Monkus Turtle Game Rules (was: Final Definition of a turtle)

[monkus]

Alright, I know, I know, I've been groaning and moaning about this for a very long time, but I think I've finally got it, so I won't make any more threads or complaints or anything if this thread works. The way I figure it, if we all agree to this definition (and a mod sticky's it), then no one can really violate it. These rules aren't just based on logic, they're based on providing the best atmosphere possible for a turtle game. A good turtler wins games by using a normal turtle well. A bad turtler manipulates the rules so he can best take advantage of his opponent. I'll provide a reason/form for each claim, but the most important part is here:


A turtle is a formation that has a stone golem in the back row (or to the very side in the second row), with at least 4 other units within stoning distance of the golem's original position. The formation has no golem ambusher, and has no mobile ranged units in the front row. If a DSM is included, it must be in the back 3 rows, and no additional pyros may be used.


Anyone who agrees to a turtle game that didn't follow this definition ought to agree to either a draw or a surrender, depending on the circumstances.


Logic for each reason:
Note: Most of this logic pertains to same side matches. Often most turtles aren't that bad in opposite side matches, but just because a strange turtle will be harmless 50% of the time doesn't make it acceptable.

Stone golem: While some forms can be turtles without the stonie, it's just too hard to regulate them, so the definition should include this golem. It's also how most turtles are recognized.

Back row:
A few days ago I hit this same side in a turtle game:
http://img193.exs.cx/img193/1583/image64hz.jpg
The only exception I can think of is a stonie in that middle corner thing, like this:
http://img190.exs.cx/img190/9644/image78yv.jpg
It's so far to the side, it can't really take the aggressive, so that's okay.

4 other units within stoning distance: How would you like to face this?:
http://img170.exs.cx/img170/7978/image19ub.jpg

No golem ambusher: This is probably the most controvertial of the rules. However, the logic for it is simple. It prevents a player from making a legal turtle into a gigantic rush. Here's an example form:
http://img170.exs.cx/img170/6656/image25uy.jpg
While the wisp can play a major role in the cleric's death, the only part of that formation that really makes it unstoppable is the busher. Furgon can't stop it because of muddy, and even if you did find a way, the majority of the game would be just like fending off a rush; trying to keep units away and keeping your cleric alive.
Many people have asked if having a golem ambusher in back is okay. However, when you consider the busher's usefulness, it really can't do much for a defensive turtle, aside from sniping over a furgon wall. Meanwhile, in some games, it will slowly be moved forward, until it can snipe frosty locks and kill clerics and take out stone focus. Because this isn't a desireable game (because the stone golem forces the turtle to overextend to keep the cleric alive, as the only way to stop it is to kill it), you don't allow golem ambushers into turtle games. It takes a total of 2 moves to get it into cleric hitting position on same side.

No mobile ranged units in the front row:
(I edited it; wards are totally fine)
Here are a few examples of undesireable turtles that are stopped with this rule:
http://img228.exs.cx/img228/1496/image48tc.jpg
http://img228.exs.cx/img228/9987/image55hs.jpg

The first one, as much as Bottle argues is benign, totally changes around a turtle game. It allows for instant aggression, something a turtle should not have access to.
The second is much more deadly. There's a 50% chance you'll be on the bad end of this boy, and if you are, your cleric's in a ton of trouble. Even if you can ward off this attack, it totally ruins your development, and mocks a rush game far too closely for my liking. Moving both back one means the attack is harshly minimized; the scout no longer has the diagnol shot at the cleric, and the wisp doesn't have as much access points. I recently beat MokoToko with it in a prearranged game (he agreed to face it). After slaughtering his cleric on the second turn, it was easy to handle his units, which he was forced to throw into a sloppy attack before i could fortify. Such forms just ruin turtle games.

Dsm/Pyros:
Many people don't think DSMs should be included in turtles at all. However, I disagree with this prospect. Unlike the ambusher, DSMs have no minimum range, so they can kill unwanted attackers, and have a much smaller range, so they can't snipe backrow enemies. However, restricting them to the back three rows prevents early game bombs. Also, the restriction of additional pyros prevents bombs with stonies, which are usually unwanted in turtle games.


Any comments are acceptable, but please don't flame me for harping, because this is the thread to end all threads concerning funky turtle definitions. I do ask, however, that if you're going to contest one of the rules, you respond to the analysis I give, and if you want to propose an additional rule, you give adequate reasons.
I also wouldn't quite feel right if I didn't add this:
Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting (http://www.imageshack.us)

[sub the hendrix]

Way to go Monkus, I think this pretty much covers it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Bravo, Monkus.

However, a point I would like to argue is that these should merely be guidelines, not rules set in stone. For instance, if a turtler asks to use a GA in the back rank to repel attackers, then it should be allowed as long as both agree.

Just an example.

[Wayfaerer]

Most of those examples just stink, even if you do get same side :rolleyes:

[monkus]

Lonely: Of course agreements override this. But these are the defaults I think we should set. I dont' want to have to have a 20 minute conversation before every turtle match so I don't end up facing a front line busher/dsm/wisp combo each time.

Wayf: Just because your uber-elite turtling skills allow you to avoid being totally destroyed by some of these examples doesn't mean they're wrong. I did manage to beat you with that busher example...but then again, I did make you use a conformist turtle, instead of your crazy turtle.

[zzzaacckk]

monk I think that this is in my oppinion an accurate description. well done.

[da1n]

Thats a good guide, the only real disagreement I have is with the pyro/dsm rule. To me, a stoned pyro cluster is a legit turtle- assuming your back row stone rule is in effect, the pyros aren't really a cleric threat, I don't see why they can't be included. Some people might recognize Quick's pyro turtle, it's a good example of what im talking about. And if you had, say, 3 stoned pyros and a stoned dsm, with the back row stone rule of course, I'd still consider that a turtle (just compare it to 4 stoned witches *cough* :rolleyes: with a slight power difference).
Quick's Pyro Turtle (http://img208.exs.cx/img208/4189/tacticsarenaform529zm.jpg)

[ent__89]

That is one thing i like so much about grey games, a turtle is so much more easily defined...although i must admit to being annoyed when a gold both jumps me and then rushes. I def. agree with all of your statements except the DSM one, but i have only played against one person who used one(w/ 2 pyros) and i destroyed it with my grey turt......anyways good work

[monkus]

I guess I see where you're coming from, but once you start pumping pyros in, you're not really making a turtle, you're more making a one sided bomb. It's not just the cleric threat, it's more that most people will just stone some pyros then bomb the heck out of their opponents, which is why I limited it to 1 pyro/dsm unit.

What if I were to limit it to two? Would you guys support that?

[FryLock]

*claps*

Bravo, Monkus. Bravo.

I find it odd for me, one the game's foremost rushers applauding anything to do with turtles...but here I am. I've been playing more turtle lately (to avoid the f*cking ambusher) and have grown to really like it, if not be terribly good at it.

You've clearly thought this through and been very thorough.

Unfortunately, like many good ideas, I feel this will generally be ignored by all except those already more or less in your camp. I can't see a frontline busher-wielding turtler simply agreeing to this.

But even so, this is all that can be done. I hope for the best.

[CRX687]

I refuse to support any and all attempts to restrict formations :cool:

but if it HAS to come to this... i agree with most of ur definitions (just not the DSM and bushy)... but like Lonely said, they're not set in stone or anything.

[monkus]

Crx: Whether you support form restrictions or not is honestly immaterial at this point, no offense. First, people will continue playing turtle games, so we might as well create a positive environment if we aren't going to stop them. Second, and I know everyone says this and everyone says "well, that's not true!", but how about this analogy:

Let's say you were just as good as you are now with rushing, but you were only half as good as you are now with turtling (I know you're an excellent turtler too so this analogy is hard). Now, let's say through some new units and eliminations of old units, turtles dominated rushes. You needed to be at least 50% better skillwise to beat a turtle, and yet you couldn't conform, because you just couldn't get the knack of turtling down.


On the basis of dsms and pyros:
A player approached me, wondering why this isn't a turtle:
http://img117.exs.cx/img117/7500/image83zb.jpg
He said he didn't understand my pyro ruling, and why that couldn't be a turtle.
My response was, which I think applies somewhat here, is that when you have a single dsm in a turtle, it can be used defensively because it's shockingly high damage output can be used, while the dsm itself can be adequately protected by the other units. Once you have another pyro, it becomes too difficult to realistically protect them both, and you end up simply trying to maintain the high damage output as long as possible, while taking out as many opposing units as possible. This isn't the general basis of turtling, but rather bombing, and as such it can't be allowed. Also, 19 times out of 20 a turtle with multiple dragon-powered-pyros will be used as a bomb with a stonie, so even if it does have defensive application, more times than not it'll just be a bomb in a turtle game.

[Wayfaerer]

Real turtles should only include one scout, since suicidal cleric killing is greatly intensified with two :rolleyes:

[monkus]

Go home legender :cool:

Heh, on a serious note though, two scouts are versitile and useful enough to warrant their use in a turtle. Nothing says cleric killing is illegal in turtle games, it should just not be either A. unstoppable, or B. extremely easy. Two scouts are quite stoppable, plus so influential in the turtle game itself that there's no reason to remove them.

[Wayfaerer]

Go home legender :cool:

Exactly why most people will agree with you, can't deny that :cool:

Scouts are inferior while playing defense (compared to offense at least), which is aparently the essence of a turtle. And with so many restrictions, a little bit of form variation couldn't hurt.

[TwitchyElf]

Good job Monkus. :D Now were is a mod...Hmmm. HEY SOMEONE COME AND MAKE THIS THREAD STICK! :D

[monkus]

Scouts are inferior while playing defense (compared to offense at least), which is aparently the essence of a turtle. And with so many restrictions, a little bit of form variation couldn't hurt.

Absolutely not (to the first part). Scouts are invaluable on defense, because they can hit units from many places using LOS, which means you can block with strong units and hit with teh scouts from behind. Plus, they can hit paralyzed units from a distance. Also, their blocking makes them into decent path blockers, plus when armored they have the equivalent of about 65 hp (pretty nice).

Second, the restrictions are not so much that no variation is allowed. In fact, as turtles go, they're quite lenient. As I said to duffman earlier today, while I might be excluding a few legitimate turtles with these rules, and I mean a few, the main objective is to keep things that aren't turtles out. If I get into a turtle game, I don't want to be facing some cleric hunting rush that kinda resembles a turtle.
If no one steps up and makes a set of rules like this, then turtle games will disappear, except between people who share some sort of common trust or friendship. You won't be able to ask a random person for a turtle game, because they might use a rush that resembles a turtle, in which case you, who used a real turtle, are screwed.
The spirit of the turtle is no longer enough. We cannot simply trust people we don't know to use an acceptable turtle. Words must be crafted to define this abstract formation that we have all grown to love. That is all.

[da1n]

Once you have another pyro, it becomes too difficult to realistically protect them both, and you end up simply trying to maintain the high damage output as long as possible, while taking out as many opposing units as possible. This isn't the general basis of turtling, but rather bombing, and as such it can't be allowed

So all this time, Quick's pyro turtle hasn't really been a turtle :(

[Wayfaerer]

Absolutely not (to the first part). Scouts are invaluable on defense, because they can hit units from many places using LOS, which means you can block with strong units and hit with teh scouts from behind. Plus, they can hit paralyzed units from a distance. Also, their blocking makes them into decent path blockers, plus when armored they have the equivalent of about 65 hp (pretty nice).

So basically, the extra scout just makes things easier (and luckier) in a game which is supposed to be skill dominated ;)

Majority of my turtle matches are just being assaulted by a dragon and two scouts

[monkus]

Wayf, honestly, bring the 2 scout argument somewhere else. It's obviously not a necessity to limit turtle matches to 1 scout, plus, even if it was, no one would buy it. But keep the discussion here to the topic at hand.

[Duffman]

Due to popular demand and me being unable to flaw monkus' definition... *scha-tik!*

[Warcow]

I agree on everything except the stone golem. There is absolutely no reason a turtle needs a stone golem. Turtles were around before the stoney, so you can't say that unit MUST be present. Resurgent247 uses a non stone golem turtle, and I myself dabble in them when I am feeling gutsy, it makes you use your other defensive units more strategically in order to prevent damage and keep your units alive.

