Biggwall problems.

You know im tired of this shit.

People use this bigg wall turn 1, and triangle wall turn 2. Its unfair to the other people who cant open the capital wall for 2 turns.
And if people WF the bigg wall turn 1, without attacking their capital, and just wf it turn 2 too they get mad. Lmao.
I don't get this logic-.-?
Only because you lose 5 extra troops (which isnt that 'big of a deal) since you can easily expand with ukraine/turkey/spain/germany/uk without those 5 units, with france most of the people choose to not rush italy so they wont take a big damage at all by losing those 5 extra troops. You guys use this excuse just to approve this wall, it isnt legit...

The turns your capital is walled (turn 1 and 2) you get way more profit then losing those 5 troops. by having an extra turn without protecting your capital you have a way bigger advantage then just losing 5 troops in turn 1.
If people say, we will wf first turn 1 because its not fair that we cant open your wall on turn 2, and kinda get a freepass to expand/attack when the opponent/enemy needs to focus on his BROKEN wall + trying to hold the expanding guy who still has his capital walled + trying to deffend....

Only because some people feel like playing this game, its not a reason to say :''If they do it, you do it too'' because thats just beyond stupid.. if people want to play this way, go ahead but dont expect people to like it and accept it. Wall is to prevent getting capped FOR THAT TURN. if you wall like this to prevent it from 2 turns walled, dont cry if people wf just to make it 1 turn.

I'm sorry but theres absolutely nothing illegal about a big wall around your capital turn 1, if you cant beat people who do this thats your problem. What syrian did to me that cw today, most of the spectators who saw that thought it was cheap. Thats a very fine line you are walking with the no first turn wf rule. And it is a very weak argument you're emplyoying to justify it.

This is basically just repetition of the argument in my other thread. I dont care if MOU w4r and bonker think what syrian did to me in a cw today was ok. Since theres no official rule on all this, For people like you i'm just going to drop the courtesy i extend to most players who i play against and employ rewalling and serbian walling to my advantage when playing you, if you dont like it then dont play me.

but remember you set these standards when you said it was ok to place your units on my boarders to open walls on my territory deliberately turn 1, and then exploit the first turn wf. The whole "the unit isnt touching your boarders" argument doesnt fly with me.

I have had enough of this argument, until further clarification from an official source is provided on gameplay rules, i have nothing more to say on this subject, enjoy your day.

Written by Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 14:47

I'm sorry but theres absolutely nothing illegal about a big wall around your capital turn 1, if you cant beat people who do this thats your problem. What syrian did to me that cw today, most of the spectators who saw that thought it was cheap. Thats a very fine line you are walking with the no first turn wf rule. And it is a very weak argument you're emplyoying to justify it.

This is basically just repetition of the argument in my other thread. I dont care if MOU w4r and bonker think what syrian did to me in a cw today was ok. Since theres no official rule on all this, For people like you i'm just going to drop the courtesy i extend to most players who i play against and employ rewalling and serbian walling to my advantage when playing you, if you dont like it then dont play me.

but remember you set these standards when you said it was ok to place your units on my boarders to open walls on my territory deliberately turn 1, and then exploit the first turn wf.

I have had enough of this argument, until further clarification from an official source is provided on gameplay rules, i have nothing more to say on this subject, enjoy your day.

>verry weak argument your emplyoying to justify
- You justyfy 2 turns capwall without getting harmed just because you lose ''5 extra troops at turn 1'', you also lose 3 troops when you wall hamburg first turn, you lose 4 troops when you wall istanbull+bursa first turn, you lose 2/3 troops when you wall birmingham etc. You need 3 for some people 4 troops MAX. to get your capital walled that it can't get captured that turn. You don't need to waste 8 troops for it. You just love to imply you ''lose'' this much troops it inflicts your expansions and makes your turn 1 weaker.. which is Bshit, like I said, it almost never harms france at all by losing those 5 troops. But it gives france a huge advantage by not protecting his capital at turn 3.

