The Armour Archive

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:05 am**

If you could go back in time and re-write the combat rules for your group what would you change to make your perfect system.

There are no wrong or heretical answers.

Please state what group you fight in.

SCA

1. Armour shall be made of authentic materials or modern variants of authentic materials (Example: Various Steel alloys, chem tan leather, modern weave of fibers are exceptable. Aluminum and plastic are not.)

2. Weapons shall be made to resemble their historic counterpart in look, weight, and balance. (Keep padded weapon and thrusting tip rules as is)

3. Upon authorization, each combatant shall have a field appearance consistent with a historic warrior from a particular time and place within 50 years and cultural boundaries of that time period.

4. Time period for combatants shall range from the bronze age until 1599 A.D.

5. Permissible locations for your persona, Europe, Middle East, Asia, North Africa.

6. Single strike to any location is an "out" in melee. Counted blows in tourney, determined by combatants, default to 3 blows.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:40 am**

I hate to pick apart someones points without offering something in return, but I have to say about half of your stipulations have nothing to do with combat per se. Just the quality or portrayal.

I would love to see many of those same things but they don't have much to do with combat.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:15 pm**

True, but I did say "for your group".

Perhaps I should drop the word system.

Oh, I've edited the list as well.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:34 pm**

SCA

10-foot rule: From 10 feet away, you must appear to be a documentably accurate representation of a member of the fighting elite in your time/place.

Weapons and visible armour must be representative of your time period and location.

2 Different tourney classes/types: Tournaments a plaisance and tournaments a outrance.

A plaisance tourneys will employ the Sir Vitus System of blow acknowledgment, with no assumed armour standard- otherwise, they will be identical in form to current SCA tourneys.

A outrance tourneys will be as above, but allow grappling and consider armour-as-worn.

The addition of 1/2 inch of progressive compression to the edge of a shield makes it possible to strike w/the edge of the shield in an a outrance tourney.

Striking with the face/surface of the shield will be allowed in an a outrance tourney.

Striking/displacing your opponent in a controlled manner with the haft of a weapon is permissable in an a outrance tourney, though only the striking surfaces will be counted in the tally of blows.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:21 pm**

Vladimir wrote:True, but I did say "for your group".

Perhaps I should drop the word system.

Oh, I've edited the list as well.

You did say for 'your group' but then proceeded to talk about a portrayal instead of combat rules.

Maybe I'm just confused...meh... :?:

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:10 pm**

So you guys dont want new people who have low incomes?

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:15 pm**

Violen wrote:So you guys dont want new people who have low incomes?

"Sir the peasants are revolting!"

"Yes they are, that's why we call them peasants."

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:37 pm**

peasants are an aquired taste..... :lol:

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:56 pm**

Violen wrote:So you guys dont want new people who have low incomes?

Seriously I call BULLSHIT.

I have college kids I am helping get kit who are only able to put $25-$50 aside a month. ($600/yr) So they use loaner gear to practice and start. They are doing a remarkable job with period clothing and fighting kit on that budget if I do say. I think there is a gentleman from the inspire new guys thread who put together a late century persona on a college budget as well. It has nothing to do with LOW income vs. high income, but how much you want to play and how much you care about how you look. I know folks who make really good money who don't bother, and I know knights and others who are in dire economic straights who have saved over time and taken time and look great and although they only have 4 or 5 outfits each looks awesome. Pish posh Violen.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:04 pm**

SCA rules with counted blows, no acted wounds, full body target, shots outside the traditional SCA legal target area must be thrown and accepted as "touch", greaves required, hidden plastic OK, wrestling optional if agreed upon (never in melÃ©e).

Crown tournament is armour as worn. A strike to an unarmoured area disqualifies you for Crown. One face thrust to a bargrill and you are out. All contenders must bring documentation for their rig to get in. Plate and/or mail required for entry. Steel or leather count as armour. And make finals like An Tir war crown.

And as long as I'm making impossible dreams, laurals more common for armourers, and like a castle in Idaho overlooking the Snake River, an urban combat event site, 200 horses and $30M.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:18 pm**

Aaron wrote:SCA rules with counted blows, no acted wounds, full body target, shots outside the traditional SCA legal target area must be thrown and accepted as "touch", greaves required, hidden plastic OK, wrestling optional if agreed upon (never in melÃ©e).

Crown tournament is armour as worn. A strike to an unarmoured area disqualifies you for Crown. One face thrust to a bargrill and you are out. All contenders must bring documentation for their rig to get in. Plate and/or mail required for entry. Steel or leather count as armour. And make finals like An Tir war crown.

