Flesh and Blood Clash: reveal, compare and handle ties
On this page
Clash in Flesh and Blood compares the power of cards revealed from the tops of the participating heroes' decks. The player revealing the card with strictly greatest power wins. Equal power produces no winner, and a card without the power property is not treated as an ordinary zero-power attack. Revealing does not itself draw or play the card.
Read the effect that starts the Clash as well as the keyword. That effect identifies the participants and any reward, movement or replacement relevant to the result.
Compare power rather than pitch or defence
A Flesh and Blood card can display several numbers with different meanings. Clash uses power, not pitch value, resource cost or defence. A blue card's pitch value does not make it a stronger Clash reveal than a red attack with higher power.
Locate the power property on each revealed card. If a relevant effect changes that property while the card is in the deck, apply the current rules and exact wording. Do not add a modifier that functions only while a card is attacking.
For a basic example with no modifiers, a revealed attack with 7 power beats one with 6 power. Its colour strip, cost and defence do not change that comparison. Announce the two power values before applying the stated reward.
A tie means no player wins
If both revealed cards have the same greatest power, neither player has power strictly greater than all the other reveals. The normal result is no winner. Do not choose the active player, the player who started the effect or the hero with more life as an improvised tiebreaker.
An effect that rewards the winner therefore does not automatically reward both players on a tie. Read any separate instruction about failing to win, because that concept can include a tie. A replacement effect can also change the outcome when its conditions apply.
Record the ordinary comparison before evaluating such a replacement. This makes it clear why an ability triggered or became applicable and prevents the final modified result from obscuring the condition that originally allowed it.
No power is different from zero power
The current keyword rules expressly distinguish a card without the power property from one that has it. A revealed card with power is considered greater than a reveal without that property, including a situation where the actual power value is zero.
If neither player reveals a card with power, there is no card with power greater than all the others, so the ordinary comparison produces no winner. Do not assign an invented zero to each non-attack card and then use a different tiebreaker.
An empty deck is also addressed by the rule: a player who reveals no card is not treated as revealing a hidden powerful card. Compare the available reveals using the actual definition and check any other applicable game consequences separately.
| Simple reveals with no modifiers | Ordinary Clash result |
|---|---|
| Power seven against power six | Seven wins |
| Power six against power six | No winner |
| Power zero against a card without power | Card with power wins the comparison |
| Two cards without power | No winner |
| Card with power against no revealed card | The available power card is greater |
Revealing does not move a card by itself
Clash instructs players to reveal the relevant cards. That visibility change does not inherently place them in the hand, graveyard, pitch zone or arsenal. Any later movement must come from the actual effect or another applicable rule.
For example, a card can tell you to put revealed cards on the bottom and then Clash again. That movement is an additional instruction from that card, not a universal step attached to every Clash.
Keep the revealed top card associated with its deck. If you temporarily lift it to show the value, do not lose its position among other cards. Restoring visibility is different from shuffling, drawing or placing it at the bottom without permission.
Follow the reward on the initiating effect
Winning Clash does not inherently deal combat damage or produce a fixed token. The effect that started the Clash supplies the consequence. One card might create a Might token, while another can have a different result.
Read whether the reward is for winning, for the other hero winning or for failing to win. These conditions are not interchangeable. A tie can satisfy a failure-to-win condition while leaving a winner-only reward unclaimed.
Also identify who controls any reward-producing effect. Control can matter for abilities that react to creating a token or resolving another effect. Being the winner does not automatically make you the controller of the card that initiated the Clash.
Deck-specific modifiers require their actual scope
Official Heavy Hitters notes emphasize that relevant power modifiers operating on cards in the deck count during Clash. A bonus that only functions while the card is attacking is a different matter and should not automatically be added to its reveal.
That distinction matters when two copies of the same named card can have different effective values in different situations. Use the applicable zone and conditions at the time of the comparison rather than reading an attack's previous combat power from memory.
For a disputed modifier, present the complete text and identify which object or zone it modifies. A statement such as “my hero adds power” is not precise enough to know whether it changes a revealed deck card or only an attack on the combat chain.
Replacement effects can alter a would-be result
The current rules include outcome-replacement effects. A card-specific effect can intervene when a player would fail to win, or change how a Clash event is performed. Resolve the actual replacement according to its conditions rather than treating the normal comparison as irrevocable.
Victor Goldmane provides a published example involving an optional Gold payment, moving a revealed card and clashing again. Its exact limits and procedure matter. Do not assume every hero can buy a second attempt whenever a tie is inconvenient.
When teaching the mechanic, resolve an ordinary Clash first and introduce the specific replacement afterward. This keeps the normal comparison understandable while making clear that a printed exception can produce a different final result.
A replacement for one event does not cover every later Clash
The Old Switcheroo supplies an official example that changes which deck each participating player reveals from. Its replacement applies to the next qualifying Clash event, rather than turning every subsequent Clash in the turn into the same exchange.
If the original card causes two Clashes, the later event needs a fresh analysis. Likewise, a new Clash created by another replacement is not automatically performed with an already used replacement instruction.
These examples show why event history matters. Record which replacement applied, whether it has been consumed and which Clash is now being performed. The exact card wording and current rules determine the result; the keyword alone cannot resolve the whole combination.
Repeated Clashes can reveal the same top card
If nothing moves or changes a deck's top card, a later ordinary Clash can reveal that same card again. Multiple Clashes do not inherently require drawing deeper into the deck. Look for an instruction that moves the earlier reveal before expecting a different one.
With a card that puts the revealed cards on the bottom between Clashes, the resulting top cards can change. A short deck can create its own specific outcome, so consult the card's Q&A rather than assuming the second reveal must always be different.
A practice log should list the reveal, result, movement and next reveal in order. The final count of Clashes alone does not explain which cards were shown or whether a player won the required sequence.
Revealing a card is not playing its action text
A revealed attack action does not become an attack on the combat chain merely because it won Clash. You do not pay its printed cost, generate go again or resolve its ordinary attack instructions as though you had played it.
Some cards expressly have abilities tied to being revealed for a Clash or winning by revealing that card. Those are specific text, not a general property of every reveal. Check their conditions, ownership and timing separately.
This distinction helps prevent accidental extra effects. If a player points to an ability on the revealed card, ask what event makes it functional. A normal attack bonus and a specific reveal-related trigger describe different scopes.
Practise with a complete comparison worksheet
Write the participating heroes, current top-card power properties and any relevant modifiers. Apply the comparison, inspect replacements, then apply the initiating effect's consequence and any instructed movement. That sequence is enough for most straightforward teaching examples.
Try one unequal comparison, one tie, one card without power and one zero-power card against a no-power reveal. Keeping these examples separate exposes the common errors without requiring a complicated deck or a competitive match.
For unusual interactions, use the current comprehensive rules together with the precise card entry. Release notes can explain examples from a set, but the publisher warns that historical notes may not reflect later rule changes. Current rules govern the present procedure.
Frequently asked questions
Does the higher pitch value win Clash?
No. The comparison uses power, subject to relevant modifiers and any applicable replacement.
Who wins if both cards have equal power?
The ordinary result is no winner. A specific replacement effect can require further processing.
Do I draw the card I revealed?
Not from Clash alone. Revealing changes visibility; drawing or another movement needs its own instruction.