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

[D. Sebastian]

I had an idea that I'd like to offer for dissection amongst the rattan crowd.

There have been several discussions regarding some areas adopting Declared Death From Behind. The protractors argue that it adds 'realism' and is safer and more sportsman like; the detractors counter that DDFB is counter to the spirit of the game where WE decide the blow and robs one of an honorable death.

IIRC, the most common complaint from the DDFB crowd is 'shots thown to ones back' (body, head, etc).

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.

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...


Please discuss. Constructive comments will be appreciated.


[edited to emphasise the proposal text]

[jester]

Hmm....

I like death from behind: striking your opponent a telling blow while he is not facing you. I have played with this convention in Markland and in SCA-style combat with friends. It works nicely. We sometimes get frayed tempers, but since we are friends we work it out. And that's why it doesn't work in the SCA. People get competitive, with relative strangers, and tempers flare.

Declared Death From Behind is a really nice compromise. I have played with this convention in the Outlands and it works very well. It eliminates the temper flaring that arises with striking telling blows against an unaware opponent. It doesn't remove any options. Those that choose to ignore the convention can tap their opponent on the shoulder to make them aware of their presence and fight it out. DDFB rewards flanking manuevers in open field battles and adds an element of realism.

I don't think that allowing blows to be thrown from behind, in an SCA context, is a good thing. It causes too many problems. Even DDFB has people who weasel by turning to engage you before you can finish saying "You are dead from behind my lord". This also places an undo burden on polearm users. As it stands, with DDFB, we simply make our opponent aware of our presence. If you interpret this as a war (or judicial combat or any other 'to the death') scenario, then you have killed your opponent. If you interpret this in a formal combat (tournament, pas, hastilude, behourd, etc...) scenario then you have made your opponent aware that you have bested him (by arriving at a position from which you could, if you chose, strike him without any possibility of defense).

So I don't think DDFB needs to be modified to make it more honorable and I think that allowing folks to strike from behind will cause problems.

Just my opinion.

[D. Sebastian]

I approached this problem from my vantage:
the view of someone who dispises "declared death" from any angle and addressed the reasons why in order to make DFB palatable to me.

The only real sticking point for me is the "placing" a weapon on me. I want to be hit! But like others, not outside of engagement.
On top of that, I would be glad to die from a wrap, thrust or spike landing on my front that was thrown from behind me.

The above would make DFB ok for me (me thinks - it looks good on paper) and rewards flanking tactics.

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


If the weather holds I think I will ask my practice group to try this with me as the target to see how I feel about it while / after being "frontally blind-sided".

[Animal]

If you're gonna have 'battles' where people flank, death from behind is a good thing. As long as people dont take advantage of their superior position by whaling on the defenseless folks. This adds the dimension of tactics and mobility to the game.
The point about taking the choice away from someone is odd to me. I never saw it as a choice. When I'm struck a good blow I take it. I dont debate it.
In the third field battle someone worked their way behind me and gakked me in the kidney so hard I caught a cramp, so death from behind is obviously on people's minds.

[D. Sebastian]

If you're gonna have 'battles' where people flank, death from behind is a good thing.

DECLARED death from behind? or what I described in the initial post?

The point about taking the choice away from someone is odd to me. I never saw it as a choice. When I'm struck a good blow I take it. I dont debate it..

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

[jester]

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

How hard shall I strike you? As hard as I usually do when I might need to blow through some of your defense? Just enought to let you know I'm there? How much is that?

Not trying to be snarky or difficult, but these are questions that must be answered with death from behind. DDFB neatly sidesteps all these questions. I let you know that I am behind you, and could have gakked you, and you aknowledge this by conceding the fight.

[Skutai]

"I have played with this convention in Markland and in SCA-style combat with friends. It works nicely."

I also have experience with DDFB in Markland and I don't think it worked nicely at all. More often than not it was a way for a teenager in next to no armor to run around picket-fencing people he had little chance of defeating face to face. That's not to say that an SCA version couldn't be made more palatable, but the Markland version as it stands is, in my opinion, shameful and part of the reason I left Markland for the SCA.

The delivery of a blow, from behind, to a fighter's front seems interesting, but to me the "honorable death" isn't the issue - it's that everyone on the field should fight honorably at all times. Here's my favorite passage from sca.org:

"The first, and most important rule, is that each and every fighter on the field has honor."

