Combat Archery - New Rules for Atlantia/East Kingdoms

[James B.]

I would dispute that point. Considering that there were more Eastern fighters than Atlantian, and considering the relative splits of late period versus in the two kingdoms, I would argue that late period kits were at best half and maybe less of what was on the field. And why is maille and leather a fantasy exactly?

1) Plenty of 14th c guys in the East especially among the vocal crowd that would push for such a rule. Also the 14th century is hardly "late period".

2) Prove to me boiled leather was on the field at Hastings which the SCA claims is its armor standard, no living history group anywhere in the world excepts that because there is no evidence. There is evidence 2 centuries later for boiled leather armors worn with maille.

[white mountain armoury]

I would argue James that when you take into account the large time period portrayed in the sca that the 14th could be thought of as late when you start in the 5th

[James B.]

I would argue James that when you take into account the large time period portrayed in the sca that the 14th could be thought of as late when you start in the 5th

I see I am thinking historical terms not SCA terms

On another note that fact that one time frame made up around 50% on the folks on the field and the other 50% is "other" says allot about the shift in focus of so many in the SCA especially considering how many kits are "SCA kits" and not identifiable to any time frame.

[InsaneIrish]

Okay, u got me, Nissan! I love to kill as a CA, but who would deny someone of my small stature this simple pleasure? When I stand in a shield wall, I am, usually, one of the first to get targetted to get rolled, naturally--unless I have a pretty good polearm behind me.

Sorry, but I do not consider small stature a hindrance. IF you think it is a hindrance I suggest you talk to Her Grace Sir Arial of Calontir and see if she thinks small stature is a hindrance.

Also, (to Irish) Who carries 100 bolts into a fight? I can barely get mine out of the quiver and I carry only 40, spreading them out over the fight.

Never been to Gulf Wars and the Ravine battle have you?
Never seen CAers with garbage cans as quivers strapped to their hips?

When the SCA is growing with fighters eager to join in the fun, then maybe it won't be silly to push some of us away. From my vantage point, I haven't seen many new fighters in Atlantia lately and the ranks are growing older--have you noticed? Black Talon is cultivating new fighters and is VERY inclusive of all fighting forms.

Do you know that for sure? Or are you speculating? Honestly I don't know if the fighting ranks in Atlantia are growing or not. I would think that the KEM of Atlantia would be the person to ask about that. However if you are just going by what you "see" I would be careful making statements like the above because of it. Very rarely are they correct.

[carlyle]

The part with a face or armpit is brought about from a 14th century or later view of armour. Maille had less of a chance of stopping an arrow than plate did...

I'm going to take Oswyn's quote somewhat out of context to raise the following point. It is a fallacy that archery contemporary with mail was any more effective than 14th C. and later archery was against the rise of plate. Chronicles and citations from across the mail era indicate that mail was proof against the arrows of the day. The much-lauded longbow did not enter into service until the very late 13th C. under Edward I. Prior to that, less powerful selfbows were the rule. Under these conditions, a face shot-only rule would be just as applicable to a mail-clad impression as to someone wearing a globose breastplate.

This does not address the effect of the cross-bow in the same era. That's a topic for another "discussion" .

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

[Cat of Black Talon]

<sigh> I like combat archery and I'm a merc. One could "speculate" that I probably don't like a lot of rules.

I'm glad there is no set rule (yet) that only face and armpit are targets (which I still believe is silly). I'll be bummed if this becomes a policy. (maybe I need to be playing paintball?) In anycase, I will continue to do CA as long as it's allowed in SCA and will adapt, adopt and improve to meet any policy that comes along.

I hope for greater tolerance for this combat form as, in my opinion, it adds spice, diversity, and a deeper dimension to SCA fighting.

[Syrfinn]

Actually James, one reason the kits tend to lean towards 14c is, and this is just a total guess, the bascinet.

For the longest time, it was "THE" tourney helm, due to its glancing surfaces. Plus the fact, that a lot of armorers were pushing them out quickly more than any other helm.

Granted, a lot of this I am speculating on Atlantia, where I grew up at. But for the longest time, any other helm other than a bascinet, was an exotic helm on the list field.

So with that being said, of course folks are going to start pushing the rest of their kits towards the helm they are wearing.

But the further you get away from the east coast, specially Atlantia, I would make a guess you start seeing many varieties of helms, that are not bascinets, nor 14c. kits.

Like others in the past have said. Look at the top tourney fighters in any given kingdom, and you will notice the majority of the kits in said kingdom fall into their categories as long as those folks are on top.

