Helmet + Lacrosse Goggs

[Isk]

So, I just got a helmet to stop those pesky arrows, but also for safety. I've had a couple of nasty root canal bills that are likely from this or similar sports and would like to avoid similar problems in the future (yes, I am using a mouthpiece already). I also have had a couple of injuries from perfectly legal javs and swords to the eyes. To finish the protective aspect of the helm I am attaching a pair of lacrosse goggles (stole the goggles idea from Loptr). The question is should I treat them as armor or safety equipment? In other words, if I take an arrow or jav directly to the eye, which would pass between the helm and facemask, should I take death?

Honestly, I think the lacrosse goggles look decent with the helm, but are more modern/sport than what I would go for in my garb. Still, I want that additional protection for my eyes, so I intend to keep them on the helm.

[varadin]

That is AWESOME on a whole new level. My girlfriend has always worried about breaking anything when it comes to her mouth. Can you post a picture/link to what the under frame is I want to look into this. I think i might have to replicate this and add some poly cabonate lenses/ film to cover the eyes completely.

[Avani]

This is extremely awesome, covers the mouth breaking problem and the eyes and nose which I'm also worried about. Do you have any more pictures?

Sorry I'm not much help answering your question. I doubt you'll even be hit there much. From far away it will probably look like period materials (or close enough) and even if someone knows it's plastic it's such a small target they might go for another part of your body.

[Cade]

That does look very kickass...

I would treat it as armor when taking face shots from arrows personally. It looks like its part of the helm, so i see no reason why not.

[Arrakis]

That is ballin' as HELL, dude. I have to have one!

[Isk]

Thanks for the responses, I'm glad you all like it. So you guys think that since it's a solid metal frame it should be reasonable to include it as armor not just safety gear?

I'm away from home and the helmet until Tuesday, but I can get more pics then. Basically the facemask and the brow band of the helmet line up perfectly to act as a base for the goggles (this is a fortuitous accident, not by the maker's design). To test this setup out, I attached the goggles to the helmet by tying the straps around the face mask, just below the brow band. They have very little impact on visibility and offer pretty complete protection to the eyes.

The wire cage is a pair of women's lacrosse goggles. They are quite tough and the cage is steel. They frame the eyes by resting on the brow ridge and cheekbones, but not touching the nose. I found that wearing just the goggles, glancing shots with swords and jav or arrow strikes slid the goggles around and could be painful. Loptr seems to wear them this way without trouble, though, so maybe it's just my face. The pair I have are Debeer Vistas (I got them new off ebay for $5).

[Richard le Gris]

Hrm, I wonder if those would accommodate normal glasses. Because if they would I need a pair. That is an impressive looking helm.

[Isk]

You can wear glasses under them, I've done it, but it's not super comfortable. Safer for you and the glasses, though. Put the goggs on the helm like this and you should have no problems.

The helm did turn out very cool. It was made by Taco as a trade. Only the face mask really matches the helm I asked for and it took a looooooooong time to get it, but the decorative work is a bonus and it may have turned out better than what I had asked for. Except for the aventail, I will completely redo that. To be fair to Taco, he did have issues with lost work and moved from Ogden to Las Vegas during that time. At the end of the 8 months it is a high quality helm, so I am pleased.

[Taco]

Thats look awesome with the glasses, man i hope the helm holds up for along time.

[Isk]

Ya done good, Taco. I may have the aventail redone by Saturday if you'll be at the event.

[debuenzo]

the spacing on those bars is probably larger than .5", so you should take death if hit in the goggles.

EDIT: ps...that helm is super cool looking!

[Forkbeard]

Cool idea.
Take death if yu get hit in the eye. Taco is right, the hole is over 1/2". If you get hit in THE EYE, take it, otherwise, you're covered.
FB

[Isk]

Thanks Fork and Debuenzo. That's the way I read the rules and why I asked the question.

[The Great Gigsby]

the spacing on those bars is probably larger than .5", so you should take death if hit in the goggles.

While I like where you're going with this, could you cite a specific ruling to support your interpretation? FWIW, I think the armor rules could use a slight rewrite.

[Rasheab]

That helmet is super sexy. I totally want one.

Giggles, I assume the .5" is the part from the composite armor rules. The leather and metal sections only talk about thickness/quality/roundness. The only section that talks about gaps in armor is the composite section, so that's what I'm working from.

3.7. Composite Armor
3.7.1. Studded, scaled, or brigandine Armor can only be counted as Armor if 2/3 of the target area is covered by metal or leather, or the studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2 inch apart.

[Isk]

Yeah, that's what I looked at before asking. Since it's leather and metal, the composite rules seemed most applicable. The bars are most like rings, I guess, and while they are definitely larger than 20ga, they are more than 1/2" apart. If I got no responses, this was the interpretation I was prepared to go with. Besides, from a realism standpoint, an arrow or a javelin would go straight through. Not that realism is the major priority for our armor rules, esp. where arrows are concerned.