And as long as I'm making impossible dreams, laurals more common for armourers, and like a castle in Idaho overlooking the Snake River, an urban combat event site, 200 horses and $30M.

Why the heck would a facethrust or striking where there is no armour be bad? I thought those would be the target areas...

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:32 pm**

I'm glad this is all fantasy. So far I wouldn't play in any of these groups.

I'll take the SCA as is. I like the way we fight hair, hide, guts and all.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:37 pm**

If you have an unarmoured area (no metal or leather) and someone hits it, you are out of the running for crown. You can still support your "prince" in the finals for war crown.

This way legions of lightly armoured fighters can vie for crown, probably won't get it but still can "vote" for the lesser or greater of two political evils.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:58 pm**

Violen wrote:So you guys dont want new people who have low incomes?

I'm going to have to call this one BS too.

My first kit when I was in college was leather, steel, and natural fabrics (except for foam in my helmet, knee, and elbow pads. The only reason it was a hodgepodge of time periods is because I did not know the parts did not go together. But then, I never asked either.

It cost a grand total of...$40 (legs) $50 (arms and gorget) $30 (helm) $11 (gambeson) $20 (approx. my share of material to build the rest) = $151. I did this without any tools of my own beyond two screwdrivers, two wrenches, a set of pliers, and a hammer.

Even if you adjust for prices since 1993 it would likely still be under $200. Put $20 away each month and you can get better than I started with.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:30 pm**

I have a pretty low income. I could still play under any of these rules.

And I'll amend my dream rules to include War Crown as one option for the format.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:03 pm**

Vladimir wrote:If you could go back in time and re-write the combat rules for your group what would you change to make your perfect system.
....

What we do in our local group:
full body tageting, you have to wear greaves
no knee fighting
no acting out
no arm changing when hit on an arm
wear the kind of armor you want as long as it's safe
only reasonable sized shields (nor 'open door, hit, close door' fighting)
2 leg shots = lost
2 arm shots = lost
1 head shot = lost
1 torso shot = lost

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:19 pm**

Eirik wrote:I'm glad this is all fantasy. So far I wouldn't play in any of these groups.

And I'm glad you wouldn't want to play in them, since you don't seem to like the rules.

Congrats?

:roll:

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:39 pm**

Vladimir wrote:There are no wrong or heretical answers.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:59 pm**

Aparrently my statement was wrong.

Go figure.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:04 pm**

Ulric wrote:
Eirik wrote:I'm glad this is all fantasy. So far I wouldn't play in any of these groups.

And I'm glad you wouldn't want to play in them, since you don't seem to like the rules.

Congrats?

I'm sorry. You were trying to make a point, I think?

I mean other than restating the point I'd made.... right?

Thanks Vladimir!

I really do like the fighting we do in the SCA as is.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:36 pm**

Violen wrote:So you guys dont want new people who have low incomes?

I kind'a get your point.

Those rules are more for those the get into it AFTER being the newbie...

We should always welcome those that can't spend as much on the hobby as some of us can.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:40 pm**

Eirik wrote:
Ulric wrote:
Eirik wrote:I'm glad this is all fantasy. So far I wouldn't play in any of these groups.

And I'm glad you wouldn't want to play in them, since you don't seem to like the rules.

Congrats?

I'm sorry. You were trying to make a point, I think?

I mean other than restating the point I'd made.... right?

Thanks Vladimir!

I really do like the fighting we do in the SCA as is.

My point? my point was your comment did nothing to contribute to the conversation, other than to insult others' ideal systems.

You like the SCA as is? Great! post that! Don't insult what others have posted.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:48 pm**

Any system where I can hit the other guy with a stcik more than he hits me.

Can make a rule like that? ......

Really?

My ideal system incorporates much of what has been stated by Vladimir, but most importantly my ideal system is where no one whines.

About anything.

Ever.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:56 pm**

Violen, you did not make a statement. You asked a question. A very leading question in which a simple yes or no answer would lead to the wrong conclusions. As this was the case, it needed an answer with more explanation and examples.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:00 pm**

Ulric wrote:
You like the SCA as is? Great! post that! Don't insult what others have posted.

To be fair, he didn't insult anything. He simply said he wouldn't play in groups with any of the aforementioned alternate rules and that he was glad those rules were not in effect.

snip

Ewan wrote:...my ideal system is where no one whines.