In my humble opinion that extends to how a fighter should act on the field. I don't think I could adhere to that basic rule if I snuck up behind someone and laid my best wrap across their abdomen. It's a sneak attack, pure and simple.

[D. Sebastian]

you could come up behind me and throw wraps, thrusts* and butt-spikes*
Throw whatever you want - just make it land on my front (not side, front).

To address your question (which is valid) how hard...
We come to the first crossroad.

My initial thought is full calibration. A fully calibrated to the side or back of my mellon thrown from behind (IMHO) would result in a very different reaction than a fully calibrated wrap that lands on my grill (or a positive force pokie).

That being said, I think I'd treat someone engaging me (as described) from behind with much more liberal calibration.

"Throw hard, take medium"?

[D. Sebastian]

"The first, and most important rule, is that each and every fighter on the field has honor."

This also may be for another thread, however...
I think we all agree on the basic and core tennants of Honor.
However, to me, placing a sword on my grill and telling me that I'm dead does not honor me. I'd never do it. I dread it happening for what it robs me of.

In my humble opinion that extends to how a fighter should act on the field. I don't think I could adhere to that basic rule if I snuck up behind someone and laid my best wrap across their abdomen. It's a sneak attack, pure and simple.

On topic...
In a way thats not what I'm advocating.
2 lines converge so thatthere is great chaos. You, cleaving through your foes as you move forward, happen upon another fighter in the tangled mix who's back is to you. Here is where line engagement comes into play. Some would find a way to say there is no engagenment while others would find engagement if both are part of the lines/weapon range/etc (work with me here). Instead of "You're dead, neener-neener" (just adding color), you throw a solid wrap into the front of that not-facing-you-but-probably-engaged fighter.

The fighter calls good and falls dead knowing he died like a warrior, but wasn't rudely smacked in the back of the head.

Make sence?

[Skutai]

I think I understand your position. In the example you describe there would seem to be plenty of room for delivering blows to someone caught in the mix. Two lines engaged, after all. I've seen that sort of situation many times, and more often than not the fighter put into the hopeless situation simply concedes without the need for a DDFB rule.

I'm not so concerned about whether or not everyone feels they were given an honorable death, so much as I'm concerned that everyone behaves honorably while they deliver telling blows.

How can a blow delivered to a fighter that doesn't know I'm there be honorable? In my philosophy of combat in the SCA, it can't.

...

On a side note, I shudder to think of some of the brutal shots that could be delivered to people not looking. I can take a hit from a Duke-and-a-half if I have a chance to react/roll with it/be water to his mountain/etc.., but if I'm just standing there and some fool wraps me across the gut... man, I dunno.

[jester]

"The first, and most important rule, is that each and every fighter on the field has honor."

This also may be for another thread, however...
I think we all agree on the basic and core tennants of Honor.
However, to me, placing a sword on my grill and telling me that I'm dead does not honor me. I'd never do it. I dread it happening for what it robs me of.

A subject for a different thread. Honor is just reputation. Your opponent honors you by taking the field with you. He is courteous to you by letting you know, without gakking you, that you have been bested.

[Johann ColdIron]

However, to me, placing a sword on my grill and telling me that I'm dead does not honor me. I'd never do it. I dread it happening for what it robs me of.

Actually he's doing you a favor. If they are in a place they can wrap their sword around your head and you didn't know it- then they are in a place where they could really hurt you if conventions allowed them to throw a full force blow.

Having had my ribs seperated by a full spear thrust to the back in a confusing woods engagement -I would prefer being told that I have been bested. I would have been able to fight the rest of the war that way(years ago)

I agree that "picket fencing" as Skutai put it does no one any good. But a legitimate means by which you could make someone know that they are finished would help. Our battles already swirl like the tidy bowl because there is little fear of enemys in the back field if they can't kill you if you aren't facing them.


Want Honor? Then do your best not to get flanked! Very Period

[D. Sebastian]

Actually he's doing you a favor.

First, it does not honor me to DDFB me. You insult me with it. I would perfer to be unchivalourously gacked from behind than to be told I'd dead.

Thats just me.

I will not DDFB you, instead I will (per Society rules) bind/distract you until you are slain by my team mates or turn to engage me.

How can a blow delivered to a fighter that doesn't know I'm there be honorable?

I KNOW that you are on the field and I am proposing a convention where I say: "If you find yourself behind me you may engage me, provided your blow lands infront of me and I am not grappled. Honor me with a warriors death or wait till I turn to face you.


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.

