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

Stahlgrim · Post by **Stahlgrim** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:41 am

Your grace,
at times in certain melees the rules were that when behind an opponant who was unaware of your presence you could only foul weapons,or foul weapons and do a declared death from behind.now bearing that in mind if you are going to do any tactics that allow for getting into the enemies backfield such as flanking,punching through the line,hitting from the oblique or several other dozens of tactics you will need to address what you are going to do when you get there.now as I have stated I don't like DDFB but I do think it is safer than letting people get smacked in the head unawares.I.E.Joe fighter runs up behind a line at pensic picks a guy Smacks him lightly in the head guy who gets smacked misses the shot (maybe he has a case of heat stroke,or thought it was the haft of the spear that wizzed by his head ?)Joe who has been having his shots (blownoff all war by guys who don't do death from behind)decides this is the last straw and he is going to crank it up and hits the oblivious fighter with what upon latter reflection might be considered excessive force putting the guys lights out causeing a hold and a lot of the friends of the guy getting carted off by paramedics to now target joe for revenge possible leading to more injuries.Seen it happen! look I am sure your grace that you could hit me from behind safely each time and every time you wanted.Its not you I worry about.You have to admit that the SCA does not always attract the most stable elements to its folds. it is for the issue of safety alone I don't trust the death from behind shots. I will again say Look up Duke Lucan he was put a couple a guys lights out with a shot to the back of the head.I think one was through a 10 guage helm.
The sca has a great safety record considering the number of members and the various armour standards I would hate to see that start to go the way of the dodo.

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:24 am

dukelogan wrote: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.

Your Grace,

Unit tactics involve the maneuvering of your forces into a position of advantage over their opponents. This can be done through various means including placing your better trained unit against a weaker opposing unit or attacking an opponent on two sides at the same time. Well trained units also learn to fight together. They learn to time their shots so that they are throwing multiple shots at once on the same target.

Weapon fouling is just one of the tactics a unit can employ. Spearmen make a good example here. When you face two spearmen who work together and have trained as part of a unit one will often engage an opponent's weapon or shield in an attempt to create an opening for their partner who will quickly strike at the opening. Two spearmen doing this can take out a lot more people in a lot less time than if they face off with their opponents in one-on-one duels. Fouling a weapon from behind when that person is currently engaged to their front is the clearest means by which flanking tactics can give a big advantage. Though the fouling of the weapon itself is just part of the flanking process.

Why DDFB? When someone approach an opponent unaware from behind they obviously have a big advantage. Once in that position, how can the advantage best be used within the sca combat rules. One popular way to do that is to foul the opponents weapon and hope one of your guys on the other side can take advantage of the opening. Another way to take advantage of the position is the surpise engagement. Tap them on the shoulder and wait for them to turn around and then the instant they engage, pop them before they are fully prepared. This can work fairly well also. But the problem many people face is that the opponent in front of them feels they are engaged to their front and thus are not required to turn around and face you. In this case, unless you resort to weapon fouling, you have no way to kill the person you are standing behind. The person avoiding engagement should be dead and DDFB is a proposed rule to fix the problem without having to resort to allowing blows from behind which could be very unsafe.

Regards,
--Richard

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:05 am

well now that we have established how to flank someone and how to get into their backfield (things i assure you i already knew) i would still like to know:

how is one man fouling one mans weapon a unit tactic?

its rhetorical and i see my point wasnt gotten. the argument was suggested that fouling weapons was some great unit tactic. further, it was suggested that melee combat isnt about personal glory (which was never suggested that i was aware) and all about the team. so i asked the question how is it the team that fouls a mans weapon or goobs him from behind.

there are two schools of thought, or so it appears, on this subject. i am trying to understand one of them. that being the side that claims that ddfb is necessary and, without it, fighters would not be able to control themselves and they would start smashing other fighters and sending them to the hosptial. again, this is an inaccurate statement since the fighting culture i am involved in doesnt have goobed from behind, we dont have out of control fighters that pummel their opponants from behind, we dont have jerks that refuse to turn and fight (or think they are all engaged with those three ranks ahead of them) and we dont have guys running around like ninja and flanking everyone totally unseen.

the system works fine for most of us without ddfb. the system, and the culture, here is strong enough that i think striking from behind could be done safely. the suggestion that rules must be added or all chaos will ensue on the field is a statment about a fighting culture that is out of control. this much is already documented from direct accounts given on this very topic from fighters on both sides of the conversation.

i am left still wondering why people think that there is a reason for goob from behind while they dont suggest that they have a real cultural problem within their fighting community.

regards
logan

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:56 pm

dukelogan wrote:well now that we have established how to flank someone and how to get into their backfield (things i assure you i already knew) i would still like to know:

how is one man fouling one mans weapon a unit tactic?