> There is also no ''rule'' for no WF turn 1. It was a ''standard'' rule between the competitive 3v3 players who respected each other enough to not WF/annoy eachother turn 1. At turn 2 you can do anything you want to harm the enemy. By doing this wall, you wont allow people to harm you at turn 2 either. In turn 2 you are ALLOWED to open any wall you want, especially capital walls. So by wf'ing this biggwal turn 1, and not attacking it that turn 2, but just wf'ing turn 2 makes it legit. You guys are hypocrite, I remember u guys doing this belarus rush from turkey, by doing that rush you guys WF odessa and all of you know it but still did it. Then you guys said we wont attack it turn 2 so its legit, same counts for this. Only this time it happends TOWARD you not from you, and that fact you simply cant accept. I call it selfish and hypocrite. Only counter to open that wall in turn 2, is by wfing it turn 1.

>official source,
I know acq a long time now, and he told me him self he didn't like rewalls, it was a faggy thing to do and not cool at all.
Since acq made illyria with pontez in it, he ''changed his mind''? Bshit man.. all you guys do is backing eachother when you guys do something wrong. You never accept anything you do wrong, and why? bcs you have acq behind you ( a respected mod).

Of course i agree with you Waffel, since we had this discussion recently.

For the sake of the game balance:
1. there should be no wall fucking capitals turn 1
2. there should be no trespassing opponents teritory turn 1
3. there should be no rewalling turn 2

Rewalling, in its "infamous" state i limit only too turn 2 and definite it as:
• preventing an opponent to have a chance at breaking walls that would leave his capital city open*
* preventing does not include of course turn blocking your opponents wall fuck units in order to prevent them in this task

Since rewalling is preventable in every way after turn 2, by wall fuck units and that includes the big walls aswell:
• rewalling should be permited after turn 2

Turn 2 rewalling can unbalance the game and gain undeserved advantage to some countries which is far greater then the initial "capital" invested so to speak (does few extra units).

Conclusion:
• a move that cant be prevented, by your own moves and skills ...cant be a legal move. ...this is a similarity between 1st turn wf and big wall rewall.

You cant contradict this Laochra.

2 walls around cap in start aint rare or foolish.

Lao is right, big walling your cap, and making a 2nd wall afterwards is legal. Do I think it's a fair tactic? Eh. The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?
There is no official turn one WF rule. This was something that was agreed upon by players in the competitive atwar community.
What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal. End of discussion.

Rewalling gives an unfair advantage. Classify rewall as a bug.

Written by Azula., 13.10.2014 at 15:03

2 walls around cap in start aint rare or foolish.

Not? so you find it normal you cant open the wall at turn 2? because you are not ''allowed'' to wf turn 1 to prevent a wall at turn 2 you cant do anything against?
Because every Cw I have seen and some1 attacked an ordinairy triangle wall at turn 2, and it didnt break at turn 3 with the units/bomber next to the wall, all I heard was ..... fking wall .... fking bugg fking glitch fking rewall, people got pissed bcs it didnt break. This is the same situation only this time you cant EVEN do anything about it. You guys are practicly abusing the no wf at turn 1 rule, and now people are using turn 1 wf to avoid this abusive playing, you guys get mad -.-. Selfish and Hypocrite I tell ya.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

End of discussion.

Who made you the king and gave you the right to say this?

Lets go your way and make 1st turn wall fucks "legal" again:

• again unfairness might happen ...i wall fuck your cap you wall fuck mine, you make a big wall i dont or cant

• now we go and agree that puting 2 units in your opponent country is kinda ok aswell since we need to wall fuck big walls now aswell

• why is 1 or 2 units in your opponent land different then 3 or 20 units ...why we shouldnt be able to make walls in your opponent land ...ITS PREVENTABLE RIGHT?

• capitals open after turn 1 because of wall fucks ...trust? certainity? ...just because some guys agreed attacking capitals turn 2 is bullshit doesnt mean that we have to follow it, and its part of the game.

See, alot alot of flaws and more problems gained then solved.

So please everyone, get of your high horse and lets try to find a solution ...i gave you mine above, 3 simple rules that are fair in my opinion.

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:19

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

End of discussion.

Who made you the king and gave you the right to say this?