On a side note, I shudder to think of some of the brutal shots that could be delivered to people not looking. I can take a hit from a Duke-and-a-half if I have a chance to react/roll with it/be water to his mountain/etc.., but if I'm just standing there and some fool wraps me across the gut... man, I dunno.

I would like to discuss further the point about Ducal wrap to the belly. I'm not concerned about this, though I have much confidence in my armour.
I'd rather be wrapped in the belly than in the ass.
(Ass wrap = followed by the bunny hop)
(Belly wrap = )

Would a "wrap to grill" change your thinking in this regard?

But a legitimate means by which you could make someone know that they are finished would help.

So, If I were to come behind you and shout "ENGARDE!" or "DEFEND YOURSELF" prior to starting my shot, would that change your thinking in this regard?

[D. Sebastian]

Please note: my tone may sound empassioned, BUT I am VERY grateful for your involvement in this discourse. My tone should be assumed positive.

My intent is to explore a possible bridge between DDFB and something more akin to landed blows.

[dukelogan]

having never seena need for anything but the tap on the shoulder, the guy turns around, and we fight, its hard for me to imagine the shot to the front. sounds good by me. but im all for allowing us to hit people from behind. all this talk of realism lacks in comparison to allowing full contact blows from behind. but im happy with the idea of the strikes to the front as well.

regards
logan

[Johann ColdIron]

I assumed you were remaining positive in your discourse. I plan to as well

Thanks for keeping us on topic- With so many voices it can drift abit

Blows thrown at the front of someone while "engaged" from the rear- I see no way for spearman or most poleweapons to do this safely. Since flanking is often done with spears there would need to be some facility for this

Shouting Engarde!- This is what I already do when flanking groups as I bind there weapons. The biggest problem with this is: There will always be People who will ignore you/refuse eye contact in hopes of slipping out of range before engaging you. You have essentially lost your initative while
warning them.

The rules could work with full engagement from the rear. While I could play that way with my gear, I think there would be too many injuries resultant from disimilar armor construction. Not everyone is as confidant(or should be) in their armor as you and I. There would be a huge demand for back plates and possibly the need to require them.

Killing from behind is a perfectly Medieval thing to do. Some of the best routs in history come from flanking manuvers. I just don't need to have a crushing blow delivered from the rear to know I am Tactically Dead(tm) if not physically so. I would prefer to be told in some fashion. If you flank me to the point where I can't leave I'll die from embarrasment! It should NEVER happen.


I also see the distinction you are making about 'honorable" combat but I question your inference that ANYONE on the field can take away your honor with their actions(my interpretation of your words). I believe I am the only one who's actions affect my honor.


Gotta go Home, The day is done

Yo

[gargoyle]

I was on a bridge fighting for the Middle this year at Pennsic. I was near the rear of our unit holding back the East. There was a fighter before me that I 'killed' with my weapon. Several blows came from behind me against the 'dead' warrior. I placed my weapon over his head and yelled, "He's dead, he's dead, stop hitting him!" I turned shouting,
"He's dead" and discovered that the 'warriors' (8-10) behind me all were from the East. I added, "and so am I," placed my weapon over my head and exited the field. That was the easiest 'DFB' I ever had. I support DFB. They could have hurt me and didn't. I still support DFB.

[Uilleag]

D. Sebastian,

I don't mind getting hit either. If I did, I wouldn't play a sport that includes hitting/getting hit with a stick. The overall problem I see is that part of our defense, and the reason why we have so few injuries, (comparitively) is that we are hitting aware/moving targets.

I once had a customer that informed me that the armour I made for them didn't pass muster because they allowed themselves to be gauged while standing still and completely defensless. I don't know of any armour that could withstand a full fledged hit without transfering the energy somewhere. If you are unaware of the attack, you are not moving/defending against it. There is too much of a possibility for injury there, imo. If I don't know you're there, I'd rather not be hit by you. That sometimes happens in skirmish lines, and I can live with that, but to allow someone to throw a wrap to my torso or head, (or anywhere else for that matter) while I'm unaware, is not something I would want.

[Keidale of Rose]

Well,

How about a solid, but not bashing thrust from behind in the torso and then declare them dead. It lets them know they are dead, and those who try to turn and get out of the DDFB can't.

As far as those who are armoured "society standard" well, thats on them for coming out so unprotected. I mean, they did sign the waiver.

