RoboRally: Fire Cont & Lock Register
Tim Rose
All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so of
course right off the bat we have rules questions...
1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
received an argument)
B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how do
you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
puts into that register?)
2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
unchanging register?)
Does anyone think that, perhaps, when WotC updates their website, that they
could do an FAQ just on Fire Control and how it interacts with the other
options? I really hate trying to interpret some of these situations. (Val
K's old RR FAQ on the web had about a whole page just on Fire Control,
including an answer to #2 above that I really disagreed with, but since it
came up again in the league this weekend, I figure I'd ask the group.
Thanks, and probably more questions next week...
Tim R.
J. Hunter Johnson
Tim Rose <tr...@digitalsurfer.com> wrote:
> All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so
> of course right off the bat we have rules questions...
And good questions they are, too. My answers below, but the situations
are nebulous enough that I won't defend my answers stalwartly. :-)
> 1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
> lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
> received an argument)
I'd say no -- no register program, no register lock. But, if you can:
> B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how
> do you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register,
> choose a card at random from the player's hand (which is essentially
> the same thing), or let the player program the register normally,
> and lock whatever card he puts into that register?)
I'd let them program the register normally, knowing that the card placed
there will be locked.
> 2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock
> a register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other
> words, does the player now receive one less program card, or is the
> only effect an unchanging register?)
I'd play the unchanging register is the only effect.
HUnter
--
J. Hunter Johnson /\ SJG Errata Coordinator (sjg-e...@io.com)
http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/ /()\ Knightmare Chess Development Coordinator
jhun...@io.com /____\ South Park: Care Bears on Acid -- G.C.
Settlers RoboRally Brain Groo LunchMoney DinoHunt Knightmare GURPS AoR INWO
Aaron D. Fuegi
Tim Rose (tr...@digitalsurfer.com) wrote:
: 1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
: lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
: received an argument)
: you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
: at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
: let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
: puts into that register?)
I am not sure if this is legal or not. In some ways, it certainly
doesn't make sense. The basic point of locking a register seems to me to be
that you are breaking the controls which let the person change the current
card. Since there is no current card, this seems questionably sensible. If it
is legal, I would certainly play it that the person could then play whatever
card they wished, knowing it would be locked for the future.
: 2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
: register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
: the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
: unchanging register?)
It is not exactly normal damage. However, I do think it would
reduce the number of cards dealt, but for a slightly different reason. It
is not that the person has taken damage; it is that he has effectively
already been dealt one card (the locked one which stays down).
: Tim R.
Aaron
aar...@bu.edu
http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/ (the Last Homely House)
Dale Friesen
[Courtesy copy mailed to original poster]
Tim Rose <tr...@digitalsurfer.com> wrote:
> All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so of
> course right off the bat we have rules questions...
>
> 1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
> lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
> received an argument)
Page 29 of the rule book gives an example of a player being shot while
powered down. If a player can be shot normally they can be shot with
Fire Control.
> B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how do
> you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
> at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
> let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
> puts into that register?)
Imho handing your cards to the dealer is done during the Deal Program
Cards section of the turn. In other words, a powered down robot keeps
its program cards programmed until the turn it powers back up.
> 2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
> register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
> the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
> unchanging register?)
This is considered normal damage. Notice how the card is worded:
When scoring a point of damage, you may choose to use the damage to
lock a register or destroy a particular option.
You're just choosing where the damage goes, not replacing the damage
with another effect.
> Does anyone think that, perhaps, when WotC updates their website, that they
> could do an FAQ just on Fire Control and how it interacts with the other
> options? I really hate trying to interpret some of these situations. (Val
> K's old RR FAQ on the web had about a whole page just on Fire Control,
> including an answer to #2 above that I really disagreed with, but since it
> came up again in the league this weekend, I figure I'd ask the group.
>
> Thanks, and probably more questions next week...
>
> Tim R.
--
Any opinions expressed are mine and not the book store's.