[The Great Gigsby]

The 1/2 inch rule should apply to all armor then, not just composite. Know what I mean? It's open for cheesing as written.

[Cade]

I think it would be hard to tell one way or another. Even if you do get hit in the eye, the arrow head is still like twice the size of your eye hole and you couldn't tell where the shaft actually impacted.

And if the composite rule applies, would we then open up the door for archers to slip arrows between the plates of ninja brig if the guy is wearing chain mail somewhere else? Since that arrow would have clearly gone past had it been real. Hell, can i use my stabby on people wearing ninja brig and chain mail and say it would have passed between the plates?

I understand the composite rule is to keep people from cheesing the rules with things like washer armor and ring armor if you put them way too far apart, but if you open that door, specially on a helm...

Don't get me wrong, if i got shot with that helm on, and the arrow made it PAST the bars and hit me in the face, id take death for sure, because it did hit me, but why would you take death if the arrow WOULD have hit you had the bars not been there. I mean, that's like saying, well...if it was a real arrow, it would have punched through the helmet and killed him anyway.

For that matter, if that justification is being used, i could say that every time i green someone with flimsy armor on, they would have been dead had it been a real fight and therefor they should take it.

Im not arguing against the rules, or for the rules really, im just pointing out that the justification of saying that the arrow "would have" gone through doesn't make sense in this case.

[No'Vak]

I think it would be hard to tell one way or another. Even if you do get hit in the eye, the arrow head is still like twice the size of your eye hole and you couldn't tell where the shaft actually impacted.

And if the composite rule applies, would we then open up the door for archers to slip arrows between the plates of ninja brig if the guy is wearing chain mail somewhere else? Since that arrow would have clearly gone past had it been real. Hell, can i use my stabby on people wearing ninja brig and chain mail and say it would have passed between the plates?

I understand the composite rule is to keep people from cheesing the rules with things like washer armor and ring armor if you put them way too far apart, but if you open that door, specially on a helm...

Don't get me wrong, if i got shot with that helm on, and the arrow made it PAST the bars and hit me in the face, id take death for sure, because it did hit me, but why would you take death if the arrow WOULD have hit you had the bars not been there. I mean, that's like saying, well...if it was a real arrow, it would have punched through the helmet and killed him anyway.

For that matter, if that justification is being used, i could say that every time i green someone with flimsy armor on, they would have been dead had it been a real fight and therefor they should take it.

Im not arguing against the rules, or for the rules really, im just pointing out that the justification of saying that the arrow "would have" gone through doesn't make sense in this case.

It does if they are more than a half inch apart.

[Forkbeard]

The half inch rule does aply to everything. Anywhere you have a gap in armour that is more than a half inch that gets hit, you should take it.
When I get hit in the armpit or the inside of the elbow, I take it. When I get stabed in those places I take it. Hell, I take it If I get hit in the gap between my helmet and base of my neck. I put a buckle btween the two parts of my torso so I would stop getting the pesky gap that got me killed there.
If I had chain under my leather I wouldn't have to take those. But that would be a little over the top.
What ecactly is so hard to understand here? Eyeslots 1/2" or LESS would be proof against arrows. Eyeslots MORE than 1/2" would not. I'm pretty sure everyone I know dies when shot in the eye of the helmet. It doesn't happen that often. You just have to slightly turn your head to take it on the side.
FB

[Rasheab]

You're right kadis, the rules can't be subjective in the manner your describing. The tips of arrows, spears, swords, daggers, etc are much wider than their real world equivalent.

Presumably that is the reason for the .5" rule. It wouldn't really protect you, so it's disallowed as armor, so we don't have issues such as "but the foam head on this arrow is HUGE and unrealistic."

My take on the goggles/helm is if you catch a arrow straight to what would have been your eye, take a death. If it's around the edge, then the leather + metal are close enough together to count. But that's simply an opinion.

The reason I didn't respond before Giggles, is because I couldn't think of anything to add besides, "Huh, yeah, good point." To add to that, I actually hadn't noticed that only the "Composite" rules have the 1/2" rule. For that matter, only the Composite rules have the section on "must cover 2/3rds of the target location."

I'm not sure how exactly it could be cheesed, but I agree Giggles, it definitely gives me the "it could be" vibe. I think clarificiation of some sort would be nice.

Added: That's the common sense Forkbeard. Anyone who had larger than 1/2" gaps, but didn't take a hit to the area from a larger headed weapon (say a traditional spear) is just trying to min/max the rules (and probably a cheater). But the rules might not explicitely say that.

[Isk]

In this case, most modern hunting broad heads would go through the large central hole on those goggles. Whether bladed arrowheads or bodkin heads (like field points) were more common on a medieval battlefield is debated hotly, but either could make it through those bars. Also, since this is head armor it only protects against arrows, rocks and javs anyway. I only intend to take the arrow through the goggles if it was a square hit right over my eye (there is no way a legal arrow could fit through these goggles), otherwise I'll call armor. This could occasionally happen and that's why I wanted to discuss it.

