MagWell releases the Mag-Fed Rules
In June of 2012 MagWell kicked off our series of events, the MagWell Shooter Games (MWSG for short). Since then, we have been working to put together a solid rule set to unify the niche of MagFed.
If we lay the track for how the games should be played, we figure it could give teams and companies alike the direction needed to grow. Our efforts have been reviewed and tested by some of the most respected shooters in the niche as well as some of the biggest names in our corner of the paintball industry. We’ve been working on this for a long time, and feel that now is the time to give it to the masses. Under these rules, we can safely say that the sport is well represented with the focal point being on a fair game. Our goal has been what Doug Brown outlined over a year ago. We want shooters to be able to take the field with any marker and a couple mags and be competitive.
It’s been our pleasure to produce games and bring the rules to the table. We will keep on producing games and promoting MagFed play and growing this wing of the most action packed sport out there.
So if you’re up for the challenge, lay down your space age nonsense and play a game based on how well you can perform, not based on how deep your pockets are. See you at the next MWSG.
You can download your own set of the MWSG rule book by clicking here. Please make sure to keep the rules intact to maintain the continuity and integrity of their structure. If you have any questions email MagWell at lee@magwellpb.com.
Loading ...
Great job guys at MagWell. Love the rules and I will for sure use them when I host any MF games. I will obviously change rule 3.02 to accept Scarab Arms markers. I had great hopes when I saw the posting on the MFPB site. Finally a rule book that we can all use to make MF play more unified. But I have to say I am disappointed with rule 3.02. I understand if you do not like a particular marker and marker manufacture but to hurt and exclude people that do like that manufacture to prove a point of your dislike is to me very childish and hurtful to players. As a manufacture I understand your problems with our marker, as a player I don’t see why I should be penalized because of the marker I love to play with when this is suppose to be MWSG “MAGWELL” like the one on my marker but yet you allow 30rd tac caps and “stock class” pump guns with 10 rd tubes (have no issues with either just trying to prove a point). Why does it matter if the marker can be adjusted for FPS or is set to specific FPS if you can chrono at field speeds why is the marker excluded. We will have a few fields that will rent our markers this season and after talking to field owners they love the idea of the spring. There is no chance of cheating or hurting someone. Once the marker is set its done. And with spring kits coming out (1. 210 – 220 2. 240 – 250 3. 260 – 270 4. 280 – 290) This rule book was suppose to unit and yet still pushes some people away. It’s disappointing to see.
Thanks guys at Scarab Arms.
As this could have been done in the form of an email but wasn’t…my reply will be here too.
We have no problem with a manufacturer…be it Scarab, RAP4, MILSIG, Tiberius, Tippmann…or even Dye. I am excited to see growth in our niche.
It has been our goal…since before we got your very first prototype, to promote a unified game that appeals to the masses. To this day, the Scarab in my possession remains the same as it was when it was sent to me. The issues with this marker were discussed in great detail with you (Scarab…more specifically Rami) and not just from myself.
I was told to go for trial and error…trimming the spring to adjust my velocity. In an effort to keep professionalism at the highest level…and keep flames from sparking online…we left the pants on this one and didn’t go on about how bad the problems were. I kinda feel like that a public bash of something I didn’t find just right for me coming from behind my company name to be a bit of a flail…like a fish out of water…weak.
SO…that said…on to the next point. MagFed has grown…in my area…which is safely said to be the ground zero on the east coast…thanks to Command Decisions and guys like Doug from PSIOPS. It has come a long way since just over a year ago…where the first test game was January 7th. Since January 7th, 2012, our goal has been to grow the game…built on principles of strategy and tactics versus the common paint consumption models. To grow this portion of the market…seeing where as magfed is still gaining steam and isn’t as saturated in the market…we allow for things like tac caps and cigar tubes.
Yes…our niche is exclusive…if you’re a PE Ego whatever shooting enthusiast…you’re going to learn to walk on our side or be disappointed. If our games didn’t give shooters a way to ease into it…by showing limited paint (ie tac caps and cigar tubes) to be of the same breed as magfed shooters…then we’d have no audience…and you’d have nobody to buy your spring kits that aren’t out yet. By allowing these additional means of feed…we’re getting a wider audience that will cross over to magfed. That’s one of our goals. They might even choose a Scarab. So…THAT is why my rules are targeted to this particular audience.