As far as not having two scouts, turtle games are much more exciting with two scouts. The thing about scouts is they ARE beatable, they can be cut off, blocked off, and trapped. If you don't want to play with the big boys Wayf, go home. Turtles have always had two scouts here, the good ones anyway. Also, scouts no good on defense? I really hope you were smoking something when you made that comment.

[Wayfaerer]

As far as not having two scouts, turtle games are much more exciting with two scouts. The thing about scouts is they ARE beatable, they can be cut off, blocked off, and trapped. If you don't want to play with the big boys Wayf, go home. Turtles have always had two scouts here, the good ones anyway. Also, scouts no good on defense? I really hope you were smoking something when you made that comment.

Repetetive more than exciting and yes they are beatable of course, I never said they weren't. I would go home if there wasn't so much lag on Legends and I do want to play with "the big boys", just a more interesting and skillful match would be preferred. Of course turtles here have always included two scouts, because they're available! What a ridiculous comment. Finally, scouts are ok on defense, but not compared to their value on the offense.

You tend to repeat yourself in these situations and I don't want to get off topic any more than I have, so I won't argue about this point any further (since I wasn't really suggesting this seriously anyways).

[monkus]

Restricting to stone golems isn't about the golem itself, it's more about control. Before you start linking me to the matrix, listen in:

I mentioned before about the spirit of the turtle vs the word of the turtle. If we don't include the stone golem in the written law of the turtle, it'll be near impossible to keep turtles from becoming rushes.
If you want to run a turtle without a stonie, do what crx and everyone else mentioned before; work it out in advance. I'm not trying to make set-in-stone laws here, just some default so we don't have to spend 20 minutes specifying before a game.
You don't accept these rules and leave it at that. You accept them as a stepping stone for which any turtle can really spawn. There's nothing wrong with asking your opponent "normal turtle rules go, but can I use a pyro and dsm this time?", or "It's a turtle, it really is, just no stone golem. You cool with that?" But besides that, the stone golem really helps draw the line, and drawing lines is a must in the word of the turtle. It might not be necessary if we all knew what the spirit of the turtle was, but if we all did, then we wouldn't need this thread in the first place. I hope that clears things up.


Wayf: Take it somewhere else dude. Honestly. It's a great conversation that i'd love to have, but this isn't the right thread for it.

[Warcow]

Repetetive more than exciting and yes they are beatable of course, I never said they weren't. I would go home if there wasn't so much lag on Legends and I do want to play with "the big boys", just a more interesting and skillful match would be preferred. Of course turtles here have always included two scouts, because they're available! What a ridiculous comment. Finally, scouts are ok on defense, but not compared to their value on the offense.

Repetative? Ever try and stop wolfy's two scouts on a corner-corner turtle? How is a game with two scout's repetative? Infact, that is completely backwards, two scouts, = many more combinations for attack, which actually means, Oh right, MORE variety. As far as them being not useful on defense, ask Draquist for his opinion on that. Or Baeoin when he played, or Big X. All the furgy players would have a hayday cutting that statement to pieces. Frosts + LOS shots, + Furgys make for a deadly combo. Also, if by more skillful, you mean easier to stop? Then sure, a one scout game is more skillful.

[Chaosti]

I'm wondering why nobody's ever suggested this before. If you're willing to setup a turtle game, then you're probably looking for a game that minimizes luck and maximizes skill (I know some people have a different opinion on this but just bare with me). So why not when you are setting up a turtle game also determine whether to have a same side or opposite corner game? Same sides could have the stipulations set down by monkus while opposite corners could be allow for some of the less conventional turtles. Someone could come up with rules for opposite corner turtles too. Oh and one small point: though I do not debate that formations with stone golems are usually turtles, stone golems contribute less to the defense of a turtle and more to its capability to give an offensive edge. Stone armor allows a player's units to take more hits i.e. scouts and mud golems, when they are sent to attack the other player's formation. The turtle itself is formed around the stone golem to defend it from getting its focus broken. The true purpose of a turtle is to protect certain units, usually the cleric and stone golem. So a stone golem does not really define a turtle, rather a stone golem necessitates that a turtle be used to maximize its potential. A stone golem thats not in a turtle is about as useful and vulnerable as the almighty cleric rush, which while in intimidating doesn't win many matches.
Anybody else think that it would be awesome if a player could gather 10 clerics and put them on the field, it should create an all-powerful unit like........a lighting bolt wielding demigod paladin guy. Yeah.....that be cool.

[FryLock]

You tend to repeat yourself in these situations

:rolleyes:

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black...

All we ever seem to hear from you is that we're wrong and you're right and oh-so-smart (I've never seen you make a purely positive post) and that Legends is generally better.

You're not the best. You're talented, but you're far from the best. You've beaten me, yes, but I have beaten you...and without using the ambusher.

How about you either

a) try posting something constructive and generally positive (or least not negative), thereby adding to the community,

or

b) shut up and get out of here.

[thefreezing]

I wonder who first invented "Turtle" set-ups and games?

[FryLock]

According to his signature and himself, Moose did. Take that for what it's worth.

[Chaosti]

I wonder who first invented "Turtle" set-ups and games?

i think almost all setups were some sort of turtle in the early days. it was because almost everyone had a formation designed to protect their cleric. No one rushed and spreads were rare. After the dsm, mage bombing formations evolved, which led to popularization of spread formations. This in turn led to the creation of rushes. So no one "invented" turtles. It was just the most pratical type of formation in the beginning.

[thefreezing]

If Moosey himself invented turtle games and such, why don't we let him define what a turtle is?

[monkus]

Because it's not like a claim that Moose patented or anything. If Moose were to step up and offer an alternative definition, then we could weigh its benefits and harms versus mine, but just because the turtle game might have originated with him doesn't mean he makes all the decisions about it. I made this thread not because I thought it was my obligation to, but because I figure someone's gotta do it, and no one else rose up to the challenge. If Moose wants to step in here and help, it'd be gladly appreciated :)

On a side note, now that this is stickied, I think it's fair to say that, unless specified otherwise before a game, this thread dictates turtles to be used in turtle games, and anyone that wants to link their opponent back here for using a questionable turtle can be my guest ;)

[da1n]

As far as not having two scouts, turtle games are much more exciting with two scouts. The thing about scouts is they ARE beatable, they can be cut off, blocked off, and trapped. If you don't want to play with the big boys Wayf, go home. Turtles have always had two scouts here, the good ones anyway. Also, scouts no good on defense? I really hope you were smoking something when you made that comment.

Repetative? Ever try and stop wolfy's two scouts on a corner-corner turtle? How is a game with two scout's repetative? Infact, that is completely backwards, two scouts, = many more combinations for attack, which actually means, Oh right, MORE variety. As far as them being not useful on defense, ask Draquist for his opinion on that. Or Baeoin when he played, or Big X. All the furgy players would have a hayday cutting that statement to pieces. Frosts + LOS shots, + Furgys make for a deadly combo. Also, if by more skillful, you mean easier to stop? Then sure, a one scout game is more skillful.

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black...
All we ever seem to hear from you is that we're wrong and you're right and oh-so-smart (I've never seen you make a purely positive post) and that Legends is generally better.
a) try posting something constructive and generally positive (or least not negative), thereby adding to the community,
or
b) shut up and get out of here.

Wow those are some meaty posts ;) since Warcow strongly supports the scout-defense idea, I gotta slip in that a dsm/pyro combo can be played defensively too. :D Now about the scouts- It seems like the word 'Legends' falls somewhere in all of these arguments, and of course, since you are gifted with an extra scout, you want to keep using it to maintain this level of separation from Legends server. However, Legends doesn't exist, so there should be no grounds for bias according to TAO ethnicity. In a 2 scout game, with increased focus-breaking power, more skill is involved to keep your own units in focus. In a 1 scout game, with limited focus-breaking power, more skill is involved in keeping your opponent out of focus. Both would involve different tactics, and players can develop skill in both areas. That's what I have to say about that.

[monkus]

Alright, well, first, if you read my response above, a turtle with more than 1 dragon-powered-turtle can no longer play defensively. 1 pyro/dsm is easy to defend, and it's easy to keep track of and ensure you don't lose it. This allows you to use the shockingly high damage defensively.
Once you bring 2 pyro/dsms into the mix, defending them tends to become too difficult, and instead the player tends to just try to maintain the high damage output until the opponent is weak enough to be killed. That's not turtling, that's bombing.
If you can show me an instance where you can adequately protect a dsm and a pyro from two stoned scouts while still being able to make good use of them, I will be incredibly impressed :D. And even if you can, it's still not a wholly realistic scenario. Plus, just statistically, most of the time that kind of turtle is used as a bomb. That's no fun.

[Warcow]

If Moosey himself invented turtle games and such, why don't we let him define what a turtle is?

Moose always claims he invented the turtle but, that is kind of like the first human saying he invented walking. The turtle just works best, or at least it did before the ambusher and DSM and the mudquake etc, so people gradually went to a corner style defense. I didn't see moose coming over here and showing us what a turtle was, FPS came into turtles without any aid from legenders, so let no one claim they invented a form, it just isn't logical.

[Wayfaerer]

All we ever seem to hear from you is that we're wrong and you're right and oh-so-smart (I've never seen you make a purely positive post) and that Legends is generally better.

I never even mentioned Legends :confused:
Grey turtles only have 1 scout you know and there's plenty of greys on every server. I was just throwing in an idea for the sake of conversation, you sounded a bit more negative with that hate post.


Maybe Moose did invent the first turtle, but it's not that difficult to see where units should be placed after using the stone golem once. He was probably just the first one on when it came out :rolleyes:

[thefreezing]

I think that the one that "invented" a turtle should be the one to define what a turtle is. So all of the rules applied to the definition of a turtle by Monkus is not 100% right, but well defined though.

[monkus]

Okay freezing, how about this: The definition isn't just for humor, it's to create an atmosphere conducive to the best possible turtle games, and the maximum reduction of rush-like formations.

Whoever has the "claim" to the definition of a turtle doesn't matter, because we're not just defining turtles so we can say we accomplished something. We're doing it because all of us turtlers are tired of facing one-sided cleric hunting rushes in turtle games, just because they have a stonie.

Also, thefreezing, remember what Warcow said. No one invented the turtle; it was just a favorable strategy that many people came upon at relatively the same time. When the stone golem was released, no one person went around teaching people how to use it. Everyone tried it out, and all of the good players simply created turtles. Thus, there is no creator to look to.

[BlackSyphon]

one of my best turtles has a dragon front row, with 2 scouts swept diagonally back into the stone cluster. Next to the back most scout is a wisp followed by a muddy to the right in the third row. On the other side of my dragon is a furgon and 2 spaces behind is a frosty.

now THAT, is a variation and fits all but one of your rules. No mobile units in the front row. And still, it is by far my best turtle :)

du

[Realist]

Your definition is much too strict.

A turtle is pretty much any set which uses only one side and with many units (at least half) in the back three rows of that side. This is how the term is commonly used, and we shouldn't redefine it just to fit one specific turtle playing style.

This thread should be called "Forms Monkus likes to play as and against", not "Final Definition of Turtle."

[Wolfman]

guys... after reading all the posts... n being a turtler myself.... i truely thinks that turtle formation hv several types:

the basic turtle:
the grey type set.... fenced up type.... mostly with lward... with or without stoney.... although stoney is nice to hv cuz basic turs don last long enough against tur with stoney.... (think what will be the end-result of most gold vs grey turs.... gold mostly wins)

the attacking turtle:
side rush attacking tur with fast attack capability.... stoney cornered up (not on last line). Mostly this type of tur is good when same side against other turs... else... they got slammed by opponent flanking mostly.

the defensive turtle:
well... stoney last line, furggy presents, frosty presents... normally use by very very patience tur ppls.

old school turtle:
like any turs, except not using GA n wisp.

wolfy

*** n cow, thx for mentioning me in your post. lol... i am flattered. i think any vets or good ppls who knows well LOS hv the same capability like anyone else... not just wolf :)

*** n monkus, i think your thread name is very bold... "FINAL DEFINITION"...wow.. i agree with realist in his last post.

[Duffman]

Your definition is much too strict.

