The Armour Archive

dukelogan wrote:a hold was called and i moved a few steps forward and leaned over the wall and yelled out to his then majesty ie falcon that our troops had the front and his right side. i suggested he might head to his left (we had about 100 to his personal guard of around 15). anyway, thought it might help him last a wee bit longer. lay on was called and as i leaned on the post watching his brave men fall to the huge crowd engulfing them i felt a very hard/sharp strike to the base of my neck. i turned around and the little guy with the crossbow waved at me from the tower. i said "hey i thought you all yielded" and he said, "not me, i ducked". one of my guys took off to run up their and club the shit out of him..... i almost didnt stop him.

Ah. I see. Behavior like that should never be tolerated. I wish you would have sent someone to give him the baby seal treatment.

However, Your Majesty, with respect, what of it? There are d!ckheads in armour holding all manner of weapons, not just bows.

Why, I can remember a Kingdom Crusades several years ago where a certain duke - not you! not you! - took four spear thrusts to the face from me, the last one of which damn near sent him ass over teakettle. I know they were solid, he knew they were solid. I was standing right in front of him. This guy has a reputation for different calibration depending on the color of your belt.

Should we ban all dukes as unchivalrous? Or should we simply sanction bad behavior?

There are any number of stories like yours, they don't solve anything and they're not proof of anything except that bad behavior exists.

Banning an activity won't stop bad behavior. Publicly sanctioning that bad behavior will.

Respectfully,

Bob

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

As a Duke and Knight, I do not have a simple choice to vote with my feet as other fighters so. I have an obligation to lead, and one to help my Kingdom to win.

Leading the boycott of archery would be one way of leading.

CA in its current inherently unsafe form and obnoxious usage should simply disappear. Should I have the honor to sit the throne again, it will.

But then there are more ... direct ... ways of leadership...

Steve

I apologize that you simply don't get it.

I can not fight because something isn't safe, and my reputation and position are looked down upon.

I can not fight and lead a "boycott" of a battle my King has asked me to fight in, and I am no longer worthy of wearing my belt.

g-

sha-ul wrote:crazy question here, but weren't period tournaments developed as a way for soldiers to hone their skills with out losing you best & brightest, much like the war games that the armed forces participate in.
Archery was a FACT in the period battle field, would it not be logical that some period Melees might have had a form of ca so that the men& animals would be prepared, much like our troops doing live fire exercises,& teargas drills.

I have read a fair amount regarding historical tourneys and deeds of arms etc.
I have not read of a single account involving CA

D. Sebastian wrote:I asked earlier but did not get an answer:
Could a bow be made of a length of rattan?
Would it work worth a damn?

D. to answer you question

http://www.legiodraconis.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=20&page=1

white mountain armoury wrote:I have read a fair amount regarding historical tourneys and deeds of arms etc.
I have not read of a single account involving CA

They did ban it early on, so it must have been used at some point. That was probably when they were more like little wars and if you lost one week, you'd bring more retainers the next time to kick the other guy's butt back...

Balin50 wrote:

blackbow wrote:Wait a minute, everybody. You can't have it both ways. You can't stand there and comment that "arrows were useless against chainmail" and simultaneously say that missile weaponry ended the age of chivalry that we in the SCA hold so dear. I dare say that missile weapons were quite prevalent before the age of chivalry, during the age of chivalry, and well after the age of chivalry.

I agree with a couple of other people on here - this discussion boils down to "what are we doing?" tournament melees, or revisiting wars as best we can?

The answer is pathetically easy. Set up a war, double the fighting, include CA in half of it. Them what want to fight a war will show up to both. Them what want to tournament melee will show up to half. Voila.

Blackbow

Johno wrote: Missile weaponry ended the age of chivalry that we in the SCA hold so dear.

It's more the missile weapon arms race that outstripped the armorers craft to protect that help to end the age of chivalry. When the missiles became to powerful armor became useless and nobles start to hire more professional armies to do their fighting rather then hazard themselves on the field. Well they tend to hang back alot more rather then down with the troops. IMO

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

Bad history here.

What changed European Sopciety, and crumbled away the feudal system was Socioeconomics and politics, and had precious little to do with battlefield technology.

The very concept of some sort of an arms race across the Middle Ages, comparative to 20th century technology between 1918 and 1980 is incredibly flawed.

dukelogan wrote:a hold was called and i moved a few steps forward and leaned over the wall and yelled out to his then majesty ie falcon that our troops had the front and his right side. i suggested he might head to his left (we had about 100 to his personal guard of around 15). anyway, thought it might help him last a wee bit longer. lay on was called and as i leaned on the post watching his brave men fall to the huge crowd engulfing them i felt a very hard/sharp strike to the base of my neck. i turned around and the little guy with the crossbow waved at me from the tower. i said "hey i thought you all yielded" and he said, "not me, i ducked". one of my guys took off to run up their and club the shit out of him..... i almost didnt stop him.

Now, as a combat archer myself, you need to take this with a grain of salt, but Combat Archers need to understand that by taking a submissive pose (ducking, going down on one knee) you are in fact "submitting". Whether you say the words "I yeild or not". That crossbowman should have been yanked off of the field and had a talking too about deceptive actions they were taking. And quizzed on their understanding of the list field rules and what they were trying to accomplish by ducking down.

