your questions regarding the game rules (improving the interpretation).

In the game, the logistician's map was different.

So what? The rule is still the same.

In the case you proposed — a player who stayed overnight did not break through the Guard Obligations, but is camping in a treasure zone. If the opponent broke through their Guard Obligations and entered the treasure zone — they are not prohibited from attacking another player in the treasure zone on Jebus Cross.

Uh-huh, so it turns out that players can fight each other when the red Guard Obligations are not broken through, which clearly contradicts common sense.

As another option: a player who did not break through the Guard Obligations — camps on a passage through which they can exit without breaking through the Guard Obligations. In that case, upon seeing the opponent, they can warn that they did not break through their own Guard Obligations, then the opponent first needs to kill the gold dragons or efreets and then the hero.

And if they didn't warn? Stepped away to the bathroom on their turn. What should their opponent do — kill the dragons? Or think that there was a third Guard Obligations here which the opponent just broke through (and stayed standing because the timer ran out)?

I repeat — rules should be simple, clear, and unambiguously interpretable, so that any reasonable player can correctly assess the situation in a few seconds.

If a rule is too complex, requires time for analysis, or some additional information (e.g., from the opponent), then it should be replaced with a simpler rule, even if it is less fair in some situations.