Active Weapon Proposal

I know this caused some unrest amongst competitors when Mentorn implemented such a rule but don€™t bring out the torches and pitchforks yet :)

I€™m posting the following suggestion after discussions with some people have highlighted the need to discover how the general robot community feels and whether there is argument enough to put forward a proposal to the FRA for voting.

Basically€¦

The idea is to introduce an active weapon rule in featherweights. The rest of this post will be in regard to the featherweights as that is the class in which I compete and have the most understanding in. If anyone wishes to propose such a rule for other weight classes, feel free.

The proposal would not govern every event, and as such I guess it may be more up to the event organisers and what they want in their shows than the FRA. But essentially, for UK featherweight events that are flagship events, featherweights wishing to compete must have an active weapon fitted. I know this will lead to such questions as €˜Well what constitutes an active weapon?€™ as you could simply throw on an aluminum-arm wielding drill motor or something but that is an area that could be considered if this proposal was to be favoured or advanced at any stage.
I mention flagship events; the best definition I can give of that right now is events such as the UK FW championships or UK FW tag-team championships (although there is no official requirement for that to be held every year, with it more being for our fun). Now at the moment these are both held by Robo Challenge so I guess you could also say that for full-combat events, all robots competing must have an active weapon. But if that was to change for next year, say if Roaming Robots held a league table championship for featherweights as well as heavies, the idea would be that the ruling would still stand (with the obvious exception that no spinners could run)

Using a typical Robo Challenge UK champs event as an example, any robot wishing to enter the main competition would have to have an active weapon installed. It is, after all, the nationwide championship for the FW weight class. There would be no such rule for people wishing to compete in whiteboard events, as there is no prize money or trophy up for grabs, and also since whiteboards provide a good test platform for new weapons, drive systems or armour upgrades etc.

There is also the understanding that someone building their first robot is going to find it challenging enough to get a robot fully working without having the added challenge of a weapon. But I€™d like to encourage those who move on to their second robot to take the plunge and go for a weapon.

I decided after the 2007 Eurochamps that I wouldn€™t enter my robots into an event again without weapons. This was for two reasons; one, because I got fed up of having nothing to do in a battle other than push and, two, because I kept putting off fitting a weapon because I sometimes couldn€™t be bothered with the added complexity. But making a firm decision to go for active weapons has been great. It provides more of a challenge for me when building, leads to more problem-solving going on in my brain (and that can only be a good thing :lol:) and makes it more fun and interesting to control in the arena. Admittedly the forks that Kaizer had at the UK champs were slow and not very effective, but it meant I stuck to my pledge nonetheless to have an active weapon in my robots.

For those concerned about extra cost, yes, complex weapons such as spinning discs or pneumatic flippers cost a lot to get running effectively. But take a windscreen wiper motor, attach it to the threaded rod from a car scissor jack, wire it up to some micro-switches and you€™ve got yourself a setup that can be used for either a lifter or crusher/grabber (or whatever your innovative mind can create) for a relatively low cost. Combined with bits of scrap, simple pieces of box section metal or low-cost plastics for mechanisms/linkages its quite straightforward to get a simple weapon working, and this is another reason for creating this proposal - so that builders will have to explore and expand their skills if they want to challenge in a competition, but at the same time, being of benefit to them by developing their talents.

From an entertainment point-of-view watching box vs box, especially in the featherweights can get a bit dull (although I€™m sure some people will argue the effectiveness of a high-speed, high-torque rambot). Having two active-weapon robots could increase levels of excitement/anticipation/enjoyment for the audience, providing them with a more memorable experience.

And finally (phew!) without wanting to sound bitter, there are several of us who spend a lot of money on robots with weapons with our aim being to be competitive but also fun to watch, and it can be a bit irritating when a cheap-as-peanuts box on wheels that€™s armoured like a tank and could be built in a weekend comes in and wins by just pushing. Good tactics? Good driver? Perhaps, but if we were all to get fed up and build a similar machine for a fraction of our weaponed robot€™s cost just so we don€™t see our money and time pushed into the pit by a cordless drill, would it be good for the sport? I don€™t think so.

