View Full Version : IRI Rule Changes for 2011
Chris Fultz
08-06-2011, 14:11
Thank you to everyone for the ideas and comments in the "Proposed' thread.
Below are the rule changes planned for 2011 IRI. Our goal is to tweek the rules a little, not to make wholesale changes to the game. We think these adjustments add something to gameplay and can create more excitement for end-game strategies. Specifics will be outlined at the event and as always, the head ref has the final decision.
Changes -
Uber Tubes -
Uber tubes can also be scored in the tele-operated period.
They will only be worth points if they are scored in autonomous.
They will be doublers if scored in autonomous or teleoperated.
Other Tubes -
Tube values for the bottom row are increased from 1 point to 2 points.
Uber tube values for the bottom row are increased from 2 points to 4 points.
Mini-Bot
Deployment time rules apply (i.e. last 10 seconds).
1st Place - 20 points
2nd place - 20 points
3rd place - 15 points
4th place - 15 points
There will be a relaxation of the lane violation rules that will allow minor excursions into the lane. If there is opponent robot or tube contact a penalty will still be called.
There may be a relaxation of the 18" plane rule for mini-bot deployment mechanisms (but not to the requirement to deploy below the line). More details to be provided.
Awesome rule changes. I can't wait to see how dramatically the game changes as a result of these rules.
safetycap'n111
08-06-2011, 15:24
If we apply all of these rule changes, what does the possible high score come out to be?
Kyoshirin
08-06-2011, 15:38
It's 4 less than what the max used to be. You lose 10 from the minibot races, and gain 6 from the bottom row.
With the GDC max score being 158, that puts the IRI max score at 154.
Hope it helps. :)
It's 4 less than what the max used to be. You lose 10 from the minibot races, and gain 6 from the bottom row.
With the GDC max score being 158, that puts the IRI max score at 154.
Hope it helps. :)
But there are 2 bottom rows so the max score actually becomes 160.
Katie_UPS
08-06-2011, 15:45
More ubertubes! :D
It's actually 160, if doubled, the increase is 12
Chris is me
08-06-2011, 16:03
It's actually 160, if doubled, the increase is 12
There are still only 3 UberTubes.
Anyway, these are wonderful changes. Thanks IRI!
Chris Fultz
08-06-2011, 16:13
There are still only 3 UberTubes.
Actually, there are 6 ....
BrendanB
08-06-2011, 16:18
Actually, there are 6 ....
That will be very interesting! I'd love to see 233, 1114, and 1503 doing a 6 ubertube.
thefro526
08-06-2011, 16:35
That will be very interesting! I'd love to see 233, 1114, and 1503 doing a 6 ubertube.
Can't/Won't happen.
There are 6 Ubertubes on the field, 3 for each Alliance. One alliance could, in theory score all 6 if the other alliance were to drop all of their ubertubes - but those would probably be score in teleop.
GCentola
08-06-2011, 16:36
First, I think these changes are great, and i like the balance of minibots! How the game changes will be interesting to watch! Second, my friend and I got 189 somehow. 18 for auto, 72 for top row (if 6 ubers are used), 24 for middle and 24 for bottom and 40 for minibots, which now comes out to 178. Im not exactly sure though.
Regardless, I look forward to attending!
BrendanB
08-06-2011, 16:45
Can't/Won't happen.
There are 6 Ubertubes on the field, 3 for each Alliance. One alliance could, in theory score all 6 if the other alliance were to drop all of their ubertubes - but those would probably be score in teleop.
Sorry I miss read that!
I'm really happy with these rules. Especially the modified minibot scores, because now my team won't have to spend all of June designing a ramp deployment system. I also like the modified ubertube scoring. It should add an interesting element to the game.
I can't wait to see how the game plays out!
Jared Russell
08-06-2011, 21:46
Awesome changes. Thanks for giving me back my July which would have otherwise been spent building deployment ramps!
Craig Roys
08-06-2011, 22:27
Does ubertube have to be BEHIND tube to be a doubler or could it be placed overtop of a tube already hung? Not sure this will even be an issue as I would think that the number 1 priority will be to make sure your 3 ubertubes are scored so you don't lose them, making it unlikely that any other tubes will be hung yet.
Does ubertube have to be BEHIND tube to be a doubler or could it be placed overtop of a tube already hung? Not sure this will even be an issue as I would think that the number 1 priority will be to make sure your 3 ubertubes are scored so you don't lose them, making it unlikely that any other tubes will be hung yet.
