Round table

...
now the question is: is this a stalemate where no one wants to attack, or should Kreg attack first and lose? :smile45:

a counter-question: when has someone's desire been a condition for a stalemate?
impossibility is the condition (it's impossible to catch up, it's impossible to kill)

Added after 1 minute

You forgot to add "in my humble opinion" or a quote from the rules that places a corresponding obligation on the attacker.

the defender owes nothing to anyone - they have to accept that they have been attacked

Added after 14 minutes

scorpthe attacker ... must attack!

You forgot to add "in my humble opinion" or a quote from the rules that places a corresponding obligation on the attacker.

P.S. In reality, we have a situation in which both players are acting in full accordance with the rules, but the battle cannot be completed. I believe that such a situation can be called a "stalemate" for the same reason as in the example with the dwarves and the fly.that is, you claim that if the attacker has the opportunity to attack but doesn't want to, that's a stalemate?

I, Kreg, with 11 ultimate pegasi and 8 vivas, attack an opponent with 1 phoenix, 8 elementals, and 2 (20?) air elementals - and somehow, there was only magic for 1 point (with the right damage to 64 HP) - I won't do anything further - I just don't want to, or...?