Now there is no inconsistency between attack and defence - we choose the weakest in both cases.
There is no difference between the having a short second attacker and an invalid second attacker (this inconsistency was pointed out here by gcanyon on hn.
Now we can describe the rules to decide the winner of the battle very succinctly: "the attack succeeds if the weakest attacker is stronger than the weakest defender." Whereas before the rules were: "the attacker wins if it has no invalid words and the longest attacker is stronger than the weakest defender." In my opinion, the new rule sticks in the brain much more easily.
The only case this actually changes is that you can no longer attack with a long valid word and a short valid word, which is an edge case anyway.
BlakeMScurr
commented
7 months ago
This resolves two special cases in the rules:
Now we can describe the rules to decide the winner of the battle very succinctly: "the attack succeeds if the weakest attacker is stronger than the weakest defender." Whereas before the rules were: "the attacker wins if it has no invalid words and the longest attacker is stronger than the weakest defender." In my opinion, the new rule sticks in the brain much more easily.
The only case this actually changes is that you can no longer attack with a long valid word and a short valid word, which is an edge case anyway.