Let€™s remember that its is Robot WARS. Robotic COMBAT. You don€™t send a tank into a warzone to wipe out the enemy, without a cannon. Marc Thorpe didn€™t present his radio controlled vacuum cleaner to people to get his idea for Robot Wars across, he presented his radio controlled vacuum cleaner fitted with a chainsaw (and possibly other lethal implements). So let€™s bring the war back, bring the combat back, instead of playing bumper cars.

And just to summarise; this is not a concrete proposal to be presented to the FRA. This is put to everyone to gauge their opinion on the matter. The main proposal is in regard to competition fights and events, not whiteboards.
If there is an obvious dislike for it, fair enough. If there is support in favour of it, I will consider putting it forward for discussion at a meeting based on the views. And the proposal is open to alteration. I have worded it the way I see it, but every section of it is free to be debated and reworked

Thanks for taking time to read this. Please post your comments, feedback etc so that its possible to gain a picture of how people feel about this.

Many thanks

*gets in early before tidal barrage of scorn and vitriol*

Firstly I have to commend you for being brave enough to post this, it shows that there is some willingness within the community to try and change the dynamics (?) of the sport around to make things more interesting. Also some democratic discourse on the future of the sport is always a good idea, although it can be a bit depressing to read as well :proud:

Personally I've come around to the idea that a robot with a weapon is far more interesting to build and to drive than a robot without a weapon, be that because of the engineering challenge, ambition, or a desire to do something with the other two channels on a 6 channel controller. I can however very much understand the view of those who have built robots which would be affected by this (largely due to Andy and his box) and to be completely honest if the active weapon requirement were introduced across all competition fights at all events I can see the number of featherweights dropping quite a bit and maybe one or two people being discouraged from building - I know builders who have spent three or four years slowly getting a robot together only to find that their almost finished pride and joy might not be able to compete because it's been designed as a passive machine.

Ultimately I think this should be left to the event organisers' discretion - it is their hard work that supports the sport after all and if Jonno or the Youngs or James and Grant feel that having more active weapons would encourage more spectators to attend and increase revenue, then they should be allowed to make it so. Outright instructing all organisers to ban active weapons in competition fights may alienate a few people and would probably not help the FRA's image much, so maybe if such a rule is to be implemented it should be as a strong recommendation rather than a compulsory rule?

Although please don't let this lead to everyone doing yet more rear hinged flippers, we've got enough on the go as it is. </joke>

There's my two pence anyway, let's see where this discussion goes...it'll at least be more beneficial to the sport than banning 40mhz would at least :P

I am all in favour of making this a solid proposal for the flagship events you mentioned.

but if we were all to get fed up and build a similar machine for a fraction of our weaponed robot€™s cost just so we don€™t see our money and time pushed into the pit by a cordless drill

I came so close to doing this after losing a few hundred quid in 10 seconds in a single battle one event but I didn't. I could easily throw hornet in the arena for one battle and not bother repairing it when it gets damaged but those that know me and have seen me in the pits know that this is far from the truth. I spend hours and hours on all my machines and am thoroughly of the opinion that robots should have active weapons.

What about:
FW with active weapons: 13,6 kg max
FW without active weapons: 10 kg max.
This rules out the heavily armered box. And it gives every beginner without active weapon 3,6 kg to build one.

I do not like rules because it limits the creativity. Rules such as the purposed can also be circumvented with ineffective low weight weapons. It is a lot better to alter the circumstances to make the undesired technology ineffective. Rules should be the last resort when everything else has been done.

I do not know how the arenas look that you are using today, but I guess that quite a few got a pit. Without the pit, pushing is a lot less useful.

I am definitely in favor of active weapons.

