Ruling: Shadow confused with Hotel Monolith

Sorry. Wasn’t trying to take you out of context, I was simply emphasizing the aspect to which I was responding.

I understand your disagreement. I understand your points. I still disagree. I don’t see it as a beneficial malfunction.
Did the pin create/initiate the multiball play state (multiple balls in play) through a malfunction? If yes, then follow beneficial malfunction rules.
If no, then play on – the player is already being penalized enough with loss of the multiball rules scoring opportunities… if they are able to use the multiple balls they earned to score or make some sort of progress in single ball rules/scoring, then it’s a nice offset to their loss of multiball rules/scoring.

Nope. That is a beneficial malfunction. Robert didn’t earn that multiball state.

So what’s the line where the penalty is “enough” of a loss to warrant the ability to take advantage of this 2-balls in single ball state. If the scoring of this multiball mode was 10% of the value that it actually was, would you still make the same ruling?

Very curious to see how you calculate the offset formula for their loss of multiball rules/scoring versus the ability for that player to earn points on the playfield in single ball play . . . game to game, situation to situation.

Please send that formula my way and I’ll talk with Doug about adding it to the IFPAPA rules :slight_smile:

I agree that it’s probably not a huge benefit on the Shadow, but I’d rather be consistent in rulings across games. Echoing Josh’s point, would your feelings be the same if on Mustang, the game dropped out of drag race MB and the player used two ball play to get a Gear 6 MB?

Colin will send us his “offset formula” and we’ll have our answer on how material this is :slight_smile:

No formula required. You earned having multiple balls in play. Enjoy it. The player got screwed out of some scoring opportunities, and has the chance at others – it shouldn’t cost them a loss of one of the multiple balls they have in play that were legitimately earned. It’s not beneficial.

If a player on Mustang has the game drop them out of the Drag Race MB, Gear 6 MB, or whatever multiball rules/scoring and leaves them with multiple balls in play, I have no problem with them using those multiple balls in play that they earned to do whatever the heck they want next on the game.

If you would please explain the steps to reproduce it and I will pass judgement. (And please do, I am playing in a tournament with Creach this weekend).

The monolith thing is indistinguishable from an intentionally programmed rule. Since there is no written rule sheet defining the intended behaviour of the game, the code is the documentation ™.

How can this be a malfunction, when who Dunnit gate bug is play on? Or any number of other scoring features (read exploit).

You didn’t earn having multiple balls in play, you earned the “Multiball” . . . which then ‘ended’.

For Warp 9.9 you earned “multiple balls in play”, with 2X scoring, so that’s fine because that’s the rule.

You can’t compensate someone for being bit by a bug for allowing a state that is a beneficial malfunction with a significant advantage to take place . . . regardless of ‘how that player got there’ IMO.


Paging @keefer on this one.

My thought process goes . . . start Snackbar, don’t collect it, start mulitball . . .yada yada yada none of this matters because your score won’t count when you pull it off anyway :slight_smile:

Lol. So now we’re going to differentiate between multiballs with some as “true friends of the crown” Multiballs (TM?) and some as just “multiple balls in play.” Dilly dilly.
What about M-balls? :stuck_out_tongue:

Gimme a break.
If you earn having multiple balls on the playfield (I don’t care what you call it), you shouldn’t be forced to intentionally drain any of the balls.


Time out the snack bar hurryup, then start multiball and drain one ball before getting a jackpot. Wait for the restart animation and drain your second ball. The snackbar countdown starts at 10B on your next plunge. I’m not sure if this works on multiplayer games or not.

I’ve seen it done on location, and that GC is still sitting there.

You can think whatever you want. If you’re playing in a tournament I’m running, nobody is playing with multiple balls on the playfield in single ball play rules outside of those examples where “that’s a designed rule and intentionally part of gameplay”.

Loss of a multiball is NOT a major malfunction. Yes it sucks . . . as does a ton of other malfunctions that impact players in a negative way. At no point in time do we evaluate a beneficial malfunction “net of any losses from minor malfunctions that happened in conjunction with the incident at hand”.

YMMV depending on your TD :slight_smile:


Brian Eddy was over to Raw Thrills for lunch today . . . I asked him if this was the intended behavior of the game . . .he said “No” :slight_smile:


FWIW (which I realize isn’t much), yes looks fair game to me.

I think in a multiplayer game on CFTBL if you set up the 10B hurry up the player after you gets it. If that’s the case, I don’t think anyone would do it on purpose in competition.

One of Zach’s best friends cashed in a 9bil snack bar at Pinburgh last year and the game was voided :slight_smile:

“Due to the complex and imperfect nature of pinball machines, rare and / or unusual scoring situations may arise that are the unintended consequences of programming oversights, errors, mechanical issues, or wiring issues. If a tournament director deems a player is taking advantage of an unexpected scoring situation or an obscure “programming bug”, the tournament director reserves the right to warn the player in question to not abuse the situation further, end the game in progress at the current score, award a score of zero, or ask the player to restart the game. The determination of whether a player is taking advantage of a software or scoring issue and the subsequent penalty, if any, is left up to the discretion of the tournament director and will be based on the particulars of the specific situation.”

Revision 20.7, when did that get added? Did you add that today just to shut me up?

That was added 3/31/17 . . . my records show Steinman wrote it up and we both added it that same day.


Was that rule inspired by KME wrecking HOTK at the Circuit Final?

Which of the consequences listed do you think would have been appropriate in hindsight?


Circuit Final was April 5th, which was a week after the rule was added.

Clearly KME should have been ejected from the building, DQ’d from the Circuit Final and then asked to not return for PAPA the rest of the weekend :slight_smile: