2026 Rules and Judging Criteria Q&A

We received a lot of thoughtful questions about judging and rule changes for 2026. Thank you for engaging so deeply with the process. This update consolidates the questions we received about judging and rules into the most common themes, and clarifies how the new criteria will be applied in practice.

Rules & Judging Principles

Before diving into specific questions, we want to share the principles that guided the 2026 updates to rules and judging criteria. These changes are not about favoring certain designs or punishing others. They are about advancing the sport of robot fighting. A core part of that is ensuring matches are entertaining and understandable to anyone watching, whether they’re a longtime judge or a first-time fan.

There are many things that make a fight entertaining, but one component is that the outcome of the match reflects what you saw happen in the arena. We also believe it’s more entertaining when both robots use their active weapon as it was intended, rather than simply carrying a legal mechanism to pass inspection. To support that, we’re realigning the definition of a “weapon” with a more common-sense meaning (something that causes harm to the opponent and impacts the state of the fight) rather than a purely technical definition based on the presence of motors or inspection criteria. This doesn’t require weapons to be capable of destruction, but it does require intentional, effective use of the active weapon that makes the robot legal at NHRL.

NHRL has always required active weapons, but over time that requirement became overly technical and disconnected from sporting outcomes. The 2026 changes are a course correction. We believe these rules encourage fights that are exciting and understandable, while still rewarding skilled driving, smart strategy, and effective control.

Judging Consistency, Training, and Transparency

Several questions were looking for deeper detail on the updated judging criteria, and exploring specific edge cases, such as condition points for multibots.

Response:

We’ve published a full Judging Guidelines document here, which should answer most of these specific questions.
Here are some examples of fights that would be scored differently under the new criteria:
Eruption vs. Hook ‘Em, October 2025: In the original fight, Hook ‘Em won, 10-7 from each of the judges that scored the fight. Under new rules, Eruption would likely win by a score of 8-3. Since Hook ‘Em never meaningfully used their functional active weapon to cause harm, they applied several pins without using their active weapon, and they required an unstick, judges would score Attack completely for Eruption, 5-0, and Condition split 3-3.
Saiko vs. Robo-Cat, December 2025: In the original fight, Robo-Cat won 9-8 and 10-7, despite spending the second half of the fight avoiding contact. The criteria at the time punished them in Aggression and Control, but they scored enough points in Damage to take the win. 2026 criteria are specifically harsher towards bots that actively avoid contact during the fight, so Robo-Cat would lose Attack by a score of 4-1 or 5-0, and Saiko! would win by a score of 7-4 or 6-5.

With regard to training and the implementation of these rules by judges:

The revised criteria, and the detailed document linked above, were both developed in collaboration with experienced judges and builders over the course of several months.
We’ve had many people score fights blindly according to the new criteria, in order to ensure the results are consistent and point spreads are not vastly different.
Our judges have all reviewed the new criteria and detailed guidelines, and are about to undergo training for the new criteria updates.
A larger announcement is being prepared, but NHRL has restructured and established a dedicated Sporting Integrity team, including a Head of Sporting.
A part of that is the introduction of a new role - the Judging Steward. The Judging Steward will work during each tournament to look into potential issues with judging results before they are final. They will be looking for patterns or instances where there may be confusion or another issue in an effort to address and resolve issues in real time.
The judging steward will also oversee training of judges (tasked specifically with training more judges), and will also address any performance issues that arise (with the help of the Head of Sporting).
We have also added the “prove it period” for fights that go to the judges, which allows builders to show judges their end-of-match functionality, which we believe will help with both consistency and speed of judging.

Timing, Process, and Builder Input on Rule Changes

Some builders asked for clarification on how and when NHRL develops and rolls out rule changes, particularly when updates are announced close to the start of the season or shortly before events. They want to understand why some changes are introduced on a shorter timeline, how much advance planning and scenario testing goes into new rules, and what level of builder input is incorporated during development.

There’s also interest in whether NHRL plans to move toward a longer-term rules planning cycle, with changes communicated further in advance, to give builders more time to adapt designs and strategies.

Response:

We consider rule changes throughout each season, and this year we missed some of our own timing targets. We know that was frustrating for builders, and we’ve acknowledged it. As the sport has grown, the volume of feedback and complexity we’re balancing has increased, and the rules process has expanded along with it.

Like many startups, NHRL is building and refining systems at the same time. Some of what worked when the league was smaller now needs to be redesigned to support the sport at its current scale, and that work is happening in parallel with running events, supporting builders, launching products, expanding the audience, upgrading the facility and arenas, strengthening safety systems, and improving the overall builder experience. We appreciate the community’s patience as we put stronger foundations in place.