On the flip side, there is a somewhat new rule here in Atlantia, that Combat Archers must cry "I YEILD" or "DEAD" loudly enough that there is no confusion - just as any other combatant. If they do not, any heavy can and in my opinion SHOULD, beat the living crap out of them as they are want to do. Because, technically, if the archer doesn't cry yeild and you did not give them a telling blow, then by the rules they are still alive and allowed to shoot you right in your back, as despicable as it may seem. And I've heard of it being done as recently as a few months ago where someone did a "tap" or touch kill to the archer (the fighter assumed we were still doing touch kill in this Kingdom). The archer didn't call it light, but waited for the fighter to turn around and shot him in the back. So some amount of responsibility does lay upon the heavy fighter.

Now, I'm not saying that if you see an archer on one knee, with an unloaded weapon that you should automatically smack the s**t out of them. BUT, if they look like they are looking to reload...they ain't dead. If they uttered something but you're not sure you heard the word "yeild" or "dead"..guess what...they ain't dead. Clean their clock and they hopefully will learn to scream "i'm dead" louder.

I know people will say "but the archer is down on the ground and defenseless. You can't hit them". Wrong! If they are holding on to their weapon and have not discarded it, they ARE ARMED. If they are on the ground, they might only be legged. KILL THEM. a legged archer is just as deadly as one on two feet. Sometimes worse, because now they're prone and braced for a more steady shot.

So my suggestion to heavies in this kingdom is: "If you don't hear the words 'I yeild" or 'Dead'....even if they screamed something, but you're not sure what it was. Then hit them as hard as any other heavy on the field". It's your job. Combat archers have the same heavy armor as anyone else. If they don't want to be hit, they can go play with a boffer group.
-Cian

I apologize that you simply don't get it.

I can not fight because something isn't safe, and my reputation and position are looked down upon.

I can not fight and lead a "boycott" of a battle my King has asked me to fight in, and I am no longer worthy of wearing my belt.

If you put such stock in your in-game oaths that you feel compelled to overlook your personal convictions concerning safety and/or combat ideology, well, that's your prerogative, and I wish you well.

Steve

D. Sebastian wrote:Syr Richard,
Forgive me if I implied that the CA'rs were at fault, they were not. I even complemented them on their courtesy as one asked Count Griffith not to take a shot that could have been either grill or slightly high.

It is the convention of CA that is flawed.


Syr Alfred, Syr Mord,
The thing to consider is that it was Duke Lucan that was the key target until the archers switched sides. When the CA'rs are on both sides, The command has an obligation to use them in the most devastating way. Mostly I know we have them target other archers, but they are an unruly bunch

I agree that a commander should use archers as best as possible; I personally think a commander should use all assets avialable in the best way possible--that's his/her job.

As for "unruly," well, that's nuthin' new .

As for the flaws in the form--any suggestions?

Mord.

yes, i know i could have called him on it. but it would not have mattered as we (our side) had clear control and the battle was all but done. more importantly for me personally i so love our contests and this action took all the joy i get from it out of me. i had no fight left in me at that point. the pennsic situation wasnt as bad as the one at gulf wars though.

at gulf wars it was myself, lord keiran, and duke valharic (val and i were princes of atlantia and the midrealm at the time). val had lost an arm and was fighting with his backup dagger, keiran was with me and he and i were not wounded. val took off to draw fighters to him so that keiran i could better work towards pulling off the impossible (again about 30 to 3). i sent keiran off to the opposite side val ran on. i had a couple of fights go down and then a hold was called.

at this point there were 6 new guys. i assume new because of their gear and their shiney little tabards. during the hold (val and keiran were taken out just prior to it) i tried some of the good old duke chess games with the 6 guys in front of me. i reminded them that its 4 on 1 and saw in their eyes who would hesitate on lay on. i then told them that when lay on was called i would be running at the littlest fella and trying to squeeze between two trees for cover. they looked around. i told them to make sure they attacked together and that they did not let me skate past them and line them up so i could basically fight them one on one.

these were new guys and they had such a great opportunity to go back to camp and talk about how they took down the big bad duke logan, prince of the feared kingdom of atlantia, the last man standing, etc etc. an epic moment was upon us and a tale to be told was unfolding. thinking about it even now still makes my heart glad. oh.... have no doubt, i would have taken one or two of them with me. my game face was on and i knew that, albeit small, there was a chance i could have done something that the bards write songs about.

so lay on is called and i stomp my foot and try to look all menacing, they delay! nows my chance, before they get their courage to that sticking point, before they step into the contest and take me down, now is my chance to move!!

thwack. right in the small of my back. no chance to defend myself, no chance for these guys to have that one moment. thwack. i turn around to see some douchebag standing about 25' behind me with his little crossbow made from a 2" x 4" waving at me with a huge smile on his face.

a marshal nearby suggested i not take it. he claimed something about engagement. but it was gulf wars and we all know how that court of public opinion works. didnt matter though, my storybook tale was crushed. the fight in me left.

i walked over to this brave little toad and said "that was very courageous of you, shooting me in the back like that. now go over to those young men and tell them youre sorry for robbing them of the chance to tell tales of their bravery. they deserve at least that from you". he looked at the marshal and said "we have 360 degree engagment, the shot was legal".

three of the six guys walked me back to my camp. they were from meridies (i dont recall the group they said they were from). i dont like people carrying my stuff off the field, makes me feel like im better than them or something. but these cats insisted. nice guys, we had a beer or seven and talked about all kinds of stuff. four of them met me on the field the next day after the fort battle and said they wanted to finish what we were robbed of. we fought five agreed upon fights of four on one. i didnt have terrain to work with like i had the day before in the ravine but i managed to win one of the fights. it was a great day but it was fake, it wasnt the battle we entered and fought in for an hour the day before. it wasnt in the spotlight for them, or me. it was some generic thing all homogenized and sanitized. nothing was on the table and it felt empty.

im sure the archer told his story with pride when he got back to his camp. at least his day was full of glory.

logan

Cian of Storvik wrote:

dukelogan wrote:a hold was called and i moved a few steps forward and leaned over the wall and yelled out to his then majesty ie falcon that our troops had the front and his right side. i suggested he might head to his left (we had about 100 to his personal guard of around 15). anyway, thought it might help him last a wee bit longer. lay on was called and as i leaned on the post watching his brave men fall to the huge crowd engulfing them i felt a very hard/sharp strike to the base of my neck. i turned around and the little guy with the crossbow waved at me from the tower. i said "hey i thought you all yielded" and he said, "not me, i ducked". one of my guys took off to run up their and club the shit out of him..... i almost didnt stop him.

