Team Update #7
 

http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob..._Update_07.pdf

Revised definition of Hanging, model of retrieval hook (and tweaks to the retrieval rules, much in teams' favor), re-allowance of welding on the Minibot, deletion of <R96>, various software-related items, and miscellaneous reference-resolving/English-language editing.

Enjoy.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Fun fact - if your robot tips and that causes the minibot to be above 18 inches, your alliance loses a tower.

Talk about a double whammy.

However, Field Reset's hook being accessible to teams is a massive relief.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I can't seem to find this image of the hook. Can anyone post a link to it?

Re: Team Update #7
 

I'm sure that's not what they meant, but that is what they said. Sometimes you correct a rule, and then you have to correct the correction. Stand by for Team Update #8.

BTW, the DEPLOYMENT LINE is 30" above the floor - 18" above the BASE.

Hooray for the sensibility on welding.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Yet another major rules change 3 weeks in with the deletion of :

Once a GAME PIECE has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT (even momentarily) and is HANGING (e.g. it is fully supported by the PEG), it is considered to be HANGING until the end of the match.

We had planned to just move around the game pieces by taking them on and off each peg. Using one of each game piece to do the whole rack. We think we could do one full rack this way with just our robot. Now our current design is not optimized for the new game design. Why can't they just leave the rules alone instead of constantly changing them. :ahh:

Now the whole game is minibot or your loose. Our idea would have made a more even game between minibot and robot. And also better to watch.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Seems like quite nice changes, as updates go. Addresses almost all the issues that people had with last week's update.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Yes it is!

Re: Team Update #7
 

Is this really a problem? Opponent robots cannot interfere with robots while they're deploying, nevermind attempt to tip them.

Robots themselves should be able to deploy without tipping: that seems an integral part of the design?

Re: Team Update #7
 

Thank you FIRST for allowing welding on the mini-bot. I understand what the plan was, but adding welding is a massive relief on our team's shoulders and most likely others.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I don't know if this is what you meant, but it seems to me that the field crew will be doing the removing of the MINIBOT, not the teams themselves.

Re: Team Update #7
 

They'd already dealt with that by Q&A--an early Q&A had specified that it was the final location that counted towards your score. If you had noticed that, you could have saved yourself the time of designing your robot around that strategy.

They just didn't get around to dealing with the rules until someone asked again.

Re: Team Update #7
 

This was addressed in questions and answers earlier, and there is another rule that specifies that scores are calculated by where the tubes are at the end of the match.

Re: Team Update #7
 

QandA is not the rules.....QandA is to help people understand the rules. The rules are the rules.

Their answer in QandA totally contridicted the rules and thus ment nothing.

Untill there is a rule that says QandA is part of the rules I will never read all of them and study them. I don't have that much time.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I can't seem to find a picture of the retrieval hook, can someone please tell me where i can find it?

Re: Team Update #7
 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the intent of that rule was to insure that pieces accidentally knocked off of pegs would still be considered scored. The GDC (I'm guessing again) probably changed the rule because of strategies like that which go against the intent of the game.

Our team found the same strategy, but didn't design around out: we figured the GDC would realize their mistake and fix it ASAP. No one wants to watch a game where a robot just places and replaces a logo piece.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Please read <G68> and THEN tell me whether or not it contradicted the rules. They made that ruling based on <G68>.

Re: Team Update #7
 

The update says
I have checked section 3 and cannot seem to find it. :confused: Does anyone know where it might be?

Re: Team Update #7
 

The Q&A is an OFFICIAL RULING by the GDC. Whatever they say in the Q&A becomes the rule regardless of what the manual says.::rtm::

Re: Team Update #7
 

I think they jumped the gun on saying it had been posted. Hopefully it'll be up in a day or so.

Re: Team Update #7
 

<G68> The minimum MATCH SCORE is zero points.

Not sure what you are meaning?

Re: Team Update #7
 

::rtm:: I got the same impression... I doubt the GDC would go so far as to make a statement such as "We do not want you to strive for getting your MINIBOT to the bottom of the pole under its own power."

Best of luck this year!
Petrie

Re: Team Update #7
 

Nice try. You quoted <G69>.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Where does it say that?

Re: Team Update #7
 

I pulled up the latest rules and that is what G68 is.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Actually, as per RevG, that is indeed <G68>, it is <G67>.

