The Armour Archive

Duchess Tessa wrote:B.. is it just you coming or are you coming with a group? The site opens on Thursday and closes sunday afternoon.

There are three of us total (assuming everyone goes).

Animal Weretiger wrote:Who would I talk to about a difinitive ruling on this? I dont have people in aethelmark.

I was instructed that, under no circumstances was I to allow a helm with aluminum as a "structural" component. Aluminum may be used in a decorative fashion only.

This ruling came down from the Society Earl Marshal - Sir Omarad (Paul Newton) Marshal@sca.org

Helms with faceplates will be inspected for material of construction at War Practice & Pennsic. If they are aluminum they will not pass.
I agree that 1/4" thick aluminum is tough stuff but the Society Earl Marshal has ruled that it is "NOT" equivalent to steel.

Please spread this around any e-lists you may be a part of. If there is someone out there with an aluminum faceplate, we need to let him know that it will not be passible at War Practice or Pennsic (regardless of past uses) unless he gets permission from the Society Earl Marshal. I cannot circumvent this ruling. Also, Omarad will not likely be at War Practice so those wishing to appeal should contact him ASAP. marshal@sca.org

PS: My eMail (ae.marshal@aethelmearc.org) was down for 2 - 3 days last week. If I missed an eMail from you I apologize. It is working now, please resend any messages because if I haven't responded to you by now I must not have gotten your message.

The founding principal of the SCA states that we "make a reasonable attempt at a pre-17th century appearance".

It was the decision of the Society Earl Marshal that this policy should not end when we put on our armor.

We are to help guide people into this line of thinking with more of a velvet glove then an Iron Fist.
"Reasonable attempt" is very subjective and open to interpretation for a reason. We are not trying to redefine the SCA as the Society for Compulsive Anal-retentism. Nor are we trying to compete with "reenactment groups".
However, gone are the days when you can don Blue Road barrel legs, police riot gear armor, pick up a shield that still says "One Way" and expect to be allowed on the field. That is NOT a "reasonable attempt" at pre-17th century appearance. Now, spray paint the legs black or silver, put on a tabard, and paint or cover the shield and you are good to go and have spent less than $10.00.

You may also find that people who have spent time and effort on their gear will aim for your cup less often.....
...that was a joke.

The biggest question is who makes the judgement call. Well that would be the marshals with a line of appeal from marshal to Marshal in Charge to Kingdom Earl Marshal to Society Earl Marshal to BOD.

This is a very old policy that is now being given some teeth.

Many people think this policy will have a major impact on the Tuchuks. I do not think so. I looked at many old photos and most of the plastic they wear is black, covered with leather, etc. The bold colored modern ugly crap seems to be contrary to the look they are trying to portray.

I have seen some shields that look like the covers from a kids sandbox that could do wit being covered, but all in all, the offenders seem to be mostly SCA in origin.

Here are some examples to help bring into line what we are looking for:

Modern material exposed but acceptable (not blatantly modern)
Plastic Japanese Armor
http://i40.tinypic.com/152grpe.jpg
Plastic Lamallar Armor
http://her-sca-blog.com/wp-content/uplo ... -armor.jpg
Custom Black Plastic Plate
http://www.lrpstore.com/popuplargeimage ... 0Weight%29
Brown Plastic shoulders and greaves
http://medievalarmor.files.wordpress.co ... samuel.jpg
Plastic Lorica Armor
http://ancientarmour.com/SCHBAW001DL-ALH.jpg
http://www.peterwells.com/images/viciarmorbig.jpg
Well painted plastic shield:
http://mountainconfederation.weebly.com ... 159322.jpg

Modern material exposed but marginally acceptable (not blatantly modern)
This stuff is right on the line. If the SCA decides to to strengthen the standard this stuff may go. I would strongly recommend a tabard like shown in the next picture.
Please consider covering this shield or at least painting a device or household arms on it to make it look less like a road barre and more like the one pictured above.
http://darkvictory.com/assets/images/hi ... heater.JPG
He tried to cover with a tabard but his arms and legs are expose. He did make an attempt. Black and white plastics are not as "eye searing" as blue, orange, or barrel plastic with labels still on them.
http://www.pictures.darkvictory.com/pan ... 0pose2.jpg

Modern material unacceptable when exposed (blatantly modern)
This stuff is not to be exposed
http://riceswcd.org/UsableImages/Images/RainBarrel.jpg
Sports gear hides easily under tabards, shirts, and pants.
http://www.pannonsports.com/store/image ... t_back.jpg
Not all white and black plastic is ok to expose:
http://www.daveexmachina.com/gfx/2008/trooper_woman.jpg
This stuff should be covered.
http://her-sca-blog.com/wp-content/uplo ... -armor.jpg
The knee cops need painted, covered, or replaced.
http://picasaweb.google.com/joe.greig/L ... 2518844354

Sir Tristen Sexwulf wrote:
http://mountainconfederation.weebly.com ... 159322.jpg

Actually, that shield is covered in canvas and then painted with our household device.. Granted it's the same blue, but when I was putting this shield together with the owner, it was decided we would cover with fabric then paint as the paint would stay to the fabric and not the plastic alone...

