Comments on 2016-02-13's Tapaprasanna16391 commented at 2016-02-13 00:06:45 Made a faulty assumption, had to restart, but really nice break-in with the 1111 forcing behaviour of the 112.swaroop2011 commented at 2016-02-13 00:09:20 aah got stuck on this one. I think i am missing some start here. will have to try again.prasanna16391 commented at 2016-02-13 00:21:05 The start - the 1-1-1-1 in R7C4 forces the 1-1-2 below it to have its '2' around the 1-1-1-1-1 and so the 3-3 below the 1-1-2 can only have one of its '1's. This means R10R11C3 are shaded and their counterparts for the 3-3 clue, and I think it flows well from here.rob commented at 2016-02-13 00:32:29 Hah, damn, I made that deduction with that other 1111 next to the 12, but failed to see it near the 33. Weird.rajeshk commented at 2016-02-13 11:54:40 Thanks Prasanna for giving the logical break. I guessed to solve this one. However after reading your comment, I could solve it fully logically :)masonjason commented at 2016-02-13 19:13:57 I thought the interaction of the left-hand pair of (1, 1, 1, 1)s via the (2, 3) was beautifuljohn_reid commented at 2016-02-14 01:49:32 Well I was able to solve this with no guessing but unfortunately someone stopped by when I was in the middle of it and I ended up chatting for 45 minutes with them before I got back to the puzzle! It was a great puzzle though and I'm proud that I was able to work out that 1-1-1-1 and 1-1-2 interaction that Prasanna described and didn't have to resort to any guessing. Very satisfying!