Page 3 of 11
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:41 am
by Horace
So, a lot of people hate the whole CA thing, I personally think it adds a dimension to our game and it fun to have different people to play with.
Either way I would like to see a few of the rule changed.
1) I want to be HIT with an arrow, give me more 900 inch lbs crossbows, that way we can gauge it like a real hit. I hate the waving thing and just being touch with an arrow.
2) Only face and Armpit, this will make it easy to know when you are hit.
3) Less padding on the tip of the bolt, it will make them hit harder and not squeeze through my bars.
What else could we add?
-H
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:54 am
by Vitus von Atzinger
When a person fires an arrow or bolt, it's path and effect are no longer in the control of the archer. The virtue of mercy cannot be practiced. There is one intention, and one decision, but numerous unwanted or unintended outcomes.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:25 am
by Diglach Mac Cein
The is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
In a melee, Spear/Pole/Shield is like a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors - and as they stand, arrows are "gernades" in that game. To put it into old D&D/RPG terms - their weaknesses don't compensate for their strength, man for man.
So CA rules are a bit "broken" - enough so that even as a small percentage of the total field forces, they tick a lot of people off.
BUT - also enough that most war leaders are unlikely to NOT have them - especially if the opponent does. And it is very unlikely they will be removed from all battlefields. So what to do?
IMO - here are some of the breaks, and how I would fix them....
Mechanically -
Shots must hit like a single hand thrust - This puts them on the same footing for blow recognition as everyone else. If you don't know you've been hit, you don't take it. "Arrow rhinos" should be dealt with like any other situation. This also forces some archers to up the poundage of their bows - recuding the rate of fire to a level more compatable with the game.
No gleaning - When the battle starts, once an arrow hits the ground it is "out of play" the helps in terms of safety, AND helps put limits on ammo available.
Limit "ammo load" - limit (maybe on a senario basis) how many arrows an archer can have in a single "quiver". Put "reloads" back at res point. I doubt this would be a factor for a field battle (how many arrows can you really get off in that situation?) and puts an artifical "res" on the archers, limiting their impact on the overall battle.
While not allowing an archer to block with a bow is a GREAT idea, it can create "super armor" for archers. We should require SOME way to keep the bow from shattering, or containing the pieces if it does, and make it the archers responsibility to keep the bow out of harms way as best they can. This will probably reduce their effectiveness however.
Socially:
Kingdom sponsored CA "units" - put them in groups of 3 - 5 (to start), then grow them from that. This might reduce the "sniper effect" and improve the "feel" of battle by encouraging group and volley fire.
The leadership (at all levels) should encourage good conduct, and discourage poor condiuct - for everyone, not just archers... I'm betting the first time the King pulls one of his archers aside and says "that "woo-hoo dance is not acceptable behavior" - it'll help.
Encourage archers to be "flexible" on the field - like the spearman who keeps a shield at res point. When the battle gets to the "big push" you see a lot of archers bail on the battle. Get 'em a shield and a sword and get them in the fight. If they did it as a group, even better!
In the situation described by WMA above - encourage the archers to say "DON'T TAKE THAT! SORRY!" and let the special moment happen. Yeah - not a great fix - the fight might have moved on - but at least it is SOMETHING.
Just my 2 bits....
.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:55 am
by St. George
Rowan of Needwood wrote:Combat archery "sucks" because like firearms, makes all men equal (and women too
) And in large numbers, deadly, so the few cease to have monopoly of the killing power on the battlefield.
The only thing I'd add is that CA archers need to not be jerks about targeting someone all the time, just as fighters should not do that either. Sending a group of fighters to kill a duke or a king in the battle field as a "hit team" would be no different than shooting a CA arrow at someone because they are good fighters. Renown and prowess make you a target of more than arrows....
Rowan,
There is a significant difference between the hit squad and the archer assassin- I can fight my way out against the hit squad and occasionally prevail. At times I can be proactive against the hit squad and chase them down taking out several of them first. There is no recourse against group of the archer assassins who are paintballing me from behind their lines.
Also archery only makes things equal if we ignore the value of armor on the field. Like today, a tank would roll through small arms fire.
BTW I am a sword and shield guy, not a spearman or polearmsman so it isn't like I am not trying to defend myself properly. Archers are just way out of line with their power.
g-
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:06 am
by Lemarchand
Dilan wrote:The is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
IMO - here are some of the breaks, and how I would fix them....
Mechanically -
Shots must hit like a single hand thrust - This puts them on the same footing for blow recognition as everyone else. If you don't know you've been hit, you don't take it. "Arrow rhinos" should be dealt with like any other situation. This also forces some archers to up the poundage of their bows - recuding the rate of fire to a level more compatable with the game.
No gleaning - When the battle starts, once an arrow hits the ground it is "out of play" the helps in terms of safety, AND helps put limits on ammo available.
Limit "ammo load" - limit (maybe on a senario basis) how many arrows an archer can have in a single "quiver". Put "reloads" back at res point. I doubt this would be a factor for a field battle (how many arrows can you really get off in that situation?) and puts an artifical "res" on the archers, limiting their impact on the overall battle.
