errata ...article 5

[phill_nz]

article 5 statement.....The Program cards are identical, other than their appearance.

phills comment ....am i just being pedantic or is this a really stupid statement ...further the originals were designed so a left or right handed person could read the movement number and the priority number ...these ones can only be comfortably held reading one or the other


article 5 statement.....The plastic checkpoint flags are nifty and attractive. They're also functional -- because they're transparent, you can always see what's under them.

phills comment ....which serves no use ..its now a checkpoint what it was befor means nothing ..they will also be the first thing to break


article 5 statement.....The two new Docking Bays allow each robot to begin the race in its own space. New rules on bringing destroyed robots back into play prevent two robots from reappearing in the same space at the same time. Together, these eliminate the need for those annoying virtual robots.

phills comment ....the polls are out ....virtual is better ( edit comment pertained to another site where they knew the result from players who will have almost all have played in excess of 1,000 games each ( one thousand no typo )using the virtual rules the vote is 80 in favour of virtuality v 3 against ...80 in favour 3 against )


article 5 statement..... Program sheets (one per robot) have individual spaces for program cards, damage markers, life tokens, a big, red "Power Down" marker, some background on your robot, and the turn sequence. These reduce clutter and confusion on the table.

phills comment ....so long as you now have a bigger table to fit them on ... which would have ment no trouble in the first place ( it now requires more room to play ...a standard sized coffee table is now smaller than the required size to play ... not a huge advantage )


article 5 statement.....The robots' appearances have changed slightly. The New Squash Bot looks more like the old Hulk X90; the new Hulk X90 looks more like the old Trundle Bot; and the new Trundle Bot looks more like the old Squash Bot. The Hammer Bot, Spin Bot, and Zoom Bot look different but not like any of the old 'bots.

phills comment ....ask me who didnt even check what they looked like befor ...or... who didnt check what went to the printer


article 5 statement.....The game markers have changed significantly for the better. All are in full color and are identical on front and back, so they're never upside down. Damage tokens are triangular, life tokens are round, and the newly-added archive markers are square.

phills comment ....archive markers came out with crash and burn( edit incorrect it came out with armed and dangerous ) ... i could quite quickly spot markers that were upside down....and i knew instantly from the design what each was for ... ( edit comment ..deleted humorous comment on present rr developers )


article 5 statement.....The four boards are backprinted, making a total of eight boards instead of the original game's six. Each of the new boards has an old board on one side and a new board on the other. The old boards that reappear here are Cross, Exchange, Island, and Maelstrom. Pit Maze and Cannery Row from the original game are gone. The four boards printed on the opposite sides are completely new, never-before-seen factory sections. The new boards are the same size as before. If you have boards from previous editions of RoboRally, you can keep using them with the new edition.

phills comment ....it makes a total of....4 boards.. there are many combinations of layouts you now cant make ( anything with the other board on the back of the one you are using + the original game is 20 boards not 6...ok 21 for those 6 lucky people that played the final at origins with garfield )


article 5 statement.....Perhaps the biggest change on the boards happened on the repair sites. Before, repair sites with two wrenches allowed you to repair one point of damage and draw an Option card or repair two points of damage. It was hard to turn down two repair points, so Option cards didn't come into play very often. That was unfortunate because Option cards add a lot to the game. Consequently, those two-wrench spaces have been replaced with wrench/hammer spaces that always repair one point of damage and give you an Option card, with no alternative.

phills comment ....already been there ( edit comment will paste the relevant thread here .....Quote (edit comment name deleted but this guy would be the most pedantic methodical analyst i have met ..on the net net not in person )
From Article 5:

Quote
Perhaps the biggest change on the boards happened on the repair sites. Before, repair sites with two wrenches allowed you to repair one point of damage and draw an Option card or repair two points of damage. It was hard to turn down two repair points, so Option cards didn't come into play very often.

What other game were they playing when they wrote this? In the early game, double wrenches are more crowded than flags because everyone is loading up on options!

phills comment.....agree with you +++

when i read it thought...we never got an option and repaired we either did one or the other

so this morning i blew the dust off the game case and took out the rule books and factory floor guides

both state ...

