was: blows from behind? was: Engagement- hyjacked, now: DDFB

[jester]

Actually, I like the idea of letting your opponent decide whether to yield or to fight.

I think it would be entirely appropriate, and completely within the rules, to have a scenario where you let your opponent know that you are behind them by laying your weapon (any weapon) on their shoulder and declaring "Behind you, my lord!". Your opponent could then aknowledge that they have been bested or they could turn and, in a courteous manner, engage you in single combat.

DDFB is structured to simulate warfare, however inaccurate it may actually be. The modification above would be suitable for some non-war melee scenarios. I think this would be legal in every kingdom of the society. You aren't engaging your foe, or even fouling his weapons, you are just making him aware of your presence. If he chooses to yield or turn and fight that's entirely up to him.

[Asbjorn Johansen]

While I’m sure that it does result in some additional risk, what I’m not sure is that it results in too much risk.

Right now no one is trained in hitting someone unaware. While it can happen within the engagement rules of many kingdoms, it doesn’t happen legally all that often. Most of the anger I have seen with being struck unaware may be attributable to the fact the person who struck broke the rules. I wonder if the reported injuries have more to do with the blows being too hard. If someone was struck unaware and bit their tongue, then that is a injury that can be attributed mostly to being struck unaware. If the blow separates ribs or breaks an arm, would that be more attributable to an excessive blow, then being struck unaware? I see a lot of blows that might be a bit to hard swung, because “I know he’s going to block itâ€Â

[Jonny Deuteronomy]

Actually, I like the idea of letting your opponent decide whether to yield or to fight.

I have gotten kills at several different SCA melee events, including Pennsic, by putting my spear on their shoulder from behind where they can see the tip and saying something like "My Lord, you are overtaken, will you yield?". It works even better when 2 spearman do it to the same opponent at the same time (right Kaliban?).

[D. Sebastian]

Actually, I like the idea of letting your opponent decide whether to yield or to fight.

I think it would be entirely appropriate, and completely within the rules, to have a scenario where you let your opponent know that you are behind them by laying your weapon (any weapon) on their shoulder and declaring "Behind you, my lord!". Your opponent could then aknowledge that they have been bested or they could turn and, in a courteous manner, engage you in single combat.

DDFB is structured to simulate warfare, however inaccurate it may actually be. The modification above would be suitable for some non-war melee scenarios. I think this would be legal in every kingdom of the society. You aren't engaging your foe, or even fouling his weapons, you are just making him aware of your presence. If he chooses to yield or turn and fight that's entirely up to him.

Jester,

Thank you.

You have made me realize why I don't like DDFB.
It is because it takes away my ability to choose to submit or to fight.

[Richard de Scolay]

You have made me realize why I don't like DDFB.
It is because it takes away my ability to choose to submit or to fight.

I'll restate my previous thoughts again... if you are fighting in a battle as part of a unit and your unit is flanked and someone is able to get into position to easily kill you from behind, you and or your unit has been bested and in order to maintain your honor you should yield. It would be totally up to your opponent and it should not be expected of them at all to offer you an opportunity to turn and defend yourself. I see no honor if you fail to yield in such a situation and demand or expect a chance to fight once you turn around.

[Asbjorn Johansen]

You have made me realize why I don't like DDFB.
It is because it takes away my ability to choose to submit or to fight.

What is your goal with the combat?

If your are trying to recreate combat prior to 1600 whether a grand melee or war, I’m not sure giving your opponent that choice is good recreation. I haven’t found evidence that there was any wide spread on going prohibition against being struck from behind or unawares once combat has commenced.

There may be modern safety reasons for not to hit someone unawares, but if that is the case, if your goal is to recreate as best we can the flow of combat, some other mechanism to safely simulate the practice probably should be used.

If you are primarily interested in a modern combat game, then of course this logic doesn’t apply.

[D. Sebastian]

Asbjorn Johansen,
Modern combat game, that is what we are doing (If you disagree, I'd happily spar about it on another thread? ).

You have made me realize why I don't like DDFB.
It is because it takes away my ability to choose to submit or to fight.

I'll restate my previous thoughts again... if you are fighting in a battle as part of a unit and your unit is flanked and someone is able to get into position to easily kill you from behind, you and or your unit has been bested and in order to maintain your honor you should yield. It would be totally up to your opponent and it should not be expected of them at all to offer you an opportunity to turn and defend yourself. I see no honor if you fail to yield in such a situation and demand or expect a chance to fight once you turn around.

