Will it be fixed?
Is it also affecting the gain of a zombie after a death with Necromantic?
I played in a league with some AI yesterday and killed a dwarf, got the zombie during the match but it never joined my team after the game ended.
If the bug is the cause, it's a huge issue.
It's not really that strange. There was a bit of a kerfuffle half a year ago over the idea of allowing outside teams into COL (CCL was always going to be new teams only). Originally they were going to let them in, but some streamers threw such a tantrum about the idea that they locked COL to inside teams only, always. So... we get what we get, I guess.
In general it works like this: once you're out, you're out... there's no "grace period" to come back in.
Yeah, I saw I can't even join COL Anarchy Ladder.
Well, too bad for my team but good to know for the next time.
So, I had a team playing in an old Champion Ladder and wanted to give it a spin on Open Ladder XII only to get a message telling me experienced team can't join.
Is it because I registered the team in an Eternal League (without doing a single match against AI)?
Is there a new rule that says Open Ladder is not for experienced teams?
Team name: Bras Cassés de Nurgle
Coach name: Naissun
I thought it was said before that going AFK is not against any rules so therefore would not be punishable.
That would be interesting. Where did you see that?
Warning First would be in your Mind a lenient approach ?!
In comparison to what I propose for COL and what is already in place in CCL, it can be considered a lenient approach.
Let me explain:
Losing your network connection 5 times during a season is worth a ban in CCL.
The voluntary act of annoyance towards other coaches that is going AFK is a worse deed than losing your connection 5 times.
In CCL going AFK is more serious than in COL as if the victims concede they increase their chance of being banned for the season and lower their chances of qualifying for the play-off.
Considering this, ruling that the general punishment for going AFK is an immediate ban for the current season is fair.
I won't repeat what I already wrote about how a proper rule is to be interpreted by the judge (league administrators) and what would be the usefulness of it's institution.
I can tell you as a Manager I have already have to issue warning to some people and I can tell you they didn't feel it was something to take lightly, nor they felt it was lenient.
...Good? Why should they feel otherwise if one of the points of a warning is preventing a repetition of the offence?
A punishment is not lenient by itself, it's lenient if, among other examples, an harsher one could've been used in its place.
No disrespect but why should I?
If one day you receive one, you will understand what I am saying.
Do we know each other?
If you want to discuss which of a warning or a ban is more appropriate in our case, I'm glad to do so but your assumptions about my person are not a proper argument.