The Armour Archive

I'm not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing that is so previlant and fun around here, but this email from the Knowne World Chiv list shocked me with some of the changes. Please note that I am unsure where this orginied from and haven't verified it with anyone....

Pas D'arms/Counted Blows would go away ( ) and unpadded polearms would as well ( )....plus a bunch more whacky stuff...
byram


"Rumor has it the SEM is planning a rather serious re-write of the Fighter's
Handbook and is only allowing comments until the 15th of this month (which
happens to be mid-Pennsic, natch.) It feels, to me, like the SEM is trying to
slide his personal viewpoint through as a parting shot. But hey, that's just one
mook's opinion

Anyway... Changes are within square brackets; [Add ...] or [Remove ...] are
obvious removals. And some of the more striking consequences of a couple of
changes are also in in square brackets.

----------- Rule changes follow --------
III. CONVENTIONS OF COMBAT

C. Target Area

[Add If a combatant intentionally places an illegal target area (e.g. hand and
or lower leg to include the knee and foot) in the path of a blow, the combatant
forfeits that attached limb.]

IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS

D. A shield may be used to displace, deflect, or immobilize an opponent's shield
or weapon, so long as such use does not endanger the safety of the combatants.
Deliberately striking an opponent's head, limbs, or body with a shield is
forbidden[, Remove, unless that shield is designed for use as a weapon, and is
approved by the Kingdom Marshallate]. [Banning offensive shields and thrusting
bucklers]

E. Add Shields must be controlled by the hand; use of passive shields (not
controlled by the hand) will be treated as decorative armor and subject to
effective blow acknowledgment. [Banning hoplite shields, for example]

F. Only one weapon or shield can be controlled by an arm at any one time. For
example, if a strapped shield is being used in conjunction with a spear, while
the spear is being grasped, the shield will be treated as a vambrace. Once the
spear is no longer in the shield hand, the shield will function as a normal
shield. The only exception to this rule is the madu. Shields on madus will be
limited to twelve inches in diameter.

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF BLOWS

B. [Remove Blows must be delivered with effective technique for the particular
type of weapon used, and must strike properly oriented and with sufficient
force, to be considered an effective, or good,
blow.] [ADD An effective blow will be defined as a blow which was delivered with
effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, and struck properly
oriented and with sufficient force; such
that, if that were a live weapon of that type, striking actual presumed armor of
chain, boiled leather and iron helm, the blow would have killed or incapacitated
the opponent or body part.]

[C. Remove Pas d'Arms Dispensation

1. Fighters participating in a Pas d'Arms tourney may deviate from the above
rules in favor of the blows received (or counted-blows) method of determining a
bout.]
[banning counted blows and Pas tourneys acroees the board]

D. All fighters are expected to take into account the nature of the weapon being
used by their opponent and the location of the point of impact of that weapon
when judging the outcome of a blow delivered.[ Remove Fighters are also expected
to take into account the timing of the blow and the collision of the weapon with
any other object other than the fighter's presumed armor.]

1. [ Remove The fact that a blow struck a shield or another weapon before
striking the combatant may be a reason why the blow was not effective. However,]
A blow that strikes with sufficient force and proper orientation shall be
considered effective, regardless of what it hits prior to striking the combatant


VI. ARMOR REQUIREMENTS
A. Armor Construction
1. Helms
Helms will be riveted...

i. All helms shall be equipped with a chinstrap or other means utilized to
prevent the helm from being dislodged Add or contacting the wearer's face during
combat. An equivalent might be, for example, [Remove a strap from helm to
breastplate] [Add a bevor] or a chin cup suspension system. A 'snug fit is NOT
an equivalent. The chinstrap shall be at a minimum a 1/ 2 inch (12.7 mm) in
width and shall not be placed in the helm in a manner that could strangle the
wearer.

3. Neck Armor

a. The neck ([Add the circumference around the larynx] and cervical vertebrae
[ADD to include the "neck knob"]) must be covered by either the helm, gorget of
rigid material, mail or heavy leather camail or aventail, or by a collar of
heavy leather lined with foam or other equivalent padding. The neck ([Add the
circumference around the] larynx and cervical vertebrae [ADD to include the
"neck knob"] must stay covered during typical combat situations to include
turning the head, lifting the chin, etc. [ADD A camail or aventail that is in
contact with the neck must be lined with foam or other equivalent padding or
used with a legal gorget.]
[okay...I'm no Physician, could someone tell me what the hell is a "neck knob"?]

4. Body, Shoulder, and Groin Armor

a. The kidney area, [Add (the area in circumference around the waist from the
top of the pelvic ridge extending up to and including the lower two ribs,
kidneys and lower lumbar vertebrae not to include the belly)] [Remove the short
ribs, and the lower lumbar spine] shall be covered with a minimum of heavy
leather worn over 1/ 4 inch (6 mm) of closed cell foam or equivalent padding.

