We’ve had the full Takebacks Policy for DLC Richmond posted, along with some information that suggests this is likely to be very close to the final form of the policy that will be added to the official documentation before DLC Ghent (March 6th-8th, 2026). Let’s go through it, and address some common questions and concerns.
Please note that while most of this post is based on the written policy, it also involves my personal interpretation and application of that policy. “I am a judge, but I am not your judge”-type of thing. OK?
What is a Takeback?
According the latest version of the policy (found on Discord here), a Takeback means “to reverse the previous play in its entirety and allow the player to make a new choice or take a new action”. This can be a single action, or a group of actions performed at once by shortcutting (through the relatively new Out-of-Order Sequencing rules).
See What is a “batch of actions”? for more on that last bit.
What are Takebacks for?
The purpose of the Takebacks Policy allowing for plays to be reversed is to allow players to quickly fix minor mistakes. It’s important to note that the kind of mistakes that can be reversed are very limited, with the main purpose being to avoid players being punished for dexterity errors or forgetting public information about the game state.
When are Takebacks allowed?
Most importantly, when a Lore Guide (Judge) says they are. Players are not permitted to perform takebacks on their own, even with their opponent’s permission. Takebacks must always involve a judge call and are never guaranteed.
Beyond that, the play must have just occurred and be the most recent play in the current turn. Additionally, the play must not have revealed any new information to the player requesting the Takeback. Read more about what “new information” means after this fun GIF!
What counts as “new information”?
Many, many things can count as “new information” when it comes to determining if a Takeback should be allowed by a Lore Guide. The following is a list of examples, but is not meant to be exhaustive – always consider other things that may have happened as a result of the play:
- A previously-private card was revealed to the player requesting the takeback
- The opponent made a choice about whether they intended to resolve a triggered ability as a result of the play in question
- The opponent indicated cards in play that they intended to choose during the resolution of a triggered ability
- The opponent verbally or visually reacted to the play in a way that made the player reconsider it
Let’s also take a quick look through some things that people might expect to be “new information”, but don’t actually count:
- A card revealed by the player requesting the takeback, for example by inking the wrong card
- The opponent reminding the requesting player of public game information, such as Resist on a challenged character
- Resolving some mandatory triggered abilities that don’t involve making choices
Can I Takeback a rules error?
Maybe! Assuming that the play itself is still eligible for a Takeback (no new info, etc.) then the fact that it involves a rules error does not prevent the Takeback from occurring. That’s a little abstract, so let’s look at an example:
Adam is playing against Bernard in the first round of DLC Richmond. Adam plays He Hurled His Thunderbolt, choosing to deal 4 damage to Bernard’s only character in play, Prince Phillip – Royal Explorer. But wait! Phillip has Ward! Adam has committed a rules error by making an illegal choice for the resolution of his card’s effect – normally, this would be a General Rules Error (GRE), so he would receive a warning and a Lore Guide would rewind the game to the point of the error. Adam would still have to choose a character in play to take 4 damage to correctly resolve the effect of He Hurled His Thunderbolt.
Instead, Adam decides he would like to ask the Lore Guide for a Takeback on this play. That means we reverse the play in full, not just to the point of the error, so he would not be forced to damage his own character with He Hurled His Thunderbolt. He still committed the GRE, though, and would therefore still receive a warning for that error.
What is a “batch of actions”?
This language is used in the official policy when defining what a Takeback is. It has understandably caused some questions about “taking back multiple actions” and “rewinding a whole turn”. Rest assured, that is not the case.
For Takebacks, a “batch of actions” refers to very common shortcutting, and is bound by the Out-of-Order Sequencing section of the Tournament Rules Document (3.5). In combination with the Takebacks Policy, that means a “batch of actions” is very limited. It must have been communicated as a single play (e.g. “I’ll quest out”, “I’ll send these two into Genie“), and cannot involve any triggered abilities.
The main reason for this inclusion in the policy is to preempt any issues with shortcutting wanting to be taken back, and then being faced with either determining which action “technically” happened last, or just denying all takebacks that involve shortcutting.
Can I prevent my opponent’s Takeback?
Not exactly. If a Takeback has been determined to be acceptable by a Lore Guide, the most you can do is appeal the decision to a higher judge, as is your right with any judge call.
You cannot preemptively attempt to prevent a Takeback either, by resolving plays in a rush, pressuring your opponent to play faster, or by intentionally reacting to plays to deliberately run afoul of the “no new information” requirement. If a Lore Guide determines that denying a Takeback motivated any of these (or other) behaviors, you could face disqualification for Cheating.
Do Takebacks undermine the integrity of competitive play?
This has become an oft-repeated concern among the playerbase, with the sentiment that mistakes should always come with consequences in high-level play appearing frequently in discussions. I think, ultimately, it’s a philosophical question that speaks to the kind of game the team at Ravensburger wants Lorcana to become in the long run – one that respects the time, effort, and intent of the players.
I don’t really expect to change anyone’s minds here but if you’re worried about the impact of Takebacks on competitive integrity, I hope you can at least take a little solace from my perspective. My expectation is that Takebacks will be a net positive for the game overall, and here’s why:
First of all, the range of permitted Takebacks is pretty small. Only a single action (or shortcut) can be taken back, which means that in order to “save” yourself from a misplay, either the play only consists of one step or you realized your mistake only one step into the play sequence. A Takeback is not going to save you from investing resources into a play that ends up being a miscalculation at the very end, meaning that top players still need to demonstrate their skill in planning out complex turns.
Secondly, I don’t believe there is strategic value in relying on your opponent to make significant misplays in order to succeed. Yes, your opponent may occasionally get to dodge a pitfall when they belatedly remember you gave something Resist with Penny – Bolt’s Person last turn – but they should have remembered anyway, and you should have been expecting them to remember anyway. From a broadcast perspective, there’s a lot more value in a match where both players are at their best than a match where one player accidentally inked their silver bullet because they are 12 hours deep in an event.
Finally, and crucially, European competitors have spent the last two years playing under an approach to judging that, in essence, already follows this policy. Given that the winner of the 2025 World Championship spent most of their time playing in that environment, I think it’s probably fair to say that the competitive scene over there is doing just fine.