The Armour Archive

Counted blows work for me. Paul suggested one day counted blows, no targets repeated for that extra crispy experience.

I've been a fan of that or two blows to any of the limbs (no wounds acted out) or one blow to the head or body which ever comes first.

All we have to do is test it... we have enough SCA leadership here to start a trend of sorts.

Testing it in tournaments would be easy enough; perhaps we should start testing it in melee events that are coming up?

Melee wise it might even level the playing field a bit; if dukelogan runs up on 3 novice fighters by himself he'd have to deliver 9 blows to survive the encounter (to their 3 on him)... if the 3 fight together that could get real tight for his grace but then so would the glory of doing such deeds.

dukelogan wrote:please please please let us go to counted blows!! i cant wait until someone has to actually hit me three times to best me before i can hit them three times. it will be awesome!!!

Francisco Lopez de Leon wrote:Not permanent kingdom/principality law. But for the duration of my reign... let ppl try it the other way, see how they liked it.

Get the discussion going.

I really do worry about long-term medical effects of fighting from one's knees (and I'm not just talking about the psychological damage caused by Nissan to kneeling opponents here), and think that giving everyone an immersion experience in other ways of doing things might be worth trying. Hey, if it catches on, great. If not, i tried.

If you want people to try it out have you considered taking the role of marshal in charge and having some (all?) of the fighting at an event like that ...

B

Maeryk wrote:...It's a set of rules grown out of 40 years of experimentation. ...

I'm not so sure about that.
I guess that this particular rule, just like some others, did not develope within 40 years of experience but was fixed on a very early state of that developement.
And never developed.
'If you receive a telling blow at your leg you may fight standing on one leg or kneeling an the particular leg' is one of the oldest rules. It is not a result of experience or experimentation.
Result of experience and exeperimentation is: taking a leg shot as a killing shot or using counted blows.

I don't really mind knee fighting (though I don't do it), but please dont pretend it to be a result of experience or experimentation. It isn't. It's a relic from old D&D and Hippie times.

SCA combat should be permanently changed. Two blows to limbs- you lose. One blow to "kill zone" - you lose.

People talk about how this would make tourney fights last longer and waste time---BULLSHIT--- fights that involve a guy on his knees take wayyy longer as people flail away, get knocked over etc.

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:SCA combat should be permanently changed. Two blows to limbs- you lose. One blow to "kill zone" - you lose.

People talk about how this would make tourney fights last longer and waste time---BULLSHIT--- fights that involve a guy on his knees take wayyy longer as people flail away, get knocked over etc.

I agree, Sir, and would take it further - that rule, in one fell swoop, would improve our historicity, improve our fighting, simplify our fighting, and improve our image both within LH and among observers.

Imagine how many rules and nonsense local 'customs' could be swept away. Do/don't corkscrew do/don't cross the plane is the sun in your eyes do/don't throw going down do/don't throw when they go down is my shield blocking your sword hand ooo you popped up people mumbling on the sideline it isn't fair that some people fight better from their knees etc etc ETC ETC ETC.

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:SCA combat should be permanently changed. Two blows to limbs- you lose. One blow to "kill zone" - you lose.

People talk about how this would make tourney fights last longer and waste time---BULLSHIT--- fights that involve a guy on his knees take wayyy longer as people flail away, get knocked over etc.

So would that be two blows to the same limb or any two blows....
e.g. one to the leg and another to an arm... or one to each leg... etc etc

or rightleg hit twice... ok I'm done.. or right leg left arm right leg again now done?

do we still lose an arm? I never hear anybody screaming about that convention...

depending on which way you do it it could take up to 4 good blows to end the fight.

regards
Thorvaldr

dukelogan wrote:but bitching about knee fighting and saying its silly when compared to "real" fighting is retarded since what we do is not anything like real fighting. complaining that it looks "silly" while not screaming about coleman chairs, blue jeans, tennis shoes, and dark victory armour (sic) is hypocrisy at its highest level.

I agree that our fighting rules are invented, and not based in reality. Therefore there should be no objection in changing the rules based on anything other than the desires of the fighting community. And factually there is a strong movement to improve the appearance of what we do, particularly in Atlantia, so I don't see the hypocrisy. If anything we should seek to extend this visual improvement to how we fight, if even in a small way.

