HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

Posts from Round table

Online Tournaments
5.0 (2 ratings)
In reply to scorp
User Avatar
Offline Heroes13
Registered:
Posts: 258
#3296
Auto-translated
scorp
You yourself are stating the condition for a stalemate – impossibility.
And if in chess I say – sorry, I don’t want to make a move that leads to a stalemate – will I be immediately disqualified from the tournament/federation for causing a stalemate?
Chess has something similar. The 50-move rule. If, within 50 moves, the players do not make any active moves, and no pieces are captured during that time, a draw is declared. Also, a threefold repetition of a position leads to a draw. In other words, if no one wants to attack and they just move from one square to another, it's a draw.
The same applies here. Players are not attacking; they are just staying in place. No one forces the attacker to attack.

Added 5 minutes later
rebellious

You're playing with concepts :) A stalemate is initiated by one side – the defending side.
But this is not written anywhere. What is the basis for this opinion? If it is not stated in the rules, then, logically, either side can create a stalemate. Because the rules need to be changed, as the opposite is not stated in them.
Мой ник Heroes, и никто не вынесет меня
Скажу я вам, мои друзья.
Я некромант, я маг великий, и армия моя
Непобедимая, огромная!
0
⚖️
0
In reply to PReDS
Offline rebellious
Registered:
Posts: 1,239
#3297
Auto-translated
PReDS
What do other resources and their rules have to do with it?
It's very relevant. If you study any rules, you'll see that they all support the spirit of competition. Any contest implies rivalry. It doesn't matter how the situation with 1 fly and 100 golems will be interpreted on other resources. A person playing according to the rules of a particular resource reads those rules and knows what the outcome of the situation will be. And the interpretations of the rules clearly imply a struggle, not standing in trenches, and they predetermine a decisive outcome.
PReDS
A simpler example of a similar situation: a battle between two level 0 heroes, each with an angel, neither has any armor or offense, one of them has the "Spirit of Despair" spell, in the first round each attacked, the angels are left with 100 HP each, and now tell me, who in their right mind would attack first in this situation?
Who in their right mind would attack an angel with an angel when the possibilities are equal? I've never encountered a description of such a situation in practice. And in theory, you can come up with all sorts of trolls and weaklings. I can imagine a "gopnik" attacking another "gopnik." But that's not the point. Any contest is accompanied by sportsmanship. Either you win, or you lose. A draw is possible, but the Heroes interface doesn't provide for that.
And the situation with the fly and the golems is interpreted in a predetermined way on all resources. Only on Heroes Wiki is it something vague. And the slang term "fly" cannot be used for the rules. It's a different matter if a computer with a hundred golems attacks a fast level 1 unit. I haven't encountered this in practice, but it's easy to imagine.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline numOne
Registered:
Posts: 1,279
#3298
Auto-translated
The rules mention a "stalemate" in general; the situation with the fly and the gnomes is simply given as an example – it is written as "for example...". This discussion reminds me of a scene from a cartoon (author's free translation): A group enters a cafe, and there is a sign with huge letters that says "DO NOT SUCK CHILI SAUCE THROUGH YOUR NOSE". And one of them says: "See, because of me, now everyone is warned." General concepts exist precisely to avoid inflating our already cumbersome rules with endless explanations and clarifications. A stalemate in Heroes is a situation where a battle cannot be completed by the initiative of one or both sides. In such a case, the defending side is always in a winning position, as skipping turns is their prerogative. The attacking side must take action to break the stalemate or retreat immediately. If the attacking side chooses to retreat but is restrained, then it is done as written in the rules.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Heroes13
Offline rebellious
Registered:
Posts: 1,239
#3299
Auto-translated
heroes13