[carlyle]

I love to kill as a CA, but who would deny someone of my small stature this simple pleasure?

Allow me to try to answer this from the perspective of one of your potential targets...

For me, heavy weapons combat is not about the kill, it's about "the test". For the test to be complete, my opponents not only have the opportunity to strike me down, but I may return the favor and deliver a "telling" blow upon their body. Practically speaking, there is no one in the line that, reduced to just the two of us, may attack me while being more than one step away of being at "risk" of my blade.

The reason this is important is because it is only through "the test" that renown is won. This is accomplished either by delivery a well-struck blow to an opponent who could have struck me in return, or by accepting a hit from a worthy adversary (i.e., at risk of my offense) despite my desire to continue in the press. This is only relevant where the duality is present. In effect, while I am the master of my renown, it is only by surrendering my honor into the crucible of combat that, through the striving, it is returned to me stronger than when I started -- and my opponent is essential to that process.

Archers, unfortunately, do not participate in "the test". An archer can strike me without ever being struck back. Yes, they are at risk of other archers, and perhaps even other heavy fighters; but the ones shooting at me are not within my range. They may "kill" me, but under the assumption that renown is the public manifestation of honor won through virtuous action, neither their renown nor mine may be advanced in this scenario. It is one of the few situations allowed in our Play where advantage is valued above honor (death-from-behind is another such tactic). And while, for an archer, this may be enough, your "simple pleasure" denies me the path to renown. Why would that be even remotely interesting to me?

With regards,

Alfred of Carlyle

[Baron Alejandro]

Alfred,

I wish to engage you in polite debate, without arousing ire or foul blood, with my only intent to stimulate our intellects through discussion, even if we disagree.

Those who hurl themselves into 'the test' subject themselves in many ways and means, one of those being the whims of fate. Men at arms are tested by fate as well as their adversary, whether they wish to be tested by fate or no. Could it be said that archers represent the role of capricious fate, choosing who lives and dies willy-nilly?

When I take the field at war, I am choosing to display my willingness to strive for my Crown and Kingdom, no matter the odds, tactical situation, combattants, or other factors. If I am shot in the first thirty seconds of battle by an archer, well, then the wheel of fortune has thrown me down and at least my compatriots will be able to further the cause of our Crown; perhaps my sacrifice will not be in vain. Going into battle when the enemy has archers, is no different to me than going in to battle when the enemy outnumbers us by double or triple (such as the East versus the Mid at Pennsic a couple years ago).

Alejandro

[James B.]

But the further you get away from the east coast, specially Atlantia, I would make a guess you start seeing many varieties of helms, that are not bascinets, nor 14c. kits.

Like others in the past have said. Look at the top tourney fighters in any given kingdom, and you will notice the majority of the kits in said kingdom fall into their categories as long as those folks are on top.

No doubt but all I am doing is speculating why there was a such a rules change/mind set here with an Atlantian/East Kingdom event and only intend to be specific to that area with my comments. Though the 14th century mafia is everywhere and more recruits are signing on every day

[raito]

Sir Alfred,

It's even worse when one considers that one's renown may be lessened by refusing to participate in battles where archery is present.

You may never have fought in the Big Damn Ditch at Gulf Wars. I have several times, including as Prince and King of Northshield. It is not an enjoyable battle for me. It is a tolerable walk in the woods in full kit. If I try quite hard, I may convince myself that when struck by an arrow, my retreat is simply so that I may pull it from my armour and continue. It would be preferable if I was indded shot 5 paces from the point, rather than 50 yards from it, as I would waste less time walking about. I believe that I was shot 23 times last year in 45 minutes. Considering the amount of time taken going to and from the point, it's amazing I fought at all.

Cat, your 'simple pleasure' denies me mine. Whose is more important? At least if I am struck by a weapon, I may return a blow, even against a half dozen opponents (there were often that many arrows directed at me.) It is also telling that arrows are the only thing allowed to strike at one's back without foul.

If it is not enjoyable, then why do I do it?

Because if I don't, then my renown is called into question. My oath says, in part, "Foremost in battle". This measn that I do not get to pick and choose battles depending on whether or not I like the rules. When my liege specifies that Northshield takes a side in some matter where I am present, I go where commanded. I must protect my liege and the others in fealty to him. And if I do not show, will my fellows shield me later when I abandoned them earlier?

(And strangely, I don't so much object to archery. It's mostly archers I object to.)