Honestly, your Grace, I'm confused by your stance. You are one of the few participants in our sport that does not act out a "death" in tournament, instead choosing to offer your sword. The act has a noble appearance. If you choose not to act out a mortal wound, why would you then defend the acting out of a debilitating one?

dukelogan wrote:but, by all means, lets go to counted blows so that only the best fighters can ever succeed and the guy who nails his courage down and just happens to throw that one manly blow that lands on target can just learn to count out loud......

This hypothetical manly blow could just as easily land on opponent's grill and end the fight within the context of the counted blow system. Don't the great majority of bouts end with blows to the head anyway? In my experience, the greater the skill of my opponent the less available arms and legs are to my strikes. Certainly your bout against Duke Brannos at Candlemas supports this, with many strikes to the head demonstrated, and few attempts at a leg wound.

As for "the best fighters can ever succeed," well, success in our sport is measured in many ways, with victory being only one. I'm willing to walk a harder road in order to eliminate the absurd and obsolete theatre of acted wounds. But I don't think it will affect our sport in a negative way. Anyone who wants to adapt to the new rule set will have to practice and hone their technique. This, I believe, is exactly the system we have now.

Regards,
Skutai

If you get hit in a non-kill-zone area twice- you lose.
If you get hit in a kill-zone area- you lose.

No knee fighting.
No switching hands.
No searching-asking for a half-gauntlet for the left hand during hand switch.
No goofy half-gauntlets or winged elbow cops behind shields.
No strain on knees.
No corkscrewing.
No knees in the face.
Fights are over quicker.
Everyone can wear simple greaves because they won't have to worry about demi-greaves slipping under the top of greaves when they are getting back up.

Loser salutes first- fight is over.

What is NOT to like?

I don't like fighting from my knees, but I'm OK with others knee fighting.

Now IF the BOD or whatever leadership said "no knee-fighting, all counted blows" I wouldn't shed any tears, but right now it's OK and someone is having fun on their knees. We should let them have that fun.

But please don't demand that I follow suit and fight from my knees.

With respect,

-Aaron

honestly i began my dislike for the falling down convention when it was common (at least in my area) for "best death" prizes. this led to folks acting silly, moaning, staggering, flailing about like fish out of water, etc. i also didnt want to get dirt on my tabard.

internally i thought it more appropriate for me to show submission to the man that bested me by saluting his deed rather than falling over.

what i mean by it being hypocritical is that fighting from the knees, losing an arm, etc doesnt change the visual imapct of the contest. some people disagree but, at least to me, it is simply part of our sport. blue jeans and coleman chairs show a lack of interest in what our society is supposed to be about, clearly violates the rules even if they are ignored, and are just a sign of laziness. im all for improving the sca visually but find that argument to be of way less importance than getting rid of tennis shoes.

the argument that its bad for someones knees is valid but only to the person whos knees cant take it. again, they have the choice of yielding the fight should they wish it.

my other concern is retention. a newer fighter has a small chance of striking the 5 year guy and winning the bout. this is a small taste of success and, at least i think, gives him hope that with enough dedication and practice those victories might become more common. if he has to strike the 5 year guy two more times i worry that he will become more frustrated and disheartened. now put him against a duke and he might just see it as impossible and lose interest. if you eliminate any taste of victory i can see him giving up. at least thats part of my concern.

regards
logan

Skutai wrote:

dukelogan wrote:but bitching about knee fighting and saying its silly when compared to "real" fighting is retarded since what we do is not anything like real fighting. complaining that it looks "silly" while not screaming about coleman chairs, blue jeans, tennis shoes, and dark victory armour (sic) is hypocrisy at its highest level.

I agree that our fighting rules are invented, and not based in reality. Therefore there should be no objection in changing the rules based on anything other than the desires of the fighting community. And factually there is a strong movement to improve the appearance of what we do, particularly in Atlantia, so I don't see the hypocrisy. If anything we should seek to extend this visual improvement to how we fight, if even in a small way.