Lets go your way and make 1st turn wall fucks "legal" again:

• again unfairness might happen ...i wall fuck your cap you wall fuck mine, you make a big wall i dont or cant

• now we go and agree that puting 2 units in your opponent country is kinda ok aswell since we need to wall fuck big walls now aswell

• why is 1 or 2 units in your opponent land different then 3 or 20 units ...why we shouldnt be able to make walls in your opponent land ...ITS PREVENTABLE RIGHT?

• capitals open after turn 1 because of wall fucks ...trust? certainity? ...just because some guys agreed attacking capitals turn 2 is bullshit doesnt mean that we have to follow it, and its part of the game.

See, alot alot of flaws and more problems gained then solved.

So please everyone, get of your high horse and lets try to find a solution ...i gave you mine above, 3 simple rules that are fair in my opinion.

I support you babe <3 atleast you accept the fact when you are wrong or not, cant say this of others here...

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:19

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

End of discussion.

Who made you the king and gave you the right to say this?

Lets go your way and make 1st turn wall fucks "legal" again:

• again unfairness might happen ...i wall fuck your cap you wall fuck mine, you make a big wall i dont or cant

• now we go and agree that puting 2 units in your opponent country is kinda ok aswell since we need to wall fuck big walls now aswell

• why is 1 or 2 units in your opponent land different then 3 or 20 units ...why we shouldnt be able to make walls in your opponent land ...ITS PREVENTABLE RIGHT?

• capitals open after turn 1 because of wall fucks ...trust? certainity? ...just because some guys agreed attacking capitals turn 2 is bullshit doesnt mean that we have to follow it, and its part of the game.

See, alot alot of flaws and more problems gained then solved.

So please everyone, get of your high horse and lets try to find a solution ...i gave you mine above, 3 simple rules that are fair in my opinion.

Factual evidence?
First turn WF's are legal. There is no official rule against them.
Syrian's WF on Laochra was also legal in the cw today. His bomber wasn't even in Turkey.

Again, I'm not saying that players should go and WF caps. I'm just saying there is no official rule on it.
But what happened today in their CW is legal... To say otherwise is just...

Written by Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 14:47

I'm sorry but theres absolutely nothing illegal about a big wall around your capital turn 1.

Written by Mauzer Panteri, 13.10.2014 at 15:26

Written by Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 14:47

I'm sorry but theres absolutely nothing illegal about a big wall around your capital turn 1.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:25

Factual evidence?
First turn WF's are legal. There is no official rule against them.
Syrian's WF on Laochra was also legal in the cw today. His bomber wasn't even in Turkey.

This proves that you havent read a single thing i wrote and i dont respect that.

Im givin you guys a compromise solution between 2 opposing views, but no ...what you want to do is solve an issue by creating a bigger problem and repeating a stupid sentence over and over again "there is no official rule".

Of course there isnt, we the players here make the rules, we make compromises ...Amok and Ivan are not goin to do this for us, and who would even enforce the rules if they were official? That is something you dont think about ...your views are short and you cant see the bigger picture.

Waffel said it right ...i admited few times in this game that i was wrong and apologized to people, but you guys ...you would rather die then think for a second that you might be in the wrong ...not even completly in the wrong, just a little bit is enough.

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:33

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:25

Factual evidence?
First turn WF's are legal. There is no official rule against them.
Syrian's WF on Laochra was also legal in the cw today. His bomber wasn't even in Turkey.

This proves that you havent read a single thing i wrote and i dont respect that.

Im givin you guys a compromise solution between 2 opposing views, but no ...what you want to do is solve an issue by creating a bigger problem and repeating a stupid sentence over and over again "there is no official rule".

Of course there isnt, we the players here make the rules, we make compromises ...Amok and Ivan are not goin to do this for us, and who would even enforce the rules if they were official? That is something you dont think about ...your views are short and you cant see the bigger picture.

Waffel said it right ...i admited few times in this game that i was wrong and apologized to people, but you guys ...you would rather die then think for a second that you might be in the wrong ...not even completly in the wrong, just a little bit is enough.