While not allowing an archer to block with a bow is a GREAT idea, it can create "super armor" for archers. We should require SOME way to keep the bow from shattering, or containing the pieces if it does, and make it the archers responsibility to keep the bow out of harms way as best they can. This will probably reduce their effectiveness however.
Socially:
Kingdom sponsored CA "units" - put them in groups of 3 - 5 (to start), then grow them from that. This might reduce the "sniper effect" and improve the "feel" of battle by encouraging group and volley fire.
The leadership (at all levels) should encourage good conduct, and discourage poor condiuct - for everyone, not just archers... I'm betting the first time the King pulls one of his archers aside and says "that "woo-hoo dance is not acceptable behavior" - it'll help.
Encourage archers to be "flexible" on the field - like the spearman who keeps a shield at res point. When the battle gets to the "big push" you see a lot of archers bail on the battle. Get 'em a shield and a sword and get them in the fight. If they did it as a group, even better!
In the situation described by WMA above - encourage the archers to say "DON'T TAKE THAT! SORRY!" and let the special moment happen. Yeah - not a great fix - the fight might have moved on - but at least it is SOMETHING.
Just my 2 bits....
.
I think these are great ideas. Plus some folks have added their own. I like the idea that CA MUST be in a unit of 3-5 (or more) with a leader (could be CA could be a knight there to direct and protect).
I really like the idea of limited ammo with reload at a res point. That adds a whole new dimention to use on the field. (10 arrows, then you are off the field until you reload, is a hell of a lot better than the 5 gallon bucket guy noted earlier
Metal armor is proof against arrows - good idea. It would encourage folks to upgrade their armour. But I can see folks lawyering this one "but my shield was metal!
I'm not for upping the poundage, as there is already concerns about safety. But I would be all for limiting kill areas. (i.e. face, pits, taking a leg etc)
I think your notes on leadership are also well noted. So instead of kvetching, lets through around some ideas. Maybe someone will pick it up and run with it and approach the BOD. Granted, it may take effect in my sons time, but you never know.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:12 am
by SimonRedbeard
I'm not sure I can add too much that hasn't already been written, but I feel I have some insight into this matter.
I fight sword/shield. Not particularly well, but I enjoy it and the SCA has been a great outlet for me to have fun, play a sport, be a renaissance geek, hang out with friends, etc. I'm on IR right now, and can't wait until I'm better and can go to my weekly practice again.
I also fight as a combat archer. Last Pennsic I fought in every fight of every battle, it was my first Pennsic and the most fun I've ever had on vacation.
When CA was allowed, I fought CA, when it wasn't, I fought sword/shield.
When I fought CA I fought standing just behind the shieldmen. I was killed by spears a couple times, and I was knocked back during a charge that I couldn't get out of the way of fast enough. It was a total blast. The only time I shot from 'far away' was when I was assigned to fight next to and protect HRM of the East (HRH at the time) who was also shooting CA. We had a great time getting absolutely no kills at all. We had three archers, and we fired non stop at the opponent's ballista, preventing them from killing our guys. It was awesome.
I followed a lot of the principles that Nissan Maxima outlined in his post. Often my main target was any combat archer on the opposing side, especially ones that fought up on the line like I did.
If a shot didn't hit correctly, I shook my head and yelled to the person that it was no good, if it looked like they would take it. If it hit correctly and they didn't take it, I just loaded up and tried again, because I know that happens all the time in heavy combat and especially in melee.
I don't yield and take a knee. If you are charging me to kill me, expect me to ditch my bow and either brace for the charge and take the kill, or find a side arm and try and kill you.
I think some of the recent changes to the CA rules in the East kingdom have been very productive, such as prohibiting gleaning of sil-o-flex arrows.
I think Horace and Dilan's suggestions are good. Adding calibration to CA, and allowing only face/armpit shots to be kills makes a lot of sense to me. I also think the authorization process should be much more difficult, and you should be required to auth in another heavy form first.
Now that sil-o-flex arrows have to have a collar on them, I think they are the only safe option. My arrow tips are almost 2" in diameter, and do not have enough padding on the tip to penetrate a helm and hit someone, but have enough to make them safe. I build them to optimize safety, and not distance. I think sil-o-flex arrows need further improvements, such as steps to prevent the rear of the shaft from being crushed.
I think the fiberglass arrows, in their current form, are not safe.
I accept and agree that CA is not chivalrous.
It is, however, a hell of a lot of fun.
Here is how I prioritize targets:
1) Anyone my commander tells me to target.
2) Combat Archers - it is a lot of fun to shoot them, they all seem to hate getting hit. I'm fine with getting hit, so I try and get close, usually get killed the first few times, then manage to hit them and they leave to go find a less protected line.
3) Commanders who are on the front line giving orders.
4) Spears.
I rarely shoot sword/shield guys trying to get them, but I often hit their shields when they block me from hitting an intended target behind them.
Within the groups 2-4, I try and evenly distribute my shooting among members of the group. Not just targeting the same opponent - except CA, because there tends to be less of them, and it becomes very important to kill them before they kill me.
My only other obligation as a CA person, as I see it, is to hold other combat archers to the same standards. I was at a CA marshal meeting (I am not one) and I disagreed with a lot of the other archers and told them so. Mostly the issue is that some archers think they're a different 'class' of fighter, and don't realize that we're all heavy. If you step on the field - you must be ready to get hit.
