how tall is each wall? would it be possible for an opponet to drive over them or have a lift that extends outward when placing cubes that could go over the wall?
When all that cord entangles the other three bots, ref might see a need to DQ. 
Very interesting build. I could see teams building a more conventional bot, and carrying a small-goal blocking wall to deploy situationally. Run a normal auton that scores 4-5 cubes, and have that small wall in your back pocket. If the other side failed in auton, or knocks their small goal stack accidentally, you can cut them off from it.
Very cool. I think wallbots / tetherbots have a lot of potential this season.
The wire tether poses less of an entanglement risk than the string. I would argue that having a loose string connecting multiple segments of the robot at distance would definitely pose an entanglement risk. I would not pass this robot through inspection in its current state. That being said, it was a ri3d so Iām sure a lot of your ideas could be developed further.
wow itās like i said that in my next post, string can very easily be driven over but i agree risk of entanglement.
both of them were talking about the wall being illegal.
tOwEr taKeOVer Is a OfFenSIve GAmE
Just amazing. I love it.
Here is a document describing our design process and the rationale that went into this robot. Although it is long, we feel we cover a lot of potential questions about the robot. Take a look if you are interested!
Along with that, we have some more media to showcase our robot(s):
There definitely are other ideas for tethers that we were thinking of: string on the ground was just the quickest to implement.
However, we were surprised at how hard it was to get entangled on the string. We tested robots on the field with our RI3D and could not get any of them entangled on the rope. Since there was so much slack, they could just drive over it without trouble.
That said, we know there always is a risk so would try other types of tethers if there was a second version.
Me at the beginning of the video: How are they going to stack cubes?
Me at the end of the video: How will I stack cubes?
Neat robot, canāt wait to see how it does in a match!
That is - if a competitor builds it ā¦
8059 tray wallbot confirmed
we are so predictableā¦ lolā¦
Standard robot canāt get over the mini wall drive wise - I canāt imagine contemporary tray robots getting their stacks past it. I feel the mini wall could be easily implemented into offensive robots for a defensive edge (given the opponents donāt finish off the small zone in auton).
Unrelated but itās worth noting that the expanding xdrive is an absolute unit at screening/shutting-down maneuvers through defense 
.
Excellent robot(s)! I like how you made the walls that protect the scoring zones deployable from the main robots to allow you to still drive around. I was working on a similar project that was two expanding x-drives that were connected via tether to only block the scoring zones.
Firstly, deploying the wall exactly at the tape line of the outer protected zone with an opponent inside the zone leaves enough room that it should legally NOT be Trapping, based on our understanding of the definition.
I agree, you should not be violating the trapping rule. However, it is a violation of SG3a from my reading:
Stay away from your opponentās protected areas. Robots may not intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, perform the following actions:
a. Contact an opponent Robot which is fully contained within their Protected Zone.
A robot behind the wall will obviously be fully contained by the protected zone. SG3a falls under the āis this match affecting?ā portion of the table rather than the instantaneous DQ. However, I think any reasonable referee would recognize a robot restricted to their protected zone and unable to score as a match affecting violation.
You know this bot is amazing but I honestly hope it doesnāt become too common. Would make for a very boring season
As stated multiple times in the thread and in the document, one of the main purposes of separate, controllable deploys is to ensure both walls are dropped and that the robots do not get trapped in their zone.
In no circumstance should the big wall be deployed when a robot is in the protected zone. That wall would wait for the other to go get cubes to score or leave so the partner can score. One must remember that a zone has to not have a robot in it to score, and a robot must be collecting cubes to score - unless playing towers exclusively(defense bots help here).
You raise a good point about SG3. The āsimpleā solution is just to deploy the wall so that no part of it actually enters the 3D volume of the protected zone. This means that if the āinsideā opponent ends up touching us, they are necessarily no longer āfully contained within their Protected Zoneā, and so we should be fine.
Granted, the RI3D version of this bot wasnāt the easiest to align to the tape line in the manner described above, but I think itās reasonable to say that a V2 could effectively and reliably deploy just outside the protected zone.
I think I got a little excited about the whole Trapping/not technically Trapping thing in some of my earlier posts. I think the current stance our team has is a qualified one that goes something like this:
Even if we never fully deploy the large wall while an opponent robot is ābehind it,ā we assert that the other capabilities of this wallbot are enough to still get the win. Such capabilities include tremendous torque+weight on the x drive, a speedy 4m tank drive, and a long wall that could be held at 75% width. We think that when faced with this counter, we can safely avoid this rules uncertainty and still win the match.
(That being said, I personally am still holding out hope that the Official Q&A will rule that this isnāt Trapping anyways.)
What actually does a R13D mean
Robot in 3 days.
20 characters