My noble Cousin,
Although I understand why you make such a statement, I emphaticly disagree with you.

Per Engagement...
Either we are engaged (as I see it in the scenario you describe) and you may strike me at will and from behind (our lines are engaged!), OR we are NOT engaged and you may only bind me or attempt to establish engagement.


Now, would you call the Spartans dishonorable for failing to yield to the Persians?


As a side note: Remember, our current system allows attacks to someones back: if we are engaged and I attempt to break engagement, you may strike me - until I successfully disengage.

[Richard de Scolay]

Now, would you call the Spartans dishonorable for failing to yield to the Persians?

M'Lord, I know not of the engagement you speak of, but, if the Persians made the honorable jesture to allow the Spartans a choice to yield or not, then no fault can be found with the Spartans.

Though, if I were commanding the group of Persians you speak of and they did not immediately attack from behind when the opportunity presented itself then I would demote any of the survivors to the role of army support staff.

While some may see the offer by the Perian unit to yield as honorable, when viewed within the larger scope of the battle at hand, my chief concern is the welfare and success of the entire army. I don't want any units under my command who are out there seeking to increase there personal honor.

Please understand that I speak these words under the assumption that we are discussing the actions of units in life or death battles. When the engagement is solely executed to show the honor and skill of the combatants, then I would fully support your assertian that it only brings honor when approaching a unit from behind to allow them to properly engage before attempting to subdue them.

Respectfully,
--Richard

[Stahlgrim]

If we want to really picky about the honorable thing wouldn't what we want to do be to have the guy coming up from behindin a melee anounce himself and wait paitiently for the fighter to be done with his other fight and then allow him to turn and face the new opponent ?Of course not thats called singles! D. your from my neck of the woods I know you know Duke Sir Lucan ask him about the shut off button at the back of the head he did some research and apparently theres a good chance when hitting someone in the right spot that they are gonna drop in fact you can check with him but I don't think he uses that shot anymore for just that reason. I am real nervous about blows from behind after seeing the results. No matter how many rules we enforce and how much we stress restaint in blows all it takes is one fighter hopped up on adrenaline and sleep depravation to injure someone in a major way .That being said, I still hate DDFB and I see nothing wrong with a couple gentle taps and a "Milord behind you" to let me know someone is there. yes I think it should be up to me to decide to fight or yeild and offer ransom.I should have that option just as I have the option of calibrating what blows I take and not being told by the marshal or my opponent which blows I have to take.its a very sticky subject with no clear cut answears but open and honest discussion like this may help to find a comprmise we all can live with.

[Kaliban]

Actually, I like the idea of letting your opponent decide whether to yield or to fight.

I have gotten kills at several different SCA melee events, including Pennsic, by putting my spear on their shoulder from behind where they can see the tip and saying something like "My Lord, you are overtaken, will you yield?". It works even better when 2 spearman do it to the same opponent at the same time (right Kaliban?).

yes two spears opn the same guy does get your point across quite well ..

[Greylond]

You come up behind an opponent. You throw a tap (doubble taps?) your opponent's helm and declare "FROM BEHIND!" allowing him to yield (fall) or respond and continue the fray. Then you may bind them, or wrap / stab (pokie, but spike) their grill - until you or they manuver to normal engagment.

I could live with this, sure.

Also put yourself into the shoes of the opponent.

At that point, I yield. I can recognize when the fellow behind me could have absolutely pasted me and given me a eyewitness account of my own insides.

Would this or an alternate of this concept work?
Why? Why not?

How would you deal with someone who did not acknowledge your doubletap? Is that the bind/wrap/stab part of your suggestion?

Is there an alternative that would be better?

Not really an alternative, but lemme throw this out there... there's been a couple of times I've managed a "DDFB" from in front of the fighter, about 45 degrees off to one side or the other. One time I was in a spear line and my opponent plain wasn't paying attention to anyone other than the guy directly across from him. Another time, my opponent was in a tight engagement with a shieldman.

Both times, I simply got my spear within a couple of inches of their grill, did a light tap, then left the spear head there.. so when they snapped around to look, they got a real close look at the red tape on the spear. One time I got a thank you and a salute, then other time a loud curse. But both times, my opponent fell over 'dead', acknowledging that their death was a given and I had spared them a sore neck later.