-Simon Redbeard of House Serpentius
"Artem autem illam mortiferam et Deo odibilem ballistoriorum et sagittariorum, adversus christianos et catholicos de cetero sub anathemate prohibemus."
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:02 am
by Alex Baird
For me, in the scenarios that allow them, archers are simply another hazard of the field. No different than the line on the ground that designates a "shore" that instantly drowns me if I step across it, a haybale designating a wall that my foes can magically see through, or the pikes that outreach my range on a crowded choke point.
I do wish that archers were employed more tactically, with volley fire and massed enfilade, rather than lone wolf snipers, and I like the "armor as worn" concept. But, those are more desires to up the reality of medieval war situations than objections to missiles per se.
Arrows and stones were a fact of war. If you don't like playing with those simulated fickle fingers of fate, skip the CA and siege scenarios and do pick ups until the Grand Melee starts.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:30 am
by muttman
Some of my issues with CA-
the armour of the time of our presumed standard was (largely) proof against the bows of the time, barring short range shots or shots to the face or other unarmoured spots.
CA on the other hand, can kill anywhere they hit, from any range.
Archery in period was most usefull en masse.
CAs seem largely comfortable sniping from behind fighters taking there own lumps as well as the CAs.
CAs frequently seem to be poor sports. Happy dances, whining when blows aren't felt, whining because they didn't yeild quickly enough and actualy got hit. These behaviours would be untolerable from anyone else on the field.
From anyone else on the field you have to feel the blow and judge that it was of sufficiant force. This is not the case with CAs as marshals frequently have to let you know you were hit. How is this in keeping with the tenents of our game.
CA frequently are people who are scared to fight and be hit but want to hang with "the cool kids" anyway. I'm sorry but if you don't want to be hit, stay off the field. Its that simple.
Do to the uneven and a-historical ruleset, a fighter who has spent years honing there skill, money on a kit that works well for him, injurys and wear on there body, ect. can be taken out in droves by some guy who just qualled a week before and has never had the pleasure of a screaming buttwrap by an uberduke in the interest of his training. Many of these CAs are completely unprepared to be hit the same way the rest of us take for granted.
If CA targeting was limited to face shots, I would be happy. I don't agree with armor as worn since nothing else we do goes by armor as worn.
If CAs fought in groups instead of hiding in the ranks using fighters as shields, I would be happy.
If CAs as a group showed better sportsmanship I would be happy.
Till these things happen I will tolertate combat archery and combat archers. I will treat CAs with courtesy on and off the field and will even be freinds with CAs. I won't go out of my way to hurt CAs, won't try to damage there gear, I won't blow off arrows that I know hit me , I will not hit CAs if they yield in time for me to stop my shot and I won't tolerate people who do these thingsas this is very unsportsman like behaviour beneath us all. I will play with CAs as the rules and my king and commander dictate but this doesn't mean I will respect them as combatants, and certainly not until some radical changes in the rules are implimented.
Peace
Drefan Ravenson
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:02 am
by Glaukos the Athenian
DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:
Rowan,
There is a significant difference between the hit squad and the archer assassin- I can fight my way out against the hit squad and occasionally prevail. At times I can be proactive against the hit squad and chase them down taking out several of them first. There is no recourse against group of the archer assassins who are paintballing me from behind their lines.
Also archery only makes things equal if we ignore the value of armor on the field. Like today, a tank would roll through small arms fire.
BTW I am a sword and shield guy, not a spearman or polearmsman so it isn't like I am not trying to defend myself properly. Archers are just way out of line with their power.
g-
Your Grace,
I stand corrected, because I have seen Duke Andreas do precisely that. So in that regard, you are more than correct and your point is well taken
Sir Vitus also has a point regarding the fact that once an arrow is shot, the shooter cannot its course or stop it. I have found myself being more merciful or opposing archers than they are to me, simply because I can and they cannot.
The issue appears to be the unfairness of some "nitwit" with a bow having the power to kill a knight-level fighter with "little risk" and especially "little skill".
As a target archer I can assure you that shooting CA arrows sucks in comparison to real ones, and that the skill needed to hit anything at all is remarkable. I know from personal experience 3 of them maybe 4 who are good enough to be a significant threat in the field beyond a few feet.
As for the little risk, I am reminded of the article on longsword entitled "no shield to stand behind" CA archers do this all the time.
I am no owner of absolute answers, I am afraid (far from it) , but I would venture that the list field should not be compared with the battlefield.
The battle field is not a tournament between equals, but a clash of kingdoms. When historical knightly fighters forgot about that, they fell like flies to Flemish shopkeepers and weavers at the battle of Courtrai and Scottish shepherds at Stirling Bridge.
Even employers of archers who dismissed them socially paid the price (as Philip VI at Crecy crying "
'Listen! Kill all that rabble: They hold us back and block the road without reason ! )
I understand your desire for "fair" "face to face" battle according to certain rules, and in a sense I share it. I am after all a Western fighter (not of the kingdom of the West, but Western civilization). While light-years behind you in skill, I am motivated by the same impulse. Yet there is enough ritualistic, codified and contrived structure in melees, to further reduce its realism even further by preempting CA and siege engines and missile weapons from the battlefield.
