2" spear tips are now groovy.

[Count Johnathan]

I'm no rules lawyer.

IMO a rules lawyer is a person who attempts to use an interpretation of the law or to exploit a loophole in the rules in order to gain an advantage in the game.

I may argue the rules and their intended purpose but never to gain any sort of personal advantage on the field. I don't need to do that.

Mostly I argue about attitudes regarding SCA fighting and safety regulations.

[Micah Nelson]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

[Peikko]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

and you were the 666th response

[Tom B.]

Gavin I have to disagree with you on this. If they intended for there to be an imagenary box they would have written it that way. Your face goes back to your ears, if you get hit with a thrust in the cheek, jaw, temple, etc... it still counts.

Why wouldn't you take a light thrust to your cheek, jaw, ... isn't that part of your face? I don't really understand how someone could think their cheek is not part of their face.

I know that this is an odd picture to use for an armoured combat thread but I think it easily illustrates what the general definition of face is. Apart from the top half of the forehead (assumed to be covered by the helm) I have always taken both cuts and thrusts lighter to the same area as shown in th pic. I guess I also have been taking light thrust to the throat contrary to the current rules quoted by someone above.

[Doorman]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Guys care more about there spears...

Didn't the boobies thread get locked on page 16?

[Doorman]

So now you are rules lawyering the term rules lawyering?

OH SNAP!!!! OH NO HE D'INT!

[Baron Eirik]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Guys care more about there spears...

Didn't the boobies thread get locked on page 16?

Yup. But there was far more tolerance on differing opinions on what constitutes the proper size.

[DeCalmont]

So the one's favoring the 3" tips are compensating for something?

[Doorman]

So the one's favoring the 3" tips are compensating for something?

You said it not me...just want to get that on the record.

[Count Johnathan]

So the one's favoring the 3" tips are compensating for something?

This posted by a guy who brings missile weaponry to a melee. Interesting.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Why wouldn't you take a light thrust to your cheek

He hit you from behind?

[Diglach Mac Cein]

This posted by a guy who brings missile weaponry to a melee. Interesting.

Heck, if the rules allow it, so do I - not a bow, but thrown weaponry, sure!

.

[DeCalmont]

So the one's favoring the 3" tips are compensating for something?

This posted by a guy who brings missile weaponry to a melee. Interesting.

Nah, I just bring my crossbow to the War...I take my spear to the Melee. You know, for a definition kind of guy you'd think you'd know the difference between a melee weapon and a projectile weapon.

[DukeAvery]

Don't tase me bro.

[Kilkenny]

Gavin I have to disagree with you on this. If they intended for there to be an imagenary box they would have written it that way. Your face goes back to your ears, if you get hit with a thrust in the cheek, jaw, temple, etc... it still counts.

Now, let's look at that. In what way does the box idea not include all of the specific items you list ? Of course it does.

But how do you *include* the ears in your reading of the rules?

The rule does not state "including the ears". The rule provides *boundaries*.
It says from X to Y and from A to B.

Look in the mirror. The "face target" is the area bounded by the middle of your forehead (not a very precise descriptor) on top, the chin on the bottom, and the "ear openings" on either side. That includes your cheeks, temples might be a little iffy, depending on "middle of the forehead), your jaw.

It's a frame that corresponds pretty well to lots of helmets - helmets that cover the "ear holes" neatly, but still frame the "face" in a manner that can be recognized with the written description.

I suspect someone opted to use "ear holes" rather than just "ears" because they did *not* want people arguing that we're supposed to take lighter to the ear, and tried to avoid that by not using "ears" as the boundary marker.

[Sir Omarad]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Boobies?!?!

[Keegan Ingrassia]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Boobies?!?!

You called?

[SirCathal]

i need the link back to the boobs thread. thx in advance

[Doorman]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Boobies?!?!

Feast your eyes...don't forget the lotion
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=106389&highlight=boobies

[Angusm0628]

Feast your eyes...don't forget the lotion
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=106389&highlight=boobies

Yeah but half the images are gone... I was just there this morning after being reminded of it..

[Thorstenn]

For Trimaris we see the face as; Temple to temple, eye brow to chin. What you would see unarmored wearing a helmet and a chain coif

Thor-

Gavin I have to disagree with you on this. If they intended for there to be an imagenary box they would have written it that way. Your face goes back to your ears, if you get hit with a thrust in the cheek, jaw, temple, etc... it still counts.

Now, let's look at that. In what way does the box idea not include all of the specific items you list ? Of course it does.

But how do you *include* the ears in your reading of the rules?

The rule does not state "including the ears". The rule provides *boundaries*.
It says from X to Y and from A to B.

Look in the mirror. The "face target" is the area bounded by the middle of your forehead (not a very precise descriptor) on top, the chin on the bottom, and the "ear openings" on either side. That includes your cheeks, temples might be a little iffy, depending on "middle of the forehead), your jaw.

It's a frame that corresponds pretty well to lots of helmets - helmets that cover the "ear holes" neatly, but still frame the "face" in a manner that can be recognized with the written description.

I suspect someone opted to use "ear holes" rather than just "ears" because they did *not* want people arguing that we're supposed to take lighter to the ear, and tried to avoid that by not using "ears" as the boundary marker.

[Doorman]

Feast your eyes...don't forget the lotion
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=106389&highlight=boobies

Yeah but half the images are gone... I was just there this morning after being reminded of it..

try a non-work computer. my work computer blocks a LOT of images.

[Baron Alejandro]

Don't tase me bro.

Ok, that was funny right there. Not as funny as rules-lawyering the rules lawyering, bu still funny.

