I am torn. Both Sir Alfred and Sir Vitus argue their positions most admirably.
But, in a `tie`, the game must go to not dropping on the ground in a misguided and silly mockery of all that we hope to display, mustn`t it?
I am for trying the `two limbs equal a leg` system in melee. If one can trust their worthy and honorable opponent to take one blow, one can trust them to take two. And if one cannot, the problem remains the same in both formats. In the meantime, we don`t have to look as silly.
The ol' fighting from the knees debate!
GdV: "I think the least raumatic way to remove knee fighting would be to go to a system where two limb blows equals a loss like one head or torso shot and has no other effect."
While I understand the logical sentiment -- and it does have some distinct appeal from that perspective -- we don't have any real basis historically to support this idea. One of the justifications behind counted blows is that it better simulates a fight to submission which, by all accounts, is how many bouts -- war and tournament -- were determined. There is no indication that someone struck in the head was any more susceptible to defeat than one who had lost the use of his arm or was no longer able to stand. If anything, saving the unfortunate-but-infrequent mortal blow that might result, losing a limb was as tantamount to losing the fight as being knocked silly by a stout buffet to the helm. In the end, it was cumulative damage -- and just as often, sheer exhaustion -- that was the real determining factor.
GdV: “This would change the balance the least methinks and not be overly complicated.â€
While I understand the logical sentiment -- and it does have some distinct appeal from that perspective -- we don't have any real basis historically to support this idea. One of the justifications behind counted blows is that it better simulates a fight to submission which, by all accounts, is how many bouts -- war and tournament -- were determined. There is no indication that someone struck in the head was any more susceptible to defeat than one who had lost the use of his arm or was no longer able to stand. If anything, saving the unfortunate-but-infrequent mortal blow that might result, losing a limb was as tantamount to losing the fight as being knocked silly by a stout buffet to the helm. In the end, it was cumulative damage -- and just as often, sheer exhaustion -- that was the real determining factor.
GdV: “This would change the balance the least methinks and not be overly complicated.â€
-
Ulrich
- Archive Member
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison AL (Glynn Rhe - Meridies)
- Contact:
First I'd like everyone to know, I've received a note from the horse, it reads; "I'm dead, you can keep beating me if it makes you feel better, but at this point it’s not bothering me anymore. However, your likely to stub a toe or something." [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Second: Congratulations you've all gotten what you've asked for the SCA is going to counted blows. The universal number will be one, shots to the limbs will count as halves, and you'll have to stop using them if struck. [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]
Ok seriously.
First I'm against counted blows in the SCA in general; in my opinion they're fine for a pas, or a "specialty" tournament or what not. However I am against it as a "blanket" replacement for our current system. It’s no more period for me (a sub-Roman-German), or other early period personas, than the system we already use. Our system may be a bit "dumbed down" and may look a bit silly at times, but its easier for the populace to follow, very closely resembles the rules most of us came up with as kids when we played these games with homemade "branch swords" wearing old motorcycle or football helmets, and homemade cardboard armor, et al. And frankly I like the idea for their being a penalty for getting whacked in a limb, it just makes more sense, to me anyway.
A comment about whether this combat was for us or the crowd, it’s a 20% about us, and 80% about the crowd, at least for me...if it were the other way I'd just stay home and go to local fighter practices. Under our current system, I have to explain very little about our current system at a demo and everyone down to the youngest kindergartener understands almost immediately, if you think they don't just miss a leg shot at the next school demo you go to and see how fast they start booing. (Especially if you've passed yourself off as the "bad" guy)
Counted blows were designed in period to recreate real combat without killing each other (hopefully). SCA combat was designed to recreate real combat without seriously injuring each other (hopefully). Sounds like they both work. - If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Use of counted blows in melee; Simple to say it would make it MUCH easier for cheaters to cheat. Simply under our current system, if we See Lord Thick get doubled over by a glaive shot, let out a “oof that hurt" and not take it, we know he's cheating. However under counted blows if we see it, and he say's 2, when it’s really 5, 7 or whatever unless you witnessed the others it will be harder to know he's cheating. Eventually you'll find out (usually talking to teammates on the sideline when 5 people talk about whacking him and 3 of them were number 2, yet he lived) but it will make it more difficult. - Should we revolve our game around cheaters? No but neither should we make it easier for them.
I have a question, If I remember correctly (if not I'm sure I'll be corrected), in "period" when counted blows were used, weren't they counted by an observer, not the combatants? So if we were to actually switch to counted blows, shouldn't we also use observers to count them? It’s more period, there for it must be better right?
Respectfully
Ulrich
-who is sometimes a bit too much of a smarta** than is good for him/
Second: Congratulations you've all gotten what you've asked for the SCA is going to counted blows. The universal number will be one, shots to the limbs will count as halves, and you'll have to stop using them if struck. [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]
Ok seriously.
First I'm against counted blows in the SCA in general; in my opinion they're fine for a pas, or a "specialty" tournament or what not. However I am against it as a "blanket" replacement for our current system. It’s no more period for me (a sub-Roman-German), or other early period personas, than the system we already use. Our system may be a bit "dumbed down" and may look a bit silly at times, but its easier for the populace to follow, very closely resembles the rules most of us came up with as kids when we played these games with homemade "branch swords" wearing old motorcycle or football helmets, and homemade cardboard armor, et al. And frankly I like the idea for their being a penalty for getting whacked in a limb, it just makes more sense, to me anyway.