It definitely could be if there is tube starvation going on. Saving it until you are sure that you'll have the logo completed might be good. This of course only really applies to teams that won't score them during autonomous.
Jason
MagiChau
09-06-2011, 00:36
Awesome changes. Thanks for giving me back my July which would have otherwise been spent building deployment ramps!
Do it for science! Even if minibot race positions have been lowered in their valuability in the game its still cool finishing #1 :p
Nick Lawrence
09-06-2011, 10:06
Thank you for maximizing our practice time instead of reducing it by fixing the race point values. These rule changes are awesome, it will actually make Logomotion a lot more fun to play.
*stands up and applauds and cheers*
-Nick
Andy Baker
09-06-2011, 10:47
Thank you for maximizing our practice time instead of reducing it by fixing the race point values. These rule changes are awesome, it will actually make Logomotion a lot more fun to play.
*stands up and applauds and cheers*
-Nick
The rule changes that end up not working well are the ones that were thought of by Chris Fultz, Jeff Smith, and Stu Bloom. Heh. Just kiddin'.
Seriously, the credit for these rule changes go to the CD posters who gave great input in this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=95263). We just listened.
Sincerely,
Andy B.
GCentola
09-06-2011, 11:53
I really like the minibot changes from a gameplay perspective! It really balances things out. Instead of a 25 point difference, there is only a 10 point difference between getting 1&2 and 3&4, which can be made up from logos. It is also helpful that we don't have to spend out time trying to make the min-bot ridiculously fast and design in a ramp-deployment system! As long as you have an alliance partner that can guarantee first (or even second), the points balance themselves out and each allaince can get the same number of points.
I also like how the bottom row is now the same as the middle. And the new uber rules. I definitely look forward to seeing how the game changes (coming up qwith new strategies is always fun!) and playing in the company of teams who I respect highly!
In the words of Dave Lavery "Good Luck, and we'll see you aty the competitions"
The rule changes that end up not working well are the ones that were thought of by Chris Fultz, Jeff Smith, and Stu Bloom. Heh. Just kiddin'.
Seriously, the credit for these rule changes go to the CD posters who gave great input in this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=95263). We just listened.
Sincerely,
Andy B.
Thanks for listening. I think you guys did a really good job of filtering the collective to come up with a great set of rules. I hadn't thought beforehand how fun it will be to possibly "steal" an ubertube at the beginning of the match. This will add some exciting strategies relative to specific opponents. Very cool.
Incidentally any comments on minibots that hit the top but fail to trigger the tower?
I<3IRI
Travis Hoffman
09-06-2011, 16:38
I hadn't thought beforehand how fun it will be to possibly "steal" an ubertube at the beginning of the match. This will add some exciting strategies relative to specific opponents. Very cool.
I never really bothered to look at this much during the season, but wouldn't most missed ubertubes fall into the other alliance's safe zone, where they cannot be stolen? Imagine if you made it legal to go anywhere - including safe zones - to pick up ubertubes...scrum!
If you want to talk about stealing - suspend the penalty for crossing the midfield line in auton - steal ubertubes from would-be 2/3 tube scorers. That would lead to too many robot collisions and bad juju due to misaligned robots going off who knows where. But it would be a fun dynamic when it worked. :)
I do like the decrease in minibot points, but i wish that all places still had different point values. it removes some of the suspense. However, i guess that suspense is made up for by teams still scoring tubes. maybe 20-17-14-11. But obviously its a little late for that.
Good luck to all the teams,
See you there,
-duke
robodude03
09-06-2011, 20:02
I never really bothered to look at this much during the season, but wouldn't most missed ubertubes fall into the other alliance's safe zone, where they cannot be stolen? Imagine if you made it legal to go anywhere - including safe zones - to pick up ubertubes...scrum!
This was my thought as well, until I remembered that some robots do not have an autonomous or shut it off due to another robot having a double tube auton. I think its safe to say that IRI will have most robots with at least a single tube auton, but I am wondering whether it's worth the risk to leave a tube on the ground "in front" of the robot so that it can be placed on the same row as the others. Obviously the ideal method would be to have each robot to place a tube on the same side of the grid, but that gets crowded and increases the risk of dropping a tube into the opposing alliance lane. It will be interesting to see which method is preferred at IRI.