But thanks for the props

Sir Omarad (The Society Earl Marshal) just sent this out to the Society Marshal's list:

In response to questions regarding the existing unapproved use of alternative materials in helmet construction I have the following policy interpretation to guide my response to those questions.

The following rules are published in the Marshal's handbook at the following link and are available through the stock clerk.
http://www.sca.org/officers/marshal/doc ... ndbook.pdf

II. RULES OF THE LISTS
B. The Rules of the Lists are reprinted from section IX.B. of the Corpora of the SCA.
2. No person shall participate in Official Combat-Related Activities (including armored combat, period fencing, and combat archery) outside of formal training sessions unless they have been properly authorized under Society and Kingdom procedures.
4. All combatants shall adhere to the appropriate armor and weapons standards of the Society, and to any additional standards of the Kingdom in which the event takes place. The Sovereign may waive the additional Kingdom standards.

III. CONVENTIONS OF COMBAT
2b. Even though a warranted member of the Kingdom Marshallate has inspected the armor and weapons used by a fighter, each fighter shall accept full responsibility for the condition of his or her own equipment. Each fighter has the obligation to his- or herself, the marshals, and all opponents, to see that his or her equipment meets all Society and Kingdom requirements.

XIV. COMBAT AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES
A.2. The persons conducting the authorization must verify that the
candidate is familiar with the Rules of the List and the current rules that
specifically govern the Kingdom of residence.

With these rules in place it is obvious that every fighter who enters a list or field to participate in SCA martial activities is stating that they understand the rules of the list which are easily available online or through the stock clerk..

Therefore, having equipment that blatantly violates these rules either means that a fighter's authorization is invalid because the never actually familiarized themselves with the rules of the list and as such their authorization is forfeit, or that they have been using equipment that is illegal under our rules on purpose and full-knowing that they are in violation of the above stated conventions. This would make them open to sanction and would forfeit their authorization pending re-equipping, some reflection time off from fighting, and a re-authorization in the presence of the Kingdom Earl Marshal.

-Omarad
-Society Earl Marshal

So the guy that's had his aluminum mempo passed for the last 15 pennsics is now boned all of a sudden?

Animal Weretiger wrote:So the guy that's had his aluminum mempo passed for the last 15 pennsics is now boned all of a sudden?

The only recourse, I can see here mate, is he take the issue to Omarad direct. As Tristen said ,were it his ball game, he'd let it fly This, however is coming from a "higher authority". He and all of us other marshal's are boned to make our own judgment call on it.

it seems pretty asinine to outlaw a helmet now that has performed flawlessly for 15 years and meets all other requirements.

Will there be a set time for authorizations at war practice? Also, will it be possible to authorize in multiple disciplines?

Cailin

it seems pretty asinine to outlaw a helmet now that has performed flawlessly for 15 years and meets all other requirements.

Part of me wants to agree, but most of me says that if that helm was to fail and lead to its wearer's injury there'd be plenty of people saying either it was "only a matter of time" or that the marshals who knew and did nothing were just as much at fault.

I'd also wager most of copora, and many of our martial rules, likely have a name attached to them -.- so the one regarding aluminum helms probably came as a result of someone's bad day.

Animal Weretiger wrote:it seems pretty asinine to outlaw a helmet now that has performed flawlessly for 15 years and meets all other requirements.

Isn't it possible to get a direct statement from a king, "No, this is safe for this person." And then just flash that every time the marshal tries to bounce it?
I'd swear someone I know got that stated for his helmet because it fits so well, even though he doesn't have the XX distance of clearance between face and helmet.

Kings have no authority over the Society Earl Marshal. The only people who can override the SEM decision is the board of Directors and/or the President of the SCA.

I feel for the guy but unless Omarad gives the helm special approval (which is unlikely) then the helm will not pass.

Ian the Red wrote:

it seems pretty asinine to outlaw a helmet now that has performed flawlessly for 15 years and meets all other requirements.

Part of me wants to agree, but most of me says that if that helm was to fail and lead to its wearer's injury there'd be plenty of people saying either it was "only a matter of time" or that the marshals who knew and did nothing were just as much at fault.

