Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Essentially, this is also exploiting a bug (bug in generation/shifted guard), and everything Vova wrote applies here: one player has no way to resist the other, and the game ends before it even begins. Is this game-breaking or not?

Here's another question. Does this reasoning apply to the situation where Blue kills Red in a castle on turn 111 while playing under anarchy rules? (This is a real situation that occurred in the "Outlaw" tournament.) As you know, all rules are abolished in anarchy except for the rule of fair play. I invite all proponents of morality to join the discussion: is such a victory fair?

and no actions from the opponent could prevent this anymore
the game implies competition, until the very end, until the game objective, equivalent to the victory of one of the sides, is achieved, or someone surrenders
but where was the competition?
and since there was no game, there is no point in talking about the result

he got an impenetrable block on the draw, he saw it and doesn't want to waste his and the other player's time! but here, the block came and broke it itself :smile16:

So, red kills blue in a castle on turn 111. In reality, there was no competition (game), and no actions by the opponent could prevent this. Blue is obligated to restart. Essentially, it turns out that two players start a game, and one says: "Hey, buddy, let me have three restarts, and you have two." Is that what you call fair play?

We're talking about Anarchy, where there are no rules. If you agree to play in this format, be prepared to lose, including on map 111.
Wings take advantage of a shifted guard on map 111 without breaking through it, so why can't you kill your opponent on map 111, on a map where anything is possible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRMRfjvzz7E :D

And this is written by the guy who started all this...

And this is written by the guy who started all this...

The question can be reduced to this: can Blue take a restart during Red's turn, before Red's turn is completed?
The answer is yes! He was given an impenetrable block at the end of his turn, he saw it and doesn't want to waste his and others' time! But here, a block came and broke it itself :smile16:
The main thing is to notice it in time, although a restart can also be taken during an attack - the turn hasn't ended yet, but Red included Blue in the game on his own turn, 111 during the battle.
Red also gets a plus, he took a restart from his opponent.
If Blue doesn't have any restarts left by that time, then he is to blame for spending them, using his chances on the restarts he took and encountering a factual analogue of an impenetrable block at the gate.
How many times have we lost like this on the 1st turn, and nothing terrible happened.

But if Blue has restarts left, and Red doesn't agree to it? Then it's a controversial situation.
And the prerogative of common sense is needed to resolve it, i.e., the Admin.
That precedent that was in "Outlaw" - did Blue have any restarts left? If not, then everything is fair (as far as I remember, Vika's wording was - there is no restart for the match, if anything, it's your own fault), but if there were any left, then Blue could quite claim to continue the game.

Be prepared, but I would suggest an objective restart in such a case

We're talking about Anarchy, where there are no rules. If you agree to play in this format, be prepared to lose, including on turn 111.
Wings can win by having a heavily guarded army on turn 111 without breaking through the defenses. So why can't you kill your opponent on turn 111 on a map where anything is possible?

But the rule of fair play (in my subjective opinion) is violated

2) the player was lucky, he found two parts of the Admiral's Hat, plus gloves or boots, learned advanced water magic, and discovered an accessible water area

3) the player was lucky, he can reach the opponent's castle on the first day

This is probably the most important thing in the post.
That's why everyone has the right to write and express their point of view.
But there is also objectivity, which, one way or another, does or doesn't correlate with our subjectivity.
Recognizing this fact and being able to relate it – that’s what is needed for development, not for degradation/stagnation.

I already wrote about the Land of Magic map.
There are guaranteed Shaman Altars on both sides, and water.
Perhaps, the game rules for fixed maps included a clause about not using the Shaman Altar bug (specifically for this map), or maybe they didn't because it was obviously unacceptable, but either way, no one even tried to use this bug.
Both options work as precedents (with or without the clause).

He fought in a Castle,
i.e., he entered the game.

But he also took turns before the fateful 111, for at least 3 days (or even more if both sides were taking restarts).

Regarding the chances of winning – they were practically zero:
The player got lucky and received a Diplomat hero, joined with junk units, and killed his opponent with an even greater power advantage than in the situation described above.
Ah yes, before the Diplomat crushed him, the opponent did take some turns.

And he should have made the decision to take the last restart considering the possibility of the opponent getting a Diplomat as part of mandatory generation, as well as considering the hole in the wall between the main towns, i.e., taking these factors into account.
Anarchy, gentlemen!

If you anticipate being killed at 111, don't take a restart if your turn has already come... or, assess the odds and take it anyway.
If you expect your Necropolis opponent to have a Legion of Skeletons, think about how to counter it and implement that strategy.
You can figure something out; think and implement it – with more or less chances.
Moreover, you always have not one option but several, and you choose the best one based on your judgment; this is what constitutes Gameplay.