables have already begun their rounds, that seat must be filled to preserve the required table size. A tournament official will take the vacant seat as a proxy player (see 5.1.1. Proxy Player), using a deck selected at random from among the decks brought to the event by tournament staff.
If the drop causes the event to no longer be able to create legal tables: The event immediately becomes unsanctioned. Between rounds, adjustments may be made (e.g., the judge joining as a player) to restore sanctioning if possible.
If the drop happens before the first round begins and legal tables cannot be formed: The event is unsanctioned, and no official VEKN or publisher prize support should be distributed.
If the event becomes unsanctioned due to drops during the tournament: Prize support may still be distributed normally. Submit the Archon or event report as usual and note what happened. The event will appear as unsanctioned and will not affect player ratings.

5.1.1. Proxy Player

Definition:

A Proxy Player is a tournament official who temporarily occupies a vacant seat in an ongoing game in order to preserve the required table size and ensure the integrity of the tournament structure.

A proxy player is not a participant in the tournament and does not compete for standings, ratings, or prizes. Their role is purely procedural: to allow the game to continue under valid tournament conditions.

Responsibilities:

A proxy player must:

Play to win in good faith, making reasonable strategic decisions as any normal player would, in accordance with tournament rules.
Avoid bias or favoritism, and not intentionally benefit or harm any specific player.
Maintain a consistent pace of play, neither slowing down nor accelerating the game unnaturally.
Refrain from using external knowledge, including knowledge about players, standings, or the broader tournament state that would not normally be available in-game.
Follow all rules and judge instructions as if they were a regular player.

Deck Requirements:

The proxy player must use a functional and reasonably competitive deck, with a legitimate chance to win a table under normal circumstances.
The deck should be selected at random from a pool of decks provided by tournament officials or staff, to avoid bias.
The deck must be legal for the format and comply with all deck construction rules.
If possible, tournament staff should prepare a small pool of pre-approved decks specifically for proxy use to ensure consistency and avoid unintended advantages.

Scoring and Tournament Impact:

A proxy player does not receive victory points, game wins, or tournament points.
Any victory points or game wins they would obtain are not recorded and have no effect on standings.
For scoring purposes:

A proxy player may still oust and be ousted, and these events affect the game state normally.
Victory points generated by interactions involving the proxy player are awarded to the other players as usual, except that the proxy player does not retain any points.

The presence of a proxy player must not alter the scoring structure for the remaining players beyond what naturally occurs in gameplay.

Philosophy:

The purpose of a proxy player is to preserve tournament integrity, not to influence outcomes.

A four- or five-player table is a fundamental structural requirement of VTES, and allowing a game to proceed with fewer players would significantly distort both gameplay and scoring.

By requiring the proxy player to act as a normal, competitive participant—while removing their results from the tournament—we ensure that:

The game remains strategically valid,
The remaining players are treated fairly, and
The tournament structure is preserved.

5.2. Event Organization — Venue Interference

Description:

The venue imposes constraints that require changing round times.

Resolution:

Adjust round times as needed to satisfy venue requirements.

The event becomes unsanctioned if:

Any round uses a time limit shorter than 2 hours, and
At least one table in that round ends due to time being called.

If a round shorter than 2 hours finishes with no tables reaching the time limit, the event remains sanctioned.
Add notes about venue problems in the event report. As long as the event can be completed, prize support may be distributed normally.

5.3. Event Organization — Force Majeure and Emergency Termination

Definition:

A Force Majeure situation is any unexpected external event that makes it unsafe or impossible to continue a sanctioned tournament. Examples include (but are not limited to):

fire alarms or building evacuations,
prolonged power failures,
severe weather emergencies,
disruptive or threatening behavior from venue staff or unrelated third parties,
any circumstance that compromises the safety of participants or the integrity of the event.

Resolution:

The Head Judge must immediately halt all games and ensure the safety of all participants. Once safety is secured, the Head Judge and Tournament Organizer must determine whether continuation of the tournament is possible.