A turtle is pretty much any set which uses only one side and with many units (at least half) in the back three rows of that side. This is how the term is commonly used, and we shouldn't redefine it just to fit one specific turtle playing style.

This thread should be called "Forms Monkus likes to play as and against", not "Final Definition of Turtle."
I originally said this but monkus explained it for me. The idea of a turtle definition is not to encompass all possible formations that are turtles yet to restrict anyone from exploiting the accepted definition of a turtle by putting in elements of un-turtle like startegy. What this means is yes you can make turtles that don't fit all these rules but the definition makes sure you can't make a formation that is accepted as a turtle but also has unstoppable cleric killing abilities as things like this.

Yes it restricts what you can do formation-wise to keep it a turtle but the idea is it'll stop people complying with the accepted definition of the turtle yet also having anti-turtle strategys like unstopable cleric kill.

And as monkus says:
Any comments are acceptable, but please don't flame me for harping, because this is the thread to end all threads concerning funky turtle definitions. I do ask, however, that if you're going to contest one of the rules, you respond to the analysis I give, and if you want to propose an additional rule, you give adequate reasons.
Meaning this thread is not about just what he thinks is right but is used to work out the definition and then to agree on it so when you agree to a turtle game you will get a turtle game.

Sorry if that isn't very clear. Monkus used setups to show me the purpose behind the definition being as it is.

[monkus]

Your definition is much too strict.

A turtle is pretty much any set which uses only one side and with many units (at least half) in the back three rows of that side. This is how the term is commonly used, and we shouldn't redefine it just to fit one specific turtle playing style.

This thread should be called "Forms Monkus likes to play as and against", not "Final Definition of Turtle."

Realist, I completely understand your response. As much as I would have liked it if you had worded it in perhaps a less aggressive way, I totally understand where you're coming from.
However, remember what I said before:

These rules aren't just based on logic, they're based on providing the best atmosphere possible for a turtle game. A good turtler wins games by using a normal turtle well. A bad turtler manipulates the rules so he can best take advantage of his opponent.

I do not define this simply to see myself post, or so I can tell everyone the kind of turtles I want to play against. I think many many turtlers will agree that they don't want to arrange a turtle game only to find themselves against a same side rush with a stone golem, or something of the sort. I didn't just make this up, many turtlers have agreed with me. Look at your definition for a second:

"A turtle is pretty much any set which uses only one side and with many units (at least half) in the back three rows of that side. This is how the term is commonly used, and we shouldn't redefine it just to fit one specific turtle playing style."

Does this definition accurately (more accurately than mine) define a turtle? Yes. Could well-minded individuals play good turtle games with that definition? Yes. Under that definition, could a person who wants to win a lot of games challenge individuals to turtle matches, then legally use this form (http://img235.exs.cx/img235/7793/image90ji.jpg)? Yup.


Time to weigh the benefits and harms.
Benefits of using Realist's definition:
No turtles are left out. Very little restriction on the variety possible within turtle games. No one complains about a restrictive definition.
Harms:
Rushers get to roam free in turtle games, and they win approximately 50% of them easily, by using a one-sided rush like the one above. Eventually, people need to either plan opposite side turtle matches, eradicating an entire 50% of turtle games, wish for a REAL turtling opponent and hope they don't get same side against a rusher, or learn to rush, even in turtle games!

Benefits of using Monkus's definition:
Everything I just said doesn't happen.
Harms:
A few people who like to use strange turtles need to make sure it's okay with their opponents in advance. People who turtle without stonies need to ask their opponents if that's cool. Rushers get kinda angry that they can't actually rush in turtle games.


You're totally right Realist. My definition doesn't cover all turtles. Surprisingly, I'm not actually looking for a way to categorize turtles. I'm looking for a way to keep forms that don't belong in turtle games out by principle. I guess the only alternative so far is to have Bottle look at each and every one of our turtles and make sure they're okay (Poor Bottle!). Either that, or we simply have to read off a list of personally established rules before a turtle game to make sure our opponents won't do such things. Plus, I'm not even fully stifling other turtles. I'm just being cautious with them, but anyone can just ask their opponents in advance, etc. I think it's worth it.


Now moving on to Wolfman's post:

guys... after reading all the posts... n being a turtler myself.... i truely thinks that turtle formation hv several types:

the basic turtle:
the grey type set.... fenced up type.... mostly with lward... with or without stoney.... although stoney is nice to hv cuz basic turs don last long enough against tur with stoney.... (think what will be the end-result of most gold vs grey turs.... gold mostly wins)


This is perfectly allowed by my definition, except the stonie rule. As I said many times before, if you don't want to use a stonie, just ask your opponent. However, in establishing a clear cut distinction between rushes and turtles, a stonie makes it much easier. If not for a stonie, then I think it'd be extremely difficult to differentiate between a one-sided rush and a turtle.


the attacking turtle:
side rush attacking tur with fast attack capability.... stoney cornered up (not on last line). Mostly this type of tur is good when same side against other turs... else... they got slammed by opponent flanking mostly.

Actually, Wolfy, I've found in my experiences almost all turtles, even aggressive ones, keep the stonie in the back row. The main reason for this is while it may hinder aggression slightly, it makes it much more difficult for a defensive opponent to break the stone focus. I also feel that allowing the stonie to be closer to the front allows for rushes to go under the name of turtle; see my example in my opening post.


the defensive turtle:
well... stoney last line, furggy presents, frosty presents... normally use by very very patience tur ppls.

old school turtle:
like any turs, except not using GA n wisp.


And both of these are allowed in these forms.


*** n monkus, i think your thread name is very bold... "FINAL DEFINITION"...wow.. i agree with realist in his last post.

Perhaps it is bold. However, I picked it for three reasons.
First, it generally implies that the decision made here, not necessarily by me but by the general consensus, stands until further notice.
Second, it shows a distinction between this thread and one I previously made.
Third, and most importantly, it creates an aura of importance, and of unwavering. The thread would have absolutely no impact if an opponent could use any form they wanted in a turtle game, and upon being challenged with this thread as backing, simply doubt the legitimacy of the thread. This thread is an attempt to keep rushers out of turtle games (as i've said many times), and is an attempt to assist the poor turtler who has to beg and plead with his opponent to draw or surrender when faced with a one sided rush that is clearly setup to destroy his turtle. I've been in this position many times, and it's not a fun one.


I apologize (if it is necessary) for the incredibly long post, but I feel the only way we can ever accomplish anything is with dynamic discourse (meaningful and interactive discussion). I also ask that anyone who wishes to further the arguments on either side, please refer to the arguments already given, instead of simply the original idea of the thread. There's no need to get into a war of repititions simply because no one reads anything but the opening post's first line.

Post Script: By the way, thanks Duffman for defending me.

[TwitchyElf]

Nice argument man. :)

[BlackSyphon]

the stoney is what ties the turtle back (literally). Once the stoney is not included, it becomes more of an "anti-rush." Which preserves another defensive/offensive unit instead of the stone golem.

du

[Realist]

I'm not trying to be hostile. Really. :)

It just annoys me when people think they can define words for themselves.

I have no problem with you listing characteristics of forms that you think embody the spirit behind certain turtles, or the characteristics of forms you want to play. Just don't think you're actually defining what people mean (and should expect) when they ask for a "turtle" game.

This (http://img235.exs.cx/img235/7793/image90ji.jpg), I would say, is only borderline turtle and I think people would have a right to get angry if someone used this set against them when a turtle match was agreed upon (it has too many units up front to be considered a pure turtle, it is more like a turtle-rush). However, the set you posted earlier with 3 pyros is a completely legitimite turtle by common perception of the word.

You're totally right Realist. My definition doesn't cover all turtles. Surprisingly, I'm not actually looking for a way to categorize turtles. I'm looking for a way to keep forms that don't belong in turtle games out by principle.

Turtles belong in turtle games, by definition. Any type of turtle. If you want to specify further, fine, just don't be claiming to be takling about "turtle" games, but rather the specific type of game you and many other turtlers want to play. My suggestion for a revised title in my last post was a serious one.

Now that this thread exists, if you want to play a turtle according to these rules you could just ask for a "Monkus" Turtle game. Just don't expect people to play exactly to these rules if you use just the single word "turtle".

[zzzaacckk]

A turtle is a defensive form. Realist no offence that is not defensive. that is a 1 sided rush with a defensive capability. its primary goal is not for defence.

[Realist]

Which are you referring to?

I agreed that the link in the above post was not a turtle. That said, not all turtles have to be primarily defensive.

[Wayfaerer]

Not all turtles are defensive, or a game would never finish without a draw :rolleyes:

[monkus]

Realist, you said people have the right to get angry if someone uses that form. But how? According to your definition, it's a totally legal turtle.

So realist, how do you regulate a non-"monkus" turtle game then? People having the right to get angry means nothing. People being able to link their opponent to a thread with numerous sponsors and a sticky that says their turtle is illegal means something. You're arguing that my definition isn't totally inclusive, but I think it's much more important to be sufficiently exclusive. You can always ask your opponent for an exception if you have a strange turtle. You can rarely get your opponent to agree to surrender or draw if they use a rush-like turtle in a game. Trust me, I know from experience.

So alright, fine. Go ahead, call it a "monkus" turtle, or the like. I'm not trying to get pride or anything for defining turtles. I'm trying to regulate the turtle game to keep it rush and manipulation free.

Realist, in the case that my definition isn't mutually inclusive, what definition would you propose? Most units must be in back? If that's the case, then all I have to do is use this form, and I'm basically guaranteed to win 50% of my turtle games:
http://img88.exs.cx/img88/7940/image100xk.jpg
What's my opponent going to say? "There's no written rule against it, but clearly that form's unfair, so you should surrender." I understand you disagree with my definition because of its exclusiveness. I also understand you don't want me to categorize turtles myself, as its not my place. So tell me how your system for normal turtle games will prevent me from going around and using that form. You need clear, precise, written law to fall back upon to prevent people from manipulating the rules. Sometimes you cause a few minor problems, all of which can be solved. So fine. Call it the "monkus turtle rules". But make sure people start USING THEM, not just to inflate my already oversized ego, but so this thread actually makes a difference.

[sub the hendrix]

Monkus, I wish people would read where you said that you were willing to accept suggestions, and add them in. Guys, just because Monkus created this thread, does not mean that he is doing it for personal satisfaction or credit. Attacking Monkus is low, if you have a suggestion, post a suggestion.

That said, I also think people are often missing the point of this thread. The point, as Monkus has repeated so often, is to create DEFAULT guidlines. These can be changed in any game that is agreed to by two players. The TAO police will not hunt you down if you and someone decide to play a game that allows for front row ambushers.

Again, good job on this thread man, it is nice to have all the discussion on this in one place.

[monkus]

Match, I think the problem is they expect their defaults to be entirely inclusive. However, if you think about the nature of the game, you want your default defintion to be overly exclusive, because it restricts abuse while still allowing for exceptions to be made for unique forms.

I'll revamp only one point to reduce thread length:
You can always ask your opponent before a round, "Hey, I wanna use an ambusher this game, it's in the back, is that okay?" Both alternatives are reasonable. They say yes, and you get the game you wanted, or they say no, and you play someone else while avoiding a possible ingame argument.

You can rarely if ever get your opponent to surrender or draw a game that is clearly in their favor over formations, especially without clear proof that their form is invalid.

(Okay, I lied, two points :)):
Remember, i'm not trying to define turtles just for fun. Sure, my definition might not be fully accurate, but it provides the turtle society with the best possible outcome, and thus I urge its adoption as the default turtle definition. If we're not going to accept it as the turtle default, then what in the world are we going to accomplish? A sufficient set of rules that isn't used often means nothing.

[Cuathon]

um i think monk is right. im tired of playing and getting rushed by bushers.

also in the turtle league you'll notice we have all been using "bottle turtles".

we need some damn rules.

also xyx, having at least half the units in the back 3 rows? that is not what the term commonly means, at least as far as i undertsand it.

and wolf, the non stonie turtle that is a gold version of the grey turtle is an anti rush. perhaps we should have definitions of several forms. A-rush, turtle, rush, bomb, spread, freestyle. then you can pick which ones you will play.

also just by myself the only turtles i dont want to play have ranged units in the front. i can deal with knights. but having bushers scouts muddies wisps, thats a no-no.

