A (brief) Introduction to the Vitus Blow System

[Foxman]

{NOTES: This is intended to be something you can print off and show your friends. It is intended to be a friendly way to introduce the system and tries to highlight the advantages of using the system as opposed to attacking the current system. Suggestions and feedback to improve this document welcome!}


A (brief) Introduction to the Vitus Blow Acknowledgement System aka "The Vitus System"
The Vitus System is a simplification of the current SCA system of acknowledging blows.
Currently the Vitus System is undergoing testing. Please test it out and give feedback to the person who has introduced this to you and feel free to discuss it with others is your area.

The Vitus Blow System:
- Two effective blows to any combination of legal arm or leg targets shall be judged fatal or completely disabling.
- Effective blows to legal arm or leg targets will not result in the disabling of the limb. Said blows shall be acknowledged.

What doesn’t change?
- For Pole/Mass Weapons, fatal or disabling shots to the shoulder/hip targets are unchanged.
- The gauging for an ‘Effective Blow’ remains unchanged.

Why is this system being considered/tested?

- It has been suggested that the flow and pace of combat can be and is interrupted/broken by having to switch weapons or modify armour or reseat the shield behind ones back for disabled arms, or letting an opponent settle upon his knees. The Vitus System does not require such breaks.

- There have been concerns raised as to the potential long-term impact on the health of the knees of combatants due to fighting in, assuming and leaving the kneeling position. The Vitus System does not include any form ‘knee-fighting’.

- It has been pointed out that at demonstrations or other public events that ‘the public’ at times find ‘knee-fighting’ athsteticly unpleasing or confusing and require additional explanations as to why we fight from our knees.

- One of the core tenants behind the disabling a limb has been that it represents a penalty to the person so struck. It has been noted that there is a significant difference the relative penalty between a person who has lost an arm and a person who has lost a leg. That is those with a disabled leg are losing mobility but potentially gaining significantly in defense.

- The Vitus system should be slightly quicker in resolving combats. The Vitus system requires a maximum of two effective blows (two limbs) to the current standards maximum of 3 (leg, arm, and either arm or head/torso ). When combined with the first point above, this should allow combatants a slightly better fights/hour ratio.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Donnan: You're wrong on something here.

The blows aren;t judged to be disabling.

They're judged to end the fight.

The vitus system is not assuming an armour standard, nor the "effectiveness" of the blow...

The language most of us are advocating is a "stout" blow, as currently accepted in the participants' regions, but no presumed armour or "damage" standard is employed.

[Ogedei]

damn it, confusing already!

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

hehehe

That's because of the way Donnan posted it.


No armour standard. (so no "hit my nasal" crap- the only question is, "did it feel "good"?)

A "good" or "stout" blow is what you'd consider good now.

1 "good" shot to the head or body ends the fight.

2 "good" shots to any combination of limbs ends the fight.

On a limb blow, Call out "One!" or name the limb that got hit (ie. "Arm!")

That's it.

[Bob H]

I'd make it simpler - tourneys including melees are counted blows received. Wars and skirmishes are fought as they are now, including knee-fighting.

See how easy to remember?

[Foxman]

Donnan: You're wrong on something here.

The blows aren;t judged to be disabling.

They're judged to end the fight.

The vitus system is not assuming an armour standard, nor the "effectiveness" of the blow...

The language most of us are advocating is a "stout" blow, as currently accepted in the participants' regions, but no presumed armour or "damage" standard is employed.

Hmmmm well there wasn't a document at the corperate level for me to copy the language from so I went with what I know that is copying the language from the An Tir Book of Combat.

C. An effective blow will be defined as a blow which was delivered with effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, properly oriented, and struck with sufficient force.

1. An effective blow to the head, neck, or torso shall be judged fatal or completely disabling, rendering the fighter incapable of further combat.

2. An effective blow from an axe, mace, polearm, greatsword, or other mass weapon, which lands on the hip above the hip socket or strikes the shoulder inside the shoulder socket, shall be judged fatal or completely disabling.

3. An effective blow to the arm above the wrist will disable the arm. The arm shall then be considered useless to the fighter and may not be used for either offense or defense.

4. An effective blow to the leg above the knee will disable the leg. The fighter must then fight kneeling, sitting, or standing on the foot of the uninjured leg. An Tir places no limitations upon the mobility of such injured fighters.

5. If a wounded limb blocks an otherwise acceptable blow, the blow shall be counted as though the limb were not there.

Of intrest... The Vitus System falls under D. below (at least for An Tir)

D. Changes to blow acknowledgment standards may be made on a per-combat, per-scenario, or per-tournament basis, but will revert to the standards above thereafter. Alternate acknowledgment standards do not alter the allowed target areas, nor do they increase the basic force level for a telling blow. All combatants must be informed of any changes to standard blow acknowledgment before they participate in the combat.

