Proposed US Tourney Rule Addendum - Shielding

[xThanatoSx]

Please note: Neither of the changes listed below will have any bearing on AU/NZ tournament play.

2 changes specifically:

- Change the definition of "Visible Hit Zones" to include the front facing IR's on the guns. Currently the definition specifically excludes them due to how they emit IR relative to how the shoulder sensors do. The definition as is already allows covers the chest and back being visible hit zones.
- Change the wording of rule 13(c), which is the part of shielding related to having to show a shoulder.
Currently the rule reads as:

A player may not block, with any part of their body, clothing, or equipment, nor use any other player, referee, or any part of the playing arena to block all of their shoulder hit zones from an opponent whom they are targeting with their phaser, unless the blocking object is closer to the opponent than it is to the player themselves. (Should a player have both shoulder hit zones blocked from an opponents view by different objects, both blocking objects must be closer to the opponent otherwise the player will be in breach of part (c)).

The proposed change would read (wording changes bolded and underlined):

A player may not block, with any part of their body, clothing, or equipment, nor use any other player, referee, or any part of the playing arena to block all of their visible hit zones from an opponent whom they are targeting with their phaser, unless the blocking object is closer to the opponent than it is to the player themselves. (Should a player have all visible hit zones blocked from an opponents view by different objects, all blocking objects must be closer to the opponent otherwise the player will be in breach of part (c)).

The net results of those 2 changes would be:
- Allows players to fire while only showing a gun sensor, provided they're either sighting down the gun or have a clear line of sight (parts a, b, and d of shielding have not changed)
- Means that players will NOT be allowed to hold the guns in such a way that their hands are touching the clear plastics where the gun board is located while firing from cover as they would then be covering a visible hit zone . In the open you'll probably be able to get away with it depending on how you're moving as by rights there should be at least one other sensor visible. Yes, I'm thinking specifically of how CV played when they were in Sac for WCT 1.
- No-Look Over the shoulder shots are still illegal.

On a personal level, I dislike the above changes. However, from a practical level, I think it will end up for the better as we try to re-grow the US tournament scene.

*EDIT*

However, once the software update with the reduced IR output for SM5 is released, this is probably going to come up for review again as I've been told by Brisbane players that the hittability difference is EXTREMELY noticeable from full IR to reduced IR.

[Stewie]

The rules that we played with in Sac will be the same here.

[MegaMan.EXE]

I need more clarification on how bouncing shots off of mirrors is affected by this rule. I understand how this rule works to stop players who are deflecting shots off of other walls where the targetted player does not have the same opportunity to return the shot off the same wall back to the attacker. But when the wall in question has a mirror on it, and the mirror is the thing being used to deflect the laser, the targetted player does in fact have the ability to return the shot back via the same mirror, and as long as the attacker is displaying at least one of his sensors to the mirror, the targetted player does in fact have the ability to see the attacker and acquire a positive lock. So unless I'm missing something, it appears to me that neither the rules as they are now nor the addendum as proposed allow the attacker to deflect a shot towards a target if the mirror is physically closer to the attacker than to the defender.

I will vote for the change for now, but I'd like to see discussion regarding the mirror thing, as I forsee this being a major issue in the CV arena.

*EDIT* Actually now that I think of it, the rules do allow for this since the hittable zone IS visible and therefore is not blocked. I think. Please correct if I'm wrong because I'm still fuzzy on this.

[xThanatoSx]

The rules that we played with in Sac will be the same here.

This is essentially how we ended up playing during WCT1.

It's simply codifying it as a US (National) standard.

[xThanatoSx]

I need more clarification on how bouncing shots off of mirrors is affected by this rule. I understand how this rule works to stop players who are deflecting shots off of other walls where the targetted player does not have the same opportunity to return the shot off the same wall back to the attacker. But when the wall in question has a mirror on it, and the mirror is the thing being used to deflect the laser, the targetted player does in fact have the ability to return the shot back via the same mirror, and as long as the attacker is displaying at least one of his sensors to the mirror, the targetted player does in fact have the ability to see the attacker and acquire a positive lock. So unless I'm missing something, it appears to me that neither the rules as they are now nor the addendum as proposed allow the attacker to deflect a shot towards a target if the mirror is physically closer to the attacker than to the defender.

I will vote for the change for now, but I'd like to see discussion regarding the mirror thing, as I forsee this being a major issue in the CV arena.

*EDIT* Actually now that I think of it, the rules do allow for this since the hittable zone IS visible and therefore is not blocked. I think. Please correct if I'm wrong because I'm still fuzzy on this.

