The Armour Archive

seriously, I've been in many situations in Calontir where I fought against more than 4 at a time. It's not enforced that much, and mostly when one guy is surrounded and alone- it's just a nice gesture to someone who's totally screwed.

4 v 1 is a rule in atlantia as well.

regards
logan

Trevor wrote:

Meinhard wrote:

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:Calontir:

No more than four (4) fighters may attack a single opponent at the same time.

I was in Calontir for 3 years. Why didn't anyone mention this?

Because we wanted to gang up on you with more than 4 fighters at one time.

Bring it! It's a lame rule, anyway.

Definitely not at Estrella. Hell. I wouldn't know what to do if I couldn't go on the occasional Boat Ride ( one or two guys run a flank and get as many enemy troops to chase them as possible).

It works in my favor far more often than for my enemies. I once got a unit of 30 guys to chase me and my squire (now Count Morgan) during a multiple objective redoubt battle. We picked off 14 before they finally got us, but by that time we had kept them occupied for long enough that our army had secured the objective they were supposed to be guarding.

If there were only 4 (or 8 ) chasing us, that would have been over too quick

yep. another rule that has no bearing on "safety" since it is each of us that which makes our game "safe" and needs to be gotten rid of. i mean really, who determined that five dudes were magically "unsafe" but somehow four are?? makes no sense at all. its as stupid as our engagement rules, softer face thrusts, arrows that destroy armour, etc etc etc.

we can make our combat cleaner and more pure.

regards
logan

Duke Phelan wrote:Definitely not at Estrella. Hell. I wouldn't know what to do if I couldn't go on the occasional Boat Ride ( one or two guys run a flank and get as many enemy troops to chase them as possible).

It works in my favor far more often than for my enemies. I once got a unit of 30 guys to chase me and my squire (now Count Morgan) during a multiple objective redoubt battle. We picked off 14 before they finally got us, but by that time we had kept them occupied for long enough that our army had secured the objective they were supposed to be guarding.

If there were only 4 (or 8 ) chasing us, that would have been over too quick

In many situations 4 on one would hardly be fair... for the 4 poor squeebs that attacked me or a lot of other guys I know.

4 random dudes, I'm probably going to take them out.

4 Squires, it's fair to bet that none of them would survive the encounter.

4 Knights, pretty unlikely to take all 4 out but not beyond the realm of possibility.

4 royals, that's just crap. It shouldn't and most likely wouldn't take 4 of them to get me. I still might get a few though on a really good day.

I have certainly seen others attack more than 4 folks at a time and not get touched. If some of us attack only 4 guys at a time people might think we were cheating.

Count Johnathan wrote:In many situations 4 on one would hardly be fair... for the 4 poor squeebs that attacked me or a lot of other guys I know.

4 random dudes, I'm probably going to take them out.

4 Squires, it's fair to bet that none of them would survive the encounter.

4 Knights, pretty unlikely to take all 4 out but not beyond the realm of possibility.

4 royals, that's just crap. It shouldn't and most likely wouldn't take 4 of them to get me. I still might get a few though on a really good day.

How about one random dude and a combat archer?

Arminius wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:In many situations 4 on one would hardly be fair... for the 4 poor squeebs that attacked me or a lot of other guys I know.

4 random dudes, I'm probably going to take them out.

4 Squires, it's fair to bet that none of them would survive the encounter.

4 Knights, pretty unlikely to take all 4 out but not beyond the realm of possibility.

4 royals, that's just crap. It shouldn't and most likely wouldn't take 4 of them to get me. I still might get a few though on a really good day.

How about one random dude and a combat archer?

4 combat archers

Meinhard wrote:
Bring it! It's a lame rule, anyway.

WHY is it a lame rule? The only thing it prevents is a brutal beat down on 1 person trying to his glorious last stand.

If you can't beat one person with 3 other guys helping, you don't deserve to win.


That being said, as others have pointed out, if you are that 1 person, and you charge a line all alone, then you get what you are asking for.

The 4on1 rule ONLY applies when the group is the aggressor against the 1.

Hrolfr wrote:

Arminius wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:In many situations 4 on one would hardly be fair... for the 4 poor squeebs that attacked me or a lot of other guys I know.

4 random dudes, I'm probably going to take them out.

4 Squires, it's fair to bet that none of them would survive the encounter.

4 Knights, pretty unlikely to take all 4 out but not beyond the realm of possibility.

4 royals, that's just crap. It shouldn't and most likely wouldn't take 4 of them to get me. I still might get a few though on a really good day.

How about one random dude and a combat archer?

4 combat archers

Please everyone knows CAers can only kill people not looking at them. Besides they would all yield first.

