Can a shooter be subject to multiple fault lines?

[PigSnowball]

Can a shooter, be subject to multiple fault lines while engaging a target? Please refer to rules that support this.

I have my own thoughts but I don't want to taint the jury pool... and I'm not an SO.

[RePete]

Do you mean at one position or one on each of the shooting positions?

[PigSnowball]

Me standing and firing upon a single target, are there legal stage layouts in which I will be required to respect multiple fault lines to fire upon that target and not receive a PE?

Edited May 20, 2019 by PigSnowball

[Nathanb]

You need to clarify your question.  

 

Reading it this way makes me think of any place you have two fault lines meeting to form a corner 

[PigSnowball]

4 hours ago, Nathanb said:

You need to clarify your question.  

 

Reading it this way makes me think of any place you have two fault lines meeting to form a corner 

 

Yes, that would be an example (of potentially many examples) of a stage where more than one fault line is on the stage.

 

Beyond the fault line of your immediate PoC, another fault line could be eminating from another PoC on the other side of the bay, a dozen yards away).

Could you as a shooter engaging a single target, be required to respect more than the singular fault line emanating from the PoC you are utilizing to shoot that target with?

What rule supports the use of multiple fault lines per PoC or shooting position?

Edited May 20, 2019 by PigSnowball

[bdpaz]

I'm still confused, but if you are saying that you are required to engage the same target from multiple positions of cover I'd say that is illegal per 6.6.5 that prohibits memory stages.

 

A stage briefing (with a diagram) of an example of the type of thing you are questioning would be helpful.

[PigSnowball]

WSB:
Starting at P1, draw and engage T1. Proceed through the stage shooting available targets from cover.

For the purpose of this diagram I've included hypothetical positions A,B and C where a  shooter is engaging T1 from the cover of P1.

 

A is inside the fault line of P1, outside of the fault line projected by P2, inside of the fault line projected by P3
B is inside the fault line of P1, inside of the fault line projected by P2, outside of the fault line projected by P3

C is inside the fault line of P1, insideof the fault line projected by P2, inside of the fault line projected by P3, but also can no longer has T1 visible to the shooter.

Please explain what you think should happen. Please assume this stage is already built, and you are the shooter that has just been issued a penalty and you've asked the RO, what rule was broken?

If you are adamant that this stage design is simply illegal, please provide the rule that the stage designer needed to abide by.

This happened to a shooter this weekend on a similar stage.

Edited May 21, 2019 by PigSnowball

[RePete]

That would be illegal.  Only 1 fault line per position.

 

You can set the fault line so that you are exposed to all targets but if you are behind the fault line, you are considered to be in cover.

[bdpaz]

5 minutes ago, RePete said:

That would be illegal.  Only 1 fault line per position.

 

You can set the fault line so that you are exposed to all targets but if you are behind the fault line, you are considered to be in cover.

Are you considered to be in cover if you move beyond the barrier on the opposite side of the limit indicated by the fault line? 

 

3.5.2. says "When cover is available it must be used". Does that require you to literally keep the cover object between you and the targets? Typically when the you start with "if you are behind the fault line..." the situation is that the shooter is a distance from the cover object along an extension of the fault line. But in most cases the shooter isn't exposed to the targets on the opposite side of the cover. By this reasoning, the narrow wall at P1is the object providing cover and by moving to the right of the wall you are exposed and no longer using cover.

 

I'm not at all certain this is correct as it depends on if "using cover" is defined anywhere.

 

 

[rowdyb]

I saw multiple fault lines at a single position at Gulf Cost this year. One was for if you ran at the the position from one direction, one from the other. The stages had options and going left or right drastically altered how you would have to shoot as it changed the "priority" of engagement. So two fault lines at one position physically.  At first glance you'd want to say that;s against the rules but I feel comfortable calling them two different shooting positions because the targets are engaged in different orders based on which one was used.

