Thank you Matt for bringing back such an iconic phrase...Its a TRAP!! ( Good ole Admiral Akbar 😀). Really enjoyed seeing another new variant used on here! Nice job with this one Rangsk!!
Hey Rangsk, you nailed the intended solve path on this one, great to see you work through that logic! I created the clue type (or at least I have not seen it anywhere else) for a 9x9 called "Hit the Slopes" on LMD, but really wanted to have a smaller version using the clue that could be used as a bit of a trainer puzzle to internalize the logic. The puzzle ended up having a bit of a tricky step at the end, but you spotted it cleanly! Don't know how I missed seeing this yesterday, but great video, thanks!
Thanks all. Not come across this constraint before. Took me a little while to understand the rules (I normally wait until after solving before watching the video) but once I got there it was a great puzzle. I find understanding the rules is half the battle sometimes! Especially on new constraints.
10:57. You figured out that r3c1 couldn't be a 3 a little simpler than I did. I figured it out because it would have forced both r3c2 and r4c3 to be a 5. Your deduction was more straight forward.
Let's say you need 3 numbers to add to 3. Your only choice is 1+1+1. If you need them to add to 4, you have "one degree of freedom" because any of the three 1s can increase to 2, but we don't know which one. Adding to 5 has 2 degrees of freedom, etc.
Very nice solve! That was a clever last step in the solve.
Thank you Matt for bringing back such an iconic phrase...Its a TRAP!! ( Good ole Admiral Akbar 😀).
Really enjoyed seeing another new variant used on here!
Nice job with this one Rangsk!!
Hey Rangsk, you nailed the intended solve path on this one, great to see you work through that logic! I created the clue type (or at least I have not seen it anywhere else) for a 9x9 called "Hit the Slopes" on LMD, but really wanted to have a smaller version using the clue that could be used as a bit of a trainer puzzle to internalize the logic. The puzzle ended up having a bit of a tricky step at the end, but you spotted it cleanly! Don't know how I missed seeing this yesterday, but great video, thanks!
Thanks all. Not come across this constraint before. Took me a little while to understand the rules (I normally wait until after solving before watching the video) but once I got there it was a great puzzle. I find understanding the rules is half the battle sometimes! Especially on new constraints.
I would encourage setters to use this variant. This was a great puzzle.
I just can't get my head around this one. I'll have to admit defeat and just watch the video :(
Ahhh! colouring the 1-2 pairs at 5:33 was the trick. I missed that and was scratching my head for ages before giving up.
Ah yeah, even without coloring noticing those can't be a 1-2 pair was key
Hard puzzle with unfamiliar rules - but another great solve - thanks Rangsk!
14:31 thanks!!
10:57. You figured out that r3c1 couldn't be a 3 a little simpler than I did. I figured it out because it would have forced both r3c2 and r4c3 to be a 5. Your deduction was more straight forward.
35:32
Acan you explain degrees of freedom more , please
Let's say you need 3 numbers to add to 3. Your only choice is 1+1+1. If you need them to add to 4, you have "one degree of freedom" because any of the three 1s can increase to 2, but we don't know which one. Adding to 5 has 2 degrees of freedom, etc.
Thank you very much