GaryVoshol
09-06-2011, 20:18
I never really bothered to look at this much during the season, but wouldn't most missed ubertubes fall into the other alliance's safe zone, where they cannot be stolen? Imagine if you made it legal to go anywhere - including safe zones - to pick up ubertubes...scrum!
If you want to talk about stealing - suspend the penalty for crossing the midfield line in auton - steal ubertubes from would-be 2/3 tube scorers. That would lead to too many robot collisions and bad juju due to misaligned robots going off who knows where. But it would be a fun dynamic when it worked. :)
Since Ubertubes can be scored in teleop, you wouldn't have to steal them in auton. And if one fell into the opponent's Zone ... well, what's a 3-point penalty compared to scoring another Ubertube?
Craig Roys
10-06-2011, 08:40
I'd be surprised to see very many stolen ubertubes - as I said previously, I believe the number one priority of teams will be to hang any ubertubes that they were unable to hang in auton.
Another interesting dynamic - would it be worth it to take a 3 pt penalty crossing the center line to try and break up a 2-tube auton and attempt to steal an ubertube? Might be some interesting play early in matches.
No, because crossing the center line during auton and contacting an opponents robot gets you a red card, not just a penalty
Jared Russell
10-06-2011, 09:49
No, because crossing the center line during auton and contacting an opponents robot gets you a red card, not just a penalty
Can you cite a rule? As long as you don't touch a robot or tube in the ZONE, a 3 point penalty is all that should be called. The finals at the New Jersey Regional featured a team crossing the line and interfering with the other alliance's autonomous mode (albeit unintentionally), and there was no red card.
I had a "kamikaze" autonomous mode in our back pocket at Champs, just in case we were paired with a double tube scorer and we would have been freed up.
thefro526
10-06-2011, 09:56
Can you cite a rule? As long as you don't touch a robot or tube in the ZONE, a 3 point penalty is all that should be called. The finals at the New Jersey Regional featured a team crossing the line and interfering with the other alliance's autonomous mode (albeit unintentionally), and there was no red card.
I had a "kamikaze" autonomous mode in our back pocket at Champs, just in case we were paired with a double tube scorer and we would have been freed up.
Pretty sure G11 is the only rule that references crossing the line in autonomous mode.
<G11> ROBOTS may not break the plane of the CENTER LINE.
Violation: PENALTY
I couldn't find any mention of contacting an opponent or tube in Autonomous, so as far as I can tell crossing to pickup a tube or block an opponent would be legal, aside from breaking G11. (In no way am I telling anyone to get a penalty on purpose to gain a competitive advantage.)
I can't remember exactly, but I thought at one of the competitions I reffed at we decided that it would be a red card because it was against the spirit of the game, which is one of the blanket rules they give head refs that aren't exactly in the manual.
I might be crazy though. Thats a strong possibility.
Andrew Schreiber
10-06-2011, 11:47
I can't remember exactly, but I thought at one of the competitions I reffed at we decided that it would be a red card because it was against the spirit of the game, which is one of the blanket rules they give head refs that aren't exactly in the manual.
I might be crazy though. Thats a strong possibility.
Someone please tell me that refs can't just "decide" things should be red cards... I would like to think that when I design my robot/strategy I know all the ways I can get DQ'd/Penalized and that some group of "spirit of the game" people can't just decide my strategy is wrong and DQ me.
Though the 1st and 2nd minibot point values are the same, does the 1st place minibot still break a tie in eliminations?
thefro526
10-06-2011, 13:16
Someone please tell me that refs can't just "decide" things should be red cards... I would like to think that when I design my robot/strategy I know all the ways I can get DQ'd/Penalized and that some group of "spirit of the game" people can't just decide my strategy is wrong and DQ me.
Technically, T06 and T09 could be applied here:
<T06> The Head Referee may assign a YELLOW CARD as a warning of egregious ROBOT or
TEAM member behavior at the ARENA. A YELLOW CARD will be indicated by the Head
Referee standing in front of the TEAM’S PLAYER STATION and holding a yellow card in the
air after the completion of the MATCH. In the first MATCH that a TEAM receives a
YELLOW CARD, it acts as a warning.
<T09> If the behavior is particularly egregious, a RED CARD may be issued without being
preceded by a YELLOW CARD, at the Head Referee’s discretion. The TEAM will still carry a
YELLOW CARD into subsequent matches
Guess it depends on if you interpret crossing the line in Autonomous to intentionally contact another robot or to steal one of their ubertubes to be Egregious?
I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.
Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final.