Did I rob them or myself of honor? Is this not similar to a more typical "DDFB"? If you had been my opponent that day, would you have insisted on a legitimate blow?

[Gabriel Morgan]

You have made me realize why I don't like DDFB.
It is because it takes away my ability to choose to submit or to fight.

I'm gonna pick on this, too.

Someone hitting you very hard on the head with their weapon has "taken away your ability to choose to fight or submit", too. They have bested you.

Just as you could have blocked the shot that hit you, you could have been more aware and not allowed yourself to be flanked. Are there going to be times when you are going to be flanked regardless? Yes. Just as there are going to be times in melee when your weapon is fouled with another person's and that Duke comes up and smiles and raises his polearm...

[D. Sebastian]

You're missing the key point Gaberiel,
The Duke HIT me.

I will happily die from a calibrated blow.


Now, I ask you (per thread), OTHER than Declared Death IN the Behind, is there a way to safely incorporate striking from behind?

I'm partial at this time to:
Come up behind an opponent, throw a tap (doubble taps?) to your opponent's helm while declaring "FROM BEHIND!" allowing him to yield (fall) or respond and continue the fray. Then you may bind them, or wrap / stab (pokie, but spike) their front - until you or they manuver to normal engagment.

[Gabriel Morgan]

I guess I'm toeing the party line here, but DFB precisely and specifically replaces a hit. Instead of cranking you in the back of the neck, you are declared dead. They could've, they didn't.

Maybe the answer is that the rest of us sane folk will do DFB, but you crazy people that can't seem to understand the concept can wear a bright red foofoo on your back, allowing opponents to whale on you with almighty force from behind like you seem to want.

Any of the other 'compromises' seem to involve:

1) Opponent could strike but does not. Instead he <dances a jig.>
2) Person he <dances a jig> at can either die like a reasonable person or refuse.
3) Upon refusal of acknowledging the <jig>, a duel ensues.

Feel free to replace the annotated text with the various suggestions.

In the above, the person who outmanuevered the other only gets an advantage if the other person is reasonable enough to acknowledge it. I put it to you that if they were reasonable, they would realize that DFB was saving them a hellacious whacking and none of that would be needed in the firstplace.

[Uilleag]

D.

Our conventions give me the right to take the field in maile with kidney protection. that's my choice, and I am painfully aware how much it can hurt when struck by an opponent. The point is, when I'm in a skirmish line, I fully expect to get hit, and as such I am moving/blocking to avoid a direct, unimpeded hit to my body. If you are behind me, and strike me while I am unaware there is no way I'm going to block or move. You will hurt me....Now, as the society conventions are currently written, that is a choice I am willing to take with everyone in that skirmish line, but I am not willing to take a blow from behind that comes from a surprise flanker that I unwittingly let behind me, with whom I and the rest of my line has not yet been engaged with.

Unless we all armour up like tanks, I can not see a safe way to do what you are proposing. I don't like DDB either, for a lot of the same reasons you espouse, but I prefer that over getting clocked from behind.

[dukelogan]

funny, we dont have goob from behind here and we dont have idiots that crank guys unaware, and we dont have asshats that refuse to turn and fight. not sure what youre getting at gabriel but i think you have a problem in your fighting culture if you think goob from behind is something for "sane" folk.

think about the whole concept and im sure, or at least i hope, that you will see where the real problem lies.

regards
logan

I guess I'm toeing the party line here, but DFB precisely and specifically replaces a hit. Instead of cranking you in the back of the neck, you are declared dead. They could've, they didn't.

Maybe the answer is that the rest of us sane folk will do DFB, but you crazy people that can't seem to understand the concept can wear a bright red foofoo on your back, allowing opponents to whale on you with almighty force from behind like you seem to want.

Any of the other 'compromises' seem to involve:

1) Opponent could strike but does not. Instead he <dances a jig.>
2) Person he <dances a jig> at can either die like a reasonable person or refuse.
3) Upon refusal of acknowledging the <jig>, a duel ensues.

Feel free to replace the annotated text with the various suggestions.

In the above, the person who outmanuevered the other only gets an advantage if the other person is reasonable enough to acknowledge it. I put it to you that if they were reasonable, they would realize that DFB was saving them a hellacious whacking and none of that would be needed in the firstplace.

