The rules say that, in melee, points are awarded with the standings. If rou are firste, you've got 1+3*3=10, if you're seconde; 2*3= 6 points, etc. But what happens if you haven't remove all your chains from the agenda ? The agenda says you cannot win, so does your points count or not ? There is no rule to explain that. To say that you cannot be second or third because there is still chains on your agenda since unfair. Imagine the situation: A baratheon guy win turn 2. You've got 13 points and still 2 chains attached. But the two others have got 2 and 3 powers each. Who's nearest from the second place ?

An update seems needed...

Ser Arthur said:

Let's say this instead: You are playing the Baratheon Maesters and you have 15 power by the end of the 2nd round; but you still have 2 chains on the Agenda. Have you achieved your victory? No, because the risk you decided to take when you played the Agenda was that your victory total is not the only condition you have to satisfy in order to win the game. So in that regard, the player with 14 is closer to their victory total than you are with 15 - because your victory total doesn't even matter while you still have chains on the agenda.

It is no different than playing with, say, Treaty of the Isles, having 5 power at the end of the game and "losing" to someone who only has 1 power because they are 9 away from their victory total (thanks to your agenda) and you are 10 away from yours. It isn't unfair because you knew the risk and decided to take on that risk when you chose to play the Agenda.

If you decide to play with The Maester's Path and you finish the game with chains still on the agenda, you are going to be dead last (or tie someone with 0 power) because you essentially don't have a victory total to achieve while you still have chains on the agenda. Your power accumulation means nothing while there are still chains on the agenda and "cannot win".

It is not really unfair because you chose to play with the agenda, knowing the risks inherent in the Melee format. "Harsh reality" and "unfair" are not really the same things.

Ok... it won't be unfair since no one will choose to take so a big risk in an official tournament. I think this ruling kills the maester's path in melee... A bit sad in my opinion.

One could say the agenda doesn't forbid you to be second. Only to be the one who wins...

Ser Arthur said:

Okay and now imagine two guys at the table with the Maester agenda. One has still 4 chains attached to the agenda but 14 power. The other guy has one chain attached and 5 power. Who of them places before the other when the game ends? Or do they just have to roll a dice?

I would like a default rule that is simple, something like "When the game ends and a winner has been declared, subtract one power from your total for each chain attachment remaining on the Maester Agenda card at the end of the game for the purpose of determining placement in a melee game."


Since I would think it is about as easy to gain a single power then it is to win a single challenge (some challenges result in no power, whereas others can net quite a few).

Ultimately, I think it keeps things balanced and reasonable. Granted, I'm pretty new, so I may be off on the equivalency of the two.

Ser Arthur said:

I asked directly to Nate, because I was not convinced. Here's his answer:

Arthur,

"Cannot win" on the Agenda should be taken literally, as "cannot win."
There is nothing in the agenda preventing a player from finishing
second in the melee game.

Nate French

It seems that remainings chains doesn't matter in purpose of counting powers at the end of a melee game.

Ser Arthur said:

Twn2dn said:

The player not running Maester's Path would get the modified win since the Agenda says, "you cannot win..."

FATMOUSE said:

ktom said:

Right, which the why the player not running The Maester's Path would win.

FATMOUSE said:

The tourney rules says :

"If the time limit has been reached, the player closest to
his victory total (in power) earns a modified match
win and his opponent receives a match loss."

Let's say player A is running the Maester agenda and finishes the game (time limit) with 14 powers

Player B is not running any agenda and finishes the game (time limit) with 9 powers

So the player closest to his victory total (in power) is player A. He would earn a modified match win, except he cannot win. And so nothing happen.

This does not change the fact that his opponent receives a match loss.

So I would say strict application of the tourney rules implies that both players receive 0 points.

Sorry to revive this old thread, but there are still a couple questions here that have not been conclusively answered, unless they have been in a different thread, which I couldn't find. In that case, please refer me there.

First, Ulrich's question. Joust game, both players still have chains on the Agendas when time is called. Both players "cannot win". Both get zero points, right? Or not?

