I’m framing this thread as an area for discussing general and site specific rules
It could follow on from recent discussions of representative bodies and standardisation.
The specifics of this one is what happens here between about 1:10 & 1:50
Apparently the person outside the window thinks they can claim an elimination - on the basis that they grunted a noise.
Can anyone explain how that grunt can be considered ‘surrender’?
Next - the fact that she had left the room before he grunted, unless perhaps her back was still passing through the door as we only have fish eye action cam footage. So at best he grunted at an empty area of the room whilst catching a glimpse of her in peripheral vision
The surrender rule:
Whats your surrender rule?
I absolutely hate an absolute surrender rule. It just produces arguments
I am a great fan of rules for sneaky people (not cheats) and my version of ‘dont shoot eliminations’ comes in two parts
1) Surrender:
You ask someone to surrender, offering the opportunity to not shoot them.
They can accept or decline.
Accept and they walk (it could be a whole group that surrenders)
Decline and let the guns sort it out
2) Tag / knife / rubber chicken / fluffy bunny etc:
You tap someone on the shoulder etc with your hand, a rubber knife or other object. You probably need to say or whisper ‘tag, you’re out, got you’ etc just to make it clear
This is an absolute elimination - and more importantly a quiet elimination. The victim should leave the area etc as normal. It allows a sneaky person to get the benefit of having snuck around finding themselves outnumbered behind enemy lines
Unless circumstances dictate there should not be a minimum engagement distance that enforces ‘surrender only within x metres’
It causes these arguments
(Just walk away people. As a Marshall I’m making decisions from what I see, and as an organiser of the games I’ve marshalled, probably every argument I’ve encountered fell into the “Have you read the event pack and did you listen to my brief?”)
Good reasons for an absolute minimum are for safety purposes such as a pure rental game or young players, and particular weapon/RIF types.
Proper ‘skirmishes’ should be an environment of ‘grown ups’. (I’m not restricting that to adults, but including reasonable younger ages)
Without being dickheads players should expect to be shot, dress appropriately if they don’t want to be shot on skin.
(I often like to play in a t shirt - that comes with awareness that a close up shot on my forearm is going to hurt more)
It could follow on from recent discussions of representative bodies and standardisation.
The specifics of this one is what happens here between about 1:10 & 1:50
Apparently the person outside the window thinks they can claim an elimination - on the basis that they grunted a noise.
Can anyone explain how that grunt can be considered ‘surrender’?
Next - the fact that she had left the room before he grunted, unless perhaps her back was still passing through the door as we only have fish eye action cam footage. So at best he grunted at an empty area of the room whilst catching a glimpse of her in peripheral vision
The surrender rule:
Whats your surrender rule?
I absolutely hate an absolute surrender rule. It just produces arguments
I am a great fan of rules for sneaky people (not cheats) and my version of ‘dont shoot eliminations’ comes in two parts
1) Surrender:
You ask someone to surrender, offering the opportunity to not shoot them.
They can accept or decline.
Accept and they walk (it could be a whole group that surrenders)
Decline and let the guns sort it out
2) Tag / knife / rubber chicken / fluffy bunny etc:
You tap someone on the shoulder etc with your hand, a rubber knife or other object. You probably need to say or whisper ‘tag, you’re out, got you’ etc just to make it clear
This is an absolute elimination - and more importantly a quiet elimination. The victim should leave the area etc as normal. It allows a sneaky person to get the benefit of having snuck around finding themselves outnumbered behind enemy lines
Unless circumstances dictate there should not be a minimum engagement distance that enforces ‘surrender only within x metres’
It causes these arguments
(Just walk away people. As a Marshall I’m making decisions from what I see, and as an organiser of the games I’ve marshalled, probably every argument I’ve encountered fell into the “Have you read the event pack and did you listen to my brief?”)
Good reasons for an absolute minimum are for safety purposes such as a pure rental game or young players, and particular weapon/RIF types.
Proper ‘skirmishes’ should be an environment of ‘grown ups’. (I’m not restricting that to adults, but including reasonable younger ages)
Without being dickheads players should expect to be shot, dress appropriately if they don’t want to be shot on skin.
(I often like to play in a t shirt - that comes with awareness that a close up shot on my forearm is going to hurt more)