The Armour Archive

As best I can recall, a fighter no longer needs to accept a bolt unless it hits the grill of their helm or armpit. What do fighters think of the new rule?

Cat

I had not heard this. Can you cite your source?

I rejoice if this is true.

Hey Nissan. That's my memory of the rule as it was stated at Kingdom Crusades at the top of October.

Cat of Black Talon wrote:Hey Nissan. That's my memory of the rule as it was stated at Kingdom Crusades at the top of October.

You sure that was not just an event restriction?

It may have been a site restriction, but it sounded a lot like it was a new rule for combat arch. Anyone know for sure?

It has to be an event scenario only. They are not allowed to change the blow calling standards of the Society rules except per scenario only if I recall correctly.

DeCalmont wrote:It has to be an event scenario only. They are not allowed to change the blow calling standards of the Society rules except per scenario only if I recall correctly.

Incorrect, Kingdom standards can be changed. For example thrusts to the side of the head in some Kingdoms and not in others. We in the Middle have kicked around the face only rule for CA. If the East and Atlantia want to do face only they are within their right to do so.

This was a sceranio rule for one battle at Crusades, not a permanent rule.

I took one bolt to the body that I called anyway, just because I forgot.

Two of the harder blows I took to the head were from crossbow bolts. Not sure what they THOUGHT was legal poundage, but damn!

As per the updated Marshals Handbook (which I'm sure everyone knows anyways, but for those who are following this and not part of the SCA...)

[quote]B. When judging the effect of blows, all fighters are presumed to be fully armored. Special tournaments or combat rules may redefine what areas of the body are armored, and to what extent, so long as all the participants are made aware of the special conditions prior to the start of combat.
1. All “fully armoredâ€

There is a problem, though. You can change the acknowledgement standards, but not the allowed target areas. Limiting arrows to the face and armpits is a change in target areas. Requiring 3 shots to the torso before being sufficiently "injured" to be dead would be a change in acknowledgement standards.

We all have our opinions for "fully armoured" by Society standards and how that would stand up to archery fire on the battle field.

That is another problem. There is only one standard, there should be only one opinion, and not even an opinion, but a definition. Personally, I can accept the arguement that an arrow would not penetrate mail AND a gambeson after it has travelled a fair distance, losing momentum in flight. But if I am close enough to see the whites of your eyes, it would likely do some bodily harm. If I am that close, I'm going to aim for your face anyway!

I find a flaw in the standard used at Kingdom Crusades, for does not mail and a gambeson usually cover the armpit? What is the logic for this being a weaker point in the armor?

I have not heard this and it isn't on the KEM East officer's site.

Now the prior East KEM Timothy of Arundale did make a marshal's interpretation public that the East's face thrusting rules were to be interpreted that thrusts to the side/top/back of a helm would not be illegal, but would not count as he declared those areas to be invulnerable to thrusts.

Others realized that while his ruling was in response to my request for clarification on spear/sword/polearm thrusts to the helm, that if the helm was invulnerable to point attacks from much more dangerous weapons, that point attacks from arrows would do even less damage and also should be ignored.

Now that is not what Timothy was intentionally ruling on, it did not come up in our discussions at all.

However you can't argue with the logic. If a powerful two handed thrust with a spear tip isn't going to hurt you, no way is a little arrow going to hurt you, even if it is moving faster than the spear.

IIRC it was posted on this board that Eastern fighters at Pennsic not too long ago were not accepting arrow blows to the helm except in the face thrust area as a result.

It might not be the intention, but it is a logical interpretation of the rule.

Someone should just ask the current KEM Sir Mitchell. There is in fact combat archery at the upcoming 100 Minutes War (which had been cancelled but is now reactivated and taken place at an MSR/Acre site on Long Island in a couple of weeks, but under East Kingdom rules). So I guess we can find out there if nothing else.

He did tell me recently that the overall rules for Eastern combat and melee are under review, I don't know if this is one of the topics, though I did point out to him at the time that Timothy's ruling as regards spears never got into print so it probably should be added in order to clear up any confusion (though I personally want to go back to side of head thrusts being legal, but I am in the minority in the East on this).

Richard Blackmoore
East Kingdom, KSCA

I've just looked thru the Bayeux Tapestry. There is a lack of bodies killed by arrows- pleanty by spears, a few mailled individuals that have lost their heads...