I think if the idea is widely understood before a battle starts, then I don't think there would be too much of a problem. As said in another post, "it would be very medieval" and thus add more to the fight. As we strive for honorable combat in the SCA, we are spoiled because we don't have death from behind. Medieval knights from way back when would really appreciate it.

[Kaliban]

I have to disagree with Skutai on this since I do play in Markland an Sca .. playing in markland with this rule has given me better battlefeild awareness .. Yes there are some youngins who are going to run around the outside an try to get you from behind but thats what your flanking guys are for ..

I have seen the good an bad an been on the receiving end of it myself .. But it keeps you on your toes .. an if you did manage to get behind the enemy lines you should have a chance to use that advantage ..

And Skutai please do not use that for your reason for leaving markland .. nothing personal ..

[Owen]

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.

Exactly how am I supposed to do that with a spear? Or a polearm, for that matter?

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

My opinion:

No need to strike from behind. Simply place your weapon on your opponent's shoulder against the helm, (with the tip in front of his face or eyes?), and declare him dead. It conforms to the Rules of Engagement yet makes one stay aware of who is behind him. I recently found myself spun around in a twisted line and ended up facing my own side. DDFB would have let me know I was dead, whereas a physical blow simply registered as a mis-directed shot or one I fouled. As it was, I acted as a tree would, blocking action on both sides until I realised my error and turned (promptly getting killed).

There should be a way to kill an opponent from behind, but in a safe way. I don't see how a wrap to the face or belly can be made with anything but a sword, and that could be tough in some line engagements.

[D. Sebastian]

Exactly how am I supposed to do that with a spear? Or a polearm, for that matter?

How do you do it now with the Society engagement rules?
Other than binding, you can't.

How do you DDFB with a spear?
You can't.

What I'm proposing would not change that, you could still bind. BUT, you could also butspike with a pole.

[img]http://www.honorblade.com/stuff/DSC00008.JPG[/img]



Geoffrey of Blesedale

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.

[D. Sebastian]

I changed the name of the thread to:
telling blows from behind? (was: SCA Engagement Discourse).

[Asbjorn Johansen]

I don’t see a significant difference in the potential risks of hitting someone who is unaware of you in the front or on the back. Either shot can be done so that it is relatively “niceâ€Â

[Maeryk]

My initial thought is full calibration. A fully calibrated to the side or back of my mellon thrown from behind (IMHO) would result in a very different reaction than a fully calibrated wrap that lands on my grill (or a positive force pokie).

Just my .02, but from a safety perspective, I would worry about this. A) I wouldnt want to be the guy who just took a hard pole from the left, and then catches a face shot from behind while trying to regain my balance, and B) how still do you typically stand when throwing? I tend to dodge and weave a lot.. so your "shot" to my front, (without me knowing its coming) could end up hitting any number of interesting places if I suddenly shift direction due to what is going on ahead of me.

I think theres quite a few safety considerations to think about here..

And also, remember, do you _want_ that one 400 lb guy with the WUGH! stick who has no real respect for the rules or you in the first place, to suddenly have carte blanche to go ape on you from behind? At least now, if he does it, he's in trouble.. in your system if he does it and drives your head down into your spine an inch or two, it becomes "oops. sorry", and thats about it.

Maeryk
(Not alltogether opposed to the idea, just mulling through possiblities)

[Asbjorn Johansen]

How do you do it now with the Society engagement rules?
Other than binding, you can't.

How do you DDFB with a spear?
You can't.

There are no Society level melee/engagement rules. Just an admonition not to strike a helpless opponent. (I'd quote the rule but my computer seems to be have issues with pdf's at the moment).

You can do DFB with a spear, it is just awkward because normally you have to choke up on the spear to get the guy’s attention. The strike in the front disallows even this. 360 degree strikes would solve that and make it less awkward then DFB with a spear. (once again the safety trade off though).

[Greylond]

How do you DDFB with a spear?
You can't.

Funny.. I've done it a number of times in Caid. You simply lay the haft on the spear one your opponent's shoulder, so the spear head is easily within their view. The usual declaration then takes place.

[jester]

Same in the Outlands. Place your spear (or pole) on their shoulder such that the point sticks out in front of them so that when they turn their head they will see it. Make the declaration. Works like a charm.