A comment about whether this combat was for us or the crowd, it’s a 20% about us, and 80% about the crowd, at least for me...if it were the other way I'd just stay home and go to local fighter practices. Under our current system, I have to explain very little about our current system at a demo and everyone down to the youngest kindergartener understands almost immediately, if you think they don't just miss a leg shot at the next school demo you go to and see how fast they start booing. (Especially if you've passed yourself off as the "bad" guy)
Counted blows were designed in period to recreate real combat without killing each other (hopefully). SCA combat was designed to recreate real combat without seriously injuring each other (hopefully). Sounds like they both work. - If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Use of counted blows in melee; Simple to say it would make it MUCH easier for cheaters to cheat. Simply under our current system, if we See Lord Thick get doubled over by a glaive shot, let out a “oof that hurt" and not take it, we know he's cheating. However under counted blows if we see it, and he say's 2, when it’s really 5, 7 or whatever unless you witnessed the others it will be harder to know he's cheating. Eventually you'll find out (usually talking to teammates on the sideline when 5 people talk about whacking him and 3 of them were number 2, yet he lived) but it will make it more difficult. - Should we revolve our game around cheaters? No but neither should we make it easier for them.
I have a question, If I remember correctly (if not I'm sure I'll be corrected), in "period" when counted blows were used, weren't they counted by an observer, not the combatants? So if we were to actually switch to counted blows, shouldn't we also use observers to count them? It’s more period, there for it must be better right?
Respectfully
Ulrich
-who is sometimes a bit too much of a smarta** than is good for him/
Ulrich,
I agree with you. You are a smart ass.
It might be a dead horse, but I'm sure the Abolitionists could have said the same thing about slavery and all gone home to their farms. "Awww, forget it. This whole argument's been flogged to death. Let's move on already."
Smartassville has a very large population.
Seriously though, I agree with you about melees. I think it could potentially create a lot more problems than it solves. Yes, fifteen fighters gimping around the battlefield on their knees looks dopey, but so do tennis ball flying around, pork chops whizzing by, and a ton of other SCA quirks.
But regarding tournaments, it was my impression that we were trying to recreate medieval combat, not the cardboard/garbage can games we played as kids. True, a tournament in the high middle ages did not include Visigoths, samurai, gladiators, or katana wielding Scotsmen. The SCA, being nebulous and inclusive, opens itself to all sorts of quirks on this front too. But, whereas counted blows probably wouldn't work in melee, it could easily in tourneys, with a little effort and adjustment, both from the combatants and spectators. Authenticity doesn't have to be unfun.
Obviously the SCA means different things to different people, and with the huge number of people involved, there are bound to be numerous dead-horse debates, but it seems to me that if are indeed trying to recreate the historical combat on some level, we should try to close the gap between silliness and accuracy whenever and however possible.
That was long-winded. My apologies.
I agree with you. You are a smart ass.
It might be a dead horse, but I'm sure the Abolitionists could have said the same thing about slavery and all gone home to their farms. "Awww, forget it. This whole argument's been flogged to death. Let's move on already."
Smartassville has a very large population.
Seriously though, I agree with you about melees. I think it could potentially create a lot more problems than it solves. Yes, fifteen fighters gimping around the battlefield on their knees looks dopey, but so do tennis ball flying around, pork chops whizzing by, and a ton of other SCA quirks.
But regarding tournaments, it was my impression that we were trying to recreate medieval combat, not the cardboard/garbage can games we played as kids. True, a tournament in the high middle ages did not include Visigoths, samurai, gladiators, or katana wielding Scotsmen. The SCA, being nebulous and inclusive, opens itself to all sorts of quirks on this front too. But, whereas counted blows probably wouldn't work in melee, it could easily in tourneys, with a little effort and adjustment, both from the combatants and spectators. Authenticity doesn't have to be unfun.
Obviously the SCA means different things to different people, and with the huge number of people involved, there are bound to be numerous dead-horse debates, but it seems to me that if are indeed trying to recreate the historical combat on some level, we should try to close the gap between silliness and accuracy whenever and however possible.
That was long-winded. My apologies.
-
Thorstenn
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Barony of Oldenfeld, Trimaris.
In those counted blows turneys they wore plate armor not chainmail and boild leather. I cant recall one single counted blow turney in the tenth century I have a norse persona I guess I would not be aloud to play any more. Also how many others in the SCA have pre-plate armor personas Kiss half the members goodbye.
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
Thorstenn,
I don't think people who argue for counted blow tourneys are arguing for Pas across the board. At least I'm not. I simply think acting our blows is ahistorical, or at least such an anomaly that it amounts to the same thing, and was never (or very rarely) used by ANYONE in any century. I'm not advocating excluding pre-plate people from playing, and unless I'm misunderstanding the argument, I don't think anyone else is either.
I don't think people who argue for counted blow tourneys are arguing for Pas across the board. At least I'm not. I simply think acting our blows is ahistorical, or at least such an anomaly that it amounts to the same thing, and was never (or very rarely) used by ANYONE in any century. I'm not advocating excluding pre-plate people from playing, and unless I'm misunderstanding the argument, I don't think anyone else is either.
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
If you want counted blows - hold a tourney or a melee with counted blows. Nothing to stop you, really.
If it catches on, and other people think IT IS FUN, them more people will attend. If they don't, they won't. Proof is in the pudding.
Just like holding a tourney with very strict time period / apperance restrictions. As long as you are willing to accept the trade-off (smaller attendance), then go for it - as long as your rules don't violate SCA Rules of the List. And if you do, just don't tie it to the SCA.
This isn't a all or nothing thing.....
BTW - if the non-combatants who are watching the fighting, especially your consort, aren't important to you, you are missing a big point.
Dilan
If it catches on, and other people think IT IS FUN, them more people will attend. If they don't, they won't. Proof is in the pudding.
Just like holding a tourney with very strict time period / apperance restrictions. As long as you are willing to accept the trade-off (smaller attendance), then go for it - as long as your rules don't violate SCA Rules of the List. And if you do, just don't tie it to the SCA.
