Diff of Dagorhir and Belegarth Rulesets

[Big King Jimmy]

It's also worth noting that pommel and tip checking in Dagorhir is straight up and down only, no tilting the template so that the corner passes through and fails diagonally.

This is specifically to allow square-tipped swords to pass, which fail in Belegarth.

Generally speaking, square tip swords do not fail belegarth.

Depends on where you're at. I've never seen one pass and I wouldn't pass one, either. If we don't care that the corners go **** deep through the template, why the hell do we even have the 2.5" rule?

QFT.

[GvK]

Well, its been a while, but at Bel's Equinox 2005, all my square-tipped weapons passed no problems Oh, been making and fighting with square-tipped swords for 25 years with nary a problem. But NOW I hear they're a safety problem...! Oh, wait, I disagree profoundly. Kegg posted on this issue elsewhere, and wisely too.

[Arrakis]

I'm not saying they aren't safe; I'm just saying, if they are safe, why can't I make a 2.5"-across-the-flats flatblade with a rounded tip and have it pass, too? I'm less likely to hurt someone's eye with a marine-foam stabbing tip than an all-blue swung corner.

[Bortas]

I'm with Arrakis in that: if we have a rule, which we ignore regularly, why does the rule exist at all?

-bort

[Dabbanoth]

square tip swords generally fail template, the corner on the tip goes well through the template.

[Rasheab]

Dagorhir: you have to keep one foot on the ground when you shield kick.

[Isk]

We've got that one in there already, 4th from the bottom.

[Oisin]

Dagorhir: you have to keep one foot on the ground when you shield kick.

Is that not in our rules too? I thought it was . . . it should be. I don't want some dumbass ninja wannabe flying at me and missing my shield.

[Isk]

Our rules are generally simpler. Personally, I think this particular move is closely associated with the doctrine of natural selection and that it (hopefully) happens so rarely there isn't a need for a rule.

[Rasheab]

Isk, are you talking about this part?

Can't shield bash a gimp, though you can check them. Can check from behind (but still not bash). Shield contact to the head/neck is explicitly prohibited, not just discouraged. Kicking a buckler is not discouraged. Must keep one foot on the ground during a shield kick.

I just wanted to double check, because I added that last night. If it's already in there somwhere else, I need to delete the redundancy.

Oisin, while it's a good general guideline, I personally like to keep my options open.

[Isk]

Nope, it wasn't already there. Glad to see you take the initiative; that's why it's on the wiki!

[Oisin]

Oisin, while it's a good general guideline, I personally like to keep my options open.

As look as you're ok with me keeping open the option of tripping and accidentally planting my gauntlet into your nose when you miss your flying kick and jam your boot into my chest.

There is no reason that this needs to be allowed.

[Rasheab]

Melodramatic much?

Fine, let's try this. It's -not- a rule, so obviously it hasn't been a problem so far (otherwise we would see people screaming and shouting here on the board).

Don't try to over-regulate things. Since your so concerned by it, have you ever had a problem with it on the battlefield?

Isk, yup, it's the beauty of wikis. I posted here because I wanted to make sure I wasn't incorrect.

[Oisin]

Melodramatic . . . like, claiming to reserve the right to do something unsafe that relieves you of nearly all control over the direction and force of your body?

You do something stupid and hurt someone trying to be a dumbass ninja (I can see no other reason you'd ever want to do a flying kick), and you deserve whatever you get.

Oh, and the wider and more frequently it goes up on websites that it isn't technically illegal in Belegarth, the more likely someone who actually IS that dumb is to see it and decide he's going to try it next practice and end up hurting either himself or someone else.

[Peanut of Loderia]

The flying dragon kick isnt done for a reason. I've see it happen once. The problem with it is while you give up all control of yourself, anything you hit will stop you since you have nothing to support yourself. The aforemtion flying dragon kicker ended up with a shield edge to the groin and taught himself and everyone on the field why you dont do it.

[Od1n]

I've seen Bhakdar do flying lu kang bicycle death kicks and they were tight as hell

[Remdawg Killionaire]

Most amazing thing I've ever seen.

[MagnusofDregoth]

Hm, I will have to do a no-feet shield kick at Okfest, then.

[Aleksii]

Just sluff all of Bhakdar's shots and he will demonstrate the proper form.

[Isk]

Amending the wiki to remove the 'taco rule' since it's not actually in the BoW.

[Big King Jimmy]

Just because it's not in the BoW doesn't mean your **** won't get failed for it.

[Arrakis]

2.2.1. Shields and Bucklers are rigid objects that are padded on the front and sides, and are equipped with handles or straps. A Shield may not be constructed in a manner that would confer the advantage of unbreakable armor.

Emphasis mine.

