PUBG Asia Stars 2026 Rulebook Explained: What Sections 1, 3.7 and 4.1 Say

The biggest argument in the Himass & TanVuu case turns on one question: did the rules prohibit what they were found to have done?

Answering that requires reading the text itself. This article quotes the relevant clauses of the Vietnamese rulebook, version 14.09.2026 (17 pages). Quotes are translated from the Vietnamese, and an English version is also archived. Both PDFs are in the source archive.

Section 1 — Purpose: the three weightiest sentences

Section 1 contains three sentences that shape how the whole case should be read.

First — the nature of the event:

“These rules apply to PUBG ASIA STARS 2026, an official PUBG esports tournament hosted by KRAFTON…”

Many people call Asia Stars a “showmatch” or a “friendly”. The source text calls itself an official tournament. That weakens the argument that it was “just a friendly, so not serious”, although it does not settle the question of penalty.

Second — residual authority:

“The organizer has full authority to amend or supplement these rules at any time and to decide on matters not clearly provided for… This authority shall not be limited by any wording or omission in this document.”

KRAFTON can rely on this sentence to act on conduct that is not named specifically. Textually, “there was no specific clause” does not mean the organizer lacked authority.

Third — the sanction scale:

“Any violation may lead to penalties ranging from warnings, fines, disqualification, bans and forfeiture of prize money to other sanctions at the organizer’s discretion.”

The rulebook sets out a scale with several steps. Choosing the top step is a decision that can be explained, and needs to be. That is the core of the proportionality question.

Section 1 also says that “all decisions of the organizer are final and not subject to any complaint or claim for damages.” Yet the 23 September notice explicitly gives both players “the right to go through the explanation process”. That shows the sanction sits within a wider esports framework, not the event rulebook alone.

Section 3.7 — Anti-cheating measures

Full text:

“• All players who livestream personally are recommended to set a reasonable delay to avoid information exposure. ※ Players bear full responsibility for any risk or disadvantage arising from livestreaming. • The organizer may require any player to cooperate with additional anti-cheat/third-party software checks, and players must comply.”

Clause by clause:

1. “Recommended… to set” is a hybrid of advice and obligation. But the governing verb is recommend, and the 20 September notice confirms the delay was not mandatory.

2. The stated purpose is “to avoid information exposure”. The clause targets your stream leaking information to others, not you watching other people’s streams.

3. “Full responsibility for any risk or disadvantage” can be read two ways:

   • Narrowly: you bear the cost if others stream-snipe you.
   • Broadly: you are responsible if your stream brings information into the match.

   The text does not say which.

Verdict on Section 3.7: it neither prohibits nor permits watching an opponent’s stream. It is silent. KRAFTON admitted exactly that on 20 September: the rulebook “did not specifically define” watching others’ streams or receiving and using outside information.

Section 4.1 — General duties

“All Participants must familiarise themselves with and remember these rules and every official notice posted on the tournament’s Discord channel… Any additional notice from the Organizer has the same legal force as the rules.”

This sentence makes Discord part of the rules. The logical consequences:

• If a Discord notice prohibited outside information, players were bound by it.
• If Discord guidance permitted it, as some participants claim, that guidance would carry equal force. In that case the organizer’s share of responsibility rises sharply.

KRAFTON says it “never officially permitted” such conduct, but the pre-event Discord content has not been published. It is the single most important missing document in the case.

Section 3.1 — An overlooked detail

Section 3.1 requires every player to stay in the team’s official Discord voice channel throughout matches and to turn on a facecam, which is used live on the broadcast.

Two consequences follow:

• The organizer holds a lot of data for any investigation: team voice and camera feeds.
• The organizer could observe players’ behaviour in real time, which makes “why wasn’t this caught and flagged during Day 1?” a fair question.

The sanction rests outside the rulebook

This detail is easy to miss. The 23 September notice does not cite Sections 3.7 or 4.1. It relies on:

• the PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS operating policy, Section 5.10 (interfering with gameplay, harassment) and Section 5.12 (abuse);
• the conduct duties of professional PUBG Esports players.

Strictly, KRAFTON is saying the conduct is wrong under the game’s general rules, which apply to everyone, so no event-specific clause is needed. That sidesteps the weakness “the rulebook didn’t ban it”. It also raises a new question: if the conduct breaches the game’s general policy, how were similar cases handled before?

Revision history

Section 5 of the rulebook lists two revisions, dated 11 and 14 September. They concern rematch rules, display names, Platoon scoring and group-stage formats. Neither revision touches Section 3.7, so nothing changed on delay or outside information before the event.

Summary table

Conclusion

Read precisely, both sides have a point.

• The players’ defenders are right that the rulebook does not name the conduct and did not mandate a delay.
• KRAFTON is right that the rulebook grants authority over uncovered matters, and that its sanction rests on the game’s general policy.

What the rulebook does not resolve is which step of the scale to use. And the document that could shift the balance most, the pre-event Discord guidance, remains unpublished.

Next: is a permanent ban proportionate?