What have you done THATS WORKED or seen work to “game” a stage?

[theWacoKid]

12 minutes ago, JAFO said:

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement. This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them, penalties are based on number of shots required for the scoring target(s) behind the no-shoot.

 

^^^ This states that ALL moving scoring targets (disappearing or not), and moving no-shoots that must be activated to expose scoring targets, will incur FTSA and miss penalties if you don't activate the mechanism.

 

I can't disagree very hard because I used to read it the same way.  But my only question now is, does it?  Reason being is incur means "become subject to".  Which can be read that FTSA and misses would apply if applicable (this is important because disappearing targets normally are not subject to these penalties).  But how can you give a FTSA and miss penalties to a target that was both shot at and hit the required number of times?  There are other rules in the rule book that shows those are scoring hits and that the target has been shot at.  

 

I honestly don't know, but I see both sides.

[Trent1k1]

In the case of the video, where he shot prior to activating, i don't believe he would earn the misses since the target did not disappear, and he did activate the stomp pad.

 

In this specific case, had he forgot to activate the mechanism, for the swinger he had shot, I believe the only penalty is the Failure to Activate the mechanism (-10Points).  He would earn whatever points he shot on the swinger.

 

There is also a rule 

 

2.1.8.5

Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation. (that right there is the problem at the Level II match)

2.1.8.5.1

Level One matches are encouraged but not required to comply with this requirement. The Written Stage Briefing (WSB) may prohibit competitors from engaging

certain targets which may be visible prior to activation until the operation of the activating mechanism has been initiated (see Rule 9.9.4)

[regor]

32 minutes ago, Trent1k1 said:

2.1.8.5

Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation. (that right there is the problem at the Level II match)

 

 

So If I'm reading this correctly, that was not a legal target, but if there had been a fault line at the base of the wall it would have been since it would then be impossible to use this approach. 

 

What's supposed to happen at a match if there are illegal targets? 

[JAFO]

31 minutes ago, regor said:

 

So If I'm reading this correctly, that was not a legal target, but if there had been a fault line at the base of the wall it would have been since it would then be impossible to use this approach. 

 

What's supposed to happen at a match if there are illegal targets? 

 

I think they thought it would be legal, because they didn't expect someone to stand on the wall support on the opposite side of the wall from the shooting area.  For anyone actually staying inside the shooting area, the target would have been obscured at rest.  He broke the stage through an unusual interpretation, and there is currently nothing in the rulebook to penalize him for it.  It's a completely asinine gamer move, IMHO, and I'm glad they are correcting it in the current draft.

 

If it was a mover that was inadvertently visible at rest from another part of the shooting area, then I think they either fix it or toss the stage.  If they fix it, everybody who has shot it already has to reshoot the stage.

[theWacoKid]

1 hour ago, regor said:

 

So If I'm reading this correctly, that was not a legal target, but if there had been a fault line at the base of the wall it would have been since it would then be impossible to use this approach. 

 

What's supposed to happen at a match if there are illegal targets? 

 

It is a legal target.  "Appearing" target doesn't show up in the rulebook much.  But it is defined as a target which isn't visible until activated or revealed.  Reading just to the level of the text, an appearing target is just one that's designed to be hidden, but any activating or moving target is not necessarily required to be hidden.  I think this kind of goes along with the level I rule where you can specify a target must be activated prior to engagement.  At a level II if you want it hidden, you must hide it.  If you want it showing prior to activation, then show it.

 

My point is, being able to see a moving target at rest prior to activation is not grounds for throwing out a stage based on an illegal target.  Again, if you want it hidden, hide it.

 

Same SC match as we've discussed had another interesting and very good activating target.  The headbox was available prior to activation from a rear position eliminating the need to move to a closer position.  The optional route was to run to the port, activate, and shoot the whole moving target from a closer position.  Not an illegal target and not an illegal stage.  I think it's a good tool for stage designers to have to challenge shooters.

[shred]

At Nationals this year (SS/Prod, I think) there was a stage with swinging steel no-shoots.  A number of people threw an intentional miss in the direction of the activator and then took the miss penalty as it factored better if you got caught up at all waiting for the NS to get out of the way.  Because the NS were not blocking the targets at-rest, they only assessed one penalty for the activator miss.

 

At the next match they used the stage (Lim/L10?), there was another popper hidden behind the activator so you'd eat 3 penalties for not shooting down the activator.  Which was totally not worth it.

