Have you found anything in the rules that make you feel like you can’t drive under the net?
no, thank you very much for the clarification
repeatedly says to stay off the net
Staying away from the net is not equal to being able to go under the goal.
Stay away from nets on the Goals. Becoming Entangled with the net on either Goal is considered a violation of G7 and/or S1, and will result in a Disablement.
Assuming your robot has the height clearance to go under the goal in the first place, you won’t be getting entangled with the goal.
During the time when an Alliance meets the definition of Double-Zoning, opposing Robots are permitted to “break the plane” of the Double-Zoning Alliance’s Goal, such as to remove Triballs.
SG8 states that you are allowed to go inside the opposing alliance’s goal when they are double zoned. Extending this, it means that it is legal to go under the goal because by the rules there is no difference between a part of your robot going under the goal and driving your robot under the goal provided you don’t get entangled on the net.
As long as you don’t interact with the net, you’re fine to enter it if your opponents are double zoned or it’s ur own goal. I can see refs calling you out on it tho cuz they don’t want you damaging it
So if you expand vertically to a height of, theoretically, 12 feet. And then turn the robot on it’s side in front of the opponent’s score zone… it’s game over for them, right?
I’m pretty sure expansion limitations rotate with the robot but a quick trip to the manual would clarify it for you.
Game Manual is clear about this - come back with specific rules that you think are unclear.
That would be a violation of <SG2> for the robot that turned on its side:
Please refer to game manual rule SG2 a.
The rule states
This limit refers to “horizontal” expansion relative to the playing field (i.e., it does not “rotate with the Robot”). For example, Robots which tip over during a Match or change orientation while Elevating are still subject to a 36” horizontal limit.
I’ve seen a lot of people on youtube making launchers that have enough force to make the triballs go under a goal, I also know that the intent of the height of the goal is lower than the triball is to prohibit this. Is this allowed? if so wouldn’t it be possible to make a robot that could perfectly shoot the balls into the goal from the match load zone?
Reading the “note from the GDC” in the game manual answers your question
An excerpt:
Obviously, all Teams must adhere to these rules, and any stated intents of these rules. However, beyond that, there is no “right” way to play. There are no hidden restrictions, assumptions, or intended interpretations beyond what is written here. So, it is up to you, the competitor, to find the path through these constraints that best suits your team’s goals and ambitions.
Look at and . If your “shoot under the net” mechanism seems like it is damaging triballs as part of its normal action, would it be considered in violation of these rules. While I agree that “if it isn’t prohibited, it is allowed”, mechanisms that chew up the field or game elements could be ruled ineligible at an event. Not sure how an EP or head referee would look at a mech that requires the triballs to be fixed after every match. Suspect they would say “you can’t use that” and cite these rules.
While I am sure that this would be possible, my guess is that variation in the goals on different fields due to increased use, building tolerances, etc, would make tuning it to work on multiple fields very difficult. What might get a triball under the net on a well-used practice field may not on a brand- new field at a tournament.
According to :“ Stay out of your opponent’s Goal unless they are Double-Zoned. During the time when an Alliance meets the definition of Double-Zoning, opposing Robots are permitted to “break the plane” of the Double-Zoning Alliance’s Goal, such as to remove Triballs.”
If you’re on the red alliance and a blue team put their alliance tribal in your goal, would it be a viable strategy to de score your own goal(early game of course)?
Viable, maybe. Depends on how the game end up being played. Legality, yes. You are correct, it would be legal.
Had a question about the legality of a niche strategy I feel the rules left a little unclear.
SG3 states:
Keep Triballs in the field. Teams may not intentionally remove Triballs from the field.
Although Triballs may accidentally leave the field, doing so intentionally or repeatedly would be a
Violation of this rule.
Triballs that leave the field during Match play, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will be returned to the field at a location nearest the point at which they exited. Referees will return the Triball to the field when it is deemed safe to do so, at the leisure of the referee.
Note: Triballs which come to rest on top of a Goal may be retrieved by a Drive Team Member from
the Alliance Station adjacent to the Goal in question. The Triball is then considered a Match Load
for the Alliance who retrieved the Triball. This momentary interaction is an exception to rule .
While intentionally placing Triballs on the outside of the field is illegal, what about placing or tossing Triballs onto a net? This would remove the Triball from play to be match loaded later. It also may be an alternative in de-scoring Triballs in an opponent’s offensive zone. I believe with the current wording he question boils down to if the “field” counts as the 3-dimentional space above the 12x12 area or the 12x12 field tiles themselves. It seems as if most of the references to the “field” refer to the volume so that would make it legal to stash away Triballs.
Sometimes strategies like this seem contrary to the nature and intent of the game however other times it is encouraged that us students think outside of the box for interesting gameplay. I appreciate any clarity on the subject or if there is any rule that I am missing!
Shhh…
it is one of our strategies!!! Don’t tell others about it (even though I think there are quite a few teams that are already thinking of doing it) !!
Care to explain why do you think this is contrary to the nature and intent of the game?
How about the alliance triballs? If you descore the opposing alliance’s triball, then put it on top of the net, can you take it as a match load? If that is the case, you can just permanently remove an opposing alliance’s triball from the field just by keeping it, which could be rather useful.
Care to explain why do you think this is contrary to the nature and intent of the game?
Nothing bad about the idea, just that the people who made the game, made the rule for the purpose of not having triballs out of play and probably not with the intent that teams would toss triballs on top of the net to give to their match loader. I don’t think it is what they were expecting, but that’s what makes vex fun, is that many times people go beyond what is expected. I think it might be a pretty good strategy in certain circumstances and it’s nice to hear I’m not crazy and the only one who thought of that!