Star Wars Unlimited Policy Clarifications

Revised Policy Clarifications Page to be used with new CEG policy document as of 2026-07-21.

The most up-to-date version of any card bans or suspensions can be found at https://starwarsunlimited.com/how-to-play?chapter=rules.

Revisions

TR Section 2

Page 10 - Section 2.4.1 - "Eternal (9.1.2)" and "Trilogy (9.1.3)" should be listed.

TR Section 4

Page 22 - Section 4.2 - One of the sub-bullet points reads “- Sleeves with highly reflective backs and holographic fronts are not permitted.” and should read “- Sleeves with highly reflective backs or holographic fronts are not permitted.”

TR Section 5

Page 25 - Section 5.2.5 - Step 5.B Says ”For Constructed and Competitive or Master matches, the deck does need to match the deck they began the tournament with or their submitted decklist, as appropriate.” and should say, “For Constructed matches of any tier and for Limited Competitive or Master-tier matches, the deck needs to match the deck they began the tournament with or their submitted decklist, as appropriate.”
Page 30 - Section 5.10 - Also refers to Open Pool lists in Limited formats.

TR Section 7

Page 39 - Section 7.6 - The last sentence in the fourth paragraph reads “If they have not gained strategic information, the judge may allow them to reverse the decision of their most recent turn, but not the entire sequence.” and should read “If they have not gained strategic information, the judge may allow them to reverse the decisions of the entire sequence.”

TR Section 9

Page 44 - Section 9.1.3.1 - The final paragraph is cut off. It currently reads “If a player loses game one of the match, they may choose to play the same deck in game two or to play” and should read "If a player loses game one of the match, they may choose to play the same deck in game two or to play their other available deck. The winner of game one will only have one available deck to play." (missing in bold)
Page 47 - Section 9.2.5 Sealed - 8 packs are for competitive destination events, Planetary Qualifiers should still utilize 6 packs.

TR Section 10

Page 49 - Section 10.2 - "Players agreeing to divide up prizes between one or more players, outside of the event’s prize structure, often referred to as “prize splitting,” is a form of collusion and is not acceptable." is duplicated from section 10.1. It should be deleted from section 10.2
Page 51 - Section 10.5 - The final paragraph is cut off. It currently says "Despite not being paired by seed, the player with" but should say "Despite not being paired by seed, the player with the higher seed chooses which player starts with the initiative for game one of each match." (missing in bold)
Page 52 - Player Seating is Assigned Randomly - graphic is mislabeled. Seat one should be opposite seat 8 and playing vs. seat 5. Two should be opposite seven and playing six. Three should be opposite six and playing seven. Four should be opposite five and playing eight.

CPG Section 2

Page 63 - Section 2.4 - Any reference to Inaccurate Mandatory Ability or Incorrect Gameplay should now both be rolled in to Illegal Gameplay.

CPG Section 3

Page 66 - Section 3 - Any reference to Inaccurate Mandatory Ability or Incorrect Gameplay should now both be rolled in to Illegal Gameplay.
Page 66 - Section 3.1 - Open Card Manipulation Error Definition and Philosophy is repeated on page 66 and page 67.
Page 70 - Section 3.4 - Any reference to Inaccurate Mandatory Ability or Incorrect Gameplay should now both be rolled in to Illegal Gameplay.
Page 70 - Section 3.4 - Mulligan Error Upgrades are no longer relevant.

CPG Section 4

Page 75 - Section 4.2 - Deck Error Definition is missing "Leader Cards in constructed events" to match the list in TR Section 3.3.2 page 17.
Page 75 - Section 4.2 - Recommend adding a new example
- D. A player is playing counterfeit cards, and is not aware that the cards are not authentic.
Page 75 & 76 - Section 4.2 - The downgrade should be moved to match other infractions.
- [Moved to between Penalty and Examples] “Downgrade: At a Competitive tier event, if this is the first time during the event the player has committed this infraction and the player called attention to their own error, instead issue a Warning. If this error causes an error in the current opponent’s deck and that player has not received a Deck Error previously in the event, the penalty is downgraded for that player as well.”
- [Moved Into Remedy from Downgrade] “If the downgrade is applied, first, locate any cards missing from the deck (frequently with the sideboard) and any incorrect cards in any zone (often the hand or deck). Reveal those cards to the opponent. That player chooses which missing card replaces which incorrect card, if appropriate. If there were more incorrect cards than missing cards, cards not in the deck are replaced first. After this process, if the deck is still missing cards (and the player does not have replacements), cards from the sideboard are selected at random and added to the appropriate zones. For a limited event, begin with cards that match the aspects of the leader and base. The decklist should be edited to note these changes. These changes to the deck and decklist can be undone with no further penalty if the player finds appropriate replacements, either partially or fully. If there are cards not in the deck that need to be replaced, they are replaced by cards in the random portion of the deck. This downgrade does not apply if the opponent may have made decisions based on the presence of incorrect cards.”
Page 78 - Section 4.5 - A new sentence should be added to the Remedy. “If a Warning or Game Loss is issued for Slow Play, in addition to the appropriate time extension for the call, the players should receive one additional action phase during overtime. This additional action phase is not applied if the match has already begun overtime.”
Page 80 - Section 4.8 - The second paragraph in Philosophy should be clarified and expanded slightly. It currently reads “A player improperly marking cards during card pool registration or during deck construction is not a Limited Procedure Disruption as long as it is caught before the end of deck construction.” should read as “A player improperly marking cards during card pool registration or during deck construction is not a Limited Procedure Disruption as long as it is caught before the end of deck construction and can be verified.”

