The Armour Archive

Cian of Storvik wrote:Sheathed swords are a problem as they can block leg shots. Back-up weapons tend to be smaller and less likely to interfere with shots especially if they are in the small of your back or on your shield side.
If you get hit in your weapon, you should take it as a good hit, since gauging telling blows on something that's 3 lbs. and free hanging off of your hip will deaden a telling blow. That's potentially a problem, because if someone taps it, it will feel little difference from when someone really wacks it. So any bump to your back-up weapon will in-effect "leg" you. For some of us that don't like dropping to our knees that is very problematic.
-Cian

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:Sheathed swords are a problem as they can block leg shots. Back-up weapons tend to be smaller and less likely to interfere with shots especially if they are in the small of your back or on your shield side.
If you get hit in your weapon, you should take it as a good hit, since gauging telling blows on something that's 3 lbs. and free hanging off of your hip will deaden a telling blow. That's potentially a problem, because if someone taps it, it will feel little difference from when someone really wacks it. So any bump to your back-up weapon will in-effect "leg" you. For some of us that don't like dropping to our knees that is very problematic.
-Cian

Why? If you hit my real sheathed sword instead of me you wouldn't hurt me either?

seriously curious.

regards
ThorvaldR

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:That is just plain goofy. Come on reasonable expectations. I understand the rule of no passive shields since they are indestructable. The idea of someone "gaming" the system with a turtle look, but come on be reasonable a back up weapon/sheathed weapon. LOOK at Nissan, I see all kinds of target availability. He isn't hiding behind indestructable items.

Difference between "minimum" safety armour standard and the Armour convention standards.....

Really, Sir Omarand. Any rules lawyer who gets pissy because I might not take a shot through my sheathed seax during mellee isn't worth me getting bothered about and I will just trudge off to Res just like I did when some twit thought tapping my arm with his spear was a good hit rather than argue. It just isn't worth getting worked up about. But I really don't see me being "extra cautious" about taking shots through my sheathed back up weapon.

with civility,
ThorvaldR

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:Yeah, I get it and was just getting a little pissy about that kind of B.S. I know about the whole shield held vs passively strapped and agree with that, even though the douches who tried to be a Ninja Turtle should simply have had their authorizations taken in my opinion for breaking the "spirit of the law/game" I must admit I wasn't aware of the weapons being considered passive shields.

Because if I was going to be a rules lawyery kinda guy, I could just as easily "hold" my sword/mace back along my arm and block with my forearm all day long and swing it around to hit. Then it isn't being all dangly and considered passive. But then again that would be all douchy as well.

However all in all, it isn't that big a deal to me. Like I said if I miss a shot and someone thinks it is intentional, I will happily retire from the field or res or whatever. I enjoy the fighting too much to get pissed off about it.

regards
ThorvaldR

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:Because if I was going to be a rules lawyery kinda guy, I could just as easily "hold" my sword/mace back along my arm and block with my forearm all day long and swing it around to hit. Then it isn't being all dangly and considered passive. But then again that would be all douchy as well.

Nissan Maxima wrote:I take shots to the swords as kills. Doesn't happen much. I mostly just get hit in the head.

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:That is just plain goofy. Come on reasonable expectations. I understand the rule of no passive shields since they are indestructable. The idea of someone "gaming" the system with a turtle look, but come on be reasonable a back up weapon/sheathed weapon. LOOK at Nissan, I see all kinds of target availability. He isn't hiding behind indestructable items.

Difference between "minimum" safety armour standard and the Armour convention standards.....

Really, Sir Omarand. Any rules lawyer who gets pissy because I might not take a shot through my sheathed seax during mellee isn't worth me getting bothered about and I will just trudge off to Res just like I did when some twit thought tapping my arm with his spear was a good hit rather than argue. It just isn't worth getting worked up about. But I really don't see me being "extra cautious" about taking shots through my sheathed back up weapon.

with civility,
ThorvaldR

IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
A. Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design. For example, spears may only be used for thrusting, axes for striking along the edge of the blade, etc..
1. Only weapons approved for thrusting may be used for that purpose. Feinting as if to thrust with a weapon not approved for that purpose is prohibited. Before any bout where a thrusting weapon is used, the opponent and marshals shall be informed that such a weapon is on the field, and the thrusting tip shall be shown to the opponent.
2. The blade of an opponent’s weapon may not be grasped at any time, nor may it be trapped in contact with the fighter’s body as a means of preventing the opponent’s use of the weapon. Armored hands may grasp the haft of an opponent’s weapon.
B. The striking surface of a weapon in motion may not be grasped or blocked by the hands or limbs as a means of impeding a blow.
1. If a combatant intentionally places an illegal target area (e.g., an empty hand and or lower leg, including the knee and foot) in the path of a blow, the combatant forfeits that attached limb as if it had been struck in a legal target area.
2. Inadvertently bringing the hands in contact with the striking surface of a weapon in motion, as when attempting to block a blow with another weapon, shall not be considered to be in violation of this convention.
C. Blows repeatedly blocked by a weapon in contact with a fighter’s helm, body, or shield at the moment of impact may, at the Sovereign’s or Marshal’s discretion, be considered to have broken the blocking weapon. This will force a fighter to forfeit the fight, unless a secondary weapon is carried or the opponent chooses to allow the fighter to rearm with another weapon.
D. A shield or weapon may be used to displace, deflect, or immobilize an opponent’s shield or weapon, so long as such use does not endanger the safety of the combatants. A shield or haft may be safely placed against the opponent's body to restrict his ability to strike or defend.
E. Shields must be controlled by the hand; use of passive shields (not controlled by the hand) will be treated as decorative armor and subject to effective blow acknowledgment.
F. A combat archer may carry and use shield or pavise; however, as long as they are carrying it, they cannot span nor fire their weapon.

