Fault Lines

[Pardini]

Is it correct that fault lines are now mandated for all matches or is their use at the discretion of the MD?

With fault lines, is a shooter considered behind cover no matter how of much his upper torso is exposed, as long as his feet are not faulting the line?

Edited December 27, 2016 by Pardini

[IronArcher]

MDs "shall" use them.
No other criteria other than the fault line can be used to call cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Pardini]

That's how I read it, but can't believe it. 

A shooter can expose himself to any unengaged targets as long as he doesn't foot fault, but he still has to slice the pie?  Can not reconcile it. 

[jhgtyre]

I have very high hopes that this greatly reduces the subjective nature of this sport.

[FTDMFR]

And, the fault line includes an invisible line that extends back from the physical fault line to the stage boundary. Which completely defeats the purpose of using fault lines to begin with!

[v1911]

1 hour ago, FTDMFR said:

And, the fault line includes an invisible line that extends back from the physical fault line to the stage boundary. Which completely defeats the purpose of using fault lines to begin with!

Some people have to see things as half empty.

 

This is a much needed step in the right direction. There still appears to be a few things in the rulebook that need ironing out. This may or may not be one of them. 

[FTDMFR]

Some people have to see things as half empty.

 

This is a much needed step in the right direction. There still appears to be a few things in the rulebook that need ironing out. This may or may not be one of them. 

It's not just that though. Since the fault line is aligned with the outermost target, it's going to force target arrays to be narrower. Or to put it another way, the cover requirement gets tighter and tighter as you shoot outside in. Before, to shoot a wide inner target, you could shift your feet and still be 50% behind cover, but now, that same target could force you to be 75% or more behind cover!

Just eyeballing that example picture in the rulebook, I don't think I could physically shoot the innermost target without going over the fault line, unless I crowded the shit out of cover, stuck my arms past the wall, and scrunched my feet together.

So not only does the fault line (as implemented) not do what it's supposed to do, it creates additional, significant problems.

I agree that there are several new rules that are great, but cover is such an integral part of this sport, and I think the new rulebook worsens how cover is used.

[Brooke]

53 minutes ago, FTDMFR said:

It's not just that though. Since the fault line is aligned with the outermost target, it's going to force target arrays to be narrower. Or to put it another way, the cover requirement gets tighter and tighter as you shoot outside in. Before, to shoot a wide inner target, you could shift your feet and still be 50% behind cover, but now, that same target could force you to be 75% or more behind cover!

Just eyeballing that example picture in the rulebook, I don't think I could physically shoot the innermost target without going over the fault line, unless I crowded the shit out of cover, stuck my arms past the wall, and scrunched my feet together.

So not only does the fault line (as implemented) not do what it's supposed to do, it creates additional, significant problems.

I agree that there are several new rules that are great, but cover is such an integral part of this sport, and I think the new rulebook worsens how cover is used.

I agree it will limit the width of target arrays in stage designs versus the former subjective cover lines. I fail to see how that is bad.The worst-worst-worst problem with IDPA was the subjective cover calls. Nobody ever used the 50% torso rule as a cover call....it was impossible. The entire foot fault thing was a way to simulate the 50% torso cover rule. Fault lines work great in USPSA. It's about time IDPA eliminated the cover calls.

Someone mentioned the virtual extension of the fault lines to the stage boundary and how that would continue to cause subjective calls. They overlook the new requirement for marked stage boundaries. If boundaries are marked within a reasonable distance (as they should be) then the fault line can extend all the way to the boundary and you have the equivalent of a USPSA enclosed shooting area. Also the need to shoot the inside targets will force that the shooter to approach near to the cover because shooting far from the cover makes it more difficult to see the inside target(s).

It amazes me that shooters have such diverse views, but they do. The fault lines are a major improvement in IDPA in my opinion. They solve the main problem that drove me away....the inconsistent cover calls between known and unknown shooters, different SO's, and different types of cover like barrels, barricades, and walls.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Brooke

[FTDMFR]

I agree it will limit the width of target arrays in stage designs versus the former subjective cover lines. I fail to see how that is bad.The worst-worst-worst problem with IDPA was the subjective cover calls. Nobody ever used the 50% torso rule as a cover call....it was impossible. The entire foot fault thing was a way to simulate the 50% torso cover rule. Fault lines work great in USPSA. It's about time IDPA eliminated the cover calls.

I wholeheartedly agree that subjective cover calls are terrible and should be addressed somehow. However, the method they chose removes the subjectivity at the expense of watering down the game, which I don't think is a good trade off. I do think limiting the width of target arrays is pretty bad. It reduces the amount of movement in a sport that is already not that dynamic to begin with (although I guess the new rules about reloading and reengaging on the move could counteract that somewhat).