CPG Section 5

Page 85 - Section 5.5 - The first sentence in Philosophy should be expanded with, “Players are allowed to discuss the game state, including Open and Game Information, and can reveal Hidden Information that they legally have access to. Players can use this information to determine if they want to concede, but can not ask their opponent to concede.” This clarifies policy to match previous iterations of documents.
Page 86 - Section 5.6 - The second paragraph of the definition should be extended with a new sentence. "A player who asks their opponent to concede is attempting collusion."
Page 86 - Section 5.6 - Philosophy should be expanded with a new paragraph. “Sometimes players are unaware that these actions are against the rules. While this does not change the impact of bribery, wagering, or two players actively colluding, it means that there’s an opportunity for education for players who inappropriately ask their opponent to concede.”

CPG Appendices

Page 89 - Appendix A - Any reference to Inaccurate Mandatory Ability or Incorrect Gameplay should now both be rolled in to Illegal Gameplay.

Clarifications

Question: How should a Top Cut match be resolved when time is called during Game 2, resulting in a match score of 1-1?

Scenario:

During a top cut single elimination match, Player A wins Game 1.
During Game 2, time is called, and Player B wins Game 2 during the final action phase.
Match score is now 1-1, and no Game 3 is started.

The final paragraph of 5.2.6 references single elimination scenarios specifically, including:

In single elimination rounds, there can not be a draw.
If the round time limit ended between games, players do not start a new game. The player who would have started with the initiative wins the match.

The current wording appears primarily written to address an incomplete Game 3 that ends in a draw, using highest remaining HP on base with an initiative tiebreaker. It does not clearly address a scenario where:

The final game completes with a winner
The match score becomes tied
No third game begins

If a match is tied 1-1 after a completed Game 2, is it functionally equivalent to time ending “between games,” since no Game 3 begins? Which tiebreak procedure applies?

The player with higher base HP at the end of Game 2 advances.
The player who would have had initiative in Game 3 advances.

The final paragraph of 5.2.6 likely needs a rewrite for additional clarity, for example:

In single elimination rounds, a match cannot end in a draw.
If a game ends in a draw due to the end-of-match timing procedure described above, and both players have an equal number of game wins in the match, determine the winner as follows:
- The player with the most remaining HP on their base wins the match.
- If both players have the same remaining base HP, the player who had the initiative when the game ended wins the match.
If after time expires, both players have an equal number of game wins in the match and no further game is started, the player who would have had the initiative at the start of the next game wins the match.

Answer:

Revised language for clarification:

In single elimination rounds, there can not be a draw. After the end-of-round procedure during single elimination rounds, the player who has won more games wins the match. If players have the same number of game wins, the player with the most remaining HP on their base in the current game wins the match. If both players have the same number of game wins and the same remaining HP on their base in the current game, the player who had the initiative when end of round procedure concluded in the current game wins the match. If players have the same number of game wins after the round time limit ended between games or after a game finished during end-of-round procedure, players do not start a new game instead the player who would start the next game with the initiative wins the match.

(Answer shared on 2026-03-11)

Question: How is disclose handled in a judge call?

Cantwell Arrestor Cruiser says:

When Played: You may disclose Vigilance Vigilance Villainy. If you do, exhaust an enemy unit. That unit can't ready while this unit is in play.

Player A plays Cantwell Arrestor Cruiser accidently reveals fewer aspects than required for Disclose. They have the required aspects in hand but since they did not satisfy the "if you do" can they reveal the correct cards to correct the mistake, or is it too late?

What if they don't have it in hand? Do we rewind the entire action?