The Armour Archive

Hi,

I'm making new pollaxes (matched) and following the rules:

If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft. Laminated or split rattan construction techniques do not require 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give, so long as their construction imparts striking characteristics similar to an unpadded weapon constructed of a single piece of rattan.

I've had marshals bounce my weapons when they could not compress them a 1/2 inch. I showed them that I could.

IF they can be compressed, should it be good? Or is it up to the weakest hand available?

With respect,

-Aaron

Tell them to get someone with a slow motion camera and then hit them in the head with your pollaxe.

If you can see an 1/2 inch of compression on the video it passes.

If not the martial is unconsious an you can go play without any protest.

Servus!

For me it's not the distance but the oh-so-accurate measurement of "progressive give" that is usually the deal breaker.

If your Marshal is too weak to compress your thrusting tip or padded head then there is a different problem and it's not with your weapon....

Aaron,
This is always a good question...I was told that most cannot define it, but they can show you. I have only had one weapon bounced and it was a D. Sebastian style split polearm. The problem was not the head, but the fact that the rattan was way too whippy afterward. My bad skill finding bad rattan that time...

Can't we just define progressive give in terms of force over a surface?

For example, "progressive give" will be:

1. With the other end of the weapon on a firm surface, and with one hand, a strong fighter (someone with muscle) should be able to compress the "progressive give" surface 1/2 inch on a one-handed weapon.

2. With the other end of the weapon on a firm surface, and with two hands, a strong fighter (someone with muscle) should be able to compress the "progressive give" surface 1/2 inch on a two-handed weapon.

Would that work? This will avoid some of the debate and stop from requiring pillows on the end of weapons.

-Aaron

Aaron wrote:Hi,

I'm making new pollaxes (matched) and following the rules:

If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft. Laminated or split rattan construction techniques do not require 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give, so long as their construction imparts striking characteristics similar to an unpadded weapon constructed of a single piece of rattan.

I've had marshals bounce my weapons when they could not compress them a 1/2 inch. I showed them that I could.

IF they can be compressed, should it be good? Or is it up to the weakest hand available?

With respect,

-Aaron

It's really kind of interesting that I posted an issue with one of my local marshals a little while back and someone on this board just started bashing my Kingdom for being all screwed up. And now there is an issue in that person's Kingdom with one of their own marshals. I wonder if that guy is going to start talking trash about his own marshals or if it is just ours. I can't wait to see where this one goes.


And Aaron, to answer your question this is an excerpt from the new SCA rules. It comes from the bottom of page 29 and the top of page 30.

Progressively resistant give (as used in discussions of thrusting tips): As pressure is applied directly to the thrusting surface, it will compress gradually, without bottoming-out or bending to the side enough to expose the end of the blade or haft of the weapon it is attached to.

And I checked your rules and the quote you have above isn't in there anywhere that I can find. I may be looking in the wrong place so I may be way off. Either way if you don't like the decision of one marshal you have more than one recourse stated in your kingdom Laws. I would suggest giving them a read. And possibly talking to other marshals in your area because your marshals and the way you play the game up there is obviously way different than the way we do down here.

Rules are rules wherever you go, and I really don't have complaints about the marshals. My complaint is about the rules and the vauge definition.

The marshal was correct.

It didn't compress enough for his hand. And by the rules, it gets bounced. There is no issue with the marshals in Atlantia IMO. The issue is the SCA Inc rules. If one pair of hands flunks it, does another pair of stronger hands pass it?

I know that some dukes can make stainless steel have progressive give, but I wouldn't look forward to a 12 ga stainless thrusting tips just because they could make it flex a 1/2 inch.

No matter what kingdom I'm in, the marshals are all volunteers and usually current or former fighters who are taking away from their fun so you can have fun.

If I had any really serious complaints (and I don't) I would put away my armour and volunteer to become a marshal.

-Aaron

Aaron -

Define "with muscle". You're making a fairly subjective test even more so. I might be considered "with muscle" but I'm a 90 pound weakling compared to Sir Gunnar Redboar.