Now, as a combat archer myself, you need to take this with a grain of salt, but Combat Archers need to understand that by taking a submissive pose (ducking, going down on one knee) you are in fact "submitting". Whether you say the words "I yeild or not". That crossbowman should have been yanked off of the field and had a talking too about deceptive actions they were taking. And quizzed on their understanding of the list field rules and what they were trying to accomplish by ducking down.

On the flip side, there is a somewhat new rule here in Atlantia, that Combat Archers must cry "I YEILD" or "DEAD" loudly enough that there is no confusion - just as any other combatant. If they do not, any heavy can and in my opinion SHOULD, beat the living crap out of them as they are want to do. Because, technically, if the archer doesn't cry yeild and you did not give them a telling blow, then by the rules they are still alive and allowed to shoot you right in your back, as despicable as it may seem. And I've heard of it being done as recently as a few months ago where someone did a "tap" or touch kill to the archer (the fighter assumed we were still doing touch kill in this Kingdom). The archer didn't call it light, but waited for the fighter to turn around and shot him in the back. So some amount of responsibility does lay upon the heavy fighter.

Now, I'm not saying that if you see an archer on one knee, with an unloaded weapon that you should automatically smack the s**t out of them. BUT, if they look like they are looking to reload...they ain't dead. If they uttered something but you're not sure you heard the word "yeild" or "dead"..guess what...they ain't dead. Clean their clock and they hopefully will learn to scream "i'm dead" louder.

I know people will say "but the archer is down on the ground and defenseless. You can't hit them". Wrong! If they are holding on to their weapon and have not discarded it, they ARE ARMED. If they are on the ground, they might only be legged. KILL THEM. a legged archer is just as deadly as one on two feet. Sometimes worse, because now they're prone and braced for a more steady shot.

So my suggestion to heavies in this kingdom is: "If you don't hear the words 'I yeild" or 'Dead'....even if they screamed something, but you're not sure what it was. Then hit them as hard as any other heavy on the field". It's your job. Combat archers have the same heavy armor as anyone else. If they don't want to be hit, they can go play with a boffer group.
-Cian

dukelogan wrote:thwack. right in the small of my back. no chance to defend myself, no chance for these guys to have that one moment. thwack.

Here is one of the reasons I've always lobbied for a 'forward arch' of fire only... i.e. the same forward area of attack a spearman has.

I'm sorry you've had such bad reactions with CA, I've had the same with knights:

My first Pennsic I fought as an archer and heavy, a unit was advancing towards mine my commander told me to take out their commander... I moved off to the side of my unit still in my enemy’s front and launched a shot, I hit their Knight on the upper leg, before the battle I was told by those in my Shire that sometime arrows are hard to feel, and sometime do not get taken as blows esp. if the target is wearing really good armor, and that I was never to 'call' attention to someone I thought I'd hit as it's up to them to take that hit. The enemy knight kept coming I figured that the hit was bad and shot again (longbow btw) the net was off his shoulder the Knight looked at me and kept advancing on my unit my 3rd shot was on his visor, again the Knight looked at me and returned to his advance... a martial at this point stopped the Knight and asked if he noticed the arrow... I did not hear the exchange but the Knight left the field.

After that battle this same Knight crossed for the Eastern side to find me with my shire as we were packing up... for a full 5 or so minutes I was on the receiving end of a shouting tirade that recruits on day one of boot don't get. I felt belittled, angered, and humiliated... and fully prepared to quit the SCA thankfully the folks of my shire calmed me down.

but attitudes like you and I have encountered are not limited to CA, last year during the woods battle I faced off with my pole-arm against a Knight across the shield wall I struck him with 2 of what I believe to have been solid stabs in rapid succession just below the edge od his shield, he backed from his line, looked at me and, I shit you not, told me the shot was "Off the Belt" and reentered his ling and ignored me.

My attitude has changed over the years, I know that attitudes such as this do not reflect on the Peerage as a whole, or is a slight to my personal honor, but is a stain on the honor of the one performing the actions.

As I said before I believe that CA can be fixed, that simple and proper conventions and [i[]courtesy[/i] and be implemented to lessen the animosity between the CA and Non-CA fighters, that will require compromise on both parties, the non-CA to alow them on the field for the limited battles where they are allowed, and to accept their blows and respect their equipment. and for the CA folks to see that comprise in method and manner combat i.e. forward 'engagement range' only face grill only, limited ammo etc. is required, and basic courtesy is a must, i.e. no 'res hunting', so shooting into single combat, etc...

It's my hope that these issues can be ironed over.

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

I apologize that you simply don't get it.

I can not fight because something isn't safe, and my reputation and position are looked down upon.

I can not fight and lead a "boycott" of a battle my King has asked me to fight in, and I am no longer worthy of wearing my belt.

If you put such stock in your in-game oaths that you feel compelled to overlook your personal convictions concerning safety and/or combat ideology, well, that's your prerogative, and I wish you well.

