Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Okay, let me say a few words... In general, when both main heroes are dead (if it's obvious that these are the main heroes), I don't like the idea of digging up these specific heroes from the Facebook group! But banning the purchase of other heroes, especially those of level 10+, also seems absurd to me! You might want to fire a well-developed hero for some strategically important reason, but it's not a guaranteed plus. There's a risk that your opponent will buy him, or you might buy him yourself... This is part of the game; there aren't 100% mathematically sound solutions, we're not robots, and we can't calculate everything. You made a mistake with your priority, and then it came back to you. Or, your opponent got the log earlier, and the decision was made to counter this, which was beyond your control. In short, there are many such moments; there's no need to take it to the point of idiocy, especially since I couldn't grasp the specific, clearly calculated justification for the ban... I repeat that consciously buying back main heroes also seems wrong to me. Develop other good heroes and realize the advantage, instead of easily collecting Nats for 2 treasures and giving everything to one hero!
Now, try to formulate your thought as a rule. It should be short enough to be remembered on the first try (and not have to read the regulations under a ticking timer), and at the same time, it should take into account all possible situations.
For example, it's quite difficult to regulate the concept of "dad" with rules. There can be several "dads." The target "dad" may be behind in development compared to the "sub-dad."
Or, for example, if the "dad" was caught in the act and pinned down, not allowing him to escape, can he be dug up?
And if not the "dad," but a useful pawn (for example, the only portal user)? What about him?
And if, in the final, there was an exchange of the "dad" for a kamikaze pawn, and another "dad" was accidentally locked in the tavern, then what?
And so on.
Hence, the option I mentioned – a "dad" is considered any hero of level 10 and above. It's simple, easy to remember, and doesn't create side effects.