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Never been to Gulf Wars and the Ravine battle have you?
Never seen CAers with garbage cans as quivers strapped to their hips?

Yes, I have. I have seen people with giant bags of arrows, not quite literally garbage cans, but close. But part of the problem is that a period quiver could have held several dozen arrows. The smallest quivers I have seen at the Target Archery range is 2 dozen, to larger ones which are constructed well, and could hold several dozen. Unfortunately, when you make a 1.25" ball on the tip, you neccesitate larger quivers to replicate the numbers of arrows they would have held, leading to a scaling up effect. Mongols also would store extra quivers on their horses, so when they would run out of one, they could "swap out". Such a thing is not allowed in SCA CA. So, even though they look ahistorical, they dont look any worse than a golftube scabbard. Either can be done well. But I havent seen many good scabbards, besides the ones Sir Vitus has started producing.

It is a fallacy that archery contemporary with mail was any more effective than 14th C. and later archery was against the rise of plate.

Carlyle, I think you might want to reword this. From what I read of your post, you are agreeing that maille vs 1066 archery was just as effective as 15th century archery vs. plate. If this is how you meant your post to read, might I suggest changing "more" to "less". If not, I apologize.

[James B.]

Seems to me this battle at Gulf Wars is more of an issue than just CA to me. I have never worried about CA at Pennsic even though I was hit a few times by arrows.

[Cat of Black Talon]

Carlysle wrote: "Archers, unfortunately, do not participate in "the test". An archer can strike me without ever being struck back. Yes, they are at risk of other archers, and perhaps even other heavy fighters; but the ones shooting at me are not within my range. They may "kill" me, but under the assumption that renown is the public manifestation of honor won through virtuous action, neither their renown nor mine may be advanced in this scenario. It is one of the few situations allowed in our Play where advantage is valued above honor (death-from-behind is another such tactic). And while, for an archer, this may be enough, your "simple pleasure" denies me the path to renown. Why would that be even remotely interesting to me?"

Thank you for this. Well, there's the rub. We're playing the game from different perspectives.

I fight w/sword/board too, so of course I think it sux when some archer hits me (dammit) and I have to resurrect or I'm out for the rest of the battle, especially if it takes longer to armor up than fight.

1) No archer, honorable or not should ever shoot you in the back.

2) Melee is a team sport not a tournament (lol-- thinking of an archer in a heavy tournament). Or, at least it is where I'm fighting.

3) Melee isn't a test of individuals, it's a test of team work.

4) SCA is an inclusive, evolving organization that doesn't cater to just the needs of one group (tournament fighters), there are melees and wars that allow us war dogs a chance to play too.

5) Advantage vs. honor. Are they exclusive? (OMG--that's another conversation thread right there.)

6) You express that CA denies you fun, yet you would deny CA their fun? Why can't we both have fun? Maybe you should consider teaming up with a good shieldman for protection if you don't want to get hit by a bolt. Maybe having CA around will help fighters who are used to fighting tournaments fight better as a team? What is more galvanizing for teammates than a scream, "Archer! Shields up!"

7) Fun is fun.

[raito]

James,

It is a larger thing in the ditch at Gulf Wars because of the layout of that particular battle. It exacerbates the various problems.

First off, the field is relatively long and narrow. It is perhaps a hundred yards long and perhaps 50 wide at most. I'd estimate that the center is lower by 20 to 30 feet than the edges. Mobility is relatively pointless as it is not possible to flank to the outside. Flanking to the inside is a bit of suicide.

Thus you have foot troops that really can't maneuver enough to make a difference if there's any resistance in front of them. The unengaged troops may move some, but have to engage at some point. Charging straight forward is challenging or potentially injurious, depending on your point of view, as your moving perpendicular to the slope.

So what you have is a bit of Agincourt dictated by the rules rather than strategy.

Cat, shooting fish in a barrel is not 'fun' for me. Nor do I suspect that it is for Sir Alfred, as he plainly states his fun is based on the possibility of being struck while having the possibility to strike. Archery does not provide this for either party. It is a shallow fun to take pleasure in striking one who may not strike in return. That is the point.

I do believe that you miss the point about the press of melee. That it is teamwork is not the point here. The point is that even in the press with teamwork one who strikes you may be struck by you, teamwork or no.

And I find your suggestion that Sir Alfred find a shieldman to be quite amusing.

To your last point, yes, I would deny them their fun. What reason is there for me to spend my free time not having fun myself simply for the enjoyment of another?

[Cat of Black Talon]

I read your points, gentlemen (Sir A. and Riato).