This isn't a all or nothing thing.....
BTW - if the non-combatants who are watching the fighting, especially your consort, aren't important to you, you are missing a big point.
Dilan
-
Red Dragon
- Archive Member
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, Texas, USA
- Contact:
One problem is that we are doing tournaments. If you are a Viking, or a sub-Roman-German then you would not be fighting in a tournament. I am not saying that you should not fight in tournaments, but you cannot really complain about rules that try to recreate the age of tournaments, when that is what a tournament should be.
I actually think that wars are pretty good the way they are.
I have to agree that I think there would be more cheating with counted blows in wars, even if it were two limbs equal a kill. You would have to make sure that you got those two limb blows. If your opponent moved off to another part of the battle there is no way that anyone would know they would already have received one blow. Most would do it correctly, but there would be a few more who would take one leg, then move somewhere else, take another, keep moving, take another, ad infinitum.
Let's watch out, this could spill over into the "is it a war, or grand melee" discussion, and that is a excessively moribund equine.
Edit:
On the subject of the original essay on leg wounds. I have a real problem with J. Clements, because his written works are mostly about showing how stupid the SCA is, rather than on taking a thesis and supporting it.
Of course, all of his stuff I have read does have one central thesis:
SCA Combat is wrong.
Also, my knees have deteriorated to the point where I will not be fighting from my knees anymore, so the point it moot for me. A leg is a kill (against me).
------------------
Conor
Red Dragon Armoury
I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
[This message has been edited by Red Dragon (edited 01-26-2004).]
I actually think that wars are pretty good the way they are.
I have to agree that I think there would be more cheating with counted blows in wars, even if it were two limbs equal a kill. You would have to make sure that you got those two limb blows. If your opponent moved off to another part of the battle there is no way that anyone would know they would already have received one blow. Most would do it correctly, but there would be a few more who would take one leg, then move somewhere else, take another, keep moving, take another, ad infinitum.
Let's watch out, this could spill over into the "is it a war, or grand melee" discussion, and that is a excessively moribund equine.
Edit:
On the subject of the original essay on leg wounds. I have a real problem with J. Clements, because his written works are mostly about showing how stupid the SCA is, rather than on taking a thesis and supporting it.
Of course, all of his stuff I have read does have one central thesis:
SCA Combat is wrong.
Also, my knees have deteriorated to the point where I will not be fighting from my knees anymore, so the point it moot for me. A leg is a kill (against me).
------------------
Conor
Red Dragon Armoury
I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
[This message has been edited by Red Dragon (edited 01-26-2004).]
Again: "What exactly are you trying to re-create?"
A 10th century holmgang is very different from a 15th century tournament. And our rule-set does a fairly good job of allowing for both extremes and everything in between.
People who dislike the fighting from the knees convention (and I happen to be one of them) can run a tournament where that does not happen. The counted blows rule (the pas dispensation) allows for all sorts of varieties. You can run a tournament in which wounds are not acted out and blows are counted to 1,000 (effectively a submission tournament and you would be well advised to have some period safety conventions in place). You can run a tournament in which the number of blows is 1 and any good blow ends the fight (a good way to simulate un-armored fighting). I haven't found justification in the rules for this, but in the past people have run tournaments where only blows (or thrusts) to unarmored areas were counted.
Rather than trying to change the rules I would argue that we need to change attitudes. Educate your fellow fighters, run your tournaments with alternate rules, and see if they catch on.
A 10th century holmgang is very different from a 15th century tournament. And our rule-set does a fairly good job of allowing for both extremes and everything in between.
People who dislike the fighting from the knees convention (and I happen to be one of them) can run a tournament where that does not happen. The counted blows rule (the pas dispensation) allows for all sorts of varieties. You can run a tournament in which wounds are not acted out and blows are counted to 1,000 (effectively a submission tournament and you would be well advised to have some period safety conventions in place). You can run a tournament in which the number of blows is 1 and any good blow ends the fight (a good way to simulate un-armored fighting). I haven't found justification in the rules for this, but in the past people have run tournaments where only blows (or thrusts) to unarmored areas were counted.
Rather than trying to change the rules I would argue that we need to change attitudes. Educate your fellow fighters, run your tournaments with alternate rules, and see if they catch on.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Irish:
<B>If you want counted blows - hold a tourney or a melee with counted blows. Nothing to stop you, really.
If it catches on, and other people think IT IS FUN, them more people will attend. If they don't, they won't. Proof is in the pudding.
Just like holding a tourney with very strict time period / apperance restrictions. As long as you are willing to accept the trade-off (smaller attendance), then go for it - as long as your rules don't violate SCA Rules of the List. And if you do, just don't tie it to the SCA.
This isn't a all or nothing thing.....
BTW - if the non-combatants who are watching the fighting, especially your consort, aren't important to you, you are missing a big point.
Dilan</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding the crowd/consort issue, I don't think counted blows have to alienate, confuse, or otherwise interfere with crowd enjoyment or entertainment value. In fact, I think they can contribute to it--while one-shot-and-done fights can be impressive, I think a lot people like to see a contest that doesn't conclude in .05 seconds, that has a little bit of extended drama to it. Counted blows guarantees that at least two shots ring out. And in the case of fighters of relatively equal skill, the best of three format often entails a third, critical "round" or pass.
Yes, acted blows might be easier to follow visually for the crowd, but I think part of that is familiarity as well. And if there is a pause for blow acknowledgment after each pass, whether from the fighters themselves, the marshall, or a herald, that can just as visually arresting/entertaining. My .02, anyway.
I agree that holding counted blows tourneys (or any alternative format) and waiting to see fi they catch on is a good acid test. And it seems like more people have been running Pas or starting toruney companies, so who knows, maybe it will eventually provoke a rule change.