Steve

I think this is the biggest disconnect you're having. For you this is all play acting and the things you do are part of your role play. I can't speak for D. or anyone else, but I assume that it's the same as with me. I fully realize that there is real life and there is the SCA. I do the SCA for fun. Whether people are calling me Eric, Ingvarr, or something entirely different, I am me. My honor is still my own. It was quite a while after I started in the SCA before I swore fealty to the Crown of Atenveldt. That was because I don't take oaths lightly. To me, it's not taking a pretend oath as part of a game. If I take an oath, I take an oath.

I know, I just get tired of hearing "were not really fighting war because there are NO rules in real war" There are some.

Our government spends millions a year doing Mock maneuvers (simulated war scenarios) to make us better trained for Real war. We are doing a mild representation of War type things. This is why we can do our battles with different rules in each battle. I was told at Lilies War they did a Zombie battle ? There are battles with out shields, with out spears and with out archery. I think this is were the balance can come in to play. There is no rule that says we have to have any certain activity in every battle. I am a spearman, in a battle with out spears I still have a choice. just not the one I would prefer.

Thor.

carlyle wrote:

Thorstenn wrote:Even real war has rules.

This is a strawman, Thor. Real war may have rules, but it serves a very different purpose and yields very different results than SCA war. We have rules to assure the safety of the fighters, to ensure fairness for all participants, and ideally, to provide a medievally-inspired environment where we can pursue our particular archtype. At the end of the day, we may have a designated winner and loser; but friends and foes alike join in common revelry, drink heartily, and recount the stories of the day's glory. The next morning, we don our armor, take the field, and start the conflict anew. While I admit I have no modern combat experience, I doubt this compares to either the intent of the rules governing real war, or the practical outcome ... AoC

in all fairness my friend this argument most often comes up when a fighter comments on the imbalance combat archery causes on our field or how it does not fit within the model of what it is we are engaged in. that being fighters in contest with other fighters in which one can not best another man without being at the same risk of being bested by him.

then, in order to attempt to justify the action, we hear "well its war and in war people shot at other people". while that is true we certainly do not do it with any realism. hand drawn missiles defeating armour and destroying whatever target they do hit. realistic or not it does not counter the argument that in our sport combat we must be at risk of being bested in order to best our opponent. combat archery is the lone exception.

at least thats when i see the "its war" argument most often brought up.

regards
logan

Thorstenn wrote:I know, I just get tired of hearing "were not really fighting war because there are NO rules in real war" There are some.

Our government spends millions a year doing Mock maneuvers (simulated war scenarios) to make us better trained for Real war. We are doing a mild representation of War type things. This is why we can do our battles with different rules in each battle. I was told at Lilies War they did a Zombie battle ? There are battles with out shields, with out spears and with out archery. I think this is were the balance can come in to play. There is no rule that says we have to have any certain activity in every battle. I am a spearman, in a battle with out spears I still have a choice. just not the one I would prefer.

Thor.

carlyle wrote:

Thorstenn wrote:Even real war has rules.

This is a strawman, Thor. Real war may have rules, but it serves a very different purpose and yields very different results than SCA war. We have rules to assure the safety of the fighters, to ensure fairness for all participants, and ideally, to provide a medievally-inspired environment where we can pursue our particular archtype. At the end of the day, we may have a designated winner and loser; but friends and foes alike join in common revelry, drink heartily, and recount the stories of the day's glory. The next morning, we don our armor, take the field, and start the conflict anew. While I admit I have no modern combat experience, I doubt this compares to either the intent of the rules governing real war, or the practical outcome ... AoC

Mord wrote:As for the flaws in the form--any suggestions?

YES!
(Glad you asked)
Face only would (IMHO) be the panacea.





[edit to fix the "quote"]

While I dont get your stance on archery I completely understand how you take your Oath and agree with it 100%

Past Royals have a larger sense of responsibility to the Crown and populace IMO. Walking away or boycotting could be construed as Cowardice and no Knight should suffer its consequences.

Thor.

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

As a Duke and Knight, I do not have a simple choice to vote with my feet as other fighters so. I have an obligation to lead, and one to help my Kingdom to win.

Leading the boycott of archery would be one way of leading.

CA in its current inherently unsafe form and obnoxious usage should simply disappear. Should I have the honor to sit the throne again, it will.

But then there are more ... direct ... ways of leadership...

Steve

I apologize that you simply don't get it.

I can not fight because something isn't safe, and my reputation and position are looked down upon.

I can not fight and lead a "boycott" of a battle my King has asked me to fight in, and I am no longer worthy of wearing my belt.

g-

Thank you your Grace for getting us back on track of the original post, "how do we make CA work fairly"

I think the answer is rather simple actually, one was just mentioned by his Grace, Scenario Rules. Make some without CA and some with 50/50 is a good split. HL fighters get 100% participation and CA'ers get to play half the time (which is acceptable to a lot of people). Limit the ammo carried to 25 or so. Face plate only.

Another solution which can be used in conjunction with the above is Scenario Design. Don't make it a fish barrel shoot. Sir Alfred has put forth the option of Archer boxes. Limit the shooting lanes. Bridge battles are never a good idea with CA as it truly just becomes a barrel shoot. If it's a resurection battle then maybe no archery until the last half of it.

There are solutions out there, it's going to take both sides coming together and working it out.

Now for those individuals out there who don't think we are playing "War", then there is no remedy for you because you simply think CA doesn't belong. For those of us who think we are playing "war", let's get our heads together and work it out, it can't be that complicated.

