Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments. — Tournament Committee

Grando

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Sir Davos Seaworth

I believe that the rules for this particular game scenario are perfectly thought out...

Well, if they are, in your opinion, perfectly thought out, then quote the rules – the very passage from which it directly follows that
A player with archers must surrender in battle as soon as the player with skeletons indicates this to them.
(or some other passage in the rules, thanks to which the situation is unambiguously resolved in your opinion)

Technically, the owner of the skeletons can simply hand over control to the computer and go to sleep...

I'll just wish you technical luck in pressing the autobattle button in a battle against a human.
By the way, I agree that if this were possible, there would really be no controversial situation. But here's the problem – the button doesn't work in a Human vs. Human battle.

Nevertheless – it is precisely this argument of yours – although it doesn't work in practice – that specifically convinced me that the decision should be exactly this – the archers should retreat.
But I still don't agree that the rules are perfectly thought out – and I still suggest finding a quote from them that unambiguously resolves this situation.

https://www.twitch.tv/grando__

sir Davos Seaworth

8 years ago

Auto-translated

formally, of course, he is not obliged to, but if he encounters such a disrespectful opponent, nothing prevents him from countering with an automated attack, because in this specific case, the owner of the skeletons has nothing to fear. (In the first case, when there is no demoralization of the angels, the owner of the skeletons must retreat, and this is clearly stated.)

"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn."
ICQ 716748479

In reply to sir Davos Seaworth

Juristis

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Sir Davos Seaworth

Formally, he is not obliged to, of course, but if he encounters such a disrespectful opponent, nothing prevents him from countering with an autobattle, because in this specific case, the owner of the skeletons has nothing to fear. (In the first case - when there is no demoralization of the angels - the owner of the skeletons must retreat, and this is clearly stated.)

Autobattle cannot be activated in a battle with a human.

heroes3.tv/juristis
ICQ - 488-784-621, skype - juristis18

Весна 2014.

In reply to Sav

Dirty_Player

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Sav

In this case, the situation is not a stalemate – the skeletons will attack the archers anyway; the question is how much time it will take. Therefore, from the point of view of saving time, it is reasonable for the archers to expose themselves to the attack, or somehow break this situation (escape). The rule about a stalemate simply does not apply here.

I completely agree with this point of view.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Chemist_HP

8 years ago

Auto-translated

I request the AC to look into this situation:

Tournaments "One for All", game Chemist_HP vs Faria

Mini-nost template. On 211, before jumping to the Dragon Utopia, I bought some units, grands, and wood from the growth and, via TP and DD, attacked a passing blue village with my main hero using three ones. The opponent insists on a red rush, according to rule 2.1.1 paragraph a) ...on the blue Castle (even if the Castle is not guarded)...

During the discussion of the aforementioned episode with Amiloo, it became clear that he and I have different approaches to interpreting the rules. For him, some rules must be followed strictly, while others can be supplemented and clarified if necessary. For me, all rules are equal, and if a specific situation requires clarification, then it should be provided. Therefore, I disagree with his verdict — a technical loss based on a red rush.

Thank you for your attention!
P.S. I cannot upload the save here; Amiloo has it. Just so you know, I'll be away for the weekend starting Friday

In reply to Chemist_HP

De_Luxe

8 years ago

Auto-translated

(I am, of course, a vested party), but let's try to remove the resource penalty (RP) after, say, two weeks. Seriously, a player can be fully immersed in the game and might not even notice the timer, and then they have to worry about the RP... especially since there's already a trade system for colors.

FireToSky

8 years ago

Auto-translated

The rules for Random Randomness include the clause: "if the increase does not affect the outcome of the battle, then it is not Random Randomness."

In reply to FireToSky

Dirty_Player

8 years ago

Auto-translated

FireToSky

The rules of Random Number Generation (RNG) state that if the increase doesn't affect the outcome of the battle, then it's not considered RNG.

When attacking a town or village, this rule does not apply.

De_Luxe

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Can someone explain to me what the difference is whether or not he attacked a town... if it doesn't affect the outcome.

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

In my opinion, the resource penalty (RR) should be removed from all map templates (except maybe for M-k). Trading for color is quite sufficient.

In reply to Wicc

Dirty_Player

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

In my opinion, it's worth removing the resource penalty on all map templates (except maybe for M-maps). Trading for color is quite enough.

It's been a long time coming, to be honest. Perhaps this incident will force them to do it.

De_Luxe

8 years ago

Auto-translated

wicc++
I mean the same thing.

Added after 39 seconds
And let's figure out how to proceed, otherwise everyone will just write... and then we'll be stuck for another 3 years.

In reply to De_Luxe

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

De_Luxe

wicc++
I mean the same thing

Added after 39 seconds
and let's decide how to move forward, otherwise everyone will just write "only" again... and it'll be another 3 years.

Well, HotA hasn't had RP on any template for a long time. And SoD is lagging behind as usual :)