But I'm wondering, is that how SCA combat rules are ordinarily changed, a gradual shift that people eventually notice and agree makes sense? It seems like rule changes would be slow or nonexistent if that's the case. I'm not asking this to be a smarta**--I'm serious. I've only been in the SCA three years or so, so I'm genuinely interested in how things like this evolve.
And given my relatively short stint, this is a pretty new horse to me, dead or no, so if I'm overflogging, please forgive me.
(Edited because my proofing skills stink)
[This message has been edited by Madyn (edited 01-26-2004).]
<B>If you want counted blows - hold a tourney or a melee with counted blows. Nothing to stop you, really.
If it catches on, and other people think IT IS FUN, them more people will attend. If they don't, they won't. Proof is in the pudding.
Just like holding a tourney with very strict time period / apperance restrictions. As long as you are willing to accept the trade-off (smaller attendance), then go for it - as long as your rules don't violate SCA Rules of the List. And if you do, just don't tie it to the SCA.
This isn't a all or nothing thing.....
BTW - if the non-combatants who are watching the fighting, especially your consort, aren't important to you, you are missing a big point.
Dilan</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding the crowd/consort issue, I don't think counted blows have to alienate, confuse, or otherwise interfere with crowd enjoyment or entertainment value. In fact, I think they can contribute to it--while one-shot-and-done fights can be impressive, I think a lot people like to see a contest that doesn't conclude in .05 seconds, that has a little bit of extended drama to it. Counted blows guarantees that at least two shots ring out. And in the case of fighters of relatively equal skill, the best of three format often entails a third, critical "round" or pass.
Yes, acted blows might be easier to follow visually for the crowd, but I think part of that is familiarity as well. And if there is a pause for blow acknowledgment after each pass, whether from the fighters themselves, the marshall, or a herald, that can just as visually arresting/entertaining. My .02, anyway.
I agree that holding counted blows tourneys (or any alternative format) and waiting to see fi they catch on is a good acid test. And it seems like more people have been running Pas or starting toruney companies, so who knows, maybe it will eventually provoke a rule change.
But I'm wondering, is that how SCA combat rules are ordinarily changed, a gradual shift that people eventually notice and agree makes sense? It seems like rule changes would be slow or nonexistent if that's the case. I'm not asking this to be a smarta**--I'm serious. I've only been in the SCA three years or so, so I'm genuinely interested in how things like this evolve.
And given my relatively short stint, this is a pretty new horse to me, dead or no, so if I'm overflogging, please forgive me.
(Edited because my proofing skills stink)
[This message has been edited by Madyn (edited 01-26-2004).]
-
Maelgwyn
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: Texas (Bryn Gwlad, Ansteorra)
- Contact:
I think that the simplest solution is to personally call leg wounds as "telling". I can do that if I choose without any rule changes or counting, even if my knees aren't bad enough to require it. I will also yield in tournament if my sword arm is taken.
If enough fighters begin to do this, it will be a movement. If it becomes the norm, eventually we will teach it to all new fighters and the old convention will pass away. That could take several years, but don't wait. Start now. You, personally, never need to look ridiculous again.
Maelgwyn
If enough fighters begin to do this, it will be a movement. If it becomes the norm, eventually we will teach it to all new fighters and the old convention will pass away. That could take several years, but don't wait. Start now. You, personally, never need to look ridiculous again.
Maelgwyn
-
Ulrich
- Archive Member
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison AL (Glynn Rhe - Meridies)
- Contact:
Madyn,
Thanks for recognizing good fun smarta$$ness. -and keep pounding the dead horse if you want, I was just wisecracking.
My point on the current rules resembling the games we played as kids was this, its a rule-set most of us already understood when we started playing, which made the rest easier to learn, and understand. It also achieves the same intent as Counted blows, (recreation of combat without injury), if we had really known about counted blows when the SCA began, I think it most likely would have been our combat system, but we didn't so we made up rules that made sense at the time, and I honestly don't see them changing without a POPULAR uprising. (addressed below)
----
There is a concept that "Counted blows are period and therefore better". I don't necessarily agree;
First remember period for some is not period for all, and counted blows is no more period for early personas' than our combat system or a suit of full plate. I think the combat system we use now is actually more skill based, and allows less room for error. Useable, sure but, not any more correct than what we do now.
Second I would argue that the system we use now actually requires more skill than counted blows.
My saber fighting gets better when I practice fighting one armed against a fully armed opponent. (And few things are more fun to me than running around a field one armed fighting an opponent fully armed and managing a win or double while at a disadvantage, it’s quite exhilarating.)
My static defense gets better every time I have to fight from my knees, which helps me when I'm in small field tourneys and can't move much.
I have to use better tactics in fights, because there is a price to pay if I'm sloppy, where as (and I did this in the last counted blow fight I was in I was up 1-0 going to 3 landed) I could step in and take a shot to an exposed sword arm to land a 2 shot combo. that same combo in our current system would have cost me the arm, before my combo landed...sloppy.
Others (not in this particular deceased equine beating) have made the comment that it will take away the one shot wonders, and make the fights last longer, thus be more entertaining, to that I say...um not really, if someone can one-shot you they can probably 3 shot you, which leaves fighters (especially newer ones) abused in the lists, by this I mean its a little disheartening to get one shot’d, its humiliating to get pounded three times in succession, I think it would cause us to lose some newer fighters.
As others have said, if you want to do counted blows, do them, no one is stopping you, you can do it even in a normal tournament, when your paired up, just go over to your opponent and ask if he/she'd like to do a counted blows bout, the worst they can do is say no, most marshals (at least the ones I know) wouldn't mind, just make sure you announce it to the populace first, so they know what’s going on. If it catches on, great, you'll see more of them, if it really catches, you may get your wish. And it would become the norm, with acted wounds being the "specialty" tournament system. in the end the SCA is really all about popular demand, make it popular and you may be amazed at what happens.