[sub the hendrix]

perhaps we should have definitions of several forms. A-rush, turtle, rush, bomb, spread, freestyle. then you can pick which ones you will play.

We must remember that we run the risk of overly categorizing forms in this game. I think a bomb is fairly obvious, and a rush almost as much so. We dont need default defenitions for those forms as we do the turtle, because the debate hasnt been nearly as fierce. (I dont think I have ever come across a disagreement resulting from a rusher deciding to put a furgon in his setup.)

[Bottle]

I still think my definition of a turtle is the best: A formation that prefers getting opposite side to its opponent.

Of course, monkus' longer definiton is also pretty good. :)

[Realist]

Monkus, I admitted that my definition was not completely flawless. I used the words "A turtle is pretty much any", leaving open room for a few exceptions. I would agree that, according to common perception, a turtle cannot be a rush; it can't have that many offensive units that far out in the front.

So realist, how do you regulate a non-"monkus" turtle game then?

You don't. You assume that the other person knows what you are talking about. And generally, the other person does. I agree with you that we should have a set definition for a turtle that will allow new players to understand what it means, but this definition should be based on how the word is generally used, not on how certain turtle players like to play their games.

People having the right to get angry means nothing. People being able to link their opponent to a thread with numerous sponsors and a sticky that says their turtle is illegal means something.

Yes, except in this case, as you already admitted, it means something false. You agreed that your definition was not inclusive of all turtles; therefore, to say that someone is violating turtle rules simply because he uses a set which violates this thread is nothing less than a lie.


You can always ask your opponent for an exception if you have a strange turtle.

Why not just say that this is Final Definition of Monkus Turtle and then ask people for a Monkus Turtle game? That would stop this argument in a second. You have the right to define a new term for games you like. Just not to hijack a word which already has a different meaning.

http://img88.exs.cx/img88/7940/image100xk.jpg is somewhat of a rush, like the last link you posted, and is therefore not a "pure" turtle. A definition of a turtle I would be ok with:
1. Must be one-sided
2. Must have majority of units in first 3 rows
3. Can't have more than one magic unit, ambusher, wisp in last 3 rows.

These rules could be further added to for the purpose of limiting rushes, which are generally agreed to be non-turtles. What couldn't be added are rules that go beyond this, like restricting the number of pyros in the back 2 rows.

Ny basis is this: We must define the word based on how it is commonly used. I think my definition does that. I don't think yours does- as you admit, its purpose is to define it for the point of regulating games, not to come up with an accurate definition.

So fine. Call it the "monkus turtle rules". But make sure people start USING THEM, not just to inflate my already oversized ego, but so this thread actually makes a difference.

There is an easy way to do this: Ask for Monkus Turtle games. And if a person asks what it is, point them to this thread.

I have more I'd like to say but I have to go, so I'll just post this for now.

[da1n]

I consider any form with a 5 unit stone cluster to be a turtle, but thats just me :cool:

[Godmic18]

Wow, I'm not used to seeing a thread on the definition of a turtle. I guess back in legends turtles were just so common, everyone knew what they were along with the different variations. Monkus has done a pretty good job defining an basic turtle.

Here's a few more versions of turtles that I've seen commonly:

Turtle Rush: Yes, it is possible. This will usually have a busher (golem ambusher), muddy, and a wisp all of which are stoned. These turtles are pretty nasty if you run into them, same-sided or not.

Turtle Bomb: These bad boys were great against rushes at one point in time. They usually have a dragon and a dsm incorporated into the turtle. These are very offensive turtles as well, but if you get too close, the dsm'll fry you up.

Fold-up Turtle: These aren't as common as the above two, but are very interesting to play. To start, they will look very much like a spread, or just randomly placed units, but after three or four moves(usually with ranged units) it will fold into one side, making a nice defensive trap should you decide to attack.

Old School Turtle: Easy. No wisps or bushers. Dragon Light was a big fan of these.

[monkus]

First look at realist's definition:


1. Must be one-sided
2. Must have majority of units in first 3 rows
3. Can't have more than one magic unit, ambusher, wisp in last 3 rows.


The first problem with it is it isn't completely inclusive of all generally accepted turtles. For example:
This turtle (http://ww2.eternalkookies.com:60/forums/uploads/Picture 2.JPG) isn't acceptable by either of our standards, and yet it is obviously a turtle.
This turtle (http://ww2.eternalkookies.com:60/forums/uploads/Picture 1.JPG) is only acceptable by my definition, and not Realist's, while it is clearly a turtle. It might not be the best possible turtle, but it is a turtle and therefore must be accepted by a definition that we expect to be totally inclusive.

The second problem is Realist's definition doesn't create a positive atmosphere for turtles. As I've said numerous times before, this is the main goal of the definition, because otherwise our definition might be correct but it isn't achieving anything. Realist's third requirement takes a step in the right direction; however, an ambusher can still get into cleric killing position in 2 moves, during which time scouts, muddies, etc., which are all allowed in the front three rows, could set the opponent up for such a problem.

Thus, he doesn't achieve the requirement he sets up of being totally inclusive, plus he doesn't achieve the requirement I set up for creating a positive turtling atmosphere, so the definition can't possibly be accepted.

[Liquid Swordsman]

I don't understand why people must feel like they need to define a form. This is a game where you have to adapt. You can't state what is and what isn't a turtle, because there are always exceptions. You people make it sound like it's impossible to beat anything but a turtle.

All in all, you will never be able to truely define a turtle.

[speaker4thedead]

i dont really get it monkus is it possible to get pictures like screenshots of a turle cos i dont get it

[speaker4thedead]

thats gd monkus but i dont get it can u lave screen shots of a turtle setup plz
i would appreaciate it

[Godmic18]

thats gd monkus but i dont get it can u lave screen shots of a turtle setup plz
i would appreaciate it

WHAT?????

[Wayfaerer]

WHAT?????

I wouldn't expect you to understand :cool:

[monkus]

I don't understand why people must feel like they need to define a form. This is a game where you have to adapt. You can't state what is and what isn't a turtle, because there are always exceptions. You people make it sound like it's impossible to beat anything but a turtle.

All in all, you will never be able to truely define a turtle.


Okay, you're probably right, we can't really define a turtle. And, if all people played were freestyle games, there'd be no need. However, turtlers love to play turtle games, and thus a definition is required.

Speaker: Here are a few legitimate turtles:
http://img115.exs.cx/img115/8913/2knightdefense9xu.jpg
http://img115.exs.cx/img115/8885/bottlesantirushturtle9tx.jpg
http://img115.exs.cx/img115/8121/powerturtle5et.jpg

[Wayfaerer]

http://img109.exs.cx/img109/7069/turtle2bm.jpg

What about this beast :cool:

[BlackSyphon]

hfs...yeah, thats a pretty nice turtle, after you shot the cleric with ambusher you would be like "srry, forgot to stone..."


du

[da1n]

http://img109.exs.cx/img109/7069/turtle2bm.jpg

What about this beast :cool:
Now that's a man's turtle :cool:

[CRX687]

Okay, you're probably right, we can't really define a turtle. And, if all people played were freestyle games, there'd be no need. However, turtlers love to play turtle games, and thus a definition is required.

Speaker: Here are a few legitimate turtles:
http://img115.exs.cx/img115/8913/2knightdefense9xu.jpg
http://img115.exs.cx/img115/8885/bottlesantirushturtle9tx.jpg
http://img115.exs.cx/img115/8121/powerturtle5et.jpg

no, since we can't define it, a definition is NOT required.

but since you ppl like turtling so much, REGULATIONS are, that's wut realist has been trying to get across this whole time. There rules are your perception of a turtle, and there will be those that agree and disagree, thus, these rules are "monkus' regulations to a turtle", not "Definition of a turtle".


and wuffy, ppl get mad at me for using turtles like that all the time :p ... well, not THAT bad, but close...

[Duffman]

Ok lets end this...
If you want a turtle game using monkus' rules it is called a monkus turtle game or a monkus game
If you want a turtle game without said regulations then it's just a normal turtle game.

Can we all agree on this?

[emerald slasher]

raises hand i agree :)

[sub the hendrix]

I consider any form with a 5 unit stone cluster to be a turtle, but thats just me :cool:
Can you show me how to stone more units besides the stone golem? Because that would be awesome :D

[monkus]

Okay, duffman, then what's a turtle game?

[Wayfaerer]

Okay, duffman, then what's a turtle game?

This is what I call a turtle game (http://www.smiliegames.com/turtlehurtle/index.php3) :cool:

[Godmic18]

This is what I call a turtle game (http://www.smiliegames.com/turtlehurtle/index.php3) :cool:

Hmmm.... I'll remember that.

[Warcow]

I think if any form is designed for a quick cleric kill . . . it isn't a turtle. So pretty much anything with an ambusher up front, or a wisp and a mud, or any variation on that, is BS when used in a turtle game. Other than that, I really don't care.

[Duffman]

Turtle game will remain as is... largely undefined. Monkus I just don't think you can assume that everyone will accept these restrictions. Even if you get the majority of people thinking that your rules should become the new turtle there are still some who will disagree because they want to use a Buwhy at the front (bastards!). And if not everyone agrees you can't force those who don't to play turtle games to your rules. It's easier just to create another style of play with your rules.

[OmegaShin]

Your definition is much too strict.

A turtle is pretty much any set which uses only one side and with many units (at least half) in the back three rows of that side. This is how the term is commonly used, and we shouldn't redefine it just to fit one specific turtle playing style.

This thread should be called "Forms Monkus likes to play as and against", not "Final Definition of Turtle."

Wow... i was really getting depressed reading this post. Wtf monkus, i know u as a good player, this definition u did is REALLY nubish! Something we can only see on legends nub forums....

Thank god realist wolfman and other elite players posted something true.
Well i completely agree with realist's post. You guys must understand that this is a game evolving every time a new unit comes out. Every new unit coming out brought in and will bring new forms and new strategies that will be very hard to accept at first, but will end integrating and strenghtening every form.

Remember when beast was out? Same noobish posts and people complaining of how cheap it was... and that happened after they were complaining to seed of how much it sucked. Same happened with wisp, if any legend vets read this post, they will surely remember M_A_D post of how wisp was useless, and seed's answer. Many people agree today that wisp is one of the strongest units to use in turtle and rush.

The GA brings in a different situation though. It is actually the only unit that can completely change the balance of a game. I completely hated it in the beginning. I am sure legends people remember how i abandoned my turtle and started crazy rushing with that fucking golem. That was until i got used to it and was able to integrate it in a turt completely.
Defending from a GA is not impossible. Obviously it gives a huge advantage on same sides, but still, some turtle forms can avoid his cleric kill (i.e. cleric not cornered). Also, on opposite sides 50% people using it will be screwed since they won't be able to use a front GA properly on same sides (monkus GA turt example sucked, GA quiet useless on opposites).

Every player must have total access to the game's strats possibilities. If any players - maybe afraid to fight fearsom forms, and refusing to learn the new units' power himself - will start doing restriction, we will all end using a very little number of forms.
One more note to the GA thing: if u fight a GA poor user, if u can learn the new strats, u will surely win. A unit doesn't win a game alone, and a clericless same side turtle is not harmless. Also, 2 GA users on same sides will still depend on skills only. The best player will keep winning, the only problem is that first turn can matter quiet a lot on same sides similar forms.

Anyway, still props to u for ur definition job monkus, but restricting things is really noobish. Also, some more notes to ur restrictions:

Stone - Any people not considering a non stone turtle not a turtle just cause it lacks a stone golem deserves to be remembered in time as a clown.
TURTLE is NOT necessarily a stone formation. Many very good turtle players don't use stone. It's a matter of personal strategies and such. Non stone turtle remains a turtle. Period.

Dsm pyros and such - This is controversal. A turtle with more than a magical unit in first line is more like a side rush. I wouldn't call rushes those turtles stoning their dsm and pyros. That's still a turtle, noobish, but still a turtle.

Scouts - Obviously if double scout is allowed they will be obviously used. Scouts are great units for offense and defense. Still, this shows the nosense of the thread. Like ambusher double scouts can take out a lot of turtles with suicidal strategy and wisp help (wisp + scout can kill in 2 moves clerics in no cornered turtles).