In this regard, if you're reflecting off of a mirror to my interpretation provides you with line of sight. Reflecting off a wall doesn't. So a wall reflection you'd definitely need to be sighting down your gun, mirror reflection not quite so much. You'd just need to be sure you weren't obstructing all your visible hit zones while taking the shot.

[xDKx]

Gee, I wonder which 2 US players voted no.

OK, let me just clarify my position. Since about 2001, my biggest concern in any tournament has been a uniform rule standard that everyone can agree to. From 2002-2004, the AU/NZ rule set was the uniform standard, and I thought it worked pretty well, and solved a lot of problems that I thought existed in the contemporary US (specifically Sacramento) version of rules. For the sake of uniformity, and my own (possibly deluded) hopes that intersite, national, and international tournaments will become a regular occurrence, I believe we should work toward a uniform rule set for all sites in all countries. That's the crux of my position on the rules in general.

Now, my own opinion on the shielding rule. In my mind, the spirit of the rule imparts that if you are tagging or attempting to tag someone, then they should theoretically have the ability to tag you back. If the front of the gun is hittable on a reliable and regular basis, then I agree that it should in fact be included as a visible hit zone. The main reason I don't think it should be is that, while it is currently not overly difficult to hit, it is the easiest to block, and in some cases, it may be possible to block without an opponent knowing (specifically an instance where everything at the front of the gun except the IR receiver (i.e. the barrel) is obscured. The muzzle flash helps prevent this, but I'd like to see a slight modification of the phaser and its lights before I vote to permanently consider it a visible hit zone.

So, for the moment, I really don't have any opposition to the proposed change outside my uniformity argument, at least not enough to protest any further than this post. At the moment, it seems in most cases that the spirit of the rule is still preserved, so I can live with it, so long as everyone is clear that this means there can be NO obscuring of the front of the gun, or they're in breach of the rule.

[Smooth Criminal]

I assume this will be decided prior to US nats?

[tragedy]

Allows players to fire while only showing a gun sensor, provided they're either sighting down the gun or have a clear line of sight]

You should ammend either this rule or Dangerous Play to specifially state that they must be pretty much looking at the opponent. As it's written now it does not say I can't just stick the phaser around a corner without looking.

No-Look Over the shoulder shots are still illegal.

What exactly is this? If a player is upright and fires back over the shoulder, what's wrong with that? Shoulders are still visible.

[xThanatoSx]

Allows players to fire while only showing a gun sensor, provided they're either sighting down the gun or have a clear line of sight]

You should ammend either this rule or Dangerous Play to specifially state that they must be pretty much looking at the opponent. As it's written now it does not say I can't just stick the phaser around a corner without looking.[/qupte]

13(a) still covers this - if they're not looking, they have no line of sight and there's no way they can be sighting down the barrel of the gun.

No-Look Over the shoulder shots are still illegal.

What exactly is this? If a player is upright and fires back over the shoulder, what's wrong with that? Shoulders are still visible.

*EDIT* Now I remember - the key part of that sentence is "No-Look". If they're not looking, how can they have line of sight or be sighting down the gun?

[xThanatoSx]

I assume this will be decided prior to US nats?

Yes.

[tragedy]

I'm an idiot

[xDKx]

Is there unanimity from Detroit, Syracuse, and St. George that this is the version we want to use for Nats (where you do not have to show a shoulder, but you cannot intentionally block your sensors)? Or is this going to be put to a captains' vote? I'd just like this clarified in advance, because I have some people asking.

In any case, if put to a captains' vote, I will be voting for the revised version of the rule regardless of my personal feelings about it because that is how we have been practicing, and how (I believe) a majority of my team and my home site feel about the rule.

[LaJou]

Ahh he makes his return to ask questions and cause problems, God love em because no one else will.

OK so the no look over the shoulder thing caught my eye. The rule says

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

have a direct line of sight to the opponent’s visible hit zones,
or are sighting directly down their phaser barrel.”

Could I not be sighting down my barrel while pointing it backwards witch would result in a shot being fired backwards? This does not happen often, usually while I play resup and am keeping an eye on someone and the other resup player asks for shots or lives and I just make a quick over the shoulder shot. I do sight down the phaser and angle it based on the voice behind me. It seems that all the necessary things are covered. I can see down my barrel, two hands are on my phaser. I have since changed the way I do things now so this is no longer an issue but had the question all the same.

[xDKx]

Hmmm, for resupply, based on the wording, I don't know that it's an issue, since it says you may not target an opponent under certain conditions. Obviously, if someone were swinging the gun about in a reckless manner, that could qualify as dangerous play, but this is such a minor circumstance that I don't think there's an actual rule violation.

