Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

NickBlasta

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About NickBlasta

  • Rank
    Sees Sights

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    WA

Recent Profile Visitors

628 profile views
  1. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    The rule used to permit you to use anything inside the shooting area for support. You could grip the snow fence and hang onto it, whatever the prop looked like it was game. Now it it muddied by the fact that only an edge is usable for support. The edges are narrow sides, a rectangle should have four. However, do the bottom and top edges technically exist since they go to the ground or are infinitely high?
  2. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    The edge of the wall is what is it is allowing you to use if it's inside the shooting area. Not the entire wall if the edge is inside. Next sentence says you can't touch the wall supports anyway.
  3. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    As far as I understand, yes. However I feel it's necessary to distinguish between "touching" (like where dipping a toe to the ground outside the shooting area will make you fault and get a procedural), and "gaining support from" where a toe touch is probably not worthy. But if you put your foot on a support to where you are putting some pressure on it while firing (so it is by definition supporting you) that would be a procedural.
  4. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    Until they define edge I don't think you can do anything except touch the outer edge of a wall, no hooking (since that's beyond the edge). I imagine, logically, touching the inside of a port would be okay since it's an inside edge, but it's not specifically allowed either.
  5. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    I definitely agree.
  6. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    There's no need to be condescending, my man. If my foot wasn't touching something that didn't exist it'd be hovering in the air as far as I can imagine. Fwiw it's going to be useful for a lot of people to reference the new shooting area rules. It used to be everything in the shooting area was shooting area - now it's not everything.
  7. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    The rule doesn't make any association between a nonexistent object and your foot transfer to the ground. Running around in circles, you can say "that object is wholly beyond the shooting area" and I can say "it's not wholly beyond anything, it doesn't exist". But, keep in mind, you aren't able to use a wall stand for support ever, by the text of the rule. /All/ wall supporting structures. Wall supports that are entirely inside the shooting area are also deemed to not exist and cannot be used for support. If I stand on a wall support entirely inside the shooting area (something I can't do) what's the penalty?
  8. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    No... I have no problem doing either. I'm perfectly able to pretend a wall stand doesn't exist. The difference is one is clearly regulated (shooting under or over a wall gets me mikes) whereas the other has no listed result.
  9. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    I don't really feel like you can attempt to appeal to logic and then handwave away the illogical portion of the rule that undermines the route you took in your decisionmaking. Obviously, the wall supports exist, you can see them, they're there. You want to treat them like they exist. The rulebook says, illogically, that they are non-existent. Therefore you cannot treat them like they exist. Was I gaining support from something outside the shooting area? No, the thing doesn't exist.
  10. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    Stuff that you consider inside the shooting area isn't part of the shooting area anymore, dude, that's the point. This is obviously harder than you think. I'd ding you for it.
  11. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    Gaming isn't the only value derived from understanding the rulebook. If a RO gives you a penalty because you don't sufficiently understand the new rule how are you going to argue it? "The intent of the rule is obviously.." will not win you an arb. Or will you just let it ruin your match because reading is for bored people?
  12. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    It is neither inside or outside. It doesn't exist. 10.2.1 says I am only to get a procedural for touching something outside the shooting area, not for not-touching-inside. I can't touch something that doesn't exist, and something that doesn't exist can't be outside the shooting area. If I have a foot in the shooting area, and a foot on something that is not outside the shooting area, I should not receive a procedural for faulting, by definition.
  13. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    Umm, you have to do both, because it specifies support from an object outside the shooting area. The object can’t be outside the shooting area if it doesn’t exist.
  14. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    .
  15. NickBlasta

    New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

    There are two fundamental debates here, obviously. One is the question of whether or not you can fault on something that doesn't exist and as such does not have a position outside a shooting area. The other is what is the penalty for standing on something you cannot stand on (ie, the rulebook says don't do it), when there isn't a punishment associated with doing so.
×