Need a Ruling..

[Scorpion]

If player A is down (deactivated), and they are pointing their phaser at enemy player B, then is player A targeting player B?

[Nalang]

Target/Targeting: Targeting is defined as the act of pointing a phaser at a target in such a manner as to facilitate a shot of any type being fired at the target or the obtaining of a missile lock on the target.

I would assume regardless of active state of either player, If you point your phaser at them, you are targeting them.

Keep in mind though that I have only been to 1 tournament where I have used these rules, but I have studied them up and down.

[Shadow Dagger]

If player A is down (deactivated), and they are pointing their phaser at enemy player B, then is player A targeting player B?

Target/Targeting: Targeting is defined as the act of pointing a phaser at a target in such a manner as to facilitate a shot of any type being fired at the target or the obtaining of a missile lock on the target.

I would assume regardless of active state of either player, If you point your phaser at them, you are targeting them.

Keep in mind though that I have only been to 1 tournament where I have used these rules, but I have studied them up and down.

Yes and No,

Yes, as Nalang says, by definition you are targeting them,

No, because a player (regardless of state) cannot be illegally targeting another player unless they do not have both hands on the phaser.

Also known as Illegally Blind-Firing...

If my understanding of the rules as they are written are correct.

Source:

READ MORE:

Definition:
Target/Targeting: Targeting is defined as the act of pointing a phaser at a target in such a manner as to facilitate a shot of any type being fired at the target or the obtaining of a missile lock on the target. Where two-handed phasers are used, a player who does not have both hands on the phaser is not deemed to be targetting.

To point your phaser at something that emits an infrared signal such as a shoulder, phaser, or generator target. This includes targeting the infra-red of your opponents suit when it is reflecting off an object (eg a wall).

READ MORE:

14. ILLEGAL TARGETING (X)

Where two-handed phasers are used, a player may not deliberately use their phaser to obtain or attempt to obtain a lock-on of any type on an opponent without both hands on the phaser.

Penalty to be applied for each breach: 2000pts

This penalty closes the loophole opened by the change to shielding part (d) and the change to the definition of targeting. If you do not have two hands on the gun, you are not targeting, but if you try to get a lock-on with only one hand on your gun, say around a corner, then take the shot with both, you breach this rule. The action must be deemed by the referees to be deliberate.

However Illegally Following/Chasing is another matter...

Does this answer you question?

[xThanatoSx]

Hm.

Interesting question.

I think the key part of the Targeting definition comes as whether you think while a player is deactivated they're actually facilitating a shot being fired.

Two ways to look at it.

Yes - because when the player they're targeting reactivates, they're already going to be locked on and in a position to fire - the facilitation is already done.
No - because until the person actually targeting reactivates, they actually can't do anything.

So this would only really be an issue for those times where you're already in a chasing situation... given that the rules are supposed to apply regardless of game, I'd have to go with yes due to the fact that a ref shouldn't have to determine whether or not a player is in stealth mode [I know - not an issue for SM5 - but see previous statement].

Now, if you're making a determinant for an SM5 ruling ONLY - then I'd go with no.

[PAT]

is this to do with your crazy move scorpion that involves you shielding your sensors behind live players on the other team?

[Scorpion]

is this to do with your crazy move scorpion that involves you shielding your sensors behind live players on the other team?

Well spotted! However, this is only one part of a multi-part attack.

[tragedy]

hmmm...
To me, on the surface if a player's suit is deactivated then they cannot be deemed as targeting, because if you are not active, you can't tag anyone. If you've followed someone then you 'should' be safe from the Chasing rule.

However!

A player, when not targeting an opponent, may use only their torso and/or permanent playing field constructions and/or another hit zone to block an opponents shot or attempted shot at any of their hit zones provided they are not breaching parts (a) (b) or (c).

If you are hiding behind another player, and a deactivated opponent points his phaser at you, (or more likely - a deactivated opponent points his phaser at you so you hide behind another player) then he could be construed as making an attempted shot and you would be in breach of the Shielding rule.

As far as Chasing goes, I know my Plain English Explanation says it doesn't matter if your suit is active or not as that allowed for a myriad of situations that may arise from the game such as "I didn't see the whole thing" or "I just saw then end of it and your phaser was pointing at him" and therefore rather than put in exceptions it was made blanket "DO NOT DO." If, however, a change is warranted as "if the ref sees you and your suit isn't up then you're safe" then I'm cool with that.

