Armour classes

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:56 am

Just a thought. What would everyone think about an SCA tournament where the participents would be seperated according to armour class. IE lightweight, middle, heavy.
Lightweight meaning bare minimum SCA requirements.Middle would be more than minimum but less than full plate. Heavy would be full plate.I realize that only 10% or less would probably qualify for the heavy weight class with most guys falling into medium or light.Prizes being given to the winners of each "class".Seems like it would take the advantage out of lightly armoured guys against heavily encumbered lads.what do you fellows think? are there enough guys in full plate to even make this feasable? Otto

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Mon Mar 12, 2001 3:09 pm

Here, Otto, i can oly think of maybe a half dozen active guys that would be in heavy weight group.

We're 2 of them.

Now middle weight would be the most populated followed closely by light.

Interestingly the SCA is one of the very few Combat "sports" with no weight classes. Even "point fighting" non contact Martial arts tournamnets have weight classes. I'm kinda glad we don't seperate by body weight, by armour type would be kinda cool imo.

Robert Clark Carruth · Mon Mar 12, 2001 3:39 pm

I like it. Not a bad idea at all. I don't like it as a standard practice for the whole society. As a concept to try out and have fun with sometimes, I like it.
It would be fun to move through the armor classes seeing which you did best in.

Robert

Jean Paul de Sens · Post by **Jean Paul de Sens** » Mon Mar 12, 2001 4:45 pm

I agree with Robert. sounds like a fun time to try out, but not a permanent change

Harold the Bear · Post by **Harold the Bear** » Mon Mar 12, 2001 5:09 pm

Markland has a Heavy and lights as armour classes. www.markland.org and check out their rules.

------------------
Have Zwei will Travel
HtB

Josh W · Post by **Josh W** » Mon Mar 12, 2001 11:40 pm

Would my harness classify me as "heavy"?

[This message has been edited by Joaquin (edited 03-12-2001).]

Gaston · Post by **Gaston** » Mon Mar 12, 2001 11:46 pm

No, Joaquin, you're beyond that, I'd say "carrier class".

Joe The Armor Weenie · Tue Mar 13, 2001 12:14 pm

Or, possibly freight

- Joe

------------------
Proverb- If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving.

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Tue Mar 13, 2001 1:54 pm

I don't mind a distinction between those who wear armor and those who don't. I think it's a good idea. I would be careful about discriminating against the Early and High Middle Ages in favor of Early Modern and Rennaisance armor.

I would just say either you're wearing the full metal kit of the day (scale, maille, plate) or you are not. Unarmored areas would be vulnerable to a single blow defeat, while armored areas would be included in a counted blow system.

------------------
Conn MacNiell

Gaston · Post by **Gaston** » Tue Mar 13, 2001 10:23 pm

I was uneasy until I read Bob's idea on classifying. I like it, it seems fair, which is difficult in this area.

I'd add the stipulation that hidden armour is for your personal comfort and feelings of safety. It doesn't count. I'm not talking about instances of a surcoat covering a hauberk or cuirass, but about folks who play an unarmoured fighter but take precautions. Yes, it's a sticky distinction, it would require some honor to work.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Mar 15, 2001 2:34 am

that sounds like a good idea for a tourney.

i would also include heavy to include things like full metal scale curiass, Maille hauberk, and full suits of metal lamallar. all those could easily meet if not exceed the weight of european plate armour of the 14th-16th century.

another thing i would not count aluminum plate armour in the heavy division.

i would classify medium as more of the typical suit of SCA armour(most people wear more amrour than you think in the SCA). i would count brigs and COPs in this class. i would allow plastic in this class but only for reinforcing pieces of armour not for primary protection(i.e. plastic plates under leather).but for this class i would consider aluminum ok.

and the light class would be for plastic armour and minimum armour.

i would also make it so that the heavy class fighters have to use cross hilted swords and not basket hilts(unless they can provide documentation for one and they would have to build it using the documented style). and i would make the heavy class "documentable bargrills only"

schreiber · Post by **schreiber** » Fri Mar 23, 2001 10:47 am

<BUMP>

This quickly became a question of whether the armor is period or not, I think.

I think it's weird that there was a comment about metal armor and encumberance... I only weigh 150 lbs, and the more leather I replace with metal, the happier and more mobile I am. Metal armor is supposed to be clever and fit properly. I'm not fully shod yet, but I can still do cartwheels.

I agree with the idea for a tourney or event. I'm a big fan of segregating the nylon ghetto from the pavillions as well. I think there should definitely, at least at times, be a reward involved for those who do what we're trying to do properly.

HELMUT

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Fri Mar 23, 2001 2:06 pm

I guess I should clarify what i meant.I'm not saying heavy armour should recieve more blows (although it could) I'm saying use the same rules for all, just seperate opponents according to "weight class" Ie Heavy angainst heavy, light angainst light ect. And not to make it permanent, just to try it out once in a while. But I think murdock might be right,there are not that many in full armour.I too would classify full mail the same as full plate ect.I'm mainly looking at the "encumberance" factor.
Like 15-30 lbs of armour maybe for light,30-50 medium, 50+ for heavy.....Otto
PS mine weighs about 85lb

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Fri Mar 23, 2001 3:34 pm

Also remember that if you're wearing just a tunic beneath your transitional armor (no hauberk), the "unarmored" convention applies to the exposed inner arms, armpits, backs of the legs, etc.

------------------
Conn MacNiell