Move your ideas to "Ideas and suggestions" forum. I'm in the general discussion forum giving my opinion in regard to laochra's post. Thank you very much.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:36

Move your ideas to "Ideas and suggestions" forum. I'm in the general discussion forum giving my opinion in regard to laochra's post. Thank you very much.

Then dont quote me without making a comment on my post. Is that fuckin clear ...thank you very much.

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:37

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:36

Move your ideas to "Ideas and suggestions" forum. I'm in the general discussion forum giving my opinion in regard to laochra's post. Thank you very much.

Then dont quote me without making a comment on my post. Is that fuckin clear ...thank you very much.

You made one question, followed by 7/8 statements. I answered your question, and followed it up by statements of my own.
LOL.
btw you quoted me in the first place..

Written by Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 14:47

I have had enough of this argument, until further clarification from an official source is provided on gameplay rules, i have nothing more to say on this subject, enjoy your day.

Just lol @ 'Official Source'

Anyways nothing wrong with double walls. Should still be able to wf your cap if you only have 1 big wall. Rushing would be a nono tho, as I said in the ridiculously long thread before you, run the risk of this happening by employing such tactics..

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:39

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:37

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:36

Move your ideas to "Ideas and suggestions" forum. I'm in the general discussion forum giving my opinion in regard to laochra's post. Thank you very much.

Then dont quote me without making a comment on my post. Is that fuckin clear ...thank you very much.

You made one question, followed by 7/8 statements. I answered your question, and followed it up by statements of my own.
LOL.

Please look at your post when quoting me ...you just repeated the same "post you made above.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

Lao is right, big walling your cap, and making a 2nd wall afterwards is legal. Do I think it's a fair tactic? Eh. The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?
There is no official turn one WF rule. This was something that was agreed upon by players in the competitive atwar community.
What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal. End of discussion.

Rewalling gives an unfair advantage. Classify rewall as a bug.

So how is that constructive? You didnt say a thing about my proposal, not a slightest comment ...just repeated the same post.

Could have copy pasted it to save time ...so why the fuck did you quote me?

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:45

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:39

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:37

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:36

Move your ideas to "Ideas and suggestions" forum. I'm in the general discussion forum giving my opinion in regard to laochra's post. Thank you very much.

Then dont quote me without making a comment on my post. Is that fuckin clear ...thank you very much.

You made one question, followed by 7/8 statements. I answered your question, and followed it up by statements of my own.
LOL.

Please look at your post when quoting me ...you just repeated the same "post you made above.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

Lao is right, big walling your cap, and making a 2nd wall afterwards is legal. Do I think it's a fair tactic? Eh. The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?
There is no official turn one WF rule. This was something that was agreed upon by players in the competitive atwar community.
What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal. End of discussion.

Rewalling gives an unfair advantage. Classify rewall as a bug.

So how is that constructive? You didnt say a thing about my proposal, not a slightest comment ...just repeated the same post.

Could have copy pasted it to save time ...so why the fuck did you quote me?

You aren't even making any sense. Please stop.
My original post wasn't directed at you. It was my opinion on the original subject. Were you quoted? Did I mention your name? All I can see is me referring to Lao.

You quote me saying "End of discussion" to a statement based on 100% fact, that you later agree to.

Btw. "classify rewall as a bug" comment ...

1st turn wall fuckin gives a huge advantage aswell...

considering blitz would be awesome to use for wallfucking your opponent who cant reach your capital for example i would deem that 1st turn wall fuckin is aswell an unfair move that unbalances the game.

So an unfair move is suppose to resolve my opinion on another unfair move.

"Again, I'm not saying that players should go and WF caps. I'm just saying there is no official rule on it.
But what happened today in their CW is legal... To say otherwise is just..."

-W4r

Go back and read my statements please.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:52

You aren't even making any sense. Please stop.
My original post wasn't directed at you. It was my opinion on the original subject. Were you quoted? Did I mention your name? All I can see is me referring to Lao.

You quote me saying "End of discussion" to a statement based on 100% fact, that you later agree to.

Are you mad really? Did i ever say i didnt respond to you first tired of you people with bullshit like this.

Yes i responded to your opinion and stated mine ...and then what happens?