I think it serves the SCA to be inclusive rather than exclusive, so I'll agree, respectfully, to disagree.

[raito]

That depends entirely on what you mean by 'inclusive'.

To some, 'inclusive' is elf ears.

To me, inclusive is whatever is within the rules. The written rules ought to be easy (editors notwithstanding). Social rules are much more difficult.

Inclusive is specifically not doing as I wish simply because I wish it, and expecting all to be well with that.

The discussion of how to have an inclusive organization based around recreating an elitist, exclusive set of cultures is not likely to fare well.

[InsaneIrish]

1) No archer, honorable or not should ever shoot you in the back.

but they do, and continue to do so, even though I hear MANY CAers say they shouldn't.

2) Melee is a team sport not a tournament (lol-- thinking of an archer in a heavy tournament). Or, at least it is where I'm fighting.

yes, but in its current state CA is unbalancing the game. And Historically Grande Melees did not have archery.

3) Melee isn't a test of individuals, it's a test of team work.

But it is, everytime I take the field my honor and skill as an individual is tested. Only now I am tested with both keeping me alive as well as my fellows to the right and left.

4) SCA is an inclusive, evolving organization that doesn't cater to just the needs of one group (tournament fighters), there are melees and wars that allow us war dogs a chance to play too.

Inclusive is good. But how inclusive do we really need to be? When does one group's "inclusivity" and right to fight infringe on anothers right to fight?

6) You express that CA denies you fun, yet you would deny CA their fun? Why can't we both have fun?

The problem is that your fun as a CA denies my fun as a noble combatant. My fun as a noble combatant does not deny your fun. Kind of one sided.

Maybe you should consider teaming up with a good shieldman for protection if you don't want to get hit by a bolt.

So, because you want to shoot people from 30 yards way, your answer is for us to inlist another sheildman to protect us? So, the guy who is the shieldman, how fun is it to block bolts all day? Who's fun are we enjoying then?

Maybe having CA around will help fighters who are used to fighting tournaments fight better as a team? What is more galvanizing for teammates than a scream, "Archer! Shields up!"

Not really, it is an annoyance(sp?) because we know that because you are there some of us will die and we can do nothing to prevent it. We can either ignore you and get shot over and over or block you and get killed the shieldwall you are safely hiding behind. Catch 22.

7) Fun is fun.

Right up to the point where your fun denies my fun. Then its not fun anymore.

[James B.]

Some of you guys have a real stick up the bum. I think I will start blowing off all single handed sword shots because my armor would be proof against while we are talking about the lack of realism and unbalance of SCA combat. You will need a polearm or you need to trust with a spear or sword into maille spots on me from now on

The idea that Pennsic is a 2000 plus greand melee is silly, its a small war plain and simple and it has a hell of allot less archers than a real one.

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Double Post, sorry.

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

1) No archer, honorable or not should ever shoot you in the back.

but they do, and continue to do so, even though I hear MANY CAers say they shouldn't.

So, you are damning all CA because of the actions of a few? By that reasoning, you shouldnt be fighting heavy, because people Rhino "even though I hear MANY fighters say they shouldnt. I would seriously rethink your reasons. Rules violations are violations.

2) Melee is a team sport not a tournament (lol-- thinking of an archer in a heavy tournament). Or, at least it is where I'm fighting.

yes, but in its current state CA is unbalancing the game. And Historically Grande Melees did not have archery.

So, you seem to think it is a Grand Melee. I think it is a war, along with what I would guess is a larger percentage of the SCA (because I get the people who dont know what a Grand Melee is). So are indestructable shields, and spears to a sword-guy. How about if you chop down your spear to 4', I will throw away my shield, and you give up your greater experience if I crouch to your height? Hate for someone to be unbalanced, and have an advantage.

3) Melee isn't a test of individuals, it's a test of team work.

But it is, everytime I take the field my honor and skill as an individual is tested. Only now I am tested with both keeping me alive as well as my fellows to the right and left.

So your team should have a CA, in charge of killing other CA. Then they can keep all of you alive.

4) SCA is an inclusive, evolving organization that doesn't cater to just the needs of one group (tournament fighters), there are melees and wars that allow us war dogs a chance to play too.

Inclusive is good. But how inclusive do we really need to be? When does one group's "inclusivity" and right to fight infringe on anothers right to fight?

When one forbids another's right on the field, because they dont like them.

6) You express that CA denies you fun, yet you would deny CA their fun? Why can't we both have fun?

