39:36 after one false gess 1 in G9

Thanks morl, what would we do without you.
But what happened to our other creators? Come on guys, don't be shy, we need some more stuff!

is.gd/morl_430_X

Thanks. 13 min. Easy as well; just careful elimination.

Finally an X again - thank you! Nice and easy.

Could someone explain to me, what this means, that it is an X puzzle? thank you!!

additionally to rows and columns you have to care about the two diagonals.

thank you! with this information it is really fairly easy, before I was struggling a bit ;)

Here it is... the Number 2!

is.gd/morl_430_2

Thanks. 16 min; surprisingly easy, only CE.

Liked it a lot; many thanks, morl!

Sixteen minutes as well...

@morl: Do you have "a number 2" in you drawer??!!--- Many thanks from the whole forum for your understanding!!!

... or anybody else ...

a X puzzle would be nice. Thx.

I've been away for a while and I can't find any X-straits any more - is there a reason for this?

Just worked last week's is.gd/morl_429_2 and noted a head chain that avoids the URs (which I find difficult to see in this case). With 22 cells solved with the help of (for me) x-wings, there are three columns that must contain 2 and four rows that offer to do so. But rows E and G cannot both contain 2 because then columns 8 and 9 don't have enough 5s left. So row J must contain 2, which solves.

A great observation Jan. Basically a combined setti on 2 & 5.

Agreed - that is a better and easier way of looking at it.

is.gd/morl_430_1

found two solutions, but still fun

Thanks morl for the hard nut, needed two quite long chains.
@Loser: I think there is only one (unique) solution.

Thanks. Used one chain: Where's the 2 in F1-6?

@kolumbus: A3B3 mustn't be high. They could be also in the mid range.

My "solution" looks just fine, but I get the message 26 cells are wrong. Maybe there are 2 solutions?

Just one Jellyfish solves the whole puzzle; I wonder why the boast section is full of UR and Setti ...

for me to look for Setti is much more natural than for (big-, middle-) fishes. so if, as in this case, one little Setti is enough, i dont even know about fishes.

Need one UR (CF89) before applying some BCA, but looked not very careful, so Maybe overlooked something
nice pattern thank you Andrew

At the first time solving I used 2 settis, 8 and 6. But at the second time I've found out that Setti 1 is already enough.

Hi Klaus, of course it's a matter of taste. Even though Setti is the most powerful instrument in many cases, for me it's more fun to discover wing patterns, instead of counting rows and cols ...

Hi kolumbus,

i see what you mean. i'm more of the does-not-like-to-think-too-much-and-take-the-easy-way-out-if-possible-guy.

Sorry, I have to correct myself: it's just a swordfish on 1, not a jellyfish (it leads to the same consequences as Setti on 1 does).

Why don’t we simply call sea creatures:
- 2X-Wing (= X-Wing)
- 3X-Wing (= Swordfish)
- 4X-Wing (= Jellyfish)
- 5X-Wing (= Starfish)
- and so on
and normal number, row and column definitions?

Hi Martin,
just a guess (I don't know who invented the fish denomination and why):
1. because an X has 4 points/ends – so has an x-wing, but not the other wings
2. oops! - why do we call them "wings"???
3. sea creature names are more romantic :)

By the way: Although e.g. the labeling "Setti" is non-mathematic and neither reasonable at all, I like it: it dignifies the inventor/first noter of the technique.

By the way #2: If language was only logic, it would be boring ...