Have Fun
STB

I do like Marien's proposal. I myself have the very embodiment of a cheap box robot, but it is well under 10kg. I do think, however that here are some robots without active weapons that are frankly more exciting than a robot with a very basic active weapon, for example Pillow Torque. I would, as an onlooker, much rather see Pillow Torque careering round the arena hitting things and making a loud noise than watching a robot slowly lifting its opponent and dumping it in the pit without all the excitement of high speed collisions. Unfortunately, I am guilty of building a lifter. This type of weapon is good for the owner of the robot, but frankly not so interesting from the audience's point of view.
Just some ideas,

Quote:

---

Rules such as the purposed can also be circumvented with ineffective low weight weapons.

---

This is one of the main reasons why why this proposal failed a couple of years ago. The Pillow Torque example was another reason with the Orwellian argument that some robots are more equal than others.

It is strange though that this proposal only seems to crop up in the featherweight class - I have seen quite a few heavyweight fights that are (quite frankly) dull and in either weight divisions this will happen irrespective of any weapons.

I forgot to add the fundamental reason for it not going any further - the 1st aim of the FRA is:

Quote:

---

Promotion and education of all things to do with robots, of all weights, shapes and sizes

---

Quote:

---

What about:
FW with active weapons: 13,6 kg max
FW without active weapons: 10 kg max.
This rules out the heavily armered box. And it gives every beginner without active weapon 3,6 kg to build one.

---

i think this is a really good idea (the best so far) , but i think 10 kg is almost too much (6-7 kg maybe ?), because thants , my only FW at the moment only weighs in at 4 kg , but it uses 2 drill motors , its weapon/tactic is going really fast and being very light, being very menouvorable and running circles round the flippers lol.

But still , i dont think this rule should be implemented as is at all , but if it is modified with mariens suggestions , if a really clear need arises than that would be ok . And braps for being brave enough to post this :lol: .

Best idea I'd say is to leave it up to the style element of the judging: if the boring box robot manages to get its opponent down the pit, fine - but if it's been dull throughout the fight and it goes to the judges, it should certainly be marked down heavily.

Guys, brilliant so far. Its great to hear how everyone feels about this, or believes is a good option or viable alternative. Keep it coming!

I'm making a note in Word of some of the main points raised, just to have a condensed copy of the fundamental issues arising from these posts should the proposal be presented to the governing body.

I wish to start this post with the disclaimer that I am a highly inexperienced robot builder to say the least, lol. I€™m currently designing and buying parts for my first ever feather, and will start building it in August.

For starters I would like to say that IMO Storm II was the most exciting robot out of all robots that fought in the last RW New Blood competition. To see how he made his opponents unable to use their active weapons against them due to agility and sheer speed, and the hits he could then deal to his opponents by merely using his entire mass and a simple wedge is pure entertainment in my book. Seeing a good rammer in action, dealing hits with a loud noise is alot more exciting imo than a slow lifter, as banana_man pointed out. And Storm II isn€™t exactly a €œcheap-as-peanuts box on wheels that€™s armoured like a tank and could be built in a weekend€, it was probably one of the more expensive and well-build robots that could be seen on the telly.

Myself, I€™m making a 6WD parallellogram shaped invertible rammer. I€™m not doing that because its the cheapest or easiest option for me, but because I wish to build an effective powerful robot that can ram as well as possible. Where other people put effort in making a spinner setup, I put alot of effort in making a drivetrain to power all my 6 wheels. And to build a solid construction to house powerful (and expensive) motors that will give me high end acceleration and therefor allow me to slam myself against my opponent and being an effective as possible rammer, not an as cheap and simple as possible rammer. Reading between the lines in your post, you dont like losing to robots that cost only a fraction of the money your robot costs and that only took 1 day to build. My robot, and several other rambots, do not fit that description at all, my robot is gonna be as expensive as most other bots I see in the RoamingRobots stats bank, and it will take me effort to get the 6WD drivetrain as effective as possible.

If I want to I could invest 15 euro€™s and buy 3 drill from the Aldi, use 2 drill motors to power 2 wheels and the 3rd one to power an electronic lifter, then put some cardboard around it and have a robot that is alot less expensive and alot less exciting than the bot I am planning to build.