Re: Team Update #7
 

It doesn't.

But, when was the last time a Supreme Court ruling wasn't treated as law? The Q&A is the Supreme Court of FRC. It's where you go for intent behind the rule and interpretation of the rule.

Re: Team Update #7
 

<G69> is the rule of the minimum match score, <G68> is how the scores will be assesed.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Read RevG of the manual

Re: Team Update #7
 

Oddly enough, R96 was deleted:

It seems strange to release an update regarding how KOP items are recorded on the BOM, then eliminate the BOM as part of inspection? What's the point?


EDIT: Oops, R96 was redundant to R82!

Re: Team Update #7
 

Oops! When they fixed <G59> in RevG, they deleted <G60>. All rules below that have been decremented by 1.

So the Old <G68>, which is <G67> in RevG, reads:
Just as with the 60"/84" issue, there was a conflict within the rules. Someone asked Q&A, and it eventually was corrected.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Ok, so it is.

Now, what rule was deleted without an Update? Would have happened between Rev E (which I have on my computer) and Rev G. It's not picked up in the Revisions section in Rev G. Either that, or there was a renumbering.

Edit: As Gary said, <G60> from Rev E (AKA, Be civil to the other folks in the Arena or get a Yellow Card).

Re: Team Update #7
 

Anxious to see it!

Re: Team Update #7
 

Small aside:
You know, when the rtm smiley was developed, it never dawned on me that it could be used in an obnoxious manner. You learn something every day.

Jane

Re: Team Update #7
 

My fault, I was looking at our hard copy that we had printed at the start of the build season. I looked it up the online version of the rules and found my error. Thanks for the alert.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Team Updates are issued every Tuesday and Friday. Make sure you at least have the Updates added to the hard copy, and update the hard copy periodically.

Anyway, about the rule for when scoring happens:
The text of the rule, applied by the GDC to the situation described in Q&A, completely negated the strategy of placing just one piece on every peg to score a lot of points at the start of the build. Someone somewhere forgot to remove that part from the Manual's definition of Hanging, or forgot to look at that particular Q&A and apply it to that strategy, or both.

At least teams that were trying to use that strategy have 3 weeks to redesign their robot... hopefully it'll be as simple as re-gearing the drivetrain, or similar measures.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Tuesday and Friday, usually in the late afternoon.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I find this overall a pleasing team update. Good clarifications and removal of the possibility for a very dubious strategy that to me, goes against Gracious Professionalism. (Moving one tube around and it counting before Update 7.)

Re: Team Update #7
 

<G39> may not ... score their opponent's game pieces

I cannot believe that each alliance's game pieces are completely separate. We thought that having a mobile midfielder capable of scooping up and delivering errant pieces from either team was going to be a good strategy.

I guess you can still keep your opponent from scoring them, you just cannot score them yourself. How will each alliances game pieces be identified?

Am I reading this right?

Hook picture is up in case you were still looking.

Re: Team Update #7
 

For everyone looking for the logomotion hook link:
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...ION%20Hook.pdf

Re: Team Update #7
 

It reads "de-score". The strikethrough makes it look like the "de" part was lined out.

Hook at http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob...ION%20Hook.pdf

Easily obtainable for teams wanting to run pre-seasons or post-seasons; it's a COTS hook from McMaster that's modified.

Re: Team Update #7
 

This rule is meant to prevent teams from ruining logo bonuses by placing tubes over a part of it, since only the top tube counts.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Also, it only talks about descoring opposing alliance's game pieces not scoring them on your own pegs right?

Re: Team Update #7
 

Correct. There is no difference between the Red Alliance's game pieces and the Blue Alliance's game pieces. Basically, don't touch a game piece once it's been placed on a scoring peg.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Off topic, but I can't resist!

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled program.

Re: Team Update #7
 

For those too lazy to open the PDF

Re: Team Update #7
 

@EricH: Your analogy to the Supreme Court is not a fair one.

Q&A rulings that contradict the rules do not the rules make. This has been hashed out MANY times over the last few years. The GDC themselves have said on several occasions that the ONLY way for them to change the rules of the game is through TEAM UPDATES.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I'm going to side with MrG on this one, but only to an extent. The littany of information we have to sift through is quite exhausting during the build season. I've barely had time to read all of the Q&A myself. Of course, we're also not trying to walk the line on anything with our strategy so I don't feel I really need to.

