New SCA rules: Delay on implementation on a few.

[Vladimir]

I don't know how to strike through, so I used italics.

I find the original wording much, much clearer. Its only a few words different, but sooooooo much clearer.

Original wording says "These things are mass weapons and follow these rules".

New wording seems to say "Some of these things may be mass weapons, and might follow these rules, but you won't know until you build the weapon and find out if it passes or fails."

Single-handed mass weapons: maces, axes, war hammers, or other weapons designed primarily to crush or punch
holes (on account of the weight of the real weapons), rather than primarily to cut (on account of sharp edges on
the real weapon). Maximum length for single-handed mass weapons is 48 inches (122cm).

Mass weapons: maces, some axe designs, war hammers, or other weapons designed primarily to crush or punch holes (on account of the weight or design of the real weapons), rather than primarily to cut (on account of sharp edges on the real weapon). Maximum length for two-handed mass weapons is 6’ (1.8288 m ).

[Count Johnathan]

So far no SCA fighter that I know thinks these rule changes are a good idea. That should count for something.

I would still like to know why were these rules changes needed? What problem are they intended to solve? What prompted the marshals to decide that we required new weapon specs?

I wonder why we have asked this several times and still no answer.

Best way to implement these new rules? Don't. They suck. We are not in need of these kinds of changes at this time.

[Oscad]

Best way to implement these new rules? Don't. They suck. We are not in need of these kinds of changes at this time.

I have seen a lot of vitriol directed at these rules, and some of the Marshallete.

Lets review what they actually say, and see how much the 'suck'

14. No mass weapon shall exceed 6' in length.
Okay, so now I don't have to worry about that 7.5' final fantasy looking war hammer trying to tent peg me at war. Doesn't sound sucky to me. Maybe the <6lb rule would cover this, maybe not. But I don't see a downside to this

[s]4. No weapon may have a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.[/s] No (single handed) weapon may have a butt/pommel spike or a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.
Okay, so now no stupidy of a baskethilt and buttspike. Cool. No sucky here.

[s]4. No weapon may have a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.[/s] No weapon may have a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends. Only polearms and Greatswords may have butt/pommel spikes.
This one is a bit confusing, since it is not clear if you can have a 6' weapon that isn't a polearm. At worst, it means no but spikes on spears, but it is easy to turn a spear into a polearm, and maybe you can make a 6' mass weapon that is not considered a polearm. Also not clear if you can have a 47" polearm. Some clarification could be helpful. Most likely, this rule will have little practical effect.

7. Total weapon length shall not exceed 12 feet (3.658 m).Total weapon length shall not exceed 12 feet (3.658 m) and rattan spears shall not be less than 5 feet (1.524 m). Only change is to limit spears to 5' or longer. Without further clarification, this seems like a silly rule (thus possibly sucky) since you could just make a 50" polearm for the same effect.

[s]Single-handed mass weapons: maces, axes, war hammers, or other weapons designed primarily to crush or punch
holes (on account of the weight of the real weapons), rather than primarily to cut (on account of sharp edges on
the real weapon). Maximum length for single-handed mass weapons is 48 inches (122cm).[/s]
Mass weapons: maces, some axe designs, war hammers, or other weapons designed primarily to crush or punch holes (on account of the weight or design of the real weapons), rather than primarily to cut (on account of sharp edges on the real weapon). Maximum length for two-handed mass weapons is 6’ (1.8288 m ).
While on the surface, this rule allows for some ambiguity, what it really does is give the KEM's some leeway. Previously, all axes *had* to be a mass weapon. Since mass weapons can't be over 6', that will be a problem for some polearm folks. Almost all polearms could be considered an axe or a hammer. So without this leeway, the KEMs would be stuck.

KEMs can now make a ruling about which types of axes would be allowable, and which would not. I am sure it will lead to an occasional confusion, but it really should be pretty minimal.


So, as opposed to "all sucky", they seem to be pretty straightforward, when considered with the rest of the actual rules. I can see why they got fairly unanimous approval at Pennsic.

[Count Johnathan]

Not needed. The end.

[Maeryk]

So far no SCA fighter that I know thinks these rule changes are a good idea. That should count for something.

I would still like to know why were these rules changes needed? What problem are they intended to solve? What prompted the marshals to decide that we required new weapon specs?

I wonder why we have asked this several times and still no answer.

Best way to implement these new rules? Don't. They suck. We are not in need of these kinds of changes at this time.

