Ruling: Shadow confused with Hotel Monolith

The same Shadow got confused multiple times during back to back SCS games. Has anyone else seen similar behavior before on games of The Shadow?
** For reference for any that don’t know Shadow modes, Hotel Monolith mode is a 2-ball multiball, with special scoring by hitting the center Sanctum lock shot 3 times, and then all other shots lit for mode shots. It is untimed, and the mode scoring ends when you drain down to one ball remaining in play. **

Game 1: During ball 1, P1 started Hotel Monolith. 2-ball multiball being played. Both balls end up simultaneous draining with the ball-save still running. Game kicks out one ball due to the ball-save, but fails to serve up the second. This would be fine if the game exited the multiball mode. But instead, only one ball is in play, and Hotel Monolith scoring features are still running (center Sanctum shot still lit for mode shots, and DMD still showing Hotel Monolith display).
Ruling: beneficial malfunction. P1 must drain the ball in play to end the Hotel Monolith mode, and if it ends the ball (it did), then it will become a Major malfunction, and P1 will be allowed to play one additional ball on new game to add to their score.

Game 2: (the compensation ball, as P2 had a higher score than P1 after the original game)… P1 starts Hotel Monolith again on their only ball, which is ball 1. This time, P1 is making mode shots, when suddenly, the game thinks that Hotel Monolith mode/multiball has ended – the DMD diplays end sequence of Monolith, and the lit inserts for Hotel Monolith shots go away – all while both balls remain in play. P1 traps up with a ball cradled on each flipper, asking for a ruling.
Ruling: Sorry, P1, you’re screwed that you don’t get the benefit of your scoring opportunities during Monolith multiball, but you did legitimately earn the opportunity to play in a multiball state. Play on, and if when one of the two balls drain, the game goes to end of ball sequence while the remaining ball is in play, then it will be Major Malfunction, and P1 will get another compensation ball to add to the score. P1 didn’t play long with two balls, and when one ball drained, the game did NOT end the ball, and normal single ball play continued.

There were no other losing-track-of-balls-during-multiball errors in either P1 or P2’s other balls with Shadow or Kahn multiballs.

In both rulings, the players agreed with the rulings – no disagreement or complaining (other than getting screwed by the Shadow).

Thoughts on the rulings?
And thoughts on the cause of the malfunctions? Bad trough switch? Only the Shadow knows?

I’ve seen situation #1 multiple times when instantly double draining out of Hotel. Has to be a software bug.

I know it’s not the right way to handle it in competition, but I’ve been able to get out of the mode by completing the 3 center shots and entering the hotel. At that point the game goes back into normal play.

In Game 2, even though the multiball was earned, I would have ruled that the player needed to drain one of the two balls. Playing with multiple balls while the game is in single ball state is a beneficial malfunction.

Both rulings are correct, I believe.

Never ever seen this as a software bug. A ball trough opto or divot issue, yes.

My guess would be the trough needs service.

Are there enough balls in the game? STTNG last night at our tournament only had 5 balls in it and I started Borg multiball, drained down to one ball, but multiball kept going. I trapped up and called the group over, and just dumped my ball.

It was ball three and I didn’t need a comp ball for a win, but we found out right after that game there’s were one too few balls in the game. Double check that.

That is correct, except it happens when a ball drains in the trough at the same exact moment the ball save goes out. Leaving one ball play until you enter the hotel. I told Brian Eddy and Mike Boon about it back in the day and they never fixed it. They did fix the mode bonus bug where it would only give you credit for one mode and not two if you were to complete the same mode on one ball. Another one is 255 hits to open Battlefield. I never seen that #2 scenario so must be a trough issue.

What’s the “more important” factor in determining if you’re allowed to have more than one ball on the playfield? Does current game state take precedence. or is it based on what the player has done up to that point?

I’ve often wondered about this, because in this combination of events, a machine malfunction (dropping out of multiball unexpectedly) could cause the player to have to lose a ball in play through no fault of their own. Contrast that with the game kicking out a second ball unexpectedly, which gives the same end result but isn’t earned.