[PAT]

so any more developments on your multi-part attack chris?


based on what you did in that game with you and me on opposite teams. you were 3 hit standing in front of me in the green corridor just outside the bildge, i was single hit, and a third player(who was on my team as a 3 hit) was standing behind me.

we were both up, you were down(put down by either one of us or both of us)

you tried the crazy move of shielding yourself from getting shot by the 3 hit on my team, by hiding your sensors behind ME as i had already shot you once and was trying to get out of the way of my team mates shot on you but you followed me where i went..

I WAS OUTRAGED... lol.. but in hindsight is that legal or not..

opinions people

[troyoda]

depends on how fast it happened and if it would count as a dangerous play/blocking your way

[PAT]

he was deliberately shielding his own sensors behind my body. and moved when i moved to keep them shielded from the other player on my team

[troyoda]

he was deliberately shielding his own sensors behind my body. and moved when i moved to keep them shielded from the other player on my team

If he is down I do not see how this is wrong, its the same as ducking behind a wall. As long as he is not targeting the other player whilst shielding behind you.
Why didnt just go backwards to your 3 hit? then he couldn't hide so well?

[xDKx]

he was deliberately shielding his own sensors behind my body. and moved when i moved to keep them shielded from the other player on my team

I would think that could potentially fall under section D of the shielding rule:

(d) A player, when not targeting an opponent, may use only their torso and/or permanent playing field constructions to block an opponents shot or attempted shot at any of their hit zones provided they are not breaching parts (a) (b) or (c).

I'm not sure this particular clause was ever considered in light of this particular situation, though. I'm inclined to think it's legal so long as he isn't targeting the player trying to shoot him, given that you're allowed to hide behind a team member as long he isn't moving to block an opponent's shot. This is just a most unusual variant of that type of move, IMO. In my particular interpretation of the spirit of the rules, I'm struggling to find a way to consider this as an infringement, unless you take the view that you (PAT) are not a permanent field construction, and thus it's not legal to use you as a shield (but in such a case, it's illegal for a Medic to shield himself behind a team member).

[tragedy]

13. SHIELDING (X)

(a) A player may not deliberately target an opponent with their phaser unless:

(i) they have unobstructed line of sight to at least one of the opponent’s visible hit zones, or are sighting directly over their phaser barrel

AND

(ii – AU/NZ VERSION) The point that is being targeted (which is usually the opponent’s hit zone, but may be a wall in the case of a reflection shot) has unobstructed line of sight back to at least one of the targeting player’s shoulder or chest hit zones.

(ii – US VERSION) The point that is being targeted (which is usually the opponent’s hit zone, but may be a wall in the case of a reflection shot) has unobstructed line of sight back to at least one of the targeting player’s Visible Hit Zones.

AU/NZ Plain English: You cannot “target” (point your phaser) at an opponent unless you can see his flashing lights or you are looking directly down your phaser barrel. The second part allows you to shoot when you receive a “lock-on” tone even when you cannot see what you are locking on to, thus allowing the “reflection shot” provided that the point from which your suit is getting a signal (e.g. a reflection off a wall) can look back to you and see either a shoulder or chest zone.

US Plain English: You cannot “target” (point your phaser) at an opponent unless you can see his flashing lights or you are looking directly down your phaser barrel. The second part allows you to shoot when you receive a “lock-on” tone even when you cannot see what you are locking on to, thus allowing the “reflection shot” provided that the point from which your suit is getting a signal (e.g. a reflection off a wall) can look back to you and see either a shoulder, chest or phaser hit zone.

(b) A player may not deliberately block, with any part of their body, clothing, or equipment, an opponents shot at the visible hit zones of any other player or eligible in-field target. A visible hit zone is defined in the glossary.

This part of the rule is about shielding other players. You cannot use any part of your body (including hands, arms, legs, and hair), your clothes, or your suit (gun, pack, etc) to stop an opponent from shooting someone else or the extra targets (generator, def droid, neutral targets, flags, etc). The referee must determine that the shielding was deliberate before you can be penalised.

