What does engaged mean?

RSS
Email

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
GSMD Fan	What does engaged mean?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 7 (06/21/09 23:12:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Had a question on what does a shooter have to do to engage a target. Shooter behind cover. Best two rounds on target required. Three targets to his front, lets say right, middle, left. Shooter slices pie, fires one round at right target, does a reload and goes to slice pie to shoot middle target. Shooter does come back and get the right target later. So is firing once at the first target enough to satisfy the engagement requirement? Or must two rounds be fired to engage this target? I kinda think the answer should be two rounds must be fired (regardless of hitting anything), but would like to hear the conventional wisdom. Pete
COF		#1	[-]
Posts: 464 (06/22/09 08:50:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	If the scenario is to slice the pie, then the targets are shot in Tactical Priority, two rounds each. This is your order of engagement. The target has been engaged when the required number of rounds have been fired at it. If not done that way, then a PE is given. Now let's look at this from the stand point of giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the shooter fired one round at the outside target, performed a reload and engaged the center target and inside targets, then realized he forget to engage the outside target twice so he shot his second shot after engaging the other targets. Smells like a brain fart to me! Could you give the shooter a PE? - Yes. Should you? Maybe. Did the shooter gain any advantage by not engaging the first target twice? - No, probably cost him additional time since he probably picked up the miss after he scanned the targets and then re-engaged. A lot of folks would like to see our rules written to where there is no subjective interpretation required. I believe we need to have consistency in the application of rules, but when you take all subjective interpretation out of the rules, then giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt goes with it. Just my view from this side of the manure pile Jerry youth and skill are no match for old age and treachery
TechPyle		#2	[-]
Posts: 2 (06/22/09 10:28:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I have been given a procedural for this (I called it on myself though). The target in this scenerio is still "Alive" until two rounds have been sent its way, moving on to another target exposes you to the "Live" target. Everyone makes mistakes some earn a procedural in my opinion this one does.
Hot Brass		#3	[-]
Posts: 605 (06/22/09 12:02:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It is a PE. Whether he gained an advantage or not is irrelevant. -Capel www.gadpa.com
redoubtman		#4	[-]
Posts: 38 (06/22/09 12:56:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yeah, unfortunately I'd also give him a PE. The COF states two rounds per target. What came up at my last match was a shooter who missed twice (actually two hits on "hard cover") and then went on. It really dinged him (down 10 plus a FTN) but I resisted some shjooters in the squad who said it was also a PE for failing to engage. Not so, right? He "engaged" the target with the required rounds. Even though the target didn't get any hits (or, as TechPyle inferred, is still "alive") it was "engaged" and therefore no PE. Wyley A03820
robertbank.czechpistols82792		#5	[-]
Posts: 269 (06/22/09 16:05:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hot Brass wrote: It is a PE. Whether he gained an advantage or not is irrelevant. +1 Take Care Bob Your Signature ... http://www.idpacanada.com
RobMoore		#6	[-]
Posts: 363 (06/22/09 16:20:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Fired only once, PE. OTOH, if he had fired twice at T1, hit once and missed once, its not a PE to come back and reengage it after T2 and T3 done with. Which brings up another question, does the shooter have to retreat slightly to regain "cover" against T1 again before reengaging, since he most likely only has cover against T3 at that point?
TechPyle		#7	[-]
Posts: 3 (06/22/09 20:36:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	RobMoore wrote: Which brings up another question, does the shooter have to retreat slightly to regain "cover" against T1 again before reengaging, since he most likely only has cover against T3 at that point? If a person is checking thier targets after engaging they will normally go backwords T3 - T1 and engage T1 as soon as they notice that it needs another round. I would not call a cover violation in this case becouse the target has already been engaged. This is truly a game option since if these were live targets you would not move from T1 to T2 without T1 first going down. This means that T1 was engaged and nutralized as a threat and you went on to T2 and T3. The only way I see this working is if T1 was playing possum and got up again after T3 and you notice it. In wich case you snap from your now stoped T3 back to T1 and finish him off ASAP cover would not necesarily help you because the T1 knows exactly where you are and can just throw lead your way so the first to fire wins. My opinion and my be completly WRONG.
Mark Mayo		#8	[-]