5. Hand and Wrist Armor - The outer surfaces of the hand and [Add thumb to one
inch above the] wrist of both arms must be covered by one or a combination of
the following:

a. A Remove metal basket hilt with enough bars or plates to prevent a blow from
striking the fingers or the back of the hand. If a basket hilt [Add , shield
basket or center grip shield] is used, a vambrace and or partial gauntlet shall
cover the remaining portions of the hand and wrist [Add and thumb].

b. A gauntlet [Add and partial gauntlet] must be made of rigid plates, either
lined with padding, closed cell foam [Add or glove], or designed to transfer
potentially injurious impact to the surfaces being grasped. [Add Partial
gauntlets must cover all points of the outer hand and thumb to one inch above
the wrist that is not already covered by a sword basket, shield basket or center
grip boss.]

d. A shield with a shield basket [Add which covers the entire hand and wrist or
basket and partial gauntlet combination or shield boss and partial gauntlet
combination] [Remove or equivalent]. (Note: A shield alone is NOT sufficient,
since it covers only the back of the hand but not the fingers or thumb [Add or
wrist].)

e. Street hockey gloves are NOT equivalent [Add and will be treated only as
padding]. [Remove Street hockey gloves may be used in tandem with a
demi-gauntlet, basket hilt Street hockey gloves may also be used behind a shield
in tandem with a shield basket]

6. Arm Armor

a. The elbow point and bones at either side of the elbow joint must be covered
by a rigid material underlain by at least 1/ 4 inch (6 mm) of resilient padding
or closed-cell foam, [Remove by a shield,] or by an approved equivalent. This
armor shall be attached in such a way that the elbow remains covered during
combat.

B. Shields

1. Shields shall be edged with leather or other padding, [Add or covering]
[Remove or constructed] in such a way as to minimize the damage to rattan
weapons or other fighters.

VII. WEAPON STANDARDS

B. Swords

1. Swords may be constructed of rattan [Remove or Siloflex] and shall be not
less than 1-1/ 4 inch (31.75 mm) in total diameter (including tape) along its
entire length.

2. Rattan shall not be treated in any way that will substantially reduce its
flexibility i. e. treated with wax, resin, fiberglass, [Add siloflex, shrink
wrap] etc.

C. [Remove Siloflex

1. Swords may be made using tubular materials meeting ASTM standard D-2239 or
the international equivalent, having at least a 1-1/ 4 inch (31.75 mm) diameter
on the outside and at least 1/ 8 inch (3.2 mm) walls.

2. This sword shall have an inner core of rattan that fills the interior of the
tubular material entirely.

3. Siloflex may only be used for single-handed weapons. Periodic inspection
shall be made to determine the condition of the inner core.

4. The edge of the tip shall be slightly beveled or rounded to help protect
opponents.]
[Banning Siloflex, I guess he decided that he didn't like it any more. ]

E. Polearms

4. The head shall not be constructed of [Remove solely] rigid materials. The
head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft. The head shall allow at
least 1/ 2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give between the striking surface and
the weapon haft.
[Banning unpadded polearms...]

G. Spears

3. Counterweights or any other additions that [Remove significantly] increases
the weight of the spear are not allowed. [Remove Lightweight "buttcap-type"
handles are allowable at the discretion of the Kingdom Earl Marshal, provided
they do not add significant weight to the spear.] [Add "Sliders" are
prohibited.]

C. Other Definitions [Add Effective Blow: a blow which was delivered with
effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, and struck properly
oriented and with sufficient force; such that, if that were a live weapon of
that type, striking actual presumed armor of chain, boiled leather and iron
helm, the blow would have killed or incapacitated the opponent or body part.]
--------------------------- End changes ---------------------------


Personally, the only one of these that would affect *me* is the Pas d'Armes
judgment and the proposed illegality of counted blows tourneys. It's a bit
disheartening when one of the very few historically accurate elements of SCA
combat now appears to be on the verge of elimination. I always thought that
allowing the Pas d'Armes was indicative of a movement toward more historical
accuracy. Unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation...this is sad. Nevertheless,
it won't stop me or the members of my Tourney Company from trying to be more
historically accurate...with, or without the blessing of the SEM. However, I'm
pretty sure that a lot of you out there might be somewhat purturbed by some of
the other more sweeping decisions that he seems to be trying to make here.

Regards,
Michael of Northwood
AEthelmearc
L'Emprise de l'Escu Gules
www.redshield-1391.org <http://www.redshield-1391.org>

5b. A gauntlet [Add and partial gauntlet] must be made of rigid plates, either lined with padding, closed cell foam [Add or glove], or designed to transfer potentially injurious impact to the surfaces being grasped. [Add Partial gauntlets must cover all points of the outer hand and thumb to one inch above the wrist that is not already covered by a sword basket, shield basket or center grip boss.

ESL?

Try this instead: A gauntlet or partial gauntlet must made of rigid plates and either lined with closed cell foam or other padding or designed to transfer potentially injurious impact to the surfaces being grasped.