I know it sounds simple enough to just pick and choose which battles we will participate in but its the basic principle that we should have to avoid any contest so that a few players might have such a huge impact on a battle (Edited to add- that I have an issue with). I know they shoot for fun and I understand the enjoyment of it but I do feel honestly that they can simply just pick up a melee weapon, end all of this debate and have just as much fun as the rest of us. I truly do not believe that they have to use archery in battle in order to have a good time. They do after all have the option to participate in both CA and non CA battles yet we do not have the same option. We get to play or don't play which is not quite "fair" as it were.

My contention with CA regarding safety is the rigid shafts. We talk about going to face only for fairness sake but with rigid shafted arrows that seems to me only to increase the odds dramatically of a most devastating accident that would harm more than just combat archery but also the integrity of our entire game. We just don't want that to happen to any individual or our organization in total. Also hard tipped projectiles of any kind do pose a threat to spectators and any other non armored participants. A serious injury to anyone armored or not from a tube and tennis ball arrow is extremely unlikely.

If it was made safer in that fashion 90% of my argument against it would be eliminated. The other ten percent would just be quiet grumbling about how anybody could possibly think it was chivalrous.

Thorstenn wrote:What if the Events were broken down to two categories War and Grand Melee Seriously. We have all kinds of events with different themes and scenarios. I like both. We all pick and choose what activity we are going to do this day or that day. You could go shopping with your Lady or do pick up fights during the War portion. Its not really any different than when I skip the Woods battle at Pennsic because I always destroy my ankle in the woods. I skip it for my safety.
Oh and get rid of the War points so its just competition and fun.

To Johno and Balin,
Have you held a properly made crossbow bolt with a fiberglass shaft and Baldar's Blunt and APD If so in your opinion what is unsafe about it.
I truly am curious.

Thor.

I think this is the biggest disconnect you're having. For you this is all play acting and the things you do are part of your role play. I can't speak for D. or anyone else, but I assume that it's the same as with me. I fully realize that there is real life and there is the SCA. I do the SCA for fun. Whether people are calling me Eric, Ingvarr, or something entirely different, I am me. My honor is still my own. It was quite a while after I started in the SCA before I swore fealty to the Crown of Atenveldt. That was because I don't take oaths lightly. To me, it's not taking a pretend oath as part of a game. If I take an oath, I take an oath.

I'm sorry, I cannot understand this position. An oath taken in the context of a game is only valid in the context of the game. If the rules of the game change such that you no longer want to play the game, your oath, in my opinion, evaporates, because, after all, it's just a game.

Like I said earlier. If the combat archery rules changed tomorrow so that bird blunts like the Regia Anglorum folks use were allowed, would you keep taking the field, being duty-bound by your oath?

Past Royals have a larger sense of responsibility to the Crown and populace IMO. Walking away or boycotting could be construed as Cowardice and no Knight should suffer its consequences.

Walking away or boycotting could also be construed as taking a stance against combat archery, especially if you make the reason for your walking away or boycotting publicly known. This is called "leading by example".

Here's an example. A few years ago there was a fighting event held in Meridies that many people thought was overpriced. There was a movement by many people thus to boycott the event. Were these people wrong for sticking to their convictions and acting on them by boycotting the event? Were they oath-breakers for not showing up "for king and crown" at the event?

Come on. I understand the esprit de corps thing and getting wrapped up in allegiances and such in the SCA. But we are talking about a basic, fundamental problem some people have with the combat game rules.

For those who have serious problems with combat archery being a part of melee fighting, if they don't put their money where their mouth is all one is left to conclude is that they don't dislike it enough to quit playing the game.

For myself, I'm going to sit out any future melee with combat archery in it, and I will let everyone know why - it does not belong in noble behourd combat, and that is the only melee I wish to engage in. Fortunately, there are many melees that disallow archery.

There will hopefully continue to be "war" melees for those who wish to pretend that they are at war.

Steve

Johnothan,

That's the best post I have seen from you. One day when I get out your way I shall buy you a beer of your liking.

Thor.

Steve -SoFC-,

Asking your Crown to sit out a battle to prove a point or for safety reasons is one thing boycotting without permission is breaking your Oath. To me there is a difference.

Thor.

Thorstenn wrote:One day when I get out your way I shall buy you a beer of your liking.

It would be much more chivalrous of you if you just learned how to fight with the right hand of Justice as God intended, you devil's spawn.

Oh, yeah, and learn to keep your feet on the ground. Flying around like that just lends weight to the argument that you really are a demon and should be burned at the stake, boiled in oil, or whatever the Church has decreed this year... AoC

Wait a minute -- did I forget to add emoticons? You betchersweetbippy I did!!

I believe the Church declared Awesome sauce and Chocolate milk as a penance for my Devilish ways

Thor.

carlyle wrote:

Thorstenn wrote:One day when I get out your way I shall buy you a beer of your liking.

It would be much more chivalrous of you if you just learned how to fight with the right hand of Justice as God intended, you devil's spawn.

Oh, yeah, and learn to keep your feet on the ground. Flying around like that just lends weight to the argument that you really are a demon and should be burned at the stake, boiled in oil, or whatever the Church has decreed this year... AoC

Wait a minute -- did I forget to add emoticons? You betchersweetbippy I did!!

Does that go for left handed archers? Or are we just too far gone?

Thorstenn wrote:I believe the Church declared Awesome sauce and Chocolate milk as a penance for my Devilish ways

Thor.

Sinister is, as sinister does.....

Thor.

DeCalmont wrote:Does that go for left handed archers? Or are we just too far gone?

Thorstenn wrote:I believe the Church declared Awesome sauce and Chocolate milk as a penance for my Devilish ways

Thor.

Although passive resistance eventually can win over an audience, I'm not sure sitting out scenarios is the best choice in this case. If you want to take the most honorable route, I would talk about this with your King, knight, lord or captain and see what their preference is for you to do.