In my experience, if a weapon doesn't pass inspection, most of the time it is the thrust tip. It is usally one of two issues:

1) The thrust tip has broken down too much - folds over or collapses, resulting in solid contact to the weapon underneath. Usually the result of an old tip, or someone trying to make the most "stealthy" tip they can.

2) The tip is OVER built - taped up so much that it doesn't give at all. Usually becuase the person had a tip fail/fold over, slapped a piece of foam on top and /or taped it up too much.

Aaron wrote:Can't we just define progressive give in terms of force over a surface?

For example, "progressive give" will be:

1. With the other end of the weapon on a firm surface, and with one hand, a strong fighter (someone with muscle) should be able to compress the "progressive give" surface 1/2 inch on a one-handed weapon.

2. With the other end of the weapon on a firm surface, and with two hands, a strong fighter (someone with muscle) should be able to compress the "progressive give" surface 1/2 inch on a two-handed weapon.

Would that work? This will avoid some of the debate and stop from requiring pillows on the end of weapons.

-Aaron

There is no good definition of 'progressive give'. It's like porn. I know it when I see it.

The function of padding is to distribute the force over a larger surface area. This is important for reducing trauma from high-speed impact. The padding really does almost nothing to reduce the impact force of the blow. Just like thrusting tips they ALL bottom out before 'good' power is delivered.

Regretably headed pole-arms are slower, high momentum, lower energy impacts and all the padding in the world dosn't change momentum which means that you are as likely to get your neck sprained from a padded pole-arm with 1/2" of give as you are without.

To get a definition of 'progressive give' we would have to have a way of measureing it (like a scale with a fixed contact area connected to a ruller). Ideally it would also be mecahicly activated so marshal hand strength was not a factor and so rate of deformation is not a factor. Some neoprenes are dangerous as they deform well at slow speed but act like a rock at high speed.

All in all, I just expect some weapons (or some armor) to get bounced occasionally the farther I get from my local area.

Sean

Aaron wrote:Hi,

I'm making new pollaxes (matched) and following the rules:

If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft. Laminated or split rattan construction techniques do not require 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give, so long as their construction imparts striking characteristics similar to an unpadded weapon constructed of a single piece of rattan.

I've had marshals bounce my weapons when they could not compress them a 1/2 inch. I showed them that I could.

IF they can be compressed, should it be good? Or is it up to the weakest hand available?

With respect,

-Aaron

I have had a similar problem with thrusting tips in the past. I used some closed cell padding that was too stiff in the marshal’s view. The problem is there is no numeric measure for progressive give. We do not have a statement that says a 1 lib weight shall not compress the tip beyond x distance but a 4 lib weight must compress beyond x distance.

Because of this subjectivity what you need to do is find out who the big dog knight or marshal is of your area and get them to pass it.

-D

I would reccomend that you follow the chain of command for the event...

Inspecting Marshal, Marshal in Charge, Baronial Marshal, etc...

.

"1/2" progressive give"

I should be able to compress the head/thruster of a weapon atleast 1/2" using resonable force without it compressing to the point of bottoming out on the rattan or compressing to the point where unreasonable force is needed to compress it.


"Reasonable force" means I do not have to go red faced and hand cramped squeezing the head.


NOTE: it is very rare that I fail a pole weapon because of not enough compression. More often it is as Sir Corby says, poor thruster or the weapon is TO soft and bottoms out.



To combat the bottoming out issue, I use to types of foam on my heads, each a different density. The thicker more dense foam forms the base, and the softer less dense foam the cutting edge. That way I get the compression I want without the problem of bottoming out.

InsaneIrish wrote:"1/2" progressive give"
"Reasonable force" means I do not have to go red faced and hand cramped squeezing the head.

Regretably your definition of 'reasonable force' does not match every marshals definition of reasonable force and is not written anyplace that I know of.

Also, the rules say squat about using a layer of open cell or very soft closed cell foam that progress smoothly and with light effort without bottoming out for the first 1/2"... and then goes dead solid at 3/4".