This would more clearly state that there are two types of gauntlets, which I think is the author's intent.
Type 1: Rigid plates with closed cell foam or other padding
Type 2: Rigid plates designed to transfer force to the weapon.

3. Counterweights or any other additions that [Remove significantly] increases the weight of the spear are not allowed. [Remove Lightweight "buttcap-type" handles are allowable at the discretion of the Kingdom Earl Marshal, provided they do not add significant weight to the spear.] [Add "Sliders" are prohibited.]

It seems to me that this would disallow the 'hot glue filled tennis ball' counter weight used on many spears. Is that necessary?

[C. Remove Pas d'Arms Dispensation 1. Fighters participating in a Pas d'Arms tourney may deviate from the above rules in favor of the blows received (or counted-blows) method of determining a bout.]
[banning counted blows and Pas tourneys across the board]

What would be the reasoning for this? Is this somehow redundant and the conclusion that Pas tournies would be illegal is somehow misunderstood?

Some of these are pretty major changes like the Pas de Arms ruling. Is the source on this reliable?

There is nothing on the SCA Announcements page at sca.org nor has anything come across the SCA announcements list, as everything else requesting commentary has.

I am not saying it isnt true, but I would like to see something official on the SCA website or announcements list or hear straight from the SEM.

I guess I am really hoping that its an SCA urban legend that sprang up over night. Pas de Arms are some of the most fun tournaments I have ever participated in.

Ron Broberg wrote:

3. Counterweights or any other additions that [Remove significantly] increases the weight of the spear are not allowed. [Remove Lightweight "buttcap-type" handles are allowable at the discretion of the Kingdom Earl Marshal, provided they do not add significant weight to the spear.] [Add "Sliders" are prohibited.]

It seems to me that this would disallow the 'hot glue filled tennis ball' counter weight used on many spears. Is that necessary?

I'll take you a step further. Unless someplace else it specifically requires/permits taping the spear shaft, this language prohibits taping the shaft - as doing so increases the weight of the spear.

This seems like an unnecessary rule, as there is a weight limit in place for the weapon. As long as any counterweight does not take the weapon over the weight limit, I fail to understand the reason for a ruling like this.

Gavin

They removed counterweights a while ago (which I though was weird). I'll be pissed if I have to destroy my spear because I have an end cap.(something that used to be required in my kingdom but has been weirded up by the 'we must be able to see the thickness of your spear shaft' rule)

The SEM Handbook is in the process of a rewrite. I would encourage folks to forward any comments/concerns they may have to the SEM and copy them to the incoming SEM who will be stepping up in October.

Anyone know who the incoming SEM is?

Kevin Roderick - aka Sir Hrothgar Monomkh



Motion by Tom Hughes to appoint Kevin Roderick (Hrothgar Monomakh) to the position of Society Marshal for the standard three-year term, subject to the standard six-month probationary period, effective at the conclusion of the October 2005 quarterly meeting. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: Jeff Brown, Dena Cady, Tom Hughes, Shawn Reed, Lis Schraer, Gabrielle Underwood. Opposed: none. Motion carried.


cheers
Adrielle (aka Gabrielle)

Duke Hrothgar of the Outlands.

Falcone

BdeB wrote:They removed counterweights a while ago (which I though was weird).

I guess that depends if you think a tennis ball of glue is 'significant' or not. Which may be why they're rewording it.

[quote="SCA Weapons Standard"]G3. Counterweights or any other addition that significantly increases the weight of the spear are not allowed. Lightweight “buttcap-typeâ€Â

I am in full agreement with Adrielle; if you take issue with any of these potential changes, then write the SEM (and incoming SEM). The worst case scenario is that nothing changes and these rules are pushed through, but the best case scenario is either we get some clarification on why some of these rulings are being made, or we change them. You might want to copy the list of changes to your local group email list so people outside the AA can have the chance to comment as well.

I am mystified by some of these rules and I feel the fighting community deserves at the very least an explanation of their purpose. Some of them are obviously clarifications, but banning Pas de arms?

I should be driving to pennsic right now....

These are being looked at by the Interkingdom Standard Committee and the various KEMS. It is not clear from the communications I've recieved whether its just this round of commentary is over on the 15th and if it gets edited and resubmitted or if commentary as a whole is done by then.

There was no commentary included in with the edits so we don't know the reasons behind them, or what there intent is. Its in the editing process so it may be that several of the rules have been poorly written or have different implications as written then what is intended.

Is there any place one can get an offical copy of the proposed changes?

I've got to get on the road but here is a quick cut and past of my comments on the rules.


This was my first round of commentary on the edits, as I sent it to the interkingdom standards committee I've the cut many of the unedited rules sections out, so it can be confusing, although I did include a few that were not edited but I thought deserved a comment anyway given the recently published combat definitions. I set my commentary off with *****. I haven't yet commented on the changes in the wording for the lower back
protection because I'm watching the discussion develop on the list.

From the outside many of the changes seem arbitrary. If commentary
concerning the reasons for the changes had been included then changes
might seem more consistent.

