The numbers are clear in the manual. The decisions aren't. Students typically get stuck on three things:
Score each visible half of a Placed Pin independently: red/blue halves earn 5 points for their matching Alliance. A half nested inside a Goal or opaque Cup half is not visible for scoring. Clear Cup orientation can preserve visibility. See SC2βSC3.
Each visible, Owned yellow Pin Half is worth 10 points. Unowned yellow halves score zero, not 5. Quadrant ownership follows the Toggleβs set color; Midfield Goal ownership follows the end-of-Match Robot majority. A tied Midfield count gives neither Alliance those yellow points.
Toggles themselves are zero direct points. Their entire value comes from the yellow-pin multiplier. A team that controls all 4 toggles but scores no yellow pins gets 0 from the toggle system.
Whoever scores more points during the 15-second autonomous period wins the auton bonus: +12 points added to the final match score. A tie awards 6 points to each alliance. Autonomous violations can change the award: see SC7 and GG13; if both alliances violate, neither receives the bonus.
Current SC8 (v2.1): standard events need at least 6 Scored Pin Halves across at least 2 Goals with 2 or more Scored Pin Halves each; direct Worlds qualifiers need 7 across 3 such Goals. Opposing-side Quadrants do not count. Neither Robot may contact the perimeter, and the Alliance must have no Autonomous violations. AWP adds a qualification Win Point, not match-score points.
Each Robot ending at least partly in Midfield scores 8 points. The Alliance with more Robots there owns the Midfield Goalβs yellow halves; a tie owns none. Current SG12: during the final 10 seconds, do not Place Scoring Objects on the Midfield Goal. The former approximate-starting-height provision was removed September 10. Lowering is an optional stability strategy; the 50-inch overall vertical limit and other rules still apply.
"King of the hill" means the field gets crowded fast. Defense matters here. See override-defensive-endgame for the build-side options.
| Source | Points | Per match max | Time pressure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visible red/blue Pin Half | 5 | Count actual Scored halves | Scoring evaluation |
| Visible Owned yellow Pin Half | 10 | Count actual Scored halves | Ownership at scoring evaluation |
| Auton bonus | 12 | 12 total; tie splits 6/6 | 0:00–0:15 only |
| AWP (qualifies you, not score) | 1 WP | 1 per match | 0:00–0:15 only |
| Midfield endgame | 8 per robot | 16 (both robots in) | 1:50–2:00 Endgame; evaluate at end |
Two cycle options for a hypothetical robot with average drive speed and a working manipulator:
| Cycle | Points | Time (sec) | PPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regular pin from loader to nearest goal | 5 | 6 | 0.83 |
| Regular pin to far goal (different quadrant) | 5 | 10 | 0.50 |
| Yellow pin to owned-toggle goal (near) | 10 | 8 | 1.25 |
| Yellow pin to owned-toggle goal (far) | 10 | 14 | 0.71 |
| Yellow pin to unowned goal (still 5 pts) | 5 | 8 | 0.63 |
Two takeaways:
"What strategy should we run?" is not one question — it's four nested questions. Most teams answer #4 first ("the meta is yellow-pin focus") and try to retrofit answers to #1, #2, #3. That fails because building skill, alliance synergy, and your team's actual cycle times are constraints you can't change in a tournament. Answer the constraints first; let strategy fall out.
The combination of your four answers picks one archetype from Section 5. The mapping isn't mechanical — it's judgment. But the process makes the judgment defensible: you can explain to a judge (or your coach, or yourselves) why you chose what you chose.
| If your Q-answers look like... | Likely archetype |
|---|---|
| Q1=basic build, Q2=any partner, Q3=60–80 pts, Q4=volume meta | Cycle Specialist (volume) |
| Q1=strong build with toggle reach, Q2=cycle partner, Q3=90–110 pts, Q4=any | Toggle Controller |
| Q1=defensive build, Q2=cycle partner, Q3=projection low, Q4=high-yellow meta | Defender / Disruptor |
| Q1=strong build, Q2=defender partner, Q3=100+ pts, Q4=any | Solo Scorer |
| Q1=basic build, Q2=any, Q3=AWP completable, Q4=any | Reliability + AWP focus |
You spent the season building for an archetype. Your driver practiced cycles for that archetype. Your auton was tuned for that archetype. The default in any match is to execute your archetype as planned. Deviation should be rare and reasoned, not reactive.
Your partner was supposed to control toggles and they had a mechanical failure in auton. Now no one is controlling toggles for your side. Deviate: if you can reach a toggle and you have a few seconds of slack, set it. If you can't reach without sacrificing a high-PPS cycle, don't.
The decision rule is PPS-based: compare the toggle-flip's downstream value (yellow-pin multiplier on future cycles) against the cycle you're skipping. If you have 60 seconds left and your partner won't recover, the toggle is probably worth it. If you have 20 seconds left, it's not.