Honestly, your Grace, I'm confused by your stance. You are one of the few participants in our sport that does not act out a "death" in tournament, instead choosing to offer your sword. The act has a noble appearance. If you choose not to act out a mortal wound, why would you then defend the acting out of a debilitating one?

dukelogan wrote:but, by all means, lets go to counted blows so that only the best fighters can ever succeed and the guy who nails his courage down and just happens to throw that one manly blow that lands on target can just learn to count out loud......

This hypothetical manly blow could just as easily land on opponent's grill and end the fight within the context of the counted blow system. Don't the great majority of bouts end with blows to the head anyway? In my experience, the greater the skill of my opponent the less available arms and legs are to my strikes. Certainly your bout against Duke Brannos at Candlemas supports this, with many strikes to the head demonstrated, and few attempts at a leg wound.

As for "the best fighters can ever succeed," well, success in our sport is measured in many ways, with victory being only one. I'm willing to walk a harder road in order to eliminate the absurd and obsolete theatre of acted wounds. But I don't think it will affect our sport in a negative way. Anyone who wants to adapt to the new rule set will have to practice and hone their technique. This, I believe, is exactly the system we have now.

Regards,
Skutai

dukelogan wrote:
my other concern is retention. a newer fighter has a small chance of striking the 5 year guy and winning the bout. this is a small taste of success and, at least i think, gives him hope that with enough dedication and practice those victories might become more common. if he has to strike the 5 year guy two more times i worry that he will become more frustrated and disheartened.

Duke Logan:

I'm quite slow, as my wife can attest, but I'm not certain I understand. Under Sir Vitus's (and other's) suggestion, all normal kills would still be kills, all limb strikes would be half-kills. At no point would anyone ever be asked to hit someone three good blows to claim victory.

As to the rest: we all have our pet-peeves, and I don't think it is incumbent on anyone to order them in any way other than what their own conscience demands. So some will tilt against Coleman Chairs, others against knee silliness, and, hopefully, our Society will improve by increments.

dukelogan wrote:my other concern is retention. a newer fighter has a small chance of striking the 5 year guy and winning the bout. this is a small taste of success and, at least i think, gives him hope that with enough dedication and practice those victories might become more common. if he has to strike the 5 year guy two more times i worry that he will become more frustrated and disheartened. now put him against a duke and he might just see it as impossible and lose interest. if you eliminate any taste of victory i can see him giving up. at least thats part of my concern.

Understood. To me, the flip side of that argument is that new fighters often spend a lot of time on their knees because the more experienced fighter will have limb-targeting strikes in his arsenal, while the new fighter will not. And then the new fighter, on the ground, is going to lose anyway because he doesn't know how to fight from that position.

Is it more discouraging for a newcomer to lose on hist feet or on his knees? It seems to me that a new fighter would probably rather stay standing than "enjoy" the lingering humiliation of being wounded, smothered on the ground, and then being beaten. That's just my opinion.

Another dissenting opinion here; I like the status quo. I don't find knee-fighting silly or uncomfortable or negative in any way, it is simply part of the sport, and a balanced penalty for failing to defend your legs.

I also have a pretty good win ratio if I get legged, though granted, nowhere near Logan's 98%. But there's always been lots of audience 'vivats' and 'oooh's' when I've snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and bested the guy standing over me...and those memories are some of my fonder SCA moments.

I would never 'force' anyone to fight from their knees, if they didn't want to. They can always yield.

Also, when I fight greatsword, my general strategy is to fake the other guy out of his socks and put him on his knees, taking away his mobility so I can more easily dictate and control the fight.

I would adapt if we did go to counted blows, and would still have a great time with that I'm sure, but I kinda like the way we do things now.

My original argument was that knee fighting should be eliminated, as it does not add anything to our sport, and in fact can be construed as harmful in several ways (aethetically, physiologically, mehcanically).

Maybe a three-blow system would not be the perfect solution (Although at least one SCA splinter-group in the Northwest- the EMP- uses it successfully) since it might, as Duke Logan suggests, greatly disadvantage newcomers to the point of making them feel as useless as nipples on a breastplate.

That does not, however, mean that some of the other suggestions made might not work. One stout blow to the head/body or two to the extremities sounds eminently doable. That means that a kill is still a kill, and the guy who pasted you in the leg, Your Grace, doesn't have to fight you while you're on your knees (from which you win 98% of the time)- in essence, he still has more target area to hit... especially taking into account the enormous-ass shields that are apparently commonplace outside Antir and the West.