However, MrG, just because you didn't read it doesn't mean it won't be enforced as true. It's like speeding tickets, jaywalking, and all of the other 'annoying' rules with purposes and penalties that the common person hasn't bothered to read. If it's possible, have another team evaluate your design or get a mentor/student dedicated to reading the forums in addition to what he/she is doing.

I'm ecstatic about the <R75> update. That was the only rule I had a question about in regards to using a custom keyboard with a virtual joystick emulator in order to make a really nice COTS button board that we can re-use year to year.

Re: Team Update #7
 

How can you call it a dubious(?) strategy? It was written plain as day in bold letters that once a game piece is scored it is scored for the remainder of the match. Also there was nothing in the rules that states that you can’t move your own game pieces.

Here is the deleted rule: Once a GAME PIECE has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT (even momentarily) and is HANGING (e.g. it is fully supported by the PEG), it is considered to be HANGING until the end of the match.

The GDC needs to stop changing the rules in an attempt to get the game to be played how they think it should be played and let the game be played how they originally wrote the rules. I think it isn’t GP on GDC’s part to make changes to the rules that affect the design of robots this late in the season. They are saying we don’t care about the time and effort you put into this program “we want the game played this way”. I am fine if they want to clarify rules, but to completely delete them is not right. Also making changes with 3 weeks left is not acceptable. Thanks for wasting my time GDC.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Kevin,

Rule G68 (now G67) was there from the beginning. The scoring counts at the end of the match. If you designed a robot completely disregarding that rule, then it is your own fault. At best, it was unclear and the addition of the Q&A clarification should have made it crystal clear. I think you are laying blame in the wrong place.

Sorry man, just call them like I see them.

Paul

Re: Team Update #7
 

Yes Paul, with all due respect.

<G67> Scores will be assessed when the MATCH ends and all objects in motion come to rest, or 10 seconds elapses, whichever comes first.

That is the standard rule that has been there forever.

The section 1 rule "Once a GAME PIECE has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT (even momentarily) and is HANGING (e.g. it is fully supported by the PEG), it is considered to be HANGING until the end of the match."

This was a new rule this year and states the tube will be considered hanging at the end of the match even though it is not.

Both those rules can work together. They went into great detail of what they wanted in the section one rule and I interpreted it exactly how they stated it. I do disagree with you. Thanks though.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I agree. The original "once HANGING, always HANGING" rule was not in conflict with the "scores assessed at the end of the MATCH" rule.

However, I also agree that the removal of the "HANGING in perpetuity" provision is a very good thing. Sitting in your scoring zone moving game pieces from peg to peg was permitted by the letter of the law, shouldn't be a valid way to play the game, and now isn't.

Re: Team Update #7
 

If this were correct, there would be no need to amend the rules. The rules have been amended to reflect clarifications explained in the Q&A. The Q&A are not rules.

Re: Team Update #7
 

No, but they are a good indication of what the rules were meant to be, and will likely be amended to be.

Remember, the GDC tells us flat-out that the rules should be read with the spirit of the game in mind, and not lawyered to squeeze every possible potential advantage. They tell us this, right in the manual.

So cut 'em a break.

I've done some freelance game design in the past, and I've never had a such a large group of incredibly smart and motivated people set out to break the games I've designed... And yet I've still had to go back and clarify, and re-clarify, and re-write, so that the game in my head matches the game on paper.

Overall, given the complexity of the framework they design every year, I am incredibly impressed by the GDC's ability to put out what is a quality (if not perfect) product year after year.

Re: Team Update #7
 

For cases where two rules are in conflict, or seem to be in conflict, the Q&A chooses which one takes precedence. That is what happened there.

Also, note the minibot welding. They allowed it by Q&A. Then it was disallowed, again by Q&A, this time because a needed material was not in <R92>. When asked about this, they issued an update to support the first Q&A ruling, not the second one, even though the second one was the correct one up until the Update came out.

Incidentally, if the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that was in violation of the Constitution (for the sake of argument, that privately owned guns were illegal--Second Amendment), how long do you think their credibility would last? Right, it wouldn't.