(c) A player, when not targeting an opponent, may use only their torso and/or permanent playing field constructions to block an opponents shot or attempted shot at any of their hit zones provided they are not breaching parts (a) or (b).

This part of the rule covers what you are allowed to cover your lights with when you are not trying to shoot back. Basically what it says is when you are not trying to shoot back (eg pulling a nuke) the only things you are allowed to hide your shoulder lights with are your torso (no arms, legs, head, etc) and permanent parts of the playing arena.

These are the current rules, accessed via this link http://laserforcehq.com/rules/tournament-rules/as it appears Than has updated those, but forgotten to update the ones in the forum itself. (Having said that though, I could have done it too I think, I just haven't)
Part (c) used to be Part (d) but is still the same wording.
SO...
Since Pat is not part of Scorpion's torso nor is he a permanent playing field construction, then Scorpion is breaking the rules. You CANNOT use another player to shield your hit zones. You CANNOT use a referee to shield your hit zones. You can stand behind them, but as soon as someone wants to tag you, you're stuffed.
I'm surprised that Chris has tried this tactic again after being penalised for it early last A Grade season when he tried to hide behind me, and I brought it to the ref's attention then and after the game.

was trying to get out of the way of my team mates shot on you

This statement is what makes the move illegal. Someone (the 3-hit) on Pat's team was trying to tag Scorpion, therefore he has breached the rule.

[Rusty]

Chris, good thinking! I might have to keep this up the sleeve....

OR....

JUST RUN NEXT TIME AYE. Haha.

[PAT]

Since Pat is not part of Scorpion's torso nor is he a permanent playing field construction, then Scorpion is breaking the rules. You CANNOT use another player to shield your hit zones. You CANNOT use a referee to shield your hit zones. You can stand behind them, but as soon as someone wants to tag you, you're stuffed.

+1

[Scorpion]

so any more developments on your multi-part attack chris?

My care factor dropped off for a while, but since you brought it up...

You CANNOT use another player to shield your hit zones. You CANNOT use a referee to shield your hit zones. You can stand behind them, but as soon as someone wants to tag you, you're stuffed.
I'm surprised that Chris has tried this tactic again after being penalised for it early last A Grade season when he tried to hide behind me, and I brought it to the ref's attention then and after the game.

The rule is broken when interpreted literally as written. Anytime two deactivated players go down a corridor/walkway/ramp and someone is shooting at them from behind: BAM! violation of the rule, because the player in front is shielded by the player behind.

It doesn't have to be deliberate, it just has to happen.

If you fail to see that, then during league I will simply go zero-tolerance on it and when we have 10+ penalties per game (mostly on the resupply when they are kicked out of somewhere) then maybe it will be more clear.

I am in a unique position to comment on the original intent of this rule, because I created it the first place, a long time ago.

The original intent of that rule was to prevent a player from using their own hands/arms to cover their hit zones and become unhittable. This would have been otherwise possible in Gen5 by backing into a corner, putting the phaser between your legs (pointing backwards) and covering your shoulders with your hands. You might be inclined to try this if:

(a) You were a commander dropping a nuke, and were afraid it would be cancelled,
(b) You were medic, low on lives, and being attacked, or
(c) You were out of shots and wanted to stay alive.

Of course the additional hitability in Gen6 means that this is unlikely to be feasable even without the rule in place.

What has happened to this original intent? Well, the original wording (from 1997) was this:

A player may not deliberately block, with any part of their limbs, clothing or equipment, an opponent’s shot at any of their hit zones.

Some time in the last decade, someone has done a "tidy up" of the rules and inverted the sense of this section, changing it from what you "can't do" into what you "can do". Unfortunately, they have decided that the inverse of "limbs, clothing or equipment" is "torso and/or permanent playing field constructions", but they forgot about other players and referees.

So the rule is badly broken and should probably be reverted to its original form. Don't make me prove it during league.

[tragedy]

First Chris, I'd like to call this statement:

It doesn't have to be deliberate, it just has to happen.

and raise you a

(b) A player may not deliberately block, with any part of their body, clothing, or equipment, an opponents shot at the visible hit zones of any other player or eligible in-field target.

and note that i've highlighted the important word.