[dukelogan]

just a quick question in hopes of clarifiying something you stated clearly. are you suggesting that i could not hit you unaware without hurting you? or did you mean that just "d." could not?

regards
logan

D.

Our conventions give me the right to take the field in maile with kidney protection. that's my choice, and I am painfully aware how much it can hurt when struck by an opponent. The point is, when I'm in a skirmish line, I fully expect to get hit, and as such I am moving/blocking to avoid a direct, unimpeded hit to my body. If you are behind me, and strike me while I am unaware there is no way I'm going to block or move. You will hurt me....Now, as the society conventions are currently written, that is a choice I am willing to take with everyone in that skirmish line, but I am not willing to take a blow from behind that comes from a surprise flanker that I unwittingly let behind me, with whom I and the rest of my line has not yet been engaged with.

Unless we all armour up like tanks, I can not see a safe way to do what you are proposing. I don't like DDB either, for a lot of the same reasons you espouse, but I prefer that over getting clocked from behind.

[Uilleag]

Your Grace, if you were facing me I would expect to get hit, if any opponent was facing me, I expect to get hit and take action to avoid the blow, either by blocking, moving my body or by hitting my opponent first. If you encounter me in a skirmish line and get past my line, I expect to get hit and move, or dye swinging. If I get flanked and don't know you are there at all, I don't expect to get hit, if I have been bested by the flanking manuever, I would rather see your sword in my face and hear you tell me I've been killed than to feel your rattan impact my body unaware.

Yes, there are fighters out there fast enough to suprise me with a shot, but if I see you, I'm not completly surprised when I feel it. Does that clear that up any....I feel as if I'm rambling.

[dukelogan]

one last thing. i grew up in queens new york. among many things queens is top of the food chain, its the handball capital of the world, the stickball mecca that defines greatness, the birthplace of rap and good taste (not that those two go hand in hand but you see what im saying).

the other thing we lead the world in is chainball. chainball is this thing where you take this round bouncy ball and throw it at a hoop with a metal chain around it. there are rules and everyone tries to play by them. we do tend to hope that the knicks will win at chainball but it doesnt happen all the time.

when i moved to the south i saw these really cute plastic backboards with really cute little cloth nets on them sitting in the middle of cul-de-sacs. the thing that got me was tha they were all really really low. so low that everyone could play at the same level. it required nothing to compete on these play hoops. now mind you, im good at handball, im good at stickball, i aint much at chain and i suck at rap. but, i stand on a field in which we all have the same right to compete when i fight in the sca. that to me is special.

once you create rules in which it makes it effortless to best someone you rob the game of its jewel. the sport of sca combat is that one man must best the other and that man is the one that claims the loss. to allow someone to simply touch them or sneak up on them or shot them at range with a magical armor defeating dart is to rape the spirit of the sport. that, in my opinion, is a shame.

its a lot like lowering the net so that everyone can be as good as everyone else. kinda like plain yogurt.



logan

[dukelogan]

dye swinging?? i picture you with a vat of colored liquid dancing to harry conick jr.

no, my question was, do you think i could hit you if you were totally unaware of my position and not hurt you?

regards
logan

damn! i should add:

how about instead of me goobing you with my sword i invite you to fight me? kinda in the whole spirit of honorable combat between men. or hit you hard enough so that you know i snuck up on you? i would never do that as i put armor on to pretend to fight for fun. not put armor on to pretend to kill people.

Your Grace, if you were facing me I would expect to get hit, if any opponent was facing me, I expect to get hit and take action to avoid the blow, either by blocking, moving my body or by hitting my opponent first. If you encounter me in a skirmish line and get past my line, I expect to get hit and move, or dye swinging. If I get flanked and don't know you are there at all, I don't expect to get hit, if I have been bested by the flanking manuever, I would rather see your sword in my face and hear you tell me I've been killed than to feel your rattan impact my body unaware.

Yes, there are fighters out there fast enough to suprise me with a shot, but if I see you, I'm not completly surprised when I feel it. Does that clear that up any....I feel as if I'm rambling.

[Uilleag]

"once you create rules in which it makes it effortless to best someone you rob the game of its jewel. the sport of sca combat is that one man must best the other and that man is the one that claims the loss. to allow someone to simply touch them or sneak up on them or shot them at range with a magical armor defeating dart is to rape the spirit of the sport. that, in my opinion, is a shame."

