Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
I haven't watched all the video. 08:30 - 08:40 Jelen has already finished his 112 and says that he can give the save to the judge so that he can check if there is another way to the treasure room. that is, it is already clear that 112 on Jelen's side cannot be the "day of discovery" of the need for technical support, and Kamikaze already had this information.
so that he can check if there is another path to the treasure that is, it is already clear that 112 on the side of Jelen cannot be the "day of discovery" of the need for technical support.
Looks like it's your turn to reread the rules now :D
Grando
Auto-translated
Damn. Well, yeah. ) I wrote such a "convincing and unambiguous" text above that I was already expecting a backlash. :D Somewhere, it had to turn out that I was wrong. It's actually good that the backlash came so quickly.
Indeed. There was no need to check the second path at all. Does the first path from the start to the center exist? Yes. Is there a Guard outpost in the passage? No. That's already point A. :D
However, I will stick to my opinion that at least both of them messed up. And as of the end of turn 112, both still had doubts. And for a blitz strategy, this is forgivable. From Jelen's side, the ideal course of action would have been to immediately make a save, take another turn 112, and exit as soon as a controversial moment arose. From the "kamikaze" player's side, the ideal course of action would have been to immediately tell the opponent to make a save on turn 112 as soon as he voiced the controversial question. Neither of them could figure this out, and both players made this mistake.
The mistake – writing in the after-game chat, already having all the information – was made by only one player. Of those who expressed their opinions, I am closest to Lucky's point of view – "some kind of wild aggression." And this is what caused my sharp reaction above.
After Helen's reply a little higher up, the discussion doesn't really lead anywhere; it’s not worth breaking your head over. It wasn't worth it from the beginning.
Kamikaze should receive a reprimand for his unwillingness to play fair and a warning that if he continues to write such *nonsense* in AK, he will receive a preventative ban from all tournaments for several months. No problem, just need to think with your head when you are distracting people. Even in tennis, despite having an automatic system for determining whether the ball is in or out of bounds, players are only allowed three incorrect challenges. I think AK can afford to be stricter and limit itself to two instances of dealing with blatant nonsense. They aren't resolving these issues on a professional basis (for money).
The essence of "the complaint" lies in the fact that Kamikaze claims that the "date of discovery" for the reason for technical restart is 112, but in reality, the "date of discovery" was when it became clear that the second path did not lead to GO, and this definitely isn't 112. And 112 is the day Helen informed his opponent that there might be a technical restart. And if the date of discovery isn't 112, but the game continued only until turn 113? Then what is the "date of discovery"? That's right. 113. There are no other options. As of the end of turn 112, the question about the second path remained open. (This is for lovers of jurisprudence). Is anyone discussing the fact that there is no GO on the road at all? No, they are not. There is no GO, and this is an obvious technical error.
Is this some kind of complex calculation regarding the date of discovery? If someone wanted to think logically about the given topic, they would figure it out themselves in 10-15 minutes and wouldn't distract everyone with their writing (this also applies to Vik). It would be okay if there was any meaning to it (like in my lengthy posts Kappa), but there isn't.
Kamikaze receives a warning. The issue is closed. Thank you all for your attention.
And if he starts arguing now, ask for that video, and if the video shows that Helen wrote to him that there is another unchecked path where there might be GO, then immediately ban him from all tournaments for 3 months. Whatever you call it... In this case, Helen wasn't really wrong. For Blitz, he performed more or less close to perfectly.
I’d give you a piece of my mind for words like those!
ICQ 701845462
BISHOP
Auto-translated
Looking at all this, you get the impression that the player with the nickname Al Feyn really needs to prove something to everyone, which explains why he's so eager to write all these posts.
A complaint was received from ЯR in the Blitz Jebus Cross tournament. The game was against tun7gus7. The situation looks like the screenshot. The GO is not the opponent (the opponent is a marsh), there are two passages. tun7gus7 is in the center, having already broken through their own GO. tun7gus7 clears the dragons. Afterwards, they run around and collect the rest of the center. Some heroes then run into the respawn on the grass. After reviewing the saves, I went to re-read the rules. I found clarifications:
II.2.6.3. It is allowed to enter a neighboring zone without clearing the passage guard in order to visit an object belonging to the zone the player is in.