I have a rathbone axe head. I tend to use it as a comparison baseline. If heads are substantially stiffer then I get the opinion of a second marshal before rejecting a weapon.

Sean

Sean Powell wrote:
Regretably your definition of 'reasonable force' does not match every marshals definition of reasonable force and is not written anyplace that I know of.

True, that is MY interpretation of the rule. It is my internal gauge on how to test "give". If I bounce the weapon and it is questionable, I kick it up the line for appeal.

Also, the rules say squat about using a layer of open cell or very soft closed cell foam that progress smoothly and with light effort without bottoming out for the first 1/2"... and then goes dead solid at 3/4".

I did not say it was a rule, I said that is how I get around the bottoming out issue. And yes, I will bounce a weapon if I squeeze the head and it bottoms out, no matter how far I have to squeeze it. If I can squeeze it with reasonable force and contact the rattan, then it CERTAINLY will bottom out when swung and hit on someone else.

I have a rathbone axe head. I tend to use it as a comparison baseline. If heads are substantially stiffer then I get the opinion of a second marshal before rejecting a weapon.

Sean

Agreed. I use the rubber axe heads and rubber thrusties as a kind of benchmark.

The 2 things I look for when inspecting a pole head are "dead" spots (or sweet spots where the fighter hits with the weapon most often) where the foam has colapsed and it will bottom out. The other is to easy of compression into a "hard" contact point. The padding should be progressively harder to squeeze and at 1/2" should not bottom out or compress to the point of not being able to compress further.

Aaron wrote:Hi,

I'm making new pollaxes (matched) and following the rules:

If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft. Laminated or split rattan construction techniques do not require 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give, so long as their construction imparts striking characteristics similar to an unpadded weapon constructed of a single piece of rattan.

I've had marshals bounce my weapons when they could not compress them a 1/2 inch. I showed them that I could.

IF they can be compressed, should it be good? Or is it up to the weakest hand available?

With respect,

-Aaron

What I tell the marshalls every time they try to pull the progressive give argument during weapons inspection is:

"Show me in ANY rulebook where it states what PSI needs to be applied to the weapon in order to get the desired progressive give."

They never can, therefore, the argument is over.

Good Day Your Grace,

You are a duke. I am merely an authorized fighter and merely a transient through any kingdom I reside in, a well dressed gypsy if you will.

When I've said a similar statement, I was told the the marshals can halt any unsafe act (yes they can IMO) and if they thought it was unsafe, it was.

I need to have an arguement the cites the rules instead of cites a void in the rules. And there I sit in the quandry.

I will try your advice next time though.

With respect,

-Aaron

InsaneIrish wrote:"1/2" progressive give"

I should be able to compress the head/thruster of a weapon atleast 1/2" using resonable force without it compressing to the point of bottoming out on the rattan or compressing to the point where unreasonable force is needed to compress it.


"Reasonable force" means I do not have to go red faced and hand cramped squeezing the head.

I'll just point out that you are requiring more than 1/2 inch of progressive give If the weapon truly had one half inch of progressive give, then after travelling one half inch with a steadily increasing level of force required to continue travel, it would compress no further.

Your expectation that there be some additional level of "give" beyond that point goes beyond the letter of the law.

I'm also somewhat interested in an apparent distinction you are making between having no more give because you have reached the rattan ("bottoming out") and having no more give because there is no more compression in the foam - but not yet reaching the rattan. I'm really not too worried about what material is stopping the continued "give" - just whether there was "enough" give before it stopped

And no, I don't carry calipers and pressure gauges and measure out in detail every dimension. I apply many years of experience and what I consider to be good judgment. I expect other marshals to do the same, and to the best of their ability. Sometimes we can debate just how good our judgment is

Kilkenny wrote:
I'll just point out that you are requiring more than 1/2 inch of progressive give If the weapon truly had one half inch of progressive give, then after travelling one half inch with a steadily increasing level of force required to continue travel, it would compress no further.

