Please use this board to discuss Tournaments and Team Tournaments, ask questions and hopefully find the answers you are looking for. Personal attacks, arguing or baiting will not be tolerated on this board. If you have, or see a problem or something you are not happy about or think is wrong, please contact one of the above Moderators OR contact a Global Moderator HERE
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Gr☺uch☺: Just pick one of your Teams from your Fellowship page, and scroll through the drop box to find out what Teams are available for you to challenge.
Mr. Shumway: I agree with what you say, we have to play by what the rules are here on Brainking. The thing is depending where you have played it, as i have before the Rules are different. Just an example from Gamerz.net:
'If you are unable to move on your turn, you are skipped. There is a chance that your opponent may be forced to make a move that will let you move again'
This is why its hard to implement games, you could play a game somewhere else and swear your rules are correct, when they only are for that site.
It comes down to how you interprit how the rules are worded really. I would say both answers are correct, it was Nirvanas move, but as she could not go Furbster still had a LEGAL move.
Nirvana: Furbster made the last move according to the game, but i still dont know if the rules state that if you cant go it is game over, surely it should just be a pass. It is in theory possible to get to a stage in a game of ataxx (and Assimilation) where an oppenent can not move, BUT if you then move a piece away from others, it could open the game up again. Have to see what Fencer says on the matter i think.
Nirvana: hmmmm i see what you are saying, and you gambler104, may have to look into these rules again. It was you move and you could not go, surely then you should pass as in Backgammon, then Furbster would play and win.
crosseyed: I agree that people should not hold up Tournaments, the point is are they doing it on purpose or maybe just dont have the time to make all there moves, whether they have 10, 100 or 500 games.
The problem is that if a player has his game listed in Time left order, if he moves in a 1 day game, and the opponent is online and moves, that will go back to near the top of his next game to play. Therefore all other games will just carry on waiting.
crosseyed: My personal view is that Pawns are the only people who should moan about 'Slow players', they do not have the option to just start another game like Members do (and yes, i know they could become Members if they wished). I know of a tourny running for a year now that only has 12 players in 3 sections. One game is still holding one section up, then the next round will start lol (at least its a Fellowship one, and not for Pawns). If players only want games over quick, surely the answer is simple, look at the time limit before playing the game or Tournament
I can see what you say bumble, but to start creating even more fellowships will create more problems for those who are members of lots as it is (the 'Wombats' one being for a good reason of course).
I just think there should and could be an easier way around something like this. As it is some big boss's are struggling to fill team tournaments as much as they have fellowship members wanting to play, BUT to have such a high target set to be able to enter does not seem right for some of the fellowhips. Alot (even the larger ones) can not as much as would like to get a team together, unless it is Backgommon of course LOL.
I see no reason really why a fellowship can not have 2 teams and players decide which one to sign up for. If they have enough for 2 teams, then both can enter. I think this was suggested a few days ago.
I am sure i could Radiant, the point i am making is that how many games you are going to end up playing (thats the reason he left).
22 for every Team that enters (i think lol), thats a hell of alot if you get a few teams entered even for the addicted players.
I agree with what Bry says about Backgammon being the only game that could work with this amount of players.
I have to agree 12 players is too much (switched colours as well). I had 12 signed up, but my Captain just left as he did not want to be stuck in such a BIG tourny :-(
(hide) Want to play more games but you're having trouble decide which game to start? Enter a tournament with random games. (pauloaguia) (show all tips)