Auto-translated
I'm sending you $0.
AlexSpl
Posts from Round table
Auto-translated
AlexSpl
Wlk777
Auto-translated
As a possible option: I send $0, $1000, $2000, etc. And the transfer might have been completed if the ATMs didn't perform a check [transfer amount > 0].
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
Erdem
Auto-translated
If you cast offensive magic in the first round, did you not expect a hit-and-run? Then why run away after the resistance? ;)
I wasn't counting on a hit-and-run, but I was counting on a clean victory. For example: Player A with 3 Phoenixes in one stack catches Player B rushing with 1+1 Angels. Let's assume Player A has Armageddon with 800 damage, and he's relying on it, and is 100% sure that he'll kill these Angels. Player A casts Armageddon, but resistance triggers, and 2 of the opponent's Angels survive. If the turn passes to Player B, the latter can cast Implosion on the 3 Phoenixes. But Player A buys himself out. It turns out that Player B played Russian roulette with a 20% chance, and Player A went unpunished for his adventure. In my opinion, that's not very fair. :)
Alex_R
Auto-translated
to AlexSpl
It's hard to find a real-life example here... The person doesn't perceive the skill of resistance or the properties of artifacts/monsters as such; rather, they believe that the activation of resistance by the defending hero should have a positive effect on the attacker (if the magic doesn't work, then I'll run away so I don't get beaten up)... This, in my opinion, is complete nonsense.
That's why there's a rule against trickery... You made your move, be honest and wait for a response, don't run away from the field like a jackal. And the fact that your move didn't hit your opponent means you're just a lousy player.
It's hard to find a real-life example here... The person doesn't perceive the skill of resistance or the properties of artifacts/monsters as such; rather, they believe that the activation of resistance by the defending hero should have a positive effect on the attacker (if the magic doesn't work, then I'll run away so I don't get beaten up)... This, in my opinion, is complete nonsense.
That's why there's a rule against trickery... You made your move, be honest and wait for a response, don't run away from the field like a jackal. And the fact that your move didn't hit your opponent means you're just a lousy player.
Wlk777
Auto-translated
to AlexSpl
It's hard to find a real-life example here... People don't perceive the resistance skill or the properties of artifacts/creatures as such; rather, they believe that the activation of resistance in a defending hero should have a positive effect on the attacking hero (if the magic doesn't work, then I'll run away so I don't get beaten up)... This, in my opinion, is utter nonsense.
That's why there's a rule against cheating... You made your move, be honest and wait for a response, don't run away from the battlefield like a jackal. And the fact that your move didn't hit your opponent means you're just a lousy player.
Added 3 minutes later
or rather, he believes that the activation of resistance in a defending hero should have a positive effect on the attacking hero (if the magic doesn't work, then I'll run away so I don't get beaten up)... This, in my opinion, is utter nonsense.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
Loi
Auto-translated
I tried to determine the purpose and understand the spirit of this rule, but it didn't help – I didn't get any definitive results.
I believe this rule was introduced with the goal of giving the opponent a chance to retaliate. The fact that when you attack, you hit, let's say, a resistant target (rather than hitting them squarely in the jaw...) – well, you were just unlucky, but you swung and hit – so be a good sport and take the hit.
Based on these considerations, as well as the consideration of clarity and universal interpretation, I believe Dubrovin's version is correct. And there will be no need to further define direct damage magic, as in Valentin's version. Again, we'll have to explain to every newcomer which spells are direct damage spells, and, most importantly, why they are... The very discussion about defining direct damage (why, for example, an opponent resurrecting 5 angels doesn't damage me at all, but an arrow with 120 damage does, just because it's supposedly direct damage?? There are many irrelevant nuances that arise...) risks burying the issue, again spreading the thought across the tree...
But this way, everything is clear and concise – you used magic, so don't run away.
Wlk777
Auto-translated
And there will be no need to define direct damage magic, as in Valentin's version. Again, we'll have to explain to every new player which spells are direct damage magic, and, most importantly, why exactly they are... Yes, the very discussion about defining direct damage (why, for example, the opponent resurrecting 5 angels doesn't damage me at all, but an arrow dealing 120 damage does, just because it's supposedly direct damage??).