Archery was used, in part, to take the horses out from under knights. How about if we stipulate that a knight hit by an arrow has to drop to his knees, then can rise to his feet again, just as if he had his horse fall? (but he only has to do it once- he has only one horse!)

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:There is a problem, though. You can change the acknowledgement standards, but not the allowed target areas. Limiting arrows to the face and armpits is a change in target areas. Requiring 3 shots to the torso before being sufficiently "injured" to be dead would be a change in acknowledgement standards.

We all have our opinions for "fully armoured" by Society standards and how that would stand up to archery fire on the battle field.

That is another problem. There is only one standard, there should be only one opinion, and not even an opinion, but a definition. Personally, I can accept the arguement that an arrow would not penetrate mail AND a gambeson after it has travelled a fair distance, losing momentum in flight. But if I am close enough to see the whites of your eyes, it would likely do some bodily harm. If I am that close, I'm going to aim for your face anyway!

I find a flaw in the standard used at Kingdom Crusades, for does not mail and a gambeson usually cover the armpit? What is the logic for this being a weaker point in the armor?

It is not logical for maille and because of the reasons you pointed out. It is true that in history some combattants would target the armpit and other areas that were less vulnerable to great effect. The armpit story I remember is in the plate era, where realizing that the enemies armpits were vulnerable, a cry of use the point went up and thrusts to that area in the battle became suddenly more effective. Using estocs IIRC. I don't remember how accurate that story is, but I remember reading it.

Anyway...

The truth is that there simply is not a lot of logic or consistancy in many of the SCA society level or individual kingdom rules.

For example plate as proof against CA, while it sounds good on the surface, does not make a lot of sense if we are fighting to a maille standard against all other weapons.

A complete rewrite of all combat rules would make me happy. If they did not screw it up of course.

Now the prior East KEM Timothy of Arundale did make a marshal's interpretation public that the East's face thrusting rules were to be interpreted that thrusts to the side/top/back of a helm would not be illegal, but would not count as he declared those areas to be invulnerable to thrusts.

AH! But our standard says we have a light mail drape to prevent cuts at the touch of a blade. If a spear is going to penetrate mail in the body, it sure as hell will do so on the head!

The head above the brow line is a different matter, for that IS solid plate.

IIRC it was posted on this board that Eastern fighters at Pennsic not too long ago were not accepting arrow blows to the helm except in the face thrust area as a result.

It might not be the intention, but it is a logical interpretation of the rule.

No, it is an interpretation of an interpretation, which in itself was flawed.

Richard, will you be at 100 Min? I plan to be. How may I recognize you? Me, I'll be in the helm you see in my avitar, with a bright orangish tunic. (see my webpage...)

A complete re-write Really would make some happy, or just ban CA outright?


Val

Valstarr Hawkwind wrote:A complete re-write Really would make some happy, or just ban CA outright?

Yes.

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:

Now the prior East KEM Timothy of Arundale did make a marshal's interpretation public that the East's face thrusting rules were to be interpreted that thrusts to the side/top/back of a helm would not be illegal, but would not count as he declared those areas to be invulnerable to thrusts.

AH! But our standard says we have a light mail drape to prevent cuts at the touch of a blade. If a spear is going to penetrate mail in the body, it sure as hell will do so on the head!

The head above the brow line is a different matter, for that IS solid plate.

IIRC it was posted on this board that Eastern fighters at Pennsic not too long ago were not accepting arrow blows to the helm except in the face thrust area as a result.

It might not be the intention, but it is a logical interpretation of the rule.

No, it is an interpretation of an interpretation, which in itself was flawed.

Richard, will you be at 100 Min? I plan to be. How may I recognize you? Me, I'll be in the helm you see in my avitar, with a bright orangish tunic. (see my webpage...)

Your point on the below the brow part is well made; the reality is that most of the SCA fights as if the helm worn was full plate extending down to the neck. I've argued this point with many people who feel a spear would skip off the helm no matter where it lands, you are correct that historically if it landed on the part below the plate, it sure would stick!

I'm not defending the East's position that the helm should be invulnerable to thrusts. I am in the minority here that thinks it should not be. But I called the East KEM at the time TImothy, and this is the ruling he made regarding helm thrusts. I understand why he did it, I respect his decision and follow it, even though I disagree with it for a variety fo reasons. The extension of it that arrows should to those parts of the head should not count either as a result, is actually logical, it is just not something I came up with.