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:So the only thing I can find in the Society rules that comes close is this section:

IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
A. Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design. For example, spears may only be used for thrusting, axes for striking along the edge of the blade, etc..
1. Only weapons approved for thrusting may be used for that purpose. Feinting as if to thrust with a weapon not approved for that purpose is prohibited. Before any bout where a thrusting weapon is used, the opponent and marshals shall be informed that such a weapon is on the field, and the thrusting tip shall be shown to the opponent.
2. The blade of an opponent’s weapon may not be grasped at any time, nor may it be trapped in contact with the fighter’s body as a means of preventing the opponent’s use of the weapon. Armored hands may grasp the haft of an opponent’s weapon.
B. The striking surface of a weapon in motion may not be grasped or blocked by the hands or limbs as a means of impeding a blow.
1. If a combatant intentionally places an illegal target area (e.g., an empty hand and or lower leg, including the knee and foot) in the path of a blow, the combatant forfeits that attached limb as if it had been struck in a legal target area.
2. Inadvertently bringing the hands in contact with the striking surface of a weapon in motion, as when attempting to block a blow with another weapon, shall not be considered to be in violation of this convention.
C. Blows repeatedly blocked by a weapon in contact with a fighter’s helm, body, or shield at the moment of impact may, at the Sovereign’s or Marshal’s discretion, be considered to have broken the blocking weapon. This will force a fighter to forfeit the fight, unless a secondary weapon is carried or the opponent chooses to allow the fighter to rearm with another weapon.
D. A shield or weapon may be used to displace, deflect, or immobilize an opponent’s shield or weapon, so long as such use does not endanger the safety of the combatants. A shield or haft may be safely placed against the opponent's body to restrict his ability to strike or defend.
E. Shields must be controlled by the hand; use of passive shields (not controlled by the hand) will be treated as decorative armor and subject to effective blow acknowledgment.
F. A combat archer may carry and use shield or pavise; however, as long as they are carrying it, they cannot span nor fire their weapon.

I knew about that part.

So somebody show me where in the rules it says that weapons worn shall be considered as armour. Note: I do get your point about asshats, but as I have stated in my opinion that is just asshattery but in general someone who happens to strike my sheathed weapon has plenty of other target area.

ThorvaldR

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:I get it and will play along nicely but I still don't see how a sheathed weapon can be construed as a passive shield. Just my opinion and evidently not the one shared by most.

I think if someone is being an asshat, we have a rule that allows us to remove them from the field. The one where it says not to take advantage of someones sense of chivalry. But I just don't see how the rare "lucky happenstance" of my sheathed sword/dagger getting in the way of the shot when 95% or more of my body is open to be targeted is "gaming" the system. I would say my opponents targeting is off if he can't adjust 2 inches in a different direction. I believe that the current convention could lead to more of a problem when Asshat lightly hits my weapon and then insists that it "would" have been good had my weapon not been there.

I must admit I also have problems with people who complain that when the skirt of the maille flares out and takes away the power of an ass wrap that a person should take the shot. What? Excuse me? You mean the armour that is the armour standard does it's job and you want the shot to count anyway? Of course I guess this is the normal lament of all those who actually wear armour. meh.... that is another kind of rant I suppose.

regards
ThorvaldR

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:I must admit I also have problems with people who complain that when the skirt of the maille flares out and takes away the power of an ass wrap that a person should take the shot. What? Excuse me? You mean the armour that is the armour standard does it's job and you want the shot to count anyway? Of course I guess this is the normal lament of all those who actually wear armour. meh.... that is another kind of rant I suppose.

regards
ThorvaldR

Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:So the only thing I can find in the Society rules that comes close is this section:
...
So somebody show me where in the rules it says that weapons worn shall be considered as armour. Note: I do get your point about asshats, but as I have stated in my opinion that is just asshattery but in general someone who happens to strike my sheathed weapon has plenty of other target area.

ThorvaldR

3.6.1.10.2 If an auxiliary weapon is carried in such a way as to prevent proper acknowledgment of a blow, any blow striking the weapon will be considered a telling blow to the area that would have been hit.

C. ACKNOWLEDGING BLOWS
Combatants must acknowledge blows according to the standards of the Middle Kingdom despite the
actual armor worn. This includes armor that is ill fitting, or tabards and auxiliary weapons that may entangle
legitimate blows. Marshals may require combatants to remove the offending weapons or clothes.

E. All fighters are expected to take into account the nature of the weapon being used by their
opponent and the location of the point of impact of that weapon when judging the outcome of
a blow delivered. A blow that strikes with sufficient force and proper orientation shall be
considered effective, regardless of what it hits prior to striking the combatant.