(factory floor guide) " also robots on a repair site with two wrenches may choose to receive an option card instead of receiving repairs. "

(rule book)..." (also, a player ending a turn on a two-wrench repair site may choose to take an option card instead of repairing 2 points of damage.) "

which gets us back to ...have these ( edit comment removed some xx's ) ever even played the game
and for sure for every bot that repaired heaps more would grab an option card ... maybe 5/1 at least
at 1 repair + an option ..i doubt any would repair 2
hmm maybe they mixed it with chop shop ....checking ...nope different.... no repairs at chop shop..it has phase based swap or reload existing options.. draw another option at end of turn

further some thing else i was wondering about regards the robot arm ... in the faq sheet issued with grand prix ....
Q.. can a robot "tag" a chop shop with the robotic arm ?.....
A.. no, the robotic arm can only "tag" checkpoints ( answers (differently) another of ( edit comment name deleted ) q's )...again making the point ..have they even bothered to play the game ...or read the rules properly



hmm better check the first edition books and guide as well ( edit comment edited for clarity here )

nope same
however the glossary words it "the two wrench repair spots can add an option to the robot instead of repairing damage"

they also said they rewrote the book in a diiferent style as the original was confusing and hard to understand ....yea right for someone with the reading age and comprehension of a 2 year old !!!!!!!!!

perhaps as a funding option ( edit comment name deleted ) can offer to correct their mistakes and run the faq's from here ...pretty dam sure we could give far more logical answers than that bunch of ( edit comment some xx's deleted ) ... as for asking then anything ..i just wouldnt bother



article 5 statement.....Rules-wise, the game has been simplified a little and streamlined a lot. This is still the same RoboRally game that you know and love.

phills comment ....sob ...no its not !!!


article 5 statement.....The rules are presented in a straightforward, conversational manner instead of the previous edition's cute but often confusing flow chart structure. This rule book is clearer, shorter, and much more colorful.

phills comment ....ahh it was all for the colour ...its clear now

[phill_nz]

to the forum boss

i have edited this to what i hope is acceptable for your site ( if it needs more change please advise me and i will fix asap )

thanks

phill

[phill_nz]

not sure if this ones acceptable or not ..please advise or delete as you see fit

well its official

everything has changed for the better

cough... splutter... as expected ..they wrecked a really special game


Q... how does hasbro make thousands a year from a product

A.... buy one that makes millions


cheers

phill

[puggimer]

Phil;

I first saw the concept of using a double wrench site to heal one point and gain an option introduced by WOTC in some of the original tournaments - I believe they called it 'Super wrenches". This was actually something Richard Garfield always liked. He also likes to play with everyone starting out the game with an option.

I played with him at Origins this last year and asked him several questions about the upcoming edition - and getting rid of virtual bots and increasing the use of options were two of his main goals in the new edition. He also wanted it to come with fully painted robots (he has yet to paint any of his) - I think this was technically done - though only by the letter, not the intent.

[phill_nz]

we start out with 2 options

and with 2 damage ( the bots were haywire which was the reson they were seconded to the race in the first place ,,, you could start powered down on first move to come in second move fully repaired )

virtuality ..is one of the most innovative and fair ways of starting a game like this i have come across ... the comments that have been made during the poll and seeing the alternative in the new edition have made it far more likely that all 3 against would change their vote than any of the supporters..the 3 votes against were registed early in the vote befor many comments / obsevations were made

there was no reson why they could not have stuck with virtuality as the primary rule and also introduced the start boards as a learning version or for the munchkins to play

i spent hours and hours painting and repainting my ( second edition ) bots till i got something that looked acceptable
the first edition bots i sent to indonesia to be painted ..they look great but are to fragile to play with ... there are plenty around who will paint them for you ..ask at any games type workshop or wargames club / shop

[puggimer]

I have no problem painting them myself. I painted my 2nd ed bots about five years ago (and am now properly embarrassed looking at them, having spent the intervening time painting three different armies for WFB).

I just don't like them pushing that these are 'painted' miniatures. Yes, they have a coat of metalic paint and a black wash, so they are technically 'painted'. But when you see what WOTC can do with their Star Wars and D&D miniatures (even those in Betrayal at the House on the Hill have color) then it is very disappointing.