If 99% of people looked at that rule and Q&A combination and saw that they would not be able to move game pieces around and have them count for more points than the peg they were on at the end of the match, the 1% should not complain that the ruling was unclear. The Q&A explained that a piece could not count on two pegs, effectively.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Whether or not Q&A rulings are official rules, there was a Q&A ruling early on that indicated you could not hang, remove, hang, remove, etc... with the same tube and have it count for multiple scores. So teams should at least have been aware that this strategy might be disallowed by a future update.

I completely agree with MrG's interpretation of the rule as originally written. A couple of our students brought this up during brainstorming on January 10. I told them we should be ready to play as if it were an allowable strategy, but that I bet it would be disallowed.

In game design, play testing is one of the most important and most time consuming parts of the process. Unfortunately for us, there is no real way to completely play test the game before they release it. So there are going to be rules which are unclear, or in this case say something not intended. I always try to plan on the spirit of the rules being enforced, but pay attention to the Q&A and updates. More so if we are looking at strategies that are unorthodox.

Re: Team Update #7
 

We should all be aware that the rules of the game can change after week 1 regionals as well. In 2007 we saw the prestacking of robots disallowed. This eliminated a useful puropose for dead robots. Last year we saw the ball under robot penalty go away which benefited poorly designed robots. I believe last year the 469 game breaker strategy was officially asked in Q&A and allowed. While it is tough to let a secret strategy out of the bag, if it is questionable it is better to ask Q&A before it affects your whole design path.

You can win a week 1 regional with a questionable strategy but you cannot win a world championship with it if it is subsequently disallowed. Precedent says this can hapen (often).

Re: Team Update #7
 

Completely agree, well said.

Re: Team Update #7
 

You had one rule that made your strategy legitimate, and one rule that made it is illegitimate. Why assume that it works one way and not the other? G<68> may have changed location, but the rule itself has always been there. You chose to ignore one rule by assuming that it was trumped by another. You should have sought clarification before deciding on such a strategy. If you had assume either way, at least assume the more obvious of the answers. In 2009 would you see it as a legitimate strategy to take balls out of an opponents trailer, move them to another trailer, and have their score count twice? of course not. It's the same thing here. It's pretty obvious that score were intended to be counted at the end.

It's all about intent, did you honestly think the way you were planning on playing the game was within the intent of the rules?

Re: Team Update #7
 

Folks,

I'm going to see if a consensus exists rather than trying to interpret the full pile of rules, Q&A and posts. Maybe, I'm lazy.

I think the conversation nets out to this:
"When scoring is done, a tube's value will be determined by the last peg it was hung upon (including 'no peg' for an unhung tube)."

Some amplifying statements that I think are true, are:
"It's the list of tubes' that were once hung, combined with the list of pegs where they were last hung (1 peg per tube), that determines score; not the list of all pegs that once held tubes."
"Woe unto the refs that have to keep track of the specific tubes that fall off or are taken off of pegs."
"Woe unto the refs that have to decide what 'momentarily hanging' means."

I remain confused about whether a single peg (top row with an uber perhaps) can have be a place where more than one tube (lets say 6 for a fun example) was hung (for final scoring purposes).

i.e. Hang a circle on a high peg that contains an uber, take that circle tube off. Hang another circle on that same high peg, take it off. Hang another circle on that high peg, take it off. Hang a triangle on that peg, take the triangle off. Etc.

If I understand things correctly, during/after the sequence outlined above, once each tube is hung it remains virtually hung (on the last peg where it was hung), so at the end the match there would be 5 virtually hung tubes and one actually hanging tube "on" that one peg; and they would all be "on" a peg that also holds an uber.

If I haven't taken a false step in this example, a specialized robot could rack up a pretty high score this way if its allies kept it equipped with a steady supply of fresh tubes.

Blake
PS: My buddies and I need to get this all figured out so that we can correctly compute scores during/after 5th Gear's simulated matches.

Re: Team Update #7
 

No, you read it wrong. The FINAL tube placed onto that peg with an ubertube on it are the only tubes that count.

Re: Team Update #7
 

For my peace of mind, are you able to easily cite a rule # for that?

Re: Team Update #7
 

G<67> Scores will be assessed when the MATCH ends and all objects in motion come to rest, or 10 seconds elapses, whichever comes first. (it was G<68> prior to revG of the rules).

I read this to say that wherever tubes are at the end of the match is where they are scored. It doesn't matter where they were before that.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Oddly enough, this means that the match could end with less than 2 minutes of TELEOP...

