Hi, everyone.

We encountered a unique situation today at a tournament and I was hoping those more in-the-know than I could weight in.

Two players were playing "Reprogrammed". After the activation phase had concluded, each player had exactly 37 VPs. Player A had two of the remotes programmed and had initiative. Player B controlled three remotes. During the end of round effects step of the status phase we'd be awarded scenario VPs. Player A would be awarded 4 (for a total of 41) and Player B would be awarded 6 (for a total of 43). It makes sense to me that Player B would be the winner because he had more points than Player A but the following wording wasn't 100% clear:

Page 25 of the Rules Reference says the following under the "Winning a Skirmish Mission" section:

The mission ends as soon as one player has accumulated 40 or more victory points (VPs). The player with the most VPs wins the game.

The fact that it says "one player" is where the ambiguity lies. Now, again, it makes sense to me that Player B should be the winner because he had more VPs and that's the way we ruled it.

I just want to make sure, however, that we did it correct. Where we weren't sure is if both players simultaneously go over 40 VPs (regardless of respective points earned) do you go immediately to tie breakers or look at the total VPs before going to tie breakers.

Thanks.

As it is a end of round effect itbwill resolve in order of the Initiative. This means Player A would score his points first. As he wouldnreach 40 points, he will win the game and Player B never gets to the point of scoring his points.

Playing devil's advocate here, are we sure about that? In this case the "end of round effect" is that both players score points.

Winning a Skirmish, SG, Page 5:

The game ends as soon as one player has accumulated 40 victory points (VPs). The player with the most VPs wins the game.

Conflicts in a Skirmish, RRG, Page 9:

If multiple mission rules would resolve at the same time, the player with initiative decides the order of resolution.

These aren't MULTIPLE mission rules, but a single mission rule that does a single thing. Conditions for winning state that the game ends when one person gains 40 VP's, but the player with the MOST actually wins. Seems to me that perhaps this exact scenario is has been accounted for.

Good catch, I think Fizz is correct. It depends on what gives the VP. If you gain VP from a mission rule, it is performed fully before checking the winning conditions. A single rule cannot have a timing conflict. If you gain VP from figure abilities or cards played, they are resolved in the proper order.

Good catch, I think Fizz is correct. It depends on what gives the VP. If you gain VP from a mission rule, it is performed fully before checking the winning conditions. A single rule cannot have a timing conflict. If you gain VP from figure abilities or cards played, they are resolved in the proper order.

Thanks, guys. I agree and that's how we ruled it. We just couldn't fully reconcile rules-as-written to the situation in that moment. The language we were stuck on is "The game ends as soon as one player has accumulated 40 victory points." If the rules were that VPs from scenarios were awarded in initiative order (which, based on this thread, is not the case) then player A would have won. If you add up VPs for scenarios in one single timing event (which this thread supports/confirms) then it makes sense to total the VPs for both players and award victory to the player with more VPs.

So, what in case of Data Heist? There you had those 3 crates which each got a strain at the end of the round and after they got a strain you got to decide if you claim it or not. It is also only one mission rule and therefore the decisions for the 3 crates should be made simultaniously, but this is not possible. Or is the RRG here poorly worded because we have one mission rule which does multiple things?

One could continue this to the Core-Mission with the Tusken Raiders who deal a damage to the figure closest to them at the end of the round. Just imagine the case Tusken A kills a figure from player X, which would raise the score of player Y over 40 but Tusken B does the same with a figure of player Y.

As far as we know there are very few simultaneous effects. For any ability, their effects are performed in order and as fully as possible. If there is a choice required, then the player with the ability (for mission rules, the player with initiative in skirmish, and imperial player in campaign) decides the order. (For example in which order Blast is applied to the adjacent figures and objects.)

The crux is that the whole ability (effects from mission rule as well) should be performed before 'game continues'.

In the case of Reprogrammed (Scavengers is on top of my pile and it has similar VP rule) the resolution order does not change the end result.

Ha.... after years of playing Game of Thrones LCG 1st Edition I always wonder how thematic the rules of IA can be. Thanks.

I'd like to revisit this please. Has there been an official ruling on this subject? I have searched but couldn't find anything.

The situation was as follows:

Player A has initiative.

After end of round scoring both players have exceeded 40 points (48 to player B's 47).

Player B argues that you don't go over 40 points and since both players achieved 'at least' 40 points in the same timing window, the game goes to tiebreakers.

I believe it is should be based on initiative order. So the moment player A reaches 40 points the game ends 'AS SOON AS' that happens.

In either case I would presume this comes up frequently enough that there should be some official ruling. I'm hoping that's the case and I just overlooked it.

Thanks for reading.

As I have argued above (IIRC), Initiative order applies only for the resolution order of separate effects with the same trigger, not a single rule with a single trigger.

No, I don't think anyone has asked about it.

I believe this " The mission ends as soon as one player has accumulated 40 or more victory points (VPs). The player with the most VPs wins the game. "

Is the only situation in the game that is truly simultaneous.

That being said.... there's no conflict here. There's nothing that initiative is needed for.

- Both players gain VPs at the end of the round.

- Check if anyone is over 40. One or Both players are over 40.

- Game Ends

- Player with the most points wins.

You can't break or interrupt any of these steps.

You don't gain VPs one by one in order of initiative. You both gain them at exactly the same time, and the full amount.

Player B argues that you don't go over 40 points and since both players achieved 'at least' 40 points in the same timing window, the game goes to tiebreakers.

I believe it is should be based on initiative order. So the moment player A reaches 40 points the game ends 'AS SOON AS' that happens.

Tie breakers have nothing to do with timing windows. The only criteria for a tiebreaker is being on the same VPs at the end of the game (or time).

VPs are not capped at 40. You can go over. Thus the " The player with the most VPs wins the game " part.

As for the initiative bit, read above. You both gain the full points at the same time not one by one and not in initiative order.

Player B argues that you don't go over 40 points

This is the part that is NOT correct. You absolutely can gain more than 40 points.