Posts from Poll. So, what exactly is Hit&Run?

Don't be dense, buddy: the scorpicore moves, the opponent's speed is outrun by the masquerade, the first troglodyte removes the retaliation, 200 strike, and then, on the move of the last unit, the buyback happens. Figure it out first, then write.

I thought I was too hasty: I want the ability to play this way, so I vote for the second option.

I'll answer the question in the topic: hit-and-run is an attack with a demonstrably weaker army on a demonstrably stronger army (usually having the advantage of the first turn) with the goal of dealing damage with magic and then retreating. This is what needs to be prohibited. Everything else is just pointless chatter from people who have nothing better to do. IMHO.

A long time ago, when many of those present here were still playing single-player against the computer or with a neighbor (local network!!!), there was a rule in the best league in the world, called Tournament of Honor. I will briefly describe it as follows: "if a unit on the defending side takes its turn in a battle, then hit and run is not possible" (you can simply run away).

In my opinion, neither option is acceptable, and the second one... the existing rule is much more accurate and appealing (you can include Berserk and Hypnosis, for example). And, first of all, because the rule being discussed regulates the use of only magic as such.
After all, there are quite a few related factors.
* If you cast a spell, but the opponent resists it, or you don't kill anyone at all (you take 30 hit points from a wyvern, for example), can you run away?
* If you cast a spell, but it's reflected back on you and kills your own units, can you run away?
* If an attacker on a Dragonfly kills three of the opponent's goblins out of 500 with an arrow in the first round and runs away, is that a Hit & Run?
* If an attacker with a hundred dogs (like in the Roland vs. Samurai battle) – Crag with high attack and expert attack, or Orrin with expert shooting and a golden bow – manages to attack the opponent, causing significant damage, and escapes without taking much damage himself, and all without using magic, is that not a Hit & Run?
And when a Gorgon attacks/counterattacks with additional damage from her ability and kills an additional dragon, archangel, etc...
The concept of Hit & Run is much broader and even has a right to exist as a complete non-restriction. ;)
But since restrictions are being introduced, why not take into account the hit points of the units involved – before and after the battle? So that the facts are clear and specific. Let's say, hypothetically, that if the attacker on a Dragonfly deals more than 5 times the damage (more than 100 points) to the opponent with any of his magic, then he cannot escape in the first (second, third...) round.
Although, you could also leave everything as it is and not change anything.

Yeah... The deeper you go, the stranger it gets...

We should enjoy the game, not compete in formulating rules. Allow hit-and-run tactics without any restrictions! Please remove my vote from the poll. And in different situations, we should follow the spirit of the game, not some casuistic rule that's impossible to understand without a drink. If you are repeatedly hit and run, it means you are in the opponent's territory, i.e., the aggressor. If you're afraid of hit-and-run tactics, don't come, just keep farming:cool:.

I, on the other hand, believe that this is a gameplay element. But he doesn't.

I also think it's a gameplay element; the RPG rules specifically use the wording "cast direct-action spells." But I'm voting against it because I want the rules to be unified.

In WT, the "cast any spell" option is currently implemented. In the rules for SoD, I think it should be the same – so that people don't get confused when switching between versions.

Yes, you can try to implement a different anti-hint algorithm in WT. But it will inevitably be simple and understandable, meaning that formulations like "magic that caused damage to the opponent" are difficult to algorithmize.

The same goes for resistance – this skill is useless, so considering resistance to spells as the absence of a cast, giving the right to pay to avoid it, makes this skill even more useless. Therefore, I am strongly against it – if the opponent resisted your cast in the first round, then you should give him the opportunity to benefit from it.

And also regarding the fear of hit and run tactics. In SOD, there are at least 3 artifacts (well, 2 for sure) that effectively eliminate this possibility! And in WotG, shackles haven't been banned yet either... + all sorts of resistances (from a skill, albeit a "useless" one, to artifacts).

Yes, it's possible to implement a different anti-hint algorithm in WT. But it will inevitably be simple and straightforward, meaning that formulations like "magic that caused damage to the opponent" are difficult to algorithmize.

As for resistance, this skill is already useless, so treating the resistance of combat magic as a lack of casting, which gives the right to pay to avoid the effect, makes this skill even more useless. Therefore, I strongly disagree – if the opponent resisted your cast in the first round, they should be given the opportunity to benefit from it.

1. If it's just about the wording, then we can try to fix it. These are details. If it's simply that combat magic that hits an opponent's unit doesn't allow them to pay to avoid the effect in the first round.

2. I disagree with the approach regarding resistance. The usefulness or uselessness of a skill is one thing, but here we are specifically discussing hit-and-run tactics. It's like creating a principle for yourself and then following it only because it's a principle, and not because it makes sense. The benefit already exists in the fact that you get information about the opponent's hero, stats, magic, upgrades, etc.

A player who casts combat magic on an opponent is already faced with a non-trivial task: to survive one round and also get a turn in the second. And it's often difficult to calculate this with certainty, especially if the opponent doesn't keep all their powerful units in one stack. Forbidding them to pay to avoid the effect in case of resistance is just too harsh. There is already a risk of getting hit by a "Gauntlets of Power" spell.

<<he or his units cast any magic>>

+1, but IMO, allowing unit casting is better, to give the Sylvan faction freedom in a hit-and-run strategy. Djinn casting is generally random and often not very useful, and Storytellers are very expensive, so few people can afford to use them in a hit-and-run strategy. =)

Intermediate summary. Based on the results of the voting and discussion, the following was added to the Rules:

5.2. Hit-and-run is prohibited: the attacking hero is not allowed to retreat in the first round of battle if they cast any magic. This prohibition does not apply to the hero who is defending.

I removed the casting by units because, due to time constraints, I rushed it, and there wasn't enough discussion. Judging by the posts, players are mostly in favor of allowing it. The second formulation is the standard and common understanding of hit-and-run; in general, that's how we mostly played it, despite the unclear phrase:

...if he used combat magic or any other that, in one way or another, inflicted any damage to the enemy...

The arguments for the first one are simplicity and uniformity. We can come up with quite a few options, starting with a complete ban on retreating after casting any magic in any round (something similar existed, for example, in Times of Year) and ending with allowing it (which is also fine if you think about it; it just changes the game's tactics a little). But there should only be one option in the rules. I am removing the Important status from the topic, but I am not closing it. The discussion can continue. I would like to analyze real cases from current practice, i.e., to understand how the differences in the rule would affect the outcome of the game. And how often this happens. So, write...