New SCA weapons Regs

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Thoughts, impressions, Rants? I didn't see anything about this yet, so figured I would help get the word out. This just came out over the Aethelmearc list, from our KEM. So new, they haven't hit the SCA.org website yet. Al of the BOLD and CAPS are changes.

VI. Armor Requirements
B. Helms
1. Helms shall be constructed from steel which has a thickness of no less than .0625 inch (1/16 inch or 1.6mm), or of equivalent material. Alternative materials, such as stainless steel, brass, bronze, or like materials, are permissible as long as the material is structurally equivalent to 0.0625-inch thick steel. The mass of the helm is an important part of the protection. As such, no titanium, fiberglass, aluminum, or other ultra-light materials may be used UNLESS THEY MEET THE EQUIVALENT MASS, STRENGTH, AND WEIGHT OF STEEL WHICH HAS A THICKNESS OF NO LESS THAN .0625 inch (1/16 inch or 1.6mm). PROOF OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, MATERIALS, AND EQUIVALENCY MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE KEM FOR AN APPROVAL FOR IN-KINGDOM USE. If a spun-metal top is to be used in the construction of the helm, it shall be a minimum of 0.0747 inch (14-gauge) steel. The process of spinning the top thins the metal, thereby requiring a heavier gauge.

VII. Weapon Standards
A. General
14. NO MASS WEAPON SHALL EXCEED 6' (1.8288 m ) IN LENGTH.

VII. Weapon Standards
B. Single Handed Weapons
3. If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials UNLESS THE ENTIRE HEAD AND HAFT ARE CONSTRUCTED FROM A SINGLE CONTIGUOUS PIECE OF RATTAN. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least a 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft.
4. No weapon may have A BUTT/POMMEL SPIKE OR a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.

VII. Weapon Standards
C. Two-Handed Weapons.
4. No weapon may have a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends. ONLY POLEARMS AND GREATSWORDS MAY HAVE BUTT/POMMEL SPIKES.
7. Total weapon length shall not exceed 12 feet (3.658 m) AND RATTAN SPEARS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 5 FEET (1.524 m).

D. Fiberglass Spears
7. Total spear length shall not exceed 12 feet (3.658 m) AND SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 5 FEET (1.524 m)

In addition this Glossary Entry in the Marshal Handbook was changed from
Single Handed Mass Weapons
to
Mass Weapons

XVIV. Glossary
B. Weapons
Mass weapons: maces, SOME axes DESIGNS, war hammers, or other weapons designed primarily to crush or punch holes (on account of the weight of the real weapons), rather than primarily to cut (on account of sharp edges on the real weapon). Maximum length for TWO-handed mass weapons is 6’ (1.8288 m ).

Upside is that they have gotten rid of madus, "bearded" axes that were held protecting the hand, and other stuff like that.

[LR of E]

Isn't a glaive considered a mass weapon? Therefore no glaives over 6'??

I bet the madu thing gets changed back soon..........

Morgan

[Milan H]

In changing these rules, did they define what a great sword is? I just looked and I did not see a definition anywhere in the the old rules. This hasn't come across any of the western lists I am on, so I am curious to see what it says.

Cheers,

[Thorsteinn Raudskeggr]

Joy.
Is this a Kingdom thing or a Society thing?

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

For the record, the first item above is in because of a couple of super awesome, totally safe cast aluminum mempos that a couple of tuchuks have been wearing at pennsic (one for over 16 years).

They were technically illegal until this was reworded.

I don't think this rewording quite outlaws a madu (I have no idea if it was intended to do so). I think you can still make an "unpadded polearm" with a butt spike and a basket hilt in the wrong place for hand protection. You can also use an upside-down greatsword with a "pommel spike".

I *think* it means that you cannot have a butt/pommel spike on a one handed weapon - but of course you can always use a two handed weapon in 1 hand (as you can if you are fighting two handed and get armed).