Now, I understand you don't like the langage. It is 'An-Tir' centric based on the language. I guess I should scout out other kingdoms combat rules books and try to come up with a less 'kingdom specific language'. Tommorow!

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

That's what I'm saying.. the current "rules" assume a standard of armour, and a level of injury that we must visit upon our opponents... which is part of the reason for the knee thing in the first place: we're (inaccurately) acting out wounds.

Counted blows: No presumption of armour. A "stout" blow is a "stout" blow is a "stout" blow.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

It's pretty simple.

[Whitewolf Sr.]

Good Sir Vitus....

[Foxman]

That's what I'm saying.. the current "rules" assume a standard of armour, and a level of injury that we must visit upon our opponents... which is part of the reason for the knee thing in the first place: we're (inaccurately) acting out wounds.

Counted blows: No presumption of armour. A "stout" blow is a "stout" blow is a "stout" blow.

Hold up.

I've been assuming that our gaging for blows is unchanged. Are you suggesting that we ignore armour standards now?

I wrote the above with the assumption that we were only tweeking the combat system NOT re-writing it.

Edit:
What I wrote above could be consided the language that would be used to insert it into the An-Tir Book of Combat (ABC's). I chose that language as the smalled tweek possible. Short of copying the ABC sections above and insterting the Vitus system - which would use less language, but be longer overall with the copying.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Yeah, Donnan: Without rehashing the six some-odd threads that I started with my modest proposal, Knee-fighting to SOME DEGREE is dependent on the assumption that we're all wearing a chainmail hauberk, boiled leather arms and a nasal helm. That's why we assume that, a certain amount of force, delivered to a man thus armoured, would incapacitate or maim that man.

Counted blows doesn't assume any armour.

[Foxman]

Counted blows doesn't assume any armour.

To me the Vitus system doesnt change *how* we judge a blow. All it cares about is how we *accept* the blow.

That is we continue to use our blow judgement standards as normal, we just dont act out wounds.

If you try and move away from the current langage which *includes* things like 'disable/fatal' type langauge you are changing more than I think the Vitus system calls for.

[Ceadda]

hehehehehe

he said "vitus blow system".

hehehehehe

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Counted blows doesn't assume any armour.

To me the Vitus system doesnt change *how* we judge a blow. All it cares about is how we *accept* the blow.

That is we continue to use our blow judgement standards as normal, we just dont act out wounds.

If you try and move away from the current langage which *includes* things like 'disable/fatal' type langauge you are changing more than I think the Vitus system calls for.

That's because you're a horrid little schismatic who believes in appeasing the barbarian hordes. (JK)

Seriously, though, "disable/fatal" are the assumptions on which knee fighting/acted wounds was based, to a lesser or greater degree.

We act as if we've lost use of a limb BECAUSE we are assuming we've received what WOULD be a disabling wound through the ASSUMED armour standard. The presumed armour standard IS part of the blow acknowledgement mechanism. By movivg to counted blows, you're automatically getting rid of it.

It's unnecessary. And, frankly, it's a dangerous assumption: Duke Logan, Sir Vitus, Ulric and I (to name a few) respectfyully disagree with many other SCAdians regarding the amount of force that it would take to deliver a "killing" blow through a properly raised and case-hardened helm employing period suspension. You don't want me to hit you as if I was trying to "kill" you. Certainly not with a glaive, falchion or longsword, which are some of my fave toys.

[Eirik]

Ok so under the Vitus system, it takes two blows to disable your opponent if struck in the limbs and one if in the torso or head.

Not disable their limbs, but them as a whole. As in get them to quit trying to hit you with a stick.

Same target areas... but I'm not sure about the no armour standard thing. I understand that there is verbiage that states what we are assumed to be wearing... but that verbiage is what determines "a stout blow" vs any other. Does the Vitus system mean "armour as worn" stout blow or "same thing as chain over leather, but we're just not going to call it chain over leather, we're gonna call it "stout blow""?

[Vitus von Atzinger]

A blow that is disabling with steel is slightly too hard for our purposes. Rattan does an amazing job of saving you from serious sinjury.

It's about the way blows are accepted.

[Foxman]

Seriously, though, "disable/fatal" are the assumptions on which knee fighting/acted wounds was based, to a lesser or greater degree.

We act as if we've lost use of a limb BECAUSE we are assuming we've received what WOULD be a disabling wound through the ASSUMED armour standard. The presumed armour standard IS part of the blow acknowledgement mechanism. By movivg to counted blows, you're automatically getting rid of it.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I support trying out a new way of acknowledging/accepting/acting out blows.