It would make fighting a melee more like a large "Combat of the 30" than a battlefield, and in my eyes, probably less fun even in the receiving end.
I do agree though that there is more than pleasant tension in this matter, and that cooler heads and worthier people of renown who are in service of "the Dream" can surely come up with some form to make it work. That why they are paid the big bucks, right?
Thank you Your Grace for addressing my previous comment.
Respectfully,
Rowan
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:42 am
by DeCalmont
As these arguments are generally circuitous I don't even like participating in them as they don't get anywhere. I would however like to point out some fallacies in these "facts" as presented;
muttman wrote:Some of my issues with CA-
the armour of the time of our presumed standard was (largely) proof against the bows of the time, barring short range shots or shots to the face or other unarmoured spots.
CA on the other hand, can kill anywhere they hit, from any range.
Uh, no they can't. Please take some time and go familiarize yourself with the rules. Per the current rule set the missile must hit you with sufficient force for you to call it good. And as always and forever it must hit you in a legal target area (the exact same target areas spelled out in the Heavy rules for target areas and with the same results i.e. arm/leg disables that appendage, torso and head is a kill).
Archery in period was most usefull en masse.
Well, as has been pointed out the minority of CA on the field makes en masse shooting largely useless and a waste of ammo, I'd love to see the sky get darkened by the mass of arrows but it simply isn't going to happen due to lack of numbers
CAs seem largely comfortable sniping from behind fighters taking there own lumps as well as the CAs.
Many CA's are out there taking their lumps as well, I have many a dent and bruise to show for it. At war I'm usually asking the shieldmen to move a bit so I can wedge in for a better shot
CAs frequently seem to be poor sports. Happy dances, whining when blows aren't felt, whining because they didn't yeild quickly enough and actualy got hit. These behaviours would be untolerable from anyone else on the field.
For every CA that does this I can point out an equivalent number of Heavy fighters that do the same thing, ya know what...call them on it and I bet it stops. Poor sportsmanship is poor sportsmanship no matter what weapon they are holding
From anyone else on the field you have to feel the blow and judge that it was of sufficiant force. This is not the case with CAs as marshals frequently have to let you know you were hit. How is this in keeping with the tenents of our game.
See above concerning the current rules
CA frequently are people who are scared to fight and be hit but want to hang with "the cool kids" anyway. I'm sorry but if you don't want to be hit, stay off the field. Its that simple.
Wow, broad brush there...
Do to the uneven and a-historical ruleset, a fighter who has spent years honing there skill, money on a kit that works well for him, injurys and wear on there body, ect. can be taken out in droves by some guy who just qualled a week before and has never had the pleasure of a screaming buttwrap by an uberduke in the interest of his training. Many of these CAs are completely unprepared to be hit the same way the rest of us take for granted.
If the rules are truly so uneven, how is it at Gulf War (arguably the largest gathering of Combat Archers in the Known World) during the ravine battle that at the end hardly any combat archers are left standing? If CA was so all powerful there would be nothing but combat archers left at the end of every battle that they were involved in. And what if anything is historical about any of our rules?
If CA targeting was limited to face shots, I would be happy. I don't agree with armor as worn since nothing else we do goes by armor as worn.
If CAs fought in groups instead of hiding in the ranks using fighters as shields, I would be happy.
If CAs as a group showed better sportsmanship I would be happy.
Till these things happen I will tolertate combat archery and combat archers. I will treat CAs with courtesy on and off the field and will even be freinds with CAs. I won't go out of my way to hurt CAs, won't try to damage there gear, I won't blow off arrows that I know hit me , I will not hit CAs if they yield in time for me to stop my shot and I won't tolerate people who do these thingsas this is very unsportsman like behaviour beneath us all. I will play with CAs as the rules and my king and commander dictate but this doesn't mean I will respect them as combatants, and certainly not until some radical changes in the rules are implimented.
Peace
Drefan Ravenson
And to address something brought up earlier by Rowan I believe is cost, Combat archers are required to have the same armour as all Heavy combatants, so our costs are exactly the same as any other on the field as far as armour goes. Combat archers then pay for their specialized equipment (bows/crossbows, arrows/bolts) which can run up quite a bill. Arrows go for anywhere from $3.00 to $6.00 depending on home built or pre-built from a vendor and bolts are roughly 2/3 that. There is significant outlay for your average Combat archer, which is something we take on gladly for a chance to enjoy this game.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:45 am
by Fokke
I agree whole heartedly with the above person. Archers were a standard part of middle-ages combat. You rarely would win a battle without them. If they were as ineffective as some people would like to claim they were, you would never see them on a battlefield.
I do not fight tournies, I am in the SCA for melees and battles, but I would never advocate CAs taking part in a tourney because in that situation they would be totally out of place.
Its understandable that people want to go face to face with their enemy, I personally prefer to keep you about 6 feet away, but thats my thing. However, your(people who think the battlefield is an extension of the list field) ideas of going one on one are fitting for the list field, not the team combined arms tactics of the actual battlefield. That said, yes, I would love to see volley firing CA units over individual snipers, that would be badass.