Or apparently I can sum up my whole post into....What Dilan said.
Regards,
Ulrich
(btw, I appear to have bruised my foot on this rather mushy deceased equine here, does anyone have an ace bandage I could borrow? No? ok then.) [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Thanks for recognizing good fun smarta$$ness. -and keep pounding the dead horse if you want, I was just wisecracking.
My point on the current rules resembling the games we played as kids was this, its a rule-set most of us already understood when we started playing, which made the rest easier to learn, and understand. It also achieves the same intent as Counted blows, (recreation of combat without injury), if we had really known about counted blows when the SCA began, I think it most likely would have been our combat system, but we didn't so we made up rules that made sense at the time, and I honestly don't see them changing without a POPULAR uprising. (addressed below)
----
There is a concept that "Counted blows are period and therefore better". I don't necessarily agree;
First remember period for some is not period for all, and counted blows is no more period for early personas' than our combat system or a suit of full plate. I think the combat system we use now is actually more skill based, and allows less room for error. Useable, sure but, not any more correct than what we do now.
Second I would argue that the system we use now actually requires more skill than counted blows.
My saber fighting gets better when I practice fighting one armed against a fully armed opponent. (And few things are more fun to me than running around a field one armed fighting an opponent fully armed and managing a win or double while at a disadvantage, it’s quite exhilarating.)
My static defense gets better every time I have to fight from my knees, which helps me when I'm in small field tourneys and can't move much.
I have to use better tactics in fights, because there is a price to pay if I'm sloppy, where as (and I did this in the last counted blow fight I was in I was up 1-0 going to 3 landed) I could step in and take a shot to an exposed sword arm to land a 2 shot combo. that same combo in our current system would have cost me the arm, before my combo landed...sloppy.
Others (not in this particular deceased equine beating) have made the comment that it will take away the one shot wonders, and make the fights last longer, thus be more entertaining, to that I say...um not really, if someone can one-shot you they can probably 3 shot you, which leaves fighters (especially newer ones) abused in the lists, by this I mean its a little disheartening to get one shot’d, its humiliating to get pounded three times in succession, I think it would cause us to lose some newer fighters.
As others have said, if you want to do counted blows, do them, no one is stopping you, you can do it even in a normal tournament, when your paired up, just go over to your opponent and ask if he/she'd like to do a counted blows bout, the worst they can do is say no, most marshals (at least the ones I know) wouldn't mind, just make sure you announce it to the populace first, so they know what’s going on. If it catches on, great, you'll see more of them, if it really catches, you may get your wish. And it would become the norm, with acted wounds being the "specialty" tournament system. in the end the SCA is really all about popular demand, make it popular and you may be amazed at what happens.
Or apparently I can sum up my whole post into....What Dilan said.
Regards,
Ulrich
(btw, I appear to have bruised my foot on this rather mushy deceased equine here, does anyone have an ace bandage I could borrow? No? ok then.) [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
-
Asbjorn Johansen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1699
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Aldan PA
Counted blows received (counting the number of times struck) is a method for recreating being beaten to the point where you cannot continue. Regardless of time period, with hand powered weapons most descriptions of combat seem to indicate folks keep fighting until they bodies cannot continue and then stop. The accounts we have that have someone continuing to fight after receiving a debilitating limb injury, seem to indicate that the particular instances were exceptional, and therefore worthy of note (Jaques de Laaing’s fight against the English squire comes to mind). It can be used in almost any instance of combat from almost any time or place. To simulate more effective armour, you raise the number of blows, for less effective armour or no armour you lower the number.
One of the strengths of the SCA (that also can be abused into a weakness) is the use of “assumed armourâ€
One of the strengths of the SCA (that also can be abused into a weakness) is the use of “assumed armourâ€
-
Thorstenn
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Barony of Oldenfeld, Trimaris.
The point I was trying to make is...
SCA armor standards are: boild leather and chainmail with an open face helmit, Thats what were all supposed to be wearing, but we (loosly) recreat late period turneys.
The armor does not fit the fight..also how many counted blows turneys were held with sword (34 inch) and shield (2 foot by 3 foot) heaters ??? What weapons for a pas ?
Maybe we need more great weapon and spear turneys their always fun, maybe make them more like pas.
P.S. I love the curent system for wars and yes I think of them as WARS!!!
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
SCA armor standards are: boild leather and chainmail with an open face helmit, Thats what were all supposed to be wearing, but we (loosly) recreat late period turneys.
The armor does not fit the fight..also how many counted blows turneys were held with sword (34 inch) and shield (2 foot by 3 foot) heaters ??? What weapons for a pas ?
Maybe we need more great weapon and spear turneys their always fun, maybe make them more like pas.
P.S. I love the curent system for wars and yes I think of them as WARS!!!
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
-
Gabriel Morgan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, TX
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ulrich:
<B>There is a concept that "Counted blows are period and therefore better". I don't necessarily agree.
First remember period for some is not period for all, and counted blows is no more period for early personas' than our combat system or a suit of full plate.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you are slightly confused bythe word `period`.Â
<B>There is a concept that "Counted blows are period and therefore better". I don't necessarily agree.
First remember period for some is not period for all, and counted blows is no more period for early personas' than our combat system or a suit of full plate.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you are slightly confused bythe word `period`.Â
-
Thorstenn
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Barony of Oldenfeld, Trimaris.
really. can you please tell us you estamate of the SCA time line ie 1066-1650 or 800-1600 or maybe 1400-1600. My norse does exist in medieval times I am curently set at 1004. Historicaly NO norse man of the 11th century ever fought a 15th century german in full plate. also no scrub ever did ether, I dont want to do a credit check to see if I can be in that turney. I know thats a streach but who owned turney armor anyway?