Shin

[Jeffery]

...
Stone - Any people not considering a non stone turtle not a turtle just cause it lacks a stone golem deserves to be remembered in time as a clown.
...

Shin


If you disparage my clowns again, they will kill you.

[CRX687]

Okay, duffman, then what's a turtle game?

You can't make a definition that will suit everyone, so there is no set definition. Ur restrictions are good, hence many people agree with them, but they are still only restrictions, not an actual definition.

What's a turtle game? fluff's answer, my answer, and everyone else's answers for that matter will be slightly different. This thread if YOUR answer to the question, not the definition of it.

plus, omega is right, every unit brings about changes, and if both players have access to the same units, there is nothing unfair about anything.

also, formation and unit changes in TAO is the one element that seperates it from other turb based games... even when it's just turtling, i don't think it's fair to completely ban any unit.

[thefreezing]

So...........my offensive turtle still counts as a turtle. :)

[Moose]

Alright, I know, I know, I've been groaning and moaning about this for a very long time, but I think I've finally got it, so I won't make any more threads or complaints or anything if this thread works. The way I figure it, if we all agree to this definition (and a mod sticky's it), then no one can really violate it. These rules aren't just based on logic, they're based on providing the best atmosphere possible for a turtle game. A good turtler wins games by using a normal turtle well. A bad turtler manipulates the rules so he can best take advantage of his opponent. I'll provide a reason/form for each claim, but the most important part is here:


A turtle is a formation that has a stone golem in the back row (or to the very side in the second row), with at least 4 other units within stoning distance of the golem's original position. The formation has no golem ambusher, and has no mobile ranged units in the front row. If a DSM is included, it must be in the back 3 rows, and no additional pyros may be used.


Anyone who agrees to a turtle game that didn't follow this definition ought to agree to either a draw or a surrender, depending on the circumstances.


Logic for each reason:
Note: Most of this logic pertains to same side matches. Often most turtles aren't that bad in opposite side matches, but just because a strange turtle will be harmless 50% of the time doesn't make it acceptable.

Stone golem: While some forms can be turtles without the stonie, it's just too hard to regulate them, so the definition should include this golem. It's also how most turtles are recognized.

Back row:
A few days ago I hit this same side in a turtle game:
http://img193.exs.cx/img193/1583/image64hz.jpg
The only exception I can think of is a stonie in that middle corner thing, like this:
http://img190.exs.cx/img190/9644/image78yv.jpg
It's so far to the side, it can't really take the aggressive, so that's okay.

4 other units within stoning distance: How would you like to face this?:
http://img170.exs.cx/img170/7978/image19ub.jpg

No golem ambusher: This is probably the most controvertial of the rules. However, the logic for it is simple. It prevents a player from making a legal turtle into a gigantic rush. Here's an example form:
http://img170.exs.cx/img170/6656/image25uy.jpg
While the wisp can play a major role in the cleric's death, the only part of that formation that really makes it unstoppable is the busher. Furgon can't stop it because of muddy, and even if you did find a way, the majority of the game would be just like fending off a rush; trying to keep units away and keeping your cleric alive.
Many people have asked if having a golem ambusher in back is okay. However, when you consider the busher's usefulness, it really can't do much for a defensive turtle, aside from sniping over a furgon wall. Meanwhile, in some games, it will slowly be moved forward, until it can snipe frosty locks and kill clerics and take out stone focus. Because this isn't a desireable game (because the stone golem forces the turtle to overextend to keep the cleric alive, as the only way to stop it is to kill it), you don't allow golem ambushers into turtle games. It takes a total of 2 moves to get it into cleric hitting position on same side.

No mobile ranged units in the front row:
(I edited it; wards are totally fine)
Here are a few examples of undesireable turtles that are stopped with this rule:
http://img228.exs.cx/img228/1496/image48tc.jpg
http://img228.exs.cx/img228/9987/image55hs.jpg

The first one, as much as Bottle argues is benign, totally changes around a turtle game. It allows for instant aggression, something a turtle should not have access to.
The second is much more deadly. There's a 50% chance you'll be on the bad end of this boy, and if you are, your cleric's in a ton of trouble. Even if you can ward off this attack, it totally ruins your development, and mocks a rush game far too closely for my liking. Moving both back one means the attack is harshly minimized; the scout no longer has the diagnol shot at the cleric, and the wisp doesn't have as much access points. I recently beat MokoToko with it in a prearranged game (he agreed to face it). After slaughtering his cleric on the second turn, it was easy to handle his units, which he was forced to throw into a sloppy attack before i could fortify. Such forms just ruin turtle games.

Dsm/Pyros:
Many people don't think DSMs should be included in turtles at all. However, I disagree with this prospect. Unlike the ambusher, DSMs have no minimum range, so they can kill unwanted attackers, and have a much smaller range, so they can't snipe backrow enemies. However, restricting them to the back three rows prevents early game bombs. Also, the restriction of additional pyros prevents bombs with stonies, which are usually unwanted in turtle games.


Any comments are acceptable, but please don't flame me for harping, because this is the thread to end all threads concerning funky turtle definitions. I do ask, however, that if you're going to contest one of the rules, you respond to the analysis I give, and if you want to propose an additional rule, you give adequate reasons.
I also wouldn't quite feel right if I didn't add this:
Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting (http://www.imageshack.us)



Monkus, for someone who was flawlessed at a turtle by me, this has got to be the most down right incorrect turtle anaylsis i've seen, and for all those needing a good objective look give me a few days to give you one


Moosey

[monkus]

Once I hear what moose has to say, I'll make a large response to all the standing objections :p. I have a few important points to make, but I'll let moose give his side first.

[Moose]

Once I hear what moose has to say, I'll make a large response to all the standing objections :p. I have a few important points to make, but I'll let moose give his side first.


Go ahead, I created it. I don't mind having people ahve their own opinions on it :), however what you have said about the turtle is not really a good defention of what the turtle really stands for, and because people want me to post my thoughts on this, I will, we'll just see if your elementary perspective can match up


Cheers!

Moosey

[Wayfaerer]

Looks like there's a new turtle thread in town :cool:

[Bottle]

Monkus, for someone who was flawlessed at a turtle by me, this has got to be the most down right incorrect turtle anaylsis i've seen, and for all those needing a good objective look give me a few days to give you one


Moosey
You missed your [/I'm trying to sound good so you listen to me instead of another highly respected player]

[Moose]

You missed your [/I'm trying to sound good so you listen to me instead of another highly respected player]

Ignoriance is bliss bottle, I guess thats why you live in it :)

Besides, you defention of respect is limited to FPS players, I see now that you really don't have respect for the true vets of tao that began 1 month before FPS existed, have a nice day.

Moosey

[OmegaShin]

There's no need to get mad to each other. Moose created turtle so i think it's right to let him define it.

Turtle is the most respectable, skill depending form. It is hard to define something that is the core of tao. It is even wrong trying it if we start making "rules" and restricting units. Obviously players with different opinions will get mad.

Every tao vet is able to distinguish a turtle from a rush. This game is so big we can't just write one or two pages pretending to make a final definition of turtle. It's just impossible, there will always be new situations and new turtles that we didn't think of. And this is why i like this game, if we had to play with forms all similars it would be repetitive and boring for people playing a lot.

The beauty of this kind of online games is the creation itself. We all have access to same units and there's nothing unfair. You ask for a turtle game... You don't ask for any units restriction? fine, this means to me that u are going to use an ambusher. I will just put mine in and the game, on same or opposite sides, will be completely fair and i will be pretty confident to win if i know i am more skilled than you.

Restricting things is just something a noob would do and that i really don't expect from respectable players. Personally, i turtle with anything, meaning if someone asks me for an old style turt game i will just remove my GA and play, losing some respect for the asking player though since it will sound to me like he is unable or didn't master the latest strats.

Also, pretending to restrict units will bring us to foolish things like the "stone" thing. That was just ridicolous.

You know what? We could have the vets and respectable players make their own turt definition, and what would we get? A bunch of different posts with different definitions. We can try defining the general strat line of a turtle like moose is doing in his post. Defining details like what units i use and where exactly i put it is not possible and doesn't show intelligence.

[Cuathon]

moose didnt invent the turtle. no one did.
after a few games when i learned how to use the settings button i automatically picked a form that could be called a grey turtle.

also omega, there is no reason to lose respect because womeone wants an old school turtle. im sure bottle could easily learn to use a GA turtle, as can monkus or anyu other turtler. perhaps they just think it is not fun? after all games are about fun.

how can you lose respect for someone because they want to have fun in a GAME?

[CRX687]

also omega, there is no reason to lose respect because womeone wants an old school turtle. im sure bottle could easily learn to use a GA turtle, as can monkus or anyu other turtler. perhaps they just think it is not fun? after all games are about fun.


this IS reason to lose respect if the reason they ask for old school games is that they fear losing...

[OmegaShin]

Exactly crx, that was what i meant. I am just tired and pissed off of people refusing challenges on fps or when accepting them asking me to use this that and that other unit. This is a game, ok it's cool to gain stats, but it's really sad not playing someone to not lose. I have high rank but i play everyone and with whatever form they ask. I started a lot of new accs on legends to restart from low stats and be able to find more games. I don't have much respect for people playing only for stats or denying any challenge that they fear losing. Yeah it's true, play only turt games with defensive turtles and u will be sure to win all games until u play medium or decent people. But u will learn nothing new, and than u will find urself in a tourney where u need to use all units or u get jumped by someone with full units and u will just go down. Rush or turtle is good, is fun and is tao in all their forms. The only forms i don't appreciate are mage bombs, mainly because they depend on luck more than skill. But again, i will never ask someone not to use a bomb, everyone can use anything. If they bomb me, good, easy kill, bombs suck :)

[monkus]

Okay, omegashin, I have one final question for you. If you can answer it with a clear answer, then I will completely and utterly concede the restricting units point:

Turtle games are supposed to minimize luck, maximise skill. They are also supposed to create balance between offense and defense.
Before you raise an eyebrow at the statement, consider this: Rushes have an advantage over turtles because they are so close and already in attack position; hence, the turtle has no time to prepare. In turtle games, the offense has to setup the attack, giving the defense time to prepare. The ultimate defense unit, the furgon, has its counterpart, the muddy. Similarly, frosties, mostly used on defense, are difficult to break the lock of but not impossible, and sometimes difficult to MAINTAIN the lock with, but not impossible. As such, turtle games find an ultimate balance between defense and offense.

With that said, your solution to the busher problem is "Well, if I can use my busher too, then it's even!" The problem I find with that is I'm an extremely defensive player. When I face people like crx and zzzaacckk, who tend to take the aggressive in turtle games, I redirect their units with furgon, paralyze the few units that get through with frosty, and kill them with wisp, scouts, and dragon. Unlike rush games, where I get trampled by the colossal amounts of units that are already at my front door, turtle games give me sufficient turns to prepare, and I would say, whenever I win or lose, it's because of skill.
Once you introduce the busher, the defensive player has no chance. I recently played a game against a formation that was more similar to a turtle than a rush, which included an ambusher. The ambusher was towards the back, so I could ignore it for the time being. I killed the muddy with scouts and the wisp before it could do any harm, and at that point all I had to deal with were his scouts. I paralyzed one and held back the other, and it was obvious I was winning. However, he slowly moved the ambusher in. Eventually, it reached 6 squares away from my frosty, and began firing. I tried to kill it, but he set up a defense of his own, which meant I had to send all 4 of my attacking units to try and thwart it. By this point he had killed my frost golem, and I was engaged in an attack I never wanted to begin.

While I may be rambling on, the point is clear. The defensive player is FORCED to move to offense to stop the ambusher, because it is impossible to lure it in or block its shots. Even if I did have my own ambusher, I couldn't stop the harm his busher would do to my more vulnerable units (Frosty/Cleric), and I was forced to overextend my units and move into an attack to stop myself from being massacred.

So, Omega, here is the question I pose to you. How can it be fair for a single unit to force a defensive player into an attack without any alternative, and how does my ability to use the same unit maintain the balance in turtle games?

