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.
This is exactly the same situation (in essence) in which I made a mistake with the Bishop in the first game of OFB-12.
Moreover, we were playing on a mirrored map; I made a mistake on my side (I played it safe and didn't run where I could have, but ran around), while he, having more experience, didn't even think that there was something to consider and just ran straight ahead.
The adjacent zones are located on the same type of terrain, so it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO UNEQUIVOCALLY SAY HOW MANY TURNS IT TAKES AND WHERE.
Here, if you look above, you can see two passages (gnomes on the left, empty space on the right - maybe it has already been cleared?), and if you look slightly below, you can see one passage (to the left and above the dark quest hut, below the gnomes and stones under them).
And by the way, in the screenshot that Dima attached to his report, his hero hasn't crossed this lower passage yet, which is the only one, and for crossing which the gnomes need to be defeated.
In my opinion, the only perfectly correct line of behavior for the player here is to quickly start thinking: what do the gnomes guard? Nothing. This means they are guarding a passage.
Where is the passage/passages? The ground is the same – it’s unclear.
So? It means an immediate save and sending it to the judge so that he makes a decision. And even if this is a subjective decision by the judge or AK, it will become an objective (the same for both) truth for the players, and they will be able to continue playing according to the same rules for both (which is the goal of refining the game rules).
I also think that another principle applies here, which Dirty voiced today. If it is impossible to unequivocally make a decision about a violation of the rules, then the situation should be interpreted in favor of the player (who is accused of violating the rules). That is, in this case, I think that Dima's position is not hopeless. And once again, I would suggest Korovka appeal to the AK. In my opinion, there is something to consider carefully here.