[rowdyb]

Edit

Edited May 21, 2019 by rowdyb

[PigSnowball]

18 hours ago, rowdyb said:

I saw multiple fault lines at a single position at Gulf Cost this year. One was for if you ran at the the position from one direction, one from the other. The stages had options and going left or right drastically altered how you would have to shoot as it changed the "priority" of engagement. So two fault lines at one position physically.  At first glance you'd want to say that;s against the rules but I feel comfortable calling them two different shooting positions because the targets are engaged in different orders based on which one was used.

But in such an instance, you are not asked to respect all lines of cover at all times. You're picking a side, and your respecting the fault line attached to that cover.

What I'm asking about, is if you are to engage a target,  can you be subject to other fault lines beyond the one attached to the PoC you are firing from? ie. like in my diagram, fault lines extending from completely separate cover objects / poc.

[rowdyb]

Your diagram is what I'd just call a confluence of separate things that lead to a bad stage design. Move some stuff a foot or two different directions to fix it. This is why the "match administration" rule book needs to be part of the regular rule book.

 

In your drawing I'd just shoot all 6 shots from one spot/shuffle and have a considerably faster time than everyone who ran place to place.

 

If I was at a major my defense would be "If I'm behind a fault line for THIS position then I am good, without ANY regard to any other fault line on the stage. YOU prove to me in the rule book how I get this PE."  I put the onus on the SO to successfully prosecute it, not on me to defend it.  And as I've done before, I do not move from that spot in the stage, basically forcing them to fix the issue before we move on. Irritates them but I usually am in contention for DC at matches and i am not going to just roll over and accept 3 seconds added to my score. (Especially if I am only engaging the appropriate targets from the appropriate place. Not trying to erase a shooting position by taking advantage of something I see.)

 

Fault lines were invented to get rid of this kind of crap. This nebulous, invisible spot on the ground you'd be judged off of. But I'm also surprised that many people still don't understand that a fault line is NOT like the old way of thinking of cover. Treating it as such helps these issues to arise.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by rowdyb

[rowdyb]

Having a person with a background in technical writing edit the rule book would be awesome. Not someone from Arkansas.

[Jim Watson]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

1.  In your drawing I'd just shoot all 6 shots from one spot/shuffle and have a considerably faster time than everyone who ran place to place.

 

2.  If I was at a major my defense would be "If I'm behind a fault line for THIS position then I am good, without ANY regard to any other fault line on the stage. YOU prove to me in the rule book how I get this PE." 

 

1.  I tried that the other day.  I outsmarted myself and shot WHO outside my effective range which cost me numerous points.  But then I am not the DC. 

 

2.  I think that is the correct interpretation.  

How are you on treating the fault line for the last POC on the stage as the fault line for the stage?  Hereabouts we are not allowed to advance beyond that last fault line to re-engage or pick up a bypassed target.

 

Quote

Having a person with a background in technical writing edit the rule book would be awesome. Not someone from Arkansas

.

Years ago, HQ got an offer for just that, free.  Obviously they did not accept.  I don't know where he was from.   

Edited May 22, 2019 by Jim Watson

[RePete]

3 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Having a person with a background in technical writing edit the rule book would be awesome. Not someone from Arkansas.

 

Arkansas is done, it's now Texas.

 

I said this when the 2015 RB came out, but the answer that Ken Reed gave me was "The RB was written by PHD's,  engineers etc." and my response was "And not one of them cannot write a RB!"

[rowdyb]

Yeah I know now Texas. Their committee /tiger team approach no matter their employment is still lacking.

 

I know many people with an advanced degree, doesn't mean they can write an instruction manual.

[PigSnowball]

4 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Your diagram is what I'd just call a confluence of separate things that lead to a bad stage design. Move some stuff a foot or two different directions to fix it. This is why the "match administration" rule book needs to be part of the regular rule book.

 

In your drawing I'd just shoot all 6 shots from one spot/shuffle and have a considerably faster time than everyone who ran place to place.

