|
Post by Doomy on Jan 27, 2010 7:31:29 GMT -5
As we're all roleplayers I suggest rolling a virtual die on Invisible Castle to decide who gets first choice, then proceed with the Catan system in alphabetical order.
So with four players so far the order is:
Black Cat, Doomy, Jan, Simey
That would be a D4 roll, if it came up "3" Jan would pick first then it would be Simey, BC and myself in that order.
Under Catan rules, the sequence would be:
Jan - Simey - BC - Doomy x2 (two picks for going last) then Jan would pick his second team and so on until we each had three countries.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Jan 27, 2010 8:48:16 GMT -5
Sounds perfect. I've failed to get back on and do a new thread, and am catching a train in a minute, but I will do it soon. Looking forward to this.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Jan 27, 2010 10:41:08 GMT -5
Wow! It sounds pretty cool. Now, who will roll the dice? Under Catan rules, the sequence would be: Jan - Simey - BC - Doomy x2 (two picks for going last) then Jan would pick his second team and so on until we each had three countries. Now I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. Under Catan rules, it would be (turn 1) Jan - Simey - BC - Doomy -- (turn 2 - inverse order) Doomy - BC - Simey - Jan -- (turn 3 - same as turn 1) Jan - Simey - BC - Doomy (for 12 teams).
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Jan 27, 2010 10:53:10 GMT -5
Anyone can visit Invisible Castle, generate a roll and post it here. Maybe Simey as he's offered to set up a thread with the rules and whatnot. I think he already has an account there. I can do it though.
You have the right idea about the picking order. The last person to make their first pick gets to choose twice to start and ends up finishing first, so it's a lot fairer than going last every time.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Jan 27, 2010 11:54:01 GMT -5
Since I was getting a bit perplex, I edited my last post to make it absolutely clear. Well - I don't say that we have to use this, I'm just explaining Catan system as I understand it.
And now I'll go home and try to forget it, or I would wake up at night and mumble something abut Doomy and Simey, and then I would get crazy and my students would be very happy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Jan 27, 2010 12:14:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I made a mistake earlier, forgetting the direction is reversed in the second round. So we'll do it your way Jan.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Feb 14, 2010 7:55:44 GMT -5
LOL, I was just watching the women's hockey on the Olympics for a few minutes - Canada vs. Slovakia, and it was a complete disaster, massacre, debacle! Canada won 18:0. It was a humiliating agony for the Slovak girls, they were worse in everything, and the Canadians were treating them like babies. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 14, 2010 10:33:41 GMT -5
I saw a few seconds of that and then realised it was 8-0, so didn't bother with it. There were still ten to go? Yikes!
By our rules that would've been a score of 14 points for Canada, which, quite frankly, shouldn't be possible! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 15, 2010 11:42:11 GMT -5
TOLD YOU I WANTED A FANTASY OLYMPIC TOURNAMENT WITH THE WOMEN! Seriously, I would had won just by picking Canada alone. That's sad because there're only 2,5 good teams in that tournament: Canada and the USA, plus Sweden which counts as half a good team (they won silver in Torino, but can't seem to be able to beat the other two in normal conditions).
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 16, 2010 5:05:51 GMT -5
Should women's hockey actually be in the Olympics until more than just two countries can field (um, ice) good teams? I suppose perhaps to promotes equal opportunities in the sport in other countries if there are medals on offer, but it doesn't sound like it's much of a competition, which makes it seem a bit pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Feb 22, 2010 14:46:37 GMT -5
Should women's hockey actually be in the Olympics until more than just two countries can field (um, ice) good teams? I suppose perhaps to promotes equal opportunities in the sport in other countries if there are medals on offer, but it doesn't sound like it's much of a competition, which makes it seem a bit pointless. Taking it out of the olympics would punish the women who are not from NA, but something needs to be done. I read an article about having Canada and the US field two teams to dilute their talent pools, but I am not sure that would matter. The problem is that while in Europe the chattering classes go on and on about promoting gender equality through such things as equal representation in their legislatures, in NA we practice equality in our day to day lives - women can play hockey (not ice hockey, that is a redundant term!) without it being seen as 'unwomanly.'
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 22, 2010 19:26:57 GMT -5
About high scoring games, if we go back to the 18-0 win of Canada over Slovakia, the Slovak players thanked the Canadians for keeping playing hard instead of controlling the game in a boring way (like by dumping continuously the puck into the offensive zone or by only passing the puck between them without shooting). The Slovaks said that it was a good way for them to train against a good opposition.
Seriously, they should make some kind of a real National Woman Hockey League. The current one is a semi-professionnal/amateur league. Some players even pay to be part of the league! Today, I read in the newspaper that if the big NHL would support such a female league, that would raise better talents from other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 23, 2010 12:51:45 GMT -5
Today, I read in the newspaper that if the big NHL would support such a female league, that would raise better talents from other countries. That is probably true. But professional sport is ultimately part of the entertainment business. One question has to be: is women's hockey (even in the U.S. and Canada) a sport that will be watched to a great enough degree - when the alternative is watching men's hockey - to fund itself at a viable level? Only in Canada! ;D And, okay, maybe a few other countries. Largely, I call it hockey - I know nothing about, nor have any particular interest in, field hockey - but it depends who you're talking to. Field hockey is a more prominent sport in many countries - including the U.K. - so for me to simply mention 'hockey' to someone would most likely lead them to assume I was talking about that. It's like 'football' in the U.S. and Canada is some nonsensical game where the players mostly carry the ball in their hands. So we'd call that 'American football' or 'Canadian football' to differentiate it from actual football - you know, the game which is largely about the interaction of foot and ball - which is, quite rightly, the better known sport in Britain.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Feb 23, 2010 13:44:55 GMT -5
The same situation here! I also know only the one true hockey - that one on the ice. Anything else is for those who cannot skate.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Mar 2, 2010 19:06:19 GMT -5
Awesome news for U.K. hockey! The Elite League is gaining another team: Braehead Clan. At the end of last season two clubs - Basingstoke and, more surprisingly, Manchester - dropped out of the league due to financial difficulties, leaving the Elite League looking a little on the slim side with only eight teams. Several Elite League club owners have got together to form the new team which will play out of the Braehead Arena near Glasgow. This is exciting news not only because it boosts the numbers in a League that needs them, but because it gives Scotland a second team - a rivalry between the new Braehead Clan and the current Edinburgh Capitals should really enliven the game in Scotland, and that can only promote greater competition in the league as a whole. Anyone wanting a bit more information, take a look here.
|
|