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
Fitting the long SCA period is hard for combat. A relatively simple solution is to make the armor-as-worn count. Metal armor takes two strikes to kill. Non-metal/unarmored takes one strike to kill. Since kneeling is silly,a leg shot is either death, or one of the two strikes. Great weapon strikes kill in one blow irregardless of armor. This would tend to ratchet up the armor actually worn while still giving the fighters a choice of what to wear to be competitive, or according to pocketbook. It also upgrades the effectiveness of armored axemen/polearms. It amazes me that we are still arguing the same rules as when I joined in 1979.
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
Ulich (and i'm realy not trying to pick on ya)you seem to be ignoring
"Counted blows received (counting the number of times struck) is a method for recreating being beaten to the point where you cannot continue. Regardless of time period, with hand powered weapons most descriptions of combat seem to indicate folks keep fighting until they bodies cannot continue and then stop. The accounts we have that have someone continuing to fight after receiving a debilitating limb injury, seem to indicate that the particular instances were exceptional, and therefore worthy of note (Jaques de Laaing’s fight against the English squire comes to mind). It can be used in almost any instance of combat from almost any time or place."
Which is likely _why_ it was used in tournaments that we have documentation on.
If everyone is getting the same number of blows then it is not disciminating against the pre medieval personas.
The crux of you argument seems to be "i like it better". Not that there is any histroical, safety or logistical reason not too.
If that is the case, then that is just the way it is for you. It's like trying to convince someone not to like the color blue. So arguement is moot.
As for the majority of fighters being opposed to change. I'm willing to bet that the mjority of fighters don't really even realized that their is any option, or would even care if we did change.
IMO we should change for no other reason than to save people's knees.
G.l.N. does have a point that _a lot_ of effort is made to work around non medieval non european personas so that they can play in a "medieval tournament".
"Counted blows received (counting the number of times struck) is a method for recreating being beaten to the point where you cannot continue. Regardless of time period, with hand powered weapons most descriptions of combat seem to indicate folks keep fighting until they bodies cannot continue and then stop. The accounts we have that have someone continuing to fight after receiving a debilitating limb injury, seem to indicate that the particular instances were exceptional, and therefore worthy of note (Jaques de Laaing’s fight against the English squire comes to mind). It can be used in almost any instance of combat from almost any time or place."
Which is likely _why_ it was used in tournaments that we have documentation on.
If everyone is getting the same number of blows then it is not disciminating against the pre medieval personas.
The crux of you argument seems to be "i like it better". Not that there is any histroical, safety or logistical reason not too.
If that is the case, then that is just the way it is for you. It's like trying to convince someone not to like the color blue. So arguement is moot.
As for the majority of fighters being opposed to change. I'm willing to bet that the mjority of fighters don't really even realized that their is any option, or would even care if we did change.
IMO we should change for no other reason than to save people's knees.
G.l.N. does have a point that _a lot_ of effort is made to work around non medieval non european personas so that they can play in a "medieval tournament".
-
Gabriel Morgan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, TX
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ulrich:
<B> Gabriel,
Thanks for pointing out that I was confused, man that word "period" was really messing me up I'm glad you clarified it to historical for me. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My pleasure.
Despite the minor rant, your argument is still the same:
X is historical for Y.
Z is not historical for anyone.
I, Ulrich, am not Y.
Therefore, X is as good Z for everyone.
This is a shortsighted argument based, as Murdock said, on projecting your personal tastes farther than they should be projected.
My counterassertions are these:
Is not period for some better than not-period for anyone?
Is not period for the age we the SCA are targetting better than not-period for that age?
Is not a little historical better than not historical at all?
[This message has been edited by Gabriel le Noir (edited 01-27-2004).]
<B> Gabriel,
Thanks for pointing out that I was confused, man that word "period" was really messing me up I'm glad you clarified it to historical for me. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My pleasure.
Despite the minor rant, your argument is still the same:
X is historical for Y.
Z is not historical for anyone.
I, Ulrich, am not Y.
Therefore, X is as good Z for everyone.
This is a shortsighted argument based, as Murdock said, on projecting your personal tastes farther than they should be projected.
My counterassertions are these:
Is not period for some better than not-period for anyone?
Is not period for the age we the SCA are targetting better than not-period for that age?
Is not a little historical better than not historical at all?
[This message has been edited by Gabriel le Noir (edited 01-27-2004).]
-
EricvonWald
- New Member
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Salt lake City, UT, USA
**putting on my fire-proof suit**
I'm not sure if SCA combat was ever meant to be truely period or historial. Much of the Arts and Sciences are more period and historial. However, fighting is not so. We've made a lot of changes for safety's reasons and to make the game more playable.
I think the ideal behind SCA combat is not to re-create true history but rather re-create (or create I guess) the ideal of combat by Knights of the Round Table. Camalot may or may not have really existed, but we try to live up to the ideals of Camalot in SCA combat.
Having a fighter still fighting from his knees is more "heroic" then having the fighter leave after being hit in the legs. (After all, in this game we all can be heroes) How many times have war stories been told about Duke So-and-so who held the bridge even after he was legged. Or Sir What's-his-face holding the breech after loosing an arm. Or Count Sniffy Was legged, lost an arm and still won the fight? That is the stuff of heroes. Isn't that the Dream all about, trying to do heroic deeds on the battlefield?
I am finding that there are many many groups out there that are Medival Societies of one form or another. There are Living Histories groups and LARP and others. Some of the live steel groups make a point of having very historial combat. The SCA isn't one of them. I don't think that is wrong, it's just a fact.
