POSITION CONTROL: Rotate CONTROL PANEL so a specified color aligns with the sensor for at least five (5) seconds.
If the CONTROL PANEL is moved prior to 5 seconds off the required COLOUR you don’t get awarded POSITION CONTROL. Currently nothing disallows the opposing ALLIANCE from moving the CONTROL PANEL, as long as an ALLIANCE ROBOT is not touching it. They would risk getting a TECH FOUL by being in the TRENCH, and getting touched. However the easy solution is just wait at the CONTROL PANEL until you get the points. Once you get POSITION CONTROL it cannot be undone.
G12. Leave the opponent’s CONTROL PANEL alone. A ROBOT may not contact the opponent’s CONTROL PANEL, either directly, or transitively through a POWER CELL, if
A. the opponent ROBOT is contacting that CONTROL PANEL, and B. the opponent’s POWER PORT has reached CAPACITY
If it’s within that 5 second window where the color is being read, the power port is still at capacity that entire time.
Not trying to be in any way condescending or snarky but with the manual the devil truly is in the subtle details (and vs or, order of operations, transitively, cause, etc). A single word can complete change the meaning of a rule, and massively impact game play and effective strategies.
Note that the Control Panel points are not scored UNTIL the 5 seconds has occurred, so the points aren’t “removed” or “lost”; they are prevented from occurring in the first place. It looks like there was some confusion created by these semantic distinctions.
Defense rules Infinite Recharge : See the protected areas: Your own Loading, and Target zones CHECK Trench Run somewhat checked, Own sector sort of checked , Control Panel sometimes checked, other Rendezvous zone/generator switch are you crazy?.. checked Limit: 3 shutdown defensive teams
Is it legal to make an agreement with the opposing alliance to touch each other control panels during the match in order to get the extra RP?
Is there any rule against that?
If not, and team will do it, I think it will ruin the purpose of the game in qualifications.
Although the rules don’t spell out this scenario specifically, this would fall under C3 & C4. Or I would expect it to be interpreted as throwing a match. If you want more a more clear ruling, I’d ask a Q & A.
C3. Asking other teams to throw a MATCH – not cool. A team may not encourage an ALLIANCE, of which it is not a member, to play beneath its ability.
NOTE: This rule is not intended to prevent an ALLIANCE from planning and/or executing its own strategy in a specific MATCH in which all the teams are members of the ALLIANCE.
C4. Letting someone coerce you in to throwing a MATCH – also not cool. A team, as the result of encouragement by a team not on their ALLIANCE, may not play beneath its ability.
NOTE: This rule is not intended to prevent an ALLIANCE from planning and/or executing its own strategy in a specific MATCH in which all the ALLIANCE members are participants.
Personally, I would avoid testing out that scenario. You’d be at high risk for the head ref awarding all sorts of Cxx penalties.
All that being said, it is a agreement strategy that would hardly ever make any sense.
Because This years G12 fixed the problem I had with last years ranking point award.
Last year where you were awarded a rocket ranking point awarded if your opponent touched it in the final seconds regardless of how full your rocket was. In contrast, this year G12 only applies if “the opponent ROBOT is contacting that CONTROL PANEL” and “the opponent’s POWER PORT has reached CAPACITY”.
So basically the only time an agreement would make sense, if none of the six robots had a way to rotate the wheel of fortune but be able to reach the Stage 2 capacity (aka 29 balls). This would be pretty surprising to me if both alliances were good enough to score that many points.
The language of C3 and C4 specifically call out the classical sense of “throwing a match”, in that you would deliberately play beneath your abilities to deny your alliance points/value, or arrange to have a team do it to their alliance.
This years version of the noodle alliance generates positive value for both alliances, in that both would get a RP. This would move both alliances up the stack rank, relative to their peers.
The GDC would have to amend C3 & C4 or add another rule to specifically make this illegal. It would be a serious stretch to claim this behavior falls into the catchall of “bad behaviour” C1. The biggest issues would be in co-ordinating the triggering of it and the prisoner’s dilemma aspect of it. Plus being shunned by other teams if found out. Personally this sort of behaviour would put a team on my DNP list.
IDK, it sure seems like intentionally incurring a violation would be playing beneath your ability. I’m not sure about your meaning of ‘specifically call out the classical sense’, here. The way the rule is written, it essentially defines ‘throwing a MATCH’ as being ‘play beneath its ability’. That’s all it says. There’s nothing there about that needing to result in denial of points to your own alliance. In this case, at least, doing it as a result of encouragement from another team would mean that you elevated another alliance at your own alliance’s expense. The fact that this might play out in favor of both alliances is technically beside the point. You should have the ability to avoid that violation, especially given the level of coordination required, as you correctly point out.
Just my opinion, though. That’s why I specifically stated that if anyone wanted to make it clearer, get a Q & A ruling. You’re certainly right about the non-GP nature of the idea!
Perhaps another thing they should clarify is if the SHIELD GENERATOR ENERGIZED Ranking Point that is awarded for G12 has an elims purpose. After all, in elims there would seem to be no incentive not to violate G12 since you don’t need to worry about awarding your opponent the Rank Point anymore.