A marshalette question from Estrellla War

Sir Tristan Dragonheart · Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:59 pm

Hello everyone, I have a question that came up at Estrella.

So, I was fighting in the big gate in the castle with the gap to the left of me. The way I was fighting my back was completely facing the gap. The gap was about 8 feet behind me. I backed out of a shot from in front of me and stepped back so I was in full range of those in the gap. When I backed up into the gap a spearman hit me in back from the gap. (The gap was 8 feet wide and had a 4 feet wall in the middle so you had to fight over the wall.) Now by definition I am engaged with the whole line that is fighting outside of the gate but I was not engaged with those fighting in the gap. The guy who hit me told me not to take the shot because he hit me in the back but I guess he was right to hit me. I asked many marshals and former marshals if I was dead after the battle. Everyone told me that it is a grey area and that it was ok that he told me to continue to fight but I was probably dead.

So what do you all think? Was I dead, should I of taken the shot even after he told me not to take it or was it a illegal shot. I donâ€™t really know.
Hope I explained it right.

Sir Tristan Dragonheart (Atenveldt)

Blaine de Navarre · Post by **Blaine de Navarre** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:07 pm

He should have done a legitimate "kill from behind," you were not engaged.

Nissan Maxima · Post by **Nissan Maxima** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:10 pm

You had a situational awarness fail.

You were dead.

randver · Post by **randver** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:13 pm

if you new the gap was there and you new the spearmen where there. then it sounds like a legal shot to me

Sir Tristan Dragonheart · Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:21 pm

I didn't know how close I was to the gap. Also, i was not fighting thru the gap, it was behind me with the way I was fighting. If it was a basic field battle then we were all enaged, but this was a castle battle and I was not fighting against those in that area. Again it is a grey area.

CiaranBlackrune · Post by **CiaranBlackrune** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:42 pm

Blaine de Navarre wrote:He should have done a legitimate "kill from behind," you were not engaged.

I agree with that.

randver · Post by **randver** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:54 am

Sir Tristan Dragonheart wrote:I didn't know how close I was to the gap. Also, i was not fighting thru the gap, it was behind me with the way I was fighting. If it was a basic field battle then we were all enaged, but this was a castle battle and I was not fighting against those in that area. Again it is a grey area.

you new they where there in the gap, you just did not know you had backed in to spear range. then it is your fault for backing in to there range. and if you where 8' from the wall before you backed up. you never should have had your back to them since spears can reach more then 9' when thrusted.

you also went in to the room knowing the gap was there and that you would have to defend it too.

if they had snuck around to the gap while you where fighting and no one saw them then no they should not have just hit you from behind.

the gap had a wall in it so they could not have done a death from behind on you unless you backed all the way up against it.

Vlasta · Post by **Vlasta** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:10 am

Blaine de Navarre wrote:He should have done a legitimate "kill from behind," you were not engaged.

Agree.

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:20 am

I believe in Meridies, if you are aware of your opponent's presence (as defined by an acknowledgement), and they are within striking range, you are engaged. Position is not relevant to this. My understanding of "death from behind" is a way to kill while your opponent is NOT aware of your presence.

So... regardless of whether you knew there was a gap, and spearmen were likely, unless you knew that particular fighter was there, you were not engaged. If you did know about that particular spear, though, and simply backed into his/her range, then it is the fighter's obligation to maintain his engagements.

In any event, if it had been me and I'd been gigged from behind like that, then the spearman shouted "No! Don't take that!", I'd have kept fighting. I don't worry overmuch about it when my opponent says "no!".

Sean Powell · Post by **Sean Powell** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:28 am

Eirik wrote:So... regardless of whether you knew there was a gap, and spearmen were likely, unless you knew that particular fighter was there, you were not engaged. If you did know about that particular spear, though, and simply backed into his/her range, then it is the fighter's obligation to maintain his engagements.

By my understanding recognition is not dependent on recognizing the individual. It is dependent on recognizing the unit. As he has stated that he recognized that there was a unit to his back side all members of that unit are now engaged. That includes this spearman, any spearmen who join the unit after the unit has recognition and even any combat archers in the unit who have a range greater then the spearmen.

I like Nissans interpretation. Failure to maintain situational awareness and control => death. It's a war after all.

That said, I don't understand a spearman, or any fighter, who will intentionally take a shot that he feels to be illegal. I'll tell opponents to not take shots that glanced, skipped or I feel were off target but I'd rather simply not throw the shot if we are not properly engaged.

Just my thoughts,
Sean

randver · Post by **randver** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:08 am

Sean Powell wrote:That said, I don't understand a spearman, or any fighter, who will intentionally take a shot that he feels to be illegal. I'll tell opponents to not take shots that glanced, skipped or I feel were off target but I'd rather simply not throw the shot if we are not properly engaged.

Just my thoughts,
Sean

i know alot of spearmen that would have taken the shot. but they would have thrown it just hard enough to get the persons attintion, but not hard enough to kill. so that the fighter turns around and sees them. then they start taking shots to kill.

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:09 am

Thanks, Sean.. that is my point exactly. There is a difference between a potential for oponents and having folks actively fighting there.

I think we split hairs on the unit/individual thing. I say the 9' spear gains active engagment before the 36" swords in the shield wall. Obviously, if one is engaged with the spears, one is engaged with the entire unit... but then the quandry didn't involve "I was attacked by an entire unit from behind", just a single spear.

I was trying not to go with the whole "why'd he throw a blow he thought was illegal" thing............ as obvious as it seems.

