Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
The fundamental difference is that the mirror should be mirrored, and the other templates should not. Therefore, the fact that there is some degree of non-mirroring on the mirror is not the norm, but a reason to think about how to fix it. The "who gets the hero" roulette doesn't fit well with the idea of the mirror. Partly because it spoils good games by making players agree to a draw, not wanting to gamble (and I understand them).
In the future, I hope this loophole will be closed (at least on the mirrors), and for now, we'll close it with a verbal rule.
The fact that the "fire and buy for 100K" tactic disappears is not a big loss; it is used well in 1 out of 500 games. Finales with pawn exchanges happen much more often, so they are a priority.
According to this logic, players should have the same heroes in the tavern with the same skill tree, otherwise it is not the norm. In the "who gets the hero" roulette, the player with more money and time usually wins, which doesn't make this situation so random.
And what is the point of introducing such a rule already during the tournament, considering that it is not clearly defined and can create a lot of controversial situations? Besides, all the participants who have responded here are clearly against it.