So with that in mind

The rule is broken when interpreted literally as written. Anytime two deactivated players go down a corridor/walkway/ramp and someone is shooting at them from behind: BAM! violation of the rule, because the player in front is shielded by the player behind.

this cannot always be deemed a deliberate act. For example, if medic and ammo are fleeing down a corridor or up a ramp and the front player is bent 90 degrees, Gen 6 or not you are not guaranteed to get a hit anyway, so if the following player is immediately between you and the front player, as a ref I couldn't say he was deliberately shielding his teammate from you. Another example, if both players are fleeing down said corridor, or a ramp, and they have to both be on the same side to avoid a collision with or blocking someone in their path then again, I couldn't say that action would be seen as a deliberate attempt to block your shot.
Whenever I'm in a situation like this, I always tell the person in front of me "Bend over. Bend over. Bend over." because I believe I can argue my case if penalised.

I have a copy of the rules from pre-vest suits. Shielding-type rules are split up into
Rule 5. Shielding Generator - cannot block shot at gen
Rule 6. Shielding Player - "No player may deliberately block, with any part of his/her body or equipment, an opponent's shot at any other player or him/herself"
Rule 23. Tower Windows - "No player shall stand at the window in either tower so that all of his forward facing helmet sensors are hidden from the view of the players in the bridge" (This is a good one cos based on the literal wording, it doesn't matter if you're up, down, targeting, or just looking)
Rule 24. Obscuring - "A player may not deliberately use any part of the playing field, a referee, or any other player to obscure all of his helmet lights from an opponent while attempting to zap an opponent"
Rule 25. Blind Firing - "A player may not deliberately zap an opponent while using the playing field, a referee or any other player in such a way that neither the player nor his target have line-of-sight on the other" (A retro rule that Chris helped to change recently and is now Shielding part (a))
so it's pretty obvious that some tiying up was needed. To my knowledge that was done by you and Gallandro. You amalgamated all the shielding rules into one rule that contained many parts. I do not have a copy of these rules but I'll paraphrase from memory:-
(a) when you may target
(b) you may not deliberately block a shot at another player or target
(c) cannot use body clothing or equipment to block hit zones when targeting
(d) cannot use another player, referee, or playing field to block hit zones when targeting
(e) when not targeting, can only use torso or field to block hit zones.

While I may not have them perfect, I remember the last part well because it was specifically written to allow players to bend over to flee opponents, especially important after the introduction of vest suits. After a while, I was involved in amalgamating what I have above as parts (c) and (d) because they basically say the same thing, just for different items, and further along from that it was changed last year to what it is now.
My point here is under what is now Part (c) you cannot use another player to block a shot on your hit zones, deliberate or otherwise. If that's not in the spirit of why the rule was written then I'm sorry, it's how you wrote it those many years ago. The wording as it is now has not changed since before I started keeping my records, and I did not change it prior to that.

Some time in the last decade, someone has done a "tidy up" of the rules and inverted the sense of this section, changing it from what you "can't do" into what you "can do". Unfortunately, they have decided that the inverse of "limbs, clothing or equipment" is "torso and/or permanent playing field constructions", but they forgot about other players and referees.

It seems to me that, rather than have a list of 10 to 20 things you cannot block wiht, just put down what you can and if something isn't there, then it's not allowed, eg other players and referees.

I cannot see where it's broken

[troyoda]

[Rusty]

Wow.

I dont even know where to start haha. So im not going to.

This is why you should be a level 12 peter

[Scorpion]

First Chris, I'd like to call this statement:

It doesn't have to be deliberate, it just has to happen.

and raise you a

(b) A player may not deliberately block, with any part of their body, clothing, or equipment, an opponents shot at the visible hit zones of any other player or eligible in-field target.

and note that i've highlighted the important word.

That's completely irrelevant, because we are not talking about 13 (b) but rather 13 (c), which does not mention intent at all. So I say again: a breach of 13 (c) doesn't have to be deliberate, it just has to happen.

So with that in mind

The rule is broken when interpreted literally as written. Anytime two deactivated players go down a corridor/walkway/ramp and someone is shooting at them from behind: BAM! violation of the rule, because the player in front is shielded by the player behind.

this cannot always be deemed a deliberate act.

Deliberate or not, it's a violation of 13 (c). Of course, this is never called because this was never the intent of the rule. But by the literal wording of the rule this is clearly a violation. That is why the rule is broken.