So far no SCA fighter _I_ know of agrees with your war on combat archery.. which I'm reapeatedly told doesn't mean shit.. so.. become your KEM and play with whatever rules you want, or, uhh.. start your own group? Wait! I know! Banish anyone who supports these rules. You'll soon enough have only people who agree with you to play with.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

So, as opposed to "all sucky", they seem to be pretty straightforward, when considered with the rest of the actual rules. I can see why they got fairly unanimous approval at Pennsic

Oh sure... be the voice of reason.



.

[Vladimir]

While on the surface, this rule allows for some ambiguity, what it really does is give the KEM's some leeway. Previously, all axes *had* to be a mass weapon. Since mass weapons can't be over 6', that will be a problem for some polearm folks. Almost all polearms could be considered an axe or a hammer. So without this leeway, the KEMs would be stuck.

KEMs can now make a ruling about which types of axes would be allowable, and which would not. I am sure it will lead to an occasional confusion, but it really should be pretty minimal.

So, is a KEM really going to come out with a comprehensive list of all possible axe styles with 8X10 color glossy pictures with pictures and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one describing weather an SCA axe of that style is a mass weapon or not?

Or is each fighter just going to have to make two versions of each axe he wants to use, one following cutting rules and the other following mass weapon rules and wait until inspection to find out which one passes and which one fails.

I hate ambiguity in a rule-set, I much prefer rock solid.

[MJBlazek]

My shires KM (who is a 25 year veteran of the SCA) explained his thoughts to me fairly clear.

"The only thing this really effects is trying to get rid of Madus"

Now that might only be for my area. YMMV.

[Rok]

I do not understand the motivation for most of these changes. Could someone who actually know the ideas behind this please clarify? If this is already explained, i missed it.

Change 1:
C. Two-Handed Weapons.
7. Total weapon length shall not exceed 12 feet (3.658 m) and rattan spears shall not be less than 5 feet (1.8288 m).
and
D. Fiberglass Spears
7. Total spear length shall not exceed 12 feet (3.658 m) and shall not be less than 5 feet (1.8288 m).

The 12 feet part here is understandable. But why the minimum rule??

Change 3:
B. Single-Handed Weapons:
4. No weapon may have a butt/pommel spike or a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.
and...
C. Two-Handed Weapons.
4. No weapon may have a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends. Only polearms and Greatswords may have butt/pommel spikes.

Why? Why ban thrusting tips in both ends? And why are edges in both ends of weapons banned in the first place? What can you mess up with edges in both ends, that you cant mess up with a normal weapon, normally held or upsidedown?

[Diglach Mac Cein]

So, is a KEM really going to come out with a comprehensive list of all possible axe styles with 8X10 color glossy pictures with pictures and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one describing weather an SCA axe of that style is a mass weapon or not?

I think people are reading too much into it. I read it and thought, OK, no 7 1/2' maces, hammers (especially from Conan), and Batman logo axes.

Yes, a halbred/polaxe/etc. counts as a mass weapon for combat (hips are kills, etc...) but in general lexicon MASS weapons are axes, maces and hammers.

After all, slashing spears are considered polearms still.

.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Why? Why ban thrusting tips in both ends? And why are edges in both ends of weapons banned in the first place? What can you mess up with edges in both ends, that you cant mess up with a normal weapon, normally held or upsidedown?

To try to eliminate the dreaded scourge to all that is good in pure in the SCA the Madu (insert scarey music).


.

[Kilkenny]

I think they're counting halberd as a two-handed cutting polearm. The way I read it it, it's legal up to 12 feet.

Christopher

mmm... might be wise to read entire rule set rather than leap to an unbased conclusion on the excerpts.

[Oscad]

So, is a KEM really going to come out with a comprehensive list of all possible axe styles with 8X10 color glossy pictures with pictures and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one describing weather an SCA axe of that style is a mass weapon or not?

Or is each fighter just going to have to make two versions of each axe he wants to use, one following cutting rules and the other following mass weapon rules and wait until inspection to find out which one passes and which one fails.

I hate ambiguity in a rule-set, I much prefer rock solid.

I think both of those are unnecessary extremes. I would expect something like "Make sure polearms over 7.5' are not big mucking heads"

The 'ambiguity' is not a bug, it is a feature. It allows for reasonable axe designs, but disallows big massive axe heads. Yes it means some subjectivity, but the only other option is to give exact dimensions or weight for an 'allowable' axe head.

