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

New 10.2.1 and Non-Existence

Recommended Posts

Y’all are waaaaay overthinking this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

The way you get penalized is that you are "gaining support from on object that is wholly outside the shooting area." To by philosophical, you have to prove that you are not gaining support, not that the object exists. If you are gaining support, even if the object doesn't exist, you are in violation of 10.2.1 and you get the procedural. 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, HCH said:

Y’all are waaaaay overthinking this. 

 

I love these kinds of discussions/debates.

 

Intent of the rule does not control it's plain language interpretation and actual application. That is why there are NROI Official Rulings over time to clarify disparities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NickBlasta said:

 

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.

 

What he's saying is if the object doesn't exist is can't be inside the shooting area. If it's not inside you can't use it for support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, NickBlasta said:

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.

 

Is it inside? Are you gaining support from a surface outside not inside the shooting area? See also rule 2.2.1.2 for definition. 

 

The rule update just made support walls the same as the target stands. If you couldn't in the past run to a target, climb on the target stand and fire legitimate shots, you can't do it now by doing the same thing with wall supports. And for the same reasons - it's not part of the shooting area.

 

Remember, this is to close the loophole of standing on wall supports on the *wrong side* of the wall and gaining access to the targets that are normally hidden. The old rule would consider this to be *inside* the shooting area because it was touching the fault line and standing on a fault line is permitted. The way the new rule closes this is not by changing what is inside/outside, but by redefining what shooting area is, and by explicitly excluding the supports.

 

If your interpretation was to stand, it would have been applicable in the past to any "non-existent" structure. There was no such workaround then, and there is none now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HCH said:

Y’all are waaaaay overthinking this. 

 

Not y’all. It appears to just be one guy.

 

We know what this was designed to prevent. Don’t stand on things outside the shooting area, even if they touch the shooting area. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

 

 

 

We know what this was designed to prevent

 

If we all know what we are supposed to do then why do we have a rule book?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

If we all know what we are supposed to do then why do we have a rule book?

 

 

 

To protect us from bored devils advocates with nothing to do but debate on the interent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone understands the intent of the rule. It's the implementation that has drawn a question.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s interpretations like this that lead to us having rules like this in the first place. It’s a good thing someone posted the video of the reason this exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IVC said:

 

Is it inside? Are you gaining support from a surface outside not inside the shooting area? See also rule 2.2.1.2 for definition.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

To protect us from bored devils advocates with nothing to do but debate on the interent.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, NickBlasta said:

 

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?

 

There’s a difference between reading the rulebook and splitting it’s more obvious hairs.

 

Only stand on things inbounds, including on the fault lines, and you’re good. Just like you aways were. No RO is going to ding you for that and it’s still the way things have always been.

 

You can’t stand on things out of bounds which happen to touch the shooting area anymore. Which was absurd, yet formerly legal. 

 

I’m sorry you don’t like the way they phrased that, but stay inbounds while pulling triggers and nothing is gonna jump up and bite you.

 

This isn’t hard.

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

There’s a difference between reading the rulebook and splitting it’s more obvious hairs.

 

Only stand on things inbounds, including on fault lines, and you’re good. Just like you aways were. No RO is going to ding you for that. Just like things have always been.

 

You just can’t stand on things out of bounds which happen to touch the shooting area anymore.

 

I’m sorry you don’t like the way they phrased that, but stay inbounds while pulling triggers and nothing is gonna jump up and bite you.

 

This isn’t hard.

 

But it specifically says that supporting structures are "not part of the shooting area."  So, if you are touching one that lies fully inside the shooting area, are you technically faulting according to the rule? 

 

We know what should be... but that's not how it's written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They could modify the last sentence to reflect that structures inside the fault lines as well as those touching the fault lines do not constitute touching according to the rules.  But, why would you feel the need to use a wall support or prop support structure as a shooting support if you are inside the fault lines?  I can see allowing the use of those structures that touch the fault lines only because of the ability to touch or lean against it while balancing as you shoot around a wall.  If the structure is already inside it there is no reason to stand on it for support.  And the rule already states that they do not exist so you cannot get a procedural for touching something already inside the fault lines.

