[SCA] Historical Techniques - Alternate Assumed Armor

[jester]

[Buzzzzzzer!]

Sorry, too far off topic.

The question, in this case, is:

Should we recommend that wording be added to the rules that specifically allows certain alternate assumed armor standards? (The rules already allow them, we're just debating adding some words to the rules).

[Reinhard]

Suggested Rule -
-Unarmored. All participants are assumed to be unarmored and should bear this in mind when determining the effectiveness of a received blow.

This appears pointless, all it changes it into is 'fast and light', a usefull training method for new fighters but it's not going to have an appreciable effect on a bout.

-Armor as Worn. All participants are assumed to be wearing the armor they are actually wearing. They should take into account the protection afforded to the area struck when determining the effectiveness of a received blow.

What is the intended result with this? Can I rhino my way because I'm wearing plate? Does this mean my opponent must try and cripple me with his first blow? This isn't clear, and requires clarification.
To me it's more vision than armour, make everyone wear an 8mm eyeslot like me!

-Plate. All participants are assumed to be wearing plate armor and may ignore blows that strike a protected area. Un-protected areas are typically the eyes, inside of the elbows, armpits, and groin.

This one I'm downright straight against I'm afraid (I look like a big killjoy here, but I am trying to be constructive). The main shot available to fighters will be the rear of the legs, the armpit and the groin or maybe the inside of the elbow, none are blows I particularly enjoy and for a standard variation you may find a resistance to such a potentially damaging bout.

[jester]

Suggested Rule -
-Unarmored. All participants are assumed to be unarmored and should bear this in mind when determining the effectiveness of a received blow.

This appears pointless, all it changes it into is 'fast and light', a usefull training method for new fighters but it's not going to have an appreciable effect on a bout.

But it would allow for scenarios that simulate unarmored combat: Messer fighting, civil unrest scenarios, certain squire's tournaments, etc...

-Armor as Worn. All participants are assumed to be wearing the armor they are actually wearing. They should take into account the protection afforded to the area struck when determining the effectiveness of a received blow.

What is the intended result with this? Can I rhino my way because I'm wearing plate? Does this mean my opponent must try and cripple me with his first blow? This isn't clear, and requires clarification.
To me it's more vision than armour, make everyone wear an 8mm eyeslot like me!

It rewards participants who wear good armor and penalizes those who wear minimums, plastic, etc... If someone goes to the trouble/expense of acquiring plate they get an advantage over the guy wearing plastic.

-Plate. All participants are assumed to be wearing plate armor and may ignore blows that strike a protected area. Un-protected areas are typically the eyes, inside of the elbows, armpits, and groin.

This one I'm downright straight against I'm afraid (I look like a big killjoy here, but I am trying to be constructive). The main shot available to fighters will be the rear of the legs, the armpit and the groin or maybe the inside of the elbow, none are blows I particularly enjoy and for a standard variation you may find a resistance to such a potentially damaging bout.

Your point is well made, but the scenario is intended for folks who understand the risk and are willing to assume it. When everyone is educated about the scenario, it can be fun. When you get an idiot (as I believe Sir Gaston provided an example of) it can be both dangerous and not fun. As Sir Gaston's example also shows, this type of fight is already permitted under the rules; we're just looking at adding some wording that expands upon the idea. That should help promote authenticity because when people are reading the rules (which too few of us do) they will see the extra expansion and think: "Hey! That's a cool idea. I never thought about doing that before."

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

Reinhard wrote:

Quote:
-Armor as Worn. All participants are assumed to be wearing the armor they are actually wearing. They should take into account the protection afforded to the area struck when determining the effectiveness of a received blow.


What is the intended result with this? Can I rhino my way because I'm wearing plate? Does this mean my opponent must try and cripple me with his first blow? This isn't clear, and requires clarification.
To me it's more vision than armour, make everyone wear an 8mm eyeslot like me!

jester:
It rewards participants who wear good armor and penalizes those who wear minimums, plastic, etc... If someone goes to the trouble/expense of acquiring plate they get an advantage over the guy wearing plastic.