Your expectation that there be some additional level of "give" beyond that point goes beyond the letter of the law.

yeah, I am not explaining very well I guess.

It kind of like porno, I can't tell what it is but I know when I see it.

I'm also somewhat interested in an apparent distinction you are making between having no more give because you have reached the rattan ("bottoming out") and having no more give because there is no more compression in the foam - but not yet reaching the rattan. I'm really not too worried about what material is stopping the continued "give" - just whether there was "enough" give before it stopped

Once again, you are correct, in the essence I care not whether the padding bottoms out or the compression became so great that I can not compress it further.

I put that in because I HAVE been in situation where some gorilla armed dude gave me a polearm, I squeezed it and said no way. He then grabbed it and compressed it the required depth. (I do believe the head was made of Crepe and nothing else) Even though no other marshal there could do that, it "by the letter of the law" had the required "give". We still bounced it on the basis of it being unsafe.

So, that part is my little catchall for guys that have super strong hands and can compress a billet of aluminium.

Aaron wrote:Hi,

I'm making new pollaxes (matched) and following the rules:

If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft. Laminated or split rattan construction techniques do not require 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give, so long as their construction imparts striking characteristics similar to an unpadded weapon constructed of a single piece of rattan.

I've had marshals bounce my weapons when they could not compress them a 1/2 inch. I showed them that I could.

IF they can be compressed, should it be good? Or is it up to the weakest hand available?

With respect,

-Aaron

Why does everything have to be at extremes ?

As you note later, some people can make damn near anything compress.
That means, rather clearly, we can't go with that extreme (of course there's the whole argument that we should eliminate thrusting tips altogether and just use the taped rattan - but for now let's put that aside).

You then go immediately to the opposite extreme, is it then up to the weakest hand available ? No, it isn't. The standard isn't meant to be set by infants.

Someplace between is a thing known as "the reasonable man standard".

This is the thing that must be sought. Not one extreme (I've brought my hydraulic press to demonstrate the half inch of progressive give), or another (Give it to the toddler and see if they can get a half inch of give), but a reasonable standard between these extremes.

Introducing further subjective judgments like "some muscle" does not clarify anything, rather it adds another level of subjective judgment to dispute.

Take a thrusting tip around to 6 members of the chivalry from one kingdom and you may very well get six different opinions as to whether it is too hard, too soft, too long, too short - or just right. However - you will probably get something more along the lines of 4 out of 6 agreeing that it is - or is not - legal. They differ widely in preferences, but not so much so in their understanding of what is permitted.

It really is a matter of listening to the feedback from the marshals, the chivalry, the rank and file fighters, and developing your own understanding of what is "legal" that falls into line with the majority of the other people playing in your area.

Arguing over the letter of the law doesn't accomplish anything constructive.

Aaron wrote:Good Day Your Grace,

You are a duke. I am merely an authorized fighter and merely a transient through any kingdom I reside in, a well dressed gypsy if you will.

When I've said a similar statement, I was told the the marshals can halt any unsafe act (yes they can IMO) and if they thought it was unsafe, it was.

I need to have an arguement the cites the rules instead of cites a void in the rules. And there I sit in the quandry.

I will try your advice next time though.

With respect,

-Aaron

I started using that argument when I was a squire. It worked then too.

It is not merely a void. It is a huge gap. One that is unfortunately used by overzealous marshalls. The same kind of marshalls that would fail a spear because it is 9' 1/64" or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

Duke Phelan wrote:or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

I would... but only to get a front seat view of a reigning monarch in a reauthorization fight. I expect it to be fast and impressive.

Sean Powell wrote:

Duke Phelan wrote:or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

I would... but only to get a front seat view of a reigning monarch in a reauthorization fight. I expect it to be fast and impressive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

Duke Phelan wrote: .... or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

This would never happen in the fair kingdom in which I reside.

Randwulfson wrote:

Duke Phelan wrote: .... or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

This would never happen in the fair kingdom in which I reside.