My commentary is informed in part by the July 2005 board minutes which
give definitions of amoured combat.

III. CONVENTIONS OF COMBAT

C. Target Area
9. Add If a combatant intentionally places an illegal target area
(e.g. hand and or lower leg to include the knee and foot) in the path
of a blow, the combatant forfeits that attached limb.

****First a terminology critique, since the rest of the target area
rules are put in terms of "legal" areas, switching to "illegal" is
inconsistent.

Next, if we are going to have a target substitution rule, how do we
know the limb was the substitution intended? For instance a person
using a two handed weapon could move their gauntleted to block their
head and just "loose" an arm. Since the person in violating a rule
that is in theory there to keep them safe, shouldn't they just lose?

Finally, the rule should clarify how weapons and shields should work
regarding this. Given the recent reinforcement of an assumption that
our equipment is from 1100 in the most recent BOD minutes:

July 2005 Quarterly Meeting:
Armored Combat: A full contact, non-choreographed re-creation of
medieval foot combat utilizing clothing, protective armor, and
simulated weapons constructed in accordance with SCA standards, with
the overall goal of recreating the appearance and methods of combat
from the historical period covered by the SCA. For purposes of this
definition, all combatants are held to be equipped in the same manner,
defined as that of approximately 1100 AD: a knee-length mail hauberk,
one-piece helm with nasal, and boiled leather defenses for the lower
arms and legs. Weapons and armor are constructed from approved
materials as defined by the Society Marshal. Adult Armored Combat as
defined above does not include light contact martial forms, such as
Rapier and Youth Combat. Adult Armored Combat includes all Combat
Archery and Siege weaponry used in melees or for war.

If our equipment is the equipment of someone from 1100 the cuphilt is
not a representative piece of equipment from this time. Swords would
be cruciform, and a cuphilt like a plate gauntlet is a part of the
armour not weapon. As such intentional blocking with a cup hilt would
fall under this rule.
*****

IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
D. A shield may be used to displace, deflect, or immobilize an
opponent's shield or weapon, so long as such use does not endanger the
safety of the combatants. Deliberately striking an opponent's head,
limbs, or body with a shield is forbidden. Remove, unless that shield
is designed for use as a weapon, and is approved by the Kingdom
Marshallate
***** Why remove the option of offensive shields? I don't see them
widely used, but we see examples of them in many period texts,
particularly in the various fighting manuals. By the nature of this
rule offensive shields are heavily regulated. Removing them entirely
would close off a potentially rewarding area of
research******

E. Add Shields must be controlled by the hand; use of passive
shields (not controlled by the hand) will be treated as decorative
armor and subject to effective blow acknowledgment.

****There are numerous historic accounts and pictures of passive
shields. Unless some particular danger or abusive use of a passively
can be widely shown, I don't see why they should be banned. Once
again we would be closing down a potentially rewarding area of study.
*****

F. Only one weapon or shield can be controlled by an arm at
any one time. For example, if a strapped shield is being used in
conjunction with a spear, while the spear is being grasped, the shield
will be treated as a vambrace. Once the spear is no longer in the
shield hand, the shield will function as a normal shield. The only
exception to this rule is the madu. Shields on madus will be limited
to twelve inches in diameter.

***** Its either a shield or armour, control of the hand doesn't make
any difference. If a combatant is skilled enough to use a shield and
spear at the same time let them use it.

Once again if we are going to go by the just published definition in
the July 2005 minutes, then the madu reference in completely unneeded.
In an 1100 context at best it's a spear with a mounted basket hilt as
safety equipment. *****

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF BLOWS
1. All "fully armored" fighters are presumed to be wearing a chain
hauberk over a padded gambeson, with boiled leather arm and leg
defenses and an open-faced iron helm with a nasal. The helm may be
presumed by Kingdom convention to include a very light chain mail
drape, permitting vision and resisting cuts by the mere touch of a
bladed weapon.

***** This hasn't been addressed by the changes and has been
reinforced by the recent BOD minutes, but this armour standard does
not really reflect any historic armour combination of which I'm aware.
Also the vast majority of fighters I've fought don't differential in
what level of force they require on limbs versus body. Mail limbs and
body defense would be more consistent with many period examples and
better justify roughly equivalent limb and body calibration. ******

B. Remove Blows must be delivered with effective technique for the
particular type of weapon used, and must strike properly oriented and
with sufficient force, to be considered an effective, or good, blow.
ADD An effective blow will be defined as a blow which was delivered
with effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, and
struck properly oriented and with sufficient force; such that, if that
were a live weapon of that type, striking actual presumed armor of
chain, boiled leather and iron helm, the blow would have killed or
incapacitated the opponent or body part.

