Why is it a tie for everyone if all monsters die?

[Wayl3r]

Just played this epic bout of double poison spitting and double damage.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=420816830

I ended up clawing up the remaining monster before dying of my 5! poison wounds at the last round.
But why did the other monsters who had died on the previous rounds also get a tie?
I understand a four-way tie if all monsters die on the same round but this was not the case here.

Is this an official rule or a bug?

[thoun]

It's in the rules : if everybody dies, nobody wins

[Wayl3r]

Thanks.

What about when 1 monster wins and all others die.
Is it an equal defeat for other monsters or are they placed in some order?

[Wayl3r]

To answer my own question: when only 1 monster survives, looks like there is a tiebreaker for those who die and the monsters are placed in order:
https://boardgamearena.com/7/kingoftoky ... =420871426

Odd that there is no such tiebreaker thing when there is no winner. The game is essentially "a waste of time" if no points are awarded.
Not that I care, but it's the principle!

[guiriman]

Can understand why you’d hate it on here but last week with my kids Ibtook Hugh Altitude Bombing at the end rather than sealing the win, killing myself as well in the business. The kids absolutely loved it

[Jellby]

You can't have all losers but ranked (so some "more loser" than others). If there is a ranking, there must be some (maybe tied) winner.

[arisanana]

What about when 1 monster wins and all others die.
Is it an equal defeat for other monsters or are they placed in some order?

Specifically, on Board Game Arena, I assume they have to / are forced to rank the "losers" in some manner in order to settle the ELO situation — after all, for the most part, ELO is taken from the loser to give to the winner.

Now, the rules in King of Tokyo as a game is also, specifically, "there is only one winner" (well unless multiple winners by points). Hence if you play by moral ground following that belief, everyone should strive for 1st place only, because that's the only winner, and in truth the developer(s) have labeled the final ranking as only winner(s) vs losers, instead of 1-5. But because ELO is ELO, you can't just be like "ok all the losers lose 10 points and the winner gets 40 points"; that's kinda out of balance.

Unfortunately, thanks to such an ELO system, the end result is that it inevitably creates a "well whoever dies first is the bottom ranker", and so on so forth situation.

However, if we're strictly talking about playing King of Tokyo in real life, with the physical board game, well, generally speaking unless multiple people reach 20 points at the same time, there's only one winner, so the order you die in or the number of points you have by then doesn't matter, because either way, you and the others didn't fulfill the win conditions, therefore you are equally losers. You can think of it this way, unless you prefer the mentality "I was so close I would've been the winner if it hadn't been for YOU!" (wherein 2nd place is indeed important)

Odd that there is no such tiebreaker thing when there is no winner. The game is essentially "a waste of time" if no points are awarded.
Not that I care, but it's the principle!

Therefore, likewise, in a real life match, say a KoT tournament IRL, if everyone dies together.... well, then maybe no one progresses to the next bracket, because no one won — essentially you win nothing, and because no one wins anything, no one loses anything to the winner either. I believe as a principle, no exchange of points when no winners is most faithful to the original game if the wording in the rules is to be adhered to strictly. Besides, the point of playing the game is because you enjoy the game first, and then because you want to raise your rank at the game you like, no?

Otherwise, if you're playing because you want points or movement in points, then that's all the more reason to play to prevent a draw situation