You're trying to sneak in *why* we accept a blow into the defination.

I suspect that adding in additional little things like this may cause large problems down the line.

I suggest focus on one thing. *how* we accept the blow. If that goes through then tackle the windmill on *why* we accept the blow.

(and really at the end of the day arguing over why we accept the blow doesnt really matter - we still take the blow no matter *why* we take it)

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Don't change a damn thing about the way you throw blows or judge them worthy- that is between you, God and the populace.

The guy who loses can choose various ways in which to demonstrate the loss-

Offering your hand.
A salute.
A bow.
Offering the sword hilt ala' Logan.
He can even fall down if he wants.

DO I HAVE TO MAKE A YOUTUBE VIDEO WITH A SMALL "Vitus-style" LECTURE?

I will if I have to.

[Eirik]

A blow that is disabling with steel is slightly too hard for our purposes. Rattan does an amazing job of saving you from serious sinjury.

It's about the way blows are accepted.

Amen to that!

Ok, so if it's just semantics, and I don't have to shrug off shots to my "bare"ly defended skin because they didn't hurt quite bad enough to have penetrated 14th century steel, then I'll gladly accept the Vitus terms of combat should we meet upon the pick-up fields, and perhaps within the Lists, should the rules permit.

I, myself, still have much to learn of the basic system we fight now to adopt this on the whole, but have no issues helping with the experiment.
As I said before, I'm sure my knees will appreciate it... though I fear my lightly armoured arms may curse my foolishness...

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Seriously, though, "disable/fatal" are the assumptions on which knee fighting/acted wounds was based, to a lesser or greater degree.

We act as if we've lost use of a limb BECAUSE we are assuming we've received what WOULD be a disabling wound through the ASSUMED armour standard. The presumed armour standard IS part of the blow acknowledgement mechanism. By movivg to counted blows, you're automatically getting rid of it.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I support trying out a new way of acknowledging/accepting/acting out blows.

You're trying to sneak in *why* we accept a blow into the defination.

I suspect that adding in additional little things like this may cause large problems down the line.

I suggest focus on one thing. *how* we accept the blow. If that goes through then tackle the windmill on *why* we accept the blow.

(and really at the end of the day arguing over why we accept the blow doesnt really matter - we still take the blow no matter *why* we take it)

Fair enough. Frankly, without a LOT of testing (I sense that Nissan might be able to help with this), the discussion of how much force will kill/disable an armoured man is likely to drag on ad nauseum, anyway. Even then, short of testing this ON A PERSON, we'll never have complete empirical answers.

Hmmmmm...I need a coroner, several fresh pig carccasses, maille armour/gamb for the pigs, a rattan sword, a sharp of near-identical weight/balance and a mechanism for measuring the velocity of the weapons as they're swung.

The idea would then be to swing at a range of armoured SCA fighters with the rattan blade, allowing each to comment on the efficacy/level of the blows "ie. light, good, excessive". This will help us to establish a bell-curve to determine roughly what velocity that blade needs to be moving at to land a "good" blow.

We'd then swing at the armoured pigs with the sharp, hoping to land the blows within that same range of velocity that defines "good".

We'd get the coroner to examine the pigs and determine the efficacy of the blows delivered with the sharp.

Back on track, what does this mean for blow acknowledgement? Does the Vitus system still allow for "it hit my nasal"?

Sir Vitus?

It's not a perfect system, but it would give us a better idea of the force required to stop a person from continuing to fight.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

What guys want to wear is their problem.

If people take the armour standard seriously we would be getting broken all over the place.

In fights to the End the armour and the man must be defeated- you would not hold back at all or your blows wouldn't work.

This is why I asked if a good blow taken should be "unpleasant." If we take the armour standard and SCA concepts of injury literally we would all being going all-balls-out all the time.

I don't WANT Uther hitting me as hard as he can.

For the Beasts, 75% of total power makes the situation crystal clear!

That is why some guys get in trouble- their definition of a good blow is so finely-tuned and specific that they forget that most people have a much wider definition of something that is worth taking.

I have been fighting for so long now that I rarely can land a head blow with a single-handed sword that I consider a "perfect" shot because it's harder to tell from the strikers end of things. However, I have the ability to judge a blow that is thrown perfectly with much greater ease.

Is it edgewise?
Is it a surface slap or a drive-strike?
Does it hurt my leather-clad thigh?
Am I glad the sword I was hit with is made of rattan?
Did it bring me to a sudden state of attention? Did it snap me out of my plan for a second?

Some cats win Crown by making an honest mistake- they forget to insist that the opponent take the exact type of shot that they themselves are looking for. The wider definitions that their opponents have are very advantageous to these guys. This insistance on only accepting a PERFECT shot can accidently make them look like total douchebags when really the problem is that their definition is just very, very finely tuned.