The problem is that your fun as a CA denies my fun as a noble combatant. My fun as a noble combatant does not deny your fun. Kind of one sided.

I beg to differ. You have said multiple times you would not have CA, if it were up to you. Therefore, if given the option, you would deny them access to the field, and therefore deny their fun. Definately one-sided, but the opposite side than you are saying.

Maybe you should consider teaming up with a good shieldman for protection if you don't want to get hit by a bolt.

So, because you want to shoot people from 30 yards way, your answer is for us to inlist another sheildman to protect us? So, the guy who is the shieldman, how fun is it to block bolts all day? Who's fun are we enjoying then?

Pretty damn fun. Realistically, it is no different for me in a wall, or a skirmish group to defend arrows vs. spears. I just get to watch one coming in longer. But that is because I am a member of SGA (Shield Grunts Anyonemous).

Maybe having CA around will help fighters who are used to fighting tournaments fight better as a team? What is more galvanizing for teammates than a scream, "Archer! Shields up!"

Not really, it is an annoyance(sp?) because we know that because you are there some of us will die and we can do nothing to prevent it. We can either ignore you and get shot over and over or block you and get killed the shieldwall you are safely hiding behind. Catch 22.

So, do you get annoyed when you see a bunch of really fast people with poles? Cause you are going to die, and cant stop it. If I am blocking arrows, I usually am blocking swords too. One can just get in smaller holes. Or just go through their shieldwall, kill the shieldwall, and then kill the archer.

7) Fun is fun.

Right up to the point where your fun denies my fun. Then its not fun anymore.

So, you are going to deny their fun, by outlawing CA? Sounds like the same arguement to me.

[InsaneIrish]

So, you are damning all CA because of the actions of a few? By that reasoning, you shouldnt be fighting heavy, because people Rhino "even though I hear MANY fighters say they shouldnt. I would seriously rethink your reasons. Rules violations are violations.

That is just it. Constantly the pro CA crowd drags out "no archer should X, Y, Z" But I have been hit in the back by arrows every year for the last 5 Gulf Wars. For every one person I see "doing it right" I see 5 doing it wrong. This is not an aesthetics issue or a skill issue. This is a honorable combat vs. body count issue.

So, you seem to think it is a Grand Melee. I think it is a war, along with what I would guess is a larger percentage of the SCA (because I get the people who dont know what a Grand Melee is).

Ignorance is bliss I guess. At one time the SCA had written into its description that we recreated GRANDE MELEES and wars. In all honesty what the SCA does is closer to grande melee even WITH CA than a war. So, even if you think we are playing war, we really are not.

So are indestructable shields, and spears to a sword-guy. How about if you chop down your spear to 4', I will throw away my shield, and you give up your greater experience if I crouch to your height? Hate for someone to be unbalanced, and have an advantage.

Now you are just being snide. In all situations you list above I will at least have a CHANCE to hit someone, to confront my attacker. Even if it is 9' spear against single sword, there is still a fighting chance. CA takes that way unbalancing the game.

o your team should have a CA, in charge of killing other CA. Then they can keep all of you alive.

Why would I want to employee something that I don't consider fair?

When one forbids another's right on the field, because they dont like them.

I agree, I do not have any ill feelings toward Combat Archers. I just think what they do is unfair. It takes away more from the game than it adds.

I beg to differ. You have said multiple times you would not have CA, if it were up to you. Therefore, if given the option, you would deny them access to the field, and therefore deny their fun. Definately one-sided, but the opposite side than you are saying.

No you just want to think it is that way. In a perfect world, yes I would not want CA on the field. I know that will never happen, so I can only hope that some day CA will get reigned in so that it is more historical and less unbalancing to the game.

you get annoyed when you see a bunch of really fast people with poles? Cause you are going to die, and cant stop it. If I am blocking arrows, I usually am blocking swords too. One can just get in smaller holes. Or just go through their shieldwall, kill the shieldwall, and then kill the archer.

No I don't get annoyed because even though I am going to die I get to see how many I can take with me. CA takes that chance to defend myself away.

So, you are going to deny their fun, by outlawing CA? Sounds like the same arguement to me.

No, once again you are choosing to take my comments out of context and turn them around on me.

fighters combating against each other is fun for all on the field. The reason is that even though there are skill differences there is still the chance to defend and attack valiantly "fight the good fight" as it were.

Now add CA. CA is a body count game. How many can you kill and how often. Now the CAers are having a hell of a time killing fighters who don't have a chance to "fight the good fight" anymore because they can get to the Archers. Even with 9' spear vs dagger there is still a chance that the dagger guy and block and close to kill the spear. CA takes the even slim chance away. Then ad all the other double standard rules for CA and the system becomes unbalancing and unfair.