 

If I was at a major my defense would be "If I'm behind a fault line for THIS position then I am good, without ANY regard to any other fault line on the stage. YOU prove to me in the rule book how I get this PE."  I put the onus on the SO to successfully prosecute it, not on me to defend it.  And as I've done before, I do not move from that spot in the stage, basically forcing them to fix the issue before we move on. Irritates them but I usually am in contention for DC at matches and i am not going to just roll over and accept 3 seconds added to my score. (Especially if I am only engaging the appropriate targets from the appropriate place. Not trying to erase a shooting position by taking advantage of something I see.)

 

Fault lines were invented to get rid of this kind of crap. This nebulous, invisible spot on the ground you'd be judged off of. But I'm also surprised that many people still don't understand that a fault line is NOT like the old way of thinking of cover. Treating it as such helps these issues to arise.

 

 

Thanks for the input, but it's still basically the opposite of what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

If I shoot from a, target T1, do I get a PE for faulting the cover line eminating from P2?
If I shoot from b, target T1, do I get a PE for faulting the cover line eminating from P3?

I completely understand that it's possible to be behind all cover lines on a stage at one time, my question is do you HAVE to be behind all cover lines at all times and failing that get a foot fault PE.

[racknrider]

3.6.3 When Fault Lines are used to delineate cover:
A. Fault Lines are used to ensure a shooter is behind cover when engaging targets from a Position of Cover (PoC). There will only be one Fault Line at each PoC, and that line applies to all targets engaged from that PoC.

 

does this help?

[rowdyb]

20 minutes ago, PigSnowball said:

my question is do you HAVE to be behind all cover lines at all times an

No, of course not. But you get issues when people build crap stages.

[PigSnowball]

4 minutes ago, racknrider said:

3.6.3 When Fault Lines are used to delineate cover:
A. Fault Lines are used to ensure a shooter is behind cover when engaging targets from a Position of Cover (PoC). There will only be one Fault Line at each PoC, and that line applies to all targets engaged from that PoC.

 

does this help?

So when the SO issued the PE, he said that you have to abide by all fault lines from all PoCs. This strikes me as odd but defendable interpretation of the rules.

For me, PoC is mutually exclusive. You may be able to physically stand in a single place and be in multiple PoCs at a time, but for the purpose of faulting, only one fault line can be used to determine if you are in or out and that's defined by which target you are engaging.

The alternative, is that you have to abide by all fault lines on the stage at all times.

I don't think the rule book has anything to support one interpretation over the other explicitly, but it certainly makes stage design much harder with a "all fault lines" approach since it would be very easy to end up making stages that simply cannot be shot, like my example where only at position C are you within all fault lines, but cannot see any targets.

Is this covered in match admin?

[Jim Watson]

3 hours ago, PigSnowball said:

So when the SO issued the PE, he said that you have to abide by all fault lines from all PoCs. This strikes me as odd but defendable interpretation of the rules.

 

Hard to see how it is defendable.  The rule says:

3.6.3 When Fault Lines are used to delineate cover:

A. Fault Lines are used to ensure a shooter is behind cover when engaging targets from a Position of Cover (PoC).

There will only be one Fault Line at each PoC, and that line applies to all targets engaged from that PoC.

[Diver123]

That S.O. is wrong. Not maybe or kinda but completely. To many tribal SO's trying to give P.E's to shooters as if there is a prize for the most P.E.'s given. As pointed out 3.6.3 cover this. On the other hand I blame this so called rule book we have in IDPA. Its so poorly written and a joke it will destroy this sport. 

[PigSnowball]

Thanks for the input guys, it seems to me that nobody at least whome said something here, thinks it's reasonable to abide by all fault lines from all PoCs at all times.

[rowdyb]

correct, all fault lines (which does not delineate cover! people have to get that through their heads. it is a foot fault line. not a cover line like the invisible ones we used to be judged on and every match had 12 arguments in it about it) all the time is a whack idea and the very epitome of tribalism.