I'd also wager most of copora, and many of our martial rules, likely have a name attached to them -.- so the one regarding aluminum helms probably came as a result of someone's bad day.

Thats because the people that make our rules don't understand risk managment.

There will be plenty of time saturday morning for authorizations.

Please find someone to fight who has not had a hand in your training and get in armor then find me and I will hook you up with marshals from your kingdom to perform the authorization.

I will be dressed like this:

There's something in the discussion of revocation of authorization over knowing and willful violation of the rules that bothers me. It bothers me a very great deal.

The problem is not with the idea that knowing and willful violation of the rules should get someone's authorization revoked. I support that entirely.

It's the impression I'm getting from context here that this is being used with reference to the use of the aluminum menpo. This is an item of equipment that has been passed by inspecting marshals. It has not previously been identified as being in violation of the rules. As a result, to suggest - as I am sensing from this thread - that the wearer faces potential revocation of authorization due to willful and knowing violation of the rules is an unreasonable stand.

I am willing to consider the possibility that there is some genuinely valid reason for clarifying our rules and determining that this particular construction is not satisfactory. At that point, a ruling made to the effect that this will not be permitted going forward is reasonable.

What is not reasonable is the retroactive aspect. One cannot clarify a rule today and declare that those who had been on the wrong side of the newly clarified line have known all along that they were in violation of the rules and that they did so willfully.

Especially when you're looking at rules that include such meaningless language as "or equivalent" without offering any explanation regarding in what way they need to be equivalent. Equivalent shear strength, equivalent rigidity, equivalent compression strength ? We leave great gaping holes in our rules (which is not in all cases a bad thing).

To subsequently clarify a rule and then declare that those who have fallen, perhaps for decades, on what is now the wrong side of the line have been knowingly and willfully in violation is unwise.

Your Grace,

I agreed with you in principle, but I think what the emphasis was intended to be is "hey, we've now clarified that you cannot have any aluminum in the structural components of your helmet with specific permission from the SEM and if you try to take the field in a helmet that is known to be illegal you risk being bounced."

At least that is my take. I've known Sir Tristen long enough to know he's level headed about issues like this and he's not going to pull someones card for a violation unless he knows that the violation is intentional and the party had knowledge they were breaking the rules.

I believe he's just trying to make it clear that if you willfully violate the rules it's going to end badly for you.

my two pence
Will

The aluminum menpos in question, at least from my POV have been acceptable for SCA combat for several years. The older of the two for the past 15 years. My question is, why is it suddenly someone decides that after these 15 years, its suddenly unsafe when the menpo hasnt changed. It's just as safe as it has been for the past 15 years, what all of a sudden is different? What about all those marshalls that inspected that and passed it, not only at events in aethelmark but the midrealm and estrella too? Arent their opinipons worth anything? Its not like it's cheap to replace a helmet, especially when you got a perfectly good one sitting there that you've used for FIFTEEN YEARS ( are you sensing a theme here? ) without a hassle.
It almost seems like a personal thing against our guys. I dont wanna go all paranoid but for the life of me I cant think of a single sca helmet that has an aluminum menpo. Just sayin.

William Freskyn Murray wrote:Your Grace,

I agreed with you in principle, but I think what the emphasis was intended to be is "hey, we've now clarified that you cannot have any aluminum in the structural components of your helmet with specific permission from the SEM and if you try to take the field in a helmet that is known to be illegal you risk being bounced."

At least that is my take. I've known Sir Tristen long enough to know he's level headed about issues like this and he's not going to pull someones card for a violation unless he knows that the violation is intentional and the party had knowledge they were breaking the rules.

I believe he's just trying to make it clear that if you willfully violate the rules it's going to end badly for you.

my two pence
Will

Will, consider the combination of the rulings without considering any specific marshals I'm not worried about reasonable people who hold offices and perform their duties responsibly, competently and as intended under Corpora. I'm worried about not so reasonable people who, in a variety of ways, are not so responsible or competent.

Considering that we've already had years worth of marshals who do things like require a gorget with a close helm, I think it's easy to see the basis for concern. One of these could pull Aaron's authorization next time he gets inspected, for his willful and knowing violation of the rules...

In context of "the big picture" you are 100% correct. The only thing I would add is that while any marshal can pull a fighter for the day for a violation of the rules, not any marshal can revoke a fighters authorization without it going up the chain of command so as long as the high ups have a level head I'm not to concerned - it could ruin a fighters day and leave them with a sour taste, but ultimately the resolution will be a) the fighter violated a rule and will know not to do it again or b) the marshal was being a dick and will be dealt with by his boss. Hopes are that either way it will not be an issue in the future.