As for railing gainst lawn chairs, visible plastic armour and big white Adidas shoes... I do.

**edited, because I screwed up while editing earlier**

the new fighter is going to lose anyway. what im talking about is making it even harder for him to win.

regards
logan

Skutai wrote:

dukelogan wrote:my other concern is retention. a newer fighter has a small chance of striking the 5 year guy and winning the bout. this is a small taste of success and, at least i think, gives him hope that with enough dedication and practice those victories might become more common. if he has to strike the 5 year guy two more times i worry that he will become more frustrated and disheartened. now put him against a duke and he might just see it as impossible and lose interest. if you eliminate any taste of victory i can see him giving up. at least thats part of my concern.

Understood. To me, the flip side of that argument is that new fighters often spend a lot of time on their knees because the more experienced fighter will have limb-targeting strikes in his arsenal, while the new fighter will not. And then the new fighter, on the ground, is going to lose anyway because he doesn't know how to fight from that position.

Is it more discouraging for a newcomer to lose on hist feet or on his knees? It seems to me that a new fighter would probably rather stay standing than "enjoy" the lingering humiliation of being wounded, smothered on the ground, and then being beaten. That's just my opinion.

sorry, i should have made it clear that i was only talking about going to a three blow system. some of the other versions, like vitus', are worthy of discussion. i wasnt addressing those. sorry for the confusion.

regards
logan

Vettor Venier wrote:

dukelogan wrote:
my other concern is retention. a newer fighter has a small chance of striking the 5 year guy and winning the bout. this is a small taste of success and, at least i think, gives him hope that with enough dedication and practice those victories might become more common. if he has to strike the 5 year guy two more times i worry that he will become more frustrated and disheartened.

Duke Logan:

I'm quite slow, as my wife can attest, but I'm not certain I understand. Under Sir Vitus's (and other's) suggestion, all normal kills would still be kills, all limb strikes would be half-kills. At no point would anyone ever be asked to hit someone three good blows to claim victory.

As to the rest: we all have our pet-peeves, and I don't think it is incumbent on anyone to order them in any way other than what their own conscience demands. So some will tilt against Coleman Chairs, others against knee silliness, and, hopefully, our Society will improve by increments.

Win crown.

At coronation anounce that your crown tourney will be fought with X modified rule set. Also Kingdom HW champion will be fought this way. Ask MIC's at prestidious tourneys to consider modifying the ruleset for their tournies as practice. Ask MIC's at interkingdom wars that you may attend to consider modifying the ruleset for at least 1 tourney as practice. Encourage the 'big fish' to try it.

Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to not fight in crown or champion battle that year... odds are the person who wins though will have practiced the rule set either because they liked it, come to like it or hate it and want to win so they can squash it. Odds are in your favor of your successor carying the tradition... then win crown again.

Like it or not the SCA is a hierarchal organization where the alpha-fighters make the majority of the rules from a combination of positional and personal authority. The opinion of Kings, Counts, Dukes and Kingdom Marshals in a meeting counts more then opinions typed on a message board. If you want to change something... you gotta get yourself and/or your opinion into those meetings.

I know I'm not likely to win crown any time soon. Not good enough and not certain my real life could take the time and money crunch of winning either. I'm willing to fight with a modified ruleset with those who wish to and limit my knee fighting to tournies where I feel taking the leg as a kill is not desired. (ie single elimination, I may continue to fight because I will get in only a little fighting. Bear-pit I will rotate through and stay fresh.)

Sean

I feel like I should have blocked...
I was raised in the don't stop till the fight is over school. I keep blocking after I've taken a telling blow as good too...

Maeryk wrote:How do people feel about that "vertical snap to the faceplate" move someone throws while dropping to their knees, cause you backed up enough to let them fall without crowding them?

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:If you get hit in a non-kill-zone area twice- you lose.
If you get hit in a kill-zone area- you lose.

Loser salutes first- fight is over.

What is NOT to like?

You want people to count?

good one! lol

Sean: That's the plan

I was just hoping to get others discussing it- hopefully others who might now, or soon will, BE in positions to play with the rules.

