Posts from [ТУРНИР HMM IV OFF] " New World "

An option of a "hard-to-open, partially not-quite-closed hiding place":eek:

Wow, what a hiding spot:smile07: :smile33:

Question about the rules regarding the ban on hiding spots.
Option: "a hiding spot that is difficult to access, partially not fully closed":eek:

Is it allowed to generate and use it on the battlefield...

6) ...a place that cannot be accessed by land by a unit of the smallest size (3x3), but can only be accessed by air...

The question is resolved.
While waiting for an answer, I solved the problem using other methods.

As I understand Beastmaster, a hiding spot is considered a "dead end" if no enemy unit can attack the unit hiding there in melee combat due to their size. Therefore, if the enemy has different units, you shouldn't measure based on the smallest one – you need to measure based on the largest.

Does anyone still not understand what a "dead end" hiding spot is?

(highlighted by me): Not "nobody," but "somebody."
I think so too, but we needed an answer from the organizer.

I don't understand.

I only understand what is written in the rules, and I understand it as it is written there. The clause regarding hiding spots is formulated unclearly, so the understanding is also unclear. Hence the question.

However, you were right ;)

Well, then, what prevented us from working together to achieve the correct wording?

Give the correct wording for this rule, in your opinion. How do you think this wording should sound?

However, are you the organizer?

Common sense got in the way.

So that it doesn't sound any way.
I highly doubt that it's even possible to give a comprehensive wording in this case. There are too many options, you can't take everything into account, questions will still arise.
And what's the point of such a ban? It doesn't cancel "endless" battles, and it doesn't need to. But it does cancel, for example, a very comfortable option like "harpy in a hiding spot + autobattle." It cancels many other things, but you won't see them until you run into them.

However, no. But I am at least trying to help the organizer. Is that bad?

Original :) Does common sense prevent you from trying to develop a correct formulation for the rules? :)

Practically none of the Heroes versions offer such a comfortable and EASY victory over monsters. That's why I personally think that banning a closed-off external dwelling isn't pointless. It will eliminate at least endless battles with fast monsters, which means something. Do you disagree? :) And otherwise, you can easily defeat almost any monster comfortably using fairies with an automated field selection and Ares. What? Is that not true? :)

In general, it's good. But in this specific case, you were definitely answering my question about the interpretation of the rules. Such an interpretation is the sole prerogative of the organizer.
Your answer can be taken as a personal opinion, as advice, but until the organizer clarifies, there is no definitive answer. Therefore, the definiteness of your statement is unclear.

In the case being discussed, yes.
If you want to ban a specific tactic, then ban that tactic. But instead, you're delving into the geometry of the ambush and trying to describe it... Two

paragraphs in the rules, and yet there are more questions than answers. You could write a couple more pages of ambush descriptions, but it wouldn't help. So, I'm out.

I'm not very good with versions, and in the 4th game, there are a ton of ways to win easily, without fairies or ambushes.

But for some reason, the final results in tournaments don't become the same because of this.
They canceled the victory of fairies over conditional "fast monsters," and in the process, they canceled an entire class of tactics. All that's left is to cancel the options for fighting against stronger monsters, more moral, more expensive, and more fluffy. There's room for creativity...

Honestly, I almost don't care what rules we play by, as long as they meet two conditions - the ability to verify compliance (if you can't verify it, don't ban it), and a clear boundary between what is allowed and what is not.
The second condition has obvious problems with the "ban on ambushes." The only way to solve these
problems is to move away from the ambush itself and ban a specific tactic.

Although that would be lengthy. And it's unclear why.

Phew, I'm confident that I will still be able to complete this tournament. :)

So, I'm extending the tournament until December 16th!

Take note! :smile14:

Hold on! We didn't agree about tanks! :D