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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
This is called jurisprudence. From a common-sense perspective, it contains quite a lot of nonsense, but courts make decisions in this way.
Now, let's read the wording:
In this case, it became clear on turn 112 that point A had occurred, but since the restart is "optional," there's no need to rush; you can play a little longer and then take a restart according to point B. Sometimes, there are generations where a player has two paths to the center...
Yes, I understand that this is a flaw in the rules, but the letter of the law is exactly like this in this place...
Wicc
Yes, the previous posts were written after a misreading as "leading from the starting castle to the main town," but in reality, it's "leading from the starting castle to the central treasure," meaning that in this case, point B is not applicable.
So, what does jurisprudence and the letter of the law say in this situation?