My point is this; that some events or melees are very important to your superiors. Not all of them are about winning, but for some people; like King's who may have their first rule and as far as they know, it could be their only one, they may hold a high priority on winning. For a captain or knight, it could be the one event where they were making a concerted effort at that event to make a splash in the water and every man on the field was their plan that you're trying to throw the monkey wrench into. And simply turning your back on them because your side or opponents are using missiles, may hurt more then promoting your own agenda.

As an archer, I have to say if I made you sit out on your side because I picked up my bow, I'm thinking "Great! one less guy for me to kill..anyone else want to boycott me?" The longbow is often referred to as a weapon of field denial. rain down a hail of arrows on a position you don't want the enemy getting into, and they can't. Well, it worked the same in the SCA, because I just denied your side one guy from possibly taking up a flanking position or fillin a hole in you line.

Just as a suggestion, even though I know you do not want combat archery is to ask your commanders what you should do that would benefit your side and these are just some suggestions:

"Be a shield" - If you're normally a spear and the magnet for archers then pick up a shield and be one of the "unstoppable forces" who's only job is to break through the line, or run an end route with the primary goal to only kill the archers and prey they forget to cry "yield" when they get within your reach.

"Pick-up a bow" - I know you despise the weapon, but fight fire with fire. Give them a taste of their own medicine. You want to show how unfair and game unbalancing it is; get like 10 of your friends to all get missile weapon authorized, and borrow some bows from the target archers (I don't know a single archer that owns fewer then 2 bows) and rain some death on them. Maybe some of them will see 10 guys on your side walking up with bows, and then all of their spears (and maybe a few of their archers) decide "Yeah...I'm just going to go sit this one out".

In a rez battle, you can swap out too...Maybe picking up the bow and walking on the field made a couple on the other side say "I'm done fighting for today" or you and your comrades of done nothing but spend the first half of the scenario doing nothing but shooting this one archer on the other side making him/her skiddish as hell. Well, as soon as they walk off the field because they've had enough, you go back to the res point, drop off your bow and wade back into the fight with your principal melee weapon.

I mean, it's not like they are going to be down a man more because you picked up a bow. You were going to sit out the scenario anyhow. So your side was going to be down 1 man anyhow.

Finally, my last point is that archers have no problem if everyone else wants to get off the field. Archery duals are fun, and if you boycott a scenario, then we have no need to worry about impervious shield guys running up on us. So you're not hurting our feelings by sitting it out. If it's 2 archers vs. 2 archers on the field and 60 heavies sitting on the side lines screaming "Run Peasants! RUN!", we're really not offended.
-Cian

D. Sebastian wrote:

Mord wrote:As for the flaws in the form--any suggestions?

YES!
(Glad you asked)
Face only would (IMHO) be the panacea.





[edit to fix the "quote"]

Ok, assuming "face" is defined as the area legal thrusts, how do you propose establishing the validity or non-validity of your suggestion? We can argue the point to a thousand pages here, but, imo, without some solid empiracal information, it remains just talk.

Contact me if you have any ideas--preferable at Pennsic or after.

Mord.

Asking your Crown to sit out a battle to prove a point or for safety reasons is one thing boycotting without permission is breaking your Oath. To me there is a difference.

Thorstenn:

First of all, there is nothing to say you could not go and ask for permission. I can't think of a single person I know where if I went and asked them, "Hey, buddy, I only want to participate in simulated noble combat between noblemen, and thus I only wish to participate in behourd melees and not war melees, is that OK with you?" that they would not say, "Uh, sure, dude, fight whatever battles and events you want to."

But second of all, and I'll quote Cian here:

If you want to take the most honorable route, I would talk about this with your King, knight, lord or captain and see what their preference is for you to do.

Why on earth are you going to let other people dictate to you how you play the SCA game, so long as you are playing within the official rules of the game? Let me put it this way. If whoever was king told me one day I had to do thus and such at some event and I really didn't want to do it, first of all I'd tell them so. But if pushed, I just wouldn't go to that event. Now if it was a close friend who was asking me a favor to do something that would compel me to reconsider, so I can see being hesitant on those grounds.

But when your only options are to not play or play and complain, well I'd say just don't play. It's the only true way you can effect change unless you are powerful enough to win crown and then for at least six months you can make whatever rules you like.

Finally, my last point is that archers have no problem if everyone else wants to get off the field. Archery duals are fun, and if you boycott a scenario, then we have no need to worry about impervious shield guys running up on us. So you're not hurting our feelings by sitting it out. If it's 2 archers vs. 2 archers on the field and 60 heavies sitting on the side lines screaming "Run Peasants! RUN!", we're really not offended.

I think you will find, though, Cian, that it wouldn't take many such "battles" until even organizers stop scheduling battles that allow archery. Why would people bother hosting events with battles for 4 people? They wouldn't.

But, like I said, I don't think this will happen. I don't think enough fighters dislike archery enough to do anything about it other than complain.

Steve

Cian of Storvik wrote:Although passive resistance eventually can win over an audience, I'm not sure sitting out scenarios is the best choice in this case. If you want to take the most honorable route, I would talk about this with your King, knight, lord or captain and see what their preference is for you to do.

My point is this; that some events or melees are very important to your superiors. Not all of them are about winning, but for some people; like King's who may have their first rule and as far as they know, it could be their only one, they may hold a high priority on winning. For a captain or knight, it could be the one event where they were making a concerted effort at that event to make a splash in the water and every man on the field was their plan that you're trying to throw the monkey wrench into. And simply turning your back on them because your side or opponents are using missiles, may hurt more then promoting your own agenda.