But this isn't written anywhere. What is the basis for this opinion? If it's not stated in the rules, then any side can create a stalemate situation, logically. Because the rules need to be amended, as the opposite is not stated in them.
A stalemate is, after all, a chess term that has spread to other areas of activity. It's obvious, if you're familiar with chess: the attacking side plays to win, having a material advantage, therefore the opposing side – the defending side – makes a counter-play with tactical maneuvers, leading to a stalemate. Look at the situation of a queen against a powerful rook:) And it is the defending side that leads the game to a stalemate, because what is the point of the winning side striving for a draw.
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline ~no1_knows_me~
Registered:
Posts: 337
#3300
Auto-translated
Then the following question arises, albeit a somewhat silly one: **is the attacking player obligated to attack? Does he have the option to demand a draw or a rematch from the defending player, with the defeated army being disbanded and a subsequent ransom paid?** The absurdity lies in the fact that shackles prevent anyone from escaping – meaning they must fight to the bitter end, and there must be one winner... but a situation arises where both players know that everything depends on the first attack and they simply stand there and wait. The defender says: Attack, you initiated the attack. And the attacker says: I don't want to, I'll lose... The defender asks: So, what are we going to do? The attacker replies: I don't know.
That's why I started this discussion to clarify the situation...
"Пришел, увидел, победил" - Юлий Цезарь.
"Пришел, скастовал, убежал" - Hit'n'Run.

- Почему женщины любят кентавров?
- И мужик в доме, и скотина в хозяйстве.

Штирлиц шел по коридору. Вдруг одна из дверей открылась, оттуда выскочил Борман, дал Штирлицу сильного пендаля и заскочил обратно. «Гарпия» - догадался Штирлиц.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to ~no1_knows_me~
User Avatar
Offline numOne
Registered:
Posts: 1,279
#3301
Auto-translated
~no1_knows_me~
So, a somewhat silly question arises: is the attacking player obligated to attack? Does he have the option to demand a draw or a rematch from the defending player, with the defeated army being disbanded and a subsequent payment made? The absurdity lies in the fact that shackles prevent anyone from escaping – meaning they have to fight to the bitter end, and there must be one winner... But a situation arises where both players know that everything depends on the first attack, and they just stand there and wait. The defender says: Attack, you initiated it. And the attacker says: I don't want to, I'll lose... The defender asks: So, what are we going to do? The attacker replies: I don't know.
That's why I started this discussion to clarify...

To answer your question, I'll provide an example with a fly and gnomes.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to numOne
User Avatar
Offline ~no1_knows_me~
Registered:
Posts: 337
#3302
Auto-translated
numOne
To answer your question, here's an example with a fly and gnomes.
So, it turns out that the attacker is not obligated to attack and has a choice: either attack and die, or ask the defender to replay the battle and offer a bribe. Is that correct?
"Пришел, увидел, победил" - Юлий Цезарь.
"Пришел, скастовал, убежал" - Hit'n'Run.

- Почему женщины любят кентавров?
- И мужик в доме, и скотина в хозяйстве.

Штирлиц шел по коридору. Вдруг одна из дверей открылась, оттуда выскочил Борман, дал Штирлицу сильного пендаля и заскочил обратно. «Гарпия» - догадался Штирлиц.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to ~no1_knows_me~
User Avatar
Offline numOne
Registered:
Posts: 1,279
#3303
Auto-translated
~no1_knows_me~
So, it turns out that the attacker is not obligated to attack and has a choice: either attack and die, or ask the defender to replay the battle and offer a bribe. Is that correct?