[LaJou]

I know. It is also a rule that would have to be called by the opposing team in order to have the penalty assessed but all the same suppose that I do what I stated above to an opponent behind me. Would there be an issue? I do sight down the barrel just not in the manor you may be accustomed to. Again nothing that will probably ever happen I just like to know.

[LaJou]

So this has become a genuine question now. Sure it is a small thing but all the same I would like some clarification. We had a player last night (Cordash) who was playing Heavy. He tagged the opposing Heavy then two other players and then fired over his shoulder and tagged the Heavy again. The particular way he fired did not allow him to sight down his barrel so clearly this would be considered illegal per rule 13(a) as he did not have direct line of sigh and did not sight down the barrel. It was at this moment that I then asked the question I asked in the previous post. Do I have to look from the butt of the phaser towards the barrel in order to be “sighting down” the barrel or could I be looking from barrel towards the butt to facilitate a shot over my shoulder.

I think the rule would allow me to tag someone over my shoulder provided I was “sighting” down the phaser barrel. I think it meets the requirements of the rule as I am “sighting” “taking aim” though I cannot see my target. It is not dangerous like the shot Cordash made who flung his phaser over his shoulder and nearly hit the opposing Heavy in the face.

Related question:

Here is one I have been thinking about as well. We have a place in the Sacramento arena next to what we refer to as the Red Ramp. The top of the Red Ramp is where one of the Resup teams usually plays. Players will often come to a spot to the right of the ramp (just above the tech room where Brian and Ambers coffins are painted) and extend their phasers out in an attempt to fire around the wall that is at the top of the ramp. The spot they fire from is off to the side and you can often see the resup from this position if you lean out a little. But if the Resup moves a little further down the ramp then you cannot always see them.

Some of the shots that are made you can see the intended target but not all. Reaching out like this is not dangerous in this situation as the area where I reach out is open air and not a playable area, but I cannot always see the target and I am not looking from the butt of the phaser towards the barrel or even barrel to butt as in the above question. Is this then illegal? What I am looking for is how down the barrel is down the barrel? In this case I can see the barrel and I can see where the barrel is targeting just not what I am tagging. I believe this case would be illegal but am looking for input.

[tragedy]

What I am looking for is how down the barrel is down the barrel?

This is a question I've been trying to avoid having asked and knew it could cause problems. IMO "down the barrel" could be from over the top or to the side or a few other different positions provided the phaser was between the face and opponent. If you refer to discussions about changing the Shielding rule you'll notice I've made repeated references to having the rule read "over the phaser barrel" to make it more clear that the phaser needs to be under the player's eyes.

[LaJou]

Ok, so in your interpretation of the rule the phaser should be between your face and your intended target. Though I do understand what you are saying about having "over the phaser barrel" as a fix to my second question I am not sure that would change my first question. Believe me my intention is not to whine about rules I do not like. I am attempting to be more constructive than I was in the past.

With the rule as is I do not see how someone could be called for the over the shoulder shot, even with something like the "over the phaser barrel" part included as I could still make the shot and have my eyes over the barrel. Do you find this to be against the rule at the moment? I give you it might be against the spirit of the rule but I have a hard time handing out a 2000 point penalty on a spirit of the rule infraction.

[tragedy]

As per the current rule it is an illegal shot, simply because a "no look over the shoulder" is neither looking down the barrel nor do you have line of sight to the target.

Either of the proposed changes wil fix this provided the target point will have line of sight back to a hit zone, be that a shoulder or back zone

[LaJou]

Again not trying to be argumentative. I do not see how the over the shoulder shot is not legal. I understand that it may be a case of “that is the way it has always been” or something like that but as a person who does like to be able to know what the rules mean and how they should be used and enforced I have to disagree with your conclusion.
The definition from the Glossary of Terms and Symbols:
“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 targeting.

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).”
In the above all I have to do is point my phaser at something that emits or reflects IR and I am “Targeting.” No problem. This bears no meaning in my question as I could have the phaser behind my back firing around a corner with my eyes closed and still be “Targeting.”
The portion of the rules that are in question to my question are:
“(a) A player may not deliberately target an opponent with their phaser unless they:

have a direct line of sight to the opponents visible hit zones,
or are sighting directly down their phaser barrel.

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”

There is nothing in the above that says I have to look from “butt to barrel” of the phaser. The only part that even implies a way of looking is “down the barrel.” Some people would say that to look “down the barrel” you would have to look into the breach, the place where the shot comes out. A shot then that requires you to sight “directly down their phaser barrel” would then require a over the shoulder shot to them.