[Stahlgrim]

Hey Cuz
Good subject for discussion.
Personaly I have always just walked up behind the guy tied up his weapon with my polearm and let the guy in front of him kill him.now I know a lotta ya are going to say it's not honorable but it is the easiest way I have found to avoid the whole problem of engagment and hurt feelings and flared tempers and all. Most guys look at me and say thanks Stahlgrim I know how hard you hit and I am glad ya didn't smack me upside the head. I have only ever run into one person who had a problem with it and she wasn't one of the fighters I encumbered she was across the gym with a line of six foot guys between her and the action. Also she is an idiot.Now the two fighters I had steped between and laid my polearm down across their sword and sheild arms were a little confused but didn't have a problem with the tactic. I personaly don't like to hit guys from behind with a GOOD shot. because a good shot varies too much in the sca and if I hit with what I consider a good shot there is a good chance of a concusion or an overnight Hospital stay. I take anything that lands from behind cause I figure the dude is being nice and has done me the favor of not seperating my head from my shoulders.DDFB is anoying and while I don't agree with it I can see the safety considerations it provides.as to honorable I couldn't say. I have always seen alot more gray areas in fighting then black and white when honor is disscussed. if you do something that is allowed by the rules and you don't break the rules, in my book you have behaved with Honor

[Sean Powell]

If someone wraps a sword accross my grill in a meele and I am not activly engaged with an honorable fight with another opponant I'l probably say "Thanks, good" and drop to the ground. I have done so in the past. There are other melee's to fight in later. It dosn't have to be any harder than the positive motion of a thrust to the face. I'm not sure of the effect on pole weapons but it would cut down on "Picket fencing" (you should have had someone watching your backfield for the flank attack anyway. That kid could have been a thug with an attitude and flaky knowledge of rules of engagement)

I would prefer a DDFB or almost any other convention to the East Kingdom 180 degree engagement rule. My fighting stance for sword and shield rotates my shoulders at least 45 degrees and probably 60 degrees from the line of combat (up to 90 while swinging). It was an unplesant experience when a perfectly legal pole arm landed in the armpit and took me out of fighting for the day.

I would rather a polite hit and the opportunity to do it again than either touch, you're dead or "doing me the honor" of breaking my spine and keeping me from doing anything fun for quite a while.

Sean

[Konrad_von_Dubrau]

I was Earl Marshal of Ealdormere when we went Kingdom and DDFB was something we considered for the new Kingdom. I spoke to the fighters and polled their opinion and we ended up doing a number of melees over a few months that gave people a chance to try using it.

In the end we decided not to add DDFB to the Kingdom rules because most of the fighters didn't find DDFB to be as fun or challenging as actually beating their opponents. People seemed to want to fight each other more than they wanted to have a more tactical ruleset.

I can't say they I disagree. I fight because I like to fight, more fighting is better.

My 2 cents.

Konrad

[Richard de Scolay]

One thought has struck me as I read the first half of this thread.

People say that someone killing them from behind isn't honorable because the person hasn't "bested" them in a fair fight and that doing so takes away from their opportunity to prove their worth.

This only makes since when you view field battles or melees as a competition involving many one-on-one fights, like a big bear pit tourney. When in reality you are part of a unit and when your unit is flanked, then you're unit has been "bested" through superior numbers and/or tactics. Your honor comes from what you accomplished before your death, not from the final fight that results on your death.

The question of death from behind seems to boil down to how to safely let you know that you've been defeated.

[Greylond]

Excellent point, Richard.

Why, if I manage to take your arms, thus leaving you defenseless is it honorable for me to then kill you, but if I manage to defeat several of your teammates and place myself in such a position that you are completely unaware of my presense and thus defenseless, is it dishonorable for me to kill you?

(That's a rhetorical 'you', not Richard specifically)

This is definitely one of those 'regional language' things.

[D. Sebastian]

The problem I had with the 180 rule was full force engagements from 190 degrees.

I also understand the "hitting an unprepared target" arguement.



So, the majority of the opinion thus far has been that there is a undesireable tradeoff of safety to allow for a blow to be thrown from behind. As my desire is to build an acceptable bridge between the pro-DDFB (hate you guys [img]http://www.honorblade.com/phpBB/images/smiles/016.gif[/img]) and the anti-DDFB crowd, allow me to shift thread gears now and propse the following:

You come up behind an opponent. You throw a tap (doubble taps?) your opponent's helm and declare "FROM BEHIND!" allowing him to yield (fall) or respond and continue the fray. Then you may bind them, or wrap / stab (pokie, but spike) their grill - until you or they manuver to normal engagment.

Also put yourself into the shoes of the opponent.



Would this or an alternate of this concept work?
Why? Why not?

Is there an alternative that would be better?