We have the 4 on 1 rule in Northshield, except...

Someone holding that ball pointed out that CA engage everyone they can hit, so if you're within range of 4 CA on the field, no one can hit you with a sword.

Lookee! I have my own rule.

Nice work Raito!

So if there are 4 combat archers on the other side nobody else is allowed to attack. That is delightful. Perhaps I shall change my stance on CA now that it could provide me with such an advantage!

InsaneIrish wrote:
That being said, as others have pointed out, if you are that 1 person, and you charge a line all alone, then you get what you are asking for.

The 4on1 rule ONLY applies when the group is the aggressor against the 1.

Precisely.

InsaneIrish wrote:

Meinhard wrote:
Bring it! It's a lame rule, anyway.

WHY is it a lame rule? The only thing it prevents is a brutal beat down on 1 person trying to his glorious last stand.

If you can't beat one person with 3 other guys helping, you don't deserve to win.


That being said, as others have pointed out, if you are that 1 person, and you charge a line all alone, then you get what you are asking for.

The 4on1 rule ONLY applies when the group is the aggressor against the 1.

Whaddaya' mean OTHERS?

Meinhard wrote:[...] If you rush into a group of enemy combatants by your lonesome, I see no reason you shouldn't suffer for it at the hands of as many people as can reach you.

Yeah, it's a crap situation to be in if you're the one guy, but you always have the option of going and looking for your friends. If you're ever the one guy against 20 or so, you have a choice to make: glorious smacky-whacky-ouchy "death" or tactical retreat. Don't like it? Tough biscuits.

Also, if you happen to be the one guy AND an epic badass superstick, you also have the option of whuppin' all those punks and walkin' away a legend.

One thing to consider is that the 4 on 1 thing doesn't mean 4 guys attack you while everybody else leaves.

You can have 20 guys in front of you. Only 4 can be engaged with you. Kill one, and one of the other 16 guys jumps in and starts swinging.

You'd still have to kill all 20 guys, but only 4 can be actively attacking at one time. You'd have to kill 17 guys before you'd reduce the 4 on 1 to a 3 on 1.

i have seen phelan and walrick both do that trick phelan mentions
send only 4 guys after them
and they might not come back
i saw walrick pick off people at pennsic doing that
they would stutter with who was gonna charge
then people died
this rule is for the masses not the heroes
there are individuals in my kingdom i would send units after
and still worry
heroes tend to draw other heroes to them at a fast rate
what seems like one against many can change quickly
then your 4 on 1 rule got your army killed
technically
by one dude

While I was far from a War God, bathed in a nimbus of light , 4 on 1 - with me as the one, well - that's a bit unfair for the four.

Unless those four actually train together, they tend to get in each other's way - making it is easy for someone with a good eye to maximize their ineffectiveness while picking them off.

It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

I haven't heard of anything like that here, though I have not studied the marshal handbook. I think the other locals here call 4 to 1 a "target rich environment" Your mileage may vary...

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

Hmmm..... You bring up an interesting point, let me throw this out there;

Is it within the spirit of the rules to intentional "ground" an opponent? Can 4 run over 1 to ground them, with the intent to grounding them (rather than striking them)?

I have spent many years studying martial arts, can I use a gauntleted hand to legally grasp a persons weapon haft and ground them with then intent of killing them on the ground?

Is there a difference? If so what?

This thread reminds me of a Ron White Joke

"i didn't know how many guys it would take to kick my ass, but i knew how many they were gonna use"

Godric of Castlemont wrote:Hmmm..... You bring up an interesting point, let me throw this out there;

Is it within the spirit of the rules to intentional "ground" an opponent? Can 4 run over 1 to ground them, with the intent to grounding them (rather than striking them)?

I have spent many years studying martial arts, can I use a gauntleted hand to legally grasp a persons weapon haft and ground them with then intent of killing them on the ground?

Is there a difference? If so what?

Well I know at wars it is often the case where when someone is being charged (especially some of the larger spear/glaive fighters) they will set and body check the person charging them with the intent to call them dead on the ground when they fall on their back.

Not sure on the technicalities of it, but at least the feel I got was that it was perfectly fine to knock someone down with a body check and call them dead on the ground, but something like trying to trip, or grab them and throw them down wouldn't be. Mostly because the first is expected contact in any situation where people are charging and the latter is more of grappling.

At least in a war setting when you know the person you are facing has better weapon skill (or in close and you have a long weapon you can't even use) just trying to run them over is often the most practical option.

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

Wow...just

I wish I could use this in Atlantia. LOL. Go to a melee. spend the entire day pancaking people. Spend the night at the fire "I 'killed' 47 people today! and I only swung my sword twice!"