Well, I never doubted that you understand the idea of flanking and unit fighting tactics. I brought those into my explanation in an attempt to compare them to how weapon fouling is used within unit tactics.

dukelogan wrote:its rhetorical and i see my point wasnt gotten. the argument was suggested that fouling weapons was some great unit tactic.

That's an exagerated and misleading statement of what is being discussed.

dukelogan wrote:further, it was suggested that melee combat isnt about personal glory (which was never suggested that i was aware) and all about the team.

Uilleag had said that he didn't like sharing a beer with someone who was killed from behind and feels their chance for glory was ruined. Stahlgrim and I were responding to that statement.

dukelogan wrote:i am left still wondering why people think that there is a reason for goob from behind while they dont suggest that they have a real cultural problem within their fighting community.

Your Grace, I can see you don't like or understand the reason some people are proposing the DDFB rule since you constantly refer to it as "goob" from behind. But rules aren't always added solely in response to problems that exist. They are sometimes added to improve the sport. In the case of DDFB I've seen the idea of improving the effectiveness of tactics which allow you to get behind someone. I've also seen people refer to specific real examples where engagement rules are not followed and where people decide that they are gonna attack from behind anyway. Is it so serious or out of control that the whole world is gonna end if we don't do something about it. No, and no one has been suggesting that it is either. People are just expressing their desires to try knew rules that might improve the sport.

If this response isn't enough for you to understand why DDFB is being suggested then perhaps someone else can chime in cause I'm just starting to repeat things that have been said in previous posts.

Regards,
--Richard

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:10 pm

But rules aren't always added solely in response to problems that exist. They are sometimes added to improve the sport.

Address the problems and fix them by teaching people the rules of engagement. Don't legistale for a few bad apples. It cheepens the sport.

I'm from a different Kingdom than His Grace Duke Logan, but I mus echo his sentiments. We don't have the problems of which you speak, nor do we have DDFB. We teach our fighters line engagement and address those whos conduct seems questionable (we police our own).

DDFB is boffer. Rattan stick fighting is not.
If you want to do boffer - then go do boffer.
I recommend instead learning and teaching proper engagement and giving no quarter to those that shurk the rules.

...and now, back to DRINKIN'!
Living with Russians is cool.

-----------------

Please note that I have abandoned this hopelessly hyjacked thread to YET ANOTHER defence of DDFB tirade.

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:00 pm

[quote="D. Sebastian]Address the problems and fix them by teaching people the rules of engagement. Don't legistale for a few bad apples. It cheepens the sport.[/quote]

You guys just don't read everything and I'm getting tired of needing to repeat it.

About your claim that this topic was hijacked. In your first post you said:

"Well, how does this sound as a compromise that IMHO will satisify the pro DDFB as it adds realism, as well as the anti DDFB group as it allows for a more honorable death..."

Well, it seems that people don't understand one of the key reasons for suggesting DDFB. So if you don't understand it, how can you offer a compromise solution of attacking from behind? I for one think both DDFB and attacks from behind give the advantage to the person attacking from behind in a way that the engagement rule does not even come close to. I'm not interested in having a fair fight with the guy I approach from behind as that would be giving up the advantage I worked to get. And, that is the reason I've been posting on this topic. If I wanted a fair one-on-one fight to test my skills I would enter a freaking tournament.

--Richard

Gabriel Morgan · Post by **Gabriel Morgan** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:50 pm

Richard de Scolay wrote: If I wanted a fair one-on-one fight to test my skills I would enter a freaking tournament.

--Richard

I must concur.

To me there are a few different issues here:

1) Is striking full-force from behind safe? I think there is room for differing views here. If it is proven safe, and people want to allow it, I'd be ok with that.

2) Providing that striking behind is NOT safe, how to we preserve the EARNED ADVANTAGE that the flanking unit has. Duke Logan claims that DDFB and weapon fouling is not a 'unit' issue, but I think he is missing the forest for the trees. If Unit X risks and works for a flanking advantage, and then, upon achieving that advantage over Unit Y, every fighter in both units squares off in a faced duel as if both units had approached from their front, the Unit X's work has gone for naught. This discourages tactics, strategy, cohesiveness, and every other Value of the Field.

