Kuuchi wrote: ↑04 August 2025, 22:25
Meeplelowda wrote: ↑28 July 2025, 22:13
tuptim wrote: ↑28 July 2025, 21:12
I understand by reading the rules that a tie breaker will be resolved by the remaining unused gold. If that is a tie then there is a shared victory.
I have just played a tournament game where this scenario happened. We tied and both had no leftover gold, but I was declared the winner. I understand that despite the rules there must be a winner for the tournament to continue, but I would like to know by what additional criteria was I the chosen winner. Is it a 50/50 coin toss? Likely only the BGA developer would know the answer. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=699343665
Not even the devs know for sure because this is a tournament framework issue and it isn't up to them. There have been many threads about this in the Tournaments sub-forum. To summarize:
if you end up tied either by the rules of the game or because someone got expelled, then oldest account advances. The second scenario doesn't matter for two player games, but for 3+ it is the source of many complaints.
Thanks for the information ! I was wondering too. But this is clear favoritism... not a good thing though.
I think the best solution for this kind of scenario is to immediately send each player a notification, where they have to both join a new table for a rematch (in the same conditions).
No one should be put down for unfair reasons, and both players would feel better about it, whatever the result !
This has also been discussed before, but there are a couple problems.
The biggest problem with your proposed solution is that it could hold up the entire tournament whenever this happens (and it happens quite a lot). In a Swiss tournament, the next round can't proceed until all matches in the current round finish. If the round was supposed to last 10 days, and someone gets expelled on day 9, now the entire tournament pool has to wait while one match gets replayed. Even in bracket tournaments, at a minimum the next-round game that the current match fed into would get delayed waiting for the current match to be replayed, and sometimes the games in the next round after that as well if the other tables are playing quickly.
Another issue is that part about "in the same conditions." Some games can't be played with one fewer player or are completely different games with one fewer player. Let's say you're playing a game that requires a minimum of three players and only one advances. Well, if the third player times out, how do you do a rematch just among the remaining two? Even for games where you can play with two players, sometimes the two-player variant is really a completely different game and maybe neither one of the two remaining players wanted to play that variant which is why they signed up for a three-player tournament.