I am very enthusiastic about Metal Demons reply though, rammers CAN be dull, and by reflecting this in a bad judges€™ decision its encouraged to make robots that are exciting to watch. Discouraging people to enter robots that are build on a minimum budget and in a minimum timeframe is one thing and from what I read the essence of Jamie€™s plan, its a valid point but I doubt it should be enforced by forcing people to have active weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muchalucha

Quote:

---

What about:
FW with active weapons: 13,6 kg max
FW without active weapons: 10 kg max.
This rules out the heavily armered box. And it gives every beginner without active weapon 3,6 kg to build one.

---

i think this is a really good idea (the best so far) , but i think 10 kg is almost too much (6-7 kg maybe ?), because thants , my only FW at the moment only weighs in at 4 kg , but it uses 2 drill motors , its weapon/tactic is going really fast and being very light, being very menouvorable and running circles round the flippers lol.

But still , i dont think this rule should be implemented as is at all , but if it is modified with mariens suggestions , if a really clear need arises than that would be ok . And braps for being brave enough to post this :lol: .

---

Only thing I see with a weight restriction is that some armoured boxes, albeit with a strong drivetrain and a lot of power, can be exciting and effective... the restriction should be against boring, weak robots. Those, to be honest, tend to get wrecked by the stronger ones though - upgrading more arenas to full combat might be a solution in order to increase the challenges robots face?

As for that 4kg FW, I don't think it would have much luck in a full combat event to be honest :) fast and maneuverable it might be, but it happens to weigh less than a number of robots' spinning blades!

The general idea should be to have a healthy mix of robots designs. As soon as one design is significantly better and dominating the sport, it should be discouraged in some way. This is regardless if it is pushers, full body spinners or something else. A pusher can be less effective by removing the pit or make the pit less available.

It is an advantage for the sport to allow cheap and simple pushers. Without them we would not have as many new recruits. We do need those newbies to have something to trash. ;) Still, it is generally more fun to watch robots with active weapons. My opinion is that almost everything should be allowed but that we should make arenas and limitations that favors entertaining robots.

Another idea could be to limit everything except the weapon to 10kg. The weapon could then weight up to 3,6kg. That would at least limit the possibility to use a 0,3kg Dremel as active weapon. The obvious drawback with this rule it that it will be tricky to determine what parts are actually weapon and it will require disassembly if it is not obvious that the weapon is heavy enough.

Have Fun
STB

Most of my bots have active weapons exept one Baramot its a ramer its taken a while to get it to how i want it. I do not think it is boring and it is not a cheap box. It has 2 EV Warriors for drive. Sidewinder controler. Custom Ali wheels its fast as hell it does do damage to other bots ask Tom ( Team Xtreme Robotics). It has 6mm Ti for armour (the same as my spinner Dragonstrike) And its the only bot I can use at all events as all my other bots that are running are spinners mind you wont be commpeting again for a while (next year hopefully).

I'm both for and against this rule, but I'm not gonna do a long speech about why or why not have this types of rules.

What if a robot, with active weapons, enters an event and the weapon breaks down, but the robot can still drive. Is it disqualified or allowed to cotinue?

Quote:

---

As for that 4kg FW, I don't think it would have much luck in a full combat event to be honest :) fast and maneuverable it might be, but it happens to weigh less than a number of robots' spinning blades!

---

youd be suprized , i do add weight above the wheels depending on my opponents to get more traction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muchalucha

Quote:

---

What about:
FW with active weapons: 13,6 kg max
FW without active weapons: 10 kg max.
This rules out the heavily armered box. And it gives every beginner without active weapon 3,6 kg to build one.

---

i think this is a really good idea (the best so far) , but i think 10 kg is almost too much (6-7 kg maybe ?), because thants , my only FW at the moment only weighs in at 4 kg , but it uses 2 drill motors , its weapon/tactic is going really fast and being very light, being very menouvorable and running circles round the flippers lol.