As an archer, I have to say if I made you sit out on your side because I picked up my bow, I'm thinking "Great! one less guy for me to kill..anyone else want to boycott me?" The longbow is often referred to as a weapon of field denial. rain down a hail of arrows on a position you don't want the enemy getting into, and they can't. Well, it worked the same in the SCA, because I just denied your side one guy from possibly taking up a flanking position or fillin a hole in you line.

Just as a suggestion, even though I know you do not want combat archery is to ask your commanders what you should do that would benefit your side and these are just some suggestions:

"Be a shield" - If you're normally a spear and the magnet for archers then pick up a shield and be one of the "unstoppable forces" who's only job is to break through the line, or run an end route with the primary goal to only kill the archers and prey they forget to cry "yield" when they get within your reach.

"Pick-up a bow" - I know you despise the weapon, but fight fire with fire. Give them a taste of their own medicine. You want to show how unfair and game unbalancing it is; get like 10 of your friends to all get missile weapon authorized, and borrow some bows from the target archers (I don't know a single archer that owns fewer then 2 bows) and rain some death on them. Maybe some of them will see 10 guys on your side walking up with bows, and then all of their spears (and maybe a few of their archers) decide "Yeah...I'm just going to go sit this one out".

In a rez battle, you can swap out too...Maybe picking up the bow and walking on the field made a couple on the other side say "I'm done fighting for today" or you and your comrades of done nothing but spend the first half of the scenario doing nothing but shooting this one archer on the other side making him/her skiddish as hell. Well, as soon as they walk off the field because they've had enough, you go back to the res point, drop off your bow and wade back into the fight with your principal melee weapon.

This is the kind of thing half the guys are saying is a reason that they hate combat archery. Which is as far as I can tell the way it's used more than the actual concept of it.

Cian of Storvik wrote:I mean, it's not like they are going to be down a man more because you picked up a bow. You were going to sit out the scenario anyhow. So your side was going to be down 1 man anyhow.

Finally, my last point is that archers have no problem if everyone else wants to get off the field. Archery duals are fun, and if you boycott a scenario, then we have no need to worry about impervious shield guys running up on us. So you're not hurting our feelings by sitting it out. If it's 2 archers vs. 2 archers on the field and 60 heavies sitting on the side lines screaming "Run Peasants! RUN!", we're really not offended.
-Cian

As someone who has done combat archery a little, and someone who has primarily done heavy, my goal is to have fun, and NOT cause the other guys to have SO little fun that they leave the field.

I don't go to events to ruin someones day.

I don't believe most CA do. There is a lot to be said for intent.

I hope that most CA don't have the attitude extolled above, and I don't believe most do. But it's not really something I can stand behind.

It goes both ways. I don't want to force heavies from the field any more than I want to force CA from the field.

A lot has been said here and one of the last posts said it best, we can debate it for 1000 pages, if things aren't tried and addressd on the field and the CA community is not worked with to fix the issues that have been identified which in my opinion have primarily been Safety and Game Balance, this conversation is just going to break down to, "I'm right!" "no, you're not, I am"

And on a side note. Isn't their a rewrite of the rules in the works or is that just cobwebs in my brain.

As an archer, I have to say if I made you sit out on your side because I picked up my bow, I'm thinking "Great! one less guy for me to kill..

As a HL fighter, I have to say if I made you sit out on your side for any reason, I'm thinking "That SUCKS! one less guy for me to kill".

One less chance for each of us to display our love of Lady, Lord, Kingdom, and Society.

Thorstenn wrote:Johnothan,

That's the best post I have seen from you. One day when I get out your way I shall buy you a beer of your liking.

Thor.

Well thank you Thorstenn,

It has never been my intent to alienate others or deny them participation. I do very clearly attempt to seperate the participant from the weapon they want to use.

I do fully understand that some people not only enjoy it but they feel that it is the best way for them to be at their maximum effectiveness on the field and no doubts, a bow can turn a part time player into a death machine. It seems clear to me that the weapon itself is imbalanced obviously. No other piece of equipment can give such an advantage to a fighter. Can we all not see that as the basic truth of it? The evidence is in the weapons history as well as the history of its performance in our game over the past few decades.

Some say "it's easy just have some battles with and some without" but obviously that isn't working to create balance. All SCA "wars" from ocean to ocean have had some with and some without so it is a system we already use that fails to bring "fairness" to the table.

The piece of equipment on it's own causes grief, social seperation, imbalance of gameplay as well as numerous safety factors that are already notably recognized through the fact that we do have many safety measures in place to address what we know are potential hazards.

Back to fairness as this thread intended I would ask any party here to explain how we can eliminate the range imbalance between melee fighters and missile troops? Due to the nature of the weapon this would eliminate the the sole reason for it's use. It is strictly the lack of "fairness" or balance that the user of the weapon seeks to exploit when shooting at (edit- melee) troops so if we make it balanced and or "fair" then the weapons usefulness would be eliminated as well. This makes the entire concept of fairness between missile troops and melee troops a moot point. It cannot be done.

Alfred has put forward concepts that I actually like (with some slight tweeking).

I envision towers or representations of towers off to the side of a battle field that contain archers. Rather than having them shoot at disadvantaged short range melee troops seeking an honorable contest of arms, the CA'rs could fire at one another or even at mobile targets of their liking. Wiping out the other sides archers or targets could grant a point (if a point system is used) or grant their side some sort of tactical advantage such as the elimination of an obstacle or the lowering of a bridge etc. Using a system like that firing lanes would be clearly easy to dictate, bows would never be struck, melee fighters would never be denied their contest by an unchallengable blow, spectators would be safer, archers could fire at live targets but would never have to yield or be struck by rattan and everyone could play at the same time ALL the time! Not only that but everyone involved could still have an impact on the outcome of any scenario!