You DONT respond to my comments but you quote me and repeat something you already. If you are goin to quote me then respond to words i wrote and that you quoted, like i did to you.


OH I GET IT ...you stated the obvious above. Well thank you CAPTAIN! o7

Come back to this discusion when you actually form an opinion.

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:59

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:52

You aren't even making any sense. Please stop.
My original post wasn't directed at you. It was my opinion on the original subject. Were you quoted? Did I mention your name? All I can see is me referring to Lao.

You quote me saying "End of discussion" to a statement based on 100% fact, that you later agree to.

Are you mad really? Did i ever say i didnt respond to you first tired of you people with bullshit like this.

Yes i responded to your opinion and stated mine ...and then what happens?

You DONT respond to my comments but you quote me and repeat something you already. If you are goin to quote me then respond to words i wrote and that you quoted, like i did to you.

As I said. You quoted me saying "End of discussion" to one statement that I made. Then you say, "Who gives you the right to say this?" You follow up your question with the hypothetical.
I answered your original question to what you quoted.

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 15:59

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:52

You aren't even making any sense. Please stop.
My original post wasn't directed at you. It was my opinion on the original subject. Were you quoted? Did I mention your name? All I can see is me referring to Lao.

You quote me saying "End of discussion" to a statement based on 100% fact, that you later agree to.

Are you mad really? Did i ever say i didnt respond to you first tired of you people with bullshit like this.

Yes i responded to your opinion and stated mine ...and then what happens?

You DONT respond to my comments but you quote me and repeat something you already. If you are goin to quote me then respond to words i wrote and that you quoted, like i did to you.


OH I GET IT ...you stated the obvious above. Well thank you CAPTAIN! o7

Come back to this discusion when you actually form an opinion.

BTW, my opinion was formed in my original post. Which you went and quoted arguing with.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

Lao is right, big walling your cap, and making a 2nd wall afterwards is legal. Do I think it's a fair tactic? Eh. The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?
There is no official turn one WF rule. This was something that was agreed upon by players in the competitive atwar community.
What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal. End of discussion.

Rewalling gives an unfair advantage. Classify rewall as a bug.

Lets see ...

"The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?"

"There is no official turn one WF rule. What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal."

I have to say ...nice opinion mate. First you say that if something can be prevented, it should be allowed, but then you say syrians 1st turn wf, that cant be prevented is perfectly legal.

"end of discussion" ...nice one.

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 16:12

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:07

Lao is right, big walling your cap, and making a 2nd wall afterwards is legal. Do I think it's a fair tactic? Eh. The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?
There is no official turn one WF rule. This was something that was agreed upon by players in the competitive atwar community.
What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal. End of discussion.

Rewalling gives an unfair advantage. Classify rewall as a bug.

Lets see ...

"The point is, if there is a legal way to stop someone from doing it, then why shouldn't we be allowed to do it?"

"There is no official turn one WF rule. What syrian did to Lao in their CW today was perfectly legal."

I have to say ...nice opinion mate. First you say that if something can be prevented, it should be allowed, but then you say syrians 1st turn wf, that cant be prevented is perfectly legal.

"end of discussion" ...nice one.

I don't think you can read.

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 16:14

I don't think you can read.

Nice come back ...real smart. Instead of explaining what you meant you respond with this.

Bravo.

I didnt see the cw. What did syrian do?

Written by Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 16:17

Written by W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 16:14

I don't think you can read.

Nice come back ...real smart. Instead of explaining what you meant you respond with this.

Bravo.

If you need me to explain my original post, then you need help.
That unless you didn't watch Illy's clan war. if that is true, you dont have a basis to judge my opinion

Written by AlBoZzZ, 13.10.2014 at 16:25

I didnt see the cw. What did syrian do?

Syrian wall fucked the big wall of laochra.

W4r thinks i am not aware of that.

W4r claims all things possible in AW are legal since there is no official rule against them - i pointed out there never will be and that we the players make it legal or illegal

By playing for years with our unofficial rule that 1st turn wall fuck is illegal we practicly made the rule official by the common custom among the players.

I responded to W4r by making the issue of his statement wider so he can see the bigger picture ...he responds with common aw forums ego.

Thats all.