Someone mentioned the virtual extension of the fault lines to the stage boundary and how that would continue to cause subjective calls. They overlook the new requirement for marked stage boundaries. If boundaries are marked within a reasonable distance (as they should be) then the fault line can extend all the way to the boundary and you have the equivalent of a USPSA enclosed shooting area.

To completely remove subjectivity, I think "can" needs to be changed to "shall". I'm guessing they'll extend the fault lines well enough at nationals and other big matches, but I'm not so sure about club matches.

Also the need to shoot the inside targets will force that the shooter to approach near to the cover because shooting far from the cover makes it more difficult to see the inside target(s).

That's exactly why I don't like it. Being able to decide between shooting from near cover vs. far cover based on your skill level is one of the things I like about IDPA. Forcing near cover removes choice from a game that already doesn't provide many opportunities to make a choice.

It amazes me that shooters have such diverse views, but they do. The fault lines are a major improvement in IDPA in my opinion. They solve the main problem that drove me away....the inconsistent cover calls between known and unknown shooters, different SO's, and different types of cover like barrels, barricades, and walls.

I'm all for fault lines in theory. I think not having subjective cover calls will be great. The problems I have stem from defining a single fault line from the centerline of the outermost target. I don't think it will work well in practice. In some cases, targets will start being placed so close together that it will water down the stage design. In other cases, stage designers will push the boundaries of how wide a target array can be with a single fault line, and it will put shorter and less flexible/mobile shooters at a disadvantage.

Maybe it would work better if they somehow split the difference in a target array and drew the fault line from there instead. Or maybe allow multiple fault lines at one position - not a bazillion fault lines spread out like a fan, but maybe just two. One fault line for the first half of an array and another fault line for the second half. Or leave it up to the stage designer's discretion how to break it up based on how far the targets are spread out.

It will be interesting to see how the fault lines are received. For casual shooters at local clubs that play fast and loose with calling cover who have never had to deal with subjective cover calls to begin with, I think it's going to be a pretty rude awakening.

[Jim Watson]

I agree that the Single Fault Line can lead to either "narrower" stages or to shooting positions that will strain the arthritis of us old guys that somehow get the blame for Joyce Count Scoring.  Maybe even to the point of unstable and dangerous shooting positions.  I've already seen shooters in "flying cover" firing their last shot on one leg as they stagger out from behind a divider.

The considerate MD will set up some narrow props that will define another Point of Cover for targets at wide angles.  Maybe just a post in front of the corner of the divider.  Shift half a step and you are at a new PoC with a new fault line to engage those targets way 'round there at the 179 degree line that are much favored at a couple of ranges around here.

 

[Pardini]

The way I see it fault lines are going to eliminate the requirement of the past to use cover. 

Fault Lines are going to force the shooter right up tight to the POC, there won't be any possibility to use far cover if there is more than one target at any one POC. 

So what are shooters going to do?  They are going to crash in to the POC, plant a foot at the junction of the POC and the fault line and lean out as far as possible.  Since there is no requirement to keep any portion of body behind cover and no penalty for exposing yourself completely to unengaged targets, you can simply hang out far enough to be able see and engage every target from that POC at once. 

I assume that the shooter won't be able to touch any prop, wall, barrel etc. on the other side of the fault line either, in addition to not foot faulting the line. 

Crazy, like the local Chess Club adopting the Checkers RB. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brooke]

17 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

I agree that the Single Fault Line can lead to either "narrower" stages or to shooting positions that will strain the arthritis of us old guys that somehow get the blame for Joyce Count Scoring.  Maybe even to the point of unstable and dangerous shooting positions.  I've already seen shooters in "flying cover" firing their last shot on one leg as they stagger o

 

5 hours ago, Pardini said:

The way I see it fault lines are going to eliminate the requirement of the past to use cover. 

Fault Lines are going to force the shooter right up tight to the POC 

Here are two competing points.

In one case it will "strain the arthritis of us old guys". As one who easily qualifies for Super Senior (by 10 years), I can say confidently that stages and rules are written for everyone, not for seniors or anyone else. Younger people clearly have an advantage...eye sight, flexibility, running speed. Those of us who fail in those areas have to compensate by being as able as possible and being super competitive . Unfortunately age is against us but I refuse to admit that I can't compete even though it might be true. Also I point out that USPSA allows the use of things like ropes to stabilize shooting of difficult inside targets. They are neat because it forces single handed shooting without requiring it. There are numerous advantages to body types. Tall guys can lean around barricades better. Short guys can get on the ground better. People who practice usually can shoot better. Use your advantages, minimize your disadvantages and get on with kicking somebody's ass.No excuses!