For those in favor of "Proof of Plate" or "Armor as Worn":
We all go out on the field, tourney or war, having read the rules of the list. We all fight to the same standard (see below). If someone wants to invest in full plate for its looks and/or protection, he should not be granted any special advantage for it. Likewise, if one chooses to go out with minimums, HE should not be penalized for it.

Don't anyone tell me you are "more cool" and deserve better treatment because of the armor style you choose. No, those words may not have been used here, but the impression I get is, "Why should I have to take that? I'm wearing all this armor! There's no way that would have got my (insert body part here)!" NOBODY is entitled to special treatment on the field.

We do not need any special rules written into anything. The provisions already exist to have a combat scenario under any of the proposed "alternates" as I've highlited below. If you want to fight under an alternate style, organize such a scenario for an event.


From the SCA Rules of the Lists
[quote]V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF BLOWS:
A. When judging the effect of blows, all fighters are presumed to be fully armored. Special tournaments or combat may be held which may redefine what areas of the body are armored, and to what extent, so long as all the participants are made aware of the special conditions prior to the start of combat.

1. All “fully armoredâ€Â

[Ottokar]

I support proposals to include 'assumed armor' standard definitions as optional rules for the Rules of the List.

I support proposals to include a 'plate face helms are thrust proof' rule as a standard rule for the Rules of the List.

Ron Broberg
Otagiri Tatsuzou
Defender of the Stag's Blood
Companion of the Hawk's Lure

[jester]

Reinhard wrote:

Quote:
-Armor as Worn. All participants are assumed to be wearing the armor they are actually wearing. They should take into account the protection afforded to the area struck when determining the effectiveness of a received blow.


What is the intended result with this? Can I rhino my way because I'm wearing plate? Does this mean my opponent must try and cripple me with his first blow? This isn't clear, and requires clarification.
To me it's more vision than armour, make everyone wear an 8mm eyeslot like me!

jester:
It rewards participants who wear good armor and penalizes those who wear minimums, plastic, etc... If someone goes to the trouble/expense of acquiring plate they get an advantage over the guy wearing plastic.

For those in favor of "Proof of Plate" or "Armor as Worn":
We all go out on the field, tourney or war, having read the rules of the list. We all fight to the same standard (see below). If someone wants to invest in full plate for its looks and/or protection, he should not be granted any special advantage for it. Likewise, if one chooses to go out with minimums, HE should not be penalized for it.

The argument typically advanced in this case is that anyone wearing less that the assumed armor standard is already getting an advantage. I don't know that I buy that, myself.

Don't anyone tell me you are "more cool" and deserve better treatment because of the armor style you choose. No, those words may not have been used here, but the impression I get is, "Why should I have to take that? I'm wearing all this armor! There's no way that would have got my (insert body part here)!" NOBODY is entitled to special treatment on the field.

I don't think anyone has suggested this. It has been suggested that in some scenarios you could run plate scenarios or you could run armor as worn or you could run unarmored scenarios. They have all been done before and I haven't heard any reports of problems.

[quote="Geoffrey of Blesedale"]
We do not need any special rules written into anything. The provisions already exist to have a combat scenario under any of the proposed "alternates" as I've highlited below. If you want to fight under an alternate style, organize such a scenario for an event.


From the SCA Rules of the Lists
[quote]V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF BLOWS:
A. When judging the effect of blows, all fighters are presumed to be fully armored. Special tournaments or combat may be held which may redefine what areas of the body are armored, and to what extent, so long as all the participants are made aware of the special conditions prior to the start of combat.