At this stage of growth, rules development requires clearer structure, defined ownership, and stronger governance, and that’s exactly what we’re implementing.

To be clear, our rules review process is already rigorous. We run scenarios, consult builders, and work closely with tournament staff to ensure rules can be enforced consistently, while also incorporating input from our full-time team. What’s changing now is not the rigor, but the structure and process around it.

That’s why we’ve restructured the team and are formalizing a sporting integrity function, with more details to come in the weeks ahead. We previously announced a new quarterly rules review process for 2026, which will be led by the new Head of Sporting, to ensure rules are fair, enforceable, and aligned with the long-term direction of the sport. These changes are about building a system that scales and gives builders more clarity, predictability, and confidence as NHRL continues to grow.

Active Weapon Use, Harm, and Attack Scoring

Several questions asked how judges will evaluate attacks when an active weapon is clearly being used, but the visible outcome varies. Builders want to understand whether they can lose attack points for attempting to use their weapon, and how intent, effectiveness, and results are weighed.

Specifically, builders asked for clarification on:

Whether using an active weapon that could cause harm, but doesn’t visibly do so, can still lose attack points
How “significant” versus “moderate” flips are defined, and where the line is drawn
How flips that force self-righting are evaluated compared to higher flips that land cleanly
Whether flippers will be penalized as battery/fuel runs low and flips become smaller
How pinning interacts with flipper use
Whether designing or bringing a flipper bot remains viable under the new criteria
What qualifies as “effective fire,” especially when damage is not visually obvious but heat is substantial
Whether judges prioritize visible damage, duration of application, or clear intent when scoring fire attacks

Response:

We are specifying a sort of hierarchy of attacks. It goes like this:

A bot that attacked very effectively using its active weapon, causing harm to a degree of great magnitude.
A bot that attacked effectively using its active weapon, causing harm to a degree of moderate magnitude.
A bot that attacked with its active weapon in a way that could conceivably cause harm to its opponent. For example, a bot that struck a solid hit against its opponent, but the hit did not cause any practical harm.
(Same level as point below) A bot that intended to attack using its functional active weapon, but its attack was clearly ineffective and had little chance of causing harm. For example, a bot that regularly struck glancing and clearly ineffective blows against its opponent.
(Same level as point above) A bot that attacked effectively mostly without its active weapon. A bot with a weapon disabled for most of the fight should score here.
A bot with a functional but unused active weapon.

Drivers will never be “punished for using their active weapon.” Using Hot Wings as an example:

if your heat plugs cause your opponent to visibly melt, that will count as an attack of great magnitude.
If you apply an extended heat touch that doesn’t seem to raise fire or smoke, that would give you less credit.
If you apply a quick heat touch, that would give you less credit.
If you apply a touch with no heat, that would give you less credit.

Likewise, using Kelpie as an example:

If you fling your opponent across the arena and they break something or get stuck to the point they need an unstick, that will count as an attack of great magnitude.
If you fling your opponent across the arena, and they land seemingly unharmed, that would give you less credit.
If you toss your opponent a couple of feet in the air, that would give you less credit.
If you toss your opponent a couple of inches in the air, that would give you less credit.

Finally, using KaZaA Lite as an example:

If you apply enough flame that your opponent catches fire, that will count as an attack of great magnitude.
If you engulf the opponent in flame with both bot segments for a full 5-second pin, but the opponent does not seem to be visibly damaged, that would give you less credit.
If you quickly touch the opponent with flame, but they or you drive out of the way before you can apply full-on flame for more than roughly 2 seconds, that would give you less credit.

All of these would count more than a weaponless pin, assuming your active weapon is visibly working. (We will discuss bots with disabled weapons later.)

Lifters, Control Bots, and the Role of Pinning

Several builders have asked whether the 2026 judging updates disadvantage lifters and control-focused robots, particularly in the 3lb class. Because lifters often rely on pinning to create opportunities to use their active weapon, there’s concern that discouraging extended pins may limit their ability to score effectively. Builders are looking for clarification on whether this outcome was intentional, or simply a byproduct of efforts to reduce prolonged pinning, and whether alternative approaches (such as shorter pin limits or longer required breaks between pins) were considered.

Response:

We are not looking to ban lifters or control bots. We want to ensure that the weapon and weapon usage requirements promote entertaining fights, and to ensure that robots no longer win fights primarily through pinning and non-damaging control of their opponents. A fight decided primarily through pinning prevents the opponent from ever meaningfully attacking, which isn’t the version of the sport we set out to create, and isn’t the version that will help it grow.

Under the new criteria, judges will consider which robot was most effective with its attacks. A more damaging weapon doesn’t automatically determine the winner, but clear, intentional attacks that utilize the active weapon and help progress the fight will be the bulk of the decision.

