Fault Lines

[LabMan]

3.5.6 Cover During Reloads
B. In stages with cover or concealment, shooters may reload standing still or on the move at any time, as long as 
they are not exposed to targets that are not fully engaged during the reload.

So what does this mean?

Sor what do I do if I'm exposed to targets that aren't fully engaged? In real life I'd move like hell while reloading. 

[Jim Watson]

3.5.6 A covers that. 

[LabMan]

3.5.6 Cover During Reloads
A. When the shooter runs the firearm empty in the open, the shooter may reload in the open and continue 
engaging targets as needed or move to the next shooting position.
 

It says that you may reload in the open but doesn't address whether you can move while reloading. 

[MikeBurgess]

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

What I meant was you could hug cover before and in many cases it was the fastest way to engage the targets.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Brooke]

7 hours ago, LabMan said:

3.5.6 Cover During Reloads
A. When the shooter runs the firearm empty in the open, the shooter may reload in the open and continue 
engaging targets as needed or move to the next shooting position.
 

It says that you may reload in the open but doesn't address whether you can move while reloading. 

So that means you can't move? Are you serious? Actually what is undefined is whether you can stop while reloading. In the open you shall shoot the move. Unfortunately the way the rule is written you could stop to reload if you chose....you should have to continue moving, but you surely are not required to stop.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Brooke

[FTDMFR]

Wow, they fixed the fault line rules today! No more aligning the fault line to the center of the outermost target (so no more super narrow arrays), and now fault lines have to be physically extended all the way back to the stage boundary.

[IronArcher]

3.6.3.b
Physical objects used (wood, rope, barrels, walls), as Fault Lines, to delineate cover must start at the cover object (e.g. wall, barrel, etc.) and extend back away from cover in the up-range direction. The object used to mark the line must extend back away from the cover object at least 3 feet.


So only 3 feet.

[FTDMFR]

3.6.3.b
Physical objects used (wood, rope, barrels, walls), as Fault Lines, to delineate cover must start at the cover object (e.g. wall, barrel, etc.) and extend back away from cover in the up-range direction. The object used to mark the line must extend back away from the cover object at least 3 feet.


So only 3 feet.

They added this to the stage design section:

6.E. Fault lines used to mark a PoC extend from the end of the physical objects used up range to the stage boundary to accommodate long-cover.

[IronArcher]

That means the line is still valid, even after the physical fault line ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Brooke]

43 minutes ago, FTDMFR said:

 

They added this to the stage design section:

6.E. Fault lines used to mark a PoC extend from the end of the physical objects used up range to the stage boundary to accommodate long-cover.

 

The extending of the fault lines to boundary is a great improvement. I do not see the documentation that says the fault lines DO NOT have to align with center of the outside target. Could you enlighten us on that change.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Brooke

[IronArcher]

Fault lines are placed wherever the MD wants them while keeping the spirit of cover.
In other words, put them where it makes sense, not just lined up one the first target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Brooke]

Me thinks you are reading more than is written. It does not say the MD has any freedom in placement of fault lines. 

Two things....this does not say the physical line extends to the boundary line, just that it virtually exists in that location. The 3 ft rule still applies. Second it does not say that the alignment is no longer with center of the first target and the edge of cover. 

This is how internet confusion starts. People don't read the words. They see what they want to see 

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by Brooke

[rowdyb]

It's like taking the GED, do not read any more or any less into the question. Read it exactly as it is and that is it.

[MemphisMechanic]

After some serious time spent discussing things like this with IDPA HQ back when I ran matches, I'm going to have to agree with them, @Brooke ...

When it comes to fault lines type things you can do anything, as long as you do exactly what they are saying you have to do. And nothing they don't. Delete any assumptions you had based on words that used to be in a rulebook.

When they take something out it has always been because "Our requirements were too particular and we want you to be able to do _____ ... so we removed the words prohibiting it."

[IronArcher]

Me thinks you are reading more than is written. It does not say the MD has any freedom in placement of fault lines. 

Two things....this does not say the physical line extends to the boundary line, just that it virtually exists in that location. The 3 ft rule still applies. Second it does not say that the alignment is no longer with center of the first target and the edge of cover. 

This is how internet confusion starts. People don't read the words. They see what they want to see 

 

Where does it say (in the new book) how you must line up fault lines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[FTDMFR]

That means the line is still valid, even after the physical fault line ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Oh crap, I think you're right.

