HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

Posts from Round table

Online Tournaments
5.0 (2 ratings)
In reply to Dirty_Player
Offline Medium_HP
Registered:
Posts: 756
#3327
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player

But I disagree here. I believe that the defending player still has the right not to advance. That's what being a defender means.

According to the current rules, the attacking player also has the right not to advance. In my opinion, the defending player has a perfectly adequate privilege – in the case of a stalemate, the opponent should retreat/bribe.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Lim4
Registered:
Posts: 343
#3328
Auto-translated
Another question. Let's say, on maps with computer-controlled factions, the computer attacks with golems/skeletons on a scout unit that is chained and flying. You can't force the computer to follow the rules and retreat, and breaking the chain is not advantageous. What should you do?
451-224-720
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Lim4
User Avatar
Offline numOne
Registered:
Posts: 1,279
#3329
Auto-translated
Lim4
Another question. Let's say, on maps with computer-controlled factions, the computer attacks a scout with golems/skeletons while the scout is in a chain formation and flying. You can't force the computer to follow the rules and retreat, and breaking the chain formation is not beneficial. What should be done?

Obviously, the computer should offer a bribe. :D
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 KobRa_RR
Registered:
Posts: 3,259
#3330
Auto-translated
numOne
Obviously, the computer needs to pay up. :D

Okay, but if you break the rules, how do you force it to comply? ((
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Lim4
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,032
#3331
Auto-translated
Lim4
Another question. Let's say, on maps with neutral creatures, a neutral creature attacks a scout unit with golems/skeletons while the scout is in a chain formation and flying. You can't force the neutral creature to follow the rules and retreat, and breaking the chain formation is not advantageous. What should you do?
The funniest thing is that this question was seriously discussed on heroes.by during an inter-portal tournament a couple of years ago. :D Well, the solution here is obvious: if you can't defeat the neutral creature, retreat or surrender.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to KobRa_RR
User Avatar
Offline numOne
Registered:
Posts: 1,279
#3332
Auto-translated
KobRa_RR
Okay, but if you put handcuffs on, how do you make him move? ((

Our guys don't ride around with people in handcuffs. :)
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 scorp
Registered:
Posts: 716
#3333
Auto-translated
numOne
This is a stalemate. Read what I wrote above.
What does "impossible condition" have to do with it? Are you trolling, or am I just not understanding? :)
I didn't consider it an answer, but I don't know what else to call it.
numOne
Why are you beating around the bush? Suggest how they should act in this situation. :)
And if there is no answer, then you have to admit that it's a draw.
How they should act – if this isn't a stalemate, I wrote about it above.
numOne
What does "impossible condition" have to do with it? Are you trolling, or am I just not understanding? :)

If you don't want to comment/answer quotes, why quote them?:confused:
You just have a statement that it is so, and not otherwise. I'll explain why "impossible condition" is relevant – it's an argument in favor of one of the controversial situations described, that is, it's an argument in favor of my point of view.
Dirty_Player
The funniest thing is that this issue was seriously discussed on heroes.by during an inter-portal tournament a couple of years ago. :D Well, the solution here is obvious: if you can't defeat a neutral (computer) opponent, retreat/surrender.
Another situation not described in the rules, which is also a "stalemate":D

Another situation: the first player has 15 archers + various other units (they have a red orb and manacles, a lot of money, but NO damage dealers or trebuchets, and only one castle). The opponent is coming to finish them off with 10k skeletons and other small stacks, which the 15 archers will cut down in one hit (they have any magic). And it so happened that they didn't make it to the castle by a couple of squares:(, what do the 15 archers do – red orb + manacles to cut down as many stacks as possible, except for the skeletons, and don't buy out early – only skeletons/archers remain, the skeletons have a speed of 6, the archers can't catch up – it's a draw – we load, disband the army down to the skeletons :) – we attack without manacles, buy out (once) – there are still many turns, the archers now have manacles + 5/6 other units/retaliators, we kill them through retaliators as much as possible – again, a stalemate – we load without manacles, buy out (twice) – we attack again with other units/retaliators + archers + red orb ... buy out (three, four ... and so on until victory – it's a stalemate, and the attacker has the right to buy out as many times as he wants with manacles, but the defender doesn't.

Added 11 minutes ago
Does a hero with archers have the right to attack the same hero again on the same day if the battle took place with manacles?(in fact, after such a battle, only one hero may remain)
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Juristis
Registered:
Posts: 1,423
#3334
Auto-translated
by the way, this is a really interesting point. How will the rules be interpreted here?
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Javdet
Registered:
Posts: 3,093
#3335
Auto-translated
And what, is there a rule somewhere that prohibits such a hit-and-run tactic? Don't put yourself in a vulnerable position.
Даже если вас съели - у вас два выхода:smile19:

Зима 2011-12.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Juristis
User Avatar
Offline KobRa_RR
Registered:
Posts: 3,259
#3336
Auto-translated
Juristis
by the way, this is a really interesting point. How will the rules be interpreted here?

It's still the same; hit-and-run tactics with troops are not prohibited. I raised this issue on the forums once, but they decided that it would occur in 1 out of 100 games or less and left it as is.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to numOne
Offline Niemand
Registered:
Posts: 4,419
#3337
Auto-translated
numOne
Our guys don't go around on a single fly with handcuffs. :)
What about breaking into places while handcuffed? It's a relatively common occurrence.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to KobRa_RR
Offline Medium_HP
Registered:
Posts: 756
#3338
Auto-translated
This isn't just a simple power attack. The point is that the rules governing actions in a stalemate situation give the attacker an exclusive opportunity to bribe if they have bracers. Sometimes, the attacker can "abuse" this opportunity.
But if a power attack itself is already rare, then the scenario "power attack + bracers + stalemate situation" is almost pure fantasy.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
0
⚖️
0
In reply to KobRa_RR
User Avatar
Offline scorp
Registered:
Posts: 716
#3339
Auto-translated
KobRa_RR
It's still the same; hit-and-run tactics with troops are not prohibited. I raised this issue on the forum once, but they decided that it would occur in 1 out of 100 games or less and left it as is.
A full-fledged battle is taking place, not a hit-and-run with troops (like 1 ultra-fast dragonfly removes retaliation, 20 angels attack without retaliation, then another one of our stacks of 1 angel attacks on his turn, and we pay off – in the example, a full-fledged battle is taking place, but only one side has the option to pay off, while the other doesn't – this is what such an interpretation leads to).
Without shackles, there is no violation – only skeletons can pay off, and if this happens with shackles, only the attacker can pay off; are the rules fair to only one side?:confused:
0
⚖️
0
In reply to scorp
User Avatar
Offline Javdet
Registered:
Posts: 3,093
#3340
Auto-translated
scorp
and if this happens with handcuffs, only the attacking player can bribe their way out – are the rules applied consistently? :confused:
What do you mean? :smile26:
Даже если вас съели - у вас два выхода:smile19:

Зима 2011-12.
1
⚖️
0
Offline zoog
Registered:
Posts: 2,570
#3341
Auto-translated
In my opinion, the attacker is solely responsible for all consequences of the attack. If they chose to attack while wearing handcuffs, they should finish the battle in them. And as for this being some kind of freebie – "Oh, they started pressing us, so we load up the auto-combat" – especially if the defender is wearing handcuffs, there's a risk involved. Why should the rules protect the attacker?
0
⚖️
0