[CRX687]

Turtle games are supposed to minimize luck, maximise skill.

how is saying a unit is illegal because you lose to it and cannot handle it supposed to maximize skill?

and that example you gave of the bushy forcing you to go offensive.. that's not a valid reason to bann the busher... I give a situation just like it- I face 2 armored knights and 2 armored scouts, and as they advance, i hit each scout once and each knight twice with different units, spending 6 turns to deal preemptive damage and be able to kill thsoe units faster, defending my things, then the opponent heals with a cleric, negating the efforts of 6 different units. One unit should not be able to do this, does this mean clerics are overpowered and we should ban those too?

Also, NO ONE is saying that ur idea of a turtle is wrong. we're merely saying that it does not DEFINE a turtle game, and those are not RULES, just "monkus' regulations"...

[Wayfaerer]

So, Omega, here is the question I pose to you. How can it be fair for a single unit to force a defensive player into an attack without any alternative, and how does my ability to use the same unit maintain the balance in turtle games?

You obviously need afew knights in your sets, then that problem wouldn't arise :cool:

[Warcow]

You obviously need afew knights in your sets, then that problem wouldn't arise :cool:

If I get an ambusher in your face, along with any other supporting ranged unit, a few knights wont stop the ambusher. The problem now lies within the ambusher itself. Seed messed up bad when he made it, he listened too much to people wanting a new unit, without thinking of the consequences. Any unit that can strike over top of all others, to hit the key units you need to defend, is not a balanced unit.

[Wayfaerer]

I was really just talking about the backrow ambusher he mentioned, where it would make all the difference

[CRX687]

If I get an ambusher in your face, along with any other supporting ranged unit, a few knights wont stop the ambusher. The problem now lies within the ambusher itself. Seed messed up bad when he made it, he listened too much to people wanting a new unit, without thinking of the consequences. Any unit that can strike over top of all others, to hit the key units you need to defend, is not a balanced unit.

actually it does... wuffy stopped me tons of times with his turtle.

and warcow, no unit is unbalanced if both players have access to it and it does not make another completely obsolete.

[OmegaShin]

Monkus u answered urself alone. A turtle is a skill game. You said ur opponent set his defense and started killing u with a busher that was well defended.

That's the point. He was skilled and realized an ambusher can change the game's balance but since it is an easy kill (especially if u use knights) he protected it forcing u to come out and screwing ur form.

If u used ur ambusher same way, u would have ended up both with a good strategy trying to lure ur enemy with this new tactic.

What about cleric + furgon? Non furgon users could have asked same thing back than when furgon was out. "ban furgon, i can't use it, and i can't kill my opponent when he uses it and has cleric alive". Cheap. I think everyone should have access to all forms. If someone wants to use ambusher, well go ahead. I lost a huge amount of games when ambusher came out. Why? Cause i sucked. I didn't ever use it and didn't know how to use it or defend from. Now that i learned how to i don't see why i should give it up cause other people find it easier to remove it from the game... And what will u do when u will have to play it?

Also, as crx said, wayf's defense turtle itself can kill ambusher forms quiet often. Anyway, if i can still understand ur doubts on front line ambusher, i can't really do that with stoned non front line ambushers. You lost ur game cause u weren't able to predict ur opponents strategy and to oppose to his defensive line with ambusher in it. Afterall, it's like frost. Have ur opponent set a frost in a defense form and it will give u at least as much trouble as that stupid ambusher gave u.

Anyway, i still think the best turt game is opposite sides game. In that kind of game front ambusher is completely legal. If u are smart enough u can clearly defend before it can give u any problems. When i want a defense old style game i just ask for opposite sides and set my furgon. And i am usually happy when i see an ambusher in opponent's form cause i got quiet used to kill him easily in this kind of games.

[Warcow]

actually it does... wuffy stopped me tons of times with his turtle.

and warcow, no unit is unbalanced if both players have access to it and it does not make another completely obsolete.

Short of using two frosts, there is pretty much no way it can be stopped if I have another ranged unit close by. Infact, I have a form, that will kill any cleric in less than 6 turns, unless the person has 9 BW's and one cleric, or something stupid like that. Then again, I didn't factor in two frosts, because it isn't available to us. If your ambusher was stopped by three knights alone, you wern't using it right crx, which I am suprised at, considering how good of a rusher you are.

Also, the fact that both players can access a unit doesn't make it balanced, it just means both players have the opportunity to rid the game of strategy.

For example: I create a unit that kills all units instantly, both players can use it, but is the unit actually balanced? The original game, (The grey game) with the mud golem, who had no quake, and a frost golem, and a second scout (That was all golds had) was balanced and strategic, weak units could be defended, and it took more than shoving some units down someone's throat to beat them.

[Warcow]

Monkus u answered urself alone. A turtle is a skill game. You said ur opponent set his defense and started killing u with a busher that was well defended.

It doesn't even have to be well defended, one supporting mud golem, and the ambusher kills a cleric when it starts lined up. It has nothing to do with skill when you kill someones cleic with an ambusher.

That's the point. He was skilled and realized an ambusher can change the game's balance but since it is an easy kill (especially if u use knights) he protected it forcing u to come out and screwing ur form.

If u used ur ambusher same way, u would have ended up both with a good strategy trying to lure ur enemy with this new tactic.

No, you would both have dead cleric, and the game would become a clickfest that has relatively little to do with strategy at all, which is what the game has become.

What about cleric + furgon? Non furgon users could have asked same thing back than when furgon was out. "ban furgon, i can't use it, and i can't kill my opponent when he uses it and has cleric alive". Cheap. I think everyone should have access to all forms. If someone wants to use ambusher, well go ahead. I lost a huge amount of games when ambusher came out. Why? Cause i sucked. I didn't ever use it and didn't know how to use it or defend from. Now that i learned how to i don't see why i should give it up cause other people find it easier to remove it from the game... And what will u do when u will have to play it?

There is a HUGE difference between furgon and ambusher, this isn't a valid comparison at all. The furgon was easily dealt with by a good player. Sure, you had to be more careful, but it didn't eliminate a strategic element from the game, like hiding weak units behind strong ones, it forced you to think, and plan ahead.

Also, as crx said, wayf's defense turtle itself can kill ambusher forms quiet often. Anyway, if i can still understand ur doubts on front line ambusher, i can't really do that with stoned non front line ambushers. You lost ur game cause u weren't able to predict ur opponents strategy and to oppose to his defensive line with ambusher in it. Afterall, it's like frost. Have ur opponent set a frost in a defense form and it will give u at least as much trouble as that stupid ambusher gave u.

The last time I played Wayf on legends, I beat him, my ambusher claiming his cleric early, that was because I got first turn. We had probably one of the worst turtle games in the history of TAO, and we both agreed it was a bunk ass game when it was done. A skilled player, who knows how to use the ambusher, will not be stopped from killing your cleric when it ends up on your side on the first turn.

Anyway, i still think the best turt game is opposite sides game. In that kind of game front ambusher is completely legal. If u are smart enough u can clearly defend before it can give u any problems. When i want a defense old style game i just ask for opposite sides and set my furgon. And i am usually happy when i see an ambusher in opponent's form cause i got quiet used to kill him easily in this kind of games.

That is precisely the reason the ambusher is unbalanced, the fact that he can be stopped and dealt with from the corner, shows that he is 100% luck based. All other units can be stopped, blocked, and dealt with, the ambusher can NOT be. When the DSM first came out, there was a ton of first turn cleric burns, people stopped that by putting three units in front to block their cleric, Bingo, the DSM was stopped. The ambusher there is no such solution. If he is lined up in the right place, on the first turn, he is GOING to hit your cleric, and there is nothing you can do about it, that is why he is a VERY unbalanced unit.

[Wayfaerer]

crx didn't use an ambusher, a well placed dsm is just as problematic though :cool:

[Warcow]

crx didn't use an ambusher, a well placed dsm is just as problematic though :cool:

Problematic yes! But it CAN be dealt with, other than just retaliating and using the same no skill tactic.

[CRX687]

crx didn't use an ambusher, a well placed dsm is just as problematic though :cool:

i used bushy once and only won due to first turn... but when two players skill levels are equal, first turn will always give one an advantage over the other, bushy or no bushy.

[OmegaShin]

Warcow, if u read monkus and than me again, i was talking about rear rows GA, not front line GA. Anyway, i'm off to bed, it's late night here

[Wayfaerer]

Problematic yes! But it CAN be dealt with, other than just retaliating and using the same no skill tactic.

Move, burn. Same tactic, different animation.

Both can be used well, and both can be placed on one side in the front row to try and get lucky

[Moose]

this is sad, i quit arguing, theres no point seeing as people don't seem to get my point... *sigh*



Moosey

[da1n]

It doesn't even have to be well defended, one supporting mud golem, and the ambusher kills a cleric when it starts lined up. It has nothing to do with skill when you kill someones cleic with an ambusher.No, you would both have dead cleric, and the game would become a clickfest that has relatively little to do with strategy at all, which is what the game has become.That is precisely the reason the ambusher is unbalanced, the fact that he can be stopped and dealt with from the corner, shows that he is 100% luck based. All other units can be stopped, blocked, and dealt with, the ambusher can NOT be. When the DSM first came out, there was a ton of first turn cleric burns, people stopped that by putting three units in front to block their cleric, Bingo, the DSM was stopped. The ambusher there is no such solution. If he is lined up in the right place, on the first turn, he is GOING to hit your cleric, and there is nothing you can do about it, that is why he is a VERY unbalanced unit.

Lol, how can you say there's no skill involved once the clerics are dead? Thats like saying if I challanged you to a no-cleric game, no strategy would be involved. Besides, it takes skill just to know where to position the ambusher for a cleric kill. You may look over that, but it's a skill none the less :cool:

[Warcow]

Move, burn. Same tactic, different animation.

Both can be used well, and both can be placed on one side in the front row to try and get lucky

True wayf, but the difference is, the DSM doesn't have the ability to ignore other units quite the same way. I would consider myself, a fairly decent player, that not coming from ego, just that I win more games than I lose. I stopped great players who used the DSM, I held them back, vying for position, blocking off attack routes, and taking advantage of its low hp. I have never been able to stop a GOOD player, from killing my cleric, I even played myself to try and stop myself, spending hours to try and combat the bloody thing. To no avail, it can't be stopped with the units we have when the other player knows what he is doing.

(Also, I played myself of paper, trying to work it out, not cheating my stats up, so don't jump on me for that ;).

[Liquid Swordsman]

Yah, I have won plenty of games when my cleric died early.

It makes the win that much better.

Warcows just mad cause the Hobo took him down :cool:

[Cuathon]

yeah liquid against trash players. it is hard to fight a rish or even another turtle when they have a cleric and you dont. you cant ever regroup or you are screwed. period.

[monkus]

I find it interesting that no one replies to my point about balance. As I said earlier, the busher breaks the balance by forcing defensive formations to go offense. Omega simply responded by saying that makes my opponent smart, and he deserved to win. Crx turns this into personal attacks, claiming that I can't handle the busher, so I'm trying to get around it.

Look back to my analysis. The turtle game had the perfect balance of defense and offense. The busher ruins this, because a defensive formation must go offensive in order to prevent loss. It's inavoidable. This is wrong. However, I'm not going to get teh ambusher removed from freestyle games. But, turtle games, which are supposed to be balanced and even, should not have such a unit.

It's not that I can't beat it. I've beaten many players who use bushers. It's that it wrecks the balance. If a player cannot possibly defend and win, then the game is slowly mutating into a rush-on-rush only game.

[Warcow]

Yah, I have won plenty of games when my cleric died early.

It makes the win that much better.

Warcows just mad cause the Hobo took him down :cool:

What hobo would that be? I highly doubt you would hold your own against crx when he killed your cleric in a couple of turns, if you didn't just ambusher his ass back.

[CRX687]

*sigh* i give up...

warcow, the problem here isn't in turtling, its the attitudes of certain turtlers (and i'm not refferring to monkus, those of some others are much worse)

monk, believe what you want about ur "rules", all i can say is, don't complain or call anyone a cheater if you ask for a "turtle" game and find some of them disobeyed... but if you ask for a "monkus turtle game", then i will back you up 100% if something is violated.

[Wayfaerer]

True wayf, but the difference is, the DSM doesn't have the ability to ignore other units quite the same way.