3) Is a full-force blow it a NECESSARY COMPONENT of being bested on the field? This is where the 'boffer' argument comes in. To me, an opponent's telling blow is the MEANS by which he tells me that, by force of will and hard work and skill and ability and luck, he has bested me in this instance. It is the striving and competition that I am there for - the contact is enjoyable but incidental. Thus, I am not adverse to one specific rule in one specific instance saying that, because of safety issues and to preserve the integrity of the field, contact is not necessary.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:31 pm

actually what i asked was how is one man fouling one mans weapon is a unit tactic. unless your unit all foul my weapon in unison its not a unit tactic. its one man coming up behind me to foul my weapon. the unit may well have gotten tot he backfield but its the actions of one man on another. thats all i was getting at since the claim was that ddfb and fouling were somehow a show of superior unit tactics. the flanking maneuver maybe, but the ddfb isnt.

that said i can tell you that i run a fairly efficient fast cav type unit that gets in the backfield an awful lot. in fact, its our job. if you think that without goobing from behind or fouling peoples weapons up you have lost an advantage you are sadly mistaken. i take my unit of 10-20 into the backfield and we engage people at our pace. its a combination of number superiority, surprise, and the breaking of morale that gives us our advantage. we always take more than our number and we always break up their formation. and we always do it without ddfb. again, no one has show a reason for it that i have found to be compelling at all.

im just trying to understand the opposing opinion and i guess it cant be explained. thus far ive only heard the following support for ddfb:

1. if you dont have it people will be removed on backboards because fighters in our area are psychotic.

2. it adds realism to a sport that doesnt attempt to reenact anything.

3. its the only way to capitalize on the advantage of getting behind the bad guys.

and i know that all three of those are false statements. thats why im trying to understand the mentality that suggest that they are true statements.

on topic, i think that striking from behind upon unaware fighters can be done safely. my biggest concern is that there are still idiots that get hit several times in melees until you crank them. then they lose their minds and claim that they thought it was their buddys elbow bumping them or some such stupidity. ive run into one of these asshats at every pennsic and every gulf wars (thats about 20 total). never at crusades though. :wink:

my fear is the morons that do that will get pasted hard in a soft spot enough times that something more physical will occur. the idea of a butt spike to the front or a wrap to the grille would solve many of those issues i think. while i find it interesting i simply dont find a need for a change in what we do now. in our culture our fighters turn to fight and we finish the contest that way. i would be all for giving it a try as an experiment but i dont think i would ever do it myself as a matter of practice.

regards
logan

Gabriel Morgan wrote:To me there are a few different issues here:

1) Is striking full-force from behind safe? I think there is room for differing views here. If it is proven safe, and people want to allow it, I'd be ok with that.

2) Providing that striking behind is NOT safe, how to we preserve the EARNED ADVANTAGE that the flanking unit has. Duke Logan claims that DDFB and weapon fouling is not a 'unit' issue, but I think he is missing the forest for the trees. If Unit X risks and works for a flanking advantage, and then, upon achieving that advantage over Unit Y, every fighter in both units squares off in a faced duel as if both units had approached from their front, the Unit X's work has gone for naught. This discourages tactics, strategy, cohesiveness, and every other Value of the Field.

3) Is a full-force blow it a NECESSARY COMPONENT of being bested on the field? This is where the 'boffer' argument comes in. To me, an opponent's telling blow is the MEANS by which he tells me that, by force of will and hard work and skill and ability and luck, he has bested me in this instance. It is the striving and competition that I am there for - the contact is enjoyable but incidental. Thus, I am not adverse to one specific rule in one specific instance saying that, because of safety issues and to preserve the integrity of the field, contact is not necessary.

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:39 pm

this is obviously pointless

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:26 am

Richard:

What would be the positive and negative effects if you were allowed to attack an opponent from behind, but your attacks had to land on that opponents front. Meaning that you could come up behind me and throw wraps, thrusts* and butt-spikes* (* must land on my front and must avoid grappleing) until I fell to your blows or turnned to face you - - at which point you could engage me normally.

Please discuss. Constructive comments will be appreciated.

To me, the current DDFB is not a compromise in any way, but I won't digress... must stay on topic...

I agree. To me, placing your sword on me is NOT a good blow, but thats for another topic...

On topic...

PLEASE.
THE TOPIC IS NOT DDFB.

The topic is
What would be the positive and negative effects if you were allowed to attack an opponent from behind, but your attacks had to land on that opponents front. Meaning that you could come up behind me and throw wraps, thrusts* and butt-spikes* (* must land on my front and must avoid grappleing) until I fell to your blows or turnned to face you - - at which point you could engage me normally.