Re: Team Update #7
 

Actually...

Try <G62> (Rev G; previously <G63>). If there were 5 "virtual hangers", then only the outermost one would count.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I see I misread gblake's question. I was speaking to a different point, Tubes may not be scored twice. A tube cannot be moved to a different peg to be scored again, but yes, the outermost tubes also clarifies how tubes are scored with relation to position or changing position.

Re: Team Update #7
 

The rule that seems most applicable is <G62>: "If two GAME PIECES are HANGING from a single SCORING PEG, the outermost GAME PIECE will be counted for scoring purposes."

The old definition of HANGING said that a HANGING GAME PIECE was considered to be HANGING for the rest of the match. With that part of the definition now gone, <G62> doesn't have to concern itself with ghost tubes.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Blake, in 2007 the refs didn't have a hard time determining whether a tube that was on the rack fell off and then should have been counted. It didn't happen that often tbh.

It's important to realize when interpreting the rules that <G64> states that PEGS are scored, not tubes. If I'm reading and thinking it through correctly as of Revision G+ to the Game Rules:

• If a fallen off tube is on the ground at the end of the match, and another tube was put in its place then the tube that was put in its place counts<G64> & <G68> & Update7
• If the tube on the ground was picked up and put somewhere else, then it counts on its new peg and not its old one <G64> & <G68>, new def'n of HANGING
• If a tube falls of, another tube was not put in its place, and the fallen-off tube is on the ground at the end of the match then the peg the tube was on does not receive a score for that tube <G64>&<G68> & Update7
• "On the ground" here represents any and all scenarios where the tube is no longer HANGING

Note, there's a RevG+ coming out (link is broken atm) that reinstates <G60> -- Thus the <G67> we're talking about will become <G68> again.

P.S. -- Maybe I could get a WP? Maybe?

Re: Team Update #7
 

I agree with your point, but the cap on the end of each peg is much smaller this year (I forget the exact dimension in 2007). I still don't think it will be an issue, but we might have to wait and see.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Thanks - But I had to throw in the towel and do some looking on my own.

Just from reading the discussion here (and just by reading the change history tables in the rules) it wasn't clear to me that Update 7 dramatically changed the definition of Hanging from OLD:
to NEW:
That will certainly remove some complications from our 5th Gear scoring logic and from referees' lives. That definition change makes my scenario boring, instead of a way to rack up a high score; and it does appear to make looking at the pegs at the end of a match, equivalent to determining which tubes contribute to the score.

Blake
PS: Jesse the WP I often use is "V". :(

Re: Team Update #7
 

Not sure how long it's been out there, but there is a now a game manual rev G+ which puts <G60> back in.

Re: Team Update #7
 

That's exactly what it means. If there are four 3-second minibots, we've got 1:53 of actual gameplay.

Channeling my inner Car-Nack, I predict that at some point in the season, an elimination round will be lost because all minibots hit the trigger before the other robot scores a top-tier logo - which is to say it would have been better to have never sent the fourth minibot at all.

Re: Team Update #7
 

You got a working link? The online one goes to an error page; downloading from the link doesn't work either.

Re: Team Update #7
 

I can't get to it either, but we know that <G60> is put back in from what's underneath the link.

Re: Team Update #7
 

Can anyone actually see this revision? I get a not-found error.

So that means instead of reading a manual with one rule missing, now people can't read the manual at all. (Unless they're like me, and download every version of it.)

Oh, I just checked - the whole version is there, with <G60>.

Re: Team Update #7
 

With all due respect....

If the GDC created the game don't you think they have the right to see it played as they envisioned it? Many times in the past the GDC has stepped in to make the game play better within the vision of how they wrote the rules.

The rules were written to play the game...
It is not the other way around.

i know what the rules used to say.. but really now... do you think that is how the game is supposed to be played?

The initial rule had said that once a tube was scored it stayed scored... it never said that it could be scored twice...

i am personally glad this decision was made.
It will make the game better.

This should be a robotic competition... not a competition where a slick rules interpretation leads to victory...

If you need to do that... ask in Q and A as 469 did last year... then proceed.

This year... the GDC says no... not the way the game is to be played...

good luck on the field!!

Re: Team Update #7
 

lol - I like their hook, reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-BcRv1LXw

"Great.. SOMEBODY GET THE STICK!"