Your Grace,

I agree with this sentiment, in regards to sneaking up on people...Unfortunately flanking manuevers exist and is possible to get behind someone without them knowing it. Hell i'd rather you foul my weapon and let the guy in front of me clock me...at least then I know its comin

[dukelogan]

i added something after you responded. either way, what is there to be gained from besting someone without allowing them to be tested? and i think fouling someone from behind so that someone else can best them is indecent. i would rather fight you in sport than cripple you for slaughter.

regardless..... i can hit you without hurting you.

regards
logan

"once you create rules in which it makes it effortless to best someone you rob the game of its jewel. the sport of sca combat is that one man must best the other and that man is the one that claims the loss. to allow someone to simply touch them or sneak up on them or shot them at range with a magical armor defeating dart is to rape the spirit of the sport. that, in my opinion, is a shame."

Your Grace,

I agree with this sentiment, in regards to sneaking up on people...Unfortunately flanking manuevers exist and is possible to get behind someone without them knowing it. Hell i'd rather you foul my weapon and let the guy in front of me clock me...at least then I know its comin

[Uilleag]

I have heard many things about you, Your Grace, but most notably, I've heard about your sense of honor on the field and your sense of competion. I respect that, and I trust your ability to strike me with out causing serious harm. What I don't trust is about 30 - 40% of the fighters out there who do not share your sense of competion and fair play. What I don't trust is the few over enthusiastic fighters that just want to hit something, but haven't learned restraint or other controling factors that the more expierienced players tend to live by without thinking, because it has become a part of them.

I don't know how to fix what's broken, but I know that I can't change it if I quit, and I don't think that allowing someone to strike from behind is the answer either.....wish i had something more constructive to add, but i'm at a loss.....

[dukelogan]

thats very kind of you to say and im not sure i deserve such praise. i would say that i think fully 99% of the fighters out there share in a sense of competition and fairplay. sure, there might be a few idiots that dont know how to act. sure, there might be a few guys out there that break the rules. i havent met them and i fought for 12+ years.

i think there is a way to allow men to fight, with trust, and honor, and heart, and desire, and all the other good things without suggesting that stupid rules like goob from behind need to be put in place.

if you have guys that would hit you unaware full force then i suggest the problem is with them and those that trained them. again, im at a loss since i have never seen such boorish behavior here in atlantia. nor have i seen it at pennsic or crusades. so maybe im wrong overall. i can only comment on the culture of fighters that i came into the sca knowing and those that i have experienced firsthand.

best regards
logan

I have heard many things about you, Your Grace, but most notably, I've heard about your sense of honor on the field and your sense of competion. I respect that, and I trust your ability to strike me with out causing serious harm. What I don't trust is about 30 - 40% of the fighters out there who do not share your sense of competion and fair play. What I don't trust is the few over enthusiastic fighters that just want to hit something, but haven't learned restraint or other controling factors that the more expierienced players tend to live by without thinking, because it has become a part of them.

I don't know how to fix what's broken, but I know that I can't change it if I quit, and I don't think that allowing someone to strike from behind is the answer either.....wish i had something more constructive to add, but i'm at a loss.....

[D. Sebastian]

Dule logan has taken the field!



Your Grace, I hope you will reconsidder and attend Crusades. We're planning or trip now.

[D. Sebastian]

Gabriel,


The SCA is not boffer.
[edetid after reading because I did not like my tone]


1) Opponent could strike but does not. Instead he ____________ .
2) Person he ____________ at can either die like a reasonable person or refuse.
3) Upon refusal of acknowledging the ____________, a duel ensues.

All these we do now with current engagemetnand without DDFB.

Spin it this way:
You do DDFB "Behind you!", but this is where the decision point is: the person may accept the DDFB and yield, or they may not "Not yet!". They have now acknowledged engagement.

Note: what I propose is still allowable with Society engagement.

(continuing...) Now lets restrict this engagement. You may bind them, or wrap / stab (pokie, but spike) their front (not their back)- until you or they manuver to normal engagment.



I've never met someone who refuses engagement.
I assume that is they are refusing engagement then they are refusing DDFB?
(Retorical - I know the answer)

[Richard de Scolay]

the sport of sca combat is that one man must best the other and that man is the one that claims the loss. to allow someone to simply touch them or sneak up on them or shot them at range with a magical armor defeating dart is to rape the spirit of the sport. that, in my opinion, is a shame.