About anything.

worth repeating

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:08 pm**

No worries Vladimir, intent and tone don't always translate well to text.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:47 pm**

Ulric wrote:
Eirik wrote:
Ulric wrote:
Eirik wrote:I'm glad this is all fantasy. So far I wouldn't play in any of these groups.

And I'm glad you wouldn't want to play in them, since you don't seem to like the rules.

Congrats?

I'm sorry. You were trying to make a point, I think?

I mean other than restating the point I'd made.... right?

Thanks Vladimir!

I really do like the fighting we do in the SCA as is.

My point? my point was your comment did nothing to contribute to the conversation, other than to insult others' ideal systems.

You like the SCA as is? Great! post that! Don't insult what others have posted.

Again, Vladimir has the right of it.

My apologies if you found my words offensive, Ulric. I disagree that my comments added nothing to the topic.

Your opinion is yours to have, though, and voice as you please. Have a great rest of the weekend.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:15 pm**

Aaron wrote:If you have an unarmoured area (no metal or leather) and someone hits it, you are out of the running for crown. You can still support your "prince" in the finals for war crown.

This way legions of lightly armoured fighters can vie for crown, probably won't get it but still can "vote" for the lesser or greater of two political evils.

Oh...

my bad. I misunderstood. I thought that if you (the striker) smote your opponent's unarmored parts, then you would be disqualified... :lol:

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:19 pm**

Ahh...

Don't feel bad, I did too!

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:56 pm**

SCA
Armour enough so that you feel safe. Face thrusts the same force as any other shot. No thrusting tips required on single handed weapons.
No acting out shots, or even bothering to talk about them in any way.

Fight. Stop when you have had enough.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:46 am**

SCA, here. Couple of major changes that I suspect would lead to lots of smaller ones.

I think the biggest change I would make is to the structure of the royalty. Kings would not simply be the winners of the prize tourney. Nor princes, either. I hate seeing three kings come and go in a year. I like continuity.

Kings/princes would be chosen by popular acclaim at the time the kingdom/principality is established. When a king retires from active service (at his own discretion, not after a set time), he would appoint a successor, probably with the input of the populace. He can also host a war crown if he wishes for selection of the new king.

A king can be removed from his throne by a decision of at least 51% of the paid members of the kingdom voting for his removal (not just 51% of those who cast a vote, though). I doubt this would often happen, though.

Current armor standards, except that all visible armor on the field must conform to appearance that would be appropriate for the time period being portrayed. Allowances made for safety purposes, such as bargrills and gauntlets.

Tournaments to be fought based on the rules of the host. That means that if I want to host a counted-blow Pas with limited target areas (at barriers and above the waist, for example), then I get to host it how I want to host it.

If I'm setting up the group all over again, I would want to establish it as a tournament society with the culture revolving around the aspect of pageantry in tournaments, not an amorphous pseudo-reenactment culture.

I'd change the name, too. Maybe something like The Medieval Tournament Society. Perhaps a more catchy name, but that works, too.

-Patrick

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:10 am**

My perfect combat system would be SCA rattan rules. Weapon standards would be a little different but not too much.

The only change I would desire is that if some victory seeking a$$wipe knew in his heart that he should accept a blow he received but decided to shrug it off God would intervene and the jerks face would melt like that scene in the original Indiana Jones movie. Kind of over the top but fear is a great motivator. I think it would only have to happen once.

Oh yeah and no CA ever.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:47 am**

Oh yeah:

Instant banishment for anyone overheard or caught gossiping about fights and blows from the sideline unless they had approached the person in question directly.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:23 am**

Nissan Maxima wrote:... Face thrusts the same force as any other shot. No thrusting tips required on single handed weapons....

Yes, thank you for mentioning that.
I forgot adding that to my personal list above.
Works perfectly and is safe.

Thrusting tips make the game more unsafe, I think, because you must use more force to deliver a sharp thrust. Without these layers of cell foam you can thrust with less power and still your opponent gets a precise signal within his helmet. Again, thanks for mentioning it.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:44 am**

Swete wrote:
Aaron wrote:If you have an unarmoured area (no metal or leather) and someone hits it, you are out of the running for crown. You can still support your "prince" in the finals for war crown.

This way legions of lightly armoured fighters can vie for crown, probably won't get it but still can "vote" for the lesser or greater of two political evils.

Oh... my bad. I misunderstood. I thought that if you (the striker) smote your opponent's unarmored parts, then you would be disqualified...

Bad writing on my part.

The Armour Archive

Your perfect system

Your perfect system

Re: Your perfect system

Re: Your perfect system