Actually my favorite story like that comes from a Potrero about 5 years ago:

Marshall: "Sir Knight, are you authorized to fight"

Atenveldt Earl Marshall: "No, he's from Atenveldt, we just give them a white belt the first time they put on armour out there"




I a good idea a while back just to put my Authorization number on the back of my belt and have the EM sign it.

The rule as written is pretty pointless, except as a rule of thumb for the marshals, as it does not state at what force the tip is supposed to "give". The marshal's can of course always bounce a tip for being "unsafe", but with enough pressure, everything "gives".

I would interpret it to be that a tip or head must compress 1/2" before either bottoming out on the rattan or ceasing to compress altogether.

Duke Phelan wrote:I started using that argument when I was a squire. It worked then too.

It is not merely a void. It is a huge gap. One that is unfortunately used by overzealous marshalls. The same kind of marshalls that would fail a spear because it is 9' 1/64" or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

With respect, Your Grace, the problem is that according to the Marshals Handbook:

Marshals Handbook - Nov 08 wrote:II.B.5. The Sovereign or the Marshallate may bar any weapon or armor from use upon the field of combat. Should a warranted Marshal bar any weapon or armor, an appeal may be made to the Sovereign to allow the weapon or armor.

and

XV.A.2 SNIP In weapon inspections, the primary test is safety. If you, as a marshal, do not believe that the weapon is safe (i.e., if you would not be willing to face it), do not let it be used on the field. When in doubt, ask the prospective user if he or she would be willing to fight against the weapon. If not, it should not be used regardless of whether it meets all other requirements.

The marshals do in fact have the authority to bounce a weapon or piece of armor from the field, EVEN IF IT OBEYS THE LETTER OF THE LAW! Whether or not a rule can be cited against a particular item, if the marshal is of the opinion that it is unsafe then they have the authority to bounce it. Period.

Duke Phelan wrote:

Randwulfson wrote:

Duke Phelan wrote: .... or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

This would never happen in the fair kingdom in which I reside.

Actually my favorite story like that comes from a Potrero about 5 years ago:

Marshall: "Sir Knight, are you authorized to fight"

Atenveldt Earl Marshall: "No, he's from Atenveldt, we just give them a white belt the first time they put on armour out there"




I a good idea a while back just to put my Authorization number on the back of my belt and have the EM sign it.

Years ago, when authorization cards were a new thing, I overheard some Ansteorran knights discussing the subject. One of them put it very succinctly:
*holding up end of white belt* "Here's mah authorization"
*pointing at his face* "and here's mah ID"

I still chuckle over it.

What I tell the marshalls every time they try to pull the progressive give argument during weapons inspection is:

"Show me in ANY rulebook where it states what PSI needs to be applied to the weapon in order to get the desired progressive give."

They never can, therefore, the argument is over.



Thank you Phelan.I thought I was the only one using this argument.

I am sick to death of the response being "well its my interpertation"

To which I reply "is not relevant in this case"

Then I go and make a tip that is "Legal" and nobody wearing steel can feel a bodyshot from it.

My guys and I all make stiff thrusting tips and to my knowledge nobdy has been hurt or hit with execessive force.

I can dent a helm with a blade cut.I have never dented a helm with a thrust regaurdless of how the thrusting tip was constructed.

SERPENTDUKE:) wrote:What I tell the marshalls every time they try to pull the progressive give argument during weapons inspection is:

"Show me in ANY rulebook where it states what PSI needs to be applied to the weapon in order to get the desired progressive give."

They never can, therefore, the argument is over.



Thank you Phelan.I thought I was the only one using this argument.

I am sick to death of the response being "well its my interpertation"

To which I reply "is not relevant in this case"

Then I go and make a tip that is "Legal" and nobody wearing steel can feel a bodyshot from it.

My guys and I all make stiff thrusting tips and to my knowledge nobdy has been hurt or hit with execessive force.

I can dent a helm with a blade cut.I have never dented a helm with a thrust regaurdless of how the thrusting tip was constructed.