That, and I like slaughtering sacred cows.

i agree. you snooze you lose.

regards
logan

olaf haraldson wrote:I feel like I should have blocked...
I was raised in the don't stop till the fight is over school. I keep blocking after I've taken a telling blow as good too...

Maeryk wrote:How do people feel about that "vertical snap to the faceplate" move someone throws while dropping to their knees, cause you backed up enough to let them fall without crowding them?

Oh, Ogie, counting's not so hard. You Mongol types do it all the time...

"One Stolen Horse; Two Stolen Horses; Three! Three Stolen Horses! Bwahahaha"

Could be problematic in a larger melee situation - heck, there are guys out there who have trouble counting "one", let alone "one leg.... spar a bit more, wander around... second leg - done!"

You would also end up with more people carrying really big tourney shields.

But certainly an interesting possibility. Especially for tourney!


.

Diglach mac Cein wrote:Could be problematic in a larger melee situation - heck, there are guys out there who have trouble counting "one", let alone "one leg.... spar a bit more, wander around... second leg - done!"

You would also end up with more people carrying really big tourney shields.

But certainly an interesting possibility. Especially for tourney!


.

From what I can tell, the "enormous tourney shields of doom" thing is fairly common outside of the NW quadrant of the continent.

As for people who can't count in a melee, I'll take a reading from Leo Medii's book here: That means I get to hit them again!

Thanks for wording that better than I had...

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:Two blows to limbs- you lose. One blow to "kill zone" - you lose.

Now that my right hip is replaced (recovery is going fantastic by the way) knee fighting and falling over dead are officially out for me.

I've thought about it and I favor this system over three counted blows as it can end a fight with a well placed killing blow... thus giving the new guy "a chance" to beat a super stick with one blow; lucky or whatever.

It's also close to what we do now.

Diglach mac Cein wrote:Could be problematic in a larger melee situation - heck, there are guys out there who have trouble counting "one", let alone "one leg.... spar a bit more, wander around... second leg - done!"

You would also end up with more people carrying really big tourney shields.

But certainly an interesting possibility. Especially for tourney!

.

And what is wrong with carying an appropriate length norman infantry kite shield for norman infantry? The current problem is it's a biotch to fight from your knees with a historic infantry shield so the push is to use shields sized per a few extant cavalry shields and depictions in effigies (of cavalry shields)

Personally if we had better armor standards and better armor that stabilized the ACL and prevented hyper extension (maybe 1% of the armor on the field is that good) we could safely strike as low as 2" above the ANKLE. That would see the death of tiny shields.

If it isn't safe then at least let the knee down to foot be legal to archers. Not like an arrow or bolt is going to blow out an ACL. and then people will start carying realistic sized infantry shields.

It's the old question of what IS the SCA, and what do you want it to be and how can we get there safely.

Sean

I have recently started to yield the bout if I get hit with a good, stout leg shot, at least at fighter practice. It has only taken me 35 years to get to that point...

My knees are in good shape. It has actually been reading the Archive over the last 2-3 years that has opened my mind to how asinine knee fighting looks.

I like the Vitus Option (tm) of two stout shots to a non kill zone, one to a kill zone.

A few weeks ago, I was at a demo explaining our fighting standards to the crowd and had to use the old "Monty Python" knee fighting and arm switching description of combat. It was slightly embarrasing, as we were touted as reenactors...

M

I hate the look of knee fighting, too, but I think the indestructible shields are more of a detriment to the game. Maybe we'd see people actually bother to learn other weapon systems if your shield were only good for stopping three solid hits. Sure, it's an arbitrary rule that is only a distant reflection of reality, but so is every other rule in the game.

Diglach mac Cein wrote:Could be problematic in a larger melee situation - heck, there are guys out there who have trouble counting "one", let alone "one leg.... spar a bit more, wander around... second leg - done!"

I disagree: the guys who can't count to one are a completely different problem and should have no impact on this discussion.

The Vitus system(tm) is basically a two blows system with no wounds enacted... if the first blow is to the leg or arm the second blow ends the fight or your participation in a melee. Come on now, seriously, how hard is that to remember? Like our system now it's still based on honor and integrity: nothing aside from knee fighting and switching arms is lost. As a matter of fact since wounds are no longer enacted it is a bit simpler system in some respects.