A. If the Tournament Cannot Continue and Must Be Terminated

Safety First

No further play may occur if the venue is unsafe or the environment is hostile (including aggressive or abusive venue staff). Judges and organizers must direct players to leave the area calmly and regroup only if/when safe.

Standings When the Event Is Terminated Mid-Round
If the tournament cannot resume within a reasonable time frame:

All games in progress immediately end with no further VPs awarded.
Each player keeps the VPs and game wins earned up to the last fully completed round.
Partial rounds do not count for scoring, even if some tables finished earlier than others.
If termination occurs during the final, the event is declared incomplete, and no winner is awarded unless tournament policy requires otherwise.

Prizes and Qualifications
Prizes and titles are distributed based solely on standings from the last fully completed round.

If no rounds were completed, the event is considered void.
Qualifications (e.g., European Championship Day 1 qualifications) follow the same principle: standings from the last completed round.

Reporting
The Head Judge must submit a full written report to VEKN, including:

the nature of the force majeure event,
the decision-making process,
standings at the time of termination,
any safety issues or third-party misconduct.

B. If the Tournament Can Safely Resume After Delay

If the emergency is resolved and the venue becomes safe within a reasonable time:

The Head Judge may restart the round from the beginning (recommended), or
Resume the current round only if all tables unanimously agree and no competitive information has been compromised.

If any table’s game state is corrupted or player safety remains uncertain, the round must be restarted or the tournament terminated as above.

C. Hostile or Obstructive Venue Staff

If abuse or interference from venue employees or management threatens player safety or the integrity of the event:

Judges should treat the situation as a Force Majeure case.
If the venue becomes unsafe or unmanageable, the Head Judge must stop the event and direct players to leave.
The Tournament Organizer may attempt to relocate the event, but continuation is only allowed if:

every player can reasonably relocate,
no game information was compromised, and
the new space meets minimum tournament standards.

If relocation is not possible, the tournament must be terminated and scored as described in Section A.

5.4. Event Organization — Organizer’s / Judge’s Recommended Supplies

Tournament organizers and judges are strongly encouraged to carry a small set of standardized supplies to resolve common issues quickly, fairly, and with minimal disruption to play. Having these materials readily available reduces unnecessary penalties, avoids forced drops, and helps maintain tournament flow.

The following items are recommended:

Sleeves

At least enough identical, opaque sleeves to fully sleeve two complete legal decks (library + crypt).
Sleeves should be of neutral color and quality suitable for competitive play.
These are primarily used to resolve marked-card issues or emergency re-sleeving.

Replacement / Proxy Crypt Cards

A small pool of universally reasonable replacement vampires, clearly marked as judge-issued proxies when applicable.
Common examples include:
Anarch Convert
Group-appropriate low-impact vampires (across multiple crypt groups)
These are used when correcting illegal crypt groupings or replacing lost/damaged crypt cards.
The choice of replacement should prioritize neutrality and minimal strategic impact, not optimization.

Spare Library Cards

A selection of innocuous, universally available library cards that can be inserted to reach minimum deck size if needed, such as:

Basic master cards (e.g., Blood Doll)
Simple reactions with a drawback (e.g., Wake with Evening’s Freshness)
Burn option or no-effect placeholder cards, where appropriate.

These substitutions are temporary and may be reverted later if original cards are recovered.

Basic Tournament Materials

Pens and paper for notes, decklist corrections, or judge logs.
Printed copies (or offline access) to:

Tournament rules
Tournament conduct & infraction guide
Current ban and errata list

Spare blank decklist forms.

Timing and Administration Tools

A stopwatch or timer (physical or digital) for tracking:

Time extensions
Slow Play observations
Investigations

Access to the tournament management system (e.g., Archon) where possible.

Game Aids

Generic blood counters and pool counters.
A small number of neutral tokens or markers for temporary game-state clarification.