[phill_nz]

yes well
its a game that doesnt suit their mainstream marketing strategy at all
it doesnt appeal to their normal market in the numbers that they think they need

they should have sold it to a smaller company who would have the ability to take it on as a project and not tryed to munchkinise it so much to fit their marketing dept ideals its certainly not going to enhance their reputation ...rather just confirm it to those that have seen ah and wotc change from what they were to clones of hasbro

it was written on the wall for most to see as soon as wotc got the franchise for pokemon ..if they hadnt acquired that the game and wotc would still be up and running as a leader in its field

[gryphon202]

:eek:

I personally have somewhat mixed feelings about the latest edition of RR. That having been said, I guess it was only a matter of time before some of the veteran players started ripping the changes.

I'd kind of like to see figures on two different numbers: How many people ripping the new game own it (I'm guessin probably quite a few, actually), and of those people, how many people are playing it despite its so-called "short-comings?" (Also, I'd think, a large number)

Game companies don't have to make games that garner massive amounts of critical acclaim; they just have to make games that sell. I think RR will sell, and I think it's biggest niche will be people that have played it before.

Anyhow, I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack, to Phil or anyone else. In my not-so-humble opinion, the very essence of the game of RoboRally is still here, even if many of the specific rules have changed. That's not necessarily a bad thing on its face, but it will certainly be difficult for those of us who don't face change well.

And if any of you are curious, the only thing that really burns my bacon about this new set is the movement card design. They should have numbers on the indices, like with the old cards. :cool:

[bmeyaard]

Welcome to the boards gryphon! I haven't seen the new edition yet, but Gencon is calling, and I can't wait.

[phill_nz]

no offence taken at all ... no reson to ..ultimately its just a game that they have bought the rights to do as they please with ... they have as expected tryed to fit it into the mainstream ... ' failed ' ( also as expected ) ..it just would be nice if they accepted their limitations and sold it to someone else ... i would expect that most that play it ( all the ones i know anyway ) would prefer it kept at the original level of complexity ..or even advanced further ... but thats just not the way that hasbro does things

[gryphon202]

Oh, I would have liked to seen a more advanced game, rather than less, but sorry Phil...most of the people I know that play RR aren't as torked off about it as you are.

Ya see, I figure that from the tone of the instruction book, particularly, the new version of RR is being targeted at people that have never played before. We, the people that have been playing Avalon Hill games for the last 20 years or so, simply aren't the target audience of these reprints.

So what does this mean?

Simply this: I plan on taking my old expansion boards and incorporating them into the new game. There's absolutely no reason you couldn't; the size of the boards was even purposely kept the same for precisely that reason. With new every new expansion, new board elements were added. There's no reason to think that you couldn't add new board elements on your own, and use the "older" turn sequences, as it were.

In summary, do I think they could have done things differently? Definitely. Do I think they should have? Well, that's a little harder for me to answer. I have to believe that if I had never played RR before, it would be easier for me to get into this game than the old version. The truth of the matter is, if Hasbro-***-Avalon Hill targeted RR only at older players (which they definitely would be doing by keeping virtuality et. al the same), they'd artificially be limiting the size of their market; as big as Hasbro is, that's foolish for any game company to do.

I'm playing devil's advocate here on some aspects of this arguement, but there are two undeniable facts that have come into play for me:

A) Certain parts of the old game were difficult for me to teach to people that weren't familiar with strategy gaming (viz-a-viz, virtuality)

B) These aspects of the game are easier for me to teach to non-gamers now (viz-a-viz docking bays)

In the final analysis, I'm happier now that RR will have a wider audience. I don't feel like we've given up that much, that I'm going to spew bile and be upset over it. Every gaming company in existence, regardless of size, wants to sell games and make money.

[puggimer]

I believe the new game is extremely easy to teach, and very little has been lost. I brought it in to work to show some people, and now we have a regular Friday RoboRally session at lunch! And at least half of these people don't own a single game on their own (including the guy who kicked our butts last week - his first win!) and are not generally gamers at all.

