![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderator: Community Team
Pirlo wrote:wow shit... this community is really sick and too fucking demanding !!
rdsrds2120 wrote:The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.
BMO
"I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.
Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily."I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.
Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily."I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.
betiko wrote:universalchiro wrote:Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."
this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.
Gilligan wrote:betiko wrote:universalchiro wrote:Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."
this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.
Only one game you mention was affected...can't we take a chill pill and move on?
Gilligan wrote:betiko wrote:universalchiro wrote:Is this official? The official rules for round limits team, still has individual with highest troop total...
"When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troop count."
this is exactly my point. they changed it without notice and before this thread was even created; without even changing the official rules. Any team strategy based on the official rules have been screwed.
Only one game you mention was affected...can't we take a chill pill and move on?
greenoaks wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.
BMO
shortly, what's wrong with immediately
rdsrds2120 wrote:greenoaks wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The rules page shall be updated shortly! Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.
BMO
shortly, what's wrong with immediately
Because I can't change them!
It is fixed.
BMO
Metsfanmax wrote:As I said, it is unfortunate that this happened, and I assure you there was no intention to mess up anyone's game. Since this was for a tournament, I recommend that you petition the person running the tournament to have the game not counted; I think this would be a fair request.
mc05025 wrote:
Even if that was a bad planning and people are right to complain, I like the new administrator more because he is here. I feel like rdsrds2120 is more like part of the community and not someone that you can not contact and that he just receive my money to have this game active.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily."I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.
![]()
![]()
A pity more thought wasn't put into the implementation of what is a good rule change. Dako had a fix that would have kept 'active games' using the old system, Lindax pointed out it could have been announced a month ago "New rule coming into place on 27th December" (isn't hindsight a fine thing?) and of course betiko is right - it sucks to lose a game that would have been won under the rules that game was played by (and Team 2 actually deserved to lose for playing like muppets - look at all the troops they could/should have forted to pink to ensure the win).
hotfire wrote:oh good...i hope they changed it to the team with the most points
HOWITZERHAL wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:Dako wrote:Shortly is a bad word. Use momentarily."I shall deal with the matter momentarily," the Patrician said. It was a good word. It always made people hesitate. They were never quite sure whether he meant he'd deal with it now, or just deal with it briefly.
![]()
![]()
A pity more thought wasn't put into the implementation of what is a good rule change. Dako had a fix that would have kept 'active games' using the old system, Lindax pointed out it could have been announced a month ago "New rule coming into place on 27th December" (isn't hindsight a fine thing?) and of course betiko is right - it sucks to lose a game that would have been won under the rules that game was played by (and Team 2 actually deserved to lose for playing like muppets - look at all the troops they could/should have forted to pink to ensure the win).
Funny......
We were clearly aware that the rulz had changed........unbelievable that we do actually read the forum....we did not feel that it was necessary to fort our men over to RJ, since we had overwhelminly dominated the game.....And we could see Betiko's troop count on more then one occasion in this battle..
Re: Round Limit troop count winner didn't win
by hotfire on Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:13 pmhotfire wrote:oh good...i hope they changed it to the team with the most points
For the record...Spino would have forted his 36 men to RJ and CAPK81 would have forted his 42 men to RJ..being a nuclear game we did not want all our eggs in one basket till the end...even Beitko would have to admit that his team thought I was the power on our team to deal with....Ooopps...I was just the hammer......but since the rulz did change.......well, you figure it out......besides it is more fun to see all the characters come out of the woodwork....FYI: we play more like Yogi Bear stealing a 'picinick basket mr. Ranger sir'......then a Muppet......so get it str8.....
Have a nice day
HOWITZERHAL wrote:The rule change came after my play...(lets presume the rule didn't change),and on the chance that you could could nuke either mine or RJ's stack (of course depending on if you could nuke and where you could nuke)....then we had the numbers to deploy on either of us and fort for the win to either of us...since the rule did change, it just was not necessary to anything......either way we would have won this one my friend ..we are at our best when our opponents underestimate us....after all this time you guys should know us a bit better then that...congrats on the win this round.....sorry, no sweep ....lol.....catch ya on the next one...
HOWITZERHAL wrote:Good memory.....I had to actually look it up...lol....of course with this team it is 2 to 1 your favor......the others I will take the solo heat for the team loss.....since you are taking the solo credit for the other team wins...
No offense taken my friend....
Anytime you would like to test your metal...1 v 1...Let me know
Adieu
jonofperu wrote:Just a guess, but if it's a matter of a few games I don't think there is anything they could do to make up for unfair losses. (Not sure they could do anything if it was thousands of games either.)
If it's a tournament, you could petition for a replay or whatever because it's part of a system under the control of the tournament organizer.
Again, I'm not sure, but I really doubt they could give you back points you lost or something like that.
Return to Announcement Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users