Dale Friesen Sysadmin
Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada
dfri...@amtsgi.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca
John Lodder
In article <01bcbd18$a3fc0a80$8225...@ds9.digitalsurfer.com>,
Tim Rose <tr...@digitalsurfer.com> wrote:
>All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so of
>course right off the bat we have rules questions...
>
>1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
>lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
>received an argument)
I'd say it's legal.
> B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how do
>you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
>at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
>let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
>puts into that register?)
It's not limited to Fire Control, and not really covered in the rules. I
played in a game at GenCon where the judge had people keep their program
cards in front of them when they powered down. That way if they took
damage from any source, fire control or just taking more than 4 hits
while powered down, the cards to lock in the registers would be right
there in front of them.
I kinda liked that, and am trying it out with the people I usually play
with; not everyone likes it, though.
>2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
>register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
>the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
>unchanging register?)
The Wizard's FAQ doesn't cover this situation, but does say "Treat the
Fire Control damage as regular damage." Which makes me think that the
player receives one less program card; I also like the notion in another
post in this thread, that you get one less card because you already have
a card in front of you: the locked one.
>Does anyone think that, perhaps, when WotC updates their website, that they
>could do an FAQ just on Fire Control and how it interacts with the other
>options? I really hate trying to interpret some of these situations. (Val
>K's old RR FAQ on the web had about a whole page just on Fire Control,
>including an answer to #2 above that I really disagreed with, but since it
>came up again in the league this weekend, I figure I'd ask the group.
The WOTC FAQ should just be expanded, on all pesky aspects of the game.
Woe, however, will doggedly follow whomever maintains it.
john.
--
"Oh, to be in England now that April's there" --RB
My opinions are mine. All mine. Replete with very me.
Kevin O'Hare
Aaron D. Fuegi (aar...@bu.edu) wrote:
:>Tim Rose (tr...@digitalsurfer.com) wrote:
:>: 1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
:>: lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
:>: you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
:> I am not sure if this is legal or not. In some ways, it certainly
:>doesn't make sense. The basic point of locking a register seems to me to be
:>that you are breaking the controls which let the person change the current
:>card. Since there is no current card, this seems questionably sensible. If it
I think I would play it in a different way altogether. Since a register is
locked, but there is nothing in the register, the register remains empty.
So if he locks register three, then on turn three, the robot does nothing.
This might be a defense to keep the robot with Fire Control from attacking
you. It might not sound too bad to have a "no-op" for a turn, unless you're
riding a conveyor belt...
:>: 2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
:>: register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
:> It is not exactly normal damage. However, I do think it would
:>reduce the number of cards dealt, but for a slightly different reason. It
:>is not that the person has taken damage; it is that he has effectively
:>already been dealt one card (the locked one which stays down).
Fire Control lets you either lock a register, OR do normal laser damage,
not both.
--
|Kevin O'Hare E-mail altered, use the following: kev...@cup.hp.com |
|Oenophile|Pinball|CCGs|B-5|X-Files|GURPS|Kites|Boardgames|Highlander |
|Commercial and/or unsolicited email and/or spam will be processed for|
|a $150 handling fee. Unsolicited sending constitutes acceptance. |
Rich Shipley
Tim Rose wrote:
>
> All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so of
> course right off the bat we have rules questions...
>
> 1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
> lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
> received an argument)
> B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how do
> you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
> at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
> let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
> puts into that register?)
Shut down robots should keep their cards from the last turn. Since they
clear damage at the beginning of the turn and may take more damage
before they power back up, they may lock registers the normal way as
well. I've played this way since I had a few things clarified at the
Origins tournaments.
> 2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
> register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
> the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
> unchanging register?)
I would think you would get one less card.
Rich
Brandon Freels
In article <3415f237...@netnews.voicenet.com>, jhe...@voicenet.com
says...
