Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Saibrock

Glory Counts and ties

Recommended Posts

Currently, the rules do not address, nor even acknowledge the possibility of, ties on glory counts (except for the specific glory count that determines who gets the favor). So now that we have a card that initiates a different glory count, there are some questions that are becoming relevant.

• If both players tie for standing glory + rings, what happens? Do both players win? Both player lose? Neither wins or loses?

• In a multiplayer game, can more than one player win or lose a glory count? If so, are the losers everyone who didn't win, or only those players who tie for least glory (and the same question again, in reverse)?

• Is performing a glory count considered a change in the game state? That is, if there is no winner or loser (or if the loser has no claimed rings), can Severed From the Stream be played at all? Or can it only be played if it results in someone losing their claimed rings?

I expected the rules document update from today to address these with a shoring-up of the rules surrounding Glory Counts (especially considering I've already submitted these questions to FFG), but no dice. The rules continue to treat glory counts with the assumption that there will always be a winner and a loser. Even when it addresses the end-of-conflict-phase framework count, it still doesn't say who wins or loses (or indeed if no one wins or loses) in the event of a tie; only how to proceed with the imperial favor, because it's been irrelevant until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your first question, neither wins nor loses.  In the case of the Imperial Favor, it doesn't move and stays where it was.

However, you bring up an interesting point.  Can you play Severed from the stream if you know (which you should) that it will be a tie, and therefore no game state change besides you playing a card?  My initial reaction to it is "yes" since there could be some sort of interrupt to affect the current standing glory, even if I don't think there are any printed cards that do that at this time.  For example, they could print a card: "Interrupt: During a glory Count, give a character +2 Glory".  I do not think the rules care if such a card exists, just that it could exist.

This would be worth asking FFG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mirith said:

However, you bring up an interesting point.  Can you play Severed from the stream if you know (which you should) that it will be a tie, and therefore no game state change besides you playing a card?  My initial reaction to it is "yes" since there could be some sort of interrupt to affect the current standing glory, even if I don't think there are any printed cards that do that at this time.  For example, they could print a card: "Interrupt: During a glory Count, give a character +2 Glory".  I do not think the rules care if such a card exists, just that it could exist.

While I get feel this is the correct answer as well, the whole no game state change excuse always annoys me.  There is technically a change, as the card has left the players hand thus their hand size has changed.  I realize that FFG has ruled that isn't sufficient so as to avoid players just "discarding" unplayable cards to avoid passing, but in this case the card is a valid play (we can resolve its effects by holding a glory count) and we then have a tie so the final effect leaving no winner or loser so the effects of the glory count fizzle, it would be the same as a tied duel the effect that initiated the duel is still valid, however the final effect of the duel will fizzle due to the tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

While I get feel this is the correct answer as well, the whole no game state change excuse always annoys me.  There is technically a change, as the card has left the players hand thus their hand size has changed.  I realize that FFG has ruled that isn't sufficient so as to avoid players just "discarding" unplayable cards to avoid passing, but in this case the card is a valid play (we can resolve its effects by holding a glory count) and we then have a tie so the final effect leaving no winner or loser so the effects of the glory count fizzle, it would be the same as a tied duel the effect that initiated the duel is still valid, however the final effect of the duel will fizzle due to the tie.

Yeah I agree, however in general, a conflict or duel that resulted in a tie is due to the interactions between the players, so the results aren't "known" when you initiate.  However, given the complete lack of player interaction during a glory count, it is harder to make that call, since you would know the state before hand.  However, I expect "performing a glory count" will be considered a game state change, even if the results don't result in one.

Its an interesting philosophical discussion about the possibility of cards existing in an environment versus what cards physically exist.  Does a card have to know about what physically exists, or could possibly exist?  But that also opens up a weird can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

While I get feel this is the correct answer as well, the whole no game state change excuse always annoys me.  There is technically a change, as the card has left the players hand thus their hand size has changed.  I realize that FFG has ruled that isn't sufficient so as to avoid players just "discarding" unplayable cards to avoid passing, but in this case the card is a valid play (we can resolve its effects by holding a glory count) and we then have a tie so the final effect leaving no winner or loser so the effects of the glory count fizzle, it would be the same as a tied duel the effect that initiated the duel is still valid, however the final effect of the duel will fizzle due to the tie.

The rule is actually "the effect of the ability must have the potential to change the game state". A card leaving a player's hand because it is played is not part of the effect; neither is paying for the cost of the ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...