If it ain't rigid, it fails. We interpret rigid, as a sport, to mean, "Won't fail for taco".

[Isk]

wrote:
2.2.1. Shields and Bucklers are rigid objects that are padded on the front and sides, and are equipped with handles or straps. A Shield may not be constructed in a manner that would confer the advantage of unbreakable armor.

Emphasis mine.

If it ain't rigid, it fails. We interpret rigid, as a sport, to mean, "Won't fail for taco".

That is what I was looking for! Thanks, Arrakis. I'll adjust the wording and put it back in the wiki.

[bangor]

Not to be a douchebag or anything, but does this mean I can wear 1/4 inch stainless steel full plate with a 50 pound rucksack and drop-kick a buckler?

[Isk]

3.5.4.4. Shield Kicking of small Shields and/or Bucklers is discouraged.

Bel rules just 'discourage' kicking small shields, but if you had that getup on I'd expect most heralds to haul you off the field if you really couldn't see how stupid you were being.

[MagnusofDregoth]

I can see why this is "discouraged," since there are situations where I think it could work (especially using a knee against a small shield up close) but I do not understand why shield bashing to the face is legal. I got my nose bloodied by a deliberate shield bash to, well, the nose, and I got laid out by a deliberate shield edge hit to the temple, and I can't see how anyone thought that was safe.

[Arrakis]

I can see why this is "discouraged," since there are situations where I think it could work (especially using a knee against a small shield up close) but I do not understand why shield bashing to the face is legal. I got my nose bloodied by a deliberate shield bash to, well, the nose, and I got laid out by a deliberate shield edge hit to the temple, and I can't see how anyone thought that was safe.

3.5.4.5. Shield contact to the Head or Neck is discouraged.

It's not illegal so that the following scenario does not arise:

Arrakis checks Magnus' shield, rising, and pushes M's shield back into his body.
A's shield makes contact with M's face at the far end of his check.
A hip-wraps right.
M claims that, since shield-to-head contact is illegal, the wrap didn't count and hits A on his way past.

Since it's just discouraged, it doesn't invalidate the next several seconds the way some people claim weapon-to-head contact does. Plus, sometimes it's warranted...

[MagnusofDregoth]

Why not just say "intentional shield hits to the head or neck are illegal" and leave it at that?

Personally, I think there should be a rule, or maybe a piece of advice, saying "incidental contact to illegal areas will happen, but it is only a source of concern if injury is likely" or something like that.

[Satanaka]

6'3" shield bashing a 5'5"- I'd think the head is gonna come in contact most of the time.

Why not just say "intentional shield hits to the head or neck are illegal" and leave it at that?

Personally, I think there should be a rule, or maybe a piece of advice, saying "incidental contact to illegal areas will happen, but it is only a source of concern if injury is likely" or something like that.

[Soo Ma Tai]

Keep in mind that while doing any of these things, i.e. flying kung fu kicks and the like, it is the responsibility of the player to make sure that what he is doing does not endanger others. So IMO if you are shield kicking, and someone moves their shield you should be able to pull your kick and not deal damage to your opponent ( or at least very minimal damage). If you cannot do this, you really have no business kicking at peoples shields in the first place.

Just because something can be done in our game does not mean it can always be done safely.

[Thrush Svartehjertet]

...( or at least very minimal damage). If you cannot do this, you really have no business kicking at peoples shields in the first place.

Just because something can be done in our game does not mean it can always be done safely.

I've been saying this to great sword wielders for years. Just because a straight down, 2 handed swing to the shoulder is legal, does not mean that it is not the THE highest risk shot in our games. All it takes is the target twitching 2 inches side to side and you've just really hurt them... I've been in a bunch of arguments with people (while I was bleeding from the face) about how just because they CAN, does not mean they SHOULD wildly 2 hand swing straight down on my forehead when I'm down a leg... **** morons... Risk ya take...

[Mercer]

Had one schmoe drop a full-on glaive shot on the top of my head; his response to my "*!?!": "It's your fault, you shouldn't have moved."

[Rasheab]

Got to love people sometimes.

I like Magnus' "intentional* shield hits to the head or neck are illegal."

(*Emphasis mine.)

[bangor]

In the tappy-tappy game of Amtgard, when we still had weapons that would pass Belodag inspection, it used to be legitimate to hit the head, then follow up with some death blows. The head shots were discouraged and did not count as a target zone, but a lot of douchebaggery resulted.

Our solution was to give the head-struck player time to recover, and then fight. If struck in the head, a fighter must acknowledge that they are OK, and then fighting may continue. Follow up shots do not count until the fighter indicates that they are OK.

A bit tougher in your game since there are legal forms of head shots, but a little something to get the brain juices flowing.