I interpret the rules to always go by game state. There’s no mention of an “earned” beneficial malfunction. If you’re in a single ball state with multiple balls in play, then that is a beneficial malfunction. It also has the benefit of being easier to be consistent in rulings, since you aren’t trying to determine what is earned and what is not.

I disagree. There are a few games that have multiball play while in a single ball state (“state” here meaning: no additional rules, scoring opportunities, etc due to being in the multiball). Stern Star Trek’s post-Kobayashi Maru is one of them. So is Warp 9.9. In both cases, the player has certainly earned the multiball play. Should we all be forced to drain down to one ball after we complete ST’s KM mini-wizard mode, or down to one ball after the 2x scoring of Warp 9.9 runs out? I say we should not.

And you are able to be consistent with your rulings: Did the player earn the multiball state? (“state” meaning: there should be more than one ball on the table in play) If so, then play on. If not, then it’s a beneficial malfunction, and treated as such.

If the game is supposed to have multiple balls on the playfield in that game state, then it is not a malfunction. Star Trek is supposed to have multiple balls on the playfield in those cases, so it can’t be a beneficial malfunction. The Shadow is not supposed to have multiple balls on the playfield in that state, so it is a beneficial malfunction.

This makes me think of the poor novice who doesn’t really understand the intricacies of game state or maybe doesn’t know about modes or whatnot. We all know what we’re doing, and we can still have discussions like this about what is or is not a problem that needs to be trapped up and ruled on. I’d hate to be that novice who might get DQ’d and not have any idea about it - someone who is just trying to not drain and doesn’t know that the game wasn’t supposed to do what it did.

I often wonder if we can simplify the rules somehow to protect the novice while still protecting the game against expert exploitation.

A TD shouldn’t worry about DQ’ing a player for being unaware of something. The penalty in those cases is simply voiding the score and making the player replay.

DQ’s come from player conduct, based on players trying to take advantage of something they are aware of.

In the case provided, The Shadow was indeed supposed to have multiple balls in play on the playfield. The player earned them by starting Hotel Monolith. It’s not the player’s fault that the pin screwed up and thought the scoring associated with multiball was over.

Besides, Hotel Monolith or no Hotel Monolith scoring – who’s going to shoot for those shots anyway when there are Shadow loop combos to be had?

I stand corrected then; I thought the rules were supposed to be mostly objective. Like, can you really be sure a player isn’t aware that they are having a beneficial malfunction and just playing dumb? Maybe the “void and replay” part covers players trying to be sneaky about it, but I still fear for the novice who’s having a great game and gets it voided like that. That just feels like it sucks all around.

Thanks for cutting up the quote to make it look like I said something that I didn’t

The player is certainly being screwed here if you ask them to drain a ball, but having two balls on the playfield in this state is a beneficial malfunction. The player has features available to them (lighting locks, playing additional modes, Khan MB, the battlefield), that were never intended to be available besides with a single ball on the playfield. I consider that to be a beneficial malfunction.

If this is the case, the ruling should be play on. It is a software feature available to all players and not a malfunction. If someone wants to cradle up wait until the ball save if about to go out and double drain, then so be it. They earned the “secret monolith” mode.

Yep . . . when I ask them if they were intentionally trying to take advantage of the situation, I would expect them to answer honestly.

So then the Creature 9bil Snackbar bonus should be “play on” as well since it’s available to all players and not a malfunction?

This is a multiball available to all players, right?

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

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

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

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?

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

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”

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

“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

It was April 5, 2016.

LOL . . . then we must have reallllllly thought about it for a while before adding verbiage to the IFPAPA rules.

I still disagree that this is an instance where this was a “loss” of multiball – this isn’t some malfunction (flippers dying, etc) that causes the loss of all but one of the balls on the table.
But if you and the IFPAPA powers that be are going to stick with this interpretation, I suggest you clarify this in the rules.

Getting my popcorn ready for this ruling on The Shadow at IFPA 15.

