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.
And there will be no need to define direct damage magic, as in Valentin's version. Again, we'll have to explain to every new player which spells are direct damage magic, and, most importantly, why exactly they are... Yes, the very discussion about defining direct damage (why, for example, the opponent resurrecting 5 angels doesn't damage me at all, but an arrow dealing 120 damage does, just because it's supposedly direct damage??).
Valer, I've said it many times, I'm not suggesting separating magic damage into direct and indirect. I cast a spell, and as a result, the opponent has fewer troops than they would have without the spell – that's it, they can't retreat. I think that's clear and simple enough. In fact, that's what this rule was originally intended for, I'm sure, and not out of some consideration for higher justice.