Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My 12 year old son is involved in a team Lego robotics competition for kids ages 12-16. His mother has been taking him to team practices as my work schedule conflicted, so I didn't really understand it until a couple weeks ago when I got a chance to attend a practice.

I looked at what they were doing, and then studied the rules. My inner engineer and rules lawyer came out, hard.

Basic summary of rules team of kids make an attonomous robot using Lego, and ONLY Lego (no knock-off product allowed) to perform tasks on a table in a head to head 2.5 minute match against another team who has an adjoining identical table. They score points for various tasks completed. You can use parts from ANY Lego kit, but are limited to 4 Lego electric motors.

One of those tasks involves a see-saw like device which crosses both teams tables. Lift your side and a part rolls onto the opponent's side. They can lift it after you to put it back on your side. Whoever doesn't wind up with the hot potato gets bonus points.

After reading the rules for 20 minutes, I came up with three points. 1. Nothing limits you from having multiple robots. You could, in theory, make multiple to get more tasks done. 2. You are only limited to 4 Lego electric motors. Older sets used to have wind-up mechanical motors that fall outside the rules. 3. The see-saw task. Nothing prevents you from wedging something under your side, preventing the opponent from resetting it.

I brought these points up. Followed by a few seconds of silence from the room, with one of the kids finally saying, "that's cheating." Parents were also somewhat less than amused. I'm just afraid that if I caught on that fast, they might face someone else that did too.

So, am I a rules lawyer bad guy for ruining a kids competition?

Rules only has to go as in-depth as the situation requires. The kids clearly understood the rules sufficiently to avoid cheating or abusing them and to follow them in a manner that allowed the different teams to compete.

And that's basically all you need from any rules system. More complex ones often cover more complicated situations and larger/older/more experienced groups of people; but again they rise to the level of the situation.


That's why laws in the real world can often have whole volumes of books written on single issues them whilst you'd never find that from a video game or tabletop game*.


*yes RPG systems have lots of books but they cover vast amounts of information and situations; not just one single situation or rule

As long as all you did was point out the potential issues and not abuse them yourself, you should be free of guilt.

Haha I'm sure the Lego rules writers have never had to go against a true rules lawyer arguing that *technically* up is in fact down.

It's good to see the kids had a clear sense of what fair play looked like though, hope they get into Warhammer!

 Overread wrote:
*yes RPG systems have lots of books but they cover vast amounts of information and situations; not just one single situation or rule

Until someone decides to make a character based around grappling, that is

It is worth straightening such things out beforehand. Even if it’s just to cover “but it’s not against the rules” with a clear statement that unsporting behaviour is out.

Don’t have to go into too much detail, as that allows the judges wiggle room to tackle piss takers.

The motors thing should be better defined though. Mind you, I’m 44 and I can’t remember Lego having non-electric motors, so the chances of a kid knowing that fact, and having one, let alone multiple on hand, seems slim.

I've always wanted to run a footbal team in my school, consisting of players who are not exactly fit, but perform the same strategy every match.

Once the ball is theirs, they just gather together and create a circle around the player with the ball and just walk together into the enemy goalpost.

Once in the lead, build the circle again if you can get the ball, and never risk having the ball taken away from you. Just wait until the alloted time passes.

I have never managed to find enough rules lawyers to play in a school tournament like that with me :(

Cyel wrote:
I've always wanted to run a footbal team in my school, consisting of players who are not exactly fit, but perform the same strategy every match.

Once the ball is theirs, they just gather together and create a circle around the player with the ball and just walk together into the enemy goalpost.

Once in the lead, build the circle again if you can get the ball, and never risk having the ball taken away from you. Just wait until the alloted time passes.

I have never managed to find enough rules lawyers to play in a school tournament like that with me :(

Ha! Bully circle football.

Everyone's being so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that maybe they should stop and think about if they should. [/jeffgoldblum]

It's a question of following the spirit of the game as much as the letter of the rules. RAI vs. RAW, that sort of thing. Still worth bringing up as there might be teams involved in this competition later on who have a more WAAC attitude and might try some of the dumber stuff, and when they get called on it, they'll be like "Well ackshyually it's not technically against the rules, so we can be dickheads in a kids' competition if we want to."

But, firstly, if the rules are written properly, the "could" and "should" are the same thing.

Secondly, if they aren't, different people will have different ideas for "should" and according expectations.

I saw this when I switched from 40k (loose rules) to WM&H (tight rules). Suddenly, playing exactly how the rules were written wasn't something that evil WAAC players do, it was how good, smart, creative players played.

The options listed by cuda1179 are 'exploits', not "rules lawyering".

How about using motors to pressurise a pneumatic or hydralic system with much more utility than having a single use purpose for each motor?
It didnt place any restrictions on switching devices

Time to break out the nuclear powered motors for maximum competition.

I didn't see anything in the rules that prohibit melting the Official Lego Products and reshaping them.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I didn't see anything in the rules that prohibit melting the Official Lego Products and reshaping them.

Actually, that specifically IS in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is worth straightening such things out beforehand. Even if it’s just to cover “but it’s not against the rules” with a clear statement that unsporting behaviour is out.

Don’t have to go into too much detail, as that allows the judges wiggle room to tackle piss takers.

The motors thing should be better defined though. Mind you, I’m 44 and I can’t remember Lego having non-electric motors, so the chances of a kid knowing that fact, and having one, let alone multiple on hand, seems slim.

While I was there I whipped out my phone and pulled up BrickLink.com. Those wind-up Lego bricks can be found for just a couple bucks each.

If it's a fun event for kids, then I think they are assuming everyone is playing in the same spirit and isn't trying to be "that guy" to win on a technicality.

Sure, the rules could be tightened up but there are presumably judges or mediators for any issues that arise?

I think my mindset for this is a bit impaired by both my 40k history, and my past of building actual combat robotics for competition. When it comes to combat robotics, if you aren't rubbing the line of the rules you're just giving yourself a handicap. Someone WILL do it. Like a person a while back that found a loophole in the rules to have 3 pounds of robot in the 1-pound division. Yes, it was ruled legal.

If you want to see rules lawyering in its fullest, go hunt down the Magic the Gathering complete ruleset... after 50 pages your eyes will bleed.

Ignore, accidentally hit refresh on my browser and it reloaded my last comment

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think my mindset for this is a bit impaired by both my 40k history, and my past of building actual combat robotics for competition. When it comes to combat robotics, if you aren't rubbing the line of the rules you're just giving yourself a handicap. Someone WILL do it. Like a person a while back that found a loophole in the rules to have 3 pounds of robot in the 1-pound division. Yes, it was ruled legal.

Which is why we are slowly devolving into a world no one actually wants, because we are all caught in a prisoner's dilemma.

If I don't do it, someone else will, and I will be at a disadvantage then. Therefore, I will do it even though I do not want to and know it is not the right path.