***** Are we ready for the changes this would cause? I'm aware of no
reliable study which has been done to judge how much force is really
needed, especially if you are truly trying to incapacitate or kill in
a single blow. The literature from the period does not support that a
single blow was a typical way to end a fight. As such we only have
educated guesses which can reasonably differ significantly. Right
now sufficient blow power is determined by the consensus of fighters
in a given area. This probably results in a much more consistent
combats within an area, then an attempt to be more "realistic". I

Also this also brings out a basic illogic in the rules. The basic
rules of SCA combat laid out in Corpa reference "tournament" combat,
however our rules use fatality and disabling as common results. Death
and incapacitation while an occasional result of the medieval
tournament, were not a common nor desired result. *****


1. An effective blow to the head, neck, or torso shall be judged
fatal or totally disabling, rendering the fighter incapable of further
combat.
2. An effective blow from an axe, mace, polearm, greatsword, or other
mass weapon which lands on the hip above the hip socket, or strikes
the shoulder inside the shoulder socket, shall be judged fatal or
totally disabling.
3. An effective blow to the arm above the wrist will disable the arm.
The arm shall then be considered useless to the fighter, and may not
be used for either offense or defense.
4. An effective blow to the leg above the knee will disable the leg.
The fighter must then fight kneeling, sitting, or standing upon the
foot of the uninjured leg. Kingdoms may place limitations upon the
mobility of such injured fighters.


**** Once again given the recent BOD minutes, particularly:

…with the overall goal of recreating the appearance and methods of
combat from the historical period covered by the SCA….

Acted wounds in general and knee fighting in particular do not meet or
promote this goal. We have almost no accounts that would support this
practice and many more that are completely different..******




5. If a wounded limb blocks an otherwise acceptable blow, the blow
shall be counted as though the limb were not there.
6. Kingdoms may institute a "bleed rule" that would render a fighter
who has suffered an effective wound to a limb incapable of further
combat after a specified time.




C. Remove Pas d'Arms Dispensation
1. Fighters participating in a Pas d'Arms tourney may deviate from the
above rules in favor of the "blows received" (or counted-blows) method
of determining a bout.

*****I'll agree that its not needed per se if you carefully read the
rules, but it wouldn't hurt to have an explicit statement that other
forms of blow calling are allowed. I'd suggest rewriting this
section. We need to be encouraging attempts at recreation of specific
places and times.
*****
D. All fighters are expected to take into account the nature of the
weapon being used by their opponent and the location of the point of
impact of that weapon when judging the outcome of a blow delivered.
Remove Fighters are also expected to take into account the timing of
the blow and the collision of the weapon with any other object other
than the fighter's presumed armor.
1. Remove The fact that a blow struck a shield or another weapon
before striking the combatant may be a reason why the blow was not
effective. However, A blow that strikes with sufficient force and
proper orientation shall be considered effective, regardless of what
it hits prior to striking the combatant
***** Good edit. It remains clear with fewer words.****

VI. ARMOR REQUIREMENTS
A. Armor Construction
1. Helms
i. All helms shall be equipped with a chinstrap or other means
utilized to prevent the helm from being dislodged Add or contacting
the wearer's face during combat.

***** There are types of helm which rest on the face (cheek bones or
chin) as part of their protective quality. Helms which use face masks
for example. These helms would be outlawed by this*****


An equivalent might be, for example, Remove a strap from helm to
breastplate Add a bevor' or a chin cup suspension system. A "snug fit"
is NOT an equivalent. The chinstrap shall be at a minimum a 1/ 2 inch
(12.7 mm) in width and shall not be placed in the helm in a manner
that could strangle the wearer.

**** Good edit. The bevor is a more common example then strapping
directly to the breastplate.*****

3. Neck Armor
a. The neck (Add the circumference around the larynx and cervical
vertebrae ADD to include the "neck knob") must be covered by either
the helm, gorget of rigid material, mail or heavy leather camail or
aventail, or by a collar of heavy leather lined with foam or other
equivalent padding. The neck (Add the circumference around the larynx
and cervical vertebrae ADD to include the "neck knob" must stay
covered during typical combat situations to include turning the head,
lifting the chin, etc. ADD A camail or aventail that is in contact
with the neck must be lined with foam or other equivalent padding or
used with a legal gorget.

**** We are better off using common medical terminology and if needed
adding definitions in the appendix of the rules. Neck knob isn't
clear.
I'm uncomfortable with raising an armour standard without a clear
reason. Have their been recent injuries to justify the addition of a
gorget or padding requirement under the aventail..*****




4. Body, Shoulder, and Groin Armor
a. The kidney area, Add (the area in circumference around the waist
from the top of the pelvic ridge extending up to and including the
lower two ribs, kidneys and lower lumbar vertebrae not to include the
belly) Remove the short ribs, and the lower lumbar spine shall be
covered with a minimum of heavy leather worn over 1/ 4 inch (6 mm) of
closed cell foam or equivalent padding.
*****


b. For men, the groin must be covered by a minimum of a rigid
athletic cup (e. g., a hockey, soccer, karate, or baseball cup), worn
in a supporter or fighting garment designed to hold the cup in place,
or equivalent armor.
c. For women, groin protection of closed-cell foam or heavy leather
or the equivalent is required to cover the pubic bone area. The
wearing of a male style athletic cup by female fighters is prohibited.
d. Chest protection in the form of a gambeson is recommended, but not
required, as a minimum for all fighters. Separate breast cups are
prohibited unless connected by or mounted upon an interconnecting
rigid piece, i. e., heavy leather or metal breastplate.
e. A minimum of heavy padding over the shoulders and shoulder points
is recommended, but not required.