I do not think the rules currently are very unsafe. 3/4 of deaths on me at this past GW was from archers, I am failing to see whats unsafe about them provided the current rules are strictly adhered to and all rounds are thoroughly inspected between each use. Those big rubber heads are not going through a properly spec'd helm. I do not know the exact rules since i am not an archer, but being on the receiving end quite often, whats the big deal?
Armor is proof is silly. It is understandable that helms are safe(not the face) as they are the thickest part of armor generally. If you go with the armor is proof on the theory that armor cannot be penetrated historically, then there are a mix of other rules which can use this as precident. As stated a few pages ago, fine, your plate armor is immune to arrows because thats how they were historically, cool beans. If I hit your shield with my halberd or greatsword, you lose use of your arm or shield because historically, thats just as realistic. Shields never lasted more than a battle if they were lucky. More likely they were riddled with arrows or simply cleaved in half when big weapons entered the fray. You think we have alot of dislocated shoulders and such now in what we do? I am willing to bet in the old days it happened twice as much or more for survivors.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:20 pm
by muttman
O.K., I will admit, I did paint a group with a rather broad brush and make asumptions and generalities.
However, I have been told by marshals many times that I was dead by an arrow I never felt or saw, or armed or legged as appropriate. I was unclear on that point in my initial post.
I have seen or felt arrows hit me and looked across the field to see an archer in opposing ranks doing a version of the happy dance or the "neener neener I got you" many times.
I have been the recipient of whining about getting hit too hard from archers who didn't yield before I got to them after I made a point to hit them in the helmet instead of less or unarmored areas.
Upon asking newcomers to combat why they want to focus on CA I have (moreso of late) been told they didn't want to get hit.
These have been my own experiences. This is not to say they have been my only experiences with CA, but these are the ones that stand out sours it for me.
DeCalmont, You are absolutly correct, poor sportsmanship is poor sportsmanship no matter what weapon one is holding. I don't tolerate it from fighters either.
Also, you are right about financial outlay for CAs. That is part of the reason I find it despicable behaviour to deliberatly break arrows. I knew they weren't free but I didn't realize they ran that much per arrow-wow!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti CA, I just disagree with how its currently done. As a concept I love it for or game and would be very happy if we could find a way to make it work well for everybody.
Drefan
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:26 pm
by Malcolmthebold
Till these things happen I will tolertate combat archery and combat archers. I will treat CAs with courtesy on and off the field and will even be freinds with CAs. I won't go out of my way to hurt CAs, won't try to damage there gear, I won't blow off arrows that I know hit me , I will not hit CAs if they yield in time for me to stop my shot and I won't tolerate people who do these thingsas this is very unsportsman like behaviour beneath us all. I will play with CAs as the rules and my king and commander dictate but this doesn't mean I will respect them as combatants, and certainly not until some radical changes in the rules are implimented.
Peace
Drefan Ravenson
Bravo
I came into the SCA 10 years ago riding high on the Braveheart trend. My dream in battle is to charge the line, feel the crush of my foes on my shield, feel the thump of my sword striking home. My one true love in combat is the sword joy. The rabid abandonment of logic and reasoning as you and another able bodied person do your best to smash the hell out of each other. In my dream melee every combatant would take the field with a shield, a sword, and a strong arm. I hate getting gacked by spears. I really hate getting shot by arrows.
That being said
Many of the newer blood I have spoken to are just as inspired by a particular fey archer in those movies about finger jewlery. Their dream is to stand on the hill and pit their keen eye and steady hand against the mad rush of the foaming hoard. Their dream is just a worthy as mine.
Both myself and archers have found a group of people willing to live their dreams with them embodied in the SCA. It is my duty to help them bring their dream (be it honorable or not) to life, just as it is their duty to stand a face me like a warrior when I finally chase them down. We are mutually responsible to each other to make the game fun.
On the rules for archery:
I am rarely struck by an arrow blow that i don't feel, and in the times it happens I am usually instructed by the archer not to take it because it was a glance. I have been hit everywhere imanginable, throat, groin, face, ect, and have never felt that I was being endangered by the equipment. Then again I have never looked really close at the arrows being shot at me. Yes it did suck to get shot, but no more than getting hit with a sword.
It is true that an arrow shot would probably not kill you unless delivered to your face or other vital area, but I am pretty sure if I had a shaft protruding from my torso, dead or not, I would drag my sorry ass off the field and find a medico of some sort.
Don't yield. Take the shot. Fall over dead. I think I have earned that much after playing pin cusion. If you have a contition that makes it dangerous to take a shot from me then maybe the heavy field is not the place for you. If you are worried about your weapon, sacrafice your body to protect it. If you really want to help me live my dream, pull a side arm and face me like a warrior.
In short I think the rules are fine, we just need to work on a better way to play.
Mal
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:27 pm
by adamstjohn
Just for balance, I truly love fighting against CA. So much, in fact, that I offer a crate of beer to the first archer at any war that gets me with a face shot. So far, it has been claimed three times, and many many many arrows have been wasted.
If I were to go to all the events in my reach, I could fight in perhaps twenty five or thirty tourney a year, and one or two wars. When I get a war, I want the full load.