> >Shut down robots should keep their cards from the last turn. Since they
> >clear damage at the beginning of the turn and may take more damage
> >before they power back up, they may lock registers the normal way as
> >well. I've played this way since I had a few things clarified at the
> >Origins tournaments.
> >
I think that really screws up the card balance if a player shuts down and
decides to play all 5 move 3's for his last turn. That means if he knows he
can't win, he can stay shut down and there will only be one move 3 available
for the rest of the game.
Also, what if 3-4 players shut down for the same turn? 15-20 cards out of
the randomizer ... about 20-25% ! What a great way to deny the other
players move-3s and back-ups.
Another "loose cannon" problem for this game if interpreted as above.
--
Domo. Ja na.
Brandon Freels
(bra...@rhinoventures.com, ICQ#: 2695168, Online-Gaming: Spittledung)
"I'm witty naturally. I don't need quotes!"
GOLEM Web Slab: http://www.rhinoventures.com/golem/
John R. Helwig
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 16:35:04 -0400, Rich Shipley <rshi...@io.com>
wrote:
>Tim Rose wrote:
>>
>> All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so of
>> course right off the bat we have rules questions...
>>
>> 1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
>> lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
>> received an argument)
>> B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how do
>> you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
>> at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
>> let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
>> puts into that register?)
>
>Shut down robots should keep their cards from the last turn. Since they
>clear damage at the beginning of the turn and may take more damage
>before they power back up, they may lock registers the normal way as
>well. I've played this way since I had a few things clarified at the
>Origins tournaments.
>
Agreed. We play this the same way.
>> 2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
>> register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
>> the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
>> unchanging register?)
>
>I would think you would get one less card.
We always assumed this. After all, you are dealt nine cards less one
for each damage chit. How would you mark a locked register without a
using a damage chit?
>
>Rich
--
John Helwig
Jenkintown Hobby Center, Inc.
http://www.jenkintownhobby.com
David S. Raley
On 9 Sep 1997 12:05:54 GMT, "Tim Rose" <tr...@digitalsurfer.com>
wrote:
>
>All right... I've just started running a weekly RoboRally league, so of
>course right off the bat we have rules questions...
>
>1) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots a powered down robot, and decides to
>lock a register. A) Is this legal in the first place? (I think yes, but
>received an argument)
> B) If the powered down player chooses NOT to stay powered down, how do
>you fill the locked register? (Deal a card to the register, choose a card
>at random from the player's hand (which is essentially the same thing), or
>let the player program the register normally, and lock whatever card he
>puts into that register?)
>
>2) A robot w/ Fire Control shoots another robot, and chooses to lock a
>register. Is this considered normal damage as well? (In other words, does
>the player now receive one less program card, or is the only effect an
>unchanging register?)
>
>Does anyone think that, perhaps, when WotC updates their website, that they
>could do an FAQ just on Fire Control and how it interacts with the other
>options? I really hate trying to interpret some of these situations. (Val
>K's old RR FAQ on the web had about a whole page just on Fire Control,
>including an answer to #2 above that I really disagreed with, but since it
>came up again in the league this weekend, I figure I'd ask the group.
>
>Thanks, and probably more questions next week...
>
>Tim R.
John Lodder has provided the best answer.
When you shut down, you are supposed to keep your program cards in
your registers just in case you take enough damage to lock a register.
If Fire Control is in the game, that's one more reason to do so.
Damage from Fire Control is damage for all purposes of the game. If
it's used to do anything other than to zap an option, then the victim
pick up a damage chit and loses a card. If the firer chooses to lock a
register, then the chit is placed on the locked register as usual.
DSR
WotC Netrep
John R. Helwig
>In article <3415f237...@netnews.voicenet.com>, jhe...@voicenet.com
>says...
>> >Shut down robots should keep their cards from the last turn. Since they
>> >clear damage at the beginning of the turn and may take more damage
>> >before they power back up, they may lock registers the normal way as
>> >well. I've played this way since I had a few things clarified at the
>> >Origins tournaments.
>> >
>> Agreed. We play this the same way.