You assumed both opposing robots would cycle. Mid-match you realize one is dedicated defense and is targeting your partner. Deviate: if your partner is locked up by the defender, your archetype shifts to "extract whatever points possible alone." Sometimes that means abandoning toggle plans and just cycling pins.
An opposing robot drops a yellow pin near your owned-toggle goal. Deviate: a free yellow pin pickup is the highest-PPS event in the game. Grab it, score it, return to your plan.
If your archetype was correct in pre-match planning, it's still correct mid-match. Losing means execute harder, not switch to a different plan you didn't practice.
Unless your partner failed (Reason 1) or the opponent revealed a new strategy (Reason 2), what they're doing doesn't change what you should do. Stick to your archetype.
The endgame is its own decision. If you're ahead and the opponent is close in midfield, contest endgame. If you're comfortably ahead, get into midfield safely and stop moving. Don't deviate to "take a victory lap" cycle — you'll mistime endgame.
The final stretch is structurally different from the first ~1:25 of driver control. Smart teams begin transitioning from their archetype to "midfield positional" mode around the 20-second mark, well before the 10-second endgame window. Plan this transition explicitly:
This transition sequence is not a deviation; it's scheduled. Practice it as part of every drill.
Reliable single-grip claw. 4WD chassis (no center-drop yet, scheduled for V2). Programmer can write 3-pin auton reliably. Driver runs 8-second cycles in practice.
Pairs with most partners. Best with a Toggle Controller. Worst with another Cycle Specialist (will compete for pickups).
| Phase | Cycles | Time | PPS | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auton (3 pins reliable) | 3 | 15s | 1.0 | 15 |
| Auton bonus if won | — | — | — | ~6 (50% odds × 12) |
| Driver near pins (8s) | 10 | 80s | 0.625 | 50 |
| Driver far pins (10s) | 2 | 20s | 0.5 | 10 |
| Endgame (in midfield) | — | — | — | 8 |
| TOTAL | ~89 |
Illustrative score only; qualification rank depends on actual matches, WP, and tiebreakers. Strategy: focus on AWP every qualification match to boost ranking points; pair with a Toggle Controller in elims.
Cycle Specialist. Identity is "we cycle reliably and never DNF." That's defensible and fits the team's actual capabilities.
Dual-grip articulated manipulator (handles pin and cup). 6WD center-drop chassis. Sensor-driven auton (places 5 pins reliably). Driver runs 7-second pin cycles AND 10-second toggle flips.
Pairs best with a Cycle Specialist (they handle volume; Bravo handles multipliers). Doesn't pair well with another Toggle Controller (only 4 toggles to fight over).
| Phase | Activity | Time | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auton | 5 Scored halves; partner must complete remaining AWP tasks | 15s | 25 |
| Auton bonus | Likely won (5-pin auton beats most) | — | ~10 (80% × 12) |
| Driver phase 1 (0:00–0:30) | Set 2 toggles to alliance color | 30s | 0 direct |
| Driver phase 2 (0:30–1:25) | 8 yellow pins to owned goals | 55s | 80 |
| Endgame | In midfield, hold position | 20s | 8 |
| TOTAL | ~123 |
Illustrative projected score only. Validate with current event data; it does not predict rank or alliance selection.
Toggle Controller. The dual-grip mechanism plus the 6WD chassis makes this the right pick. The math justifies the build investment.
Strong 6WD center-drop chassis with high-traction wheels. Simple opportunistic claw (descoring only). Auton parks defensively in midfield. Driver is aggressive and confident with contact.
Pairs best with a strong scorer (Toggle Controller or high-end Cycle Specialist). The partner does the scoring; Charlie suppresses the opponents.
Charlie's math is different: don't maximize own score, maximize net swing (own score plus opponent score denied).
| Activity | Effect | Net swing |
|---|---|---|
| Auton (defensive park) | Block opponent auton path | +5 (denial) |
| Disrupt 4 opponent cycles × 8s each | 32s of opponent cycles lost | +20 (opponent denial) |
| Contest 1 toggle ownership | Force 8 yellow pins to score 5 pts not 10 | +40 (denial) |
| Opportunistic pin scoring (3 pins) | Own score | +15 |
| Endgame midfield contest | Push opponent out | +8 own + 8 denied = +16 |
| NET SWING | ~+96 |
Risky in qualifications (own score is low; ranking points suffer). Charlie's value shows up in alliance contribution, not individual ranking. Strategy: in qualifications, alternate between full-defender mode (when partner can score) and opportunistic-scorer mode (when partner is weak). In elims, full defender.
Defender / Disruptor. The build is right for it. The math justifies the role provided the team has a strong scoring partner. This archetype requires alliance coordination — commit only if you can pair reliably.