Tie Breaker AFTER counting gold and still a TIE

[Meeplelowda]

Well you fooled me ! Hahaha It seems this "oldest account" rule is not accurate (anymore ?). My guess of the "hidden" rule : first player to go gets the win. But it is just a guess...

There is no need to guess. Just provide a link to the tournament where you think it happened.

Well there is, since no one seems to have the answer. Your statement especially, appears to be incorrect, or at least outdated (see https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=718967428).

Thanks. This is very useful. We don't have many (any?) examples of a game finishing, but ending in a tie because all of the game's tiebreakers were exhausted. The overwhelming majority of examples of ties were from someone being expelled, leaving all the other players tied. I'm not aware of a single counterexample to the rule that oldest accounts advance in that circumstance. This will be fruit for further discussion in the tournaments forum.

Now that I think of it, we should probably examine a bunch of Lucky Numbers tournaments, because that game ties a lot.

Of course, ideally BGA would just document what rule they are applying. I cannot comprehend why they guard it like a state secret.

It look me a while to find an old thread where someone said that "I contacted BGA" and they said for a round robin tournament to determine the final standings "There is no tie breaker, and the tournament system has to select winners - so it's a random selection." A two-person single elimination tournament similarly "has to select" someone to advance, so I could see it also being random. But then why does it treat games ending tied because of a player being expelled differently, which definitely is not random (to a high degree of certainty)?

[4WKW4RD]

Thank you for this detailed state of the knowledge overview !

Concerning single eliminiation "supertied" games, I have a couple more exemples in CC I could try to find back. My guess come from these, since first player to go made the cut in all of them. But it could be pure coincidence on such small numbers. I was thinking it could make sens too, because last player to go as the responsibility for last move and the "supertie" happening. That way he would have to aim for more than that to secure the win and could not take avantage out of calculations around a rule that could be considered outside of the game itself. Another way to avoid that would be a selection at random as you suggested, which might actually be how it simply goes.

[Meeplelowda]

Thank you for this detailed state of the knowledge overview !

Concerning single eliminiation "supertied" games, I have a couple more exemples in CC I could try to find back. My guess come from these, since first player to go made the cut in all of them. But it could be pure coincidence on such small numbers. I was thinking it could make sens too, because last player to go as the responsibility for last move and the "supertie" happening. That way he would have to aim for more than that to secure the win and could not take avantage out of calculations around a rule that could be considered outside of the game itself. Another way to avoid that would be a selection at random as you suggested, which might actually be how it simply goes.

This is a reasonable guess, but I don't think it is something that is tailored to CC. The devs only implement the tiebreakers the games' rules specify. They don't decide on a game-by-game basis what happens in a tournament if the game's tiebreakers are inadequate.

[Squirtle4evaeva]

I thought in the rules on here the number of keys was the tie breaker. I still was declared the loser despite having more keys