Round table

Well, this has become an argument for the sake of an argument :) But according to your logic, if I'm playing, say, as Castle and going to Snow, and there are two guards, one of which is strictly on Grass and the other strictly on Snow, then it turns out it's not necessary to beat the Grass one, but it is necessary to beat the Snow one. Correct? But this contradicts your own position that you cannot beat the far guard without first beating the near one :) In short, you could break your head over this, it's a clear gap in the rules. For now, I think it would be absolutely logical to allow beating any one guard in any case to gain access to another respawn (in that spot) — IMHO, that would be clear and fair.

Valentin, regarding "Regular" passages, our Current Rules regulate everything, as they allow beating one of the Guards of your choice if 2-3 Guards are scattered along the road.

The thing that threw me off was that until the very end I couldn't equate Teleport=Underground guards with the concept of "2-3 Guards scattered along the road."

However, in a linear representation, the guards of the Teleport=Underground Entrance and Exit are located on the road. Therefore, I am coming to the conclusion that the current Rule can be applied to the guards of the Teleport=Underground Entrance and Exit.

Thus, Valentin, for the purpose of uniform application of the Rules, my official interpretation of the Current Rules is that I consider it possible to equate the rules for passing through Teleports=Undergrounds with the rules for passing through "Regular" passages, i.e., it is permissible to penetrate into a neighboring respawn via Teleport=Underground by beating, at your choice, one of the Guards of that Teleport=Underground.