BTW, I bounced a guy once for not wearing a gorget with a close helm, a beautiful armet actually, but that was because with him standing in a normal position without even me asking him to tip his head back I could tickle his adams apple.

Animal,

Given some of the generalized statements and opinion of you and yours I understand the feeling of "they're f'ing with us because they don't want us to play" but please remember that every SEM is going to apply their interpretation of the rules. The rule specifically states no aluminum in the structural components of a helmet and the SEM is interpretting this to mean that you cannot have an aluminum faceplate. This really isn't any different than the rigid elbow under a shield that caused such a blow up not long ago. Huge amounts of history of fighters fighting without an elbow cop behind the shield without injury but the SEM at the time interpretted the rule that states all three points of the elbow must be covered and a shield only covers the outside point so no fighting with a shield without a rigid elbow. History will not change how the SEM views the black & white of the rules. As many have suggested, have anyone effected contact the SEM directly and explain the situation, see if he is willing to allow a dispensation - and get it in writing.

Will

Will,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It means allot.

Authorizations can only be pulled by the Kingdom Earl Marshal of the Kingdom that the authorization took place or the SEM. For example... Sir Douche-bag of Trimaris comes to War Practice and punches someone in the face. The marshal in charge can kick him for the day but cannot pull his authorization nor can the Earl Marshal of AEthelmearc. A marshal could, and should, ask the Earl Marshal of Trimaris and/or the Society Earl Marshal to do something about the individual.

Animal,
Aluminum has specifically not been allowed in helm construction since the mid 1980's. In fact it is rule #2 under Armor requirements in the Marshal Handbook.
That the helm passed so many years only means that the marshals didn't realize the faceplate was aluminum or weren't well enough versed in the rules to realize the failing. Now that someone brought it to the attention of the Society Earl Marshal he is taking steps to see that the rule is enforced. I am sorry this causes problems for some of your friends. If you have someone who will be short a helm at War Practice I have two extra helms I would be willing to lend them for the day. Just let me know and have them bring some extra padding so we can do a quick fit on them day of.

Can you camp by the battlefield at War Practice?

Logan the Red wrote:Can you camp by the battlefield at War Practice?

Not sure. That is a question for the autocrat:

The Autocrat for this event is THLady Ysabell Graver (Jane Cummins) 120 Kyle Rd. New Castle, PA 16102
(ysabell_graver AT yahoo.com) , 724-667-9727.

Logan,

Can't say for sure since I haven't camped War Practice in a couple years (a kid will do that to ya!) but usually the merchants are set up between the Barn and the Road and the rest of the area on top of Runestone is "quiet" (*cough*) camping. The Serengetti is parking and "loud" camping. The rest of Coopers is kind of come as you are i fyou want to camp down Runestone or whatever and hike.

Their isn't (wasn't at least 3 years ago when I camped last) any tents on the actual battlefield that I remember.

Some times living close enough to day trip is awesome, even if it is a 3 hr drive.

hope that helps
Will

Logan the Red wrote:Can you camp by the battlefield at War Practice?

It depends on what you mean by "by the battlefield"; if you mean "on the battlefield side of Currie Road" then the answer is no, unless something has changed radically this year from the previous 20.

The merchants take up the space between the barn and Currie Road, east of the West Gate; outside of the parking lot, the area immediately adjacent to Troll (across the road from where Troll is for Pennsic), pretty much everything else on site that is used for Pennsic is available for camping.

William Freskyn Murray wrote:Logan,

Can't say for sure since I haven't camped War Practice in a couple years (a kid will do that to ya!) but usually the merchants are set up between the Barn and the Road and the rest of the area on top of Runestone is "quiet" (*cough*) camping. The Serengetti is parking and "loud" camping.

'Loud' camping is not always well-defined; mostly everything from Currie Road along the West Gate road down to the bottom of RuneStone Hill is pretty quiet, the louder areas tend to be in the non-parking areas of the Serengeti and Horde Hill. Some folks even camp on the far side of the Lake because that's where they camp at Pennsic and know they can be just about as loud as late as they want.

William Freskyn Murray wrote:The rest of Coopers is kind of come as you are if you want to camp down Runestone or whatever and hike.

Their isn't (wasn't at least 3 years ago when I camped last) any tents on the actual battlefield that I remember.

Some times living close enough to day trip is awesome, even if it is a 3 hr drive.

<shrug> I live ~45 minutes away, and I'm planning on getting there early Friday afternoon to be there even longer ...

William Freskyn Murray wrote:hope that helps
Will