Mike Soukup
10-06-2011, 13:48
I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.
Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final.
Well I hope you aren't head ref at any event we're at. If the GDC wanted to penalize crossing the line and contacting an opponent with a red card, they would have put it in the rules. It's not the referee's place to make up rules, they're supposed to apply the ones that are written. In my mind, egregious behavior is bashing a robot until it's damaged or a drive team member swearing at a referee or opponent.
You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.
I looked up the word sabotage and found "Deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something)". I generally think of it as destroying or damaging but the dictionary says obstruction counts so I'll go with it. Obstructing another teams ability to perform is kind of the point of defense. I'd hope that nobody would find defense egregarious unless it was intentially trying to damage other robots. This should be an easy call. Definite penalty for breaking the rules. Definitely not cause for a red card unless it is specifically wrote in the manual. T06 and T09 just don't fit this situation. I'm sure alot of offensive teams would love to call T06 every time somebody blocks the goal and sabotages their ability to score. Thankfully they can't. It would definitely depend on what they did when they crossed the plane as to whether or not a card should be given. If it is well programmed to steal a tube it is strategy. If it is ram full speed ahead, that is generally covered in the manual elsewhere.
Jason
GaryVoshol
10-06-2011, 13:55
PJ, perhaps you're remembering a situation where the robot not only went backward over the center line, but also went all the way to the other team's zone. That's a second penalty. Should the robot touch another robot that is in the zone, that's a red card under <G32>.
Andrew Schreiber
10-06-2011, 13:56
I feel like most people would interpret crossing the line with the only purpose being to screw up the other teams auton as egregious behavior, its along the same lines as not being able to shove an opponent into your lane without being penalized. You are intentionally sabotaging another teams ability to perform.
Thats just how I would call it if I was head ref, it makes people mad but when it comes down to judgments like this the head ref's decision is final.
Then you and I have vastly different opinions of egregious.
Any ref who would red card a team for playing SMART (take a penalty to prevent 1 or 2 uber tubes from being scored is a smart move since you are trading 3 points for a significant amount of points) has no right being a ref. They are there to enforce the rules as written not to editorialize on how we should play the game. If the GDC wanted teams to be left alone they would either not make it worth our time to play defensively or make it a red card. (I would prefer the former.)
thefro526
10-06-2011, 14:00
Perhaps discussion of the definition of 'egregious behavior' deserves it's own thread? It seems that many people disagree on what it means.
Chris is me
10-06-2011, 14:10
How can "egregious behavior" be redefined as "breaking any rule"? If an autonomous disruption is "egregious", so is any and all defense. That interpretation is ridiculous.
How can "egregious behavior" be redefined as "breaking any rule"? If an autonomous disruption is "egregious", so is any and all defense. That interpretation is ridiculous.
Ok, that makes 5 posts that basically say "I disagree" in various ways. Now, lets give him a chance to respond with more of his thoughts.
Jason
Thanks Gary, thats what it was.
Now I feel stupid. My argument was based off of a flawed memory I had, so I was making points on what I thought was correct based on that memory. So I retract my statement about the red card, which I never said I agreed with, I was just trying to justify it.
Obviously I need to look over the rules before MARC...:ahh:
XaulZan11
10-06-2011, 15:06
I'd hope that nobody would find defense egregarious unless it was intentially trying to damage other robots.
Well, we got a red card on our last match (http://www.teamtators.org/Media/2011Newton/Newt_139.MP4)on Newton for "egregarious behavior" when playing defense on 1503. We were driving between the towers blocking 1503 from entering and exiting the scoring zone. A couple of times we would push 1503 square on the side as they were getting by us. I thought we did a good job playing defense until we got a red card for 'egregarious behavior." The head ref said that we can screen them from entering and leaving the zone, but once they start to get past us, we need to let them go; basically, we got the red card when we were pushing them from the side. Right at 60 seconds, the ref waves their blue flag for a penalty; I believe that was the red card, but I could be wrong.
I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine.
At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us...
I don't think that hitting a robot during auton doesn't get a red card because at niles finals, 2771's robot somehow went backwards during the last match and bumped into a robot but I think only a penalty was given out...I'm not 100% sure on that though...