Posts: 276 (07/09/09 22:39:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There is no "failure to engage" penalty in IDPA. COF should clearly list the minimum number rounds REQUIRED to complete the COF. If the shooter brain farts and only fires one of two required shots at a particular target and still fires the minimum number of shots for the COF (say making up a shot on another target) in this case there should be no PE assessed. I do not believe the rule book supports a penalty for "Failure to engage". The miss and possible FTN on the target is penalty enough. If the minimum number of shots required to complete the COF criteria hasn't been met then a PE should be assessed. mayonaise1959.blogspot.com
solaritx		#9	[-]
Posts: 104 (07/10/09 13:22:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	While I would agree with Mark generally, there is a failure to engage penalty in IDPA. BUT, it's only concerning shooting Tactical order, not round count. If you do not "engage" properly (near to far in open or slice the pie around cover) then a PE is awarded. If we look at what IDPA considers "engaged" at the bare minimum, then we must go to engaged in a tactical sequence situation and that is one round must be fired "at" the target, and that round does not need to even hit the target. But until they rewrite the rulebook, the shooter does have options. If the CoF says 3 targets at 5yds, 10yds and 15yds, stand and deliver. 3 scored rounds in tactical order. This means that at the end there are 3 scored rounds that will be checked and scored on each target. The targets must be shot near to far. This does not mean that they can not be shot in Tactical seqence, if the shooter so wishes. Standing in the open, this is a real and tactical method of engagement. The CoF does not exclude this method. So why can't a shooter do this within the rules and not get a PE? Conversely if it was the same CoF but it is Tactical order and Tactical sequence....then the method is firmly determined and anything going against the specific method deserves a PE. I would also say that IF the CoF states that a minimum of x number of rounds are required before moving to the next threat (as a Tactical sequence does) is spelled out, then the shooter is limited in the way he/she must shoot the scenario. Otherwise, shooter's choice.....good or bad without an PE.
TxZZ		#10	[-]
Posts: 37 (07/10/09 16:09:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	solaritx wrote: While I would agree with Mark generally, there is a failure to engage penalty in IDPA. BUT, it's only concerning shooting Tactical order, not round count. If you do not "engage" properly (near to far in open or slice the pie around cover) then a PE is awarded. If we look at what IDPA considers "engaged" at the bare minimum, then we must go to engaged in a tactical sequence situation and that is one round must be fired "at" the target, and that round does not need to even hit the target. But until they rewrite the rulebook, the shooter does have options. If the CoF says 3 targets at 5yds, 10yds and 15yds, stand and deliver. 3 scored rounds in tactical order. This means that at the end there are 3 scored rounds that will be checked and scored on each target. The targets must be shot near to far. This does not mean that they can not be shot in Tactical seqence, if the shooter so wishes. Standing in the open, this is a real and tactical method of engagement. The CoF does not exclude this method. So why can't a shooter do this within the rules and not get a PE? Conversely if it was the same CoF but it is Tactical order and Tactical sequence....then the method is firmly determined and anything going against the specific method deserves a PE. I would also say that IF the CoF states that a minimum of x number of rounds are required before moving to the next threat (as a Tactical sequence does) is spelled out, then the shooter is limited in the way he/she must shoot the scenario. Otherwise, shooter's choice.....good or bad without an PE. Rule book says targets must be engaged in "tactical priority" unless "tactical sequence " is specified. I am a bit confused by the term "tactical order". Dave E
Jim Watson		#11	[-]
Posts: 575 (07/10/09 16:21:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I am a bit confused by the term "tactical order". Commonly used by people who cannot remember the official terminology. You will get a blank look from half to 3/4 of the squad if you tell them to engage three targets in Tactical Priority. Tactical Sequence is worse. Is the organizational jargon that difficult?
Steve Koski		#12	[-]
Posts: 843 (07/10/09 16:30:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	You forgot about the others: tactical succession tactical anteriority tactical consecution tactical perpetuity Koski
robertbank.czechpistols82792		#13	[-]
Posts: 288 (07/11/09 09:27:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	TechPyle wrote: RobMoore wrote: Which brings up another question, does the shooter have to retreat slightly to regain "cover" against T1 again before reengaging, since he most likely only has cover against T3 at that point? If a person is checking thier targets after engaging they will normally go backwords T3 - T1 and engage T1 as soon as they notice that it needs another round. I would not call a cover violation in this case becouse the target has already been engaged. This is truly a game option since if these were live targets you would not move from T1 to T2 without T1 first going down. This means that T1 was engaged and nutralized as a threat and you went on to T2 and T3. The only way I see this working is if T1 was playing possum and got up again after T3 and you notice it. In wich case you snap from your now stoped T3 back to T1 and finish him off ASAP cover would not necesarily help you because the T1 knows exactly where you are and can just throw lead your way so the first to fire wins. My opinion and my be completly WRONG. Remember when engaging targets cover must be used if it is available. In your example the shooter must be behind cover when engaging a target if cover is available. If the shooter does not utilize cover then a precedural is incurred. IDPA is a game with rules and the cover rule is pretty black & white. Take Care Bob Your Signature ... http://www.idpacanada.com