>
>
>I think that really screws up the card balance if a player shuts down and
>decides to play all 5 move 3's for his last turn. That means if he knows he
>can't win, he can stay shut down and there will only be one move 3 available
>for the rest of the game.
>
Um, for the rest of the game? Only if a player shuts down on a turn
where someone wins. When we have come across this situation, the
player in question is usually running for cover to get out of the
crossfire. The one time a player blew a bunch of "3" cards (kept
trying to get through that wall, I suppose), he died due to the rest
of us shooting him out of spite.
>Also, what if 3-4 players shut down for the same turn? 15-20 cards out of
>the randomizer ... about 20-25% ! What a great way to deny the other
>players move-3s and back-ups.
>
That is one of the breaks of the game. But if 3-4 players shut down
simultaneously, the few remaining players can run free. Usually, we
tend to only have one player shut down at a time.
As to spoiling the odds, how about the flywheel option (where you can
hold a card into the next turn)? The game was designed with these
possibilities in mind.
>Another "loose cannon" problem for this game if interpreted as above.
--
Scott Raun
>In article <3415f237...@netnews.voicenet.com>, jhe...@voicenet.com
>says...
>> >Shut down robots should keep their cards from the last turn. Since they
>> >clear damage at the beginning of the turn and may take more damage
>> >before they power back up, they may lock registers the normal way as
>> >well. I've played this way since I had a few things clarified at the
>> >Origins tournaments.
>> >
>> Agreed. We play this the same way.
>
>
>I think that really screws up the card balance if a player shuts down and
>decides to play all 5 move 3's for his last turn. That means if he knows he
>can't win, he can stay shut down and there will only be one move 3 available
>for the rest of the game.
>
>Also, what if 3-4 players shut down for the same turn? 15-20 cards out of
>the randomizer ... about 20-25% ! What a great way to deny the other
>players move-3s and back-ups.
>
>Another "loose cannon" problem for this game if interpreted as above.
There's some relevant rules - they're somewhere in the main book:
1) A robot cannot shut down if it is not damaged.
2) A robot damaged while shut down may choose to remain shut down.
3) An archive copy entering the game may choose to start shut down.
It may be (I think it is, but am not certain) explicitly stated that
you may not be shut down if you are not damaged. It is certainly
implied by the combination of rules 1 & 2. Therefore, a player can't
take a significant number of cards out of the game for too long - if
nothing else, everyone should be able to avoid shooting him!
OK, if he shuts down in a laser path - but then, just arrange to shoot
him until he's dead!
Scott Raun
sr...@iaxs.net
Eric Haas
Brandon Freels wrote:
> I think that really screws up the card balance if a player shuts down and
> decides to play all 5 move 3's for his last turn. That means if he knows he
> can't win, he can stay shut down and there will only be one move 3 available
> for the rest of the game.
To me, this seems to be a non-problem. Why would anyone do this? If a
player feels he can't win, why would he want to prolong the game? It
seems to me, he'd be more likely to want the game to end quickly so, he
could move on to something else. Besides, the odds that one player
would be dealt all, or even most of, the move 3's *and* be able to use
them without getting killed, is too small to worry about.
> Also, what if 3-4 players shut down for the same turn? 15-20 cards out of
> the randomizer ... about 20-25% ! What a great way to deny the other
> players move-3s and back-ups.
What is so great about it? While those players are shut down, they
can't use the move 3's and backups, either. So, they don't gain
anything by sitting on the cards.
> Another "loose cannon" problem for this game if interpreted as above.
Not at all.
Dale Friesen
[Courtesy copy sent by e-mail.]
Scott Raun <sr...@iaxs.net> wrote:
[Snipped thoughts on card imbalance due to robots powering down]
> There's some relevant rules - they're somewhere in the main book:
>
> 1) A robot cannot shut down if it is not damaged.
Where do you see this in the rule book? Are you using first edition
or second edition rules? [I only have a second edition rule book.]