You amalgamated all the shielding rules into one rule that contained many parts. I do not have a copy of these rules...

But I do. Here is the section of interest from the 1997 rules:

Shielding.1.jpg (159.16 KiB) Viewed 88 times

I have highlighted section (b) because that is the section we are talking about (later changes to other parts caused the sections to be reordered). Note how it says what you "can't do" rather than what you "can do". When this part was reworded the rule became horribly broken and currently remains so.

[tragedy]

That's completely irrelevant, because we are not talking about 13 (b) but rather 13 (c), which does not mention intent at all. So I say again: a breach of 13 (c) doesn't have to be deliberate, it just has to happen.

The actions that you described earlier and referenced going postal on penalties do not refer to (c)

The rule is broken when interpreted literally as written. Anytime two deactivated players go down a corridor/walkway/ramp and someone is shooting at them from behind: BAM! violation of the rule, because the player in front is shielded by the player behind.

It doesn't have to be deliberate, it just has to happen.

If you fail to see that, then during league I will simply go zero-tolerance on it and when we have 10+ penalties per game (mostly on the resupply when they are kicked out of somewhere) then maybe it will be more clear.

it falls under (b)

(b) A player may not deliberately block, with any part of their body, clothing, or equipment, an opponents shot at the visible hit zones of any other player or eligible in-field target.

I think I can now see where you're coming from here though, but I believe that in the actions as described above it would be the player behind shielding a shot on his mate in front, and not the player in front using his mate behind to block the shot.

The actions of yours as referenced by Pat and for which you were penalised earlier fall under (c)

(c) A player, when not targeting an opponent, may use only their torso and/or permanent playing field constructions to block an opponents shot or attempted shot at any of their hit zones provided they are not breaching parts (a) or (b)

and have nothing to do with stopping a player getting a shot on someone else.

The rule itself has progressed. It was decided that you couldn't hide behind other players or referees so that part was added, particularly to prevent players like medics from just hiding behind their own team members, then changed so that rather than have a big list of things you can't hide behind, just have a small one of what you can and everything else is excluded.

[Scorpion]

The actions that you described earlier and referenced going postal on penalties do not refer to (c)

Oh yes they do. Section (c) is so broadly worded that it, if applied literally as written, covers an absolutely huge number of circumstances. Anytime two players cross infront of/behind each other in the view of a third player section (c) will apply. This is why it is broken.

I think I can now see where you're coming from here though, but I believe that in the actions as described above it would be the player behind shielding a shot on his mate in front, and not the player in front using his mate behind to block the shot.

Hopefully the light is starting to dawn on this issue. In that example, the player at the back may be violating (b) if they are doing it deliberately, but the player at the front is always going to be violating (c), because intent does not come into it.

The actions of yours as referenced by Pat and for which you were penalised earlier fall under (c)

And that is why we are discussing (c), duh. You were the one who got confused and started referring to (b).

13 (c) is broken. Consider the following example:

Shielding.2.jpg (7.62 KiB) Viewed 77 times

G1 deactivates R1 in "the box" on the left. R1 then moves as shown by the arrow. BAM! Violation of 13 (c) because R1 is now "using" G1 to block G2's attempted shots. It's ludicrous, but that's how the rule is written.

[troyoda]

So if you are reading this much into it, can't G2 also be penalised for using G1 to block a shot as soon as R1 comes up?

[Scorpion]

So if you are reading this much into it, can't G2 also be penalised for using G1 to block a shot as soon as R1 comes up?

No, because G2 is targeting an opponent so 13 (c) doesn't apply! That distinction is part of why the rule is broken.

[PAT]

The actions of yours as referenced by Pat and for which you were penalised earlier fall under (c)

(c) A player, when not targeting an opponent, may use only their torso and/or permanent playing field constructions to block an opponents shot or attempted shot at any of their hit zones provided they are not breaching parts (a) or (b)

and have nothing to do with stopping a player getting a shot on someone else.

The rule itself has progressed. It was decided that you couldn't hide behind other players or referees so that part was added, particularly to prevent players like medics from just hiding behind their own team members, then changed so that rather than have a big list of things you can't hide behind, just have a small one of what you can and everything else is excluded.

i knew it was an illegal move... i didn't bother reading the rules at the time