Aren_Hill
10-06-2011, 23:43
I was actually ready to spend the summer making a new spiffy minibot deploy, I suppose it'll be more normal now. Sad day
waialua359
11-06-2011, 03:05
I was actually ready to spend the summer making a new spiffy minibot deploy, I suppose it'll be more normal now. Sad day
I like this entire statement, except change sad to "Great." :)
Nick Lawrence
12-06-2011, 13:35
Well, we got a red card on our last match (http://www.teamtators.org/Media/2011Newton/Newt_139.MP4)on Newton for "egregarious behavior" when playing defense on 1503. We were driving between the towers blocking 1503 from entering and exiting the scoring zone. A couple of times we would push 1503 square on the side as they were getting by us. I thought we did a good job playing defense until we got a red card for 'egregarious behavior." The head ref said that we can screen them from entering and leaving the zone, but once they start to get past us, we need to let them go; basically, we got the red card when we were pushing them from the side. Right at 60 seconds, the ref waves their blue flag for a penalty; I believe that was the red card, but I could be wrong.
I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine.
At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us...
I honestly felt that the red card was not deserved. It was just honest, hard defense and nothing more. I even spoke with 1732's driver afterwards and chatted about his great job at defense.
-Nick
Maybe people are just exaggerating a bit, but i don't see why everyone's now saying there's no need to work really hard on the minibot and deployment. Just because every team at IRI is an all-star team doesnt mean all four towers are going to be triggered every match, let alone 3. I saw some of the best teams in the world this year consistently miss deployments . And the minibot race is almost more important now because of how close matches are going to be based on tubes, and the extra 10 points Alliance A might get will help them a ton. I'm just glad my team has worked hard on a new deployment. We now have a drop-down deployer with a "Y" to center us and a minibot ramp that propels a 2 1/4 lb. magnet-mounted 1.2 second minibot. :cool:
Well, we got a red card on our last match (http://www.teamtators.org/Media/2011Newton/Newt_139.MP4)on Newton for "egregarious behavior" when playing defense on 1503. We were driving between the towers blocking 1503 from entering and exiting the scoring zone. A couple of times we would push 1503 square on the side as they were getting by us. I thought we did a good job playing defense until we got a red card for 'egregarious behavior." The head ref said that we can screen them from entering and leaving the zone, but once they start to get past us, we need to let them go; basically, we got the red card when we were pushing them from the side. Right at 60 seconds, the ref waves their blue flag for a penalty; I believe that was the red card, but I could be wrong.
I spotted Aidan Browne a little bit after the match and explained him the situation and later saw him talking to the refs on Newton. After we got picked, and saw we were going against 1503 in the first round, we talked to the refs again to determine exactly what we could or couldn't do and they said essentally said what we did in the qualification match was fine.
At the time we were no where near the top 8 and really had no chance to win that match, so we weren't upset about the red card, but more confused. I think it just shows how confusing and how many judgement calls were in logomotion. I'm just glad that match didn't matter to us...
If you look closely, you received a red card for pushing an oponent into your lane, not for defending. It is a red card in the rules(i don't remember which number). It is a red card because normaly they would get a penalty, but because you caused them to cross the line, it is a red card on you.
Hope this clears this up.
Chris is me
12-06-2011, 19:45
If you look closely, you received a red card for pushing an oponent into your lane, not for defending. It is a red card in the rules(i don't remember which number). It is a red card because normaly they would get a penalty, but because you caused them to cross the line, it is a red card on you.
Hope this clears this up.
Not exactly. Only if you cause them to get a red card you get a red card.
If you look closely, you received a red card for pushing an oponent into your lane, not for defending. It is a red card in the rules(i don't remember which number). It is a red card because normaly they would get a penalty, but because you caused them to cross the line, it is a red card on you.
Hope this clears this up.
If the refs told them that they got it for egregious behavior, and the refs told them that it was due to the side hits, then THAT is what they got the card for.
You may be thinking of the <G33> exception to <G61>; however, that violation is only a yellow card.
If the refs told them that they got it for egregious behavior, and the refs told them that it was due to the side hits, then THAT is what they got the card for.
You may be thinking of the <G33> exception to <G61>; however, that violation is only a yellow card.
Yes that was the rule. Although in both regionals i attended, teams did get red carded for this.
Not exactly. Only if you cause them to get a red card you get a red card.
An exception to this :confused: : Galileo F-1, 254 was pushed into the opposing score zone by an opposing team, another opposing team bumped them. 254 got the red card. ::rtm:: :confused:
Nick Lawrence
13-06-2011, 11:34
Yes that was the rule. Although in both regionals i attended, teams did get red carded for this.
