I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm very concerned that most of the controversial rule questions on this forum have already been discussed and broken down on other websites.
In this controversial situation, there are 4 possibilities:
1) A combat magic attack, i.e., magic hits the enemy without the participation of any troops. (arrow, lightning, ice bolt, wave of death, slay undead, fireball, ring of cold, meteor, chain lightning, Inferno, armageddon, explosion)
2) The use of almost any magic, as almost any magic
can change the amount of damage (either by causing it, increasing it, or decreasing it) in various complex and simple situations. I won't even give examples, because a couple of examples won't help, and it's impossible to list them all.
To formulate the rules more precisely, you can either take the first option (as is currently done on the forum
http://www.forum.heroes.by/viewtopic.php?t=804&start=0), or the second option, i.e., say that if the attacker casts any magic, they cannot retreat in the first round (this was previously implemented in the forum settings).
You can also apply a third rule option (
3), namely, add to the ban (for retreating) the use of certain specific spells by the attacker in the 1st round, in addition to combat magic (for example, haste, mass haste, slow, berserk, etc.).
And there is also a fourth (
4) option: to leave the same vague wording that is currently in use. Or, you could play with "cheating" allowed.
Undoubtedly, none of these four rule options can be called the most correct.
The question of whether resistance triggers should be clearly defined.