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Edited the quotes slightly, because sometimes grammer irrates me.

So, you are damning all CA because of the actions of a few? By that reasoning, you shouldnt be fighting heavy, because people Rhino "even though I hear MANY fighters say they shouldnt. I would seriously rethink your reasons. Rules violations are violations.

That is just it. Constantly the pro CA crowd drags out "no archer should X, Y, Z" But I have been hit in the back by arrows every year for the last 5 Gulf Wars. For every one person I see "doing it right" I see 5 doing it wrong. This is not an aesthetics issue or a skill issue. This is a honorable combat vs. body count issue.

So does every heavy fighter. And every Gulf Wars and Pennsic, or stories about them, I hear about X,Y, and Z unit not taking shots. They want high body counts, and are willing to stoop to cheating to get them. As long as they are decent enough to blow off a couple of shots for each person, I dont know anyone who is going to ramp up fast enough to convince them to stop. It is the same thing as CA. For some heavy fighters, it is a body count as well. Secondly, why were you alive, and turned around backward for GW? The most I can see is something approaching hitting you from the side, because the Ravine tends to be a pretty static battle. If you are getting shot heading back to rez, why are you angry? They just wasted an arrow on you (sucks for them.

So, you seem to think it is a Grand Melee. I think it is a war, along with what I would guess is a larger percentage of the SCA (because I get the people who dont know what a Grand Melee is).


Ignorance is bliss I guess. At one time the SCA had written into its description that we recreated GRANDE MELEES and wars. In all honesty what the SCA does is closer to grande melee even WITH CA than a war. So, even if you think we are playing war, we really are not.

I agree we are not playing war, but we are getting as close as we can, and still be safe. My point is that from everything I have heard about grand melees, they were a later period invention (14th or 15th?). If our armour standard is 11th, it seems like we are playing salad bar. We want this armour, but this fighting style, etc. They didnt play at war back then. It was kill or be killed, and usually you got killed (cause you were too poor to afford armour). I understand what a Grand Melee is, but I still fall on the side of creating wars. Siege engines werent allowed in Grand Melees either, but they are rarer in SCA wars, so less people tend to complain. By that reasoning, any solid structure is not allowed either. How many bridge up to a castle scenarios? Is that trying to represent a grand melee or a war? I find it to be more indicative of war.

So are indestructable shields, and spears to a sword-guy. How about if you chop down your spear to 4', I will throw away my shield, and you give up your greater experience if I crouch to your height? Hate for someone to be unbalanced, and have an advantage.

Now you are just being snide. In all situations you list above I will at least have a CHANCE to hit someone, to confront my attacker. Even if it is 9' spear against single sword, there is still a fighting chance. CA takes that away, unbalancing the game.

Yes, I am being snide, because both sides (not both people, but Side A and B) still have a chance to kill each other. Wars/Grand Melees are about your side winning, not you winning. So as long as your side has archers, it isnt unbalanced. It would be the same as one team showing up with no shields, and then complaining that since the other team did, it wasnt fair. Use the weapons that are allowed within the rules. If you personally dont like CA, then dont do it. Encourage someone else to. You can still hit the CA guy. Just because they are farther away, doesnt mean that you cant. You have to run down the 9' spear too. The difference is that the CA cant block with their weapon.

So your team should have a CA, in charge of killing other CA. Then they can keep all of you alive.


Why would I want to employee something that I don't consider fair?

Because you have said you are concerned with staying alive. Most of the time, weapons face off against each other in wars. Spears poke spears, shields hit shields, and archers shoot archers. If you are concerned with keeping you and your teammates alive (paraphrasing your original quote), then you should have a CA. Same way you have spears to kill other spears. If not, then that is a limitation you choose to put on yourself.

(Explanation: When does one's right to fight go too far?)
When one forbids another's right on the field, because they dont like them.

I agree, I do not have any ill feelings toward Combat Archers. I just think what they do is unfair. It takes away more from the game than it adds.

For your style of combat, that might be true. CA forces people to adapt to a different kind of combat. Just because it takes away more than it adds, doesnt mean that it infringes in your right to fight.

Right up to the point where your fun denies my fun. Then its not fun anymore.

I beg to differ. You have said multiple times you would not have CA, if it were up to you. Therefore, if given the option, you would deny them access to the field, and therefore deny their fun. Definately one-sided, but the opposite side than you are saying.