What you propose already exists and I've addressed DDFB in earlier posts. Do you have a suggestion as how to safely deliver a telling blow to an opponent from behind? That is the topic.

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

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

Hey, all things evolve. This thread is one.
It happens and some good ideas have come from the side conversations.

===================

As far as DDFB, this says volumes:

Duke Logan wrote:i am left still wondering why people think that there is a reason for goob from behind while they dont suggest that they have a real cultural problem within their fighting community.

...

2. it adds realism to a sport that doesnt attempt to reenact anything.

And lastly, its a touch kill in a non touch kill game. It undermines the whole point.

Mac Thamhais · Post by **Mac Thamhais** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:27 am

dukelogan wrote:that said i can tell you that i run a fairly efficient fast cav type unit that gets in the backfield an awful lot. in fact, its our job. if you think that without goobing from behind or fouling peoples weapons up you have lost an advantage you are sadly mistaken. i take my unit of 10-20 into the backfield and we engage people at our pace.

thus far ive only heard the following support for ddfb:

3. its the only way to capitalize on the advantage of getting behind the bad guys.

in our culture our fighters turn to fight and we finish the contest that way. i would be all for giving it a try as an experiment but i dont think i would ever do it myself as a matter of practice.

regards
logan

Gabriel Morgan wrote:
2) Providing that striking behind is NOT safe, how to we preserve the EARNED ADVANTAGE that the flanking unit has. Duke Logan claims that DDFB and weapon fouling is not a 'unit' issue, but I think he is missing the forest for the trees. If Unit X risks and works for a flanking advantage, and then, upon achieving that advantage over Unit Y, every fighter in both units squares off in a faced duel as if both units had approached from their front, the Unit X's work has gone for naught. This discourages tactics, strategy, cohesiveness, and every other Value of the Field.

BOTH QUOTES EDITED FOR BREVITY

Duke Logan
I think the point that people are trying to make here is: If this were real combat in a real war (Which, granted, we all know the SCA isn't) then you wouldn't take fighters into the backfield and engage opponents at your own pace. You would simply stab them in the back and be done with it. They would not be given the chance to decide whether to turn and defend themselves. Chivalrous? No, probably not, but to me it is a more sensible tactic than working hard to get in the backfield then allowing ones opponents to turn and engage you face to face.

Now as for stabbing them in the back, does that require a "good" blow or does it require a DDFB? Again in actual combat, were your opponent unaware of your presence, you would have the option to targeting points on his body that were unarmoured, or whatever. In the SCA context a "good" blow represents a blow that is struck with enough force that it would have killed or maimed through armour. When attacking from behind in an actual context, that level of force would not be needed. A quick dagger or sword between the ribs and there's an end to the matter. I think that a DDFB represents that dagger between the ribs. YMMV

EDIT:
Quote - And lastly, its a touch kill in a non touch kill game. It undermines the whole point.
I think my post addresses this too

jester · Post by **jester** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:06 am

Again.... what game are we playing?

If we are attempting to simulate warfare then striking from behind should be the case. However, given that the SCA has a non-existent training program and almost no statements governing the intent of our combat simulations this will lead to bad-blood at the very least and, very probably, injuries. Declared Death From Behind is a safety compromise that allows us to simulate this action. I was behind you and could have gakked you without mercy, I'm just letting you know this so that you can die without risking injury. If you didn't want to die in this manner you should have paid more attention to your flanks.

If we are attempting to simulate non-warfare combats then striking from behind may, or may not, be the case. We know that some tournaments specifically forbid striking from behind, which implies that in other tournaments it took place.

Given this information I think that striking from behind is unsuited for SCA combat. Not because it can't be done safely, but because the SCA has no mechanism in place to ensure that it will be done safely. And given the almost total lack of guidance on intent, I think that arguments regarding what we are trying to simulate/re-create are, at best, moot.

Stahlgrim · Post by **Stahlgrim** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:35 am

