|
|
 | | Re: Rule check
|
| (...) So a valid strategy would be to pile up a heap of blocks and let the humans figure out what the stacks are? Add in some random driving around to knock down opponent stacks, and you know what, that could be entertaining! BTW, I agree there is (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: Rule check
|
| (...) Two block tower and a four block tower. At least, that's the way I see it... More importantly, the current scoring really doesn't give me a reason to sort--the +1 for each right block doesn't come close to justifying the effort to sort when (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: Rule check
|
| I know I'm getting incredibly picky now, but if my bot had a stack hopper that was 1x2 blocks, the following two scenarios could result (URL) So by the current scoring rules, (1) would count as two 4 block towers even though they touch, but what (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: Rule check
|
| (...) I forgot to put it in before, but in previous events, if two towers touched each other, that was acceptable. They still counted as two separate towers. Scoring applies as per normal, the rules page has been updated. Thanks Wayne and RobA for (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | | | Re: Rule check
|
| (...) My 2 cents: A tower is a tower is a tower. What should score is the hight, not the number of blocks that make up that hight. SO I'd score any three layer tower as a 3 blocks in the fabulous scoring sequence for hight points, even if each layer (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
|