 

 

[cheby]

On 11/29/2018 at 11:12 AM, outerlimits said:

this...

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAC8O3FtccE

Awesome!

[Racinready300ex]

22 hours ago, theWacoKid said:

 

It's exploited like this.  https://youtu.be/hNagQZM72Cg?t=80

 

Totally allowed by the current rules.  

 

A friend asked the RM at a major match about doing this once. The RM said if you do it, he'd call it a forbidden action due to safety and that shooter would be required to reshoot the stage. Something to that effect anyway, it was a few years ago.

[RaylanGivens]

Why is a mike scored for not stepping on the stomp box?

 

It's not a target...

[JAFO]

I sent this to Troy:

 

In a situation (LII or above) where a swinger is inadvertently available at rest and the shooter engages it with two rounds but fails to activate the mechanism before "Range Is Clear", I am a little unclear on the penalties and associated rule.  Does 9.9.3 assess 2 Mikes and 1 FTSA on the target, regardless of the fact that it was engaged and any hits present?  Or is there another rule that assesses a penalty specifically for not activating the mechanism?

 

 

This was the response, which would seem to indicate that, unless the WSB mandates it, you don't have to step on the stomp pad at all...

 

If it's available in it's set position, L2 or above, it may be shot without being activated.  The requirement for activation applies to targets that are hidden from view prior to activation.  In the case of targets that disappear, they must be activated, but don't have to be shot at or hit if they are shot at.  For other, appearing and remains visible targets, they must be hidden prior to activation, and since they don't disappear, must be engaged, and miss penalties apply.  Consider a max trap with only the upper A zone visible prior to activation--that target can be engaged prior to being activated, and need not be activated at all.  If it's not triggered by a falling piece of steel, competitors need not activate it.  FTSA and miss penalties will apply, obviously.

[RJH]

13 minutes ago, JAFO said:

 

 

 

This was the response, which would seem to indicate that, unless the WSB mandates it, you don't have to step on the stomp pad at all...

 

 

Right, if you could see the target.  If you could see it, you would have to stomp/activate  it.  Or at least that is what i got from your question and his response.  Is that what you are saying too?

[JAFO]

46 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Right, if you could see the target.  If you could see it, you would have to stomp/activate  it.  Or at least that is what i got from your question and his response.  Is that what you are saying too?

 

In the case of the video where the shooter stood on the wall support to see the swinger at rest, there would have been no penalty for not activating the box.

 

Once the new draft is finalized, shooting from a position like that will no longer be legal, so that target would not be visible from anywhere in the shooting area.  Skipping the activator in that scenario would incur FTSA and miss penalties, whether the target is disappearing or not.

 

If this was a Level I that had a WSB that stated that all movers must be activated prior to being engaged, then he would have had 2 procedurals for the two shots fired prior to activation.

[RJH]

13 minutes ago, JAFO said:

 

In the case of the video where the shooter stood on the wall support to see the swinger at rest, there would have been no penalty for not activating the box.

 

Once the new draft is finalized, shooting from a position like that will no longer be legal, so that target would not be visible from anywhere in the shooting area.  Skipping the activator in that scenario would incur FTSA and miss penalties, whether the target is disappearing or not.

 

If this was a Level I that had a WSB that stated that all movers must be activated prior to being engaged, then he would have had 2 procedurals for the two shots fired prior to activation.

 

 

We got the same thing out of the answer   Thanks for asking and posting the reply

[Southpaw]

6 hours ago, JAFO said:

I sent this to Troy:

 

In a situation (LII or above) where a swinger is inadvertently available at rest and the shooter engages it with two rounds but fails to activate the mechanism before "Range Is Clear", I am a little unclear on the penalties and associated rule.  Does 9.9.3 assess 2 Mikes and 1 FTSA on the target, regardless of the fact that it was engaged and any hits present?  Or is there another rule that assesses a penalty specifically for not activating the mechanism?

 

 

This was the response, which would seem to indicate that, unless the WSB mandates it, you don't have to step on the stomp pad at all...

 

If it's available in it's set position, L2 or above, it may be shot without being activated.  The requirement for activation applies to targets that are hidden from view prior to activation.  In the case of targets that disappear, they must be activated, but don't have to be shot at or hit if they are shot at.  For other, appearing and remains visible targets, they must be hidden prior to activation, and since they don't disappear, must be engaged, and miss penalties apply.  Consider a max trap with only the upper A zone visible prior to activation--that target can be engaged prior to being activated, and need not be activated at all.  If it's not triggered by a falling piece of steel, competitors need not activate it.  FTSA and miss penalties will apply, obviously.