Sure, there should be archery and non-archery scenarios. I would enjoy plate-is-proof too, but it is not fair to say that bows are super-weapons. They might be more deadly on contact than their historical originals, but they have nothing near the range, accuracy and speed. The fat tubes, especially, are laughably slow (and ugly), and can be dodged or parried. I have never been hit by an arrow that I saw coming, and I am a shieldless sluggard.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:55 pm
by muttman
"but it is not fair to say that bows are super-weapons. They might be more deadly on contact than their historical originals, but they have nothing near the range, accuracy and speed. The fat tubes, especially, are laughably slow (and ugly), and can be dodged or parried. "
You do raise a very valid point here
Drefan
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:56 pm
by Vitus von Atzinger
"Their dream is just a worthy as mine."
I am sorry but no, it is not. These two dreams simply have the same right to exist.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:00 pm
by Malcolmthebold
"Their dream is just a worthy as mine."
I am sorry but no, it is not. These two dreams simply have the same right to exist.
I am gonna argue semantics for a moment. the archer's dream may be less chivalrous, but the to me the idea of being worthy is that the dream is worth having. I don't know about you all, but I get a little defensive when someone hears I dream of playing "Dress up war" with my freinds, and they tell me that isn't a dream worth having.
In essence I agree with your statement. I guess I have been taking my english classes too seriously.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:27 pm
by Vitus von Atzinger
With all due respect, this ain't English class.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:36 pm
by Glaukos the Athenian
Vitus von Atzinger wrote:With all due respect, this ain't English class.
Sir Vitus,
Can you please expand on this? I am not being funny or contrary, but seriously, I see that there is stuff between the lines, but I am afraid I cannot read it.
So would you mind expanding on the exchange:
"Their dream is just a worthy as mine."
I am sorry but no, it is not. These two dreams simply have the same right to exist
This goes to the center of the discussion, and I think we can all learn from your opinion on this. (I surely can)
Respectfully,
Rowan
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:51 pm
by Robert of Canterbury
Charny wrote:He who does more is of greater worth
He who does best is most worthy
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:57 pm
by Malcolmthebold
True. This is not English class, but I think that some confusion can be eliminated by discussing the meaning of our words. Most of us can agree that the archer is a less chivalrous combatant. That is bearing in mind that Chivalry is a code of conduct among warriors. Just because archers are acting without chivalrous conduct when they fire across the shield lines does not mean that they should not be allowed to play in the game.
Over the years I have know many a sword and boarder that did not fight with the ideals of chivalry in mind. They wanted to play the merc, sell out to the highest bidder, and used whatever tactics were available to them to get the job done. They were great combatants, but had crap for chivalry. I put them on the same level as archers.
As stated above, I disagree with the yield rule, but will follow rules if it means that I get to play in the game. At the end of the day, if I am sent packing by an archer, I at least have the knowledge that I held myself to a higher standard of conduct. Then I go out and play again.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:04 pm
by Angusm0628
Malcolmthebold wrote:Over the years I have know many a sword and boarder that did not fight with the ideals of chivalry in mind. They wanted to play the merc, sell out to the highest bidder, and used whatever tactics were available to them to get the job done. They were great combatants, but had crap for chivalry. I put them on the same level as archers.
Not to de-rail here but by "Crap for chivalry" are you referring to manners and courtesy? Because otherwise "crap for chivalry" means nothing when discussing non-chivalric personages.
Now if you're actually referring to a lack of courtesy and manners. I would tell you that I have come across several knights/kings monarchists/royalist types that also had "crap for chivalry" That brush paints both sides of the fence.
I return you to your regularly scheduled "Why Combat archery sucks" program
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:22 pm
by Malcolmthebold
Nope. Chivalry is not the same as manners. I was saying that they did not hold themselves to the same code of battle field conduct as I do. Their persona may not be one intended for chivalry, but that does not make them exempt from chivalry from my point of view.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:33 pm
by Angusm0628
Malcolmthebold wrote:Nope. Chivalry is not the same as manners. I was saying that they did not hold themselves to the same code of battle field conduct as I do. Their persona may not be one intended for chivalry, but that does not make them exempt from chivalry from my point of view.
I think we are talking at cross paths here. It really sounds to me you are describing acts on the field that are lacking courtesy/manners in how one is expected to conduct oneself. Chivalry as a verb as opposed to Chivalry as a noun (Knights).
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:52 pm
by Vitus von Atzinger
Knights did not shoot arrows at people in combat because men-at-arms made alot more money than archers- these were not only two different jobs, they were two different cultures. Think about polo and monster truck races...get it?
An archer is not a less chivalrous combatant- he is not in any way a chivalrous combatant. What knights do is chivalrous, what they do not do(or frown upon) is unchivalrous because it is not done by the chivalry=knights.
Archers had a culture all their own. This is very easy to understand. More later.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:28 pm
by Thorstenn
Sounds quite historical to me. Archery has been in use well before and well after the Chivalric era. If you want one on one prowess fight in a tournament.
Thor.
white mountain armoury wrote:I had a great eastern duke manage to penetrate our line and get into our "castle" the only thing between him and the flag capture point was me with a maul, I believ he had a shorter great weapon as well.
There was that moment of eyes meeting and the mutual understanding that we were about to have a combat related "moment" and throw down hard .
Someone popped me with a crossbow and you could see the duke make a face, then a moment after he was popped in the chest as well.
