Several cards are triggered by not winning Dominance - that condition is easy enough to recognize. However, these Knights are triggered if you LOSE dominance. I wouldn't consider a tie for dominance a loss, though it certainly isn't a win. My gut tells me the Knights are only triggered if someone else wins Dominance, and thus they can still stand if all players are tied for Dominance, but I wanted to get concensus here.

Thanks.

This is correct. In order to lose, there must be a winner. If you tie, there is no winner and there is no loser. You didn't lose, just like you didn't win.

*necromancy*

In a melee, say A and B tie for dom. Do C and D lose or not?

Nope. If there is no winner, there can be no loser. You cannot "lose" dominance to a tie among other players.

More to the point, everyone either wins or loses the dominance count in total. You do not "win" or "lose" dominance relative to any other player. Otherwise, if the Dominance count went in the order of A - B - C - D, B would "win" dominance compared to C and D, even though he would "lose" dominance compared to A.

~(Obligatory post misunderstanding the explanation)

Whoah! So in a melee, the winner gets 3 power, the second place winner gets 2, third place winner gets 1 and the only actual loser gets no power???

J_Roel said:

lol, seemed necessary with the surprising number of wild misunderstandings lately.

I admit the "no winner/no loser" logic goes fine when only 2 players are involved (as in a challenge), but it becomes tricky when more players are involved. It wouldn't shock me if C and D both lost dominance in the example (ie there is someone with a higher total). "Winning dominance" is so much better defined… (probably because that's the definition that really counts).

Khudzlin said:

How do you figure? The "no winner/no loser" reasoning works for Melee as well as Joust because dominance is a "yes/no" proposition. You never say, in a Melee game, "I lost dominance to you and you, but I did not lose dominance to you" - which is what you would have to say if losing dominance for each player was determined by whether you had a lower total than someone else.

Said another way, you win or lose the dominance count . You do not win or lose dominance to each player at the table.

The fact that there is a difference between "if you lose dominance" and "if you do not win dominance" in effects should clear this up. You "do not win" in any situation where you do not get the power for dominance. But you only "lose" if someone got the power (and it wasn't you).

ktom said:

Adding a little to this, basically the game goes to each player and establishes two states:

Game: Did you win dominance?

Player A: No

PlayerA.DominanceWin = FALSE

Game: Did any of your opponents win dominance?

Player A: No

PlayerA.DominanceLose = FALSE

You could theoretically have a third state of PlayerA.DominanceTie = TRUE, but the first two questions would provide sufficient information for this third state.