Online tournament: The best hero.

Dudge should play again, if he is a real Hero (no offense to Dudge), so that everything is fair.

What does "real Hero" have to do with it? Where in the rules does it prohibit joining neutral creatures? Where does it say that this is "unfair"? This kind of "playing the victim" really annoys me. How do you know that no one joined Dudge's opponent's side during the game? Maybe he specifically calculated all possible scenarios and the strength of his army and created his tactics so that they would join him? (of course, this is not the case, but what if Dudge calculated this option using quadratic equations and thus gained an advantage in troops?)
I think this turns into empty and meaningless arguments. If you lost, so what? The main thing is not to win, but to lose with dignity and show a good and interesting game to your opponent. I know that it seems unfair and very difficult to accept when you feel like you developed better and played better, but you lost due to such coincidences. I myself have had similar moments when I lost in a tournament to one opponent because I forgot to remove the shackles of war at an unfortunate moment. In any other case, I would have won almost certainly. It was hard for me, especially since this game was very important. But, nevertheless, life goes on, and you need to be more attentive.
After such incidents, all the blame falls on the organizers. But they didn't do it on purpose, but due to inexperience. In one tournament, I am the organizer and the map editor, and I have had to listen to many complaints about similar shortcomings in the creation of the map, because there is absolutely no experience.