5. Hand and Wrist Armor - The outer surfaces of the hand and Add thumb
to one inch above the wrist of both arms must be covered by one or a
combination of the following:
a. A Remove metal basket hilt with enough bars or plates to prevent a
blow from striking the fingers or the back of the hand. If a basket
hilt Add , shield basket or center grip shield is used, a vambrace and
or partial gauntlet shall cover the remaining portions of the hand and
wrist Add and thumb.
b. A gauntlet Add and partial gauntlet must be made of rigid plates,
either lined with padding, closed cell foam Add or glove, or designed
to transfer potentially injurious impact to the surfaces being
grasped. Add Partial gauntlets must cover all points of the outer hand
and thumb to one inch above the wrist that is not already covered by a
sword basket, shield basket or center grip boss.
c. A gauntlet of heavy leather lined with closed cell foam or heavy
padding. (Note: A hockey glove is considered to be the equivalent, but
looks blatantly modern, and their use is discouraged.)
d. A shield with a shield basket Add which covers the entire hand and
wrist or basket and partial gauntlet combination or shield boss and
partial gauntlet combination Remove or equivalent. (Note: A shield
alone is NOT sufficient, since it covers only the back of the hand but
not the fingers or thumb Add or wrist.)
e. Street hockey gloves are NOT equivalent Add and will be treated
only as padding. Remove Street hockey gloves may be used in tandem
with a demi-gauntlet, basket hilt Street hockey gloves may also be
used behind a shield in tandem with a shield basket

***** This section of rules just keeps on getting more and more
complex. I suggest a re edit to make to summarize the needed
protection level without having to illustrate every possible
iteration.

I'd suggest:

5. Hand and Wrist Armor - The fingers, thumb, hand, and top and sides of the
wrist shall be covered with either one or a combination of the following:
a) a rigid material designed to transfer impact away from the body, or
b) a rigid or semi-rigid material backed with sufficient padding to
prevent injury from usual combat impact.

- Gauntlets (mitten and finger), basket hilts, shield baskets, and
other methods may be used singly or in combination as long as they meet the
above requirements for both coverage and protection.
- The use of blatantly modern materials and equipment are highly
discouraged.

The two bottom statements could be c & d but I think they work better as
bulleted end notes for the section.

*****


6. Arm Armor
a. The elbow point and bones at either side of the elbow joint must
be covered by a rigid material underlain by at least 1/ 4 inch (6 mm)
of resilient padding or closed-cell foam, Remove by a shield, or by an
approved equivalent. This armor shall be attached in such a way that
the elbow remains covered during combat.

**** Why is a shield being removed as form of protection for the
elbow? Has there been a rash of injuries? *****
*****

7. Leg Armor
a. The kneecap Add an inch above and below and both sides of the knee
joints must be covered by rigid material, lined by at least 1/ 4 inch
(6 mm) of resilient padding or closed-cell foam or an approved
equivalent. This armor shall be attached in such a way that the knee
remains covered during combat.
***** What is the reason for expanding the area?*****

b. A minimum of heavy padding over the thigh of the leading leg is
strongly recommended, but not required. A minimum of heavy padding
over both thighs is strongly recommended, but not required, for
fighters fighting without a shield.
c. All individuals will wear sturdy footwear while engaged in
combat activities.


B. Shields
1. Shields shall be edged with leather or other padding, Add or
covering Remove or constructed in such a way as to minimize the damage
to rattan weapons or other fighters.
**** Why remove "or constructed". It removes many forms of valid
shield which protect the rattan without a cover. The primary example
would be a buckler with a rolled edge****

2. No bolts, wires, or other objects may project more than 3/ 8 inch
(9 mm) from any part of a shield without being padded. (Rounded shield
bosses are not considered to be projections.)

VII. WEAPON STANDARDS
B. Swords
1. Swords may be constructed of rattan Remove or Siloflex and shall
be not less than 1-1/ 4 inch (31.75 mm) in total diameter (including
tape) along its entire length.
2. Rattan shall not be treated in any way that will substantially
reduce its flexibility i. e. treated with wax, resin, fiberglass, Add
siloflex, shrink wrap etc.

C. Remove Siloflex
1. Swords may be made using tubular materials meeting ASTM standard
D-2239 or the international equivalent, having at least a 1-1/ 4 inch
(31.75 mm) diameter on the outside and at least 1/ 8 inch (3.2 mm)
walls.
2. This sword shall have an inner core of rattan that fills the
interior of the tubular material entirely.
3. Siloflex may only be used for single-handed weapons. Periodic
inspection shall be made to determine the condition of the inner core.
4. The edge of the tip shall be slightly beveled or rounded to help protect
opponents.

