Suppose a Robot has deploying arms designed with the intent of plowing into and knocking over multiple Cones at the same time. In other words, the Robot pushes Cones with a flat or convex surface that are NOT in its way, but that are also NOT being hoarded. The intent is to tip multiple Cones at the same time. The Cones presumably are plowed just a few inches before falling over. The Cones are not being moved to a specific portion of the field.
Assuming no other rules are violated in the process, would the Robot be in violation of SG9? Does this change if the intent of the deploying arms is to block an opponent’s access to the portion of the field, but the effect is still the same?
Highly related question: Is it legal to use a flat or convex surface to move multiple tipped Cones to an upright position at the same time?
As always, it is difficult to issue blanket rulings based off of a snapshot of a single action within a match. However, based off of the scenario you have described, it sounds like the Cones are not being moved to a specific portion of the field with the intent of hiding them away or keeping them to yourself - thus, this does not sound like hoarding.
Let’s next look at the definition of Possession, again with some sections in bold for emphasis:
This hypothetical Robot does not sound like it is carrying, holding, or controlling the movement of a Cone inside the Robot… Thus, it would not be considered in possession of multiple Cones at once.
Assuming no other rules are violated in the process, this Robot would not be in violation of <SG9>.
Provided no other rules are violated in the process, especially <SG7>, then this would still be considered legal.
Yes, this is legal, for the same reasons listed above.
In general, if your Robot is just driving around the field trying to play the game, you’re probably not in violation of <SG9>. The August manual update will include some additional verbiage (based on Q&A’s like this one) to help clarify this.