Although we have tightened requirements, lifters can still legally compete by using their active weapon to create the results the judges will be looking for. For example, lifting and slamming an opponent into the wall in a way that disrupts or disables their drive. Likewise, manipulating an opponent in a way that forces an unstick will continue to receive credit. Some lifter designs have already done this successfully in previous seasons.

We did evaluate alternative approaches, like shorter pin limits or post-pin requirements, but we didn’t feel that those approaches adequately addressed the underlying issue we were trying to solve. Ultimately, we determined that refocusing scoring on harm caused by effective use of active weapons was the clearest and most effective way to promote exciting matches and to align match outcomes to what happens in the arena.

While some designs may need to be reworked and driving styles may need strategic adjustments, we still fully expect competitive lifters in 2026.

Weapon Failure and Paths to Victory

Builders have asked whether a robot that loses its active weapon can still realistically win a match under the 2026 judging criteria. Specifically, they want clarification on whether weapon failure effectively results in an automatic loss, what actions are still able to score Attack points, and how robots without a working weapon can remain competitive. There is also concern about whether these changes reduce the possibility of comeback victories and shift judging outcomes in favor of certain archetypes.

Response:

It was important to us to preserve a clear path to victory for robots with disabled weapons. At the same time, losing your weapon will generally count against you in judging, as active weapon effectiveness remains a core scoring factor.

Under the 2026 criteria, the first two pins made by a bot with a functioning active weapon neither gain nor lose Attack points, and any additional pins will lose Attack points (there are exceptions here, so please read the judging guidelines doc linked above). If a judge determines that a robot’s weapon is clearly disabled, that robot may instead receive credit for up to two pins; subsequent pins will lose points.

A robot with a disabled weapon can still win by actively engaging its opponent and creating clear progress in the fight. This typically means aggressive driving, repeated engagement, and using the arena to disable the opponent’s drive or weapon through wall impacts and positioning. Here is an example of a fight where a robot loses its weapon early and would still win under the 2026 criteria.

Registration Priority, XP, and Accessibility of Open Events

Builders have asked for clarification on what level of experience or readiness NHRL expects before competing in Open events, particularly in the 3lb class. With 2026 registration prioritizing ranked NHRL builders, followed by unranked NHRL builders and XP participants, there’s interest in understanding whether Open is intended to represent a higher competitive tier for more experienced competitors, or whether these changes are primarily meant to manage demand and reduce forfeits at highly subscribed events.

Related to this, some builders are concerned about whether the introduction of XP and changes to judging (particularly for lifters and control bots) signal a shift away from NHRL as an accessible entry point, and toward a more exclusive, destructive-only competitive destination. Builders are looking for reassurance that there remains a clear, supported path for new participants to enter the sport and progress into Open competition.

Response:

Since we introduced the Open selection lottery, we’ve intentionally allowed inexperienced and experienced builders to compete side by side. For a long time, that mix was a feature of the event. As demand for Open has grown, however, it has also created challenges, particularly when selected competitors arrive unprepared to fight, while experienced builders remain on the waitlist and available slots are lost to forfeits.

The 2026 selection criteria are designed to address that by reducing the odds of forfeits, improving match quality, and creating clearer progression for builders as the sport grows. Prioritizing ranked builders for Open protects the competitive integrity of the event, while XP serves as a development pathway where new and returning builders can gain experience, test designs, and demonstrate readiness for Open competition.

Over time, XP is also intended to help create stronger connections between NHRL and local or regional events, giving builders more opportunities to compete, develop, and progress without needing to start at the highest level. As robot fighting continues to grow year over year, and the level of competition also increases, this kind of structure becomes increasingly important. It mirrors how other sports evolve, with clear development tiers that support both accessibility and excellence.

This approach is about building a sustainable pipeline for builders and events, not narrowing who gets to participate. It ensures NHRL remains open to new competitors while still supporting a fair, competitive, and reliable experience for everyone involved.

Multibot Knockout Criteria and Enforcement

Builders have asked for clarification on how knockouts are determined for multibot robots, particularly in situations where one segment is immobilized and another has significantly reduced mobility. They’re looking for a clear explanation of how the 51% immobilization rule is applied in practice, how judges determine when a multibot is considered knocked out, and what the appropriate process is if a participant believes the rule was not applied correctly during a match.

Response:

This rule was poorly explained in 2025, and has been revised for clarity and simplicity. For robots making use of the multibot weight bonus, or other robots of roughly equal weight, more than half of the segments need to be knocked out. For robots with a clear heaviest segment, the heaviest segment must be knocked out.