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
Alex_R
Auto-translated
Once again, the logic is incorrect. The defender still benefits more from the resistance triggering, or am I wrong?
Are you claiming that for the defending hero, killing the hit-and-run attacker at the cost of losing some of his own troops is worse than preserving both?
...
Then what is the correctness of your logic?
Wlk777
Auto-translated
you are definitely wrong...
You claim that for a defending hero, the ability to kill a hit-and-run attacker at the cost of losing some of their own troops is worse than preserving both?
...
what is the logic behind your argument?
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
Alex_R
Auto-translated
The point is that, firstly, it's not always possible to kill a hit-and-run attacker even after they resist.
It's always useful to preserve your troops, especially since hit-and-run attacks usually don't involve a hero with 20 ranged attack and only one troglodyte.
As a rule, the possibility of escaping is always provided, even in the second round.
No one goes for a guaranteed hit-and-run.
Or, for example, I attacked a hero with a Fire Phoenix, and he had 3 separate angels. I cast Armageddon, and they resisted.
Even simpler, I attacked a Cybele with an angel, and she had 200 ranged attack, but she resisted, and I didn't have haste, so the angel couldn't reach her. I don't understand why the defender gets such an advantage.
I don't understand why the rules should limit natural Gameplay:confused:
P.S. In my opinion, there are two options here:
- either provide strong protection against hit-and-run or don't ban it at all, because intermediate options won't eliminate the imbalance, and even with complete freedom for hit-and-run, the balance between melee and magic units could shift in an interesting direction.
You can catch a hit-and-run attacker with Shackles or Red Sphere, and no one prevents you from leveling up your own hit-and-run attacker. Ultimately, the player differs from the AI in that it's not so easy to hit-and-run against them.
Mizrael
Auto-translated
Magic resistance in Heroes of Might and Magic isn't a freebie; you still have to factor it in:D. And frankly, it's unclear why they want to reduce its effectiveness. There are very few instances where it actually triggers in time (and the case of magic resistance against a hit-and-run attacker is one of them), so this proposal essentially negates the effect of its activation... Let's model a possible scenario if fleeing is allowed after magic resistance: the main hero of player A marches to attack the castle of player B and stops nearby. Player B attacks hero A with a mage and 7 silver pegasi, clearly intending to attack for two rounds and then flee. Hero A, anticipating this attack, equips magic resistance and Wave of Death. In the first round, magic resistance triggers, and player B immediately retreats instead of facing certain death, buys units in the castle again, and attacks (and so on, until the spell finally deals damage). At this point, you can argue about who's getting the better deal: the hero with magic resistance, who benefited from their percentage chance, or the attacking mage, for whom this magic resistance is essentially irrelevant because they'll deal damage anyway after fleeing, just spending a little more money... Allowing fleeing after magic resistance, in my opinion, is absurd because damage was dealt, but it went to waste; the effect was resisted (if we approach the issue formally).
Loi
Auto-translated
In my opinion, there are 2 options here:
- either strongly defend against "hit-and-run" tactics or not prohibit them at all.
Because the damage was dealt, but it went into nothingness, it was resisted (if we approach the question formally).
P.S. Does everyone agree with Occam's Razor? :)
Дубровин Павел
Auto-translated
Peter suggested the following reasonable idea, which I support.
This issue will be put to a vote among the Arbitration Committee members, who will, by a majority vote, put an end to the discussion of point 5.6 of the Rules.
I also propose that the Arbitration Committee discuss the following issues:
- the required quorum for amending the Rules;
- adding point 5.20:
"It is forbidden to sell Artifacts or Scrolls on the Artifact Market (Tower, Conflux, Dungeon) at prices that do not correspond to their actual price."
С истиной где-то рядом...
Лето 2010.
Лето 2010.
Сатир
Auto-translated
Personally, I believe that retreating is not an option. The defending player has been building up their resistance, nurturing it, and when the time comes (finally!), it works. Therefore, they should capitalize on this and the attacking player should be punished.
Loi
Auto-translated
This issue will be put to a vote among the members of the Arbitration Committee, who will, by a majority vote, put an end to the discussion of point 5.6 of the Rules.