Your Grace, it would seem to me that you speak of the spirit that is part of the tournament and the grand melee. As such, I would fully agree that an honorable man should never use "declared death from behind" in such a situation.

But, Your Grace, would an honorable soldier in the midst of a battle where his life hangs in the balance give the same offer of engagement to the enemy he stands behind? Consider that the soldier is part of an army that stands between the invaders and the town they are defending where his lady and children are hold up. If the soldier offers to the enemy a chance at a fair fight and loses and the invaders subsequently destroy the town and kill all the women and children, was the soldier not wrong for not having taken the chance to kill his enemy from behind possibly averting the destruction of the town and the slaughter of the townfolk?

The rules we place on our sport are designed to cover tournament, grand melee, and battle field scenarios. Declared death from behind has its place in one of these scenarios and the use of it in the grand melee is what seperates the chivalrous fighters from those without honor.

Respectfully,
--Richard

[dukelogan]

But, Your Grace, would an honorable soldier in the midst of a battle where his life hangs in the balance give the same offer of engagement to the enemy he stands behind? Consider that the soldier is part of an army that stands between the invaders and the town they are defending where his lady and children are hold up. If the soldier offers to the enemy a chance at a fair fight and loses and the invaders subsequently destroy the town and kill all the women and children, was the soldier not wrong for not having taken the chance to kill his enemy from behind possibly averting the destruction of the town and the slaughter of the townfolk?

of course i agree with what you are saying here. however, we were discussing sca sport combat and not real life or the real world situation of a soldier who feels put upon by an aggressor. in sca sport combat we pretend to fight a bad guy. comparing reality (supposed or actual) to the made up rule set of a game of combat serves little use. if it were real you can bet i wouldnt give you half a chance to turn around. besides, i would just set fire to the ground you were on and watched from the hilltop.

The rules we place on our sport are designed to cover tournament, grand melee, and battle field scenarios. Declared death from behind has its place in one of these scenarios and the use of it in the grand melee is what seperates the chivalrous fighters from those without honor.

we simply disagree with its place richard. i have yet to be convinced that its necessary or a test of ones skill. im very lucky to have never had to be removed from a battle with such a "tactic".

regards
logan




www.ebonwoulfe.com

Some people are like Slinkies: not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

[Uilleag]

This is where the "big umbrella" that is the SCA really bugs me. There are those that come to major wars with the mindset that they are playing at real war. Having been in several real world combat situations I can say firmly that there is nothing further from the truth.

We are not recreating or reinacting warfare, we are playing a game, like football or closer to the mark, rugby. Flanking tactics in war games make the game more interesting, but I have to agree with Duke Logan, I for one, no longer have the taste for win at all costs. If I walk the feeling like I had to do something underhanded to win, I feel lessened by that. What few accomplishments I have had in SCA style fighting have all been man on man face to face and those are the moments I cherish.

Anyone can fire a ballista or a cross bow and kill anyone on the field. What's the challenge in that? Anyone can attempt to out manuever another force and encompass them, that takes skill and determination, but once you are in the back field, reek havic, by all means, but roll up the flank and crush your "enemies" that way. This has been done time and time again in SCA combat with great success, but we are not here to completely dominate, we are here to share a sense of competion and a warrior like spirit that has all but fled from modern society.

I find it hard to share a beer with an embittered man, one who feels that thier chance for glory was ruined by that unsuspecting crossbow bolt that killed them 15 seconds into the battle......They feel cheated, and I can't help but agree.....same goes for the guy that was killed from behind, however it was accomplished....it doesn't feel right and so I don't do it.

[Noe]

Now, I ask you (per thread), OTHER than Declared Death IN the Behind, is there a way to safely incorporate striking from behind?

If I might be so bold to make a suggestion (and one that has probably been made before to boot): Instead of making it declared death from behind, make it declared capture from behind. A person caught from behind is considered a prisoner. He must get his captor's name and must report to a representative of the opposing army off-field, where he promises to pay a token ransom (say a beer), or whatever suits his honor. Once the promise has been made, he can then reenter the field to fight again. After the battle, a fighter pays off his debts.

Not a perfect solution, but one more in accord with the spirit we are trying to capture. The person caught unawares is justifiably penalized without completely taking him out of the battle, and we get to have lots of interesting interaction as fighters go around paying off their debts after at the end of the day.

Just a humble suggestion.

