Auto-translated
I think I won't be wrong if I assume that it's a complete draw.
Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
bubuch
Auto-translated
I think the archers are retreating.
=Lizard=
Auto-translated
Alphein, you are mistaken (unless you are joking). Archdevils definitely retreat, even if you need to cast 100500+ anti-morale spells in a row.
Auto-translated
I was just kidding. But in this situation, I was making fun of the rules.
Four years ago, when I was awarded a win in a stalemate situation, I wrote that the rule for stalemate situations was incorrect. Simply because it's not a victory (the "winner" didn't defeat anyone), but a technical fluke. I then suggested removing the terms "attacker" and "defender," and introducing the term "player creating a stalemate" (avoiding contact in battle). And I suggested that in such situations, the "player creating a stalemate" should offer a draw, and the second player should either agree to a draw or retreat.
The community didn't support the idea.
And, by the way, here I don't understand why the Archdevils should retreat. According to the rules, the attacker must win the battle or retreat. The skeletons attacked. Let them win. And in this case, I think the rules should include a clause specifying how many rounds the player claiming victory has to win the battle. Then it will be even more interesting to see how the skeletons will win.
But I'm just suggesting this, and I'm not even going to argue – everyone can just write their opinion, like a sports prediction – and the AI will make the decision; we'll read it. But I'm ready to discuss my version of the rules.
Wicc
Auto-translated
In European leagues, there seemed to be a rule stating that “in a stalemate situation, the retreating side is obligated to accept the fight.”
Auto-translated
And I also believe this option is incorrect for the same reason. Again, it's not a victory, but a technical mishap.
The winner didn't actually defeat anyone – remove this artificially added rule, and they simply wouldn't have been able to catch up.
The idea is that the rule shouldn't change the essence of the situation; it should emphasize it. But here, it also changes the essence.
The essence of a stalemate is a draw, not someone's victory.
Wicc
Auto-translated
The essence of a stalemate is a draw, not someone's victory.
Marmot
Auto-translated
Perhaps a rule should be introduced: “If one of the opponents avoids contact in battle and this clearly prevents the battle from ending in a victory for either player, that player must either take a hit or attack themselves to break the stalemate and make it possible for one of the opponents to win the battle.” In other words, endlessly running around the battlefield should be prohibited. Or, alternatively: the battle should not continue, but the player with the higher total HP of their troops should be declared the winner (taking into account partial health due to injuries).
Auto-translated
And by the way, here I don't understand why the archers should retreat. According to the rules, the attacker must win the battle or retreat. Skeletons attacked. Let them win.
If the archers do not put themselves in a position to be attacked, in my opinion, this is something similar to deliberately wasting time and not making a move in battle (let the opponent win however they want, when they simply don't get a turn). Or, in a losing game, not surrendering, but simply doing nothing and waiting for the entire timer to run out each turn. There is nothing in the rules against such things, but it is unlikely to be considered adequate behavior. I don't know if it is possible to adequately describe such situations in the rules.
Auto-translated
Sav, by the way, I've always wanted to know, isn't morality in Heroes purely mathematical? Sometimes it seems that way (and it's not just my impression), as if creatures behave morally simply because the player's decision aligns with the AI's idea of the "best" solution in that situation.
The argument about the non-pathological nature of the situation is very interesting, especially considering that for it to become non-pathological in practice, one side must simply and immediately surrender voluntarily. It seems logical, but something still feels off.
Auto-translated
Sav, by the way, I've always wanted to know, isn't morality in Heroes purely mathematical? Sometimes it seems that way (and it's not just my impression) that creatures become demoralized simply because the player's decision coincided with some AI's ideas about the "best" solution in a given situation.
However, it should be noted that these are pseudo-random numbers, but they try to reproduce randomness, and if this fails (for example, the generator loops), it is more likely a bug.
The argument about the non-stalemate situation is very interesting. Especially considering that, in practice, for it to become a non-stalemate, one side must simply immediately and voluntarily surrender. It seems logical, but something feels off.
You can even calculate: the probability of demoralization is 1/6, the probability of 2 in a row in 2 given rounds is 1/36. In total, for 500 pairs of rounds (i.e., 1000 rounds), the probability that 2 demoralizations will not occur in a pair is ~0.00008%. This is negligible (the probability of a misclick is likely to be higher). And this does not take into account all cases of 2 demoralizations (it may be the last round in some pair and the first in the next), with a full account, the probability will be even less.
The same is true for 3 demoralizations in a row, and so on, only more rounds will be required.
So, the outcome of the battle is quite clear here. And voluntary surrender is only needed to reduce the time spent on running these 1000 rounds, with the outcome still being clear. Just like in the game, you surrender after losing an army and artifacts.
sir Davos Seaworth
Auto-translated
I think the rules for this particular game situation are perfectly thought out. If there weren't any anti-morale rules, the skeletons would have had to retreat, but as it is, they stand their ground. Technically, the owner of the skeletons can simply hand over control to the computer and go to sleep, as long as they wake up when the archers reach 3 morale points.
By the way, I don't remember if the timer starts ticking immediately after the battle ends, or if you need to press the confirmation button first. (If it's the latter, you could even wake up a couple of days later and continue the turn.)
=Lizard=
Auto-translated
And I think that this "stalemate situation" is a unique feature. Because sometimes it's the only way to counter hordes of skeletons.
sir Davos Seaworth
Auto-translated
By the way, I've been wanting to clarify one nuance regarding the rules for a while now:
1.2. Restart after the first encounter up to turns 115-116-117 inclusive for fast, medium, and slow maps, respectively.
An encounter is considered a direct contact between players, i.e., any battle between them (a battle between any heroes, a battle with a castle garrison or an opponent's mine).
So, does capturing an unprotected mine or even the opponent's main castle within the specified timeframe count as grounds for requesting a restart due to an encounter? Or does it still count?
Sanin
Auto-translated
By the way, I've been wanting to clarify one nuance regarding the rules for a while:
1.2. Restart after the first encounter up to rounds 115-116-117 inclusive for fast, medium, and slow paths respectively.
An encounter is considered direct contact between players, i.e., any battle between them (battle between any heroes, battle with an enemy castle or mine garrison).
So, capturing an unprotected mine or even the main castle of your opponent within the specified time frame does not give grounds to demand a restart due to an encounter, right? Or does it?
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
recijeb