Alright so here’s the plan. We have a “capbot” that deploys detachable aluminium pieces to cover the cups, that are legal since they are attached to the robot with a long string with a lot of slack, with a scissor lift to lift the deploy mechanism and a sort of cartridge of caps with rollers to deploy them. Technically, legal. So, since I don’t have time for these shenanigans, please… pretty please… I want badly to see a bot that can do this.
1 Like
I would think a dr4b, with a cap holder that starts like a mobile goal holder in itz. It extends out, has a claw release it, and covers the side of the tower a decent amount. Imagining or cad design is probably the best you’re gonna get here… unless someone has built it
you’d have to not use string cuz its easily entanglable, and that ain’t legal
Not very practical. For one, your spiderweb of strings going from tower to tower isn’t going to play well with your opponents trays. Also what do you have to gain by blocking tower access? If your opponents can’t do towers, who cares, they’ll just outstack your partner.
3 Likes
You would also probably want to make it steel so your opponent can’t just push it off.
Even if you found a way to do this in a legal way it doesn’t exactly work. If you start placing caps on the towers your opponent is scoring more cubes and you’ll just be overwhelmed. The towers themselves don’t really score anything, it relies on the cubes you have scored, so if you still have to be able to score something and if you have a good partner and two opponents equally as good as your partner you’ll probably get out scored, and considering your strategy relies on taking the towers out of play, you won’t be able to use colors to make that up.
While a cool idea, I don’t think it’s a viable strategy.
1 Like
It’s legal, per G12, because their bot is running into your string. If they touch it for more than 5 seconds, and the referee is extremely stupid, they can technically get disqualified. But robots that risk Entanglement per R3 are not allowed, so you’d have to be “safe” enough for the inspector. Using a pulley system or a spool would work to keep the string away from the other bots. Per R7, you can use “an unlimited amount of 1/8” (or local metric equivalent), braided, nylon rope”
It can be a separate subsystem that can be swapped out, and have multiple configurations that are individually inspected. One for scoring, and one for capbot. You can then decide what you want to use for certain matches.
The best (and probably the only) goal-capping robots is 2W’s world championship winning robot from Gateway. Here is a topic that has a link to the evolution of that robot.
1 Like
The G12 note and G13 make this impossible.
Note: A Robot which has expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field, or is legally
covering the top of a Tower in a solely defensive manner, should expect vigorous interactions
from opponent Robots. Damage that is caused by opponent Robots pushing, tipping, or Entangling with them would not be considered a violation of . Gratuitous damage or dangerous
mechanisms may still be considered a violation of , , or at the Head Referee’s
discretion.
Put simply: “wall-bots” and “cap-bots” are legal, but they are to be attempted at your own risk.
Offensive Robots get the “benefit of the doubt”. In the case where referees are forced to
make a judgment call regarding a destructive interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, or an interaction which results in a questionable rules violation, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.
1 Like
Sees Title
Me:
11 Likes
But since the string is not going to be moving between two caps, there are no moving parts actively attempting to entangle opponent’s bots. It’s just as much as an obstacle as a defense push bot that isn’t even moving.
The opponents’ bot’s job is to maneuver around the string how they need to, just as if the string is a bot. As long as the string that is hung between towers is not encircling an enemy bot or is actively being deployed on an enemy bot, it should not considered trapping.
G12 and G13 leaves everything to the discretion of the judges. Having a conversation with the judges about your strategy before hand, or emailing them before a competition, making sure to note that you will not be actively entangling or trapping enemy bots, will lessen your chance of a penalty.
The 3rd reason stated above is why this strategy is stupidly risky. The bot is perfectly legal on it’s own. If you are to use it for skills, which I admit is pretty stupid, wouldn’t violate anything. The problems come in matches, where there are interactions with enemy bots. A capbot like this would need to have a good driver to limit the interactions with enemy bots as much as possible.
Do you have video? 20char
It would not be considered trapping. However, the G12 note states that damage caused to a defensive bot by an opponent’s robot’s pushing, tipping or entangling them would not be considered a violation of G12 so long as the damage is not gratuitous or caused by dangerous mechanisms.
This thread has a video of actual match play from the Gateway world championship finals
3 Likes
<R3> Robots must be safe. The following types of mechanisms and components are NOT allowed:
c. Those that pose an unnecessary risk of Entanglement
1 Like
I’ve always wondered: why doesnt vex allow parts to detatch from bots?
It makes everything a whole lot simpler for field cleanup
1 Like