Realism really isn't the grounds for arguing our armor rules anyway. This is a martial sport, like fencing or modern kendo. We approximate *unarmored* combat. Armor really worked and was only very rarely ever defeated by striking a person the same way you would strike them without the armor. Take the issue of plate armor. Adding one or even five more hits does not make it more realistic. Plate armor worked really well and you were forced to target the weak spots. We do not want to encourage targeting the weakest, most vulnerable points on people's bodies, or make rules that unbalance the game in favor of heavy armors (which real combat was). Instead we make a basic blanket armor rule that allows it on the field, but keeps the game's focus on an unarmored style of combat.

Our armor rules are intentionally sparse and, IMO, exist only to allow armor to be part of the game for those that want it while keeping the game fast and simple. Our rules make no attempt to account for the differences in effectiveness of various armor types and honestly, since people will continue to fight against armor the same way they do against people without it, I think it's more realistic this way.

This is not to say our rules couldn't be tweaked or improved and I agree that refining some of the language is probably in order. But it is important to keep in mind that what we do approximates unarmored style combat and the armor as we allow it is more for novelty than realism.

[Arrakis]

I would take anything that seemed like it hit me sort of in the eyesocket area. This is because I'd consider the eye-bars to be a non-period grill and not legitimate armor. Otherwise, I could order a metal bar-grill for an SCA helm and mount it on a leather Bel helm base and get full facial protection for (almost) no visibility/breathability loss.

[Cade]

I agree with most of the points above, and would probably take a direct hit to the eye socket anyway...but only because i was supposed to. Not because i was concerned with realism or acting like i was hit with a real weapon. I'm not a cheater, i take my hits because i know im supposed to, and ill honor and respect that even when i don't really understand the reason.

Realism really isn't the grounds for arguing our armor rules anyway. This is a martial sport, like fencing or modern kendo.

This was my main point, we are a mixed group of players, playing a sport. Some of us are the proverbial stick jocks, some are just in it for the game, some of us like to roll play, some like to reenact battles, and still others like to be as historical as possible.

The problem with having a rules based on reasons like...well in real life it would have happened...is that not everyone is playing the game to be as close as possible to what would have actually happened. Now im not arguing the point, but there are those who see our equipment as you or I might see a hockey stick. Its a tool to do the job, not a representation of a historical weapon. So a reason of....well you should take the hit because it would have gone through that hole...doesn't hold up or make any sense at all to that person.

So i can see where a stick jock who is here for the sport only wouldn't take death if struck in the eye while wearing that helm. All he is concerned with is that the shot did NOT make it through, rather than...well, it would have if it had been a real arrow.

For me...if you open up the question of....well it would have had it been real...you can open up the question of, well, why when i single green someone in armor does it not go straight through leather? I can't get through it with two hits even? In reality it more than likely would have gone through leather. Leather is tough, and if treated properly, a thick, well made piece might? take a solid stab hit? possibly? but i doubt it. Maybe someone else can enlighten me on the history there. Ether way, im guessing the rule is for some sort of balance, not because of any sort of realism.

[Isk]

Kadis, I agree completely. Our rules reference a perceived medieval 'reality,' but are primarily the rules for a fast-paced, hard-hitting game that must be internally balanced. Thus, Safety, Playability and then Realism.

Arrakis, the way I see it, the helmet is armor, the goggles are not. If it would have hit me without the googles, I take death. So, I am rock proof, but a perfect jav or arrow shot still counts. These are there for my safety, not in game advantage.

[Cade]

Kadis, I agree completely. Our rules reference a perceived medieval 'reality,' but are primarily the rules for a fast-paced, hard-hitting game that must be internally balanced. Thus, Safety, Playability and then Realism.

Arrakis, the way I see it, the helmet is armor, the goggles are not. If it would have hit me without the googles, I take death. So, I am rock proof, but a perfect jav or arrow shot still counts. These are there for my safety, not in game advantage.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if you get hit with a rock in the eye?

I saw this one kid with rocks shaped like books that were about two and a half inches thick and could easily slip through an eye hole. They could certainly hit someone in a half helm. Would you take death?

Or does a wearing any helm make you immune to rocks no matter where in the head you get hit?

[Isk]

I guess you've got a point with weird shaped rocks. The rules state a rock must be 4" diameter. Using diameter, I have always assumed that was 4 inches on 3 axes, so a rock couldn't fit into the gap between the mask and the brow band. The rules allow for a square rock, though, so in theory if it hit with the corner maybe it'd go in far enough to hit my eye. I guess I'll cross that bridge if I ever come to it.

[Arrakis]

Arrakis, the way I see it, the helmet is armor, the goggles are not. If it would have hit me without the googles, I take death. So, I am rock proof, but a perfect jav or arrow shot still counts. These are there for my safety, not in game advantage.

Proper.

[Aiden]

Amazing. I clicked the link expecting something horrendous and was pleasantly surprised to see an awesome looking helm. Well done.