I plan to be at 100 Minutes War. Most likely I'll be wearing crappy 14th century practice armour hidden under a red angel wing tabard. My arms gules, a cross patonce gyronney of eight sable and argent, a bordure company sable and argent. I look forward to seeing you.

Richard Blackmoore

Since the establishment of this rule efects a substancial part of the fighters in any given kingdom, I would propose that we handle it like any other weapon experiment.

For the next 18 months, the Chiv can only be killed by archery with shots to the faceplat and armpit. If it looks safe enough, we will look to expand the rule. The problem is that in that 18 months, we will certainly make new Chiv around the world, so to be fair to the new members of the chiv, we should extend the 18 months for them as well. I know this may push the end of the experiment back another 18 months every time we make another Chiv, but we really owe it to em.

Really...

Once again, since folks must have missed it: IT WAS A SCERANIO RULE by the MIC for one battle. There have been NO CHANGES to Atlantian/Eastern Rules.

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:There is a problem, though. You can change the acknowledgement standards, but not the allowed target areas. Limiting arrows to the face and armpits is a change in target areas. Requiring 3 shots to the torso before being sufficiently "injured" to be dead would be a change in acknowledgement standards.

Ah, but if you are only allowed to add a number of shots to the standard, why not just say the rule is, you can take 10 arrow shots to any one area (such as the leg or torso) before you are considered dead? You would be dead from something else way before you take 10 arrows to the same leg.

Also, if you are only allowed to change these rules per scenario and per event, what's to keep marshals from doing it at every event they run?

YIS,
Lord Girard le Bourguignon (who has his rules lawyer hat on today)

BaronMal wrote:Since the establishment of this rule efects a substancial part of the fighters in any given kingdom, I would propose that we handle it like any other weapon experiment.

For the next 18 months, the Chiv can only be killed by archery with shots to the faceplat and armpit. If it looks safe enough, we will look to expand the rule. The problem is that in that 18 months, we will certainly make new Chiv around the world, so to be fair to the new members of the chiv, we should extend the 18 months for them as well. I know this may push the end of the experiment back another 18 months every time we make another Chiv, but we really owe it to em.

Really...

I had nothing to do with this rule other than I asked the KEM to give me the official interpretation to be applied, given that the rule as written did not disallow thrusts to the rest of the head even though most people in the East thought it did. He agreed with them. I had used side of the head thrusts for many years. Others including former kings and some East KEM's thought it was never allowed. The KEM did his best to make a fair ruling as best he could. Given that the bulk of the kingdom thought such thrusts were not allowed, he also felt his interpretation enforced the practice that most fighters were following at the time. Even though this issue had come up during the crown tournament just before that ruling, someone in the East DID think thrusts of that nature counted. So what he did made sense, even though I personally disagree with the situation.

My personal take on these things is, find out what the rule says. Find out how the marshals interpret and enforce it. If you have a problem with a rule, work to change it but follow it until it can be changed. Work within the system.

This is not a chivalry issue. It is an East Kingdom law that the then Earl Marshal was asked to confirm the interpretation of.

And I don't know of any chivalry that wants different rules for the chiv. We generally get hit less than other people do, so these rules affect us less. Unless of course archers are standing outside of a res point and focusing mainly on knights

Valstarr Hawkwind wrote:A complete re-write Really would make some happy, or just ban CA outright?


Val

Well, I think our rules in general (SCA and Kingdom level) could and should be cleaned up, clarified, examined for conflicts and flaws in their logic, made to be consistent, etc. Some of the rules are good rules with good intent, but the actual wording leaves much to be desired. Many of them are old rules written at a time when our understanding of medieval combat, armour, weapons and effects was worse that it is now (even now there is still a lot we don't know that we have to guess about).