[Uilleag]

I wonder if that would work. I have been known to pay ransom or homage to a gentle who has bested me in combat, but I've never thought about 'capturing' someone in that fashion.....Good food for thought. Not sure I would practice it, but I would probably comply with it, if I had been 'captured' that way.

[D. Sebastian]

Noe, I think you would have to take him from the field then and there. He'd only be captured if his guys don't run you down a monent later.

[Richard de Scolay]

One on one fights where you test your skill against another is not what the field battles at pennsic are about just as they are also not an attempt at recreating real warfare. The field battles are very much an attempt though to play the sca sport combat in a way that allows for unit tactics and strategy that go beyond a test to see which side has the better one-on-one fighters on the field that day.

The sca sport combat rules we have are ever evolving to make the sport safer and more fun. The discussion around declared death from behind, weapon fouling, and engagement are various means by which the tactical aspects of war can be safely applied.

i have yet to be convinced that it [DDFB] is necessary or a test of ones skill

No one that I know of is arguing that DDFB is a means for one person to say they've bested another. As I've posted previously, it's not about your personal skill with your weapon, the field battle is testing the skill of your entire unit and the tactics of your commanders. If the rules did not allow for some advantage to be gained over your opponent when attacking from the rear, then there would be no point to flanking maneuvers. We should all just line up and fight face to face until one side has no one left standing.

Flanking tactics in war games make the game more interesting, but I have to agree with Duke Logan, I for one, no longer have the taste for win at all costs. If I walk the feeling like I had to do something underhanded to win, I feel lessened by that.

Saying that DDFB or even weapon fouling as is currently allowed in the rules is the same as win at all costs is not true. They are simply rules that allow the unit level tactics of field battles to play a bigger role than they can if we all simply run out and look for a one-on-one fight.

I find it hard to share a beer with an embittered man, one who feels that thier chance for glory was ruined by that unsuspecting crossbow bolt that killed them 15 seconds into the battle......They feel cheated, and I can't help but agree.....same goes for the guy that was killed from behind, however it was accomplished....it doesn't feel right and so I don't do it.

If that person is seeking personal glory during a field battle they are looking for it in the wrong place. Personal glory is found in tournament list. You might want to help that person to understand their mistake. When someone dies on the field from an attack from behind it shouldn't cause any different feelings than when they are killed by someone standing off to an angle in front of them with whom they weren't directly engaged.

--Richard

[Stahlgrim]

Richard is right in on about a melee being no place for personal glory.If you are fighting for your king you are duty bound to put the good of the army first and your own glory second.Singles are the place to make a name for your self as a single fighter I and just about every other East Kingdom northern army commander I know have Killed our own for insubordanation.When I get a gloryhounds in my unit I find the most useful fire and forget situation to send them into,while the rest of the unit carries out our orders.when a man steps onto the field he has an obligation to practice paitence and disipline.The tactics that the army is trying to carry out may require you to do something at a specific time.Now if the rules allow for it and you don't feel comfortable with it due to a personal view ask to be reasigned to an area of battle where you are less likely to run into that situation.I said before the way I deal with it is to entangle weapons I do it both in the line facing the enemy when I can't kill'em outright and from behind the line when I am in the backfield.Is that dishonorable?I say no. Is it dishonorable to peel open a sheild so a spear can kill the man holding it? Is it dishonorable to take a spear from an enemy spearman? Is it dishonorable for a Duke to one shot a first year fighter who is nowhere near the Duke's skill level?.To all these I say no! that is the great thing about a melee.the rules should be to keep us safe not dictate a blanketed philosophy of chivalry . I have only gotten 1 complaint in 15 years from an idiot who wasn't fighting , a marshal ,or in clear sight and she piped down once the fighter who's weapons I had encumbered said he saw nothing wrong seeing as he had just done the same thing ten minutes before.I like melees I think they add something to sca combat that I couldn't find in martial arts.I think they add a level of skill and learning that singles alone can't teach.If some of the tactics are dishonorable I would say look at history where many of the cultures we study While stressing personal honor in tourney appreciated the crafty warrior who met the enemy with wit and subtlety.

[dukelogan]

either of you guys want to explain how its a unit tactic to foul a mans weapon or to declare him goobed from behind? or is that one man doing it to one man? i dont understand the argument that seems to suggest that ddfb is a unit thing.

also, i still havent seen why its even needed or wanted.

regards
logan