Usually unless they feel like risking damaging their brain or they forget to put it back on after taking it off.
4 Likes
In a match I saw last season, one robot climbed onto an opponent, its wheels pulled off the battery cover, and ultimately it disabled its opponent by pressing on the screen. It was all inadvertent, but resulted in DQ anyway. It’s important that the brain be accessible, but also protected.
3 Likes
I’m surprised that something like that would be a DQ. I think it would be a cool strategy to have a robot with a precise articulated arm and a vision sensor that could carefully turn off each of the opposing robots without damage. Besides going against the principles of a primarily offensive game, i see no reason why a non-destructive strategy aimed at neutralizing your opponent shouldn’t be allowed.
My guess would be that the likelihood of such a strategy causing damage to another robot even if that was not the intent would be a preventing factor in a team wanting to use that strategy.
1 Like
i think its because teams would just make robots to turn off other robots and not actually play the game.
2 Likes
Would you allow a strategy of simply unplugging your opponent’s battery (as opposed to opening the cover and turning off the controller)? On the other hand, one could argue that the opponent should have had better guarding on their electronics…but this isn’t Battlebots, so should it be an issue?
There’s lots to consider, and in my experience at least, calling a DQ is one of the most difficult things a referee does, unless it’s a blatantly obvious offence described in the game manual.
2 Likes
Don’t get me wrong, i am not for one moment questioning whether the ref did the right thing. Whatever they decided, that is fine. I am just interested in what rule would make it illegal, and whether it ought to be legal or not.
I have always favored erring on the side of less rules rather than more, which is one of the few places where i still don’t entirely see eye to eye with RECF/GDC.
My take is, “was it egregious? No. Did the other team protect their electronics to prevent such an event? (Id imagine no, but I was not there) Does this warrant a DQ? I dont think so, but both teams should be given a warning.”
1 Like
Personally? Absolutely. I think it takes a pretty incredible kind of engineering and elegance to make a robot that can unplug a rival robot while both are moving without a major risk of damage. I don’t think it is fair to say that is Battlebots territory.
1 Like
(This could be a new thread…off topic for “magnets” but perhaps worth discussion)
As I recall, the referees had to figure out how G12 “don’t destroy other robots” and G13 “Offensive Robots get the benefit of the doubt” would apply to the situation. It’s not something that ever happened with Cortex, because you couldn’t really reach the power switch or do bad stuff, so it’s definitely a new consideration that GDC may want to address. While “turning off your opponent” isn’t necessarily “destroying” it, except it has accomplished the same thing, the opponent can no longer play the game until it is repaired or turned on again.
3 Likes
<G12> covers damage as well, and turning off an opponent robot is certainly damaging it in a way that impairs its ability to play the game.
2 Likes
so hypethedicly if one was to create real actual magnets with a decent strength buy a lot of magnetic screws because it is more powerfull and practical than buying 50 brain covers also if any screw is legal as long as it is the right size could you heat treat it or buy heat treated screws or magnatize them ?
1 Like
I would limit my definition of “damaging” to something with the potential of preventing them from playing their next match. Tossing a game element into the middle of a lifting mechanism can neutralize a robot’s ability to play the game.
I don’t believe steel magnets will ever give the performance one is expecting, given that we’re so used to high-powered AlNiCo, rare-earth, or ceramic magnets. Steel magnets are good for compasses and picking up a few paperclips.
2 Likes
SG5 would be a consideration in this instance.
1 Like
so how would you use magnets very well if u were building a dr4b or dr6b could u use them to increase its power like a rubber band because all the practical things i can think of u would use a magnet for u could just as easily use a few rubber bands
1 Like
I’d suggest rubber bands or surgical tubing. The current discussion of magnets is just academic, not practical.
2 Likes
When I suggested magnetic screws earlier I was thinking of screws with a Neodymium magnet in the head of the screw, these do exist although they are not that cheap. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Magnet-Expert®-12mm-thick-Neodymium/dp/B003MWDW1W/ref=asc_df_B003MWDW1W/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=326656411407&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9482580788057506829&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9044980&hvtargid=pla-560593622846&psc=1&th=1&psc=1. These are M3 screws with a magnetic head
4 Likes
It’s unlikely that the GDC would consider such a screw legal, see the discussion at Special partially threaded screw joints and HS gear bearings using modified 393 output gears. Threaded rods and eye bolts are not considered legal, so I doubt magnetic-head screws would be okay due to the additional functionality they have.
4 Likes
Yeah, I thought of this too. Nowhere in the rules (R21 at least) does it say that the screen protector is an electronic component: it’s not a sensor, controller, battery b=pack, reservoir, solenoid, anything pneumatic, motor, or microcontroller.
1 Like