Ouzel Von Schwartzwolfe · Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:08 pm

sounds like they had a split force one group/unit to your front and one to your back, you had engagment with the group/unit to your front but not to the one to your back. so the spear in the force/unit to your back needed to make engagment with you before he hit you with a killing blow, or he does a death from behind (very hard to do with a spear) just hitting you because you backed into range is the same as if he ran up behind you and hit you with any weapon without getting engagment first. it does not count and should not have been made.

blackbow · Post by **blackbow** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:12 pm

At Gulf Wars, it's usually announced before the castle battle starts that "everybody inside the castle is engaged with everybody outside the castle." it makes sense, since there's no way you can guarantee eye contact with your opponent. Personally if I get hit in that sort of situation I just take it, but if they hollered at me and told me not to i'd just grin, wave, and keep going.

JB

Dauyd · Post by **Dauyd** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:16 pm

IMHO- (I've seen similar situations on the rapier field)- You're both dead.

You're dead for failing in your situational awareness and letting yourself get killed.

The other guy is dead for breaking the rules of engagement and striking with an illegal blow.

widow montoya · Post by **widow montoya** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:49 pm

Regardless of the rules of engagement, we don't hit people in the back by SCA rules. This is one of those weird places where realism runs into our safety regulations. So you would not be dead, and he made a big oops.

It sounds, though, like he realized the oops (and may have fired from a partially obscured line of sight where he didn't immediately register which way you were facing) and apologized.

So it seems like it should be a "no harm, no foul, everyone be more aware of what's going on" moment. The fundamental issue is that we get some weird battlefield layouts at times, and that everyone should just try to do their best to pay attention, but be courteous and try to fix it if they mess up. Sounds like you guys were both courteous, so I don't see a problem with everyone still being alive.

Just my take.

igelkott · Post by **igelkott** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:59 pm

I agree that everyone inside is automatically engaged with everyone outside. If you are near a wall of a castle you can be hit from any opening in a castle. However, once a fighter "crosses over" and is now in enemy territory, standard unit engagement rules apply.

You should be dead, but the fighter rescinded his shot and told you that you are alive. So it's up to you at that point.

Chris

blackbow · Post by **blackbow** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:10 am

WM: change that quote to "we don't hit unaware people in the back by SCA rules" and I'll go along with it.

JB

widow montoya wrote:Regardless of the rules of engagement, we don't hit people in the back by SCA rules. This is one of those weird places where realism runs into our safety regulations. So you would not be dead, and he made a big oops.

It sounds, though, like he realized the oops (and may have fired from a partially obscured line of sight where he didn't immediately register which way you were facing) and apologized.

So it seems like it should be a "no harm, no foul, everyone be more aware of what's going on" moment. The fundamental issue is that we get some weird battlefield layouts at times, and that everyone should just try to do their best to pay attention, but be courteous and try to fix it if they mess up. Sounds like you guys were both courteous, so I don't see a problem with everyone still being alive.

Just my take.

Palymar · Post by **Palymar** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:48 pm

blackbow wrote:WM: change that quote to "we don't hit unaware people in the back by SCA rules" and I'll go along with it.

JB

widow montoya wrote:Regardless of the rules of engagement, we don't hit people in the back by SCA rules. .

I can't agree even with that modification blackbow.

I would agree that we should not hit un-engaged people in the back (or front for that matter) But want determains who is engaged and who is not has always been a huge source of contention for many many years. And it differs from kingdom to kingdom.

To answer the original question - if that happened at Pennsic, you would be dead. You walk into a limited front style battle, you need to be aware of what is going on around you.
But what the rules might be at Estrella, I have no clue.
Though the fact that no one could give you a concrete answer is .... interesting.

Blaine de Navarre · Post by **Blaine de Navarre** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:16 pm

Palymar wrote:But what the rules might be at Estrella, I have no clue.
Though the fact that no one could give you a concrete answer is .... interesting.

I looked up the Estrella rules, and they don't say anything about "engagement" as such, which surprised me; they do state killing from behind is allowed and spell out the procedure. I believe rules of engagement have been addressed in past years' treaties, but perhaps I am mistaken and it has always been more a matter of custom.

Speaking as a warranted Caidan marshal who has marshalled and fought in Estrella wars since before they were "Estrella" wars (anyone else remember "Kitty Box" I and II?), I am quite familiar with the custom, and will state that there is a difference between being aware that there are opposing units behind you and being engaged with said units. This situation called for the weapon on the shoulder and a loud "dead from behind," not an actual strike from behind.

Johann ColdIron · Post by **Johann ColdIron** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:18 am

Nissan Maxima wrote:You had a situational awarness fail.

You were dead.

That's how I play as well. Death by embarrassment. Might not be the way the rules are written but if I am caught by tide of war unaware then I am dead.

Apollonian · Post by **Apollonian** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:44 am

Johann ColdIron wrote:
Nissan Maxima wrote:You had a situational awarness fail.

You were dead.

That's how I play as well. Death by embarrassment. Might not be the way the rules are written but if I am caught by tide of war unaware then I am dead.

I'm reluctant to agree with Nissan, so I will agree with Johann.

D. Sebastian · Post by **D. Sebastian** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:17 pm

but then the quandry didn't involve "I was attacked by an entire unit from behind", just a single spear.

Is the spear part of the unit (weapons support range)?
If so, it *is* the unit and not the spear. Line engagement dictates.

If I run up to your line and turn around, you can hit me in the back.
(I may have lost track of you, but we are still engaged -- until a disengagement or loss of engagement.)

Give the circumstances you presented, I would have called myself dead and left the field.