It can attack 4 squares away with no LOS and do about 5 times more damage in total. Unblockable, and it can block too :rolleyes:

Once the mud and dsm are dead, being clericless isn't all that bad.

[Warcow]

Lol, how can you say there's no skill involved once the clerics are dead? Thats like saying if I challanged you to a no-cleric game, no strategy would be involved. Besides, it takes skill just to know where to position the ambusher for a cleric kill. You may look over that, but it's a skill none the less :cool:

It takes skill to figure out where a cleric is going to be? Are you kidding me? Let me think, if a person is using a defensive form, they are going to be in one of two corners, 50% chance, i've got it. That isn't skill. Also, the skill is completely different when it is just two people bashing away at the remaining units, there isn't that subtle flow to a game. There is no vying for openings, no careful dsitractions and probing at the defense, there is nothing like that. 99% of rush games I see now days go exactly like this.

First few turns : Clerics go down, this is accepted without any real defense.

Next objective: Kill the units that deal the most damage quickly, this often includes, the mud, the wisp, the pyros etc.

Finally, eliminate the final units that remain, the knights, the scouts, whatever is left.

It comes down to who knows how to deal the most damage faster, and whoever had first turn. (Such as in the case of allstar and crx)

That isn't strategy, that is a random clickfest, in which he who went first, and who's form is slightly better aligned, takes home the victory.

[Warcow]

It can attack 4 squares away with no LOS and do about 5 times more damage in total. Unblockable, and it can block too :rolleyes:

only 4 squares though, that is why it is beatable. Also, it only has half the hp, which means it can go down in two turns rather than three, regardless of healing. Which translates to, you don't have to kill it or paralyze it, and focus all your attacks on it, to prevent it from killing your weakest units.

[da1n]

First few turns : Clerics go down, this is accepted without any real defense.

Next objective: Kill the units that deal the most damage quickly, this often includes, the mud, the wisp, the pyros etc.

Finally, eliminate the final units that remain, the knights, the scouts, whatever is left.

It comes down to who knows how to deal the most damage faster, and whoever had first turn. (Such as in the case of allstar and crx)

That isn't strategy, that is a random clickfest, in which he who went first, and who's form is slightly better aligned, takes home the victory.

Lol, your entire post is a strategy. :rolleyes:

[Wayfaerer]

2 turns? What are all those "lucky pyro" posts all about then :cool:

DSM can also threaten everything on the field, not just the cleric so you got more to worry about

[CRX687]

2 turns? What are all those "lucky pyro" posts all about then :cool:

DSM can also threaten everything on the field, not just the cleric so you got more to worry about

lol, so now we're arguing the power of dsm? simply put, it's not just a cleric killer, it can basically be an IMMEDIATE deaththreat to anything other than knights and golems and wards. It's not as easy to abuse though...

[Wayfaerer]

Not directly, but how you and many other use it. A must kill unit, which makes clerics open to scouts or whatever else floats your boat :cool:

[CRX687]

Not directly, but how you and many other use it. A must kill unit, which makes clerics open to scouts or whatever else floats your boat :cool:

true to that, half the time, i just march it in without attacking, and then use mud and scout to kill the cleric as they HAVE to blow their next two turns :D

but then again, when used correctly, a lot of units, including mud, wisp, and dragon can be abused...

[da1n]

I got pulled over for cleric abuse too :(

[CRX687]

I got pulled over for cleric abuse too :(

it was fun while it lasted :D

[OmegaShin]

Every unit can be abused... Dsm gave turtlers same problems as ambusher first times. Also, if a dsm is allowed in turtle, every turtle will have to place 3 units on front line to protect the cleric. isn't that forcing ur opponent just as u force it with ambusher?
Front line ambusher can't be blocked though, that's true, dsm can. I find ambusher on same sides can be an interesting match. Cleric can be saved (yes it can, i did it more than once) and even if u can't save him there's a lot of new defense offense strategies to use in the process. Also, in the cases where the 2 turtlers ambiguosly rush each other it fasten the game removing clerics and having the players apply thei damage evasion skills and clericless turtle skill.

GA in rear lines is completely legal as i said. It can't reach cleric in one move (unless u still didn't understand that when u play a turt match with all units cleric must not be cornered) and it adds a lot of skill to furgon defense strategies as i showed to a lot of BG guys.

[Bottle]

In a true turtle match, if you DON'T corner the cleric, it will die very very quickly indeed.

GA CANNOT be blocked from clerickill if they are on the front line and same side. DSM could be, and in any case if you didn't get first turn with the DSM you were always likely to be a unit down after a turn 1 LW blast. Ambusher has no downside other than its uselessness if you end up with opposite sides. :rolleyes:

And the GA adds almost NOTHING to a furgon strat. Or at least, to a good furgon strat. Maybe if you shrub yourself into a hole then it could be useful... and even then it only deals 20 damage every 3 turns.

[FryLock]

I'm amazed at some of the responses here...crx, you're my clanmate and friend, but how can you defend a strategy that isn't really a strategy?

Why don't people understand? IT TAKES NO SKILL TO PUT THE AMBUSHER ON THE LUCKY SIDE, THEN USE IT.

I agree that busher can have some uses in the back row, or in rush vs. rush games. But having one against a turtle (which is what this thread is about, NOT the ambusher in general) is patently unfair. It destroys the balance of a turtle game, which relies on careful movement and strategic healing.

In a rush game, fine, put it in, whatever. I've been tending to ask for no-busher games, but half the people just lie when they agree, so I've given up on that.

But the point here is that frontline bushers do not belong in turtles. It skews the game wildly.

This thread is supposed to be about turtling, not whether rush is better or what have you. Keep it focused.

[CRX687]

I'm amazed at some of the responses here...crx, you're my clanmate and friend, but how can you defend a strategy that isn't really a strategy?

Why don't people understand? IT TAKES NO SKILL TO PUT THE AMBUSHER ON THE LUCKY SIDE, THEN USE IT.

.

first of all, about 95% of my rushes don't include the bushy... i'm defending it because I believe that if a unit is available, then it should ALWAYS be allowed in tao... that's the reason i love TAO so much, because unlike chess, there's a level of unpredictability and formation building.

And my point has not been that bushy= good... my point is that this thread does not show the "Definition" of a turtle, merely "Monkus' interpretation" if it. I had a conversation with monk on aim last night, and he agreed taht he went to far to say bushy has NO defensive value at all, because there are people that can use it just as effectively same or opposite side.

I think the best way to make sure you get a "turtle" ( I use the term as it means to most ppl) is to simply ask for an opposite side game ( bottles definition works here: turtle: form that WANTS opposite side)... if you like same side turtling, then ask for a "monkus turtle game"...

Realist and I have been trying to tell monk that his regulations do not define a turtle game, and if he just asks for a "turtle game", his opponent is NOT cheating if the rules stated here are not followed.

[OmegaShin]

Well said crx. Anyway i still tend asking for opp sides games any unit allowed when i want a "true" turtle game.

Also bottle, ambusher can be useful in furgon strats, it's just one more ranged unit if in the end of the game u are stuck behind a brush barrier and u couldn't attack otherways.

Anyway it's true that ambusher on same sides is almost unstoppable while dsm sucks if doesn't get first turn and gets zapped/wisped.

On a side note, no cornered cleric can be a good strat against a lot of people, especially on same sides games... even though it sucks against opposite turtle users with good skills.

Probably ga was designed for legends maybe... i heard there was something going on some months ago about restricting scouts on fps. On legends, the access to more than 1 frost plus the access to only one scout makes it possible and not even that hard to stop a same sided turtle with ambusher. On fps the second scout just completely change the balance of the game and rushes own.

[Bottle]

I think the best way to make sure you get a "turtle" ( I use the term as it means to most ppl) is to simply ask for an opposite side game...
I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying for the start... ;)

[CRX687]

I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying for the start... ;)

ops, i meant to give you credit for that, edited my post... let me rep you as an apology ;)

[allstarGL]

ive got a solution to ur turtling problems.......RUSH! :)

[Bottle]

ive got a solution to ur turtling problems.......RUSH! :)
And get beaten by a turtler without a stoney? ;)

[Elendil]

Alright, so we know the controvercy around turtles, but in the end it should have defensive capabilities, but of course must be able to strike, or else like Warcow or Wayf or someone said (dont feel like checking), the game would never end...
I dont really want to make a new thread but this is sortave on the topic of asking for games and its starting to come up with bottles post... if someone asks for a rush game, is it ok to rock an anti... i mean, an anti is used as a rush against a turtle, since you gotsta be rushing that stonie or else you are slaughtered like a lamb... so... yeah its a rush.
*pretends its not called an "anti-"rush*

[sub the hendrix]

That was... completely... yeah so, really nonsensical Elindil.

To answer your question (if I understand it, which I may or may not) no, it is not ok to use an anti-rush in a pre-aranged rush game.

I know some of my fellow turtlers will disagree, but not all rushes are designed to counter a turtle or defensive form. I have entered games where my opponent used a rush that was not effective against a turtle, but I could easily see how against another rush, it would be useful (I think I played crx once in a rush on rush game where he used a form with a wisp in front of cleric, but dont quote me on that).

[Elendil]

Well yeah, thats sortave my point... if you ask for a rush game, youre gonna want a rush that can fight a rush, since thats what youre about to play against..... Im saying an anti-rush is definatly a type of rush in some circumstances, so it should be chill to use in "rush" games.
word to your mother

[CRX687]

(I think I played crx once in a rush on rush game where he used a form with a wisp in front of cleric, but dont quote me on that).

yep, that was my counter-rushing rush... not to be mixed with and anti, because it was definitely a rush, with ranged units in front designed for the cleric kill. The wisp was wut got me through the first rev grand league :cool:

elendil, and anti rush is NOT a rush. An anti is designed to PROTECT the cleric and take out the enemie's ranged units while a rush is designed to KILL the cleric... to a turtler, the unit positioning may be somewhat similar to that of a one-sided rush, but it's definitely not the same (and yes, contrary to popular belief, a rush is not just a bunch of units thrown near the front, there are certain squares that make certain units most effective for certain purposes)... scouts would be placed the spaces to block LOS, not to get LOS shots in on a corner.

[steve12]

Hi, well first I ought to say that I am sorry for bumping this thread since it is a good 3 months old (since the last post). But I believe that this is a good thread to bring back and discuss anyway simply because I have some coops with Monkus' rules (although I believe that he did a great job --> :good: :yahoo: :clapping2), and there aren't many "interesting" threads in this forums anyway.


A turtle is a formation that has a stone golem in the back row (or to the very side in the second row), with at least 4 other units within stoning distance of the golem's original position. The formation has no golem ambusher, and has no mobile ranged units in the front row. If a DSM is included, it must be in the back 3 rows, and no additional pyros may be used.


Okay, first off I don't understand why there has to be a Stone Golem in a turtle. For instance, following all the other rules, but NOT having a stone golem would most likely appear to be an anti-rush. Anti-rushes are vulnerable to turtles because they cant handle the 30+ Armor of a "Monkus" turtle. I understand that Stone Golems are always meant to be for turtles, but still; I don't think it really matters. I bring up this fact because there are a few offensive turtles that I don't favor, and I have designed a form that could possibly crush them, if used correctly. OF COARSE, nothing else is against Sir Monkus' rules in my formation, but I decided to try something new. I COULD just go out there and kick butt with it (I am undefeated with it so far, can I get a \/\/0oT \/\/0oT?), but after observing that incident with SpLiFF, I think I should ask first. Also, grey forms aren't capable of having a Stone Golem, so why should golds? (If they don't want to, a Stone GOlem is always a good choice if it can be protected).

I also have a question regarding why there has to be at least 4 units in the Stone Golem's stoning range at the start of the match. I mean, if they only had 3, it's not a legal turtle? Of coarse, it would be crushed by experienced players, so let it be crushed! :p

Stone golem: While some forms can be turtles without the stonie, it's just too hard to regulate them, so the definition should include this golem. It's also how most turtles are recognized.

My last question regarding this thread (once again made by the God of Great Lakes, except for Cara_Grystorm my best bud) is why it is too hard to "regulate" not having a Stone Golem. I understand that it makes sense, but the definition should have an option of having this unit, that's basically all I really am suggesting.