[Oscad]

Why? Why ban thrusting tips in both ends? And why are edges in both ends of weapons banned in the first place? What can you mess up with edges in both ends, that you cant mess up with a normal weapon, normally held or upsidedown?

To try to eliminate the dreaded scourge to all that is good in pure in the SCA the Madu (insert scarey music).


.

I am not convinced. That was the assumption that folks jumped to, but it has been said that madus never came up during the KEM meeting at Pennsic. Further, this really doesn't change much, since you can make most madus into a polearm with a bit of tape.

It may have more of an effect with those punch axes with butt spike....


I don't know about the 5' spear rule, but I think most of this was trying to get rid of big massive 7.5' polearms, and butt spikes on single handed swords.

[RenJunkie]

Yup.

See my post towards the bottom of page one for my apology and explanation of why I did such a dunderheaded thing.

mmm... might be wise to read entire rule set rather than leap to an unbased conclusion on the excerpts.

Christopher

[Aaron]

I redesigned my pollaxe to be just under six feet long and added clackers. It hits well and I'm actually rather enjoying it. At 4 lbs plus it has a nice heft to it and strikes well IMO. It just "feels right".

[Vladimir]

I think people are reading too much into it. I read it and thought, OK, no 7 1/2' maces, hammers (especially from Conan), and Batman logo axes.

Yes, a halbred/polaxe/etc. counts as a mass weapon for combat (hips are kills, etc...) but in general lexicon MASS weapons are axes, maces and hammers.

After all, slashing spears are considered polearms still.

Simple,

All SCA weapons should be designed in such a manner as to resemble a period counterpart. Basket hilts are exempted and a necessary safety concession.

That should take care of the fantasy weapons from an appearance stand point.

No two-handed SCA weapon shall exceed "X" pounds per foot of length.

And that should take care of them from a safety standpoint.

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

No two-handed SCA weapon shall exceed "X" pounds per foot of length.

And that should take care of them from a safety standpoint.

I don't think that one quite works. The shorter the weapon, the MORE it should be able to weigh, not less. And what really matters is the distribution of weight towards the striking end, not the total mass. (Although with extremely heavy spears/thrusting pole arms the total mass could be relevant, too).

I guess this is the moment of inertia? Kind of hard to figure out for a live weapon on the fly, though.

As it is, the 6 lb. limit on all weapons seems reasonable, and changing it might disallow perfectly reasonable existing weapons. I would drop the 5lb limit on single handed weapons, since the use of such weapons in "one hand only" is ambiguous.

[Vladimir]

I'm fine with a set cap. You want a longer weapon, use lighter rattan. Use more foam, less leather, etc.

[Aaron]

Best way to implement these new rules? Don't. They suck. We are not in need of these kinds of changes at this time.

I have seen a lot of vitriol directed at these rules, and some of the Marshallete.

Lets review what they actually say, and see how much the 'suck'

14. No mass weapon shall exceed 6' in length.
Okay, so now I don't have to worry about that 7.5' final fantasy looking war hammer trying to tent peg me at war. Doesn't sound sucky to me. Maybe the <6lb rule would cover this, maybe not. But I don't see a downside to this

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.php

From the Royal Armouries, Leeds (VII.1510)
First half of 16th century. Head length: 11 1/4 inches. Overall length: 93 1/5 inches. Weight: 7 pounds, 11 ounces

That's 7.8 feet long. They existed. They worked. Why are we deviating from history with this rule?

Historically they were often longer than six feet, and weighed a good bit. I think we should be allowed pollaxes less than 8 feet long as long as they are less than 8 lbs.

When the pollaxe gets lighter than 2 lbs, it hits light and doesn't play like it's historical counterpart.

If anything, the rule of less than six feet goes against our charter of following history somewhat.

[Count Johnathan]

I would still like to know why were these rules changes needed? What problem are they intended to solve? What prompted the marshals to decide that we required new weapon specs?

I wonder why we have asked this several times and still no answer.

Funny I think I've said this before.

Rules created for no reason are just lame. So many fighters equipment effected by this or confused by these rules. Just no need for it.

That's why they suck. If they were fixing a problem or addressing safety I could see it and would be happy they were corrected but no issue being resolved.

As far as madus not being banned by these rules, I detailed a description of what most SCA fighters use as a "madu" and tristan said that was not allowed so...

[Aaron]

I think people are reading too much into it. I read it and thought, OK, no 7 1/2' maces, hammers (especially from Conan), and Batman logo axes.