If VII.7 said that no two handed weapons at all could be <5' - that would outlaw madu type fighting for things < 5' long. But it only says spears.

[Duke Areus]

Upside is that they have gotten rid of madus, "bearded" axes that were held protecting the hand, and other stuff like that.

I don't see that anywhere.

[Cisco]

Upside is that they have gotten rid of madus, "bearded" axes that were held protecting the hand, and other stuff like that.

I don't see that anywhere.

I think he (Oswyn) is referring to outlawing of single handed weapons with spikes on both ends and 'short spears'.

[Chris G.]

For the record, the first item above is in because of a couple of super awesome, totally safe cast aluminum mempos that a couple of tuchuks have been wearing at pennsic (one for over 16 years).

They were technically illegal until this was reworded.

There is a lesson in this. If you think the rules can be improved, the marshalate is willing to listen to your evidence. From what I heard, the Tuchuxs came prepared with material test data and some reports to show the equivalence of their equipment's materials and construction techniques, and as such their request for the change was well received. Had they shown up and tried a "well I've gotten away with this for 16 years" argument, it might not have gotten anything changed.

[LR of E]

Your Grace,

simply as I read it......

4. No weapon may have A BUTT/POMMEL SPIKE OR a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.

Bolding is from original poster. Now an argument could be made to the definition of 'thrusting tip' and 'butt spike'. Is one one thing and the other another? Not sure myself. Don't have a dog in the fight on this myself, it's just another vaguely worded rule that is open for mis/interpretation.


Morgan

[Llywelyn]

yeah, arn't poles mass weapons? So that means there are no polearms over 6ft now? thats going to mess some people up. Going to make an even greater spread between spears and everyone else too.

I think a problem that could arise from the distinctions that this rule change makes is what makes a two handed weapon a two handed weapon. Is it because I am swinging it with two hands or is it because it CAN be swung with two hands. I know guys that are big and strong enough to wield greatswords one handed......Does that make it a single handed weapon all of a sudden.....What if I'm fighting greatsword and I grab someone elses haft...and try to swing my sword one handed...is it now a single handed weapon. Making rules overspecific to each weapon type can raise more problems that it is worth sometimes.

So personally, not a fan of the new rules....they don't make a lot of sense to me why we needed them or how they make the sport better.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

It would have been better to quote the other operative parts to keep people from getting momentarily confused:

VII. Weapon Standards
B. Single Handed Weapons

4. No weapon may have A BUTT/POMMEL SPIKE OR a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.


That would definitely mean no Madus.

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

As far as one vs two handed weapons, it already states that no single handed weapon can be over 48". So while it doesn't equivocally state what a two handed weapon is, it states what a one handed weapon cannot, aka. anything over 48" is a two handed weapon, regardless of how many hands are actually holding said object.

Also, to address someone above, this is from the SEM, disseminated through KEM to Aethelmearc's e-list.

[Ulrich Halfdan Ulfsson]

I thought poles were polearms and mass weapons were axes, maces, and hammers, anything with a mass head on the end.

4. No weapon may have A BUTT/POMMEL SPIKE OR a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends.

This makes me think that they are two different things, I don't see where you can't have a butt spike on one end and a cutting/smashing edge on the other end. I don't see where this would rule out the bearded axe as an off hand. I can still see the madu as long as it's over 48" long.

[Duke Areus]

Unless he was specifically saying Madu's I wouldn't get too much in to this one. Especially since all you have to do to make it legal is put a cross guard on it and call it an inverted greatsword,

[Godric of Castlemont]

Just to reiterate the question, is this a kingdom or a society level rule change?

[Ulrich Halfdan Ulfsson]

This looks to be a society change, which the kingdoms will have their variations of.

[Count Johnathan]

Upside is that they have gotten rid of madus, "bearded" axes that were held protecting the hand, and other stuff like that.

I don't see that anywhere.

Me either. I guess you have to want to see it for it to be in there LOL.