> 2) A robot damaged while shut down may choose to remain shut down.
> 3) An archive copy entering the game may choose to start shut down.
>
> It may be (I think it is, but am not certain) explicitly stated that
> you may not be shut down if you are not damaged. It is certainly
> implied by the combination of rules 1 & 2.
How is this different from your first point? I'm confused. Here's
what the second edition rule book says [p. 28]:
PowerDown
The other method for repairing damage is to power down. A
robot that is powered down does not receive program cards and
all damage to that robot is repaired.
If a player wants her robot to power down, she must announce
this a turn in advance, immediately after cards for the current
turn are dealt and programmed. Her robot must play out the
current turn and the robot powers down on the next turn. At
the beginning of the next turn, all damage chits are discarded and
the player receives no program cards.
It certainly seems to suggest that nobody would ever want to power
down if they weren't damaged, but I don't see that as the same thing
as forbidding it. ymmv
> Therefore, a player can't
> take a significant number of cards out of the game for too long - if
> nothing else, everyone should be able to avoid shooting him!
>
> OK, if he shuts down in a laser path - but then, just arrange to shoot
> him until he's dead!
>
> Scott Raun
> sr...@iaxs.net
John Lodder
In article <1997091108...@i3-45.islandnet.com>,
Dale Friesen <dfri...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>
>Where do you see this in the rule book? Are you using first edition
>or second edition rules? [I only have a second edition rule book.]
That's the other thing about the rule book: rules are in lots of
different places. I don't have a page number for you (since I pulled
this off the Wizard's html version of the rule book), but under Turn
Sequence, Announce PowerDown in the first secion of the book (not the
SysOp Section), 2nd Edition rules:
"A robot can use a PowerDown to repair damage. Only damaged robots
may choose to power down."
Dale Friesen
John Lodder <jlo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
> In article <1997091108...@i3-45.islandnet.com>,
> Dale Friesen <dfri...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >Where do you see this in the rule book? Are you using first edition
> >or second edition rules? [I only have a second edition rule book.]
>
> That's the other thing about the rule book: rules are in lots of
> different places. I don't have a page number for you (since I pulled
> this off the Wizard's html version of the rule book), but under Turn
> Sequence, Announce PowerDown in the first secion of the book (not the
> SysOp Section), 2nd Edition rules:
>
> "A robot can use a PowerDown to repair damage. Only damaged robots
> may choose to power down."
>
> john.
Aha! Page 14 of the second edition rules. Thanks. :)
Tim Rose
John Lodder <jlo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote in article
<5vbkte$d...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>...
> In article <1997091108...@i3-45.islandnet.com>,
> Dale Friesen <dfri...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >Where do you see this in the rule book? Are you using first edition
> >or second edition rules? [I only have a second edition rule book.]
>
> That's the other thing about the rule book: rules are in lots of
> different places.
Which is why I took the 2nd edition rulebook, the A&D rulebook, the Factory
Floor Guides from RR, A&D, and C&B, Val's old FAQ, Wizard's various net
FAQ's, and lots of rule interp. discussions off of this group, and rammed
the whole thing straight down my word processing program. A few assorted
burps, gargles, and an occasional flatulence or two, and now I have all of
the rules in multiple places, so I don't have to string rules and
definitions together to get a correct ruling.
I've also built up quite a bit of arm strength just carrying that sucker
around!! <grin>
But seriously, it really helps when you're dealing with new players,
because you can just point to something in one place in black and white
instead of looking like you keep losing your place in the rulebook (or lost
a whole rulebook, for that matter!). And also when I'm playing in League
and the game on the other side of the room wants a ruling while I'm trying
to figure out how I'm going to get out of Circuit Trap with nothing but
Right Turns, a couple of Back-Ups, and one locked register!
--Tim R.
Scott Raun
>[Courtesy copy sent by e-mail.]