*****I don't see the removal of siloflex. It makes consistent swords
that last significantly longer then standard rattan.*****

E. Polearms
4. The head shall not be constructed of Remove solely rigid
materials. The head shall be firmly and securely attached to the haft.
The head shall allow at least 1/ 2 inch (12.7 mm) of progressive give
between the striking surface and the weapon haft.

*****Assuming we are using rigid as defined in appendix this make
sense, although it would ban the use certain constructions of leather
from the heads. However it may make sense to make in clear that it
doesn't prevent the use of foam under a rattan striking surface.******

G. Spears
3. Counterweights or any other additions that Remove significantly
increases the weight of the spear are not allowed. Remove Lightweight
"buttcap-type" handles are allowable at the discretion of the Kingdom
Earl Marshal, provided they do not add significant weight to the
spear. Add "Sliders" are prohibited.
4. Weight of the spear shall not exceed 6 pounds (2.73 kg).

*****Sliders should be a separate point. Given we have a max weight
for a spear, I don't see how adding additional rules about adding
weight helps. If spears are too heavy we should lower the maximum
weight.

The section is unclear in its layout. It essentially makes two types
spear : G. spear and H. fiberglass spear. As written it looks like
sliders are banned for spear, but not noted in fiberglass spear. They
either need to be combined under one section, or all the common
modifiers need to be listed for both.*****

H. Fiberglass Spears.

BdeB wrote:They removed counterweights a while ago (which I though was weird). I'll be pissed if I have to destroy my spear because I have an end cap.(something that used to be required in my kingdom but has been weirded up by the 'we must be able to see the thickness of your spear shaft' rule)

hrm.. Seems to me that they may have thought they removed them, and now they're making certain we understand they're removed. Yet I continue to fail to understand the reasoning. The counterweight is (generally) put there to give the wielder better control of the weapon (that's a Good Thing). The weight limit is there to prevent excessively heavy weapons being used.

And I've never understood why people thought it a good idea to permanently affix a cap over the butt end of the hollow spear shaft. I want to be able to check that hollow shaft for loading - and maddening as it is, there have been some cases...

Gavin
East

Kilkenny wrote:
And I've never understood why people thought it a good idea to permanently affix a cap over the butt end of the hollow spear shaft. I want to be able to check that hollow shaft for loading - and maddening as it is, there have been some cases...

Gavin
East

You know, my take on this has always been that if the weapon feels like it is unsafe, the marshal has the right to bounce it. If the cap can't be taken off, and the marshal thinks that the weapon is suspicious, it gets bounced. The fighter can appeal the bounce to the MIC, but the marshal speaks with the voice of the King.

So even without being able to see inside, you should be able to bounce something with a permanently affixed end. And it seems like a permanently affixed end should stop post-inspection loading, if loading is a concern.

Just my thoughts,
Jimena

I'll be pissed if I have to destroy my spear because I have an end cap.(something that used to be required in my kingdom but has been weirded up by the 'we must be able to see the thickness of your spear shaft' rule)

Ironically I never used an end-cap in years of fighting with a fiberglass spear, but as recently as June was required to add one (at Highland River Melees). I put an end cap on my spear just yesterday. Legal? Required? I have no idea.

As for these changes in general all I can say is, who's driving this crazy train?

Personally, we need less rules, not more. The SCA combat conventions are quickly becoming a clone of the IRS tax code.

Geez, this is getting ridiculous.....

Kilkenny wrote:And I've never understood why people thought it a good idea to permanently affix a cap over the butt end of the hollow spear shaft. I want to be able to check that hollow shaft for loading - and maddening as it is, there have been some cases...

Because butt caps protect a vulnerable part of the spear (the cut ends) from splitting or splintering. It never occurred to me that people would want to 'load' their spears.

BdeB wrote:I'm not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing that is so previlant and fun around here, but this email from the Knowne World Chiv list shocked me with some of the changes. Please note that I am unsure where this orginied from and haven't verified it with anyone....

Sir,

I disagree that you are "not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing". I believe that is exactly what you are attempting.

You're posting something from a closed list, that was not open for cross posting, part of a document which was taken from a password protected website, specifically not open for public comment yet. Of which you have no personal permission to dissiminate.

I believe that this type of thing should be beneath a Knight, especially you. I suggest you delete this thread and send your comments on this subject directly to those it concerns.

Regards,
Ulrich von Brandenburg

Melisent wrote:Pas de Arms are some of the most fun tournaments I have ever participated in.

Me too!! How in the world does counted blows injure fighters?

It's great, and in our case of the ten counted blow melees, it lets the less experienced fighters stay in there longer and try their stuff.

-Aaron

Ulrich wrote:

BdeB wrote:I'm not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing that is so previlant and fun around here, but this email from the Knowne World Chiv list shocked me with some of the changes. Please note that I am unsure where this orginied from and haven't verified it with anyone....