We were both deprived of a contest that couled have been the highlight of an event.
That moment was lost 2 a couple of gents lobbing golf tubes from relative safty.
Fairly disapointing.
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:23 pm
by Malcolmthebold
I think we are talking at cross paths here. It really sounds to me you are describing acts on the field that are lacking courtesy/manners in how one is expected to conduct oneself. Chivalry as a verb as opposed to Chivalry as a noun (Knights).
It seems that you were right. I was speaking of chivalry as a verb. sorry about the confusion.
In the same vein, it seems to me that the animosity toward combat archers springs from two primary sources. one is that their weapons are unsafe. the other is that they fight in a way that is unfair, and thus conduct themselves in a way lacking chivalry (in the sense of the verb).
I can't speak to the safety aspect except to say that I have been shot a lot in my time and I am still unharmed.
You are correct in saying that Archers are non-chivalrous in the sense that they are not members of the knight class. It is also correct to say that they fight in a way that is non-chivalrous (as per the verb). We play in a game where not everyone is a Knight. If the archery is safe, then the "fairness" argument may be moot. They are not members of the chivalry and can do as they like.
At the end of the day the only thing I can do is fight with a weapon that I deem honorable, and hope that the rest of the world does the same.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:47 am
by maxntropy
Vitus von Atzinger wrote:When a person fires an arrow or bolt, it's path and effect are no longer in the control of the archer. The virtue of mercy cannot be practiced. There is one intention, and one decision, but numerous unwanted or unintended outcomes.
Dude. You have a most excellent and elegant manner of thought.
My compliments and thanks, as always, for your example and inspiration.
Max Von Halstern
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:46 am
by Glaukos the Athenian
Vitus von Atzinger wrote:Knights did not shoot arrows at people in combat because men-at-arms made alot more money than archers- these were not only two different jobs, they were two different cultures. Think about polo and monster truck races...get it?
An archer is not a less chivalrous combatant- he is not in any way a chivalrous combatant. What knights do is chivalrous, what they do not do(or frown upon) is unchivalrous because it is not done by the chivalry=knights.
Archers had a culture all their own. This is very easy to understand. More later.
I think I start to see the meaning of your words. I hope you will humor me by explaining further where your answer may take us, and how we reconcile this historical fact into the SCA reality.
Now since men set rulers and ruling classes to govern themselves, richer men have held a disdain for poorer men. ('
Have you met the poor? Charming people' as John Cleese's Robin Hood would patronizingly say) for their lesser tastes in food, clothing, and their lesser performance in battle. One could argue, without going Marxist, that there was a class consciousness vertically within a country, as there was a class brotherhood horizontally, among knights of different countries. There were people of different "qualities".
So the question is whether SCA combat should be about Chivalric combat or Medieval combat, one being part of the larger other.
A hasty definition of "worth" is a slippery slope leading to assuming that what one does is good and what another one does is not good.
In other words, I understood before that
"Their dream are not as worthy as mine"
which means that they are lesser, and so is their dream, they are not equal.
Now I see that their dream at least has the right to exist, but separate.
In other words, both separate and unequal.
Before you point out that I am trying to use 20th century wording, we are talking about people all assumed to be nobility in the SCA, just not peerage. Newcomers are addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady", not "Thou base churl". So the smallest archer in the field, is assumed to be a nobleman of some sort in SCAdian reality.
What we appear to have is an issue defining the "Dream", do we dream of an idealized "Medieval society", or we dream about an idealized "Chivalric" society? Is there an SCA outside of the field of battle or the list? Is the dream of a Dance or Cooking Laurel lesser than the dream of a fighter? less worthy? Are the people that write and draw the illuminations on which knightly elevations are written valued less than those whom the document mentions?
Note that I am not answering these questions. I am not that worthy. I am just bringing them to your forgiving attention, that each may find his or her own answer.
Respectfully,
Rowan of Needwood
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:50 am
by Angusm0628
Malcolmthebold wrote:
It seems that you were right. I was speaking of chivalry as a verb. sorry about the confusion.
In the same vein, it seems to me that the animosity toward combat archers springs from two primary sources. one is that their weapons are unsafe. the other is that they fight in a way that is unfair, and thus conduct themselves in a way lacking chivalry (in the sense of the verb).
I can't speak to the safety aspect except to say that I have been shot a lot in my time and I am still unharmed.
You are correct in saying that Archers are non-chivalrous in the sense that they are not members of the knight class. It is also correct to say that they fight in a way that is non-chivalrous (as per the verb). We play in a game where not everyone is a Knight. If the archery is safe, then the "fairness" argument may be moot. They are not members of the chivalry and can do as they like.
At the end of the day the only thing I can do is fight with a weapon that I deem honorable, and hope that the rest of the world does the
same.
I was taking a slight umbrage over your posting in regards Mercenaries. I don't do combat archery However I am mercenary. BUT I think we got that out of the way.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:14 am
by Armand d'Alsace
I see that many favour Armour As Worn.
One of the basic society rules, are that we are all assumed to wear the same kind of protection.
This rule is essential.
It is the foundation that allows us to fight, on equal terms, even though a thousand years separates our personas.
