G40 and G41

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

G41 does not prevent a 469-2010 strategy. Consider the following situation:

Red robot A, starting in the opponent courtyard, moves under the low bar and sits there. Robot A is fully outside of the neutral zone, and still contacting the carpet in the blue courtyard. A red HP rolls a boulder toward the low bar. This ball comes into contact with robot A inside of the outer works. Robot A then shoots the ball high.

G38 was not violated assuming the cycles are slow enough.
G39 was not violated since A was in contact with the carpet in the opponent opponent courtyard.
G40 was not violated since A did not cause the boulder to move from the neutral zone to the blue courtyard, but rather from the outer works to the blue courtyard.
G40-1 was not violated since the HP was transferring the ball to the outer works, not to the blue courtyard.
G41 was not violated since this was not a CROSSING considering that A came from the courtyard, not the neutral zone. Even if CROSSING were for some reason defined bi-directionally, A still did not cause any boulders to move from the neutral zone to the blue courtyard, but rather moved boulders from the outer works to the blue courtyard.

I think this is a likely a tech foul...

"G40-1A ROBOT may not hold a Low Bar flap open for the purpose of allowing a DRIVE TEAM member
to transfer BOULDERS into their opponent’s COURTYARD.
Violation: TECH FOUL per BOULDER"

Just because the spy robot is RiM "conduit" ..the action is to transfer into courtyard unless the robot makes the shot from that angle every time. Since a miss would transfer into courtyard.

So low probbility shot vs Tech Foul not sure many would take that risk

[engunneer]

I actually think this violates G40-B more directly than G40-1.

Caleb's Redabot can do this for one BOULDER, but then must complete it's CROSSING before doing it again.
I think the answer to Q708 supports this interpretation.

[snip...] Contacting a BOULDER within a DEFENSE after a CROSSING has been completed requires a new CROSSING to take place.

[GeeTwo]

From a game play perspective, G40 and G41 help enforce the GDC's envisioned game mechanics. Boulders are supposed to be carried, one by one, into the courtyard where they are used to weaken the tower. No tossing them over or bowling them through the outer works. No shortcuts through the other alliance's secret passage. I don't think it's an accident that a breach requires the same number of crossings as weakening the tower requires boulders.

From a thematic/historical perspective, all the same and even more so. Geologists classify sediments according to grain size, most commonly using the "phi scale". On the phi scale, boulders are (rather curiously) specified as stones having a minimum diameter of 10.1", and typically massing at least a hundredweight. Boulders are not to be "tossed", or otherwise casually propelled. Boulders should be carried deliberately to where our siege engine launches them to weaken the enemy's defenses.

Edit: Well played on both fronts, GDC.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Ditto GeeTwo. G40 and G41 are meant to shape the gameplay dynamics. Stronghold would be a very different game with very different scoring dynamics without them. At the least, the first 20 seconds of the match would be wildly different as teams tried to shuffle as many boulders as possible from the midline into their opponent's courtyard, and then follow them in to collect and score them. Having to drive each boulder across really slows down the flow rate and changes the balance between defense crossing and boulder scoring.

TLDR; G40 and G41 are they game you've been given to play and what you should've designed for. If you don't like them, petition IRI for an off-season rule change.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by engunneer

I actually think this violates G40-B more directly than G40-1.

Caleb's Redabot can do this for one BOULDER, but then must complete it's CROSSING before doing it again.
I think the answer to Q708 supports this interpretation.

Thank you for that link.

G40 clearly needs an update if the GDC actually intends for things to be called this way. As written, the Q706 interpretation of G40 would require the referees to watch every single ball on the field to determine where they came from.

For example, say that there is a boulder just sitting within the blue outer works. A red robot drives up to it from the courtyard side and intakes it, then drives back into the courtyard. Does this redabot receive a foul? Answer: it depends.

If the boulder got there from the neutral zone side, by the Q706 interpretation of G40, the red robot would be penalized because it did not contact the boulder while a crossing was taking place, and would then be causing the boulder to move from the neutral zone into the opponent's courtyard.

However, if the boulder got there from the courtyard side, redabot would not be in violation of G40 because it did not cause the boulder to move from the neutral zone into the opponent's courtyard.


This situation could be remedied either by scrapping G40 entirely or by changing the wording to

G40 A ROBOT may not cause a BOULDER to move from the opponent's OUTER WORKS into the opponent’s
COURTYARD unless:

Changes bolded.

The referees are not going to be watching every ball on the field to see where it came from, so this rule as written is at best unenforceable.