Edited by Poppa Bear
Added last sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

There’s a difference between reading the rulebook and splitting it’s more obvious hairs.

 

Only stand on things inbounds, including on the fault lines, and you’re good. Just like you aways were. No RO is going to ding you for that and it’s still the way things have always been.

 

You can’t stand on things out of bounds which happen to touch the shooting area anymore. Which was absurd, yet formerly legal. 

 

I’m sorry you don’t like the way they phrased that, but stay inbounds while pulling triggers and nothing is gonna jump up and bite you.

 

This isn’t hard.

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read this correctly, you can no longer hold the top of a wall for support such as shooting strong or weak handed. Only the edge is legal now, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

If I read this correctly, you can no longer hold the top of a wall for support such as shooting strong or weak handed. Only the edge is legal now, correct?

 

Yeah, it doesn't feel specific enough.  They never define "edge"... is it the whole side that's touching?  Can you still hook your foot on a wall?  

 

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 1:40 PM, NickBlasta said:

 

 The object can’t be outside the shooting area if it doesn’t exist.

 

I see no rule that supports that claim. Outside simply means not inside. An object need not exist in order to not be inside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, NickBlasta said:

10.2.1 says I am only to get a procedural for touching something outside the shooting area, ...

 

Let's say I'm your RO, you're standing on a wall support that is touching the fault line, but is on the outside of the fault line, you fire a shot and I give you a procedural under 10.2.1 because you were gaining support from an object that is outside the shooting area.

 

How are you going to dispute that you were "gaining support from an object that is outside the shooting area?" Were you gaining support? Yes. Is it outside the shooting area? Yes. Is it deemed non-existent? Who cares, it's not part of the argument for giving you the procedural. 

 

The argument that "it's deemed to be non-existent and that it cannot be used for support" translates to: "it is treated as non-existent object and it must not be used for support." If you are going to play the game of "cannot" vs. "must not," search the rules for instances of "cannot" and apply your interpretation. You'll get some funny results, e.g., 2.1.5, "such actions cannot be appealed by competitors" (hold my beer, watch me appeal), or 2.2.3.4, "shots cannot be fired through a barrier..." (only when I load sub-minor, but most of them go through just fine)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IVC said:

 

Let's say I'm your RO, you're standing on a wall support that is touching the fault line, but is on the outside of the fault line, you fire a shot and I give you a procedural under 10.2.1 because you were gaining support from an object that is outside the shooting area.

 

How are you going to dispute that you were "gaining support from an object that is outside the shooting area?" Were you gaining support? Yes. Is it outside the shooting area? Yes. Is it deemed non-existent? Who cares, it's not part of the argument for giving you the procedural. 

 

The argument that "it's deemed to be non-existent and that it cannot be used for support" translates to: "it is treated as non-existent object and it must not be used for support." If you are going to play the game of "cannot" vs. "must not," search the rules for instances of "cannot" and apply your interpretation. You'll get some funny results, e.g., 2.1.5, "such actions cannot be appealed by competitors" (hold my beer, watch me appeal), or 2.2.3.4, "shots cannot be fired through a barrier..." (only when I load sub-minor, but most of them go through just fine)...

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, NickBlasta said:

 

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.

The rule book also says that walls extend to the ground and infinity (if so stated in the WSB), and are also impenetrable, yet you can't see them, and your bullets will pass through if you shoot them...but you have no problem pretending that they are there and impenetrable.

 

So, you have no problem pretending something is there when it isn't, yet have a problem pretending something isn't there when it is. Got it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

The rule book also says that walls extend to the ground and infinity (if so stated in the WSB), and are also impenetrable, yet you can't see them, and your bullets will pass through if you shoot them...but you have no problem pretending that they are there and impenetrable.

 

So, you have no problem pretending something is there when it isn't, yet have a problem pretending something isn't there when it is. Got it. 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...