Grando
Auto-translated
To everyone who thinks the old rules are unfair, especially comrade Oldboy, I advise you to reread R55Maks's post; in my opinion, it is quite accessible and clearly explains why things are done this way.
I read it carefully. I didn’t find a single strong argument on the matter.
Examples using spells are essentially just pointless chatter. No calculations, skill, or spells will protect against a deadlocked situation in battle.
R55Max's main arguments revolve around the idea that if an attacker attacks but doesn't win the battle, then the defender isn't at fault, but the attacker is. I already wrote that I consider this an argument from kindergarten – "I'm sitting here, not bothering anyone, and he came along and wants to take my toys."
This is all a lie.
The real goal of the game is to destroy the opponent. And the defender is just as much an aggressor as the attacker. He stands there with one goal: during his turn, he takes the next step towards completely destroying the opponent.
So, it is correct to reason by putting the real meaning of the game first. And a simple logical chain has already been presented.
1. The goal/meaning/essence/spirit of the game is to destroy 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.
4. The most fair outcome of this deadlock is a draw.
Now, Bishop, try to argue convincingly which position is closer to the spirit of the game.
Mine or R55Max’s? Or maybe I missed some fundamental idea in him?