[dukelogan]

how about that madus are not period and not weapons used in european tournaments by nobles?

oh wait...... nevermind. thats just part of the charter or the sca, an organization we willingly joined. i mean why follow the rules? we also allow unpadded polearms which dont resemble any weapon under the same rules. i guess if we ignore the rules for one we should ignore them for everything.

regards
logan

[Tally]

how about that madus are not period and not weapons used in european tournaments by nobles?

oh wait...... nevermind. thats just part of the charter or the sca, an organization we willingly joined. i mean why follow the rules?

I suppose you want to get rid of Samurai as well, since they are not European.

Anywho, do these rules mean no rubber/talhoffer axe heads?

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Becuase these rules are meant to address materials / construction methods, not the historical accuracy of the weapons who used them?

how about that madus are not period and not weapons used in european tournaments by nobles?

oh wait...... nevermind. thats just part of the charter or the sca, an organization we willingly joined. i mean why follow the rules? we also allow unpadded polearms which dont resemble any weapon under the same rules. i guess if we ignore the rules for one we should ignore them for everything.

regards
logan

[olaf haraldson]

So this means that since my dane axe is primarily a cutting weapon, it is not considered a mass weapon, and can be over 6' and have a butt spike?

In addition this Glossary Entry in the Marshal Handbook was changed from
Single Handed Mass Weapons
to
Mass Weapons

XVIV. Glossary
B. Weapons
Mass weapons: maces, SOME axes DESIGNS, war hammers, or other weapons designed primarily to crush or punch holes (on account of the weight of the real weapons), rather than primarily to cut (on account of sharp edges on the real weapon). Maximum length for TWO-handed mass weapons is 6’ (1.8288 m ).

[JvR]

I bet the madu thing gets changed back soon..........

Morgan

That would be sad. Hell no one uses one anyway. They use some BS fantasy version of one. Hell the real one was small and going by SCA assumed armor standards. Its only useful for a face shot.

[dukelogan]

wow you make some real assumptions huh? since the charter of the sca clearly states "visitors to a european court" are cool why on earth would you make such a silly assumption?

i only talked about weapons, not personas. how could you even make such a stretch?

odd......

logan

how about that madus are not period and not weapons used in european tournaments by nobles?

oh wait...... nevermind. thats just part of the charter or the sca, an organization we willingly joined. i mean why follow the rules?

I suppose you want to get rid of Samurai as well, since they are not European.

Anywho, do these rules mean no rubber/talhoffer axe heads?

[dukelogan]

really? you think that you could drive an antler through a drape of maille? useful for a face "shot"? i really doubt it. besides, they are not even period according to our rules so why would it ever matter?


logan

I bet the madu thing gets changed back soon..........

Morgan

That would be sad. Hell no one uses one anyway. They use some BS fantasy version of one. Hell the real one was small and going by SCA assumed armor standards. Its only useful for a face shot.

[raito]

What do I think? Well...

While I understand the helm changes, I can't say as I like'em. Unless the KEM's are materials specialists or have access to such. And the ridiculous spun top rule is still there. It needs to die. Finished thickness is all that counts, not starting thickness.

VII B 3 is contradictory. It now allows for a head to be solely of rigid materials, but still requires it to have 1/2" give. Obviously a typo, but one of the sort that the standards committees I've been on would love, because it really doesn't change anything if left as-is. And, yeah, section 4 pretty much gets rid of single handed thingys that poke on both ends. Except that there's no minimum length on two-handed weapons, so nothing has really been outlawed by this, as there's nothing saying you can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand (but see below).

Sure spears now can't be less than 5 feet (take that assegais). So you make a short unpadded polearm. That also takes care of spears not being allowed butt spikes.

Unless you want to take an unusual route through the rules.

Note that the glossary states:

Polearms: hafted weapons, generally long, designed to be wielded with two hands (e.g., glaives, halberds, etc.).

and

IV A says:

Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design.

