because despite having its dangers, the solution is beautiful to see, in the context of codewars, this type of solution comes out ahead... multiple 'ifs' are sometimes not very elegant..

Thank you

Good :) Nice kata

Got it, I added a description about that part to make things clearer, thanks for your feedback.

For the first point; it means when does someone's buff disappear, after their own attack, after the adversary attacks them, or just after each round? For instance, if I buff, then my adversary buffs, does their buff mean that my buff is now gone, or not, since they did not attack yet .. stuff like this

I changed the description of the abilities to remove the ambiguity, I agree with you on that part.

But, I thought I had made it clear how the buffs work in the rules and considerations section, in addition to the examples. I didn't quite understand what you meant by that 'does not count as an "attack" of the opponent', are you talking about whether a buff can influence the effect of another buff used sequentially? Well, there is no such interaction, this does not work as an opponent attack, maybe I can describe it better in the description.

obs.: My English is not very good, I am not a native speaker, if I interpreted your problem wrong please correct me.

• It's not clear from description when buffs get deactivated or decreased. It appears when the opponent does a buff himself after your own buff, this does not count as an "attack" of the opponent, and thus the own buff does not get deactivated or decreased.
• There are more ambiguous terms such as "Inflicts 90 points of damage.", this isn't true, it's better to state "Attacks with a power of 90 points". The damage is not necessarely 90 points, as it gets calculated based on the power of the adversary and the current buffs of self.

I think my solution shouldn't have passed, it failed the first time, and when I tried again it passed the random tests.

I also missed that in the description

clean code at its best

the best

All elements in the area must have the same orientation

This part could be clarified. I interpreted this to mean that the pieces cannot be rotated, but that's not the case.

For sample test test.assert_equals(calc_max(150,30,120,178), 4): how can you fit any pieces if width of a piece is larger than width of the area?

you made very important considerations, and i will make the changes, in the case of the variable names h, w, H, W, the simplicity of understanding is worth it, for now I will keep them like this, the rest of the changes I will make thank you for your review, so much.

Some further remarks, but mostly not as serious as the above ones:

• Sample tests use wrong name
• I am not convinced about the wording. The "image" and "area" do not really help understanding the problem, at least for me. It might be just language issue. But I wonder if something like "tile" and "total area" or "sheet" would not be clearer. I'd suggest getting an advice of a native English speaker on this one (or you can ask in #random or in main thread of #help-author of CW Discord).
• I am not sure I like the names w vs W and h vs H. I get what they mean, but I wonder if something like tileWidth and totalWidth wouldnt be better, or something similar.
• the section Basic Test Cases does not show inputs. I am not sure if the section is even needed, because you have all the other "specific" sections
• I wonder if I would not show what the numbers are when creating an assertion message. Something like: Your answer for w=2352, h=4404, W=9164, H=2624 is incorrect
• you can move the calc_max_test and make it local to the random_tests. It does not need to be at module top level.

When you feel that you fixed the problems, feel free to mark this issue as resolved, and republish for further review if you want.