hey, i was looking in the rules and saw that the scoring rules were saying one thing but in the example they give, they say something completely different.
^ in order to be considered scored, a ring cant be contacting rings which are not considered scored
^ in order to be considered scored on a branch, it must be encircling the branch
^ yet these rings are considered scored even though they are contacting rings that are not scored
Asked and answered in the official Q&A
how do you get to the Q&A? is there a link in the vex website?
In the Q&A they clarified this was for the sake of showing what encircled means in the context of the game.
I think the Q&A answer misapplied the rules here.
2c: If a Ring meets the definitions of Scored for multiple
point values on the same Mobile Goal, the highest
point value should be used.
Counting the lower rings as scored “On” the branch causes the upper rings to not be scored, which descores the lower ones, so they count for zero.
But those lower rings are also “in” the base! Counting the lower rings as scored “in” the base makes the top ones also “in” the base by transitivity, for one point each!
2c says to take the higher of those two options, so it’s one point each.
The fact that “scored” and “unscored” are both transitive makes for some weird and possibly indeterminate edge cases. I think they should change 2a so that the last point reads “Another Ring which is considered Scored in a Mobile Goal Base or on a Mobile Goal Branch.” Then the lower rings count for 3 and the upper ones count for 1, which to me is the common-sense interpretation of the situation.
That is the through line for nearly everything in Tipping Point.
I concede that one could make a reasonable argument that rings stacked above the branch are worth 1 point, along with all below. However, given that G22 elevates the Official Q&A as an extension of the Game Manual, there is definitive proof of how the GDC wants these scored.
they would not be considered scored in the base because,
as per rule 2a, they must be contacting a ring that is considered scored in the moble goal base.
rule 2c says that it is considered scored on the branch, meaning they are not considered scored in the base.
so, the Q&A had applied the rules right
I think what @dfergemann is suggesting is suppose one were to remove the Alliance Branch entirely. The stack of rings (including those which would be above whatever the height of the Branch is) would be considered 1-point scored. The bottom Ring touches the colored portion of the Base, and then each above would also be 1-point.
Again, given that the Q&A officially says these are worth zero points, resolves this philosophical discussion
Genuinely curious on this one.
Has this happpened in real life yet? Has there been a single instance where a ring that is stacked on top of scored and encirled rings has been there at the end of a match while meeting all other requirements to be scored? I’ve yet to see this happen when the ring is not being contacted by the robot.
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Another way to look at it: the rings encircling the branch don’t count as Scored for 3 points due to the reasons given in the Q&A. However, they do meet the definition of “in,” for 1 point. 2c shouldn’t apply because it doesn’t meet the definition of scored for more than one point value.
On the one hand, this is a fair response. Why increase the complexity of the rules to handle situations that physically can’t happen or are extremely improbable.
On the other hand, this year’s rules have put much more on refs than I recall any previous year. While this particular ruling may not exactly be logically consistent, it is at least clear and definitive. There are many other logical inconsistencies (many of which do happen) that have yet to be addressed that refs are left to sort out.
They don’t meet the requirements for in the base because the rings they are touching are counted as on the pole and not in the base
And yet they are touching a Ring (the bottom-most one) which is contacting the Base. Thus, why the GDC clarified that priority goes to the method of scoring that provides the most points (e.g. on the Branch). However, in this case, since the Branch would give 0 points (since the top-most Ring is Unscored), there is a logical argument that the 1-point method (in contact with the Base) would kick in. The Q&A definitively and clearly rules that out, even though it is logically inconsistent, from a certain point of view (cue the Obi-Wan meme)
The real kicker is Tipping the Opponent's Platform is Illegal? : Robot Events (which, as of 12:30pm Central 12/7/2021 is unanswered). Given that it is not legal to stuff a Goal under the Opponent Platform to prevent it from being Balanced, is it also not legal to tip the Platform (that had Goals on it) such that it is no longer Balanced because the Goals at one end hold it to the Field?
It is common practice to perform this, but one could make a reasonable argument under a strict reading of the rules, that there is no logical difference between preventing the Platform from Balancing because something is Under it as there is from it not being Balanced because of something holding it Down.
Edit: Under this strict reading, one may still be able to tip the Platform to clear the Goals on it, but then would need to ensure that the Platform returned to its previous Balanced condition (without the Goals on it)
I also asked this question 
This is the kind of response that I absolutely love to see from a GDC member regarding a rules question. This was so incredibly helpful and inspires in me heaps of confidence in the GDC.
that’s a cool take but
I’m glad the GDC isn’t wasting their time writing a novel of a rules manual that thoroughly covers every single edge case imaginable, especially those that stretch the bounds of plausible physics.
Going out of their way to write up every edge case? Of course that isn’t needed. But when someone makes a specific query directly to a GDC member and they respond with some variation of “lmao that would never happen”, it doesn’t leave a good taste in my mouth.
Perhaps you misinterpreted? I said I was genuinely curious. Then asked if it had ever happened. Followed it up by saying I have never seen an instance of it before saying please provide proof if you have a claim. I wanted to avoid hearsay. At no point did I comment on the figure, the complaints, the rules or why they have been written the way the were.
To be fair, it could have been lost in the translation from my normal vernacular to the hip and jive lingo of the young people nowadays. You still say “pics or it didn’t happen”, right? I’m not out of touch yet… no I can’t be…
All that being said. I’d still love to see an instance of this happening, if it has. And if you’ve seen it and can show me an example, please do pass it along.
Nowadays we only say this ironically.