I apologize once agian in advance for bumping this marvelous thread (I know, it's old), but hey, nothing better to talk about! And Sir Monkus, please respond to my quesions... :cool:

I know I have asked a lot of you all, but please don't neg reputize me, it wouldn't make sense.... Thanks!

[Moose]

.....Steve....just go away.

[steve12]

Ok, Mr. Moose, Mr. "Top Dog Around Here", quit negging me of you don't take my post into consideration :bad: . And you say this isn't a good thread? Wake up and smell the coffee Moose, because I heard that you invented the turtle, and Monkus actually tried to put some rules together to modify it a little. So, if you have a problem with me or something, tough luck, I was hoping that we would be friends before, but now forget it. I say you get lost Moose, or answer my questions thankaverymuch :mad:

[Moose]

Again, just go away.

[steve12]

I know I have asked a lot of you all, but please don't neg reputize me, it wouldn't make sense.... Thanks!
Answer my questions first wise guy, maker of the turtle and I will go away. (Sorry I am being mannerless to you, but you can't take anything for gratned). ;)

[KBHoleN1]

Steve, you're an idiot. If you don't want neg reps then don't make idiotic posts. Stop referring to people as Sir So-and-So. And try using some common sense before you ask stupid questions.

Why is a stone golem included? You answered your own question with the second quote, because they are too hard to regulate. Stoning provides a cluster of units, usually on the back few rows in a corner, and ensures your weaker ranged units are stoned, and therefore far away from your opponent to start the match. If you don't require a stonie, how do you ensure a cluster of units? The point of a turtle is not to spread your ranged units out and not to put them in the front rows.

Why 4 other units in stone range? Because you could stone 1 or 2 units, move the other ranged units up to the second row for attack, and be able to call it a turtle. My definition of a turtle includes that no ranged unit should be able to reasonably reach your back row on the first turn (Scouts can from anywhere, but LOS is easily blocked from far away).

But seriously, Moose is right, just go away.

[steve12]

Sorr,y butthe whole point of my first post was basically asking why you NEED a Stone Golem because I have made a form that doesn't have one, but can still be considered a turtle. If you are going to be mean about it, then w/e because now that I belive I have this permission, I am going to use this in turtle matches. I oughta show Monk first, but agianst someone like you, I would gladly use this if you really don't care about the restrictions

Notice, that I don't neg you guys even though you use it like a crzy man uses a gun, you guys are real positive, maybe you should go away and wait for some more experienced players/positive players to come along, tata.

[KBHoleN1]

Ok, just ignore my reasons in the post and continue to think you are right - if it doesn't have a stonie, its probably not a turtle. Why? Because the rules say so.

[steve12]

Oh, Okay, can you compare this to a grey turtle? nope. I need monkus for this.

[Kyir]

Ok, Mr. Moose, Mr. "Top Dog Around Here", quit negging me of you don't take my post into consideration :bad: . And you say this isn't a good thread? Wake up and smell the coffee Moose, because I heard that you invented the turtle, and Monkus actually tried to put some rules together to modify it a little. So, if you have a problem with me or something, tough luck, I was hoping that we would be friends before, but now forget it. I say you get lost Moose, or answer my questions thankaverymuch :mad:

he is the 9th member of TAO 0_o

[KBHoleN1]

Oh, Okay, can you compare this to a grey turtle? nope. I need monkus for this.

Who said anything about a gray turtle? You're just a retard who likes to argue about anything you can find.

[steve12]

he is the 9th member of TAO 0_o

Yeah, I know Kyir; Im sorry, but he didn't say anything regarding my post, so I got a little roughed up.

KB, sorry about that, but my new form involves lot of "grey-like parts" if you know what I mean. (If not, just ask Legit Penguin).

Sorry all about bumping this thread, but I just don't want to get into deeper trouble if someone wouldn't consider my form a turtle. Trust me, I wouldn't want to be in those shoes. Thxs all, and you can let this thread die if you want. I don't care anymore, because now I realize that it's harder to find help here than it looks.

[Dragoen Link]

Guys,go easy on him....

[CRX687]

Yeah, I know Kyir; Im sorry, but he didn't say anything regarding my post, so I got a little roughed up.

KB, sorry about that, but my new form involves lot of "grey-like parts" if you know what I mean. (If not, just ask Legit Penguin).

Sorry all about bumping this thread, but I just don't want to get into deeper trouble if someone wouldn't consider my form a turtle. Trust me, I wouldn't want to be in those shoes. Thxs all, and you can let this thread die if you want. I don't care anymore, because now I realize that it's harder to find help here than it looks.

If you'd actually read through all of the original replies, you'd realize that a number of players, including myself, have already made the same points you did in your "bump" post... and all of that was already debated and over with... we came to the conclusion that no one were going to follow these rules anyway, hence we LET THIS THREAD DIE BY NOT BUMPING!

[Moose]

As you can see steve, I don't need to validate my response to ur post, it's just common sense ;).


NO NO NO NOOO DON'T PHUNK WITH MY HEART!!

[Dragoen Link]

NO NO NO NOOO DON'T PHUNK WITH MY HEART!!

;)

[Terps rock]

becareful duo uses GA in turtle match!

[Chair_Reloaded]

Lonely: Of course agreements override this. But these are the defaults I think we should set. I dont' want to have to have a 20 minute conversation before every turtle match so I don't end up facing a front line busher/dsm/wisp combo each time.

Wayf: Just because your uber-elite turtling skills allow you to avoid being totally destroyed by some of these examples doesn't mean they're wrong. I did manage to beat you with that busher example...but then again, I did make you use a conformist turtle, instead of your crazy turtle.

come on wayfaerer isnt that great i beat him -.-

[Wayfaerer]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/130/chair0oj.jpg
The irony of the in game chat is priceless :cool:

[Moose]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/130/chair0oj.jpg
The irony of the in game chat is priceless :cool:

Owned.

[Cavour]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/130/chair0oj.jpg
The irony of the in game chat is priceless :cool:
Pwned. :cool:

[EleMENTAL]

If wayf was the gold:

HAHA wayf got pwned by a grey!!!

If wayf was the gray:

Good job wayf. You totally pwned that noob gold.

[Cavour]

If wayf was the gold:

HAHA wayf got pwned by a grey!!!

If wayf was the gray:

Good job wayf. You totally pwned that noob gold.
Why would Wayf post a pic of him losing to a Grey? :p

[Noda]

umm i didnt read the whole thing...too many pages, but whats wrong with knights in the front row? thats one

your rules dont allow for second row centre turtles

too go with my first thing...wats wrong with front row mobile units?

i mean, why dont you just make a rule like "you need to use this form in all turtle matches"*inset link*

im sure all of these things have already been asked, but could ou mabey make them sure

(i def agree with ga and dsm thing though, those just strictly have to do with first turn and sides, but cmon knights front row to make a wall for turtle, thats jut a good idea)

*edit* just read the page before this...sorry for post

[Chair_Reloaded]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/130/chair0oj.jpg
The irony of the in game chat is priceless :cool:

Hmm i dont play greys i never turtle and other people know my pass. If you beat i wouldnt have said i beat you.

[Homer43]

well it is kinda your fault for letting other people know your pass

[da1n]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/130/chair0oj.jpg
The irony of the in game chat is priceless :cool:
Mega pwn :cool:

[monkus]

umm i didnt read the whole thing...too many pages, but whats wrong with knights in the front row? thats one

your rules dont allow for second row centre turtles

too go with my first thing...wats wrong with front row mobile units?

i mean, why dont you just make a rule like "you need to use this form in all turtle matches"*inset link*

im sure all of these things have already been asked, but could ou mabey make them sure

(i def agree with ga and dsm thing though, those just strictly have to do with first turn and sides, but cmon knights front row to make a wall for turtle, thats jut a good idea)

*edit* just read the page before this...sorry for post

Don't worry, i love when people logically challenge my opinions, scrutiny leads to perfection (and all those idiots thought it was practice :bigsmile: ).

First, there is the opportunity for countless countless turtles with my rules, so don't accuse me of being too restricting. Second row center turtles are quite close to a rush, plus, second row side turtles are MUCH too fast to be considered turtles; those are definitely illegible. You're right though, center second row turtles are pretty okay, and if this ever came close to being the accepted standard, I would consider amending it for that. On the other side, second row center turtles are extremely uncommon; i've never seen one in my life. Also, front row knights, when they come in threes, are basically a rush in itself. And front row ranged units, like the ambusher, wisp, or scout, are shades of cleric killing and/or rush. The idea is to make a game without a rush, not a game with rushes that pretend to be turtles. That's where these rules come in.

[Match Strike]

Unfortunately we are going through a period where most turtle games are fairly freestyle-esque. Furgons are becoming a rare commodity.

[Coffin Fedder]

Yea true but a Furgon can make the battle for the person whos using it if you use it just right.

[Gypsy]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/130/chair0oj.jpg
The irony of the in game chat is priceless :cool:
That cracka got burned....don't bring that weak shit in wayf's kitchen!!! :cool:

[Spit_101]

Gypsy, just so you know this isn't the Legends forums. So get rid of the bottom banner or both.

[Coffin Fedder]

Yea I know its to BIG lol j\k

[Office_Shredder]

Honestly, if you're going to say no GA, just say no GA no wisp and use whatever setup you want.

For those that don't remember, before the GA and wisp turtles were good and you never had to regulate games.

[TemplarX2]

A turtle is a formation that is purely defensive in nature. A turtle has for aim to protect the cleric, this by placing units in such position to block

1) Suicide witches, DSM and dragon right from the start. Placing a LW 4 squares in front the cleric is a popular way to block a suicide witch.

2) to block knights, beast rider or asssasin rush, by blocking the path of close melee units trying to reach the cleric.

3) the Scouts, by Blocking LOS or forcing the scout to certain if he tries to get the cleric.

4) The wisp. I can claim I invented the wisp blocker :D

1), 2) and 3) are classical turtle, 4) is optional. Adding a furgon, a BW and a frost increase your defense. Support units increase your defensive abilities.

There is an intermediate between rush and turtle. It is known as rush-turtle. By positionning a few units like the scout, mud and the ambusher correctly, you can kill the cleric quickly and far back to play a turtle to slowly bleed the opponent. This should not count as turtle.

Everyone knows what a rush is, it is aim to kill the cleric quickly, in 2 or 3 turns. Rush is not freestyle, anything that is not turtle is freestyle, including rush-turtle. Freestyle include default set up, which many people wrongly associate with noobs (which is a bonus to surprise the opponent by your leet skills thus demoralising the opponent)

[mattroe]

i really like the rules monkus bravo

[monkus]

A turtle is a formation that is purely defensive in nature. A turtle has for aim to protect the cleric, this by placing units in such position to block

1) Suicide witches, DSM and dragon right from the start. Placing a LW 4 squares in front the cleric is a popular way to block a suicide witch.

2) to block knights, beast rider or asssasin rush, by blocking the path of close melee units trying to reach the cleric.

3) the Scouts, by Blocking LOS or forcing the scout to certain if he tries to get the cleric.

4) The wisp. I can claim I invented the wisp blocker :D

1), 2) and 3) are classical turtle, 4) is optional. Adding a furgon, a BW and a frost increase your defense. Support units increase your defensive abilities.

There is an intermediate between rush and turtle. It is known as rush-turtle. By positionning a few units like the scout, mud and the ambusher correctly, you can kill the cleric quickly and far back to play a turtle to slowly bleed the opponent. This should not count as turtle.

Everyone knows what a rush is, it is aim to kill the cleric quickly, in 2 or 3 turns. Rush is not freestyle, anything that is not turtle is freestyle, including rush-turtle. Freestyle include default set up, which many people wrongly associate with noobs (which is a bonus to surprise the opponent by your leet skills thus demoralising the opponent)

I know this is kind of a late response, but I feel obligated to answer any challenges.
Turtles aren't purely defensive in nature. Nor are they aimed at only defending the cleric. This would imply that if I kill all my opponents attackers at the cost of losing my cleric, I've actually lost. This clearly isn't true.
Turtles are basically just forms that don't seek to gain advantages from starting position in terms of an early attack. There's no reason they can't sacrifice a cleric or aim for their opponent's cleric later on.