Godric of Castlemont wrote:

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

Hmmm..... You bring up an interesting point, let me throw this out there;

Is it within the spirit of the rules to intentional "ground" an opponent? Can 4 run over 1 to ground them, with the intent to grounding them (rather than striking them)?

I have spent many years studying martial arts, can I use a gauntleted hand to legally grasp a persons weapon haft and ground them with then intent of killing them on the ground?

Is there a difference? If so what?

In single combat - No, it just causes the fight to stop.

In a war - you bet. knock 'em down (as long as you don't use your shield against their body.) Then "dead on the ground".

Using a guantletted hand to ground someone in a melee is not usually very easy. Most are pushed down with shields, though I have knocked people down on purpose with an oblique thrust to a shield with a spear timed to be when they are in mid-stride.

Doorman wrote:

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

Wow...just

I wish I could use this in Atlantia. LOL. Go to a melee. spend the entire day pancaking people. Spend the night at the fire "I 'killed' 47 people today! and I only swung my sword twice!"

Its really not always that easy to get the dead on the ground to stick if people are working as a team. If one of us falls or is knocked down, the others protect our buddy. You have to be able to have enough time to put your weapon on their chest and say "Dead on the Ground". This takes a couple seconds of focus that will cause you to die quickly if the person on the ground is well-protected. Often people who are knocked down can get back up because the final "dead on the ground' phase was never completed.

why not just strike them?

regards
logan

FrauHirsch wrote:

Doorman wrote:

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

Wow...just

I wish I could use this in Atlantia. LOL. Go to a melee. spend the entire day pancaking people. Spend the night at the fire "I 'killed' 47 people today! and I only swung my sword twice!"

Its really not always that easy to get the dead on the ground to stick if people are working as a team. If one of us falls or is knocked down, the others protect our buddy. You have to be able to have enough time to put your weapon on their chest and say "Dead on the Ground". This takes a couple seconds of focus that will cause you to die quickly if the person on the ground is well-protected. Often people who are knocked down can get back up because the final "dead on the ground' phase was never completed.

dukelogan wrote:why not just strike them?

regards
logan

Because this is a chivalric fighting game.

Because they are prone and unable to defend themselves. If you don't have time to lay the weapon on them and tell them they are dead they usually are out of striking range anyway. It takes about the same amount of time to do either.

If they are standing you hit them. If they are getting up you hit them. If they are laying on the ground you simply tell them they are dead so long as you are within weapons reach of them. it is polite and reduces the chance of injuring a prone opponent.

can they cover themselves with thier shield or use thier weapon to prevent your weapon from being laid across them?

regards
logan

Count Johnathan wrote:

dukelogan wrote:why not just strike them?

regards
logan

Because this is a chivalric fighting game.

Because they are prone and unable to defend themselves. If you don't have time to lay the weapon on them and tell them they are dead they usually are out of striking range anyway. It takes about the same amount of time to do either.

If they are standing you hit them. If they are getting up you hit them. If they are laying on the ground you simply tell them they are dead so long as you are within weapons reach of them. it is polite and reduces the chance of injuring a prone opponent.

As I understand it, no you can not "block" dead on the ground. It tends to be applied in the same manner as dead from behind, as in "I could hit you but I am choosing not to".

As to grabbing a weapon to throw or ground a fighter, there are a number of ways to make it work none of which are "nice". The probability of injury goes up quite a bit if you are to add falls to SCA combat. While there are a number of people who are capable of taking a fall in the SCA combat word, a greater number would most likely try to catch themselves with their arms or something similar that would result in significant injury. No fun all around. As far as I can tell there is no rule against using a armored hand to grasp a weapon haft and do something resulting in a fall for the weapon holder, the issue would not be CAN you do it but SHOULD you do it.

Personally I say NO! This is a silly game we play on weekends and I choose not to do something that would increase the risk to my fellow players. I see "DOTG" (dead on the ground) as a tool to keep people from getting hurt when they fall. if some one had been knocked down in the charge, the likelihood of their being blind sided when they stand is pretty high thus DOTG to keep them from getting creamed. I have no problem with the crash of a charge possibly knocking people down, part of the fun of the game, but when you intend to knock someone down you are in my mind starting to cross a line that should not be crossed. We kill with weapons, that is the nature of the game, when we start to kill with something besides a weapon the nature of the game changes. While I think it is pretty cool to be able to add a little grappling to SCA style combat from time to time (once had a great knife fight in a tourney with more grappling that was legal, but we both had a really fun time!), I understand that most SCA fighters are not capable of safely dealing with that level of play.

dukelogan wrote:can they cover themselves with thier shield or use thier weapon to prevent your weapon from being laid across them?

regards
logan

No you can't "block" dead on the ground. On the west coast we are all familiar with how it works so it is generally understood that if you are down and somebody is able to make contact with their weapon on your body or shield and tells you you are dead... then you are dead. They were being nice so it's best not to bend the spirit of the rule or else get gacked hard and repeatedly by the person who was just being nice to you ... and their buddies. No 4 on one rule here. Keeps it pretty civil.