I’ll just point to this thread when making that ruling

Known as the “Cayle pretended he knew an exploit for Iron Man before PAPA, so we specifically wrote a rule that would give us the ability to shut him down rule”.

XD

Lol. So which supposed exploit did you pretend to know about?

Wait, so (just now) you thought this rule was in place when KME did the HOTK exploit, but knew that there was no ruling on that… so does that mean you don’t think a ruling should have been made in this case? If not, why? If so, how should that have been handled?

LOL that’s right . . . you’re such a piece of sh*t

Not at all . . . new games run into the “we don’t know what we don’t know yet” about the code. So the assumption is that the game is behaving as it should.

It’s only after vetting a game and understanding how it works that you can understand when something “isn’t working as it should”.

Hopefully TD’s are aware of these potential issues and know ahead of time to either:

A) Don’t use the game so you don’t have to deal with the ruling of what happens if “the thing” happens

B) Use the game with the understanding that our ruling will be “X” if “the thing” happens

The paragraph that Steinman wrote up lays it out perfectly IMO:

“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.”

@PinballProfile You are the TD, so better keep your eye on Ian this weekend

Exactly. Ah, the perils of using newer games. In that case of GOT HOTK mode, in the code’s then-current state, HOTK behaved according to the code. It was most certainly an exploit, but it wasn’t like @sk8ball was trying to keep it a secret. IIRC, he even called his shot and told the entire PAPAtv viewing world – all 100 of us at the time? – about the exploit and that he was going to do it, prior to the match with Zach.

I don’t think a player should ever be penalized for knowing more about how a game’s rules work, including how to make your shots more lucrative, unless that specific exploit/bug is announced and documented prior to the game being played that it is disallowed.

Another reason I think it’s critical on newer games to disclose the software version being used. Rules and scoring can change, sometimes dramatically.

so now you have to track both ‘earned’ and ‘intent’?? This seems unenforcable across the general public. Nothing to keep a player from saying “I didnt know…” to cover up playing through a beneficial malfunction, etc.

Now hence referred to as ‘The God clause…’

It’s impossible to track intent. The only thing keeping a player from saying “I didn’t know . . .” is their sportsmanship.

Professional golfers call penalties on themselves. There’s a sense of professionalism and sportsmanlike conduct that golfers have that I expect from competitive pinball players, especially at the highest of levels.

No, that is section 10.

"Final authority for any ruling, including rulings that contradict or vacate anything written in this document or in other IFPA materials, rests with the President of the International Flipper Pinball Association, Josh Sharpe."

I feel like poking the bear a bit.

At Nationals a few years ago, I was playing Elvira in my match. At the time I was somewhat unfamiliar with the game. As we all know now, the ball lock eject out the top is somewhat obscured. When I started multiball, I did not notice that only two balls has fully ejected as I was busy trying to not suck. One of them was caught behind the lock mechanism. I only realized this when I drained a ball and had a cradle and noticed I was still in multiball. At that time, I called over a TD to rule and as I recall, was not penalized.

Should I have DQ’d myself here for taking advantage of a beneficial malfunction? Was it enough to have called the TD? I would have felt very hard-done-by if I had been penalized for something I had absolutely no idea about.

There’s no bear to poke. If you weren’t aware of the situation at hand, at worst I would voided the game and had you replay.

Hopefully you wouldn’t have felt hard-done-by if we voided the game as the “penalty” had you continued to play a 1-ball multiball for 10 minutes not realizing your game was still in “multiball state”. To me that’s simply no harm, no foul, but we’re not going to count that score, go replay that game.

Nope, not at all. In fact, the missing ball was noticed pretty quickly so there wasn’t much extra scoring going on. But I remember having a little internal freakout that I was about to be DQ’d from Nationals for playing on with a trapped ball, since I think at the time the prevailing opinion was that it amounted to taking advantage of a beneficial malfunction, and that was a no-no.

Curling is the same way, it is entirely self officiated (well technically they changed a few things with measurement, which is stupid. Of and hog line violations). There are rules that are simply agreement between the 2 teams, there are violations like burning a rock you call on yourself. It is the major plot point of men with brooms.