Copyright © 2026 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxinteractive.com. All rights reserved. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle and Vampire: The Masquerade® are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Paradox Interactive AB. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX — Penalty Summary

PROCEDURAL ERRORS	PENALTIES
2.1. Missed Mandatory Effect	Caution (minor) / Warning (major)
2.2. Card Access Error	Caution
2.3. Game Rule Violation	Caution (minor) / Warning (major)
2.4. Failure to Maintain Game State	Standings Adjustment
TOURNAMENT ERRORS	PENALTIES
3.1.1. Illegal Decklist	Warning (if minor) / Standings Adjustment (if major)
3.1.2. Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist)	Standings Adjustment
3.1.3. Illegal Main Deck (No Decklist Used)	Standings Adjustment
3.2. Outside Assistance	Standings Adjustment
3.3. Slow Play	Caution
3.4. Limited Procedure Violation	Caution
3.5. Public Information Miscommunication	Warning
3.6. Obscuring Game State	Caution
3.7. Marked Cards	Warning (if minor) / Standings Adjustment (if patterned)
3.8. Insufficient Shuffling	Warning
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT	PENALTIES
4.1. Minor	Warning
4.2. Major	Standings Adjustment
4.3. Aggressive Behaviour	Disqualification
4.4. Bribery and Wagering	Disqualification
4.5. Theft of Tournament Material	Disqualification
4.6. Stalling	Disqualification
4.7. Cheating	Disqualification
4.8. Fraud	Disqualification
4.9. Collusion	Disqualification
4.10. Health & Safety Disruption	Warning → Removal from the venue (if uncorrected).
4.11. Rage-Quitting	Disqualification
4.12. Failure to Play to Win	Warning (if minor) / Standings Adjustment (if major)

Login Form

Main Menu

Rules

Events

Resources

VEKN Tournament Conduct & Infraction Guide

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. General Philosophy

1.1. Definition of Penalties

1.1.1. Caution

1.1.2. Warning

1.1.3. Standings Adjustment

Purpose of a Standings Adjustment

Effect of the Penalty

Communication and Tracking

Additional Considerations

1.1.4. Disqualification

Key Details

DQ Effects

Game State Adjustment After a Disqualification

1.2. Applying Penalties

1.2.1. Escalation of Penalties

1.2.2. Issuing Significant Penalties

1.2.3. Communication and Transparency

1.2.4. Guidelines for Applying Time Extensions

1.2.5. Consistency and Protection Against Bias

1.2.6. Handling Linked Infractions

1.2.7. Assessing Intent

1.3. Randomizing a Library

1.4. Game State Corrections

1.4.1. Rolling Back the Game State

1.4.2. Partial Game State Corrections

2. Procedural Errors

2.1. Procedural Error — Missed Mandatory Effect

2.2. Procedural Error — Card Access Error

2.3. Procedural Error — Game Rule Violation

2.4. Procedural Error — Failure to Maintain Game State

3. Tournament Errors

3.1. Tournament Errors — Deck Problems

3.1.1. Deck Problem — Illegal Decklist

3.1.2. Deck Problem — Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist)

3.1.3. Deck Problem — Illegal Main Deck (No Decklists Used)

3.2. Tournament Error — Outside Assistance

3.3. Tournament Error — Slow Play

3.4. Tournament Error — Limited Procedure Violation

3.5. Tournament Error — Public Information Miscommunication

3.6. Tournament Error — Obscuring Game State

3.7. Tournament Error — Marked Cards

3.8. Tournament Error — Insufficient Shuffling

4. Unsportsmanlike Conduct

4.1. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Minor

4.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Major

4.3. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Aggressive Behaviour

4.4. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Bribery and Wagering

4.5. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Theft of Tournament Material

4.6. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Stalling

4.7. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Cheating

4.8. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Fraud

4.9. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Collusion

4.10. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Health & Safety Disruption

4.11. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Rage-Quitting

4.12. Unsportsmanlike Conduct — Failure to Play to Win

5. Event Organization

5.1. Event Organization — Unexpected Drop

5.1.1. Proxy Player

5.2. Event Organization — Venue Interference

5.3. Event Organization — Force Majeure and Emergency Termination

5.4. Event Organization — Organizer’s / Judge’s Recommended Supplies

APPENDIX — Penalty Summary