An issue that needs to be resolved is hips and shoulders... even that can stay as it is: death from mass and two handed weapons, a wound from single handed weapons. We have to teach that anyways so again that is nothing really new or lost.

Yep, it's the demos where I'm concerned we're losing possible people who might want to join. NO recruiting poster for the SCA would ever show someone fighting from their knees. It's just not good to get people to join us IMO.

-Aaron

I really meant my comment on melee to be more tongue in cheek....

As long as I can hit someone with a stick, no worries.


As far as Norman shields, big difference between those and some guy in a tourney with a 36" w x 48"l heater. reduces a lot of our game to flailing at the other guys head. Just my opinion, of course.


.

Whereas: Knee-fighting is potentially injurious to the fighter involved and

Whereas: It is, by virtue of being aesthetically and mechanically ridiculous, potentially harmful to recruitment and

Whereas: It is neither historically accurate, nor an accurate phsyiological representation of wounds given or sustained on the battlefield and

Whereas: It does not counterbalance these shortcomings by conferring any appreciable benefit whatsoever to either the combatants or the to the spectacle of SCA heavy combat, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED: that those of us favouring the newly minted Sir Vitus System of Blow Acknowledgement will hereafter attempt to advance the use of this system inasmuch as we are able.


APPENDIX: DEFINITION OF THE VITUS SYSTEM

A bout will continue until two stout blows are received (and vrebally acknowledged by the recipient) to the extremities of the recipient, in any combination, or one stout blow is received and acknowledged to the head/torso. (Or a Hold is called).

Pole/Mass Weapons delivering a blow to the shoulder will continue to count as a stout blow to the body.

Current SCA/regional calibration will continue to apply for the definition of a "stout" or "good" blow.

Sir Mathghamhain MacAlpin wrote:I like the Vitus Option (tm) of two stout shots to a non kill zone, one to a kill zone.

At Hocktide Emprise (latter part of next month, in the far southern reaches of An Tir...), the heavy tournament will be fought in precisely that manner. It's also requiring a different weapon form for every round:

Round 1 Single Sword
Round 2 Sword and Shield
Round 3 Mass Weapon and Shield
Round 4 Pole Arm
Round 5 Two Handed Sword
Round 6 Dual Weapon

In addition, each combatant begins the tourney with 3 tokens PLUS one for a heraldic painted shield or surcoat, one for a banner or personal herald, and one for no visible plastic or sports armour (total of 6 possible). If you win a fight, you get a token from your defeated foe...most tokens at the end wins.

Really looking forward to this!

On a slightly different note, I can't disagree that we do things the way we do in SCA heavy because that's how the sport has evolved. Thing is, not all of us approach it as a sport. Some of us approach it as a Western Martial Art, preferably one of several (since all of them have their compromises). The goal isn't (just) winning bouts, it's learning to use medieval weaponry and armor...hopefully well enough to have winning some fights be the icing on the cake.

I suppose I've looked at it from both sides, although I like to think I never compromised my actual sword techniques too horribly. I went through a "plastic and PJs" period...well, sort of: lightweight elbows, kidney belt over a buffcoat, padded thigh armor only...that sort of thing. Very little plastic and none visible...but hardly anything I'd want to bring to the fight if the weapons were sharp steel! Then I realized that just wasn't where I want to go with this activity (and I really hated being King, actually...). Now I'm closing in on early 16th C. cap-a-pie...

When I'm training fighters, I try to make them aware of this fundamental dichotomy in SCA heavy: you can approach it as a WMA, but in doing so you will cede certain advantages to those who approach it purely as a sport, as "stick tag." Or you can do the opposite and use a sports approach..but recognize that a fair bit of what you learn would be largely useless (or suicidal) in actual armored combat.

Diglach mac Cein wrote:I really meant my comment on melee to be more tongue in cheek....

As long as I can hit someone with a stick, no worries.


As far as Norman shields, big difference between those and some guy in a tourney with a 36" w x 48"l heater. reduces a lot of our game to flailing at the other guys head. Just my opinion, of course.


.

Which, I would argue, increases the historicity of the fight... look for the opening was the name of the game, back in the day- not many guys could shear through chain, gambeson and leather- no matter how cool their sword was. Smae with shields... did they use big ones? Sure. Why? Because they worked.