★ TouchArcade needs your help. Click here to support us on Patreon.

Reiner Knizia's Robot Master for iPhone/iPod Touch coming soon!

06-25-2009, 11:13 AM
#1
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 146
Reiner Knizia's Robot Master for iPhone/iPod Touch coming soon!

* UPDATE * Reiner Knizia's Robot Master has been approved and is now available!
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=321202624&mt=8

Hey everyone,

Reiner Knizia's third game for the iPhone and iPod touch is coming soon and this time it's Robot Master!

FEATURES

* Solo play: compete against players from around the world as you strive to be the best on the online High Score table!

* Versus play: challenge a friend (Pass'n Play) or the AI to go head to head. This time, one player takes the columns, and the other takes the rows. The player with the lowest scoring line loses!

* Not feeling our music? Play your own and still enjoy the game's sound effects.


It will be priced at 99 cents in the Puzzle/Strategy categories.

Look for it in the app store on July 7th

Updates will be posted at http://twitter.com/conlan.

*Also, a big thanks to playtesters mrbass, VeganTnT and Big Albie!*








Latest Game: Reiner Knizia's Samurai with turn-based, online multiplayer!

Follow for game news and updates @ twitter.com/conlan

Last edited by conlan; 07-07-2009 at 04:05 AM.
06-25-2009, 11:19 AM
#2
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 146
I just posted some rules description on board game geek, here's the link:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/3615633#3615633

Feel free to post any questions about the rules and I'll be happy to answer them!

Latest Game: Reiner Knizia's Samurai with turn-based, online multiplayer!

Follow for game news and updates @ twitter.com/conlan

06-25-2009, 11:47 AM
#3
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 4,491
I have a question...

Why can't I beat 55 on solo mode!?

I always come so so close and then the last few cards ruin it and I end up with a low score
06-25-2009, 11:54 AM
#4
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegantTnT View Post
I have a question...

Why can't I beat 55 on solo mode!?

I always come so so close and then the last few cards ruin it and I end up with a low score
I'm probably missing what you're saying, but isn't the point to get the lowest score?
06-25-2009, 11:56 AM
#5
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 4,761
Hmm I hope the beta testers read the rules before playing the game
06-25-2009, 11:57 AM
#6
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 4,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Albie View Post
I'm probably missing what you're saying, but isn't the point to get the lowest score?
Yes, but the goal is to get the Highest Low Score, haha

So let's say I play a game and my lowest line was 30. You play and your lowest line is 36. Your low score is higher than mine so you would be ranked higher on the leaderboard
06-25-2009, 11:57 AM
#7
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 146
I must admit, 55 is devilishly hard to beat. What sort of strategy are you using?

I've been experimenting with a few, one of them is rather than go for triples, go for double pairs instead. So if you have three 4's, instead of putting them all in one line, make a double in one line and another double in a cross line so it'd look like this:

4
4
4
Not good because although you get 100 in a single column, leaves you weak in the rows...

4 4
4

Better because sure, you only get 40 points, but you get that in a column *and* a row. And it makes you more versatile towards getting weaker cards later, because you've guaranteed 40 points in two lines.

Latest Game: Reiner Knizia's Samurai with turn-based, online multiplayer!

Follow for game news and updates @ twitter.com/conlan
06-25-2009, 11:59 AM
#8
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 4,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by conlan View Post
I must admit, 55 is devilishly hard to beat. What sort of strategy are you using?

I've been experimenting with a few, one of them is rather than go for triples, go for double pairs instead. So if you have three 4's, instead of putting them all in one line, make a double in one line and another double in a cross line so it'd look like this:

4
4
4
Not good because although you get 100 in a single column, leaves you weak in the rows...

4 4
4

Better because sure, you only get 40 points, but you get that in a column *and* a row. And it makes you more versatile towards getting weaker cards later, because you've guaranteed 40 points in two lines.
That's what I'm doing with the two rows instead of the 100 on one. I just need a little more luck with the cards I guess
06-25-2009, 12:01 PM
#9
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegantTnT View Post
Yes, but the goal is to get the Highest Low Score, haha

So let's say I play a game and my lowest line was 30. You play and your lowest line is 36. Your low score is higher than mine so you would be ranked higher on the leaderboard
Yup, so your final score is your lowest scoring line, but you still want the highest score possible!

So if you're playing solo play and you got lines: 100, 119, 150, 99, 10
Your final score would still only be 10 because that's your lowest scoring line. The bigger scores wouldn't help any

So you have to build evenly!! And don't neglect any weak lines!

Latest Game: Reiner Knizia's Samurai with turn-based, online multiplayer!

Follow for game news and updates @ twitter.com/conlan

Last edited by conlan; 06-25-2009 at 12:57 PM.
06-25-2009, 12:04 PM
#10
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegantTnT View Post
Yes, but the goal is to get the Highest Low Score, haha

So let's say I play a game and my lowest line was 30. You play and your lowest line is 36. Your low score is higher than mine so you would be ranked higher on the leaderboard
Ah, ok that makes sense. High score, low score, got it. The game can be pretty addicting especially when you want a quick dose of strategy without the complexity.