Wicc
Auto-translated
If I were judging, I would declare a loss.
Regardless of whether Dark violated the rules or not, he shouldn't be penalized, as the situation clearly falls into the category of borderline cases that are open to interpretation (the fact that this is being discussed confirms this).
Borderline situations should be interpreted in favor of the player, as they have to make decisions under a ticking clock and don't have time to delve into the nuances of the rules.
His opponent can only report the incident to those responsible for the rules, so that they can either provide clarification or amend the rules. But in any case, these amendments will not have retroactive effect.
Added 1 hour 16 minutes ago
I've studied the situation, and it's quite interesting because both sides are right in their own way.
Dark & Co. are right in that when writing the rules, the author meant exactly what they are saying – "When spawning, you can attack the guard post from any convenient angle." I initially thought the same way, so I was surprised by the claims.
But then I read the rules carefully and realized that Gomunguls & Co. are right in that the author failed to translate his idea into text.
Pay close attention, now comes the legal nitpicking...
So, from the point of view of the rules, there are 3 types of guard post passages:
1) Multiple guard posts, i.e., several guards for one passage.
2) Single guard post, moved deeper into the spawn area.
3) Single guard post, standing on the border of the spawn areas.
In the first case, the wording is "to approach the selected guard post." The trajectory of the approach is not specified, i.e., you can fly halfway across the spawn area, the main thing is not to touch anything in the process.
In the second case, the wording is "to eliminate it, you are allowed to pass into this zone," which also does not impose any restrictions on the player's movement trajectory, except for "the first action."
But in the third case, there is nothing like that, i.e., such guard posts should be attacked without stepping on empty cells (even if the route through them is shorter).
Thus, if there were an empty cell near the wyverns, Dark could fly as much as he wanted over the center, and this would not be a violation of the rules. But there is no such cell, so he should have attacked only from the rocks.
I believe this situation is a bug in the rules and suggest reformulating them so that there are no such ambiguities.
Another bug in the rules, not related to this situation, but capable of creating controversial situations in the future – "In order to pass from one zone to another through a specific passage, it is necessary to eliminate the guard of this passage."
An ambiguous situation – if a player breaks through one of two passages, runs around the center for a bit, and then decides to fly back to his spawn area through the rocks. The question is – at what distance from the broken passage can he do this? At any distance (including over the unbroken passage)? Up to the midpoint between the passages (how is it calculated)? What if the player is unaware of the existence of the second passage? What if he suspects its existence, but there is no formal proof?
In my opinion, the rules should be reformulated so that breaking through any guard post on any of the passages in the zone is sufficient to enter the zone by any possible route. The purpose of this restriction is that people don't run into the center on the 1st week past the moved guard post, and nothing else, so there is no need to complicate the rule unnecessarily.
Added 27 minutes ago
And one more question "to think about" (in advance) – a player flies over a guard post and steps on a cell that borders both the guard post and another guard, thinking that he is attacking the guard post, but in reality, he attacks another guard. As an option – the other guard was obscured by the graphics of the rocks (this happens).