Okay,
Obviously we have a little communication problem .The reason I see fouling weapons as a unit tactic (Maybe I should rethink my definition )is because to take the guy out I am relying on the rest of the guys in my unit I.E. the guys in front of the gentle I encumber to kill him,teamwork plain and simple. I guess that if two guys in the unit work together to kill an enemy combatant it isn't a Tactic by some definitions I will gladly concede this point to His grace so from now on I will call it an assist,as in "In the feild battle I got fifty kills and eighty nine assists."so we now can all agree its not a tactic .a tactic must include the entire unit and not a fraction of said unit.so if say three guys from a unit of ten went off in a different direction to acomplish a different objective this would be called What?
D, Coz,How long have you been active in the East? I can remember when we first started the whole "DDFB vrs Death from behind vrs Entangleing Debate mostly started when Feral's House Silver Dragon started concentrating on mobile unit tactics in sca combat He and Sir Arnwulf literaly wrote the books on unit tactics in the East Kingdom back around pensic XIV (D. if you don't have copies of these get them! They are what Lucan based the rest of it on and is an excelent primer for the advanced stuff Lucan teaches.) . Lucan turned VDK into an elite Fast cav unit who spent more time behind the enemy than in front(Good times)
I have said before I don't like DDFB having been picket fenced on several occasions.Unfortunately I live in Trimaris now that does DDFB Called declared kill from behind here And I am sure they are not the only hold outs.With that in mind If I don't what to just walk up to the guy and say dead from behind and now you tell me I am the lowest form of scum for just putting my polearm on the guys sword to keep him from killing my friends ,What am I to do?give up going into the backfield?give up melee's and pursue fencing during battles? I am trying to make the most of a bad situation and so far no one on the other side of this arguement has made a reasonable suggestion about a middle ground its all well and good to say well we do it this way now and it works.But I know in the East at least cause I lived there for fifteen years that it wasn't all peaches and cream. I know that in my new home kingdom it will be a long drawnout process to bring the fighting and marshall populace around to see the benifits of going to straight kills from behind Also I get to go through another few years of watching and hopefuly not experiencing injuries from this time of adjustment. just like with face thrusting there is a period of learning while the fighters get used to the new rules and during that time there are likely to be injuries and if no injuries occur great but the odds lean to someone getting injured .now I signed my waiver and I understand its a dangerous sport and all that but I think it is resonable to look for an alternative I can present to the powers that be if I want to get rid of DDFB and they are leery of going to straight kills from behind due to safety.

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:30 am

dukelogan wrote:2. it adds realism to a sport that doesnt attempt to reenact anything.

SCA Corpora wrote:A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM

As a living history group, the Society provides an environment in which members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of the period, as well as doing more traditional historical research. We sponsor events such as tournaments and feasts where members dress in clothing styles worn in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and participate in activities based on the civil and martial skills of the period.

VII. D. The Earl Marshal

The Earl Marshal is responsible for overseeing the conduct of all martial arts activities, including but not limited to tournament lists, wars, combat archery, and fencing, as well as such related activities as scouting and target archery. The Earl Marshal bears primary responsibility for promoting both the safety and the authenticity of the martial arts in the kingdom, but works with other officers in their areas of mutual interest.

So according to the governing laws of the SCA we are recreating the middle ages and the Ear Marshal is responsible for not only promoting safety but also authenticity in both tournaments and wars.

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:41 am

Here we go...

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:49 am

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:03 am

ok then, which war? im pretty sure i can find more than one example of fire being used to cleanse a field of bad guys. guess thats my next tactic to employ. "hold!! all of you guys from me to lord bob are now on fire and dead!". would add realism into this game that has created its own definitions.

look, lets not take such a loose explanation and attempt to circumvent the fact that sca sport combat is far from real in any way. there is no real risk. there is no benefit to superior armor. there is no real training. shields last forever. 2000 men finish a battle in 11 minutes. arrows are..... well ill leave that one alone, we take breaks to clear "dead" guys out of the way.

and we have rules!

regards
logan

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:07 am

I think the real answer is that we are somewhere in the middle. Just like we don't recreate the plague, we don't recreate some aspects of warfare. You can't say we don't recreate anything, just as you can't say we accurately recreate anything either.

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:09 am

$10 says we can also cover florintene, madues and blue plastice before page 8!

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:09 am

ahhh thats probably where part of the communication confusion comes from. when i picture getting into the backfield and coming in behind someone its a much deeper line. in your picture the guy has a "good guy" in front of him trying to best him. in that case im all for binding his weapon (even though i find it to be a terrible waste of time and would rather walk up, look him in the face, then whack him). my dislike for the goob from behind convention is based on my experience of getting into the backfield via a fast flanking move and being 10 rows back. in that case we pick a few guys out and try to beat them up before we get some more guys to turn around.

either way i still see binding someones weapon as a the act of a single person. teamwork is exactly as you describe it.

regards
logan

Stahlgrim wrote:Okay, Obviously we have a little communication problem .The reason I see fouling weapons as a unit tactic (Maybe I should rethink my definition )is because to take the guy out I am relying on the rest of the guys in my unit I.E. the guys in front of the gentle I encumber to kill him,teamwork plain and simple.

