Recommend
9 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Biblios» Forums » Rules

Subject: Tiebreaker questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
I will not rest until Biblios is in the Top 100. - Steve Oksienik
United States
Howell
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Well I been watchin' while you been coughin, I've been drinking life while you've been nauseous, and so I drink to health while you kill yourself and I got just one thing that I can offer... Go on and save yourself and take it out on me
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
According to tie break rules, if there is a tie, the player who won the Illuminators category is the winner. I assume this means only if that player is one of the ones tied for victory? If neither of them won the Illuminators, does tiebreaking proceed down the card with Scribes being the next tiebreaker?

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Smidt
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good question Steve. Send that question to Dr. Finn and let me know what he says. Did you run into this situation?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Finn
msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In future editions, I'll make sure to state the tie-breaker rule more fully, as it is ambiguous. Here's the way it will be: Those people not involved in the tie will not be considered. Those involved in the tie for the win will use the Illuminator category as a tie-breaker; hence, whoever has the highest total value wins, then it goes to tie-breaker card. If none of the tied players have an Illuminator, then it moves down the line to Scribes and so on. This way, everyone knows that Illuminators are slightly more valuable to have.

Thanks for pointing out a flaw in the rules.

Steve (Dr. Finn)
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
But Gold is still the first tie-breaker, right?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ender Wiggins
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
drfinn wrote:
In future editions, I'll make sure to state the tie-breaker rule more fully, as it is ambiguous. Here's the way it will be: Those people not involved in the tie will not be considered. Those involved in the tie for the win will use the Illuminator category as a tie-breaker; hence, whoever has the highest total value wins, then it goes to tie-breaker card. If none of the tied players have an Illuminator, then it moves down the line to Scribes and so on. This way, everyone knows that Illuminators are slightly more valuable to have.

Thanks for pointing out a flaw in the rules.

Did these clarifications get overlooked in the new Biblios edition? It only gives the following provisions about how to break a tie at the game end:

"If two or more players have the same total on their dice, the player with the most Gold wins the game. If there is still a tie, the player who won the Monk category is the winner."

We had a rather unusual and thrilling situation in a three player game today:
- At the end of the game two of the players were tied for the lead at six points each.
- So we went to the first tiebreaker: Gold. Both were tied at 3 Gold each in hand!
- So we went to the next tiebreaker. The rules state "If there is still a tie, the player who won the Monk category is the winner." But the player who had "won the Monk category" was the third player who wasn't even involved in the game-winning tie!

Presumably the rules don't intend to hand the game to the third player in an instance like this - although they do read that way strictly speaking, because neither of the two leaders could be said to have "won the Monk category". We figured that the intent was to check between the two players tied for the lead who had the most points in Monk cards. In our case only one of these players even had Monk cards, so we awarded the win to her. Although if neither player had Monk cards in hand, the current rendition of the rules would have given no guidance about how to determine the winner.

It certainly made for an exciting finish! But it does seem that some further cleanup of the rules on this point is warranted, to make this clearer in line with the explanation given by the designer above.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
stephen wilcox
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
badge
Great artists steal
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would also like to see a clarification on this. Based on the above response by the good Dr. it seems that people not in the tie are not considered, but the rules do seem to be ambiguous.

thanks,
spwilcox3
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Andersen
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems to me that people who did not finish in a tie for first are never included in any game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Finn
msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess I should have said "In future editions that I make the game" I will clarify these things. Hopefully, in the next printing (if there is one), Iello and I can get it right.


EndersGame wrote:
drfinn wrote:
In future editions, I'll make sure to state the tie-breaker rule more fully, as it is ambiguous. Here's the way it will be: Those people not involved in the tie will not be considered. Those involved in the tie for the win will use the Illuminator category as a tie-breaker; hence, whoever has the highest total value wins, then it goes to tie-breaker card. If none of the tied players have an Illuminator, then it moves down the line to Scribes and so on. This way, everyone knows that Illuminators are slightly more valuable to have.

Thanks for pointing out a flaw in the rules.

Did these clarifications get overlooked in the new Biblios edition? It only gives the following provisions about how to break a tie at the game end:

"If two or more players have the same total on their dice, the player with the most Gold wins the game. If there is still a tie, the player who won the Monk category is the winner."

We had a rather unusual and thrilling situation in a three player game today:
- At the end of the game two of the players were tied for the lead at six points each.
- So we went to the first tiebreaker: Gold. Both were tied at 3 Gold each in hand!
- So we went to the next tiebreaker. The rules state "If there is still a tie, the player who won the Monk category is the winner." But the player who had "won the Monk category" was the third player who wasn't even involved in the game-winning tie!

Presumably the rules don't intend to hand the game to the third player in an instance like this - although they do read that way strictly speaking, because neither of the two leaders could be said to have "won the Monk category". We figured that the intent was to check between the two players tied for the lead who had the most points in Monk cards. In our case only one of these players even had Monk cards, so we awarded the win to her. Although if neither player had Monk cards in hand, the current rendition of the rules would have given no guidance about how to determine the winner.

It certainly made for an exciting finish! But it does seem that some further cleanup of the rules on this point is warranted, to make this clearer in line with the explanation given by the designer above.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim S

Maryland
msg tools
So, can you clarify how you would propose to break the tie in a situation such as EndersGame's? Do you agree that the winner is the person with the greatest number of Monk points (sum of values on Monk cards) between the two players that tied with equal gold?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Coppedge
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the record, my Iello rulebook says:
Quote:
If there is still a tie, the player (of those tied) who had the higher total points in the Monk category is the winner.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.