>
>Scott Raun <sr...@iaxs.net> wrote:
>
>[Snipped thoughts on card imbalance due to robots powering down]
>
>> There's some relevant rules - they're somewhere in the main book:
>>
>> 1) A robot cannot shut down if it is not damaged.
>
>Where do you see this in the rule book? Are you using first edition
>or second edition rules? [I only have a second edition rule book.]
>
>> 2) A robot damaged while shut down may choose to remain shut down.
>> 3) An archive copy entering the game may choose to start shut down.
>>
>> It may be (I think it is, but am not certain) explicitly stated that
>> you may not be shut down if you are not damaged. It is certainly
>> implied by the combination of rules 1 & 2.
>
>How is this different from your first point? I'm confused. Here's
>what the second edition rule book says [p. 28]:
>
> PowerDown
>
> The other method for repairing damage is to power down. A
> robot that is powered down does not receive program cards and
> all damage to that robot is repaired.
>
> If a player wants her robot to power down, she must announce
> this a turn in advance, immediately after cards for the current
> turn are dealt and programmed. Her robot must play out the
> current turn and the robot powers down on the next turn. At
> the beginning of the next turn, all damage chits are discarded and
> the player receives no program cards.
>
>It certainly seems to suggest that nobody would ever want to power
>down if they weren't damaged, but I don't see that as the same thing
>as forbidding it. ymmv
>
Found my reference - it's in the turn description
http://www.wizards.com/Games/RoboRally/Rulebook/Welcome.html
Announce PowerDown
A robot can use a PowerDown to repair damage. ONLY DAMAGED
ROBOTS (emphasis added) may choose to power down. When a robot powers
down, all damage is immediately repaired. Any damage sustained while
the robot is powered down is, unfortunately, new damage that
must be repaired in a subsequent PowerDown or in another
manner. A PowerDown announced this turn takes effect on the
next turn.
Soeren Mors
sr...@iaxs.net (Scott Raun) writes:
>
> Found my reference - it's in the turn description
>
> http://www.wizards.com/Games/RoboRally/Rulebook/Welcome.html
>
> Announce PowerDown
>
> A robot can use a PowerDown to repair damage. ONLY DAMAGED
> ROBOTS (emphasis added) may choose to power down. When a robot powers
> down, all damage is immediately repaired. Any damage sustained while
> the robot is powered down is, unfortunately, new damage that
> must be repaired in a subsequent PowerDown or in another
> manner. A PowerDown announced this turn takes effect on the
> next turn.
Does this mean that its against the rules to announce a Power Down
when my robot is undamaged, but i expect to receive heavy damage the
following turn, or does it mean that if i announce the power down but
does not receive any of the expected damage the Power Down will be
cancelled.
--
Soeren Mors Student of Computer Science
mo...@daimi.aau.dk at the university of Aarhus
--- Who is general failure, and why ----
------- is he reading drive c: ---------
U.Schoop
On 17 Sep 1997, Soeren Mors wrote:
> sr...@iaxs.net (Scott Raun) writes:
>
> >
> > Found my reference - it's in the turn description
> >
> > http://www.wizards.com/Games/RoboRally/Rulebook/Welcome.html
> >
> > Announce PowerDown
> >
> > A robot can use a PowerDown to repair damage. ONLY DAMAGED
> > ROBOTS (emphasis added) may choose to power down. When a robot powers
> > down, all damage is immediately repaired. Any damage sustained while
> > the robot is powered down is, unfortunately, new damage that
> > must be repaired in a subsequent PowerDown or in another
> > manner. A PowerDown announced this turn takes effect on the
> > next turn.
>
> Does this mean that its against the rules to announce a Power Down
> when my robot is undamaged, but i expect to receive heavy damage the
> following turn, or does it mean that if i announce the power down but
> does not receive any of the expected damage the Power Down will be
> cancelled.
>
Hi !
I think one can only announce a Power Down when the robot is damaged.
Otherwise it would be too easy to cross the laser maze. *devilgrin*
Roony