Posts from your questions regarding the game rules (improving the interpretation). Auto-translated

It would be desirable to reach some conclusion on this matter. Here's an example from about a year ago, the Chemist HP vs. YaR game in OFB-8, where a redraw was made and it was established that the losses differed by a few imps, but the violator received no punishment whatsoever. Although the rules clearly address this situation.

No comments followed back then, just as no clarifications were added to the rules about how many imps the difference should be for a redraw to be considered a redraw. And maybe a technical loss is indeed too harsh a punishment for a violation that doesn't affect the outcome of the game, but there are plenty of situations where it's impossible to assess that impact. But how should such violations be punished then? The options with a timer and skipping a turn are certainly very interesting, but what if the violation is discovered after the saves have been opened?

Another example of how the refereeing on HeroesWorld is of terrible quality and usually happens "based on criminal concepts" rather than by the rules.

Game Ranger is waiting for its hero :smile01:

IMHO it's in vain that such mockeries come again and again from representatives of the "administration". HeroesWorld will ultimately end up with a strong and dissatisfied player elite playing among themselves, while only a "Danish national team + a legion of newcomers" remain in the local tournaments, i.e. this will be the Game Ranger of 2008-2009. The lawyer had a point. In a similar situation (or rather, even more harmless) in my game with Toganash in a team tournament, a replay was ordered (and even then supposedly out of the latter's leniency, otherwise it would have been a straight loss). I won't even mention the replay of the infamous Redwhite-Nitro game.

Regarding the Alchemist-Yar match, the judges were guided by the rule on red-rushing:
3.1. Red-rushing is prohibited, meaning that the player playing as red is not allowed to attack on the first day of the week with reinforcements purchased on that day:
a) against the blue Castle (even if the Castle is not guarded);
b) against blue heroes or guarded mines, if the presence of reinforcements can affect the outcome of the battle or losses in the battle for either player.
The difference in losses was, if I remember correctly, as much as one imp!!!
In September, the AC will try to prepare and publish a new version of the rules, and after that, the topic of the controversial red-rush (and not only it) will be closed once and for all.

"if the presence of reinforcements can affect the outcome of the battle or the losses in the battle for either player.
The difference in losses was, if I remember correctly, as much as one imp!!!"

Did the losses have an impact? Yes, they did. The rules don't state how significant the difference in losses should be. It's not quite a case for a disqualification, but a replay could have been called. I don't want to engage in nitpicking, but such precedents encourage players to commit minor violations in the hope that they won't be noticed or ignored.

...
Did it affect the losses? Yes, it did.
...

To avoid worrying about the redrawing, you can simply remove it from all templates.

IMHO, it's a pity that such mockeries keep coming from representatives of the "administration". In the end, HeroesWorld will end up with the strong and discontented player elite playing among themselves, while the local tournaments will be left with a "Danish national team + a legion of newcomers", i.e. it will be a GameReaper circa 2008-2009.

Agreed! +1
Instead of mocking and sending people to GameReaper, it would be better to suggest something worthwhile.

With the introduction of the SOD, I would suggest removing the choice of faction and color by default and instead generating a random pair of factions, after which auctions would be held for the faction and color.