Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

We're talking about Anarchy, where there are no rules. If you agree to play in this format, be prepared to lose, including on turn 111.
Wings can win by having a heavily guarded army on turn 111 without breaking through the defenses. So why can't you kill your opponent on turn 111 on a map where anything is possible?

Yes, I was also talking about Anarchy. It operates under the principle of fair play, and there's a certain number of subjective restarts.

wowa explained quite thoroughly about the competitive principle, why the Admiral's Hat "kills the meaning and essence of the Game," and "turns the game into a mockery."

But killing an opponent without playing is somehow not considered unfair, even though the situation is the same.

a)

1) A player enters the command "nebuchadnezzar."
2) The player gets lucky and finds two pieces of the Admiral's Hat, plus gloves or boots, researches advanced water magic, and discovers an accessible water area.
3) The player gets lucky and can reach the opponent's castle on the first day.

b) And then what happens on the map is the same. One player takes their turn, and the other waits to be slaughtered like a sheep.

Are such actions fair to the opponent? And is an opponent even needed if they don't even get a turn? You could just as well play against the AI.

I tried to explain why the Admiral's Hat and killing on turn 111 are essentially the same thing. And now, two points of view become clear.
1) "This is cheating!" "There was no game, so what fairness can we talk about?!"
2) Well, essentially, killing on turn 111 is an analogy to an impenetrable block. And the Admiral's Hat is an analogy to an imbalanced situation, where if you don't win by turn 131, you're guaranteed to lose.

I hope I managed to convey my thought. :smile04:

Regarding objective restarts, I can't say anything because there are no rules in Anarchy. But, in my subjective opinion, the principle of fair play is violated.