This rule book was supposed (with a d) to unite (with an e) and in fact still will…and you’ll be able to play too… wielding your wares at that…assuming you can adjust velocity without having to close your eyes, trim the spring, hope for the best…which was the original solution I was given. UNTIL then…paper weight…
It is important to have a marker that can adjust because a first strike and a .68 cal round are different…and 280 on one isn’t 280 on the other. That was the purpose of the rule you don’t find appropriate.
I do hate to hear that you can come up disappointed in my rules but it is to set the bar for the sport. This is the part where I refrain from expressing my ultimate disappointment in the product YOU bring to the market. I’ll continue to keep that nugget to myself.
The bar is set…and getting your up and coming spring kits to market…well that sounds like it gets you to “adjustable” and thus…above bar.
If you’d like to discuss the idea of making an amendment to wording of the rules, we will hear you out. You know how to get in touch with me.
And thank you for your interest.
-Lee
Thank you for your responce Lee. I look forward to the day I change your mind.
Steven Ratte Scarab Arms
What are the reasons for the disqualification of qloader? I mean, in general i can understand that disqualification, on the grounds of a 100 rounds capacity, but im curious about the reasoning behind a total disqualification, rather than either mandating either a loading of no more than 30/50 rounds, or modified 50 round qpods only.
First of all I wish to applaud the effort and work that has gone into this rule book. I have been playing milsim and have participated in setting up and modifying a rule set that has been used by milsim players from Quebec ( canada ) for years now under the name SOP MSQC and are now used all over canada and even overseas in places like France, Belgium, etc..
I say this because I appreciate the work and thought that goes into this but I have to say that a few rules also dissapoint me and I have no tie with any manufacturer. I am also waiting on a Scarab Arms marker therefore I feel attacked in your reply as you’re basically making this marker out to be crap ( yes you do…re-read your full text with a cool head and its obvious) .. you keep saying that you wont go into bashing the product but its there black on white…which to ME is very unprofessional and biased whatever the make of the marker could be.
The point that was brought up earlier was in regards to the rule…the Scarab was used as an example of such a marker but I would still LOVE to hear why a marker that has an FPS set to a velocity so that whatever ammo you decide to use ( paintballs or first strike rounds ) itwill be UNDER the maximum velocity you wish to adopt.
Please dont reply to this question by quoting me anything related to the TGR2 as my question can apply to other markers.
I didnt write this to be an attack but to try and get a straight answer so please keep that in mind.
Thanks
Stephane Gaudreau, Team Leader
Fast Intervention Strike Team – F.I.S.T
http://www.fist-milsim.com
In a previous response, MagWell stated that they see no issue with markers that are are adjustable in some means. Much similar to the Hammer 7, the change must be done internally (though a slightly different process). That being said, once Scarab has their spring kit out the issue becomes moot.
Widowmaker….if you dont mind I’d like to get magwell – Lee to reply. I have stated a few points that need to be addressed by Magwell and not his readers. No disrespect intended…I’d just want his answer.
Thanks
After talking with MagWell Lee he did inform me that Scarab Markers will be allowed as our spring kits are considered adjustability. I am sure Lee is getting bombarded with questions right now. And will post when he has the time. Good questions gents. This is a huge step forward for MF play.
SA markers will certainly be able to compete when they are made to do so…ie when the end user can adjust the velocity without HAVING to modify parts to get it to work. As a shooter…and owner of 2 TGR2′s…I’d love to say they were field legal…but they’re not. As disappointed as you may be…I’ve already been there…twice. When the spring kits show up…as Widowmaker said…moot.
As with any rule set…we reserve the rights to amend. With regard to the word external adjustment…in the first amendment…external will be struck…so spring mods are game.