I think each group brings something to the table and are vaulable in their own way. Those that like group A, play with group A. Those that like group B, play with group B.
I don't know if it's best to join Group A and say, "let's be more like group B."
**hides from the incoming flames**
(edited because I don't spell was well as I had hoped.)
[This message has been edited by EricvonWald (edited 01-27-2004).]
I'm not sure if SCA combat was ever meant to be truely period or historial. Much of the Arts and Sciences are more period and historial. However, fighting is not so. We've made a lot of changes for safety's reasons and to make the game more playable.
I think the ideal behind SCA combat is not to re-create true history but rather re-create (or create I guess) the ideal of combat by Knights of the Round Table. Camalot may or may not have really existed, but we try to live up to the ideals of Camalot in SCA combat.
Having a fighter still fighting from his knees is more "heroic" then having the fighter leave after being hit in the legs. (After all, in this game we all can be heroes) How many times have war stories been told about Duke So-and-so who held the bridge even after he was legged. Or Sir What's-his-face holding the breech after loosing an arm. Or Count Sniffy Was legged, lost an arm and still won the fight? That is the stuff of heroes. Isn't that the Dream all about, trying to do heroic deeds on the battlefield?
I am finding that there are many many groups out there that are Medival Societies of one form or another. There are Living Histories groups and LARP and others. Some of the live steel groups make a point of having very historial combat. The SCA isn't one of them. I don't think that is wrong, it's just a fact.
I think each group brings something to the table and are vaulable in their own way. Those that like group A, play with group A. Those that like group B, play with group B.
I don't know if it's best to join Group A and say, "let's be more like group B."
**hides from the incoming flames**
(edited because I don't spell was well as I had hoped.)
[This message has been edited by EricvonWald (edited 01-27-2004).]
-
WalMart Warrior
- Archive Member
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 1:01 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Fitting the long SCA period is hard for combat. A relatively simple solution is to make the armor-as-worn count. Metal armor takes two strikes to kill. Non-metal/unarmored takes one strike to kill. Since kneeling is silly,a leg shot is either death, or one of the two strikes. Great weapon strikes kill in one blow irregardless of armor. This would tend to ratchet up the armor actually worn while still giving the fighters a choice of what to wear to be competitive, or according to pocketbook. It also upgrades the effectiveness of armored axemen/polearms. It amazes me that we are still arguing the same rules as when I joined in 1979.</font>
Except if the metal armour is fluted, which is better than non-fluted, so that takes 3. And armour from Italy in that period is FAR superior, and takes 4 good hits, unless the sword is from a forge located on a certain mountain, in which case the power of the one true ring is within it....
Seriously, MORE rules? Gimme a D20.
-
Thorstenn
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Barony of Oldenfeld, Trimaris.
I must agree with wallmart warrior,
anybody here ever been in a real knife fight you would know armor works. fighting from your knees is no more silly than saying a single handed sword can kill me throu chainmail boild leather and a paddid gambasin in two or three blows [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img], ever been hit in the forearm with a baseball bat ? it did not stop me from taking it away from my attacker yes it did hurt but I was still in the fight. now put me in real armor and you will put aside your sword n shield for a great weapon. Do we really want to come to that. Also at war how many archers would it take to kill a 16th century german duke in full plate fluted and temperd? I think wallmart hit it on the head!!! their are many differant gruops to soot our needs, if you want play in many of them but try not to disrespect the current rules of one group.
{ NO 16th century Dukes were hurt in the making of this post}
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
anybody here ever been in a real knife fight you would know armor works. fighting from your knees is no more silly than saying a single handed sword can kill me throu chainmail boild leather and a paddid gambasin in two or three blows [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img], ever been hit in the forearm with a baseball bat ? it did not stop me from taking it away from my attacker yes it did hurt but I was still in the fight. now put me in real armor and you will put aside your sword n shield for a great weapon. Do we really want to come to that. Also at war how many archers would it take to kill a 16th century german duke in full plate fluted and temperd? I think wallmart hit it on the head!!! their are many differant gruops to soot our needs, if you want play in many of them but try not to disrespect the current rules of one group.
{ NO 16th century Dukes were hurt in the making of this post}
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Thorstenn:
<B> now put me in real armor and you will put aside your sword n shield for a great weapon.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dead horse of a different color, but there's a reason halberds/bills/glaives/two-handed swords and a slew of other great weapons were no shows in the pre-plate eras. Broadswords and maces and spears *were* effective for centuries. Maybe not in one or two blows, and maybe not always in armored areas, but they caused their share of fatalities.
Of course, that's why lower-leg shots should be viable targets in the SCA. . .
<B> now put me in real armor and you will put aside your sword n shield for a great weapon.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dead horse of a different color, but there's a reason halberds/bills/glaives/two-handed swords and a slew of other great weapons were no shows in the pre-plate eras. Broadswords and maces and spears *were* effective for centuries. Maybe not in one or two blows, and maybe not always in armored areas, but they caused their share of fatalities.
Of course, that's why lower-leg shots should be viable targets in the SCA. . .
I think many of you are missing the point that SCA combat currently allows for all of the forms of combat you have discussed. The problem is not the rules, it is the fact that event organizers fail to be sufficiently clear regarding what their event is re-creating. If the event organizer tells you that the fighting will be in the style of a 15th Century Pas then it behooves you to educate yourself as to the standards of behavior expected and adhere to those standards or to stay away if you cannot or will not adhere to those standards.
Why do people constantly try to make the umbrella smaller?
Why do people constantly try to make the umbrella smaller?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
There are limits to what can be enforced. You can say it will be a counted blows tourney, but you can't say it will be a counted blows tourney, no Japanese, no Vikings.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm being a barracks lawyer here but...