With respect, your grace, while I am in personal agreement as to thrusting tips (in fact I have heard it argued that they shouldn't be necessary at all) as I pointed out to his grace Phelan above, simply challenging the marshal to cite the rule (which they can't) doesn't end the argument at all.

The relevant parts of the Marshal's handbook is posted above, but again, what it boils down to is:

Mac Thamhais wrote:The marshals do in fact have the authority to bounce any weapon or piece of armor from the field, EVEN IF IT OBEYS THE LETTER OF THE LAW! Whether or not a rule can be cited against a particular item, if the marshal is of the opinion that it is unsafe then they have the authority to bounce it. Period.

Mac Thamhais wrote:

Duke Phelan wrote:I started using that argument when I was a squire. It worked then too.

It is not merely a void. It is a huge gap. One that is unfortunately used by overzealous marshalls. The same kind of marshalls that would fail a spear because it is 9' 1/64" or deny a King entry to the field until he shows his Fighter Authorization card.

With respect, Your Grace, the problem is that according to the Marshals Handbook:

Marshals Handbook - Nov 08 wrote:II.B.5. The Sovereign or the Marshallate may bar any weapon or armor from use upon the field of combat. Should a warranted Marshal bar any weapon or armor, an appeal may be made to the Sovereign to allow the weapon or armor.

and

XV.A.2 SNIP In weapon inspections, the primary test is safety. If you, as a marshal, do not believe that the weapon is safe (i.e., if you would not be willing to face it), do not let it be used on the field. When in doubt, ask the prospective user if he or she would be willing to fight against the weapon. If not, it should not be used regardless of whether it meets all other requirements.

The marshals do in fact have the authority to bounce a weapon or piece of armor from the field, EVEN IF IT OBEYS THE LETTER OF THE LAW! Whether or not a rule can be cited against a particular item, if the marshal is of the opinion that it is unsafe then they have the authority to bounce it. Period.

Good eye, point taken.
So perhaps to rectify this situation (of marshals not wishing to face what they deem to be an unsafe weapon), is it possible we as a society could perhaps revisit the standards for Marshall Authorization?

More specifically, is it feasable for us to instill a "No Wuss" clause? If you are a weenie, and you think my perfectly legal thrusting tip is too hard for your precious wittle self to get hit by, you get your Auth pulled and I get my weapons inspected by someone who isn't afraid to get hit.

Perhaps someday I will get my wish of the de-pussification of our game, until then, I will just dream of dented armour, and beers shared while nursing bruises.

Or, the weenies will win, and we will all be fighting in full plate, with boffers, 1/2 speed, no actual contact.

It's within the power of the King to have his KEM clarify the progressive give rule for his Kingdom. I know Darius hasn't, what' status in Atneveldt?

Considering Atenveldt weapons get pretty harsh scrutiny everywhere else, I'd say as a Kingdom our standards are pretty lax.

But we also have a saying in Atenveldt: "Excessive force isn't"

Or my personal favorite: "Definition of Excessive Force: Your Armour is insufficiently padded"

Duke Phelan wrote:
Good eye, point taken.
So perhaps to rectify this situation (of marshals not wishing to face what they deem to be an unsafe weapon), is it possible we as a society could perhaps revisit the standards for Marshall Authorization?

More specifically, is it feasable for us to instill a "No Wuss" clause? If you are a weenie, and you think my perfectly legal thrusting tip is too hard for your precious wittle self to get hit by, you get your Auth pulled and I get my weapons inspected by someone who isn't afraid to get hit.

So, anyone that disagrees with YOUR interpretation of the rules is a puss?

my interpretation has been to strap on a 1/2" of padding for the tip and hope for the best.

too stiff? go bang it on something hard and bring it back.

too soft? strap it down tighter.

the rule itself is useless.

i've argued and won, as well as lost.

of course this has only happened with single handed sword tips. never had a problem with great-weapons.

(and in my kingdom i'm neither authorized, or a marshal, by virtue of being a member of the Chivalry)