Fault lines just limit the stage boundaries. As described they actually enhance use of cover as the guy above fears. Sometimes fault lines force the shooter nearer to cover as I, myself,  said before. They, in conjunction with stage boundaries, can actually force longer shots. Visualize a target near the 180 with hard cover protecting it from sight at the junction of the fault line and cover. The stage boundary angles toward the berm (backstop) so that the only way to see that target is on the move from 15-20 yards away  because you can't see the target when near it.

All these things will change stage designs and in MHO make them more USPSA-like. The example above will actually make the IDPA shot more difficult than a similar USPSA shot because you can stop and shoot in the open in USPSA, but not in IDPA. Even a 10 yard target is harder on the move. 

Quit looking for problems with these changes and start looking for new skills that you need to work on. 

 

[FTDMFR]

Here are two competing points.

In one case it will "strain the arthritis of us old guys". As one who easily qualifies for Super Senior (by 10 years), I can say confidently that stages and rules are written for everyone, not for seniors or anyone else. Younger people clearly have an advantage...eye sight, flexibility, running speed. Those of us who fail in those areas have to compensate by being as able as possible and being super competitive . Unfortunately age is against us but I refuse to admit that I can't compete even though it might be true. Also I point out that USPSA allows the use of things like ropes to stabilize shooting of difficult inside targets. They are neat because it forces single handed shooting without requiring it. There are numerous advantages to body types. Tall guys can lean around barricades better. Short guys can get on the ground better. People who practice usually can shoot better. Use your advantages, minimize your disadvantages and get on with kicking somebody's ass.No excuses!

Fault lines just limit the stage boundaries. As described they actually enhance use of cover as the guy above fears. Sometimes fault lines force the shooter nearer to cover as I, myself,  said before. They, in conjunction with stage boundaries, can actually force longer shots. Visualize a target near the 180 with hard cover protecting it from sight at the junction of the fault line and cover. The stage boundary angles toward the berm (backstop) so that the only way to see that target is on the move from 15-20 yards away  because you can't see the target when near it.

All these things will change stage designs and in MHO make them more USPSA-like. The example above will actually make the IDPA shot more difficult than a similar USPSA shot because you can stop and shoot in the open in USPSA, but not in IDPA. Even a 10 yard target is harder on the move. 

Quit looking for problems with these changes and start looking for new skills that you need to work on. 

Let me get this straight. There are standard stage designs and target arrays that were perfectly fine under the old rulebooks that will now be physically impossible to shoot under the new rulebook, regardless of age/physical ability/height/etc. You think this is a good thing?

"Fault lines just limit the stage boundary" - This just isn't true. There's a huge difference between fault lines in USPSA and fault lines in IDPA. Fault lines in USPSA don't limit where targets can be placed with respect to a shooting position. Fault lines in IDPA will force targets shot at a position to be placed within a very narrow cone.

So before, when a stage could place targets at one position to make you pie a corner by 90, 120, or more degrees, we're now going to have targets spread out at 50 degrees at the very most.

So all those stages where you pie a few targets in front of you and then one more in the corner close to the 180? Gone. I don't understand how this is a good thing.

As for forcing long distance shots or shots on the move or whatever, we don't need fault lines to do that. We could do all of that under the old rulebooks!

As far as I can tell, there are no new target presentations that fault lines (as implemented in the rulebook) will suddenly create. They will only restrict target presentations from what they are today.

I don't need to look for problems, buddy. They're standing in front of me clear as day.

[Pardini]

I don't have any problems with it.  I'm liking it, at least on paper so far. I had a problem with the last RB change and haven't shot an IDPA match, nor been a member for two years. Crashing in to a POC, leaning, hanging out and blasting away off balance sounds like a hell'va lot of fun to me. It will get me back to shoot a few matches and see how it goes.   

My only problem is believing the BOD is really going this direction and that MD's will let go of the old and embrace the new. Seems like a whole lotta change to swallow at once. 

[Brooke]

I'm with you. I quit 18 months ago and went to USPSA exclusively. The new rules will get me back at least to try it out. I do hate the 1pt = 1 sec though. Overall I think this is positive change. It will be interesting to see how shooters adapt. Some are just totally opposed to anything different. I wonder what percentage ?

[Eddiear]

I typically shoot two USPSA and two IDPA matches monthly. Not interested in shooting reduced COF USPSA matches. I like the idea of fault lines.  The first draft had a line for each target. Put more load on MDs, but it was definitive and you didn't have to be seven feet tall to shoot more than one target.  