An exception to this :confused: : Galileo F-1, 254 was pushed into the opposing score zone by an opposing team, another opposing team bumped them. 254 got the red card. ::rtm:: :confused:
Read as: awful but honest mistake in calling that almost completely changed the results of the 2011 World Championship entirely.
-Nick
Stu Bloom
20-07-2011, 12:20
Hello All!
I'm really looking forward to another GREAT IRI experience. Can't wait to see all of you in a couple more days ...
Here is the official "2011 IRI Rules Changes" document for your reading pleasure.
Any additional last minute changes will be communicated at the event. Safe travels everyone!
Chris is me
20-07-2011, 12:55
So you can hang an Ubertube over an existing top row logo to get the bonus?
So you can hang an Ubertube over an existing top row logo to get the bonus?
It appears that the rationale on G63 allows for bonus in the situation described above:
Rationale: To accommodate the potential of an UBERTUBE HANGING over a LOGO PIECE.
If you didnt get the bonus, there would be no reason for someone to do this, thus no reason for the rationale.
Also, in the tube scoring grid, note that it shows "Over" striked through, and replaced with "With".
Also, in the blue box below that, it states: Ubertube will double peg score when hung in front of OR behind logo piece
--------
A couple questions other than that:
-Your rationale on G33 states: "Rationale: Allows short incursions into the LANE which have no effect on game play. Note that if a
GAME PIECE is in the LANE and a ROBOT makes contact with it, the PENALTY does apply. "
What if the game piece is only partly in the lane, and the hostbot only contacts the piece outside of the lane? i know previously this would be allowed but your rationale seems to contradict this.
-You striked through G23, which now allows robots to camp at the tower spot (maybe theres still time to consider this rule being changed back? :rolleyes:)
However, the rule about the robot interfering with deployment still remains in effect. So lets say, opponent A is touching My teams tower. I go up to the tower, but instead of touching the tower, im up against the opponents robot that is touching the tower. Now, i have a super long deployment system, and despite me not touching the tower, i can still reach. So, i line up the deployer with the post, and i fire my minibot. Once my minibot has crossed the vertical projection of the base i am considered deploying, by definition. At that time, i am also in contact with the opponent's robot, thus interfering with my deployment, by rule <G24>. Will a penalty plus red card, as stated in <G24> be handed out for this situation?
Thanks,
-Duke
GaryVoshol
20-07-2011, 15:07
So you can hang an Ubertube over an existing top row logo to get the bonus?
Yup. UBERTUBE front or back, it counts.
Your rationale on G33 states: "Rationale: Allows short incursions into the LANE which have no effect on game play. Note that if a GAME PIECE is in the LANE and a ROBOT makes contact with it, the PENALTY does apply. "
What if the game piece is only partly in the lane, and the hostbot only contacts the piece outside of the lane? i know previously this would be allowed but your rationale seems to contradict this.If the HOSTBOT contacts a GAME PIECE on the part that is outside the LANE, is the HOSTBOT in the LANE?
-You striked through G23, which now allows robots to camp at the tower spot (maybe theres still time to consider this rule being changed back? :rolleyes:)
However, the rule about the robot interfering with deployment still remains in effect. So lets say, opponent A is touching My teams tower. I go up to the tower, but instead of touching the tower, im up against the opponents robot that is touching the tower. Now, i have a super long deployment system, and despite me not touching the tower, i can still reach. So, i line up the deployer with the post, and i fire my minibot. Once my minibot has crossed the vertical projection of the base i am considered deploying, by definition. At that time, i am also in contact with the opponent's robot, thus interfering with my deployment, by rule <G24>. Will a penalty plus red card, as stated in <G24> be handed out for this situation?<G61> would still apply; your robot with the super-long deployment device caused the contact so there would be no penalty or red card. This same rule change was used at MARC with no problems.
Yup. UBERTUBE front or back, it counts.
If the HOSTBOT contacts a GAME PIECE on the part that is outside the LANE, is the HOSTBOT in the LANE?
<G61> would still apply; your robot with the super-long deployment device caused the contact so there would be no penalty or red card. This same rule change was used at MARC with no problems.
I understand that the robot isn't in the lane, its just that the rationale made it kind of contradictory, but i know what you meant now.
----
As for the deployment situation, the hostbot was in contact with the other one, not necessarily the deployment system. but i guess, you could argue that the robot caused the contact with the other one.
Thanks Gary,
-duke
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.