This is a Out of Sight / Heyawake hybrid puzzle. Shade in some squares to satisfy the constraints of both sets of rules.
Puzzle 302
(Click for larger size)
(See 294 for info about this “reject” series.) You’ve probably got the pattern now, but this was the adult in the most recent versions that still had this type. I was a little sad to cut this one (as has been the case for every Wednesday…), but at the same time finding the main break-in seemed too hard relative to the rest of the puzzle. I spent a very long time trying to tweak this one to alleviate that and do the themed step better justice, but didn’t have much luck.
March 23, 2011 at 4:25 am |
You weren’t kidding about the break-in. x.x Clever puzzle, though, even if it didn’t belong on the test.
March 23, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
I’m surprised I didn’t notice the “no two opposite black squares across thin field” thing before in plain Heyawake. Is this a coincidence, or is it hard to make use of that in a plain Heyawake? At any rate, this feels like a very natural hybrid.
March 24, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
I can’t see how you’d ever force a deduction like that in Heyawake normally. The related idea of alternately placed black squares on either side of a thin strip of white cells is pretty common though.
March 28, 2011 at 6:12 am |
I must have found a different solution path, because I don’t remember anything like that coming up in my solution. Where in the grid should I be looking?
March 28, 2011 at 6:16 am |
The intended break-in is that in the top right the two red arrows on opposite sides of a thin room can’t both be shaded, and the step is used again right after that in the top left. I’m surprised there’s another way to get started and am kind of curious how intricate your first steps were.
March 31, 2011 at 9:22 am |
It’s a similar step I used, actually — regardless of which arrows are shaded, where there’s an arrow pointing past exactly one empty cell to an arrow of the same colour, the empty cell in between the two arrows cannot possibly be shaded.