In the new era of Survivor, tribes don’t get flint until they’ve won a challenge. If they lose a challenge after earning the flint, the flint gets taken away as a punishment. This has resulted in record-setting starvation on the CBS reality competition series.
In Season 46, the Yanu tribe went 11 days without flint after losing four consecutive immunity challenges and attending three Tribal Councils in the first four episodes. They were only spared from a fourth consecutive elimination by the medical evacuation of a player from another tribe. In Season 49, the Kele tribe has been so desperate for food in two episodes that they’ve resorted to eating worms. Jeff Probst addressed the question of whether this new-era flint policy is “too harsh” in the On Fire podcast, Survivor‘s official aftershow.
This season of the aftershow is hosted by returning hosts Probst and Jay Wolff, and Survivor champ Jeremy Collins. Collins is a three-time Survivor player who won Season 31, Cambodia. While he has plenty of Survivor experience, he’s never played in the new era (“old-era” players took on the new format in Survivor 50, premiering in February 2026). In their podcast discussion about Season 49 Episode 2, Collins said that he wouldn’t eat worms unless it was part of a challenge. Wolff noted that Collins never had to play this version of the game, where flint can be taken away as quickly as it’s earned. Castaways have to earn a pot and a machete as well, which even removes coconuts from the food-foraging equation.
As shown with the Kele tribe in 49 and more, the long stretches without survival tools are becoming a pattern in the new era. Wolff asked if the show’s going too far with this format.
“I’m having flashbacks, Jeff, to our friends in the Lulu tribe or the Vula tribe,” Wolff said on On Fire. “I mean, Yanu went 11 days, no flint, no fire. So that’s a record. This is the fourth time we’re seeing this kind of loss. That means it’s a trend. So is the flint and pot, and machete penalty too harsh?”
Probst pushed back immediately, saying that the game design is working exactly how they want it to.
“No, no. It’s exactly as designed because it forces adaptability,” Probst argued. “We’re hearing it in Jeremy. He’s saying, if I played on 50, I don’t think I’d eat a worm. We don’t know what Jeremy would do. That’s what’s going to be interesting about 50 because you’re going to be forced into something you haven’t done before. And what I think Survivor shows is that we can adapt much more than we think. Look at the rice negotiation in the new era. In the first season, players were desperate to get the required number of players in order to make a deal [so] that they could get rice. You go a few seasons deeper, and the players start going, ‘I don’t even know if we need the rice. I’m not willing to give up my shot at immunity.’ That’s adaptation in real time.”
This poses an interesting question about how the new and old-era players will fare in Survivor 50, should this lack-of-resources rule be used. Who do you think has more of an edge in Survivor 50, the old-era contestants with their several seasons of experience in the 39-day format, or the new-era alums — all first-time returning players — who are used to surviving with less? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Survivor, Wednesdays, 8/7c, CBS