[FTDMFR]

Me thinks you are reading more than is written. It does not say the MD has any freedom in placement of fault lines. 

Two things....this does not say the physical line extends to the boundary line, just that it virtually exists in that location. The 3 ft rule still applies. Second it does not say that the alignment is no longer with center of the first target and the edge of cover. 

This is how internet confusion starts. People don't read the words. They see what they want to see 

 

Agreed that I misinterpreted the thing about fault lines not being extended.

Regarding fault line placement, they removed the rule about aligning the fault line with the first target and replaced it with a rule saying that they must be placed by the MD to promote the IDPA principle of shooting behind cover, and they define cover as having SOME part of the shooter's body behind an object.

[IronArcher]

And even that cover is a place when you "can" shoot from with parts of body behind cover, not that you must have those parts behind cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[robertbank]

What has happened is we have traded questionable subjective cover calls made by inexperienced SO's for questionable fault line placements by inexperienced  Match Directors.  It all started with the 2013/15 RB and the requirement to call cover from the center of the exposed Down Zero followed by the notion cover extends to infinity; a notion for the ages if there ever was one.  

The answer to questionable cover calls made by inexperienced SO's was better training for SO's and better monitoring the the rules and how they were applied.  Instead we got a reference point that most could not determine at distances and a concept that allowed shooters to back off POC making it even more difficult to make cover calls.  The answer to all of this is the current fault line screw up.  Remember the fault lines originally were to be pointed at each target in the array,  Changed when members pointed out how unworkable that idea was.  The fact it got be the, " I have idea stage" is scary.

Some say IDPA is IPSC Litet now.

Take Care

Bob 

Edited January 11, 2017 by robertbank

[IronArcher]

I'll take questionable fault lines that are enforced exactly the same for all competitors over questionable cover call for some, not others any day!

Some say IDPA is USPSA lite now? Those people obviously don't know what USPSA is.

[Jim Watson]

My experience with IDPA Fault Lines from one match yesterday.

Fault lines were 2x2s spiked to the ground a la USPSA.  Nearly all were placed to keep you covered as much as the prior eyeball method.  Only one was significantly out.  There was a lot of leaning, stretching, and contorting required to see around corners.  I shot nearly all cover positions with  my toe ON the board.  Several shooters got PEs for touching down outside the board, but no more than would have gotten Cover calls and PE last year.  On the whole, fault lines were not a problem in getting through the match and I don't think they were diluting the premises of IDPA.  I am NOT looking forward to non-tactile fault lines.  Looking to plant a foot at a tape or chalk line is going to be more trouble than feeling a board. 

The only other rule change much seen was the "traveling reload."  There were places that you could profitably reload in view of neutralized targets.  Most of us figured them out, but some did not. 

Joyce Count scoring definitely came into play.  Some of us old guys are fairly accurate, some of the thinking speedsters took more care with their shooting.  Those who didn't paid for it, some paid a lot.    I placed better than I have in two years, ahead of several shooters who normally scoot past me.       

[IronArcher]

Absolutely ZERO malice intended here:

Do you feel, in your own mind, that you are a better shooter than they are, or vise versa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jim Watson]

What is "better shooter?"  13th out of 74 is darned good for me, although it seems I am the worst shooter posting on the Internet.  Else why have I so often read "I was only in fourth  place in my second match."?

I got a better score under current rules than 73% of the entries. Largely because I dropped fewer points than 95% of them. 

Shooter no 1 had fewer points down AND faster time than Shooter no 2.  Now THAT is a "better shooter."  I had fewer points down than either but was much slower than guys half my age or less, for some reason.  Shooters 3 and 4 had fewer points down than me, but far longer times than 1 or 2. 

[IronArcher]

As mentioned, it's up to you.
13th out of 74 is pretty damn good!
Again, the question was not intended to be offensive.

Maybe another way of putting it:

Do you feel the 1sec/pt scoring hurt the guys, who used to beat you in the past, disproportionately?

[MemphisMechanic]

@IronArcher it will hurt the bottom-of-pack MAs on down to the EXs (and the rare SS) who were placing well by being really fast and hemmoraging points.

The rift between the slow & accurate guys like Jim and the really good EX and MA shooters at the top, however, has now been made wider than ever. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by MemphisMechanic