Re: Team Update 1
 

Teams playing defense just got a whole lot harder

Re: Team Update 1
 

My question right now is.

Scenario:
RED robot is scoring boulders in BLUE Courtyard.
There is a BLUE robot playing defense against that RED robot.
RED robot has no boulders available except for one sitting in BLUE Secret Passage.
RED robot travels into BLUE Secret Passage in attempt to pick up the boulder.
BLUE robot sees them traveling in to the Secret Passage to retrieve the boulder, follows them in, and continues playing defense (bumping, pushing, mainly trying to get between RED robot and the boulder, etc). Would this be a G11?

I would argue it is not a G11 and is in fact a G21 because they are not trying to intentionally cause a TECH FOUL, they are trying to play defense and keep an offensive robot from retrieving a game piece. However to an untrained eye, or maybe a passing glance by a ref, it would appear to be a G11 because of the repeated contact by BLUE onto RED in the Secret Passage and they could see it as trying to rack up TECH FOULS.

Or maybe I'm reading the update completely wrong and it would always be a G11 on the BLUE robot?

Re: Team Update 1
 

How I read the rules, if two robots make contact, the robot in the opposing team's secret passage gets the foul. So, in your example, the BLUE robot would indeed always get the foul.

Re: Team Update 1
 

I think you have this backwards. RED would get the penalty.

G21 A ROBOT contacting carpet in the opponent’s SECRET PASSAGE may not contact opposing ROBOTS, regardless of who
initiates the contact.

Re: Team Update 1
 

Yeah, this is really cool. Definitely bringing in my cardboard today for the game strategy team to play with.

Re: Team Update 1
 

That's a good followup Q&A since it's not clear. I'd lean towards that being a G11. I think the GDC thinks of the game objectives more as the scoring, etc. objectives outlined in the rules. Defense isn't seen as playing the game. At least not in the same sense as doing one of the scoring tasks in the rules. Thus the rule against disrupting the flow of "the game" by playing particularly effective defense.

Also, in your scenario it's a lot easier to argue that the BLUE robot really is trying to draw a foul on RED. BLUE is actively threatening RED with a penalty for the sole purpose of keeping RED from collecting that ball.

All that said, RED can turn that right around by tagging BLUE in the SP and then continuing on to bulldoze the ball in any particular direction. Then it's obviously a G21 by blue box standards.

So yeah, chasing boulders in an enemy secret passage is an extremely dangerous activity with enemy robots nearby.

Re: Team Update 1
 

Dangit - they still did not resolve the ambiguity of how thick the drawbridge door is. Field drawing says 1/8, manual says 1/4. I want to know how bendy it is. I can't imagine it is the 1/8, but I don't want to buy some and be wrong (it's a big piece!).

Re: Team Update 1
 

G11 Blue Box Part B

The way I read this, obviously the Red robot is not penalized. However, is it now allowed to return through the path blocked by G21, or is the Red robot allowed to break G21 to return to its original position without incurring any penalties, as a G11 was imposed on it?

Re: Team Update 1
 

Looks like they put section 4 of the administrative manual in as section 4 of the game manual in the latest update. So, I don't have full detail on the bumper rules, but...

This seems to make at least some types of scaling a disabling offense:

That's a contradiction that needs to be cleared up.

There may have been some comment about an exception to bumper rules while scaling in Section 4.7, but like I said, the admin section 4 is in the new game manual, and I don't have a second copy.

Re: Team Update 1
 

Both the Sally Port and the drawbridge have two pieces of .125" sandwiched together (for a total of .25").

From GE-16048 DOOR ASSEMBLY, DRAWBRIDGE

Re: Team Update 1
 

There's a note on drawing GE-16048 that says the real field will have two back-to-back pieces of 0.125 for aesthetic purposes, attached to be functionally equivalent to 0.25.

I suspect the original design had a single 0.25" piece with wood print on one side. They obviously realized that would scar very easily, and are now going with the 0.125 sandwich with the wood print in the middle.

EDIT: And sniped. Ah well.

Re: Team Update 1
 

Fairly certain that the way this rule is phrased, it means that your bumpers must stay fairly static relative to the chassis. Basically, if you put a piece of plywood underneath all the wheels(or tread) on the bottom of your robot and consider that to be the floor, your bumpers must stay within the 4-12 inches off of the plywood.

This rule is meant to stop people from making designs that remove their bumpers for any reason. Similar to the height rules that allow for lenience when the robot is not oriented straight

Re: Team Update 1
 

That's covered by R23 and R21-G. And, it's not fairly static, it's truly static as those rules read:
Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

Re: Team Update 1
 

It's essentially like I called it a couple of days ago. The defending team owns the secret passage and anything they're doing there is strategic game play. If there is a boulder in the secret passage the attacking team can go in and attempt to steal it, but they better be quick because if a defender touches them, the attacker gets the penalty.

If you're going for a boulder in the SP, be fast, don't be slow and don't get touched.

Re: Team Update 1
 

So, and I think I already know the answer, if a robot was made so that, in the last 20 seconds, the frame supporting the bumpers(not the bumpers alone) was raised the two feet to be above the goal BUT the wheels remained on the ground, this would be a violation correct?