drewbing		#14	[-]
Posts: 86 (07/15/09 08:48:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In a vickers count stage, my opinion is that a target has been engaged if at least one shot has been fired at it. As far as I can see the definition of tac priority doesn't specify that if 2 shots are required on a target, that both shots must be fired at that target before moving on. All required shots must be fired or that is a penalty of its own but I think that in the OP that tactical priority is satisfied. Tactical Priority: A method of target engagement. For Tactical Priority, targets are engaged by order of threat. If all targets are visible, targets are engaged from near to far, as long as targets are more than two (2) yards from each other. If targets are hidden by a barricade, targets are engaged as they are seen (slicing the pie). Tactical Sequence: A method of target engagement. For Tactical Sequence, all targets are engaged with one round each before being engaged again. In the case of three (3) targets requiring two (2) rounds each, all targets would be engaged with one round to each target BEFORE reengaging the targets with another round in any order (1-1-2-1-1). Even in the case with tac sequence, tac priority is still in effect. say you have targets at 3, 5, and 8 yards and tac sequence is specified. You can't shoot them in any order. You must shoot them near to far. Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA
shadow		#15	[-]
Posts: 9 (07/15/09 12:50:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Drew, Thanks for laying that out concise, clear and to the point. A great refresher for me as new to IDPA. Dave (the sponge ) A36112
Steve Koski		#16	[-]
Posts: 856 (07/15/09 13:01:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Drew, WIth your interpretation, you could fire one shot each at a hard target(s), then later, perhaps from a much closer position fire additional rounds. We had a stage JUST like this Saturday, with a 25 yard target that could have potentially had one shot fired at 25 yards (from cover), and additional shots fired from cover at about 10 yards. In fact, you could "toss" an ultra quick round in the general direction of a difficult target intending not to hit the target, but just to satisfy the engaged requirement, then later shoot it "for real" when you're much closer. This would truly be a winning strategy on some stages. This is a consequence of the "one round is engaged" interpretation. In my mind, it's unacceptable and defeats a lot of the core IDPA ideas. Koski
TxZZ		#17	[-]
Posts: 38 (07/16/09 12:36:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve Koski wrote: Drew, WIth your interpretation, you could fire one shot each at a hard target(s), then later, perhaps from a much closer position fire additional rounds. We had a stage JUST like this Saturday, with a 25 yard target that could have potentially had one shot fired at 25 yards (from cover), and additional shots fired from cover at about 10 yards. In fact, you could "toss" an ultra quick round in the general direction of a difficult target intending not to hit the target, but just to satisfy the engaged requirement, then later shoot it "for real" when you're much closer. This would truly be a winning strategy on some stages. This is a consequence of the "one round is engaged" interpretation. In my mind, it's unacceptable and defeats a lot of the core IDPA ideas. Koski Wouldn't a situation as described above be handled best in the Stage description/COF? EG: Engage T1&T2 with 2 rounds each from P1 .......etc. Just a thought. Dave
drewbing		#18	[-]
Posts: 87 (07/16/09 20:59:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve Koski wrote: Drew, WIth your interpretation, you could fire one shot each at a hard target(s), then later, perhaps from a much closer position fire additional rounds. We had a stage JUST like this Saturday, with a 25 yard target that could have potentially had one shot fired at 25 yards (from cover), and additional shots fired from cover at about 10 yards. In fact, you could "toss" an ultra quick round in the general direction of a difficult target intending not to hit the target, but just to satisfy the engaged requirement, then later shoot it "for real" when you're much closer. This would truly be a winning strategy on some stages. This is a consequence of the "one round is engaged" interpretation. In my mind, it's unacceptable and defeats a lot of the core IDPA ideas. Koski +1 Dave My response is that a good COF will either not allow that or those targets won't be visible or safe to shoot at from a further forward position. My experience is that if you want to keep the gaming to a minimum in this sport, the COF description has to be very strict. keep in mind as well that 2 shots are NOT required on paper targets, it might be one, it might be four. If you use a non standard number of shots per target, let's say 4, and the shooter engages t1-t3 with 3 rounds each In the proper order, then remembers that the COF requires four shots each and puts one more on each target, you would give them a procedural for engaging out of order? To me those target are engaged, and it only takes one shot to be engaged. Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

What does engaged mean?

What does engaged mean?

Quick Reply