Efficient teamwork?

[AndyBare]

If each bot as a front and back intake, and can also outtake the boulder, you can have one bot navigate outer works, and sit over the defenses, one bot perched in the courtyard for shooting, with a bumper in the plane of the outer works, and one bot that takes a boulder and feeds it to the next which feeds it to the next. Essentially, 2 bots could be completely stationary, forming a chain, while one moves back and forth to and fro the feeding station.
Also, the 2 stationary bots can't be defended against, per rule G43 I believe. I'm on my phone though.

Thoughts?

[EricH]

G40 and G41 both say you get a tech foul per boulder. The "sitting" robot isn't finishing its crossing, and it's passing more than one boulder per crossing.

Basically, +5 points and -1 strength per score now becomes -5 points and +1 strength because of the two tech fouls.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by EricH

G40 and G41 both say you get a tech foul per boulder. The "sitting" robot isn't finishing its crossing, and it's passing more than one boulder per crossing.

G40
Actions such as “carrying”, “herding”, and “trapping” are not violations
of this rule. A ROBOT may not cause a BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s
COURTYARD unless:
A. the ROBOT contacts the BOULDER within OUTER WORKS, and
B. the ROBOT completes its CROSSING (i.e. doesn’t completely back out of the OUTER WORKS into the NEUTRAL ZONE)
Violation: TECH FOUL per BOULDER

By conditions of the note on G40, as long as it never backs fully back into the neutral zone, and finishes it's crossing, this method is acceptable.

I suppose G41 does take the stationary aspect out of the equation. Say it finishes it's cross after each shot is taken, then moves back to the neutral zone.
Thoughts now?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

G40
Actions such as “carrying”, “herding”, and “trapping” are not violations
of this rule. A ROBOT may not cause a BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s
COURTYARD unless:
A. the ROBOT contacts the BOULDER within OUTER WORKS, and
B. the ROBOT completes its CROSSING (i.e. doesn’t completely back out of the OUTER WORKS into the NEUTRAL ZONE)
Violation: TECH FOUL per BOULDER

By conditions of the note on G40, as long as it never backs fully back into the neutral zone, and finishes it's crossing, this method is acceptable.

I suppose G41 does take the stationary aspect out of the equation. Say it finishes it's cross after each shot is taken, then moves back to the neutral zone.
Thoughts now?

Thought on the G40: You still get a tech foul because you did not FINISH your crossing. You stopped. You are still crossing (because you did NOT end up in the opponents' Courtyard--see the Glossary in Section 6). But you caused the boulder to move into the Courtyard. You get a Tech Foul. Not an acceptable method. i.e. is actually translated as "that is"; I'm thinking that the GDC should have used e.g. ("for example"). Backing out would be the most common workaround, but parking is also.


For the G41 aspect, when you finish the cross and then move back, now you aren't stationary. I thought the whole point of this strategy was to be as stationary as possible. So now you have one robot that's sitting still instead of two...

[AndyBare]

Hmm, this is a different way to look at it. May have found an exception to the ruling

G40: A ROBOT may not cause a BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s COURTYARD unless... you know the exceptions.

But what if the robot isn't causing the boulder to move from the neutral zone into the courtyard. What if the robot is only causing the ball to move into the outer works...

That would look like this:
Robot a - passes to Robot b.
Robot b then takes the boulder from the neutral zone and moves the boulder to the outer works zone where robot c takes control
Robot c then shoots the boulder while touching the courtyard.

This would be in compliance with both G40 and G41.

Robot b would not violate rule G40, as Robot C was the cause of the boulder entering into the courtyard (it had total control). Robot c would not be in violation, as it never started with the boulder in the Neutral Zone.

As for G41, Robot b would never move the boulder to the courtyard from the neutral zone (it only transports it to the outer works), so it never has to complete a cross. Robot c also never has to complete a cross, as it only controls the boulder from the outer works, and not the neutral zone.

[engunneer]

Robot b still caused it. It was the one that brought the ball through the outer works and did not complete a crossing.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by engunneer

Robot b still caused it. It was the one that brought the ball through the outer works and did not complete a crossing.

G40 specifically says: A ROBOT may not cause a BOULDER to move from the NEUTRAL ZONE into the [opponent’s] COURTYARD unless...
And crossing is only necessary when a robot is the cause of the ball reaching the COURTYARD from the NEUTRAL ZONE

Robot b doesn't cause the ball to enter the courtyard though because Robot c achieves full control while the ball is in the outer works, and thus is the cause of the ball reaching the courtyard.

For instance, say that Robot b places the ball into the outer works zone, and that ball never reaches the courtyard. The bot never violates G40 or G41, as that bot never cause the ball to reach the courtyard. Now if a third bot causes that ball to move to the courtyard, it is causing it to move to the courtyard from the outer works, not the neutral zone, and its actions still agree with rules G40 and G41. Neither bot has done anything wrong.

And yes, this is far-fetched. But if we say that Robot b is the cause of the ball reaching the courtyard because it gave the ball to Robot c, we can also say that Robot a was the cause because it gave the ball to Robot b. Then we can blame the cause on the human player.