 

I asked Troy the same exact question a few years ago and got the opposite answer - that if you fail to activate a moving target it's two mikes and a FTSA procedural, even if you shot at and hit that target. 

 

That is in line with the exact wording of 9.9.3: "Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement."  It says you always get those penalties, doesn't say they won't apply if you shoot at and hit the target.  And also doesn't say it only applies to appearing and/or disappearing targets, just that it applies to all moving targets.

 

The example of a max trap is different as in that case the scoring target isn't moving, it's a no shoot that's moving.  And 9.9.3 says "This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them,"  which doesn't apply in that example as you don't have to activate that no shoot to expose the scoring target since the upper A zone is visible without activating.

 

I'm not saying it makes much sense to give FTSA and miss penalties when someone shoot at and hits a target, but that's what the current wording of 9.9.3 says...

[RJH]

Dang, i thought this was worked out, but after rereading the applicable rules about a dozen times, i am going to have to agree with Southpaw.  Maybe Troy has rewritten the definition of "always" since Southpaw got his clarification though.  No wonder people are always confused about the rules....

[DKorn]

10 hours ago, Southpaw said:

 

I asked Troy the same exact question a few years ago and got the opposite answer - that if you fail to activate a moving target it's two mikes and a FTSA procedural, even if you shot at and hit that target. 

 

That is in line with the exact wording of 9.9.3: "Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement."  It says you always get those penalties, doesn't say they won't apply if you shoot at and hit the target.  And also doesn't say it only applies to appearing and/or disappearing targets, just that it applies to all moving targets.

 

The example of a max trap is different as in that case the scoring target isn't moving, it's a no shoot that's moving.  And 9.9.3 says "This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them,"  which doesn't apply in that example as you don't have to activate that no shoot to expose the scoring target since the upper A zone is visible without activating.

 

I'm not saying it makes much sense to give FTSA and miss penalties when someone shoot at and hits a target, but that's what the current wording of 9.9.3 says...

 

If you read 9.9.1, which uses the phrase “will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties”, it makes it sound like they use “incur” to mean, “be subject to if applicable” in order to contrast them with disappearing targets. 

[Hi-Power Jack]

The "gaming" that I've observed, that is really bothersome to me, is when an A shooter

 

slows down 20% on a classifier and manages to put a single shot an inch low into the

 

Hard Cover zone, for Every Classifier, but Never during a COF that is Not a classifier.

[motosapiens]

16 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

The "gaming" that I've observed, that is really bothersome to me, is when an A shooter

 

slows down 20% on a classifier and manages to put a single shot an inch low into the

 

Hard Cover zone, for Every Classifier, but Never during a COF that is Not a classifier.

Best way to fix that (if it's even a thing) is to stop giving prizes based on classification.

 

But I personally have never observed that. I mostly see people trying too hard on classifiers and taking a penalty because of that. It would be pretty retarded to go to a match and intentionally screw up a classifier (lowering your placing in the match).

[DKorn]

46 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Best way to fix that (if it's even a thing) is to stop giving prizes based on classification.

 

But I personally have never observed that. I mostly see people trying too hard on classifiers and taking a penalty because of that. It would be pretty retarded to go to a match and intentionally screw up a classifier (lowering your placing in the match).

 

I less often see people intentionally screwing up a classifier to sandbag than I see them intentionally zero a classifier that they think is going to lower their classification. 

[Hi-Power Jack]

[Steve RA]

May have signed up to the wrong web site ????

[perttime]

^^^ spammer looking for clicks.

[IHAVEGAS]

On 12/6/2018 at 6:27 PM, Hi-Power Jack said:

The "gaming" that I've observed, that is really bothersome to me, is when an A shooter

 

slows down 20% on a classifier and manages to put a single shot an inch low into the

 

Hard Cover zone, for Every Classifier, but Never during a COF that is Not a classifier.

 

I only know 1 person that does that, but he is obvious about it and shoots a lot of major matches as B class open. 

 

It is cheating in my opinion, I hate to be around it and I hate when new shooters see it.  

[teros135]

2 hours ago, Steve RA said:

May have signed up to the wrong web site ????

 

Troll looking for sales