But still , i dont think this rule should be implemented as is at all , but if it is modified with mariens suggestions , if a really clear need arises than that would be ok . And braps for being brave enough to post this :lol: .

---

Surely that low mass of robot (7kg, let alone 4) is dangerous with flippers in the arena Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVK-TRMsxy0
A similar reason why there's a lower limit to a heavyweight's mass.

You would have to turn flipper pressures down which could be a disadvantage to the flipper in a 3 or more way melle where another robot has an active weapon.

Thanks to those who have contributed, either again or for the first time. Its good to get an idea of how we all feel about it.

I seem to have unintentionally grouped all rambots into the 'boring cheap box pusher' category, which some of you mention is maybe a bit unfair on those rambots that are fast-paced, or are more expensive and intricate than a pair of drills on wheels. Sorry about that, I do appreciate the cost and effort you guys have put into your machines.

I think one thing that's maybe slipping under the radar a bit is that this proposal would not be a blanket ban on passive robots, only for official competition events. If I apply this proposal to the fighting calendar for 2009, it would currently mean only one competition (UK champs) where passive robots would be restricted, and even then, they would still be allowed to run in whiteboards. Rebel Robots could maybe be affected by the proposal (imagining it in the 2009 calendar again) but that is where the issue of event organiser discretion vs FRA implementation would come up.

Tony, using the above example of the fighting calendar, Baramot could still easily have plenty of run-outs a year at Robots Live, Roaming Robots etc while your spinning robots could have their time at the full combat. You also had Baramot at the UK champs this year where it was running in the whiteboards. That is essentially an exact model of how this proposal would affect a robot team.

I don't want to propose a complete ban on passive robots, as I understand how much building a robot is made easier for new blood by not having to worry about a weapon, especially for first robots. I shall re-iterate that the intention is for it only to apply to official championships. Part of the decision-making process would also be whether to allow passive robots into the competition if it is the builder's first robot (something that could be open for debate)

Joacim, all areas of a combat robot are subject to breakdown and failure at various points. Personally, I wouldn't want to see a robot disqualified just because it suffers weapon failure, but others may think differently. Also technically, there's nothing stopping someone from entering a robot with an active weapon and not using it for the entire event. Lots of issues that would require to be resolved.
But it is generating some good discussion on the forum, nice and healthy :)

do thwack bots count , as there hammers are sort of active weapons and next to flippers and spinners they are very entertaining to watch and if in the hands of a good driver quite destructive

Ahh thwackbots - that's something I meant to mention in the first post but it slipped my mind :P

Its one of those debatable issues. If the proposal was to allow for thwackbots, some people may argue that its not really an active weapon. If not, others would argue that it is an active weapon. My personal feeling would be to allow them because, as you've said, they can be really entertaining to watch and quite destructive. Stinger never caused huge amounts of damage but it could steadily beat the other robot up. Looking at now, we've got Saint Hammer, which is also extremely entertaining to watch bouncing around the arena.

So in my mind, yes, I would allow them but if this proposal gets submitted it would be based on the general concensus.

I didnt wanna give the impression I was offended, I just wanted to create a clear difference between cheap and simple to make boxes and rammers such as Pillow Torque and Storm II for the sake of the discussion.

It's a tough discussion, the bottomline seems to be that robots that are not entertaining at all and also lack a certain effort should be discouraged. Between 7 Series of Robot Wars on tv however I have seen many spinners, axes, flippers, crushers and lifters that failed to entertain me and didnt seem to be put together very well, but also a bunch of robots without active weaponry that were very entertaining.

Thwackbots indeed can be entertaining to watch but seeing Storm II ram Steel Avenger OOTA, tbf that was one of my RW highlights (yeah, he had a lifter but he didnt exactly have to use it to perform that action). Thwackbots can also be destructive but I dont think that factor really does it, I mean flippers arent very destructive and lifters arent destructive at all, I daresay a rammer such as Storm II can deal alot more damage to a robot than a lifter can.