Sir,

I disagree that you are "not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing". I believe that is exactly what you are attempting.

You're posting something from a closed list, that was not open for cross posting, part of a document which was taken from a password protected website, specifically not open for public comment yet. Of which you have no personal permission to dissiminate.

I believe that this type of thing should be beneath a Knight, especially you. I suggest you delete this thread and send your comments on this subject directly to those it concerns.

Regards,
Ulrich von Brandenburg

Ulrich,

Your comment only serves to reinforce the erroneous view that the Peerage are secretive and out for only themselves.

Changes to the rules (that effect us all) need to be always discussed out in the open, in plain view. Having some horrible Star Chamber just serves to tarnish the worthy Peerage.

After West Crown, I really like the Peerage, so I will assume that this Committee in the Shadows is merely an offshoot of disgruntled non-Peers.

Peers would not stoop so low to holding meetings like that, or even considering something so unworthy as eradicating Pas d’ Arms.

-Aaron

Huh...and here I was wondering why the SEM would only post potential changes to closed lists.... If you don't have a belt, you shouldn't get input in the process? I'm just asking.

Who do we talk to for clarification on the Pas d' Arms rule changes?

We need to have it set in stone that Pas d' Arms continue as they are.

What organizations can we bring to bear outside of the SCA to enforce this? The Pas d' Arms is as close to a re-creation of the times as we can get right now, I think....

I'm very, very annoyed.

-Aaron

relax.. Duke Hrothgar is a reasonable guy who really is all about trying new things from having met him a number of times I think any of the " crazy-talk" rules wont live past the first month of his term...

Guys --
The Pas d'Armes provision being struck doesn't make them illegal. People were holding pas d'armes before there was a provision. The pas d'armes provision as is is restrictive as written since it seems to imply that you can only experiment with rules if you are holding a Pas, which is bad (you should be able to experiment in other contexts as well). If it were up to me, that section would be rewritten, not deleted.

As for the secretive thing -- it was posted for comment by Earl Marshals and their Deputies, not by all the knights or whatever. It makes sense that before going to the public the SEM would ask the EMs what they think and work on getting a version of the rules that they like in all of their inter-kingdom wisdom. It's the sane way for things to work, so don't get on his (lame duck) ass about it. At least he posted something for comment by someone other than his cronies before going to the BoD. Now, whether he will listen to said comments is a different question.

-D
GotOTW, GTBTBS

what dimitry said about the secretive thing.

and anyone is better than our current SEM. the way he went about things wasnt very conducive to the feeling we as fighters were in good hands.

Duke Hrothgar seems to be much more reasonable from what I have heard.


those additions are as clear as mud... leaves plenty of interpretations to be interpreted by those who want to cause a stir.

mrks wrote: leaves plenty of interpretations to be interpreted by those who want to cause a stir.

And we don't know anything about that, do we, Marcus?

And why was this on the Chiv only web site? I am a member of the marshallate, and I have seen NOTHING of this on the EK marshallate page...
He is getting this to those that this issue concerns... every fighter is going to be affected.
We are the ones this concerns.
Olaf

Ulrich wrote:

BdeB wrote:I'm not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing that is so previlant and fun around here, but this email from the Knowne World Chiv list shocked me with some of the changes. Please note that I am unsure where this orginied from and haven't verified it with anyone....

Sir,

I disagree that you are "not trying to start the normal SEM-bashing". I believe that is exactly what you are attempting.

You're posting something from a closed list, that was not open for cross posting, part of a document which was taken from a password protected website, specifically not open for public comment yet. Of which you have no personal permission to dissiminate.

I believe that this type of thing should be beneath a Knight, especially you. I suggest you delete this thread and send your comments on this subject directly to those it concerns.

Regards,
Ulrich von Brandenburg

What gets me is the seeming decision by fiat. I don't recall any discussion the last couple years about unpadded glaives or siloflex... and wham, they're stricken?

Lets not replace "SEM-bashing" with "knight bashing".

The SEM didn't put this out to the knights. Someone "leaked" it to the knight's list because he/she was very concerned that this was going forward on the 15th and wanted an opportunity for wider commentary before then. The standards commitee (which is not large) has thus far been the only ones to actually be invited to comment. Someone decided that this was too important to keep secret and I for one will not second guess that decision. Getting the public involved means getting public pressure for the board to trump the SEM on this. That would mean the next SEM would then be in charge of the re-write.


Gaston

Samuel wrote:relax.. Duke Hrothgar is a reasonable guy who really is all about trying new things from having met him a number of times I think any of the " crazy-talk" rules wont live past the first month of his term...

Seconded, thirded, etc, etc. His Grace is a very reasonable man and I have confidence he'll look into the rules and make appropriate decisions.

Not guaranteeing that all those will be ones everyone likes, but they'll have good reasoning.

Dmitriy,

You're a reasonable fellow, and I'll put the matter in your hands (as far as I'm concerned). I trust you.

-Aaron