What benefit do rules 40 and G41 provide to this game? I don’t really see how these rules make this game any better, and if we can cut down on unnecessary rules I will have more faith in the referees to make good calls on the rules that actually matter. Let’s scrap these rules.
G40 seems to exist solely to stop a team from crossing a defense halfway and then dropping the ball into the opponent’s courtyard. The potential teamwork opportunities from having one shooter and one passer are inhibited by this rule in exchange for no clear benefit. Furthermore, this is an extremely complicated rule as written, I would prefer for referees to watch for other, easier calls than this one. Without this rule, strategies such as passing balls over the defenses into the opponent courtyard from the neutral zone would still be prohibited by G39.
G41 just seems redundant to me, since I can’t imagine a situation where G41 would apply without G38 applying.
G40 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 (e.g. doesn’t completely back out of the OUTER
WORKS into the NEUTRAL ZONE)
Violation: TECH FOUL per BOULDER
Examples meeting the requirements of this rule include, but are not
limited to:
A. A ROBOT picks up a BOULDER in the NEUTRAL ZONE, and
CROSSES a DEFENSE carrying the BOULDER
B. A ROBOT, starting in the NEUTRAL ZONE, bumps a BOULDER
through a DEFENSE, contacting the BOULDER within the OUTER
WORKS at least once. The ROBOT then completes the CROSSING
itself.
Examples NOT meeting this rule include, but are not limited to:
A. A ROBOT fully in the NEUTRAL ZONE lobs a boulder over a
DEFENSE, then CROSSES a DEFENSE (this violates the rule
because the ROBOT did not contact the BOULDER within OUTER
WORKS)
B. A ROBOT fully in the NEUTRAL ZONE rolls a BOULDER over
a DEFENSE, then CROSSES a DEFENSE (this violates the rule
because the ROBOT did not contact the BOULDER within OUTER
WORKS)
C. A ROBOT attempts to CROSS a DEFENSE with a BOULDER,
drops the BOULDER so it rolls into the opponent’s COURTYARD,
backs fully out of the OUTER WORKS to get a running start, then
CROSSES a DEFENSE (this violates the rule because the ROBOT
completely backed out of OUTER WORKS into the NEUTRAL ZONE)
G41 During each CROSSING, a ROBOT may not cause more than one (1) BOULDER to move from the
NEUTRAL ZONE into the opponent’s COURTYARD.
Violation: TECH FOUL per additional BOULDER
For example, if a Red ROBOT is CROSSING the Blue OUTER WORKS
and a Blue ROBOT causes a BOULDER to bounce off of the Red
ROBOT and through the OUTER WORKS, there is no violation of this
rule as the action was caused by the Blue ROBOT.
This prevents strategies where teams collect balls from the neutral zone, then immediately shoot them over the defenses into the courtyard. With the single defender rule this could quickly create a semi-chokehold situation where one alliance controls most or all of the game pieces, effectively preventing the opposing alliance from scoring anything other than the game pieces they already have. In short, this rule puts a damper on starvation strategies.
G39 does cover some of these situations, but G40 and G41 help as well. Specifically, boulders could be moved across defenses without “launching” them, such as via being bull dozed, pushed, etc.
G41 prevents a robot from parking on a DEFENSE (low bar would be easiest for this, to be fed from human player) while touching NEUTRAL ZONE carpet and being repeatedly fed BOULDERS that it shuttles over the defenses. If G41 didn’t exist the robot could transfer any number of balls through the OUTER WORKS to the opposing COURTYARD as long as when they moved they went into the opposing COURTYARD and not back into the NEUTRAL ZONE.
This would allow for some 469 2010 stuff that the GDC obviously doesn’t want.
I forgot to mention that the G40 blue box is also silly because, in the “Examples NOT meeting this rule” section, both of the examples A and B would also be violations of G39. So as written, a robot doing one of these examples would receive a pair of TECH FOULS.
G41 would prevent a team from parking themselves in the outer works, receiving balls from a robot or human player in the neutral zone and relaying them to a robot in the courtyard without leaving the outer works. This would satisfy G38 and G40-A and technically be allowed by G40-B because they did start in the neutral zone before the first boulder. G38 is satisfied if they only touch one boulder at any given instant, such as if they intake it and drop/get rid of it before getting the next boulder. G39 would be satisfied if they drop it and let it roll down the ramp into the courtyard using gravity.
From everything I’ve seen about this game, it feels like the intent is to avoid making boulders a limited resource. They make sure there are always enough boulders on the field for each robot to have one. They make sure each robot can only have one boulder at a time. They make sure, with rules like this, that alliances can’t move boulders around to starve the other alliance.
Now, compare this with other years, like Breakaway. Part of the strategy design with breakaway was to push the soccer balls to one side of the field, giving you more scoring opportunities and starving the other alliance of scoring opportunities. That part of the strategy discussion is almost non-existent this year.
The comparison to Breakaway is important as that was an important strategy in 2010. One aspect of this game that would make this an even bigger issue this year is that your human players receive game pieces your opponents score, whereas in 2010 you receive your own scored game pieces. So in 2010, if the opposing alliance had 2/3rds of the balls in their general control, you could still cycle your 1/3rd of the balls repeatedly with good strategy and coordination. In 2016, if the opposing alliance controls 2/3rds of the balls, your alliance scoring 1/3rd of them will just result in your opponents having control of every ball!
Ball control and starvation absolutely will be an important part of the game this year, but it is sufficiently difficult that it will not be overwhelmingly dominant and “checkmate” strategies aren’t really possible.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.