Second, the point Bolzano brought up. One player has chains on the agenda and 14 or 15 power when time is called. He "cannot win", as per the Agenda. The other has fewer power, he "receives a match loss", as per the tournament rules. Again - do both get zero points?

Ratatoskr said:

Is this Melee or Joust?

FFG has ruled since this thread was originally started, clarifying the issue.

In Joust, if the game goes to time limit, the Tournament Rules say that the player closest to their victory total in power gets the modified win. So if the game goes to time limit because the full victory condition is not met, you essentially ignore the additional victory condition from the Agenda and award the modified win to the player with the most power. (So in your first example, the player with the most power - assuming both need 15 to win - gets the modified win; in your second, example, the Maester player with 14-15 power will get the modified win - again, assuming to effects lowering the number of power needed to win for one player or the other.

In the Melee, same thing. At time limit, you essentially ignore the additional victory condition from the Agenda and award table placement / points based on progress toward the "victory total" in power.

Ser Arthur said:

Except TMP took first and 3rd place in melee worlds.

ktom said:

And presumably if two players go beyond the victory total in melee, whichever one is further beyond it wins?

Presumably. But honestly, it practically never comes up. The links are off the Agenda long before time limit.

While we're at it, I'd like to ask a question regarding tournament standings. I find the official Tournament rules a bit confusing.

So, how are players ranked in a Joust tournament? By W-L-D record or by tournament points? The tournament rules seem to suggest that players are ranked by tournament points. But that would mean that a player with a 3-2 record (all regular wins, 15 points) could be ranked above a player with a 4-1 record (at least three modified wins, 12-14 points). In an extreme case, a player with a 3-2 record might even make the cut due to SoS over a player with a 5-0 record (all modified wins). That doesn't seem right to me. It would make more sense to me if the first criterion to rank players were number of wins, and if tournament points were used as a tiebreaker (either the first tiebreaker, or the second tiebreaker after head-to-head result).

So, how is this handled in practice?

And, on a related note, does anybody else feel the tourney rules need to be revised? Apart from the question above, which is really not that clear from the rules as written now IMHO, I think the new ruling on TMP at least should be in there somewhere. I mean, we're all so used to "cannot" being an absolute, and now suddenly we're supposed to just ignore the "cannot" on the Agenda under certain circumstances? I'd rather see that in writing.

EDIT: I acknowledge that the TMP thing is not that likely to come up in practice, but I don't think it's impossible, and besides, it bothers me in principle.

Match points trump record currently. The philosophy behind this rule is that actual wins count more than artificial wins. I like that setup because players should be encouraged to try to actually win the game. You could probably come up with some control deck that just grinds the game to a halt without much means of actually gaining power, but that doesn't seem like a real winning strategy.

In the old system, any game that went to time was automatically a draw (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss). In part, the system was changed to weaken the effectiveness of intentional draws because some in the community were unhappy that players who won all of their early rounds could draw in the last round or two to make the top eight, whereas if they had played it out the loser might have missed the cut to someone who had lost earlier in the tournament but then won out. The modified win system gives more credit to someone who got really close to winning the round compared to someone who just took an intentional draw and then skipped the round.

If you think of a modified win more as a tiebreaker than a real win, the system makes more sense. A player with four wins and a modified win will be ahead of a player with four wins and a tie (before, they would have been on the same standing). When you get into a longer tournament, multiple modified wins can start to do funny things with people's records/standings. It's possible that the current point totals for wins, modified wins, and ties are not optimal. There are haven't been many big tournaments with a lot of rounds in which people have gotten to see what kind of oddities could occur.

Ratatoskr said:

So in your "3-2 beats a 4-1 if 3 of the 4-1's wins were modified", you shouldn't be thinking of the two players as "3-2" and "4-1." You should be thinking of them as "3-0-2-0" and "1-3-1-0." Suddenly, the difference between records and "15 beats 14" doesn't look so drastic, does it?

Anyway, yes. You do the rankings by points, which is effectively the same as doing it by record, but the correct record to use would not be "Win-Lose-Draw;" you should use a "Win-Mod-Lose-Draw" record. You do that because by assigning them different points, the tourney rules say that a modified win is not equivalent to a full win in standings.