Stahlgrim · Post by **Stahlgrim** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:09 am

The scales have fallen from my eyes your grace.Yes if I was engaging ten rows back I to would rather face the oposition then bind a weapon after all if no one has engaged him it is pointless to bind his weapon. but other then the few major wars each year I ussualy only see maybe fifty men per side and even in most cases even when we do deep envelopements we don't have a lot of guys standing around unengaged.

D. as to throwing wraps to the front from behind it looks good on paper and I certainly would preffer it to DDFB the trouble I have run into talking with others is it is too close to grappleing for most of the fighters I have talked to. I would be happy with blows to the side of the head as well. but even with blows from behind being full force (Safety concerns not withstanding )I could still picket fence a small unit with my pole pretty quickly and I wouldn't have to run.I've done it.A spear could take out quite a few with out moving.

And now to open up another can-o-worms
The other rule that applies here is the whole four on one engagement ruleif engaging someone already engaged with a line how do all the various options adressed here work within the scope of that rule.

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:11 am

D. Sebastian wrote:$10 says we can also cover florintene, madues and blue plastice before page 8!

Nah, I'm looking hard for another topic to get into and if I find one, this topic will not make it to page 8.

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:21 am

Screw it, I'm gonna be a Tuchuk!

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:26 am

My guess is that either you don't have a lady or you are dreaming, cause I know the day I become a tuchux and call my lady a wench would be a day I would be made to regret for a long time. :wink:

Gabriel Morgan · Post by **Gabriel Morgan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:40 pm

dukelogan wrote:ok then, which war? im pretty sure i can find more than one example of fire being used to cleanse a field of bad guys. guess thats my next tactic to employ. "hold!! all of you guys from me to lord bob are now on fire and dead!". would add realism into this game that has created its own definitions.

Sorry, sir, logical fallacy.

A form of slippery slope.

We can get *better* at recreation/accuracy without including *everything*. It is a matter of degrees.

We don't add real fire because of safety.

We don't proclaim huge amounts of people dead because such an advantage isn't *earned*.

Neither is true where DDFB is concerned. It is *safer*, and it helps to protect an advantage that *is earned* from tournament rules that do not respect that effort.

Jonny Deuteronomy · Post by **Jonny Deuteronomy** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:14 pm

Ok, I have been watching this topic for 2 weeks now and still haven't seen any reference to something that (in my experience) can be very effective. Feel free to point it out if it has been mentioned and I missed it...

Sometimes in Pennsic Field Battles (amongst others), just getting part or all of our unit into the opponent's backfield and causing a ruckus can create a strategic advantage. We often yell and do other things to attract attention, no matter how many rows of opponents are between us and the the friendlies. This can strongly affect the opposing army's overall morale. Even those that do not turn around may be made to feel encircled and vulnerable. Plus, everone that turns around is no longer facing the others on my side.

Sometimes we just demonstrate and slowly give ground and try to get as many of the 'enemy' to follow us as we can. This can thin out their formation which further effects morale and overall effectiveness.

Getting in their backfield and shouting orders is just plain funny! :lol:

Yes, once again we have been forced to be creative to create our particular brand of havoc within the SCA ruleset. A hearty thank you to the rules-writers for the interesting challenge.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:18 pm

i touched on that with:

if you think that without goobing from behind or fouling peoples weapons up you have lost an advantage you are sadly mistaken. i take my unit of 10-20 into the backfield and we engage people at our pace. its a combination of number superiority, surprise, and the breaking of morale that gives us our advantage. we always take more than our number and we always break up their formation. and we always do it without ddfb.

i have seen counter orders shouted and it has often been somewhat effective. sometimes very. but its always funny to watch. i cant do it personally as im a bit of a target so i have to remain a little less conspicous.

havoc indeed though! :twisted:

regards
logan

trystan wrote:Ok, I have been watching this topic for 2 weeks now and still haven't seen any reference to something that (in my experience) can be very effective. Feel free to point it out if it has been mentioned and I missed it...

Sometimes in Pennsic Field Battles (amongst others), just getting part or all of our unit into the opponent's backfield and causing a ruckus can create a strategic advantage. We often yell and do other things to attract attention, no matter how many rows of opponents are between us and the the friendlies. This can strongly affect the opposing army's overall morale. Even those that do not turn around may be made to feel encircled and vulnerable. Plus, everone that turns around is no longer facing the others on my side.

Sometimes we just demonstrate and slowly give ground and try to get as many of the 'enemy' to follow us as we can. This can thin out their formation which further effects morale and overall effectiveness.

