my turtle rules

[imagination]

Ok well we all have monkus turtle rules and now alpha turtle rules which are extremely similar. I want to make something different from those two but still be a decent set of rules. I like variety and so i present to you the rules in which i see a "turtle" to fit under. By no means are these law because we do have other sets of rules (monkus and alpha) and i am only hoping to make turtling open to more types of players because with the rules we have in place now it only allows people to do an older type of turtle and not experiment around with the game. so finally here are my "rules."

1) The Stone Golem must be placed somewhere in the back 2 rows.

2) With the exception of wards, no unit that disregards LOS may be put in the front 2 rows.(This includes all golems, poison wisp, enchantress, beast rider, and mages)

3) There must be at least 4 units able to be stoned in one hit by the stone golem before any moves have occurred.

4) A player may NOT use a golem ambusher in his/her form.

5) Only 2 mages will be allowed in a form.(examples are dsm/pyro and pyro, dsm/pyro and witch, or witch and witch)

6) Only 1 ranged unit may be on the front row.(units still available are the scout(s) and dragon)

OK now some of you I am sure will say that this will allow turtles to become rushes, but I disagree. I tried to make the rules as open as i possibly could that would still hinder rushing abilities. They allow for range to readily available but cleric kill and blatant rushing of a form hard. Like i said before these are just here to be an alternative to both of monkus's rules(which i commend him for making).

[monkus]

First, I think we should be trying to get a set of rules standardized, not making a million different ones. People stopped actually knowing what the monkus rules are (I heard some guys saying "yeah, monkus rules, that means no ambusher or dsm"), so I decided to have everyone vote on one and make it standard. Sure, these rules are cool, but if you give too many people will stop caring enough to listen, and just start making rules before each game, which is BAD.

Second, the ONLY difference that I really see is the stonie can be anywhere in the back two rows. I really really really disagree with this, because second row stonie forms really are rushes. The units can all reach you in one movement, two at MAX, and it really ends up just being fending off a rush. As a side note, you also restrict the # of mages, but if anyone throws in 3 mages behind the back 3 rows, (as permitted in my rules), they're about to lose.

[razor2007]

I agree entirely Monk. I've noticed a lot of people recently not really knowing what Monkus' rules are, or thinking they're somehting that they aren't.

Had someone tell me that my corner stone wasn't monkus the other day.

We need to be working on a standard so evryone doesn't have to know 21 million different sets of rules, and I just absolutely agree with Monkus.

2nd row stones with stone in front of cleric are just more rushes with stoned units. It's crazy to think otherwise when we look at mud, wisp, and scout positioning for these forms.

[Moose]

I feel like shooting someone right now.

Not only have you repeated what others have said, this has to be the worst guide to turtles i've ever seen, the only reason I let monkus get away with the crap he posts is because he is detailed, but this is just pathetic.

Don't talk about turtles when you clearly have no idea what they stand for and what they are meant to do.

[imagination]

well i just wanted to post an alternative ... sorry if you dont like it but its how i feel. the reason i would use these rules over monkus rules would be because of turtles such as this http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/8807/monkussaysno3gz.jpg and http://img308.imageshack.us/img308/836/anotherno0an.jpg ... another difference is that it allows range to be on the front row but still hinders actual rushing. also these allow stonies to be based in the center of the feild which you may say would make them offensive by nature but really could just be a way to help players who are only good at same side games and cant win opp side games and since they dont want to lose 50% of their turtle games because they cant play a certain way they dont turtle at all. all i want to do is open up turtling to a broader croud instead of restricting it so much because we are afraid of the rush. Also dont get me wrong i dont want a million different rules either but i think if you have lets say 2 (alpha and beta for example) and one is more resrictive than the other than it opens up turtling to more people and isnt to hard to comprehend since they both are different. And moose yes ive repeated what other people have said because there are thousands of posts on this forum and tons of them are about turtling ... what i did was try to put it in a more formal thread so that my words wouldnt get lost in a thread where i would just be disagreeing with what was already posted. sorry if you dont like that i posted my view on turtles in my own thread in hopes that it would make turtling possible for more people on tao but if you dont like it why not just disregard the post ... i see no reason for a flame on my oppinion in which i clearly posted and put work into(directed at moose).

[The Hand]

i dont think it was that bad of an idea. Then again i am more of the rush type. I think imagination was just opening up a new window too the turtling world, and lets be real guys theres not a million rules.

[imagination]

Thank you hand

[Moose]

Actually whats really funny is that you got SI people to neg me because you feel bad that I put down your "hard work".

If you can't handle critism then don't post, go cry under your bed if need be.

[dirka dirka]

Moose.. you care about rep ALOT, don't you?! ROFL

[imagination]

i had people neg you not because you gave critisism but because you tried to flame me and had nothing constructive to say AND negged me for my work. all i wanted was to suggest a change or another idea ... im sorry.

[Moose]

Moose.. you care about rep ALOT, don't you?! ROFL

Well not as much to put people's neg's in ur sig, but I see that there aren't any at the moment in yours ;).

[monkus]

the only reason I let monkus get away with the crap he posts is because he is detailed

I have to see if I have room in my sig for this one.

[Moose]

I have to see if I have room in my sig for this one.

Your welcome ;).

[dirka dirka]

Well not as much to put people's neg's in ur sig, but I see that there aren't any at the moment in yours ;).
I don't put people's neg's in my sig. A program I made puts every rep in my sig. However, that got old, so I removed it. I already told you this, are you dumb or something?

[Moose]

I don't put people's neg's in my sig. A program I made puts every rep in my sig. However, that got old, so I removed it. I already told you this, are you dumb or something?

Nope, you never told me that it was either a program or that you removed it, though it was clearly obvious after it hadn't been there for quite a bit.

Thanks for the belated update though :).

[dirka dirka]

Nope, you never told me that it was either a program or that you removed it, though it was clearly obvious after it hadn't been there for quite a bit.

Thanks for the belated update though :).
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=659877&postcount=84
Yep, I did tell you that it was a program that updated my sig. It has been around for a long time, in fact.

[Moose]

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=659877&postcount=84
Yep, I did tell you that it was a program that updated my sig. It has been around for a long time, in fact.

I stopped paying attention to that thread, so sorry I didn't get a chance to read it ;).

[dirka dirka]

I stopped paying attention to that thread, so sorry I didn't get a chance to read it ;).
It's forgivable.