Measter Agenda in Melee

By darknoj, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

The following two questions are focused on the fact that the Measter Agenda says you cannot win if you have chains on it. Both are slight variants on the same question but it would serve to reinforce the principle if one of you more knowledgeable types could answer both for me.

If time is hit in a Melee game and one Player A has 14 power but still has one chain on his measter agenda, Player B has 8 power, Player C has 4 power and Player D has no power. What would the ranking of players be from first to last?

If Player B hits 15 power and wins while Player A has 14 power and has one chain on his agenda, Player C has 6 power and Player D has none what is the ranking of players

For the record, I am not someone who is knowledgeable of timed games. However, in terms of rank, I'd have to say that you should only use collected Power as the only means of rank. If someone is the winner by reaching the Power limit, they become rank 1, and the remaining players in order of the most Power tokens that count toward your victory total would then apply. There are also ways to increase/reduce the number of Power needed to win and then what do you do? Power to needed power ratio as the determinant of rank?

I also see the possibility of all 4 players having the Maester Agenda and time running out before all attachments are removed from each. Is no one declared the top rank? I think Power Token eligible for counting toward the victory amount is the only way. If you want to make the Maester's Path Agenda synonymous with "Power Tokens do not count toward your Power Token victory total while attachments remain on this card." If that were the case, then players with that Agenda have 0 power tokens that count toward victory. Instead, the Agenda appears to say that you have no Power Token victory limit as long as there are attachments on it.

It's a little confusing because the Tournament scoring system says that you are ranked in Melee based on the number of players at the table you "defeat." It would seem that if the limitation on the Agenda says you cannot "win," you cannot defeat anyone at the table, either, meaning that you could do no better than tie for last place, right?

But FFG has ruled at sanctioned events in the past that the Agenda only stops you from winning the table in a scored Melee game. It has no bearing on determining ranks after the game is over (because someone wins or because time is called). So in both of your examples, the Agenda doesn't play into ranking players 1 through 4. Assuming no other power lowering effects, your first scenarios is A-B-C-D. In your second scenario, it is B-A-C-D.

The only "trick" is that in both, B would get the bonus point for winning the table. He actually did win the table in the second scenario, and in the first one, A cannot be said to have won the table (because of the Agenda), despite being ranked the highest.

Thank you very much. It is very clear to me know.

A third scenario it is probably important to be very clear about:

Player B reaches 15 power without the game going to time limit. Player A has 26 (or some other ridiculous amount above 15) and Chains remaining on the Agenda. Player C has 6 and Player D has 2.

The ranks for the game is still B-A-C-D, with B getting the bonus point for winning the table. A is only considered to have "defeated" C and D in the game-end ranking when the game does not go to time limit.

Thanks agin Ktom.

One of the guys i play with has been using a Martell Measter deck and since we can only play for one hour at a time our games tend to end before someone wins, which is why this ruling is of interest to me.