Please understand I want to be ready for the upcoming tournament and part of that for me is going over the rules again and again until I know them and how they affect any scenarios I can come up with. This is one I did not have an answer to. I appreciate your help in this but if you have some way that you came to your conclusion that it is illegal I would appreciate it. I realize this is long but I am trying to show how I came to my conclusion.

[tragedy]

If I'm reading you correctly, then you are saying the phaser is being held to the front and side of your head so that it is basically beside your eyes looking from the barrel back towards the stock.
If that is so then you are looking up the barrel, not down. I'm not going to get technical on english language terminologies because I'm not and English professor, but to to my knowledge looking 'down' the barrel is to look from to point of firing (the breach), over the sight towards the target. Therefore, to have the phaser facing back in the direction of your face, over your shoulder to a target behind is not looking "down the barrel" nor do you have direct line of sight to a target, therefore you are technically breaking the rules to do so.

These arguments will be moot once the Shielding change takes effect, so I really don't much point in continuing them

[LaJou]

You are correct with the way I am describing the situation but the change in the rule has nothing to do with 13(a). Yes I do understand what you are saying the intention of the rule may be and this seems to be the basis of your argument. But I did a simple Google image search for "down the barrel" and of the 11 pictures that had anything to do with guns 9 of them were the view into the breach of the gun 1 of them I am not sure of what end is being looked into and only 1 actually showed a view of what you are describing as “down the barrel”

For someone who got these rules and has never been to these boards those people are left to try and understand what is being said without your insight. The term “down the barrel” upon that same Google search would then lead them to believe that they can target someone if they see their “visible hit zones” or if they look into the breach of the barrel. This line of thinking for them would lead to an over the shoulder shot. To what then do you point and say no you are wrong that is an illegal shot?

I do love to read your posts Trag. I have gone back and read some of the topics you guys have had arguments about including the covering a sensor with a sensor thing. I agreed with you on most of your view points. What I am trying to say here is that as the rule is written it does not make the over the shoulder shot illegal as there is no point of reference for where my eyes have to be in relation to the phaser. As pointed out in my Google search the phrase “down the barrel” more often than not refers to looking into the breach.

Again I am looking to be as good as I can with the rules as we will not have someone like you or Than at the US nats. Maybe there is someone that I do not know about that knows the rules like no ones business but I am not willing to hope this will be the case so I am reading and re reading the rules daily. At nats we will have a wide variety of people with a wide range of skills. If this shot does not happen at least once I would be surprised and so I wanted to have an answer for its legality. To that end I can say Trag thinks it is not legal but apparently has no reason other than because he says so as there is no point of reference to the “up” end and the “down” end of a phaser barrel. A small addition in the definition of terms like “Sighting/Sight: Looking over the phaser from butt/stock towards the barrel” or some such thing would amend this issue and make it clear what is being said to people who read the rules with out you to ask questions to. At the moment though I personally can not call it a penalty based solely on the language that is used.

I will let this go if you do not agree that someone could be confused by the language “down the barrel.” I also though will not call this illegal because as far as I can tell it is not. Intent of the rule is one thing the actual wording is something else. We did not intend to create the “leapfrog” in Sac when we created our following rule. The rules we used however did allow such a thing to happen. I know you think I am nit picking this rule. That is not my intention but I do think that a rule should say what it means in clear/defined terms to keep unintended things from happening.

[LaJou]

Doh I did this huge post about how I am correct and reasons why I am correct and then I found the flaw in my argument. So I went to edit or delete my post and apparently at work those buttons do not exist. So sorry for an additional post.

I just did the same thing I saw in an earlier discussion. My bad Trag. I was focusing on a single portion of the phrasing and missed something important. I was focusing on the portion of the rule that says “down the barrel” forgetting to include “sighting” in the phrase. Adding the “sighting directly” to the rest changes the perspective of where the phaser has to be and how you will be holding it at the time. My fault. I think it could be worded better but it does say what it is supposed to. I would also say that the rule would make my other question about our Red Ramp illegal as the phrasing insists that your vision be “directly down their phaser barrel.” To me this requires you to be looking along the length of the phaser and not off to the side of it at an angle.

Again my apologies on focusing on a single portion of the rule as opposed to the rule as a whole and for not having an edit/delete button.

[tragedy]

To me this requires you to be looking along the length of the phaser and not off to the side of it at an angle

It says the same to me as well but IMO it can also allow you to have the phaser beside your face, or above it.

not having an edit/delete button

It disa ppears after 5 or so minutes unless you are an admin

[Nalang]

Gee, I wonder which 2 US players voted no.

VOTE UPDATE:
Seeing how hard it is to hit the gun sometimes after over a year of playing, (especially the forward IR when they have rapidfire) I decided to vote no.