That sounds more likely a feasible solution rather than to attempt to create fairness and balance where none can exist.

If our "wars" are a game then let us make it a good game, not one of animosity and bitterness.

For what it's worth...

For any reenactment folk still reading, I've started a thread in Interpretive Re-creation asking about combat archery in reenactment and the safety rules used.

Ogedei, I believe the Marshal's Handbook for heavy fighting and combat archery was completely revised and that the new, combined version was published last November.

So...I'm all for the mix that we get regarding combat archers. I think that we have few enough events and few enough battles that their integration makes me happy (and spices things up enough).

That being said...the 'it's not honorable' route...weren't spearmen and pikemen also commoners?

I'm all for doing whatever is fun for you. And if you don't like the scenario, and your superiors (Knight, consort, Baron, Royalty, whomever you deem as your superiors) are ok with it...just sit it out.

I've done it with bridge battles. I personally don't really like them. But I just sit them out, and attempt to marshall them or help some other way. Maybe as a waterbearer...or something while they fight and have a good time.

I guess my thought here is that I don't understand why so many work to change things that are fun for other people. I'm all for making it safe...and that, in my opinion, is a legitimate (although currently flawed) argument...but why not let it go and let others have their fun?

Cian, I appreciate your effort to recommend compromise, but you are only addressing the symptoms and not the the fundamental problems. You have not "defeated" me if I sit out the battle; you have driven me from the very game itself. Not only are you denied a target, but my King is denied one of his knights, my lady her Champion, and my opponents the skill I have developed over thirty years of practice. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I would hope that this would be seen as a loss and not a victory to those who value my participation. And if they value it so, then perhaps they would be inspired to seek a real solution to the problem I am trying to draw attention to.

As far as your suggestion to choose a different weapon, seek out archers, or pick up a bow; these ideas only further require that the chivalric fighter abandon his values in order to achieve a technical parity. As a knight who believes that it is the hazard that defines the moment and not the win; I would find no advancement of my honor in chasing down an opponent who, more often than not, would prefer to yield because he is unprepared for hand-to-hand combat. Similarly, it is anathema for me to strike at an opponent who cannot mount a credible offense to threaten my person. Bow, spear, one-armed or on their knees; I will not attack someone who I believe is helpless against my offense.

Stephen nailed it when he pointed out that the underlying issue is not safety, history, or playability. The struggle is one of ideology. We can use the three-legged meme to help stay the course, but even this is no defense if we cannot agree on what it is we are trying to accomplish. For example, I accept that this is a war game and not tournament (though in the 12th C., their idea of tournament was a wargame); but it begs the question of the greater boundary that we are presumed to be nobles either from, or guests in, a nominal Medieval court from western Europe. In this case, there is no one to pull the bow, since every man-jack would be in the van with sword, spear, and ax. This is one of the "rules" of the game, yet it becomes the root cause of much of the frustration when it is conveniently dismissed so long as the practice is "safe".

Still, If we accept that some of us would willingly abrogate their noble privilege and pick up the bow, we must also consider that they would not be primary targets of the nobles in the wargame, that they would not be armed equal to the nobles, or that they would be permitted to unduly influence the final outcome of the battle. For this to work, the "safe" rules are insufficient; we need further guidelines that allow us to integrate not just the tool, but that are consistent with the underlying ideology. Face targetting, shooting "boxes", and limited ammunition all help to address this equally important requirement. They are totally unnecessary to help improve safety, but they are essential to help keep us all on the same page.

Finally, my last point is that archers have no problem if everyone else wants to get off the field. Archery duals are fun, and if you boycott a scenario, then we have no need to worry about impervious shield guys running up on us. So you're not hurting our feelings by sitting it out. If it's 2 archers vs. 2 archers on the field and 60 heavies sitting on the side lines screaming "Run Peasants! RUN!", we're really not offended.
-Cian

I kept this quote intact because, while I pray you are simply using hyperbole to illustrate your point; if I believed this sentiment was dominant in the combat archery community of my kingdom, then like Alaric, I too, would take up my swords and fight in Crown with the goal of banning the weapon outright. The entire thrust of this thread is about integrating a minority weapon system without offending the majority of participants. To suggest that the majority should just sit on the sidelines so you can play is inexcusably selfish, and I urge you to reconsider your choice of words.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

It was hyperbole, but still. A lot of what melee is about is tactics, and all of this talk about "Well, it's not chivalrous", and "It's denying me one on one combat with another". Well, in melee you can have 4 people beating you down simultaneously and that's honorable. But shoot an arrow at someone and you're devil spawn.

The seriousness is that I do listen to what others tell me to do. If the King or his knights say "cian, but on this pink tu-tu and pirouette to the other side of the field", I'd do it. Because fealty is part of the game we play. and if they say "for this scenario, use your bow" then I'm going to grab my bow. If they say drop the arrows and pick up your mace and shield, then I do that. Melee is about tactics as much as it is about individual skills. It's not necessarily about winning, but making the right tactical decisions at the proper time to control the folow of battle on the field. For some in command, we're their little chess men and tactics are their game. I don't question it. Whether I'm told to stand my ground against a charge 10 times our number or told to break through a line. We just do what we're told to win that round.

And if you are denying your side a tactical evening of the battlefield by using a weapon that is most appropriate even if it's the hell spawned crossbow (shock and horror!!), then you're doing your side a disservice.

No matter what weapon I'm using, I'd rather be on the field then off of it.
-Cian