Sure you can. All combatants must be presented and acceptable to the Crown or his representatives. Anyone can attend an event, but we have standards when it comes to taking the field. You could quite easily exclude people. That's not my intent, however. I certainly wouldn't mind if a Viking attended a Pas. But I would mind if s/he displayed inappropriate behavior and then justified it by saying "Vikings didn't have Pas events. To me, this is a holmgang."
I respect the right of folks to choose which aspects of pre-17th Century Europe and contact cultures they wish to recreate/research. That includes the event organizer.
There are limits to what can be enforced. You can say it will be a counted blows tourney, but you can't say it will be a counted blows tourney, no Japanese, no Vikings.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm being a barracks lawyer here but...
Sure you can. All combatants must be presented and acceptable to the Crown or his representatives. Anyone can attend an event, but we have standards when it comes to taking the field. You could quite easily exclude people. That's not my intent, however. I certainly wouldn't mind if a Viking attended a Pas. But I would mind if s/he displayed inappropriate behavior and then justified it by saying "Vikings didn't have Pas events. To me, this is a holmgang."
I respect the right of folks to choose which aspects of pre-17th Century Europe and contact cultures they wish to recreate/research. That includes the event organizer.
-
Asbjorn Johansen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1699
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Aldan PA
I think we are having some terminology issues here:
Once again for clarity, counted blows received (counting how many times you have been struck) is a modern construct used to simulate being struck enough that you either would have been unable or unwilling to continue. It can be applied to almost any type of combat, whether war, judicial or combat sport (such as the pas de arms). It can be used when recreating the combats of a greek hoplite or between Korean armies or foot combats in Burgundy in the 15th century, simply by changing the blow counts. It works particularly well in the SCA because of the concept of “assumed armourâ€
Once again for clarity, counted blows received (counting how many times you have been struck) is a modern construct used to simulate being struck enough that you either would have been unable or unwilling to continue. It can be applied to almost any type of combat, whether war, judicial or combat sport (such as the pas de arms). It can be used when recreating the combats of a greek hoplite or between Korean armies or foot combats in Burgundy in the 15th century, simply by changing the blow counts. It works particularly well in the SCA because of the concept of “assumed armourâ€
Thorstenn: “In those counted blows turneys they wore plate armor not chainmail and boild leather. I cant recall one single counted blow turney in the tenth century I have a norse persona I guess I would not be aloud to play any more. Also how many others in the SCA have pre-plate armor personas Kiss half the members goodbye.â€
-
Thorstenn
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Barony of Oldenfeld, Trimaris.
Well now both Jester and Asbjorn make good points. I understand the rules. I also like doing pas even if I am norse.You can only fight with a spear in a spear turney makes sense right. [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I have even gone as fare as taking Bob charron's class on Italian medieval swordmanship. Why? It was a blast. I reccomend it to anybody. So do the pas stuff and any other types that you might like but dont change the current system. the SCA is NOT dead on accurate oh well its still a lot on fun without the lightning bolts. (not ment as an insult to LARP people)
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
------------------
Thorstenn,
Do or do not, there is no try!
-
Sean Powell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 9908
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Holden MA
To possibly add more fuel to the fire:
At a demo a number of years ago I was asked about the technique of fighting from the knees. As I know its not historicly accurate but also knowing that I do it anyway I sputtered out an excuse that has served me well in the years since. Well enough that it has actually become my philosophy for fighting from my knees and against leg opponants. The theory is thus:
"Much of medival combat was conducted from horseback, giving the mounted fighter greater speed, mass, manuverability, power and the ability to fight for longer periods of time while wearing more armor. A fighter who is incapable of defending his legs would likely have been incapable of defending his mount. In an effort to simulate the difference between and mobile mounted warrior and the unmounted less mobile height chalenged un-mounted warrior we ask the now unmounted warrior to fight from his knees."
Its a poor excuse, it dosn't adequately explain why all pole-arm wielders arn't leged to begin with, it has no bearing on foot klobentourneys or mass meeles of foot combatants and it dosn't apply to a great portion of pre 1600 western europe... but it does put one positive spin on the activity of fighting from the knees.
Just my $.02
Sean
At a demo a number of years ago I was asked about the technique of fighting from the knees. As I know its not historicly accurate but also knowing that I do it anyway I sputtered out an excuse that has served me well in the years since. Well enough that it has actually become my philosophy for fighting from my knees and against leg opponants. The theory is thus:
"Much of medival combat was conducted from horseback, giving the mounted fighter greater speed, mass, manuverability, power and the ability to fight for longer periods of time while wearing more armor. A fighter who is incapable of defending his legs would likely have been incapable of defending his mount. In an effort to simulate the difference between and mobile mounted warrior and the unmounted less mobile height chalenged un-mounted warrior we ask the now unmounted warrior to fight from his knees."
Its a poor excuse, it dosn't adequately explain why all pole-arm wielders arn't leged to begin with, it has no bearing on foot klobentourneys or mass meeles of foot combatants and it dosn't apply to a great portion of pre 1600 western europe... but it does put one positive spin on the activity of fighting from the knees.
Just my $.02
Sean
What's so wrong with prejudicing the fight in favor of late-period armours? I'm sick of the silly populist notion that some fool in a weightlifter's belt and a spangenhelm is on equal footing with me in my plate in terms of protection. If I'm going to go to the trouble to make/buy and wear the nice, heavy stuff, then I want to be rewarded for it. I feel those of us who do so add much more to the game than do those thugs who just throw a polyester tunic over some hockey gear and go out swinging. Ruling that it requires two or three (or more!) extra blows to take me down than it requires to take down some wanna-be celt in carpet armour would go far to correct the idiocy inherent in the current system.