Exactly. And to avoid any complaints from your opponent, you both need to agree that you've reached a stalemate, after which you should strictly follow the instructions. :smile01:
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to ~no1_knows_me~
Offline Егор Коробейников
Registered:
Posts: 1,134
#3304
Auto-translated
~no1_knows_me~
Then a somewhat idiotic question arises: is the attacking player obligated to attack? Does he have the option to demand a draw or a rematch from the defending player, with the defeated army being disbanded and a subsequent ransom paid? The absurdity lies in the fact that shackles prevent anyone from escaping – meaning they have to fight to the bitter end, and there should be only one winner... but a situation arises where both players know that everything depends on the first attack, and they just stand there and wait. The defender says: Attack, you initiated the attack. And the attacker says: I don't want to, I'll lose... The defender asks: So, what are we going to do? The attacker replies: I don't know.
That's why I started this discussion to clarify things...
Are you kidding or trolling us?
Here, either he pays a ransom, retreats, or fights if he wants to.
The opponent can defend, and the attacker must choose one of the three options. If he doesn't want to fight (attack the units that have defended), the game will automatically load. He attacks without shackles and dismisses the entire army except for 11 pegasus and 8 ducks. If he doesn't want to pay a ransom or retreat, he fights. No one is obligated to chase him on the battlefield. Once again, the opponent can stand still and skip turns. And the attacker is obligated to attack if he doesn't want to; otherwise, he dismisses his army, removes the shackles, and attacks the opponent. And the opponent, in his turn, will dismiss his losses. This is a completely standard situation...
icq - 470286448
0
⚖️
0
In reply to numOne
User Avatar
Offline ~no1_knows_me~
Registered:
Posts: 337
#3306
Auto-translated
numOne
Exactly. And to avoid any objections from your opponent, you should agree that you've reached a stalemate, after which you should strictly follow the instructions. :smile01:
Well, now everything is clear. And to conclude, I'll tell you how the battle ended. The fight ended with Craig's defeat because he was forced to attack. I consider this discussion useful, as it is now clear that the outcome of my game could have been different! Thank you all for participating!
"Пришел, увидел, победил" - Юлий Цезарь.
"Пришел, скастовал, убежал" - Hit'n'Run.

- Почему женщины любят кентавров?
- И мужик в доме, и скотина в хозяйстве.

Штирлиц шел по коридору. Вдруг одна из дверей открылась, оттуда выскочил Борман, дал Штирлицу сильного пендаля и заскочил обратно. «Гарпия» - догадался Штирлиц.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to ~no1_knows_me~
User Avatar
Offline PReDS
Registered:
Posts: 1,494
#3307
Auto-translated
~no1_knows_me~
Well, now everything is clear. And to conclude, I'll tell you how the battle ended. The fight ended with Kreg's defeat because he was forced to attack. I consider this discussion useful, as it is now clear that the outcome of my game could have been different! Thanks to everyone for participating in it.
Psychological pressure is also one of the techniques used in competitive disciplines, and you succumbed to it and lost.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to PReDS
User Avatar
Offline scorp
Registered:
Posts: 716
#3308
Auto-translated
Okay...
Let's get to the truth step by step.
To apply the rules to a situation, we need to clarify what that situation is.

1) Is this a stalemate?

2) Is this a negotiable situation?

P.S.: The condition of a negotiable situation is precisely someone's desire.
For example: one of the parties doesn't like the change in the situation and, according to their desire, offers the opponent certain conditions in order not to continue the competition to the end and resolve it through an agreement - for example, to divide the prizes for 2nd and 4th place (as it was in Moscow SNGsod :) ) or to divide the prizes in a poker tournament, etc.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to scorp
User Avatar
Offline numOne
Registered:
Posts: 1,279
#3309
Auto-translated
scorp
Okay...
Let's get to the truth step by step.
To apply the rules to a situation, we need to clarify what that situation is.

1) Is this a stalemate?

2) Is this a negotiable situation?

P.S.: A condition of a negotiable situation is precisely someone's desire.
For example: one of the parties didn't like the change in the situation and, according to their desire, offers the opponent certain conditions in order not to continue the competition to the end and resolve it through an agreement - for example, to divide the prizes for 2nd and 4th place (as it was in Moscow SNGsod :) ) or to divide the prizes in a poker tournament, etc.

Stop beating around the bush. Suggest how they should proceed in this situation. :)
And if there is no answer, then we need to admit that it's a stalemate.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,032
#3310
Auto-translated
The situation here is straightforward. If contact is impossible for some reason (it doesn't matter if one party is avoiding it or both are unwilling to compromise), then the attacking player either continues the attack or concedes. If shackles are present, then we follow the regulations. There shouldn't even be any debate about this.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to numOne
User Avatar
Offline scorp
Registered:
Posts: 716
#3311
Auto-translated
numOne
Why beat around the bush? Suggest how they should act in this situation. :)
And if there's no answer, then we should admit that it's a stalemate.

Is my question irrelevant? Meaning, regardless of the situation, should I apply any rule to it?:smile02:
0
⚖️
0