[Jonathon More]

Feast your eyes...don't forget the lotion
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=106389&highlight=boobies

Yeah but half the images are gone... I was just there this morning after being reminded of it..

uh, yeah, hmm. ya know, I think I saved all those in a file somewhere on my home puter... I'll send you a link later.

[benz72]

Feast your eyes...don't forget the lotion
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=106389&highlight=boobies

Yeah but half the images are gone... I was just there this morning after being reminded of it..

uh, yeah, hmm. ya know, I think I saved all those in a file somewhere on my home puter... I'll send you a link later.

You mean POST a link... right????

Thanks

[Ingvarr]

So we have people who think they can interpret rules but can't find pictures of boobs on the internet by themselves?

[Jonathon More]

hmmm, having trouble finding the file, this link should help in the meantime. (safe for work)

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

[Armand d'Alsace]

C. Target Area
4. Thighs: The leg from one inch above the top of the knee to a line even with the bottom of the hip socket.
6. Shoulder: From the point of the shoulder down to a line even with the top of the underarm.

The face target - that's absolutely intended as "an imaginary square placed in front of the face". It is using certain reasonably visible and identifiable points of reference to outline the area that is the face target.

Please note rule 6 "to a line even with the top of the underarm" - that is another definition requiring a particular perspective in order to have meaning. Rule 4 "a line even with the bottom of the hip socket"..

Note that in each case this is a perspective that a fighter has of an opponent facing him/her.

Think for a moment about what is actually defined by a line between the "ear holes" - a line that goes right through the middle of your head. Pretty sure they were not telling us that a face thrust needs to get back to that line....

No, they give us points to define the upper, lower, left and right limits of the "face" target.

They are not telling us that from the tip of your nose as the most foreward point, to your ears as the most rearward point, is the face target. The perspective is face on, not profile.

I'm sorry, but I have never ever before heard anyone interpret the targeting rules as written from a frontal perspective, nor any mention of an imaginary rectangle, nor can I find any evidence thereof in any quoted section.

I really do not understand why rule four or six would not be valid from the side.

An why would the writers feel compelled to mention that the nose is part of the area between the ears, and chin to mid-forehead, that's rather clearly stated IMO.

You may feel that an imaginary rectangle was obviously intended, but I cannot find any mention of it, nor do I find it to be obviously intended.

I fear that this is a case of RAI(rules as intended) versus RAW(rules as written) and RAW trumps RAI until errata, clarification or a new edition comes along.

Anyway, that's my 5 spänn

[Sir Omarad]

I wish someone would lock this thread and start 3 new ones.

[Kilkenny]

C. Target Area
4. Thighs: The leg from one inch above the top of the knee to a line even with the bottom of the hip socket.
6. Shoulder: From the point of the shoulder down to a line even with the top of the underarm.

The face target - that's absolutely intended as "an imaginary square placed in front of the face". It is using certain reasonably visible and identifiable points of reference to outline the area that is the face target.

Please note rule 6 "to a line even with the top of the underarm" - that is another definition requiring a particular perspective in order to have meaning. Rule 4 "a line even with the bottom of the hip socket"..

Note that in each case this is a perspective that a fighter has of an opponent facing him/her.

Think for a moment about what is actually defined by a line between the "ear holes" - a line that goes right through the middle of your head. Pretty sure they were not telling us that a face thrust needs to get back to that line....

No, they give us points to define the upper, lower, left and right limits of the "face" target.

They are not telling us that from the tip of your nose as the most foreward point, to your ears as the most rearward point, is the face target. The perspective is face on, not profile.

I'm sorry, but I have never ever before heard anyone interpret the targeting rules as written from a frontal perspective, nor any mention of an imaginary rectangle, nor can I find any evidence thereof in any quoted section.

I really do not understand why rule four or six would not be valid from the side.

An why would the writers feel compelled to mention that the nose is part of the area between the ears, and chin to mid-forehead, that's rather clearly stated IMO.

You may feel that an imaginary rectangle was obviously intended, but I cannot find any mention of it, nor do I find it to be obviously intended.

I fear that this is a case of RAI(rules as intended) versus RAW(rules as written) and RAW trumps RAI until errata, clarification or a new edition comes along.

Anyway, that's my 5 spänn

I beg to differ. Still.

Most significantly, you are presenting Your Interpretation and designating it as "rules as written".

Your interpretation of the written rule is just exactly that - your interpretation.

You feel it is obvious that your interpretation is correct - but it is Your Interpretation, nevertheless.

In an effort to clarify what I believe to be the plain meaning of the rule, I've used words that are not included. Shock! Horror! Must be untrue!

Sorry. I guess making the effort to explain something is wasted on those who have their minds set on what they want the words to mean.

The funny thing is, I think most people understand what a "face" is and the effort of the rule writers to define "face" has only produced more confusion.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Really?

I wish someone would lock this thread and start 3 new ones.

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

I fear that this is a case of RAI(rules as intended) versus RAW(rules as written) and RAW trumps RAI until errata, clarification or a new edition comes along.

And this is the BIGGEST problem with the Rules- that there can be an "as written" and an "as intended."

There should be no distinction. They should be one and the same.

[Micah Nelson]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Guys care more about there spears...

Didn't the boobies thread get locked on page 16?

Something like that... This is just sad.

[Hrolfr]

20 pages? Even the Boobies thread didn't get this much attention...

Boobies?!?!

At least no one has ressurrected that picture of Broadway

[Tomburr]

In before page twenty-one/pic of Broadway's moobs.