As far as CA? I personally would rather see it banned if it does not continue to reformed and be made more logical and the SCA social class structure altered so it makes more sense. But I admit that it has improved a lot over the years, maybe it will continue to evolve until its implementation is more realistic and become less annoying to historical purists. A lot of the safety and fairness issues I personally had with CA have been either improved or eliminated. I have to give them credit for trying. Though it seems to me many of the improvements have been forced upon the CA participants, not accepted or promoted by them in an attempt to fit in with the heavies who are their targets. That part disturbs me. It has always seemed to me from the day I started in the SCA in the 1980's, that many archers felt entitled to shoot at us and that we needed to adapt to them and not expect archer's weapons, ammunition and practices to follow the same standards for safety and logic that heavy combattants had to follow. And any attempt to deal with it was met with howls and cries of exclusivity, elitism, etc. rather than dealing with the rather legitimate concerns of their targets (I always worried a shafted arrow would break or the tiny nock end would go through a visor slot).

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:I find a flaw in the standard used at Kingdom Crusades, for does not mail and a gambeson usually cover the armpit? What is the logic for this being a weaker point in the armor?

There is logic if you year plate. We all the know the SCA standards are based off some fantasy of maille and leather but that large majority of folks heading to Crusades do 14th C.

James B. wrote:

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:I find a flaw in the standard used at Kingdom Crusades, for does not mail and a gambeson usually cover the armpit? What is the logic for this being a weaker point in the armor?

There is logic if you year plate. We all the know the SCA standards are based off some fantasy of maille and leather but that large majority of folks heading to Crusades do 14th C.

Actually the SCA standards are based upon quite historically accurate Norman 1066 Conquest era armour. The only part in question is the boiled leather reinforcement part for which we have some historical justification but not much.

And under our rules you are not supposed to get an extra advantage for wearing more armour than the calibration target armour. You can't require people to hit you harder for example. So while I agree it would make sense to have to hit a guy in full plate harder than a guy in maille without a gambeson for example, we are not permitted to play that way. So while I think plate as proof is cool, it really does not work in our rules set well. You are giving a guy in plate an advantage against arrows but not against other weapons? Hard to justify.

You don't need a plate as proof concept to justify making the legal target areas on the body other than the face proof against arrows. It seems that in the maille era properly armed knights did well against arrows even in maille, the mighty English longbow did not exist at that time, the bows were weaker. Crossbows were a problem though. And the only reason King Harold was badly damaged by the arrow people bring up, is it hit him in the face where he did not have any armour. It did not defeat his maille.

Richard trust me I understand all this but you can't deny there is a large movement towards plate armor rules, which makes more since with the whole foot tourney theme of the SCA. This movement I suspect lead to the alternative CA rules.

James B. wrote:Richard trust me I understand all this but you can't deny there is a large movement towards plate armor rules, which makes more since with the whole foot tourney theme of the SCA. This movement I suspect lead to the alternative CA rules.

Oh. Got it.

I agree a lot of people do like transitional or full plate armour and have a later period focus where foot combat in tournaments was much more common (14th-16th century). But there are a ton of early but still Chivalric Era types in the SCA whose focus is 11th to 13th century too; a lot of them also feel their armour works fine against contemporary arrows so long as they avoid face shots.

I personally agree a plate standard would be simpler to explain and could help justify somewhat more uniform calibration regardless of where a blow lands. Though it isn't perfect either. I agree it would largely eliminate arguments about CA's ability to defeat armour since more people agree that plate was very effective against arrows than agree about maille vs. arrows.

The one thing is that the majority of people don't fight in plate, they fight in earlier armour or transitional or partial plate. Also in full plate, you see a lot less use of sheilds in combat, more often than not no shield at all. And the SCA loves its shields. The people that love heaters or kites would have trouble justifying them in the 15th and 16th with full plate (though other types were used at least in some areas, see the Maximillian books that show him with a shield on foot in the late 15th and early 16th century).

No matter what you do, someone is going to be unhappy.

Bryce wrote: "Once again, since folks must have missed it: IT WAS A SCERANIO RULE by the MIC for one battle. There have been NO CHANGES to Atlantian/Eastern Rules. "

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm no stranger to the angst/anger from some fighters regarding combat archery. There's the whining, the threats, both verbal and non verbal. I've run backward (quicky) to escape a full attack more than a few times, so I'm not surprised at what seemed to be a trial run at new policy that, ehmmm, de-claws combat archery, cutting down on the diversity of fighting forms (zzzz...boring).

I would not like to see that rule again as it pretty much killed the game for archers at that event. I've taken hits from other crossbows and you can feel it unless maybe you're in a grinding melee. I was thinking about real historical events and I doubt soldiers could choose to only take a hit to the face or armpit. C'mon. That's someone's fantasy and, well, just plain silly.