Yes, a halbred/polaxe/etc. counts as a mass weapon for combat (hips are kills, etc...) but in general lexicon MASS weapons are axes, maces and hammers.

After all, slashing spears are considered polearms still.

Simple,

All SCA weapons should be designed in such a manner as to resemble a period counterpart. Basket hilts are exempted and a necessary safety concession.

That should take care of the fantasy weapons from an appearance stand point.

No two-handed SCA weapon shall exceed "X" pounds per foot of length.

And that should take care of them from a safety standpoint.

I'd go for this if I was KEM:

All SCA weapons should be designed in such a manner as to resemble a period counterpart. Documentation is required. Basket hilts are exempted for new fighters in their first year, and are a necessary cost and safety concession until the fighter gets gauntlets.

That should take care of the fantasy weapons from an appearance stand point.

Play nice. Don't break your friends. Have fun.

[chris19d]

I think people are reading too much into it. I read it and thought, OK, no 7 1/2' maces, hammers (especially from Conan), and Batman logo axes.

Yes, a halbred/polaxe/etc. counts as a mass weapon for combat (hips are kills, etc...) but in general lexicon MASS weapons are axes, maces and hammers.

After all, slashing spears are considered polearms still.

Simple,

All SCA weapons should be designed in such a manner as to resemble a period counterpart. Basket hilts are exempted and a necessary safety concession.

That should take care of the fantasy weapons from an appearance stand point.

No two-handed SCA weapon shall exceed "X" pounds per foot of length.

And that should take care of them from a safety standpoint.

I'd go for this if I was KEM:

All SCA weapons should be designed in such a manner as to resemble a period counterpart. Documentation is required. Basket hilts are exempted for new fighters in their first year, and are a necessary cost and safety concession until the fighter gets gauntlets.

That should take care of the fantasy weapons from an appearance stand point.

Play nice. Don't break your friends. Have fun.

I like that idea

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Best way to implement these new rules? Don't. They suck. We are not in need of these kinds of changes at this time.

I have seen a lot of vitriol directed at these rules, and some of the Marshallete.

Lets review what they actually say, and see how much the 'suck'

14. No mass weapon shall exceed 6' in length.
Okay, so now I don't have to worry about that 7.5' final fantasy looking war hammer trying to tent peg me at war. Doesn't sound sucky to me. Maybe the <6lb rule would cover this, maybe not. But I don't see a downside to this

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.php

From the Royal Armouries, Leeds (VII.1510)
First half of 16th century. Head length: 11 1/4 inches. Overall length: 93 1/5 inches. Weight: 7 pounds, 11 ounces

That's 7.8 feet long. They existed. They worked. Why are we deviating from history with this rule?

Historically they were often longer than six feet, and weighed a good bit. I think we should be allowed pollaxes less than 8 feet long as long as they are less than 8 lbs.

When the pollaxe gets lighter than 2 lbs, it hits light and doesn't play like it's historical counterpart.

If anything, the rule of less than six feet goes against our charter of following history somewhat.

Wile we are at it, lets add in 15' pikes (aka spears), lower leg targeting, and cannons. Because they had all of those too.

[Aaron]

As long as you are using them carefully and "don't break your friends".

Be safe with the cannons, don't hurt your friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxM7uHtnYMs

[Oscad]

Aaron, thanks for the link,

But you may want to go back and review what you are quoting

From the Royal Armouries, Leeds (VII.1510)
First half of 16th century. Head length: 11 1/4 inches. Overall length: 93 1/5 inches. Weight: 7 pounds, 11 ounces

That looks *nothing* like the "Mass weapon axes" under consideration.

What you are referencing doesn't even look like an 'axe', it is a small hammer head and two spikes. Of the 11" of the head, it has to be at least 8-10" for the spike/spear tip.

In fact, I would assert that almost all of the polaxes on that site would be just fine as a 7.5' polarm. Most of them have fairly small heads, in the 6-9" range.


What the quoted rule is dealing with, are those really large Bat Wing axes, or Final Fantasy warhammers. That is just a lot of mass on the end of a 7.5' moment arm. And even if there was a period source, I still don't think I want to get hit by one.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

As to why the rules were created... Why not ask someone who was THERE?

Remeber that the rules aren't written for the small minority of fighters that are on this board, or the Chivalry, or the guy who is in armor 5+ times a month. They are written for the guy who practices 3 or 4 times a year, picks up his 7 1/2" "mallet" and starts swinging away in the melee.