And Flint. The Q loader is a whole ‘nother beast all together. While I awe at the sight of your Bizon TM7…a qloader doesn’t make the cut. As our niche continues to grow, the alternate feed systems mentioned above will be omitted as well. Our games are planned to evolve from MagFed focused and driven with flexibility to include limited paint…to a strictly magfed format.
MagFed is a new mind set. It really is. Paint consumption is a way of the past for us. We want to get through the day with less (much less) consumption and much higher sense of accomplishment as a result of skill shown. Be those skills communication, strategy, shear ballsiness…or what have you…our games are going to be held to a higher standard in play and a lower standard in consumption.
Oh the Bizon is most certainly not mine, i havent used full sized qpods in a very long time. Im just trying to understand precisely what makes the Qloader “unwelcome”. If it is strictly a capacity issue, then shouldnt the rules define the issue as such, and allow reduced capacity qloaders (modded ones or limited via someother way)? If its an issue of defining what is a magazine, then such decision, becomes even more illogical, by any stretch.
MagFed being a “new mind set” focused on “consumption” is hardly an explanation, especially considering it is not even new, and qloader users were doing it before it became “hip”.
Please understand that my criticism, is not necessarily of the rule, but of the fact that the rule is not properly thought out, and written.
I think the assertion that magfed paintball requires “more skill” than other forms of paintball should be avoided. It’s subjective for one thing, divisive and elitist for another when trying to grow your niche. More importantly however it implies a deep misunderstanding of what is involved at a high level in other forms of the game. The assertion that lower paint use = higher skill is also patently false. What *is* happening is that certain skillsets are less important than others depending on the format. Like comparing Super G skiing with halfpipe, there are many skills in speedball that are practically nonexistent in magfed and vice versa. Speedball is not for everyone. Magfed is not for everyone. Regular scenarios are not for everyone. All have their own strengths and weaknesses.
It’s good to have more people interested into a rules guide system, this is the only way a hobby can be turned into a sport.
[RL-Tech] has documented our rules early in the 2012 by the name Protocolo de Procedimiento Estandar, which means, Standard Procedure Protocol or just PPE by his name on Spanish, so far the people has accepted the idea and adopt it as his own, we are very proud of.
Kudos Lee keep the good work.
Flint. I pegged you with Cheshires wares didn’t I. You’ve got the TPX (or TiPX) qloaded if I’m not mistaken again.
While magfed markers have been available for years now…in that respect…it isn’t new. But…magfed as a niche in the game is still in its infancy…and in fact…is a new way of playing for most. Maybe I should say that it is an experience that most shooters will not have had yet instead of calling it “new”. I won’t try to deny you or anybody that played it when it wasn’t hip. I simply mean that as a collective…the mindset that backs magfed is new. We can argue our points back and fourth but all i mean by new is that unless you were one of the hand full (in contrast)…it’s new to you (and no i don’t mean you as in YOU Flint).
The Qloader is one of those funny areas. Qpods are removed and changed out…yes. Again…the window of magfed deviation is closing and as we evolve from limited paint to strictly magfed (as the audience builds) then we will do away with the alternative feeds and stick to just magazines.
As far as capacity…we will allow box mags in certain times in our games. Qpods are not box mags. I’m also not here to argue what is a magazine. As far as a modified qpod getting down to meed our capacity requirements…I would gamble that you are one of a very small handful out there that has modded them down to limited ammo standards. And while those standards open for interpretation…our rule set is designed not to be open to such…but more concrete.
Will our ruleset evolve as the format grows…absolutely. However…as a means of keeping and holding to standards…it will not deviate to satisfy the alternate means of play that people come up with. If we did that…we’d never have anything in place AS a standard that could be held to any level of integrity. Do I want YOU to be at our events…absolutely. Having played magfed for a long time…you’re going to have experience and a skillset that others can learn from. You will add an element to the game that others will not have seen yet…and in turn…you as a competitor will make a game more fun. At least I would argue that if it were me playing against you.
In the interest of the game…the rule book cannot change every time someone recognizes their norm to be a deviation from our path. And while I can appreciate your position…the qloader does not meet the standards that we have set. The bow and arrow marker is limited paint…but it’s not in either.