That is, tun7gus7 was in the center, ran a bit with Tazar on the grass to visit the next object in the center. No violation. However.
2.6.1. In order to move from one zone to another through a specific passage, it is necessary to eliminate the guard of that passage.
The guard of the vertical passage has been eliminated. The guard of the horizontal passage has not. The passages are very close. Essentially, a violation could occur if tun7gus7 ran a hero along the horizontal road from the center to the grass or from the grass to the center. But the argument "I ran onto the vertical road, and from there onto the respawn or into the center" always arises. The roads and passages are very close; finding such a fact requires very scrupulous counting of moves, which I don't want to do. My view: a violation following the rules is very difficult to find and prove, so it can be considered that there was no violation. Especially since one of the GO was broken through. I would like to know what the judges think about this matter.
P. S. A general question. I would like to know the opinion of the AC regarding streamsniping (since more than one suspicion has already been expressed in private messages with a request to review it). Can a proven fact of streamsniping be considered a violation of fair play rules, and can players be disqualified? Also, I would like to know how to prove a fact of streamsniping (in case the answer to the first question is positive)?
Regarding Jebb, I think the rule should be adjusted:
In order to exit one's zone and enter the central area (zone 5), as well as to move from the central area to other zones, it is necessary to break through the corresponding Gate of Oblivion (GO). Using buggy passages between the central area and a specific zone is prohibited until the GO between these zones is broken.
Add:
"In the case of multiple passages between the center and a zone, it is sufficient to break through the GO on any of the passages in order to use all of them in the future."
Ideally, this should be done on all templates (I don't know why they are sticking to this rule), but specifically on Jebb, it is really relevant.
Moreover, with Wings/Fly, it is already possible to use additional passages.
Well, I wouldn't rush to put these two statements in the same category. Kamikaze specifically wanted to give his opponent a tech loss and stated it directly. As for YAR, does he want a tech loss in this situation with the GO? I don't see that being explicitly stated. Essentially, it could be a question rather than a "complaint." For now, it's not entirely clear.
Well, I wouldn't rush to put these two appeals in the same category. Kamikaze specifically wanted to give his opponent a tech loss and stated it directly. But does YAR want a tech loss in this situation with GO? I don't see that it's explicitly stated. In form, it could even be a question rather than a "complaint." Hopefully, it will become clearer tomorrow. :)
Yes, YAR's appeal was more of a question. He didn't directly ask for a tech loss in this case. Thank you for the clarification.
Мой любимьій размер - тройка. Будь то конса, утопа или сиськи ICQ:5676388
Mizrael
Auto-translated
The whole point of the issue in the picture is: how to consider the collision? Option one: two separate paths from the grass leading to the center, which merge directly at the exit point. Option two: a generator pushed a Guard of Order from the grass to the center, blocking the central path. In the first case, you need to defeat 2 guards, as if for two passages, in the second case, one is enough. A more detailed analysis is only possible with a save file, with cell-by-cell scanning of the terrain type at this intersection :) And even then, everything will be subjective; as many people, so many opinions.
Mizrael is right. From a purely technical point of view, there are two (or maybe three) passages merged into one, but in practice, this situation has always been treated as one large passage, which means you can defeat the red dragons and go wherever you want.
Georg_
Auto-translated
In a seasonal game against the opponent Positive, a controversial situation arose. The opponent attacks me, and after the battle, I have archers left on the field, while he has skeletons. My archers have -2 morale, and the skeletons can only catch up to me if three consecutive morale penalties occur. We played for 200 rounds, and this didn't happen. The rules state: "If a 'stalemate' situation occurs in battle, the attacking player must retreat." Practically, the situation is a stalemate, but theoretically, it isn't. Question: who should retreat? This game is just for fun, and its result isn't that important, but I would like to know for sure for the future.