The way I look at it, there are always things to nitpick about anything - the key is to make the best of it and be thankful that it is back in print, and, with any luck, will be supported with expansions for the future.

[phill_nz]

A) Certain parts of the old game were difficult for me to teach to people that weren't familiar with strategy gaming (viz-a-viz, virtuality)

B) These aspects of the game are easier for me to teach to non-gamers now (viz-a-viz docking bays)
yup but as i said there is no reson they could not have kept virtuality as the primary rule and use the docking boards as teaching aids

the new set will have the bots painted and the boards used ... but the rules will be from the original ... as a designer myself ..i would be so po if somebody found a new design/mod of mine worse than the original .. thats just pride in my work .. pride in the product comes from the quality checking

[gryphon202]

Well what's the definition of "failure" here? This is my whole point. If "failure" is the failure to live up to your expectations, Phil, then Hasbro/AH has failed tremendously. Guess what? They're not going to fail on the basis of one person's opinion, and I highly doubt that most people on the corporate ladder at Hasbro will even care much.

Most gamers I know like the new version of RR; not all, but most. That's what counts. It's not who - it's all about numbers. Sad? Perhaps. It certainly sucks for the cynical among us who think of ourselves as hardcore hobbyist-gamers. But if RoboRally is as popular as it was the first go-round, I personally believe that it will be worth the tweaks as they stand.

[phill_nz]

if it was "just" my opinion ..then perhaps you would be right...but when i say people i know that play ..im talking ... 250 pluss .. almost certainly a lot more than anyone else here ... i dont recall any comment lauding this version .. there are a large amount that find it sadly laughable though
my final word ...the spin doctors here can make of that as they will ... perhaps they may even give it some thought
ps..enjoy your dreams

[gryphon202]

Well here's my final word, Phil, after which I will no longer post to this thread.

Fact: Game shops are selling out of RR to this very day.

Fact: No one will like every version of every game they've ever played.

Fact: Finding 250 people that you know is absolutely no indication of a board game's popularity, when that game has been played by hundreds-of-thousands of people the world over.

Fact: Any game designer that gets as upset with criticism as you are with RR's design staff has no business designing games - period.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but I'm glad that I picked my copy up, as are most of the people that post to these boards. If you don't like your copy, good luck getting back the money that you paid for it, people. I hear funagain.com is a great place to pawn off your used games.

[boylermaker]

I haven't gotten the game yet, but I do have one comment,
phills comment ....the polls are out ....virtual is better ( edit comment pertained to another site where they knew the result from players who will have almost all have played in excess of 1,000 games each ( one thousand no typo )using the virtual rules the vote is 80 in favour of virtuality v 3 against ...80 in favour 3 against )
As a fairly casual gamer (at least, in regards to this sort of game), the people that I (and the friends that I play with, too) feel inclined to listen to are not the sort of people who have played 1000 games. I will sooner listen to the not-so-nuts-about-RoboRally kind of people, who all seem to think that the docking bays are better. . . . just a thought.

[puggimer]

The way I look at it - the game may not be perfect, but it is better than being dead. At least now we have a current, supported game. And I've got to play much more now than I have in many years thanks to it coming back out.

[StormKnight]

cough... splutter... as expected ..they wrecked a really special game
I agree with some of your points...but I think this is a little over the top.
The game has not really changed much.

Yes, the boards are lower quality. That is a downer, but it does not affect the game play.

The robot figures are a matter of opinion. They work, you can easily tell which way you are pointing. This isn't supposed to be a "miniatures" game, so I can't say I care too much what the markers are like.

Two options got left out, but two more were put in instead. I don't find either turret or shield particularly exciting, so I don't really see this as a problem.

I agree that whoever thought you "hardly ever draw options" certainly didn't play like we did - we hardly ever used double wrenches for repair, but I think the option + repair 1 is generally a better rule. It means a damaged player never has to pass up drawing options (the fun stuff) to fix a little damage.

The only point I really agree on is the starting board. Virtual was a terribly clunky way of handling things, and I can see why they wanted to get rid of it, but I never really had it cause any problems, where the incredible off-balance of the starting board REALLY hurts the game.