Yes, that is correct Lee, although i dont use it much, since the shorties are not as reliable as the full sized ones… I need to build a Chang Feng, for proper application of the full sized ones.
Lee, ive read you response several times, and i think there is a certain miscommunication between us, because it doesnt really answers my questions, probably due to me not explaining my point well enough, so ill try to clarify my point.
I do not argue for the qloader, the opposite in fact, i fully support the ban on it within the format, outlined in the rulebook.
But i want to see the prohibition, better worded, and have a better argument behind it, one that is not so easy to argue against, and not be open to interpretations of the standards.
To put it simply; if its due to capacity, say it so, with a provision that a halved capacity is still not enough to make it acceptable. (no one will make lesser than 50 capacity, for simple mechanical reliability reasons)
You say that you would not argue the definition of a magazine, and i absolutely agree with you on that, because there is nothing really to argue – a helical magazine, is a magazine under every definition of the word.
Thus the Qloader is a magazine system, and not an “alternative feed”.
Rather than fall on the clearly mistaken argument that Qloader does not fall under the magazine definition, you could adopt the MilSim argument, that due to the fact that helical magazines work with calibers, no bigger than 9mm, the acceptance of one would require a reduction of the marker FPS, and that would conflict with the FPS rules. A bit of a convoluted argument, but harder to poke holes in it.
Or, and for this one I will be roasted alive by gun enthusiasts, use the word “clip”, rather than “magazine”. Problem solved.
So to summarize, do not amend the rules, to accept the qloader, expand the rules to make it clear why it is not acceptable.
I don’t understand why the one rule was written as “External Velocity Control” That removes the Spyder Hammer 7, Empire Traccer, ATS AT-85, ATS AT-4(and variants), APS RAM .43 Combat, APS RAM .43 Desert Eagle(and other APS RAM pistols), and of course the Scarab Arms TGR2. All of these markers have internal velocity adjustment. Due to the way these rules are stated none of these markers are allowed to be used because of this fact. Why did you choose to exclude 7+ mag-fed paintball markers just because they have internal velocity adjustment?
Gunner did you read the convo above? External will be amended.
I did afterwards. Going to learn to do that thing they call reading instead of just skimming.
Lol i hear ya.
I like this set of rules, at first rea it feels real good, comprehensive etc. My only immediate concern is the FS limitation for “Snipers/Recon’ and no Designated Marksman role (unless i missed it) I, like some others, prefer to shoot FS only and competition by players for the Sniper/Recon role could be high if only one person in 10 per side gets to shoot FS and that is a “PB Sniper/Recon”. Seems artificially restrictive.
Do you really mean that only approved Snipers can shoot FS?
Nice, your ops sound like every mission that I have ever played on an FPS game. I really like the escort op. also have you considered a hostage rescue or maybe a a downed pilot op.
For downed pilot op there would be 2 teams the SAR unit and the terrorists or radicals. A injured downed pilot is located behind enemy lines and is only armed with a sidearm with limited ammo, like 2 mags one in weapon and one spare.
He would be located closer to the engines, but the SAR team would no his location, thru comms and a TAC map.
To give the bad guys an advantage he will be deep behind enemy lines, but could manage to move about only 50 to 100 yds. In one direction, and then find a hide.
Transmit his 20 to the commander or directly to the SAR team. Then the clock starts, the SAR want him alive and OK, but the op4 can kill him or capture him for more points.
If the pilot is killed the the op4 win with only half of there points, but if they capture him and get him back to their HQ, they get full points.
If the SAR get him and return him back to base, they win.
And if either team kills the other, it’s only half points as well.
The players who like a challenge will play for SAR there is really only 1 true outcome for them, get the pilot back safely.
While the OP4 has a couple options only one gives the full points as well.
Or also if the OP4 capture the pilot and take him to their base SAR has only a tiny window to try and fight to get he or she back, or the op4 takes the victory.
A lot of outcomes and a lot of thinking on the move, use tactics to achieve victory with finesse or go all out a destroy the objective or opposition. It’s your call.
So…will the TGR2 be legal w/ the spring kit….??
Yes, there will be an update to the Rules released, which will add clarity for velocity adjustment.