[varadin]

bangor i do that in dag as it is. When someone cranks me in the face i will ignore their shots for a second so i can get reset normally. They call me cheater i say i didnt feel it i was too busy seeing stars (which is normally the truth) and then continue fighting.

[Satanaka]

The 'Ol Numenor 1 2
hit yeah right in the face then a body shot and walk off....
But- I can remember a few Rags ago- Rag 11 - it was even ten times worse with the SOME of the Aritari peeps.

bangor i do that in dag as it is. When someone cranks me in the face i will ignore their shots for a second so i can get reset normally. They call me cheater i say i didnt feel it i was too busy seeing stars (which is normally the truth) and then continue fighting.

[The Lost Celt]

can we sticky this?

I do a lot of crossgaming between bel and dag, and I'm a bit out of touch.

[Arrakis]

It's on the wiki, home-slice.

[Isk]

I was just looking at the dag rules again and found this gem:
4.10.2 - If a blow strikes a sheathed weapon (i.e., one that is attached/hanging from one's belt or over one's back) or any other worn object, including baggy clothing such as cloaks, the attack is considered to have hit the fighter. A weapon must be in a fighter's hand to intercept an attack.

So does this mean calling 'garb' is technically not an option or where is the line that defines inappropriately 'baggy clothing'?

[Arrakis]

What they meant was that if you're wearing a heavy cloak and a shot aimed at your side hits fabric hanging off of your arm and slows down enough to be light when it hits your side (or to not hit your side at all), it's supposed to be considered to have hit you hard enough.

What they said was a whole 'nother thing, which is the traditional method of codification for the Dagorhir Manual of Arms.

[Isk]

I guess they had a rash of cloak shields or something, but as it's currently worded, this rule pretty much makes it illegal to call garb. Now, I'm curious what people think about this issue so I started a separate thread: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=34683&start=0

The question for this thread is really, should we add this to the bel-dag-diff or just ignore it as a mistake and assume the 'spirit of the law' is the same as bel? Does BH, Magnus or any of our other visiting dag buddies want to comment on this?

[Thrush Svartehjertet]

""assume the 'spirit of the law' is the same as bel?""

When you try to write rules to prevent cheating you often make them sound wrong/ridiculous... If you look for an agenda, you will find it, but here I feel they were merely trying to prevent weapons being strapped to limbs as shields and garb shielding. But what do I know, I play Darkon too...

Thrush
berserk

[Kyrax]

Bingo - give Thrush a cookie. Yes, some bozo way back when tried the "strapped weapons as impenitrable armor" trick, just as some zorro wannabe tried to use a cloak as if he were fencing.

So yes, if you go with the spirit of that rule being the same as Belegarth's, you'll be fine. That's the way I've always played it. But what do I know, I've also played Darkon, Bel and a little Amtgard, and have only been doing that Dagorhir thing since the 80's.

[Isk]

Started a discussion of how this works in bel and got the answer there, just realized I forgot to respond here. Apparently the official position of the war council is that you can NOT call garb.

<rant>

Yeah, I was at that War Council when they voted on it...I wanted to gouge my eyes out with a hot poker when it passed unanimously.

In Dag, you CANNOT call garb. Calling garb means that you acknowledged, and NOTICED, the weapon came in contact (even just your clothes) and as such, it had "noticeable" force. This drives me up the **** wall.

There's a lot of cool dudes out there who don't enforce this, but some take it as being the same as "nope, not taking that shot", instead of "that was close, but it didn't hit me".

</rant>

Wiki has been updated to reflect Dacian's input regarding calling 'garb' in Dag.

[Acorn]

O.O....

wow. just... wow.

that sucks for all us peeps who wear fighting skirts and such. i guess my legs are just 3 times their normal size. note to self: if ever fighting dag, wear spandex.

[Isk]

Acorn, from the responses in the other thread, and my own experience, many dag realms will not enforce this rule the way it is written so you may want to feel them out before changing your garb for the event.

[Acorn]

lol. you no like spandex?

Isk, I was joking. Plus, there aren't any Dag realms out here so it's not really a problem. Moreover, I'm sure most Dag guys are just as sweet as us Bele kids so don't sweat it.

[Isk]

Well, spandex has it's place. . .

I mostly just want to keep this thread and the wiki page it supports a clear resource to make dealing with the mostly minor differences between bel and dag easier. Clarity and all that, you know.

[Acorn]

/sigh. good point. i shall take my joking back to the GM thread.

[Isk]

THAT'S RIGHT! NO HUMOR ON THIS THREAD!

And, I was thinking of making another table comparing amt ditching to bel. I don't want to bother with the full amt battle game rules, but ditching or another limited magic ruleset comparison would be interesting. Can one of our amt buddies recommend the best "Amtgard ditching rulebook"?