Getting in their backfield and shouting orders is just plain funny!

Yes, once again we have been forced to be creative to create our particular brand of havoc within the SCA ruleset. A hearty thank you to the rules-writers for the interesting challenge.

Jonny Deuteronomy · Post by **Jonny Deuteronomy** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:27 pm

Indeed Your Grace, it appears that once again we are in agreement.

However, I still favor DDFB in the SCA as it is even more effective at neutralizing an enemy force than the methods we discussed. But as you are well aware, I am from a non-chivalric (pre-chivalric to be even more accurate) household, so the constraints upon our tactics and behaviors are appreciably less stringent. I assure you that we would make good use of DDFB, should we ever be allowed to do such.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:29 pm

no gabriel its not. it is taking someones argument to the extreme. one can not simply say that in period warfare such and such would have happened and therefore we should do it. that is what i was addressing.

i will add that you did make two false statements:

Neither is true where DDFB is concerned. It is *safer*, and it helps to protect an advantage that *is earned* from tournament rules that do not respect that effort.

we dont have ddfb here and we dont have these tremendously bizzare situations of danger as some have suggested exsist without it, and, i can tell you for a fact that the advantage gained from getting into the backfield is not in any danger without the assistance of ddfb. i know these to be facts because i have experienced it to be so for over 13 years.

so we have to be careful with blanket statements. it might well be true in your area that your units can not figure out how to take advantage of surprise when they flank a unit unaware and thus require ddfb. it might also be true that in your area your fighters lack the ability to not illegally strike people from behind with enough force as to not cause them injury. and, it might also be true that in your area your fighters will refuse to turn and fight a worthy opponent that has gained the ground behind them causing them to turn and break formation thus weakening their entire unit.

i certainly do not think those things are true but the reasons thus far given to support ddfb all seem to link to those as undeniable facts. i know none of those things exsist where i am so i know them not to be a required aspect of a fighting culture. but maybe they are where you are. i hope not, and if they are i would be more than happy to help find you a place here in charlotte. its not a bad city overall. i think you would enjoy the fighting too, its much simpler and more fun. :wink:

regards
logan

Gabriel Morgan wrote:
dukelogan wrote:ok then, which war? im pretty sure i can find more than one example of fire being used to cleanse a field of bad guys. guess thats my next tactic to employ. "hold!! all of you guys from me to lord bob are now on fire and dead!". would add realism into this game that has created its own definitions.

Sorry, sir, logical fallacy. A form of slippery slope.

We can get *better* at recreation/accuracy without including *everything*. It is a matter of degrees.

We don't add real fire because of safety.

We don't proclaim huge amounts of people dead because such an advantage isn't *earned*.

Neither is true where DDFB is concerned. It is *safer*, and it helps to protect an advantage that *is earned* from tournament rules that do not respect that effort.

Mac Thamhais · Post by **Mac Thamhais** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:18 pm

dukelogan wrote: EDITED FOR BREVITY
so we have to be careful with blanket statements. it might well be true in your area that your units can not figure out how to take advantage of surprise when they flank a unit unaware and thus require ddfb. it might also be true that in your area your fighters lack the ability to not illegally strike people from behind with enough force as to not cause them injury. and, it might also be true that in your area your fighters will refuse to turn and fight a worthy opponent that has gained the ground behind them causing them to turn and break formation thus weakening their entire unit.

regards
logan

My question is, why should they have to do any of those things? I will not comment on whether a "good" strike from behind can or can't be done safely, I'll leave that up to the marshalls and those that have already been doing it. But I will comment on whether that strike is neccessary.

What is and is not a part of real combat, and how much of same the SCA strives to recreate has already been pointed out, but in warfare I still don't think that opponents need to be given that option. Like I said in an earlier post, DDFB is the dagger to the ribs without the need of a telling blow.

Can you run interference and harrass your opponents (counter orders and such) from the backfield without actually engaging them? Sure you can, and I'm certain that its wonderfully effective in its context, but it isn't the logical thing to do in combat when you are presented with an enemy's unprotected back. And I don't think that engaging a few opponents two or three at a time as they turn to face you is the natural thing to do either.

In an actual warfare scenario, a fighter (me) who is attacked from the rear by an enemy that he is unaware of (you), will not be politely tapped on the shoulder and asked to engage. Nor would you be likely to attempt to strike me a telling blow that would penetrate my armour (as per the strike from behind debate.) Instead you would insert your weapon cleanly and quietly into whichever vulnerable area on me is least protected, and move on to your next target.

If we grant that we are talking about warfare and not a chivalric tourney scenario, is that not what most combattants would do? I think that it is so but YMMV.