 

I'm in the process of designing January stages. I find myself drifting more towards fewer POCs, more shooting on the move and fewer/closer spaced targets at POCs.

[MikeBurgess]

I typically shoot two USPSA and two IDPA matches monthly. Not interested in shooting reduced COF USPSA matches. I like the idea of fault lines.  The first draft had a line for each target. Put more load on MDs, but it was definitive and you didn't have to be seven feet tall to shoot more than one target.  

 

I'm in the process of designing January stages. I find myself drifting more towards fewer POCs, more shooting on the move and fewer/closer spaced targets at POCs.

I hate to say this but what you are describing actually makes more sense "tactically" I always thought it was ridiculous to pie around a corner for each new target to appear. In my mind by the time you have engaged 1 or 2 dudes around a corner the element of surprise has been lost and any additional targets way further around the corner have most likely moved or are actively firing at you, either way your done there for the time being. So having less targets a a single point of cove before needing to move on is more realistic.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Buzzdraw]

12 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

I hate to say this but what you are describing actually makes more sense "tactically" I always thought it was ridiculous to pie around a corner for each new target to appear. In my mind by the time you have engaged 1 or 2 dudes around a corner the element of surprise has been lost and any additional targets way further around the corner have most likely moved or are actively firing at you, either way your done there for the time being. So having less targets a a single point of cove before needing to move on is more realistic.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
 

The concept of pieing around cover with multiple targets is to limit the competitor's potential to be a casualty (IDPA "casualty cost" is a 3 sec PE) from competitor-aimed-at bullets sent by the "evil doers" AKA the threat targets.   If parts of the competitor's body are unnecessarily exposed then, in a real world tactical sense, the competitor is at unneeded risk of being put out of action.  It goes back to the original premises of IDPA.

To some extent multiple threat targets being engaged from a single POC could simulate the threat(s) being on the move.  Could also simulate simple multiple threats.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Buzzdraw

[IronArcher]

So the fault lines as written are indeed not "tactical" as you will need to be hugging the cover wall instead of moving back slightly from cover.
Now ALL targets can see your hands/arms/gun LONG before you engage them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[IronArcher]

So the fault lines as written are indeed not "tactical" as you will need to be hugging the cover wall instead of moving back slightly from cover.
Now ALL targets can see your hands/arms/gun LONG before you engage them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MikeBurgess]

So the fault lines as written are indeed not "tactical" as you will need to be hugging the cover wall instead of moving back slightly from cover.
Now ALL targets can see your hands/arms/gun LONG before you engage them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

From a rules stand point that has not changed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[MikeBurgess]

The concept of pieing around cover with multiple targets is to limit the competitor's potential to be a casualty (IDPA "casualty cost" is a 3 sec PE) from competitor-aimed-at bullets sent by the "evil doers" AKA the threat targets.   If parts of the competitor's body are unnecessarily exposed then, in a real world tactical sense, the competitor is at unneeded risk of being put out of action.  It goes back to the original premises of IDPA.

To some extent multiple threat targets being engaged from a single POC could simulate the threat(s) being on the move.  Could also simulate simple multiple threats.

I understand the concept I just belive the way it had been implemented was poor.

It was set up as if you could engage one or more targets then a couple seconds later stick all the important parts of your anatomy around the corner to get to some mythical bad guy that was dumb enough to to not pop you in the upper torso the second you stuck your head out. Basically if that target 45 deg. further around the corner isn't going to pop your brain bucket the second you stick it out there is a very good chance you have no business shooting him in the first place.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[IronArcher]

From a rules stand point that has not changed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Look at the example in the rule book and show me how you can stand back, arms length away, and engage all 3 targets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LabMan]

I'll have to see how this plays out before I make my final decision, but I shoot IDPA because I CCW and am trying to make myself better.

I like shooting in competition but some of the rules drive me crazy.

For example, if I read the new  rules correctly, if I'm in the open and I have not engaged all the targets I must reload while stopped. 

The same thing goes with the fault lines. Crowding cover can get you killed. The further back from cover you are, the less of your body is exposed. So if I have to crowd cover and lean further out to engage targets, I'm getting away from what I thought IDPA stood for.

Don't get me wrong,  I'm not bashing IDPA, I'm waiting to see how things play out in real life prior to making my final decision, should I stay or should I go?

[Eddiear]

Quote

For example, if I read the new  rules correctly, if I'm in the open and I have not engaged all the targets I must reload while stopped. 

Can you reference that rule?