No you just want to think it is that way. In a perfect world, yes I would not want CA on the field. I know that will never happen, so I can only hope that some day CA will get reigned in so that it is more historical and less unbalancing to the game.

How is it not restricting their fun, if they want to do Archery? If you want to get CA reigned in, then I would suggest you offer suggestions about how to improve it, instead of bashing every single CA arguement that seems to come up. By "restricting your fun as a Noble Combatant", they should be eliminated, no(in your perfect world)? That is your problem with CA. What my problem is, is that you seem to advocate getting rid of CA, instead of trying to come on the side of "Yes, we should use more accurate targeting". I agree that some of the rules could need revising. But that doesnt mean that I start argueing with every CA on the AA.

Do you get annoyed when you see a bunch of really fast people with poles? Cause you are going to die, and cant stop it. If I am blocking arrows, I usually am blocking swords too. One can just get in smaller holes. Or just go through their shieldwall, kill the shieldwall, and then kill the archer.


No I don't get annoyed because even though I am going to die I get to see how many I can take with me. CA takes that chance to defend myself away.

I fail to see how CA takes that chance to defend yourself away (with regards to shieldmen). Most of the time, I get shot in the backfield, or waiting to get to the front, and am not paying attention. Otherwise, I rarely get killed. For spearmen, I would suggest finding a big shield guy to hide behind. I have already said that I find it fun, and that most shield guys are used to blocking for spears, if they are used to being in a shieldwall. Arrows arent any different. They all get stopped the same (and you dont have to worry about hooks with arrows:))

II:Right up to the point where your fun denies my fun. Then its not fun anymore.

OdW:So, you are going to deny their fun, by outlawing CA? Sounds like the same arguement to me.

II:No, once again you are choosing to take my comments out of context and turn them around on me.

fighters combating against each other is fun for all on the field. The reason is that even though there are skill differences there is still the chance to defend and attack valiantly "fight the good fight" as it were.

Now add CA. CA is a body count game. How many can you kill and how often. Now the CAers are having a hell of a time killing fighters who don't have a chance to "fight the good fight" anymore because they cant get to the Archers. Even with 9' spear vs dagger there is still a chance that the dagger guy and block and close to kill the spear. CA takes the even slim chance away. Then ad all the other double standard rules for CA and the system becomes unbalancing and unfair.

I fail to see how I took it out of context. You said that because you dont find CA fun (or getting shot at) fun, that they are taking away your right ot fun, and should not be allowed. I disagree. I can still run down archers, block their shot, etc. I disagree that CA is just a body count game. Most people that are CA are pretty stategically minded. I can just shoot Joe Newbie five times, or I can waste five arrows, and kill the guy shouting orders once. I can choose to do the same thing with a spear, and kill as many people as I can. Yes, there is the chance you can block and kill me, but if I am smart, I have some of my guys with s/b, or other weapons in between me and you. CA is no different. You can still defend against it, and if you get close enough, you can kill them too. What other double standards are there? There is no more nuclear arrow, we have been over that. It has to hit a legal target area. You cant shoot people in the back. It is illegal. So please stop using that as a double standard. Just because they do it, doesnt mean it is right. I can hit you from farther away? Well, that is an advantage. Learn to find the disadvantages (longer reload before being able to shoot, less mobile, etc), and find ways to exploit them.

[Cat of Black Talon]

You know, this really is a more contentious issue than I had ever imagined. I knew some folks didn't like archers, but, and I'm sorry Insane Irish guy, but you're really starting to sound insane, man. CA are not out to get you.

There is a little devil on my shoulder that is saying, "Yes, I encourage you to say more ..." I...can....resist...

[InsaneIrish]

You know, this really is a more contentious issue than I had ever imagined. I knew some folks didn't like archers, but, and I'm sorry Insane Irish guy, but you're really starting to sound insane, man. CA are not out to get you.

There is a little devil on my shoulder that is saying, "Yes, I encourage you to say more ..." I...can....resist...

Actually Cat, this is the EXACT same arguement that happens all the time on the AA.

And instead of replying again with more points on my point of view I will just bow out. Except for one point:

Oswyn you said why don't I offer suggestions instead of bashing?

FYI I HAVE offered suggestions, on countless occassions I have offered suggestions to the CA community on how I think we could reign in CA and make it more balanced and more fun for others. When the Society CA rules were being re-written and people asked for suggestions I sent a LONG list of suggestions on what I thought were good ideas on how to make CA more in line with the game we play. To my knowledge Not a SINGLE SUGGESTION has been used.

