I have 13 pow on my house card, and my opponent has 14. Now my Mace Tyrell get 1 by renown. Then what happen? Who is the winner? Is it depent by the first player? And why?

The first player decides, because the rules say so:

"If two or more players reach the victory condition
simultaneously, the first player chooses
which of these players wins the game."

CS Rules, page 16.

Check the core rule book regarding winning the game. It says there that if two (or more) players reach victory at the exact same time, the First Player chooses which of those players is the winner of the game.

So yes, it depends on who the First Player is, because the rules say so. (Not a great answer, but that's what we've got....)

See Rat, you can ninja me, too!

See Rat, you can ninja me, too!

Mwuahahaha! I AM THE GREATEST!

I asked exactly the same question last night (not on the forum) and was told that there was some ruling that whoever claimed the power on Mace won the game... so sounds like that was wrong

First player decides who wins the game ... nasty!

Imagine being the first player in a Melee game and not being one of the players to reach 15 power at the same time.

~Got any extra chores that need to be done?

I asked exactly the same question last night (not on the forum) and was told that there was some ruling that whoever claimed the power on Mace won the game... so sounds like that was wrong

People often look at the FAQ and forget to look in the rule book from the Core Set when they have rules questions. It's pretty funny, actually.

Yes (re the core rule book) ... you get so use to thinking it is useless but every now and then you find a little gem in it

I'm going to risk the wrath of Ktom and question the ruling!

When the rules were written, I assume the only way two players could reach the winning total at the same time would be due to two passive affects occuring .... and the first player always decides the sequence that passives are played in

However, Mace's effect is a constant and not a passive (?) - so should the first player really be deciding who wins?

Are you serious? There's a clear cut, utterly unambiguous rule, straight from the rulebook, and you're fishing for some reason why it wouldn't apply?

The rule actually fits a lot better with Mace than with passive effects. Wth passives, the two players actually don't reach their victory condition at the same time, because the passives are resolved sequentially in this case.

So, basically, what you're saying is "Hey, there's a rule in the rulebook that says when X is true, Y happens. Now in my game we had the situation that X was true, What happens now? Certainly not Y!"

I accept the ruling but I suppose I was just bugged by the point ... can you think of some other way that two players can win the game simultaneously and not involving passives?

Surely there must be something wrong with the rule if it is utterly unambiguous ... there must be a catch !!!

I accept the ruling but I suppose I was just bugged by the point ... can you think of some other way that two players can win the game simultaneously and not involving passives?

Well, as I said, with passives the two player do not actually win at the same time. With Mace, they do. And no, I can't think of any other situation. If there really isn't one, then the Mace situation is the only siuation in the game that rulebook passage actually applies to.

You guys are misunderstanding passives if you can't come up with a passive or Response that would allow two players to win at the same time. The First Player only decides the order of INITIATION of two or more conflicting passives. But if a single passive (or Response" affects two or more players, characters, etc., those effects happen simultaneously during resolution - with no input from the First Player. The classic example is Wildfire Assault - the person playing the plot has to choose their 3 character to survive first, so subsequent players have that info when they make their choice of 3, but all characters not chosen die AT THE SAME TIME. Anyway, this means any single passive or Response that allows two players to claim power at the same time has the potential to let two players reach victory at the same time.

Another example of players winning at the same time is Core-Mel. Players A & B have 15 power each, but a bunch of it is on characters and Player C has Mel out (so the power doesn't count). Mel is then blanked by some single passive or Response. First Player decides who wins, not which passive goes first.

Core-Mel ... of course .. this is why we bow before you ...

it's also virtually identical in affect to adding power to Mace, so a great example Ktom

But if a single passive (or Response) affects two or more players, characters, etc., those effects happen simultaneously during resolution - with no input from the First Player.

But your point is well taken. It's just that there's very few, if any, passives or responses that would let more than one player gain power at the same time. Can you think of any?

Core set Mel is a great example, though.

Another example of players simultaneously reaching the win condition would be this:

Player A has CS Knight of Flowers in play.

Player B has SaS Knight of Flowers in play.

Player C has TftH Knight of Flowers in play.

Player D has FtC Jaqen H'Ghar in shadows.

All players are at 14 power.

Player A's CS KoF is killed during the Challenges phase.

Player D triggers Jaqen and attaches CS KoF to him as a dupe. Jaqen gains, among other things, KoF's text - but not his title.

Dominance Phase begins. When Jaqen's gained passive kicks in, both Player B's and player C's KoF gain a power at the same time, because the self-referentiality is gone.

It's just that there's very few, if any, passives or responses that would let more than one player gain power at the same time. Can you think of any?

Other than more Jaqen shenanigans, I can't think of any out now. But we'll be getting one pretty soon with the Prized keyword (in Melee). This rule might actually see a lot of use once those cards are released.