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:31 pm

Guys, the very fact that we have engagement rules at all make all the arguments about "realistic" moot.

This is Sport Combat.
Sport.
Combat.

Mac Thamhais · Post by **Mac Thamhais** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:03 pm

Of course its sport combat, I think most of us will concede that. But if the rules of engagement are there for the safety of the participants (or so I understand) what prevents us from being as realistic as we can within the confines of those rules.

I mean, I'm not trying to send this thread in yet a whole other direction, but if we use "sport combat" as an excuse for not doing perfectly do-able things then the people on this archive should stop complaining about plastic armour and jeans and reeboks. It's ony sport combat, right?

Sometimes there needs to be a distinction between the two, but not always. It has been said, and I agree, that in this area as well as others, we should strive to be as authentic as we can, to make the SCA better than it is now. So if an authentic practice (OR THE REPRESENTATION THEREOF) does not come into conflict with the safety rules it should be allowable. So why is it that people will strive for authenticity in their kit, but not in tactics?

Gabriel Morgan · Post by **Gabriel Morgan** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:06 pm

D. Sebastian wrote:Guys, the very fact that we have engagement rules at all make all the arguments about "realistic" moot.

This is Sport Combat.
Sport.
Combat.

No.

One can be *more* realistic without being *completely* realistic. An activity can be *more* reflective of the activity it is trying to simulate without being *entirely* reflective.

(Now onto the argument about War vs Tourney)

But my argument for DDFB doesn't revolve around realism. I like DDFB because it is a safe way to ensure that the Values of the Field (teamwork, tactical acumen strategy, etc) are encouraged and rewarded.

Duke Sir Logan,

You say that, even without DDFB a flanking unit has an advantage, and you are likely correct. Such nebulous advantages are in no way commensurate with the 'natural' right to simply strike a foe down from the achieved position.

If safe, strikes from behind should be allowed. If not, DDFB is a good substitute that maintains the integrity of the Field. All of the other compromises that I have seen sacrifice The Values of the Field for the Values of the List.

Edited to include:

For what it is worth, the majority of my fighting has been in a Kingdom without DDFB.

Richard de Scolay · Post by **Richard de Scolay** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:07 pm

D. Sebastian wrote:Guys, the very fact that we have engagement rules at all make all the arguments about "realistic" moot.

This is Sport Combat.
Sport.
Combat.

[sarcasm]
Then lets just do away with all this silly period looking armor and get some modern sport combat protective equipment. And let people bring out there madu's and klingon batliths while were at it cause we aren't trying to be realistic, it's just a sport.
[/sarcasm]

kenrickb · Post by **kenrickb** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:14 pm

Greetings,
As setup, I'm from the East with no Death From Behind, declared or otherwise. I've made a career of getting into backfields and raking through great weapons that aren't paying attention. I don't need death from behind to be effective. It requires more skill to use normal engagement rules and still be an effective running in behind units that it would with ddfb. Without trying to disparage kingdoms that use death from behind, I don't like it, it feels cheap to me. Besides, it's much more fun running in behind somebody and tying up their pole and seeing the look of horror on them as they get gacked by the guy in front of them.

Kenric (Sir Kenric, that is, in case it matters....)

Gabriel Morgan wrote:
Richard de Scolay wrote: If I wanted a fair one-on-one fight to test my skills I would enter a freaking tournament.

--Richard

I must concur.

To me there are a few different issues here:

1) Is striking full-force from behind safe? I think there is room for differing views here. If it is proven safe, and people want to allow it, I'd be ok with that.

2) Providing that striking behind is NOT safe, how to we preserve the EARNED ADVANTAGE that the flanking unit has. Duke Logan claims that DDFB and weapon fouling is not a 'unit' issue, but I think he is missing the forest for the trees. If Unit X risks and works for a flanking advantage, and then, upon achieving that advantage over Unit Y, every fighter in both units squares off in a faced duel as if both units had approached from their front, the Unit X's work has gone for naught. This discourages tactics, strategy, cohesiveness, and every other Value of the Field.

3) Is a full-force blow it a NECESSARY COMPONENT of being bested on the field? This is where the 'boffer' argument comes in. To me, an opponent's telling blow is the MEANS by which he tells me that, by force of will and hard work and skill and ability and luck, he has bested me in this instance. It is the striving and competition that I am there for - the contact is enjoyable but incidental. Thus, I am not adverse to one specific rule in one specific instance saying that, because of safety issues and to preserve the integrity of the field, contact is not necessary.