YMMV

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

I am also going to stop. I have a bad habit of taking stuff personally, and know several CA that are perfectly nice people. Sorry for derailing the thread, but I started readind stuff I felt I had to respond to. InsaneIrish, I apologize. I know that what people write on forums isnt all that they have done, but sometimes we forget that. I am happy that you took the time to write in and try to rectify what you thought was wrong with CA, and am sorry it worked out the way it did, to give you such a sour taste left in your mouth. Part of my experiences seem based off a very anti-CA kingdom, so only the ones that really play nice, and get along well tend to keep doing it. YMMV, and with that, I leave this discussion.

[Vermin]

"How is it not restricting their fun, if they want to do Archery?"

Well, it's ALREADY a war point in most "wars", most events have an archery competition, so no one is saying you can't do archery.

But we (heavy fighters) don't intrude on YOUR game, why do you feel you must intrude on ours?
Do heavy fighters impose their will upon your game at the butts?
Nope.

There's been a LOT of rules we have to suck up and deal with, that were made up for a minority who already had a "game" established, yet decided that wasn't enough.
And everytime the CA has HAD to have rules imposed upon them for the safety of the heavies, it practically has to be done at gun point.

I remember a few years back when the idiotic notion came up that all heavy fighters should have to have their helms screened so CA folks could participate.
CA got a well needed (and deserved) "Back the hell OFF!" slapdown there, thankfully.

I'm also quite tired of hearing "we just want to be treated like everybody else out there" when it's obviously untrue.
If you did, you'd just pick up a stick like the rest of us.
As it is, it seems that the fun of the minority takes precedence over the fun of the majority.

The fort battle at Gulf Wars illustrates my point perfectly- If you're a heavy, you stand around in a fort, getting shot at by people, rather far away, who can't even SEE what they are shooting at, and this is supposed to be considered honorable combat?!?!?

And of course the standard CA answer is "Well, if you don't like it, don't play!"

but of course everytime THAT argument is mentioned to the CA crowd, you're getting repressed......



VvS

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Hey Vermin, I do fight heavy. Just FYI. I just feel that they also have a right to play. Any further answers, feel free to PM me. I feel like I have derailed this thread enough, and I apologize.

[James B.]

The fort battle at Gulf Wars illustrates my point perfectly- If you're a heavy, you stand around in a fort, getting shot at by people, rather far away, who can't even SEE what they are shooting at, and this is supposed to be considered honorable combat?!?!?

When the hell was war ever about "honorable combat"? Cannons, goones, longbows, crossbows, caltrops, and siege engines are all factors in wars of the middle ages and some people, yes even knights, died by these weapons.

The whole "be a man and face me" thing is total crap, 99% of the SCA is one on one tournament fighting, stop trying to make wars tournements. If a senario is broken change it, CA at Pennsic has never bothered me one bit.

[Nissan Maxima]

I am gonna mount a ballista on the back of one of my goons. then he'll be a goone goon.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Do what I do- get a big pavice, lay down in it's shadow and take a nap.

[Nissan Maxima]

Although it is difficult, we have played bodyguard to nobles to keep them from having to be concerned with getting shot. It involves pavises and suppressing fire. It falls apart when the noble loses his mind and runs off unpredictably.

[InsaneIrish]

Although it is difficult, we have played bodyguard to nobles to keep them from having to be concerned with getting shot. It involves pavises and suppressing fire. It falls apart when the noble loses his mind and runs off unpredictably.

which has been known to happen quite often. ESPECIALLY with royalty.

I think it is the crown, cuts off circulation to their brain.


"Your majesty, our right flank is weak, I suggest we deploy our reservs..."
"Your Majesty?"
"hello? Your majesty?"

"Where is h.....oh crap"

"who let go of the leash?"
"and does he know the tuchux are on OUR side this year?"

[Vermin]

"When the hell was war ever about "honorable combat"?"

James, with all due respect, if you're not out there without honorable combat first and foremost on your mind, you shouldn't be there.

That goes for EVERYONE.



VvS

[James B.]

James, with all due respect, if you're not out there without honorable combat first and foremost on your mind, you shouldn't be there

I am not talking about breaking the rules in the SCA I am talking about this BS romanticized "fight me like a man" stuff. Look if stick tag is your thing then stick to tournaments, I like melees and wars and I like them like they are.

You add armor as worn and grappling to the SCA then I will fight tourneys. Until them keep your BS on your side to the fence.