Im reading interesting things here, such as, like I said, encouraging entertaining robots by adding more importance to the Style catogery in Judges' Decisions, or indeed altering the arena to encourage certain types of robots.

The charm of RW always was to me that no matter how fancy those machines on the telly looked, every avarage Joe was able to set himself a budget, head to the shed and build himself one of those fighting machines. This is partly why I disliked the inactive weapon ban in Series 7 (and this was several years before I got to appreciate the rammer subtype like I do today). After giving it a good thought I think all in all Im against banning simple and cheap boxes, it may make the game (or at least certain competitions) elitist and discourage new builders. Its a good point that you may wanna make your first bot a simple box, and then try something more fancy for your second one, but telling to newcomers that they have to build not 1 but 2 robots before they can enter a certain competition is discouraging, as is telling newcomers that their first robot has to be top notch if they wish to enter with their first robot.

this is just a suggestion before someone flames me lol . But maybe we could do what the antweight crowd have done , put a blanket rule on metal thickness(and maybe oher materials), over on the rw 101 forum this rule is being debated as it is seen by many as uneccesary due to the 150 g weight limit (and for other reasons). but in FW's , weight limits are never too much of a problem so maybe there should be a limit like :

steel : 2mm
aluminium :3 mm
hardox : 2mm
plastics other than hdpe polycarb and uhwmpe: 5mm
hdpe : 4mm
polycarb : 4mm
uhwmpe : 3mm

this applies just for armour only and is just a suggestion :)

The fatal flaw there being you can't get Hardox thinner than 3.25mm, as the Hardox police will inform you :P

I would tear through everyone of those min thicknesses and they would all be useless in my machines as the internal forces are so large that I need to have 10mm thick bulkheads etc to support weaponry.

Quote:

---

I would tear through everyone of those min thicknesses and they would all be useless in my machines as the internal forces are so large that I need to have 10mm thick bulkheads etc to support weaponry.

---

lol as stated in my post above these suggestions are just for the armour , supporting metal parts can be any thickness you like.

i think the problem is:-
Wedges can be entertaining, the good thing with them is they can take a full spinner hit, which cause lots of sparks and bangs,but keep going, but like flippers if their are too many they are dull.
also their trusty rambot that never lets them down, its cheap to maintain and gets them further in competitions.

i wouldnt be bothered either way, if the rule became compulsory and you wasnt too impressed with having to have a active weapon, its easy to add one to any robot if you think about it (doesnt mean it has to be effective)

Perphaps people should be incouraged in sum way to have a active weapon?

Hi
I own 2 FW robots one Tron (Formerly JABOW [meaning Just O Box On Wheels]) and The Mighty Seraphim this is a mini Saint.
My view of Tron is that it was boring! :uhoh: :uhoh: I have changed the speed controller the batteries the motors the wheels but it is still a little boring it is getting better though! :D :D
The Mighty Seraphim is only a two motor machine with no active weapon like the HW Saint, I would not like to say if that is boring or not. :shock: :shock: :shock:
I agree with the sentiment expressed about active weapons on this thread, but I feel in practice there will be little that can be done in the FRA rulebook about this subject. But I do like the 10 kg idea.
I think if the EO€™s decided to give the active weapon machines extra slots in their program more people would want to have that type of machine. EO€™s deciding that only active weapon machines can be in any competition would be their choice.

At the end of the day we must have people buying tickets and wanting to come back for more. The EO€™s are best placed to decide how to achieve this.
If the rules are changed I know the whole community would help individuals to make their robots comply.

Craig

Hi Ady
Like to see you put a Active weapon on Baramot well you said
(its easy to add one to any robot if you think about it )
It has got lots of holes drilled in the top and bottom to get it in weight as it is.

As soom have said they are boring. Soom maybe soom not. At the UK champs Baramot it won its white board battle on the audience vote so it could not have been that boring.