1. All “fully armoredâ€Â

[Rollo]

[quote="jester]
The argument typically advanced in this case is that anyone wearing less that the assumed armor standard is already getting an advantage.
[/quote]

What I would like to point out is that not everyone who is wearing plastic is doing so because it gives them an advantage. This goes for the open vs closed face helmets as well. As a viking persona, I do not have many option when it comes to armor. If you have been reading the boards lately you will find that my options include, chain mail without anything under it, or nothing at all. personally I don't buy that, but that is what they are saying. Mail by itself is bad armor when it comes to SCA combat. I know a lot of people choose to wear something else, in order to avoid wearing chain mail. One of these options is to hide armor under clothing. because of its size, and relative strength, plastic is a great option for this. I don't wear plastic armor in order to get ahead, I wear it so that I look better.

Closed faced helmets are not an option for me because vikings didn't have them. By giving those who wear them an advantage, you are in effect making it better to be later period. If we as a group want to keep our time period as open as it is, we should not be giving possible advantages that are not possible for some.

Finally, I would like to point out that by keeping the standards low we allow more people to participate. By allowing plastic armor, and cheap bar grill helmets more people can enter into the hobby. It is because of this that we have so many SCA fighters coming to events. I know of no other reenactment group who has an event were 10,000 people attend. by keeping the requirements low, we encourage those who would not normally have the money to participate to join us. Please keep this in mind when you talk about giving advantage to those in more armor. If we were to start giving advantage to those in more armor, I think we would see a decrease in the numbers of fighters. If you have to wear full metal armor to be competitive, why fight unless you wear full metal armor.

Yes it is a trade-off... the SCA combat looks a lot less historical, but there are much greater numbers.

[Reinhard]

This is why I suggested a 'style within a style' for some armours on rare occasions, leaving the lighter armoured combat styles as is but giving the heavier armours with vision restrictions and weight handicaps invulnerability to arming swords.

It's pointless though, to have people going out in plastic or lightweight metal armour or a 25mm (1") eyeslot and give them an advantage in such a scenario, to get a real bonus for your handicap you need a real handicap. With a 8mm (1/3") eyeslot I get at SCA sword and board range just the opponent's helm and neck in my vision field. At pollaxe range I get maybe a foot more but anything done low or his is invisible. I'd be delighted to be given a no thrusting bonus but I've only ever seen one other helm with vision as restricted as mine. To me the point is moot (that is a pun, I'm sorry), especially as I don't wear a bevor . . .
Similiarly, what do you call 'plate'? Are we talking full harness with tassets? Horseman's pauldrons? Sallet and bevor? Besagews? Greaves? Sabatons? This needs to be codified.
If you're saying anyone with a breastplate and full arms is plate, in renassaince Italy that was light cavalry!

Anyway, that's not constructive, I'd like your feedback on my earlier idea of superheavy as it fits your concept. I think as a war, melee or tourney scenario it fits latter style events well, as well as allowing lighter armed players each other to compete. You'd have your fighters, the slow and blind super heavies, and dedicated plate crackers looking for them. Hey, maybe that's not such and advantage after all . . .

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

With a 8mm (1/3") eyeslot I get at SCA sword and board range just the opponent's helm and neck in my vision field.

I believe someone had suggested special markings for the "superheavies", such as a plume or such. Given your above statement, I see a problem with being able to recognize a superheavy at sword range under the conditions combat occurs.

You'd have your fighters, the slow and blind super heavies, and dedicated plate crackers looking for them.

I don't think many of your experienced fighters in plate and closed helms would think they are slow and blind.

[Reinhard]

It's comparative. I've had my eyeslot like it is for a while now and I'm comparatively blind when fighting compared to a total barcage number (my mate Padraig has just made a rather nifty salade with such a cage that I admire, I'm not knocking them)
Also, compared to a guy with plastic cuisses (decorously hidden), joint armour and nothing much else, I am slow! Once again, if I was to recommend such a speed over protection rig to someone, I'd say 'do Pad's salade, Sinric's jack and shadow limbs, very period - very economical!' There's nothing wrong with them, but I will overheat faster and see less, it's just physics.

I still fight this way, I don't care if the rules change or not, when I go out my ultimate thrill is fighting someone similiarly harnessed - then I can get a few minutes of fighting for my life on a War of the Roses battlefield against another man at arms. Most other people I just consider archers with very sharp weapons