Grando
Auto-translated
For example, in a battle of weaklings, a hero with 7 zombie units attacked a hero with 1 fairy unit. After exchanging ranged attacks, a stalemate occurred, and according to the current rules, the attacker retreats, but according to your proposed rules, it would be the one who doesn't want to fight that retreats. This isn't necessarily bad, but it changes the perception and familiarity of such battles.
P.S. Perhaps this rule does require adjustments, but only in the part concerning shackles.
The request was to provide an example of a battle of weaklings where the new rule would clearly work worse than the existing one. I failed to do so.
After carefully considering all viewpoints (except for those individuals I previously ignored :D), I came to the conclusion that the only significant argument against the new version of the rule, which we arrived at through several iterations starting from Britvotchka's initial proposal (and by the way, Cobra, Vladimir, and Dzhavdet definitely liked this version, and I think Maretti will support it too compared to what we have now)... is that "there can never be a draw in Heroes."
From this:
firstly, the idea that "there are no draws in Heroes" is simply a misconception; I myself have read reports about draws, and even seen tournament tables where the result is recorded as a draw; you can only talk about the fact that there are tournament systems where a draw is impossible – which means
secondly, perhaps the proposed wording isn't necessarily the best option for elimination tournaments (single or double elimination), because at least there are arguments to keep full responsibility on the attacker - "win or lose"
thirdly, still no compelling argument has been made why the proposed wording cannot be applied to seasonal games, round-robin tournaments, and Swiss system tournaments, where the outcome of a match can be recorded as 1/2 : 1/2 (which accounts for the vast majority of games in the community)
(and as a specific case, apply the new wording directly to this tournament, which is currently being discussed - groups are played using a round-robin system)
(for the same reason - everything written here is not off-topic; everything written is directly related to this tournament)
something needs to be decided regarding shackles in both cases.
the argument that the attacker must always win the battle - in my opinion (but I have thought about it several times) is based solely on emotions - "I am standing here, not bothering anyone, but he attacked, so he should be responsible for everything" (so what is the basis of the argumentation in essence? fear from childhood that someone will come and take away my toys? Not to mention that the idea that "I'm not bothering anyone" is simply a lie; compare with the sequence of four points below, which relies on the meaning of the game as its first point).
still no one has commented on the simple logical chain, which clearly shows that
the existing formulation of the rules does not correspond to the spirit (meaning, call it whatever you want) of the game, and therefore, again and again leads to great disappointment among players
1. The purpose (essence/goal) of the game is the complete destruction of the opponent.
2. 1000 skeletons cannot destroy 1 angel. There is no right to victory.
3. 1 angel cannot destroy 1000 skeletons. There is no right to victory.
hence
4. The most fair outcome of this stalemate is a draw.
And, just in case, I remind you once again that the proposed new wording does not say that any tie is a draw. Players can decide for themselves how much of a stalemate they are in, and the defender still generally has a positional advantage. In many cases, the new wording will work exactly like the old one. It simply more accurately (closer to the "spirit of the game") emphasizes certain aspects in stalemate situations.
The last version (in blue) was quoted here:
/topic/at/700083/