We had a discussion at a store championship last weekend about how to award tournament points in swiss for the following situation:

Player A playing with the Maester's Path agenda is playing B, who's not playing Maester's Path. After time has been called and the last turn has been played, player A has more power markers than B. Let's say a has 16 power total, B has zero. But A also has chains left on his agenda. How many tournament points should be awarded to A and B?

I know that this topic has been discussed here before ( http://goo.gl/uGZ4Xy ), but I still find it a bit unclear.

According to the tournament rules, page 8: "If, through a card effect, a player “cannot win the game,” he cannot be awarded a win or a modified win for that match. (His best possible result is a draw.)".

That still doesn't fully cover how points should be awarded.

I think that based on that sentence and the paragraph about vitory conditions above, various interpretations could be made:

Interpretation 1: A didn't win, because he still has chains an the agenda. B didn't win, because A is closer to his victory total concerning power markers. Both players didn't win but it should not be possible that both players lose a game, so the game is declared a draw: 2-2 . (That's actually the line of reasoning ktom went for in the above cited post.)

Interpretation 2: A would have gotten a win if it weren't for his chains on the agenda. Since there are chains left, he cannot be awarded a win, so he's downgraded to a draw. That doesn't explicitly imply that player B also gets a draw though, the rules only state that both players get a draw if they're equally close to their victory conditions. So we'll give B a modified loss, because A is 16 power closer to his victory power total: 2-1

Interpretation 3 : A is an infinite amount of power markers away from his victory total. After all, it wouldn't matter in this situation if he had 1.000 power markers - he still wouldn't win. So B is closer to his victory total. B didn't get a full win, so it's a modified win for B: 1-4

Interpretation 4: Neither of them did win the game. One player is further away from his winning condition, the other cannot win. Where in the rules does it say that the game has to end in a draw then? They both made it over the time without the other playing reaching his winning condition though, so they both get a timed loss: 1-1

So if anyone has an official FFG ruling for that situation, that I just didn't find, or can otherwise shed more light on the topic, I'd be interested to hear.

In addition to that: what are your opinions on how the ruling should be? Should the amount of chains left on the agenda matter? Should the difference in power totals matter?

Another thing, though even more unlikely to occur: let's say we have this situation in the cuts without time limit. A has commanding board position without any chance for B to ever turn that around, but unfortunately for A all of his Maesters ended up in his discard or dead pile without any chance for him to reanimate them. Will we play this game out forever? Replay the game? Flip a coin?

I think the Maester's path should maybe have be errata ~ adding an effect such as Melisandra's- "Power on opponents' characters does not count towards their total power"

So e.g. "You count zero total power whilst you have chain attachments on this card"

What else would that affect though? ... I suppose you would always have the low count of power for initiative draws, but it would not affect Asha ~ you still have power on your house but it does not count to your total

The logic FFG follows in this situation (which happens whenever the Maester's Path player has chains left, but more power, at time limit) is:

1) Neither player has achieved a win condition, regular or modified.

2) There can be no loss, regular or modified, without a corresponding win.

3) Therefore, with no winner and no loser, the match is a draw.

The logic FFG follows in this situation (which happens whenever the Maester's Path player has chains left, but more power, at time limit) is:

1) Neither player has achieved a win condition, regular or modified.

2) There can be no loss, regular or modified, without a corresponding win.

3) Therefore, with no winner and no loser, the match is a draw.

How would you resolve the situation if this occured in a timed single elimination game (i.e. after the cut)?

Either sudden death or seeding prior to elimination rounds, probably. TO's choice.

Given that FFG leaves it up to the TO whether or not to time elimination rounds, they leave it up to the TO to break ties a time limit in elimination rounds, too.

TO's choice.

Given that FFG leaves it up to the TO whether or not to time elimination rounds, they leave it up to the TO to break ties a time limit in elimination rounds, too.

Yeah, that's pretty much a given.

Either sudden death or seeding prior to elimination rounds, probably.

Interesting. I wouldn't use sudden death, because it kinda defeats the purpose of timed elimination rounds if the situation can still arise that one single game goes on for another hour after time call - however unlikely that situation may be. Going by seeding seems possible but also a bit bland.

I would rule that the TMP player is out and the opponent advances. To me, that is simply an application of the good old "cannot beats everything" rule. Both a card effect *and* the tournament rules say that the TMP player "cannot" win, so he cannot be awarded the effect of a win. Nothing says that the player further away from his victory condition "cannot" win, so gets awarded the effect of winning by default. I cannot be sure, but I seem to remember this is what the Stahleck judges last year agreed they'd do in that situation.

Now, if *both* players run TMP and have chains left at time call I'd just let the one closer to his victory condition (in power) advance. I realize that's a direct contradiction of the reasoning above, but to me that's just a case of common sense over stubborn application of principle, you know? The alternative would be to take them both out of the tournament, but that, while doable, would be a bit silly.

Note that I would disregard the amount of chains left on the agendas in that last case. The stated win condition of both players is still getting the required amount of power. Getting all chains off the agenda is *not* a win condition, it's just a card effect that prevents a player from reaching his win condition.

The logic FFG follows in this situation (which happens whenever the Maester's Path player has chains left, but more power, at time limit) is:

1) Neither player has achieved a win condition, regular or modified.

2) There can be no loss, regular or modified, without a corresponding win.

3) Therefore, with no winner and no loser, the match is a draw.

Thanks for the explanation - if that's how it's usually ruled, it's fine with me. I do still think that a short addendum on that topic in the tournament rules would make sense though.

I think the Maester's path should maybe have be errata ~ adding an effect such as Melisandra's- "Power on opponents' characters does not count towards their total power"

So e.g. "You count zero total power whilst you have chain attachments on this card"

What else would that affect though? ... I suppose you would always have the low count of power for initiative draws, but it would not affect Asha ~ you still have power on your house but it does not count to your total

I second that idea - having the agenda worded that way would remove all need for discussion. Well, except for the scenario of both players running TMP in a timed elimination match, that Ratatoskr mentioned. And, as you say, other cards like Asha, Griffin's Roost, Harwin, ... are already worded in a way that wouldn't cause any problems with that. Of course I might be forgetting some cards, that would indeed cause a problem.

Also, I don't think that it would be too big a deal for the TMP player, since they know from the start that they need to get their chains off the agenda ASAP.