27 replies to this topic

[Matches]

You would state the rule in the warpost, and then people would either willfully ignore it or completely fail to understand how far 60-80 feet actually is.

1. [Laughs] Yes, they probably would (as I said in my original post); however, there's this wonderful thing called punishment...

But seriously, if a host made it clear to everyone at the beginning of a war that there was a new rule every bit as important as all the other rules, and that it was important enough that he would have to punish anyone who broke it, it could conceivably work. I know it's not fun to make people sit out a round, or not use their favorite air gun for a round, or whatever, but it's not about winning popularity contests.

2. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to have a 60' distance marked before the war, and have everyone observe it?

This still doesn't do anything to cover the possibility that someone runs in front of the shooter shortly before the person shoots.

I didn't think of that, and I agree.

You could be right about the point of air guns, I never really understood it.

Sorry for not being clear. I should have said it like this: The way I see it, air guns aren't practical inside 50 or 60' range or so, because their RoF is usually too slow to compete with the high RoF springers that are only used at 50-60' range. But Beaver brought up the point that it's much easier to hit someone at close range with a fast-shooting air gun than it is with a low-power springer. That's definitely a disadvantage to my theory, I admit.

Perhaps a more reasonable way to restrict high-powered blasters without altogether banning them would be a minimum firing angle of 45 degrees.

Pardon the rude joke, but not if you want to hit anyone.

But seriously, you might want to try shooting while holding the gun at a 45° angle or higher. It's not exactly practical, even if you're trying to not have great accuracy. Furthermore, making sure people hold their air guns at that angle for every shot would be at least as difficult as enforcing my idea.


I should have emphasized the extreme theoretical-ness of this idea more. Again, I'm not saying I'm convinced it will work, I'm saying I'm not convinced it would be impossible. We really won't know until someone tries it. In my opinion, banning guns that are "too powerful" negates the purpose for innovation of farther-shooting guns. To me, innovation is the point of the hobby.

[Swatsonia]

While I realise that the gameplay culture differences between Australia and the US/Canada are rather large, range restrictions aren't that hard to enforce/set.

For example, here in Western Australia, we have been running wars with 100+ft blasters, enforcing a minimum engagement distance with primaries at 30ft. While our darts are arguably "safer" for impacts, we have found that this minimum engagement distance is easy to enforce/recognise, has reduced any possible close range injuries, and also injects a bit of strategy into the gameplay, where you have the ability to exploit someone reloading with a quick pistol rush. If someone breaks these rules, we then "penalise" the player appropriately, either through making them sit a round out, or with a close range firing squad.

[KaneTheMediocre]

But seriously, if a host made it clear to everyone at the beginning of a war that there was a new rule every bit as important as all the other rules, and that it was important enough that he would have to punish anyone who broke it, it could conceivably work. I know it's not fun to make people sit out a round, or not use their favorite air gun for a round, or whatever, but it's not about winning popularity contests.
2. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to have a 60' distance marked before the war, and have everyone observe it?

What you're asking is not unreasonable, and among friends it would work fine. Among strangers, perhaps less, and I admit I have a lower than average opinion of the average human's intelligence and moral fortitude. Also, I played one war where a nearly identical rule was stated as a justification for not banning glue domes, and it was completely blown off and not enforced, so this single anecdote taints my perspective on the matter.

Pardon the rude joke, but not if you want to hit anyone.
But seriously, you might want to try shooting while holding the gun at a 45° angle or higher. It's not exactly practical, even if you're trying to not have great accuracy. Furthermore, making sure people hold their air guns at that angle for every shot would be at least as difficult as enforcing my idea.

I completely agree, and I should have been more clear about what I meant--I was envisioning blasters designed from the ground up as mortars, that aren't easily capable of being fired any other way. Admittedly, most of the range-whores would not be interested in this, but I never set out to make them happy.

I should have emphasized the extreme theoretical-ness of this idea more. Again, I'm not saying I'm convinced it will work, I'm saying I'm not convinced it would be impossible. We really won't know until someone tries it. In my opinion, banning guns that are "too powerful" negates the purpose for innovation of farther-shooting guns. To me, innovation is the point of the hobby.

Here I disagree. More powerful blasters (which, at the moment, is the only way of making a farther-shooting gun) do not require ANY innovation at all, merely upsizing the components (plunger tube, spring, barrel, etc). I also feel that your logic would justify my showing up to your nerf war with a (homemade) .30-06 rifle. The point of the hobby to me is to either modify weak blasters so they can at least shoot farther darts farther than I can throw them, or to improve other characteristics of the blaster (or build a better one from scratch, as I prefer) such as RoF, ergonomics, and accuracy. Admittedly improving RoF beyond a hoppered pump action springer has limited utility for winning a nerf battle, but the occasional shotgun, full-auto, or semi-auto blaster adds an element of variety to nerf wars that is more valuable than having the most effective blaster on the field.