Please take a moment, and consider the ramifications that would arise if the SCA would change the heavy rulesset into AAWorn...
I also see many opinions about regulating the behaviour of combatants (usually the archers). I feel that this is a dangerous path to tread and would like to remind you that without option, there is no chivalry.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:24 am
by Owyn
Arngrim wrote:Please take a moment, and consider the ramifications that would arise if the SCA would change the heavy rulesset into AAWorn...
90% of the field would suddenly be wearing bad plastic representations of 15-16th century full plate?
"Armor as worn" is a great - for specific tourneys or melees at specific large events. Not so nice as a general thing
As for combat archery - I'll channel my Welsh ancestors a moment and say that having archers on my side, riddling the enemy nobles with arrows, is a good and wonderful thing!
(Having them on the other side, of course, is an evil and ignoble thing!)
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:41 am
by Fokke
Chivalric combat is for the lists and the stylized combat which takes place there one on one. In the middle-ages knights were not some force of good running around and being honorable to each other, thats a myth historical fiction has created. If it were true, then Agincourt would not have occurred across a muddy field where the archers could chew up the French knights, and the King would have simply challenged his counterpart to single combat.
The SCA's goal is to recreate the Middleages as authentically as possible. Look at Laurels and how painstakingly accurate they have to be to get to where they are. Now I dont expect our knight to throw away Arthurian legend and the chivalric ideals they have given the Society just to become robber-knights, roving bandits in armor, and tyrannic lords, most fighters on the field and people in the general know there are enough knights out there who got their positions because of politics and martial ability and not because of any ideal of chivalry and honor. However we should not fault the non-knights and people who chose to take up another historically accurate aspect of martial combat just because it seems unfair to you.
Anyone who says my Queen is unchivalric of unhonorable because she is a combat archer, I have a German longsword with your name on it.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:50 am
by Jasper
Since I have not played for a while I response to various people
David e , At Gulf Wars, I saw multiple occasions where supposedly noble fighters purposely stomped on spent arrows in order to break them, apparently to voice their displeasure that CA was allowed. Classless, to the extreme……
True. Now a story, at one Gulf Wars an archer plinked me in my belly button. I died. As I left the field I harvested the arrow. I was intending to keep as souvenir, but the dude wrote his name on it. As the battle ended, I went into the fort and finally found the guy and told him good shot and gave him the arrow. He was surprise and amused.
Wvk Having our SOs involved and eager to participate …r a somewhat easier chance of getting out to that "away" event. Have you ever seen a good fighter slowly stop showing up at events and practice because his SO is bored or not interested … Color this true with me. My wife like parts of SCA, and was getting into armour. Until between her allergies, schooling, and people she dropped out, then I did.
Vlasta … Part of me wants to say get over yourselves. Its no better getting gacked by a pikeman you can't reach because he's hiding behind a shield wall than it is to be hit by an archer.. watching for people coming to kill you from behind, is part of the skill set related to fighting a WAR…. I will add how about driving 5+ hours to tourney, and drawing the person who came with you in the first round. And he one shots you with your own polearm he borrowed. Or going to war putting on your kingdom tabard, only to be told 5 minutes before lay on that your whole shire has been loaned to the other kingdom…
BobH nuclear arrows can easily be thwarted by our +5 indestructible shields.. Agreed and said better than I could.
Balin50.. unfair… so are spearmen 12 feet away protected by 5 foot by 3 foot +5 shields.
Unsafe, so is having the Too Tall Two Ton Trimarian Tuchux from Tupelo belly buck you pausing only long enough to do the Trimarian Two Step Twist on your torso, before the rest of mob runs over you.
Unchivalrous, judgment call but then I hear its UC to target arms in tourneys, cups even if the guy is rhinoing.
Angrim We wish to embody chivalrours combat.
Fine.
We also incorporate unchivalrours, but tactically sound options in our rules, KFBehind, KOTGround, Archery, Siege engines, because we also want to incorporate battles, not just grand melees. …Now, in a grand melee, we disallow archery etc... In a battle we allow it……
This sums it up nicely.
To sum up
Comprise... Since CA can't play at every event let them have their play time but no you stinking archers can not be in all the battles at the war.
Solution in the far distance future. Armor as worn with pressure senstive sensors. Over x force, shock buzz or whatever. This also prevent rhinos.
Armor would be full body armor and have magic reactive force fields which would prevent injury. So the Too Tall Two Ton Trimarian Tuchux from Tupelo slays Super Squire pausing only long enough to do the Trimarian Two Step Twist on Super Squire's torso. But medics would not be called to attend Super Squire.
Personally I had a dream which I had was to either leader 100 angry archers onto the field and make people die by a flock of 100 arrows. Or dieing in melee due to a flock of 100 arrows.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:18 am
by Malcolmthebold
I was taking a slight umbrage over your posting in regards Mercenaries. I don't do combat archery However I am mercenary. BUT I think we got that out of the way.
I love mercs. Half the guys around my shire are mercs, and they have never left me hanging. This may be because I pay in whiskey, but loyalty to the coin is loyalty none the less.
"Their dream are not as worthy as mine"
which means that they are lesser, and so is their dream, they are not equal.
Just want to make sure I am not misquoted here, my thought ran in the way of "their dream is just as worthy as mine."