A clever man might say that means that a polearm may not be used in one hand, as it's designed to be wielded in one hand.

Really the same problems exists. The rules get changes apparently without dealing with how those changes affect the interaction of the rules as a whole.

And yeah, greatsword is not defined, which is a no-no.

[Gwain Ivorsson]

So where are these new rules posted....the November 2008 revision is still the one posted on the SCA web site.

Society just went through a revision and it has been out for less than 2 years and the changes were talked about for a long time before they were put out.

Is this an attempt at a Kingdom revision?

[Violen]

I dont mean to stir the pot but,

Greatswords shouldnt be more than six feet long. We can document swords that get close to six feet, but i dont think ive ever seen a "sword" outside of a final fantasy game that was more than six foot long.


I do wish they would change the handle length restrictions in my kingdom though, but thats just cause im fat.

Im working on getting not fat. prolly easier than changing my kingdoms' rulebook

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Yes, there were GS longer than 6', but they weren't common.

[Oscad]

Parsing is important. I have added parenthesis.

4. No weapon may have (A BUTT/POMMEL SPIKE) OR (a cutting and/or smashing surface at both ends).

So, if you have a single handed weapon, it can't have a pommel spike, period. It also can't have a cutting/smashing surface at both ends.
This will end the single handed madu and single handed axe/spike weapons.

It says single handed weapons can't be over 48", but technically, never says a two handed weapon can't be under 48". So yes, technically, you could have a 24" polearm, with a thrusting tip and butt spike.

OTOH, technically, I could take my current sword, that everyone in the entire SCA would recognize as a typical single handed sword, call it a polearm, and put a butt spike on it. Luckily, I don't feel the need for that level of douchebaggery.



For those locales that use madus, how long are they typically?

[Ulric]

I dont mean to stir the pot but,

Greatswords shouldnt be more than six feet long. We can document swords that get close to six feet, but i dont think ive ever seen a "sword" outside of a final fantasy game that was more than six foot long.

Sword of Edward III, 6 ft 8 1/4 inches
http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/archives/blog/?p=89

[Violen]

Holy Schnikes!


Just to make sure im right on this, that thing was definitely made to be used right? Not just a wall hanger? (regardless of its fate)

[Mikael]

I find the rules regarding polearms slightly confusing.

It would seem to allow building of longer than 6' polearms if they are "cutting" polearms.
So yes for 7' glaive, no for 7' bec-de-corbin and ambiguity for 7' bill.

I wonder if this is the correct reading - or if they simply wanted no longer pole arms than 6'.

I can leave with both readings - in fact 6' is my preferred length of pole. I don't like either reading though - around 7' has its uses and encouraging "glaives" is not the way I want to see most polearms going.

[Stephen du Bois]

VII. Weapon Standards
B. Single Handed Weapons
3. If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials UNLESS THE ENTIRE HEAD AND HAFT ARE CONSTRUCTED FROM A SINGLE CONTIGUOUS PIECE OF RATTAN. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least a 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft.

This change specifically addresses the maces that Master Niklos and I have been using. They are solid rattan and no progressive give is required. The change is made so we are no longer exploiting a loop hole.

Stephen

[Skutai]

VII. Weapon Standards
B. Single Handed Weapons
3. If the weapon has a head, it shall not be constructed of solely rigid materials UNLESS THE ENTIRE HEAD AND HAFT ARE CONSTRUCTED FROM A SINGLE CONTIGUOUS PIECE OF RATTAN. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at least a 1⁄2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and the weapon haft.

This change specifically addresses the maces that Master Niklos and I have been using. They are solid rattan and no progressive give is required. The change is made so we are no longer exploiting a loop hole.

Stephen

If the head and haft are made from a single piece of rigid rattan, how can it allow for progressive give? Or perhaps the second sentence should read "If the head and haft of the weapon are not contiguous then the head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft."

[Stephen du Bois]

I agree with Raito, I think that's a typo.