Just curious, was this on a game with a launch button?
@PAPA_Doug, thanks for your description. That makes sense if the reason is not known.
But here’s a follow-up question: What if this is a machine known to auto-plunge on a DANGER, and players and/or TD witnessed the DANGER warning on the next player. Would this be a DQ?
Two possible rules can apply: Tilt-Through rule, which basically says if the tilt causes loss of ball for the next player. The ‘loss of ball’ is key, because on a SS Stern where you tilt next player but they get ball back, it’s not a DQ. So would you agree this should be treated same as the Tilt Through rule and DQ? Or still apply the IFPA rule about a DANGER carrying over to next ball and no consequences for the player on first offense?
@jdelz, yes this game had a launch button, thus the player who had just tilted accidentally hitting launch button was also plausible, but nobody witnessed that and the player didn’t think they did.
I was mostly curious because I know that some 90s B/W games with launch buttons will put the ball in play when a danger happens like you asked about in your last post. It’s an interesting situation.
Also on Judge Dredd I’ve seen the next player’s ball launch if the prior player hit both flipper buttons to speed up their bonus count. It happened consistently and was confirmed to definitely not include the square buttons. Pretty weird
If the malfunction is known, and I’ve witnessed it before and it’s been confirmed before I would probably give the comp ball if the player didn’t take control, and give the warning through player a warning.
Then I’d pull the game or fix it unless it’s a feature. Not totally an expert on button launch games.
1 Like
Happened this way at pinburgh on Nightmare on Elm St to me - player tilted and then a danger to me which fired the auto plunger (I did not touch the machine for control).
Official ruling was just the warning for the ‘danger through’ and a comp ball with no other consequences.
7 Likes
seems odd for that game.
@DDP thanks for sharing that you’ve experienced it first hand.
This seems like an inconsistency in our rule set. The reason a Tilt Through is a DQ is because the actions of one player affected the subsequent player and prevented them from playing their ball. The fact that a Tilt Through on a Stern where you launch the ball and it gives it back to you is not a DQ, further emphasizes that rationale.
So on games with Danger warnings, the only reason it wasn’t a tilt through is because you got a warning. If that same machine had no warnings, or you got Danger-Danger-Tilt, it would be a tilt through. The reason the rule says not a DQ is because the next player is still able to play their ball.
So in the case where the tilt causes a Danger on the next player, and that in turn causes an auto-launch and ball draining, the machine is in the same situation as a Tilt-Through, where the next player is unable to play their ball. Why wouldn’t that be a DQ?
The reason this should not be a DQ has been explained above: you cannot say why the ball was plunged by the game (even if the TD witnessed a danger). It still could have been other factors (a playfield switch that triggered, or a sticky autoplunge button, or maybe other things I haven’t thought of).
I don’t think we should be looking for new ways to DQ people. As it is, a tilt through is something unfortunate that needs to be accounted for, but has been eliminated by the coding in modern games.
4 Likes
You never said tilt through before. You said only a tilt warning happening. That’s a warning to the player. A tilt through is always a DQ.
Because it wasn’t a tilt through. It was a warning through that happened to also launch the ball.
@chuckwurt, I am questioning why a Tilt to a warning that leads to next player’s loss of ball shouldn’t be treated as a Tilt Through. Both are current player tilting resulting in loss of ball for next player.
I think the difference here is that we know why the player after a full tilt through was unable to play their turn. Autolaunchers could be triggered by something other than a danger through.
Was it a pop bumper that fired causing the autolaunch? Was it a badly adjusted autolaunch button switch? Timed autolaunch turned on in settings? Is a a Sega you can’t turn flipper ball launch off on and the player actually launched their own ball?
I think the danger through that causes an autolaunch (or did that cause it?) adds in to many extra questions and variables to DQ the player who caused the warning through.
5 Likes
Yet they are completely different. A tilt through tilts the next player. A warning through that launches the ball results in the next player choosing to let the ball drain knowing they will get a comp ball or they can choose to take control and continue to play.
On a tilt through the next player has no choice.
2 Likes
Not if the next player isn’t at the game ready to start playing immediately.
1 Like
I would not DQ in this instance. I would give the tilt-warning through player a warning and the player whose ball launched a comp ball.
I think the key factor here is that a tilt through is a DQ, in this example it was not a tilt through, but a ‘warning through’.
4 Likes
This is the entirety of the language in the PAPA rules. I don’t see anything about whether the warning through has additional effects on the next player or not. It can be applied directly to the situation at hand.
There is a later paragraph about taking control of a ball already in play, but whether it may or may not be used in addition to this rule, it has nothing to do with the danger through.
1 Like
There was some discussion of this in another thread a year or two ago. Some TDs from Pinburgh said the “taking/gaining control” language only applied if someone plunged another player’s ball. If the game auto-launched for some reason the criteria for a compensation ball was whether the player touched the game or not. If you touch the game after it auto-launches then no compensation ball.
But concerning dangers causing auto-launches it opens up the possibility of an unscrupulous player intentionally dangering through to cause an auto-launch and only getting a warning. If the TD determines the player’s intent was to cause an auto-launch, then I guess a DQ could be given.
Also practically speaking, I think it would materially affect the style of play on modern games if a warning-through also resulted in a DQ. On older games with no warnings, everyone knows a good shove can get you a tilt-through. Moderns usually allow more action, because most of the time if you tilt you’re only affecting yourself, the machine will calm down before the next player. But of course in rare situations you can get a warning to bleed over.
Penalizing both the same way I feel would cause play on moderns to be far too cautious, with less people being able to display their bumping, nudging, or insane outlane-shake or slap-save skills over fear that they might tilt and might induce a warning.
3 Likes