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

So what? The rule is still the same.

In this situation, if the player who made the move discovers that the guard has been shifted but doesn't break through it during that same turn and retreats for the opponent's turn, it's incorrect to punish the opponent for attacking the hero without breaking through the shifted guard. They don't have that information. Another option is to save the game before attacking the hero.

Yeah, and it turns out that players can fight even when the red guard hasn't been broken, which clearly contradicts common sense.

The player could have been attacking gold dragons while staying on their own base, but at their own risk, not reaching the shifted guard – they went into the treasure room. This is a stupid mistake. And this is a specific case.

And if they don't warn you? They step away to use the restroom during their turn. What should the opponent do – attack the dragons? Or assume that there was a third guard that the opponent just broke through (and stayed put because the timer ran out)?

Write a message on ICQ – if there's no response, save the game and note the timer.

I repeat – the rules should be simple, clear, and have a single interpretation so that any reasonable player can correctly assess the situation in a few seconds.

So, is the interpretation of breaking through multiple guards by controlling the shortest path from the base complex or incorrect?
I use the general rule to explain the specific rule about breaking through multiple guards and controlling:
- In order to exit your zone and enter the central treasure room (zone 5), as well as to move from the central treasure room to other zones, you must break through the corresponding guard