Craig you said
(If the rules are changed I know the whole community would help individuals to make their robots comply.)
well i suppose i could take out the EV Warriors and put in some drill motors but what would be the point might just as well build another robot which i dont have the funds to do as baramot was not cheap to develop its tacken 3 years to get it to where im happy with it.

I'll be bold.. Please ban box's they bore the hell out of me..

Maybe the people who own box's think there awsome.. fair enough for beginers etc.. but has anyone ever seen the audience's face's when theres a hardox drill box slaping into another one thats identicle but.. maybe a different colour? possibly bigger wheels if there feeling flashy.

Box for beginners.. everyone else, weapons please in the competitions.

box's suck.

My opinion.

i agree

They would you keep loseing to them

:lol:

Thats not really the point were making tony.

The only thing that makes a fight between say hornet or 360 vs a pushy bot made of nylon is the spinner cracking sparks of the pusher...

A pusher in any other sinario is boring as hell.

The only thing that makes a fight between say hornet or 360 vs a pushy bot made of nylon is the spinner cracking sparks of the pusher

NYLON SPARKS mmm
cant say much myself have always used weapon bots at important events any way even though i would probably have gone further in the comp if i had used Baramot as my active weapon bots are usually crap any way.

:?

im in the process of building a hevay weight , I was torn between a big indestructable box and a thwack bot and cuz of this thread im going for a thwack bot for definite (although i had already sort of favoured a thwack bot)

I said
if the rule became compulsory and you wasnt too impressed with having to have a active weapon, its easy to add one to any robot if you think about it (doesnt mean it has to be effective)

Tony said
Like to see you put a Active weapon on Baramot,

ok get a 3 volt motor from a model shop, attach a wheel, then attach a craft type blade stick it out the back of your robot, their you have a weapon!
or get a servo attach a crappy piece of hdpe to it, then you got a lifter,
like i said it may not work or be effective but its a weapon!!!
:rofl:


catch my drift?

First of all, well done to Jamie for submitting this proposal for discussion.

As an owner of a €˜passive€™ featherweight, I€™m obviously against this. I€™m a huge fan of passive robots, for reasons that have already been explained. You could argue that rammers are active weapons. Personally I find one robot slamming another into the wall just as interesting as a spinner tearing through some armour. What is defined as an active weapon? Would this rule out original robots like The Saint? If so, it limits creativity. Enforcing a rule like this would just mean rammers with lame chain flails like Tornado had.

I€™ll try not to offend anyone, but this is how I see it. Those backing the proposal are owners of featherweight spinners. I think those people need to accept that all designs have their strengths and weaknesses. If you€™re tired of losing to robots you perceive as boring, build something that can beat them. Don€™t try to ban passive robots from spinner events just because they are good at what they do. Sorry if that seems harsh, but that€™s my opinion.

I appreciate that the more experienced builders want to build weaponed robots to entertain. But at the end of the day, the best robot wins. Nothing should be done to penalise passive robots for being effective. I hope everyone understands this point of view. Again, I apologise if anyone is offended by my opinion. I just think we need to accept that this is like Rock, Paper, Scissors and passive robots are an important part of this game. We wouldn€™t ban spinners or flippers or crushers etc€¦

I think that makes some sort of sense anyway. :lame:

Quote:

---

ok get a 3 volt motor from a model shop, attach a wheel, then attach a craft type blade stick it out the back of your robot, their you have a weapon!
or get a servo attach a crappy piece of hdpe to it, then you got a lifter,
like i said it may not work or be effective but its a weapon!!!
:rofl:

---

if this rule is implemented ,and everyone does this , then the rule might as well not be there anyway :lol: . And a lot of people new to robots buy 2 channel radios as they are the cheapest and they may not be able to afford a 3 channel + radio (my first radio was 2 channel) so they would not be able to build a bot (clasifying things like thwack bots is a very gray area , i did think of it ). sorry but im still against this rule , i encourage dis encouraging people to build ram bots and such , but i don think its right to ban them.