Talk:Rambots

List
My list is very small, so if anybody could either add robots to the list or just list them here so we can discuss them, that would be helpful. J im laa  d4   3 (talk) 21:50, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Would robots with only a wedge, such as Cunning Plan, be counted as rambots? Because their primary form of attack is to ram, so to speak. Combatwombat555 (talk) 22:24, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is robots like Roadblock had wedges designed to tip opponents over, rather than ram. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 05:40, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Grammar
I've changed this once and it's been changed back. I was going to change it again, but I'm not completely certain I'm right, so I'm asking here instead.

Regarding the trivia point: Rambots were often invertible, so the effectiveness of opponents' flippers and lifters were reduced.

I think the highlighted were should be was, because it's referring to the term the effectiveness, so it would be the effectiveness was. I'm pretty sure the rest of the sentence in between doesn't change what the word should be. Am I getting this completely wrong? Christophee (talk) 13:22, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Was doesn't sound right to me. Oh, and I think it becomes were because there is more than one subject, in this case, lifters and flippers. If it was just lifters or just flippers, then it'd be was. RelicRaider (talk) 15:14, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's the effectiveness that was reduced. Effectiveness is not plural. Christophee (talk) 16:15, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like RA2 has removed the sentence anyway, so it's immaterial now. Christophee (talk) 16:42, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it's immaterial now, but from all I know about grammar due to my degree I'm 95% sure it should have been was had we kept that sentence. Helsed (talk) 18:01, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am delighted that one person agrees with me. Christophee (talk) 18:34, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, reading it aloud, was just doesn't sound right to me. If it was "the effectiveness of lifters was decreased" and vice versa for flippers, then it sounds fine, but with both in there it just doesn't sound right to me. RelicRaider (talk) 18:28, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * The was/were doesn't apply to the 'lifters' or 'flippers' nouns, but to the 'effectiveness' noun, so it makes no difference to how many things in the sentence the 'effectiveness' applies. Saying 'effectiveness were' makes no sense in any circumstance. Christophee (talk) 18:34, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I just think it sounds wrong, effectiveness may be the subject, but the two described, flippers and lifters make the use of was sound wrong. Lets say it was power of lifters and flippers, it would sound wrong too as was. Honestly think it would be we're and I won't be changing my judgement, just because was doesn't sound right to me, and I'm pretty stubborn :P RelicRaider (talk) 19:43, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's just stop now. There's really no point in disagreeing when the senetence is no longer on the article. Christophee (talk) 20:09, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I just hope a similar sentence doesn't come up again on another article. :P RelicRaider (talk) 20:24, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Panzer Mk
I agree that Panzer Mk 4 counts as a rambot, but I'm not so sure about Panzer Mk 2. It handled robots like The Revolutionist, Spartacus, Tornado etc by flipping them over. Should we change its entry to Panzer Mk 4, or leave it alone? Toast Ultimatum  01:20, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably the most accurate thing to do. R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk ) 02:22, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Justification
We need a more stringent criteria for what makes a robot a rambot. Please convince me why Infinity and Nemesis - two-wheeled bots with active weapons - are classified as rammers. '''R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk )''' 17:53, September 17, 2013 (UTC)