This is how a guy can accidently ruin his reputation.

There are a few VERY rare loons who have used the Narrow -vs- Wide Interpretation to get what they want.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Never mind- you just answered me with "You, your God and the Populace"


Thank you.


So, MY PERSONAL FLAVOUR will be:

IF someone is willing to fight me Vitus System/In Modo Antiquo, Then I will ask then to deliver with uniform force across my whole body.

IF my opponent would prefer to fight the traditional way, I will take legs as kills and calibrate to the local understanding of the armour standard.

Either way, I will let my opponents know.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

That's what Thorvald the Golden did. He was the first fighter I ever saw offer 2 blows/no kneeling in the midst of a conventional SCA tourney.

The marshalls got pissed, but they didn't say shit because they KNEW it didn't really make a bit of difference- the better fighter on that day will usually win NO MATTER WHAT THE RULES ARE.

I don't see why you just can't take a leg as a kill- who would complain? Most people would be secretly pleased.

[Ingvarr]

So, MY PERSONAL FLAVOUR will be:

This is the big problem that you are going to have in getting a wide range of acceptance in this. Just right here on the archive, in less than a week, we have at least three different flavors and at least two different names. I'm a CAD Monkey for a living and something that I have stressed for a lot of years is standards. A standard that isn't adhered to isn't a standard. The use of multiple standards isn't a standard. If everyone has their own version of En Modo Vitiquo, it doesn't exist. I'm not trying to shoot it down, or disparage it, or you (plural). I think it's a swell concept but really think that taking the time up front to work everything out as much as possible before enthusiastic evangelism is probably beneficial.

[Foxman]

After reviewing the Kingdom of the West's and the Kingdom of the East's combat rules - it appears the language I used in the starting post appears to be correct. (An Tir/West/East all use the same language in the text).

That is its designed to fit into the current standard system rules with minimual fuss.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

So, MY PERSONAL FLAVOUR will be:

This is the big problem that you are going to have in getting a wide range of acceptance in this. Just right here on the archive, in less than a week, we have at least three different flavors and at least two different names. I'm a CAD Monkey for a living and something that I have stressed for a lot of years is standards. A standard that isn't adhered to isn't a standard. The use of multiple standards isn't a standard. If everyone has their own version of En Modo Vitiquo, it doesn't exist. I'm not trying to shoot it down, or disparage it, or you (plural). I think it's a swell concept but really think that taking the time up front to work everything out as much as possible before enthusiastic evangelism is probably beneficial.

Hmm. You make a great point.



I'll haul this over to "In Modo" And "testing" to see what the co-conspirators have to say

[Foxman]

This is the big problem that you are going to have in getting a wide range of acceptance in this. Just right here on the archive, in less than a week, we have at least three different flavors and at least two different names. I'm a CAD Monkey for a living and something that I have stressed for a lot of years is standards. A standard that isn't adhered to isn't a standard. The use of multiple standards isn't a standard. If everyone has their own version of En Modo Vitiquo, it doesn't exist. I'm not trying to shoot it down, or disparage it, or you (plural). I think it's a swell concept but really think that taking the time up front to work everything out as much as possible before enthusiastic evangelism is probably beneficial.

Yay Standards! Part of my reason for starting this thread was hopefuly to create a standard way of viewing/preseting the Vitus System.

I love Francisco like a brother, but he can be blunter than a mace sometimes

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

This is the big problem that you are going to have in getting a wide range of acceptance in this. Just right here on the archive, in less than a week, we have at least three different flavors and at least two different names. I'm a CAD Monkey for a living and something that I have stressed for a lot of years is standards. A standard that isn't adhered to isn't a standard. The use of multiple standards isn't a standard. If everyone has their own version of En Modo Vitiquo, it doesn't exist. I'm not trying to shoot it down, or disparage it, or you (plural). I think it's a swell concept but really think that taking the time up front to work everything out as much as possible before enthusiastic evangelism is probably beneficial.

Yay Standards! Part of my reason for starting this thread was hopefuly to create a standard way of viewing/preseting the Vitus System.

I love Francisco like a brother, but he can be blunter than a mace sometimes

Forthright. The term is forthright.

[Foxman]

Forthright. The term is forthright.

More like Forthleft

[Tristan vom Schwarzwald]

DO I HAVE TO MAKE A YOUTUBE VIDEO WITH A SMALL "Vitus-style" LECTURE?

I will if I have to.

I WILL TURN THIS CAR AROUND MISTER!

heh.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

AND YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

[Foxman]

So for the record the text in the orginal post works then right?