If you have a question or suggestion, why not email it to your KEM as Sir Omerad asked? Though I'm sure a well thought out arguement like "These new rules SUX" will receive all due attention.

.

[Balin50]

As to why the rules were created... Why not ask someone who was THERE?

Remeber that the rules aren't written for the small minority of fighters that are on this board, or the Chivalry, or the guy who is in armor 5+ times a month. They are written for the guy who practices 3 or 4 times a year, picks up his 7 1/2" "mallet" and starts swinging away in the melee.

If you have a question or suggestion, why not email it to your KEM as Sir Omerad asked? Though I'm sure a well thought out arguement like "These new rules SUX" will receive all due attention.

.

WOW was there a rash of of injuries related to these weapons? Did they penetrate a helm

No.

So why were these rules changed from the ones that had been working for years?

Balin

[Vladimir]

Snipped for brevity

That looks *nothing* like the "Mass weapon axes" under consideration.

What you are referencing doesn't even look like an 'axe', it is a small hammer head and two spikes. Of the 11" of the head, it has to be at least 8-10" for the spike/spear tip.

They did not include any pictures with the rules. While it is not an axe, iti s most certainly a mass weapon. A weapon which relies on its mass to punch holes or bludgeon the opponent rather than a sharp edge. By this definition it is a mass weapon. Even though it has a fairly light head.

In fact, I would assert that almost all of the polaxes on that site would be just fine as a 7.5' polarm. Most of them have fairly small heads, in the 6-9" range.

There is no way of knowing according to this rule set. As I'm reading the rules it seems that not a single one of the hammers can go on a 7.5 ft stick. As for the ones with a blade on one side, maybe they can and maybe they can't. There is no way to know for sure until after you build it. By then it is too late. You're either cutting it down and re-taping it before the tourney, or sucking up the fact that you could have made a "better" weapon.

For SCA purposes the weapon head used for the one in question would be identical to the head for the weapon two spaces down and 2 and 3 spaces up. Which, in turn, would be identical to a one handed war hammer as well.

What the quoted rule is dealing with, are those really large Bat Wing axes, or Final Fantasy warhammers. That is just a lot of mass on the end of a 7.5' moment arm. And even if there was a period source, I still don't think I want to get hit by one.

Nor do I. But as we can see here, there is no way to know what the weapon you are building will be classified under and hence no way of knowing how to build it.

The problem is simple. With this rule set there is no way to know what you are building before you start building it. Hence no way to know which rules to follow.

[Aaron]

Pictures would help IMO.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Gee, I wasn't at the meeting, so WHY NOT ASK SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE?

As to why the rules were created... Why not ask someone who was THERE?

Remeber that the rules aren't written for the small minority of fighters that are on this board, or the Chivalry, or the guy who is in armor 5+ times a month. They are written for the guy who practices 3 or 4 times a year, picks up his 7 1/2" "mallet" and starts swinging away in the melee.

If you have a question or suggestion, why not email it to your KEM as Sir Omerad asked? Though I'm sure a well thought out arguement like "These new rules SUX" will receive all due attention.

.

WOW was there a rash of of injuries related to these weapons? Did they penetrate a helm

No.

So why were these rules changed from the ones that had been working for years?

Balin

[Count Johnathan]

Very few people were there. Tristan was there. He didn't seem to know why these new rules were a necessity though. Go figure.

[benz72]

snip-If you have a question or suggestion, why not email it to your KEM as Sir Omerad asked? Though I'm sure a well thought out arguement like "These new rules SUX" will receive all due attention.

Done, awaiting posting, reply or clarification of the rules as they (will) apply in Caid.

Anyone else getting grass-rootsy on the issue which affacts us all?

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Edit:

You know what? Never mind. You guys just crack me up.

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
- Groucho Marx

Very few people were there. Tristan was there. He didn't seem to know why these new rules were a necessity though. Go figure.

[MJBlazek]

snip-If you have a question or suggestion, why not email it to your KEM as Sir Omerad asked? Though I'm sure a well thought out arguement like "These new rules SUX" will receive all due attention.

Done, awaiting posting, reply or clarification of the rules as they (will) apply in Caid.

Anyone else getting grass-rootsy on the issue which affacts us all?

Effects....

this will effect our affects....


and really this doesn't effect me at all.

I have a fiberglass spear. Which is 9 foot. I have a Bastard sword.. which is not effected, a great sword, which is not effected. A couple of single handers which are not effected, and a single handed mace... which is not effected.

The only real thing this might effect for me is in building a pole arm