It works pretty well.

Godric of Castlemont wrote:I
Is it within the spirit of the rules to intentional "ground" an opponent? Can 4 run over 1 to ground them, with the intent to grounding them (rather than striking them)?

Some of think it's fine and and a good time. It's considered "rough play", though. I don't see how 4 guys is better for knocking over someone than 1. You could squish them, I guess though. Even 2 on 1 requires some precision shield bashing.

I have spent many years studying martial arts, can I use a gauntleted hand to legally grasp a persons weapon haft and ground them with then intent of killing them on the ground?

Is there a difference? If so what?

The difference is that a "shield check" is legal move if it hits the persons' shield or weapon. Also, we allow (in practice, the rules as written are, of course, vauge) cross checks with poles - although you are supposed to check the shield/weapon, not body.

In practice, in war, there is a fair amount of shield/haft to body contact.

You could probably get away with grabbing a haft with a gaunlet and throwing them, but it's clearly grappling. You cannot just bear hug someone with your arms and throw them down.

Doorman wrote:

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:It's actually irrelevant to western kingdoms since we have Declared Dead on the Ground. If anyone requires more than 2-3 people you can just run him over. The rule is only really applicable to 'legged' opponents anyway.

People don't usually last long enough to count to 4.

Wow...just

I wish I could use this in Atlantia. LOL. Go to a melee. spend the entire day pancaking people. Spend the night at the fire "I 'killed' 47 people today! and I only swung my sword twice!"

People from Atlantia (and sometimes the East) always say this. And they never come out to Estrella and actually try it. Keep in mind that it's at least a 2 step drill... the person has to be pancaked and THEN declared dead... which usually means they have to be isolated or overrun and surrounded.

The difference is that a "shield check" is legal move if it hits the persons' shield or weapon. Also, we allow (in practice, the rules as written are, of course, vauge) cross checks with poles - although you are supposed to check the shield/weapon, not body.

In practice, in war, there is a fair amount of shield/haft to body contact.

You could probably get away with grabbing a haft with a gaunlet and throwing them, but it's clearly grappling. You cannot just bear hug someone with your arms and throw them down.

I do not believe it is grappling. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I don't think the rules mark a difference between the following:

With an armored hand I grab a spear and pull, the spearman falls.

and

With an armored hand I grab a spear and pull, with the intent of making the spearman fall and the spearman falls.


Can I grab a weapon? It seems clear the rules provide for that. Can I grab a person? The rules clearly state no, I can not. Where to we draw the line between what is grabbing with the intent to destabilize and what is grappling?

Can you grapple a weapon? Would grabbing a weapon to take it from the fighters hands be grappling a weapon? It is a normal occurrence in war to have a spear pulled from the hands of a spearman, the rules seem to account for this. What if they won't let go and they fall and you kill them on the ground?

Sigifrith, thank you for playing the counter my position here. Personally I think our best ideas come from debate and discussion. I am always willing to look from a differing position.

Yes, you could grab a weapon and try to throw someone. Its just not all that easy. As Sigifrith already pointed out, the 2 step process takes time, and if people working as a team,the team will try to stop the DTFG. Also the folks using hafted weapons expect the occasional attempt to grab their weapons and have various ways to counter it, and many will just let go rather than being pulled down.

I believe the safety issue is not about discouraging people from falling (at least out here). Falling has been the most typical way of acknowledging a telling blow forever. Its that when we normally get hit, we unconsciously start moving away from the blow as it strikes. There is no ability too do that when you are between a sword and the ground. There is no give, thus making the body take all the pounding. For minimally armored people, this could be really bad.

Big charges with pileups are the norm for bridges and castles, but relatively few DDotG's actually happen.

Godric - you are right!

I forgot about spear snatching! Totally legal. You can also grab shields with a gauntlet too! Obviously "intent" is somewhat irrevelent there. Since if you grab my spear I have 3 options:

1) Let go (possibly involuntarily)
2) Pull harder than you and rip it out of your hand
3) Fall over (with concomitant chance of DDoG.

It's not really on the "grabber" to declare his intent to say.

Some people find this rude (not as rude as being shot with an arrow, at least on average).