Cat

Cat of Black Talon wrote:...I was thinking about real historical events and I doubt soldiers could choose to only take a hit to the face or armpit. C'mon. That's someone's fantasy and, well, just plain silly.

Cat

Any more silly than saaaay:

One shot one kill arrows?
One Touch manditory lose of limb arrows?
Quivers the size of garbage cans with 100s of arrows in them?



Your "silly" comment can EASILY be applied to CA as a whole.

Cat,
I only shoot at the face. It actually makes it more fun for me, because I have to work to get a kill. Otherwise it is not combat it is just murder. It is just too easy. I am known as a pretty good spear fighter and I can rack up a big body count, but with a bow it is ridiculous. If I have 25 rounds I will kill 20-22 guys if I shoot at bodies. Who is gonna want to play if we do that? Not me.

I must use a bow if it is a CA event in order to protect my men from combat archers, by laying down suppressing fire. But I would be just as happy to see it have better rules, such as face only counts, or failing that, just have it disapear.

Though I do like to shoot 14th century knights. I just do.

Nissan Maxima wrote:Cat,
Though I do like to shoot 14th century knights. I just do.

There you go, picking on those poor 14th century knights again. Is there no end to your evil?

Part of the quivers the size of garbage cans is a result of the SCA rules. Real archers had supply lines, and were routinely required to carry multiple quivers, adding up to over 200 arrows (Mongol archers). The other thing is that most true arrows can fit quite a bit more into a quiver vs. the SCA versions. In the SCA, we are not allowed to go to the sidelines, and "resupply" our quivers. In an actual seige, archers would have been able to have more arrows brought to them.

Lets face it, arrows had as much chance of doing the amount of damage that they do in the SCA as swords did with one hit. Which is pretty much none. So why the outcry of arrows kill in one shot, but not swords have to hit several times to stun someone. Even in maille, the chances of killing someone were far less. If we call it that an arm/leg is broken through maille, that is one thing. But a body shot? Just besting someone.

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, and those were the places that either had maille, or nothing (such as a faceslot or "grill"). The only other place would be the groin area, and that would just be mean. Most of the other places would have been able to be "shrugged" as they would not have been injured.

I would also like to see it have better rules, such as "Maille or better is proof", but I think it allows an outlet for people who do not wish to fight heavy to still be on the field of battle. For the people who get targeted the most, chances are that they would be "aiming" for them anyway. The difference is that they could hit people reasonably accurately from over 50 yds away, and we cant.

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.

CA isn't as easy as some would believe. Many fighters outside of Black Talon (and other Merc groups like Nissans and the Tuchux) don't know how to work with a CA and oftentimes are a hinderance, creating a log jam, getting in the way, and not letting us move within the line. We can't shoot all the time and most fighters ignore (rightfully so) a bolt if it hits them during a heated melee because they don't recognize it. 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. Inveriably, some hit friendly targets that get in the way and some bolts fall out of my bow when I get bumped by another fighter.

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.

Nissan Maxima wrote:Cat,
I only shoot at the face. It actually makes it more fun for me, because I have to work to get a kill. Otherwise it is not combat it is just murder. It is just too easy. I am known as a pretty good spear fighter and I can rack up a big body count, but with a bow it is ridiculous. If I have 25 rounds I will kill 20-22 guys if I shoot at bodies. Who is gonna want to play if we do that? Not me.

I must use a bow if it is a CA event in order to protect my men from combat archers, by laying down suppressing fire. But I would be just as happy to see it have better rules, such as face only counts, or failing that, just have it disapear.

Though I do like to shoot 14th century knights. I just do.

Thank God I'm 15th century.

This exchange has motovated me. I personally will work to target only the face- it will make me be a better shot, it fits our armor standard's historical abilities, and it is damn near impossible to ignore a bolt to the face!

I will also encourage other archers to target face only.

The only other alternative would be to have a class of "unarmored" soldiers, but I believe that is even more harmful to our game than CA could ever be.

James B. wrote:

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:I find a flaw in the standard used at Kingdom Crusades, for does not mail and a gambeson usually cover the armpit? What is the logic for this being a weaker point in the armor?

There is logic if you year plate. We all the know the SCA standards are based off some fantasy of maille and leather but that large majority of folks heading to Crusades do 14th C.

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?

Kenric