Belegarth

Consider this a work in progress started from Chicken's post.

I have moved the comparison exclusively to the wiki, in a much more readable 2-column table: http://geddon.org/index.php/Dagorhir_Be ... Comparison

Please add corrections to this thread. Take your opinions, whining, anti-dag attitude, etc. to a new thread.

Thank you for this very good summary.

Courtesy padding in Dagorhir doesn't have to be that of a striking surface. A single layer of blue foam will suffice.
And the maximum width a shield may be in Dagorhir is three feet.

Sol, the max width is the same.

Put a line break between each pair of Bel/Dag rules.

Also, normal colors would be nice. It's hard to read on some themes. Use bold to add emphasis.

Isk -

Although Dag does have healing rules, I've only seen them actually used one time by one fighter at one event I've attended in the last 8 years. Its effectively a non-rule. If your purpose for this is for first-time cross-gamers, you can probably leave this difference out, lest it create the impression that Dag has healers running all over the place.

But on the other hand, you're totally right that healing does technically exist, so your call.

Solusar: The MoA from 2008, apparently the most recent version, linked here, states:
4.1.8. Hafts on axes, flails, maces, polearms, and the like must be safely padded except
for a reasonable area for a handhold. This means the haft padding on swung
weapons must be as safe as their striking surface. The haft on spears (which are
thrusting-only weapons) is not required to be as heavily-padded as that of a swung
weapon.

Derian: I tried to use the colors to differentiate the two, but this really ought to be a two-column table. Do we have a plugin for tables in bbcode?

Athron: I am really trying to make it a comprehensive list of the rules differences, so I'll keep it.

Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)

Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)

Sorry, no tables available.

You can approximate them by using the 'Code' tag, like so:

Code: Select all

-----------------------
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
-----------------------
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
-----------------------


Uhhh.... Write it up on the wiki and link it in your first post?

*can't believe he didn't think of that earlier*

I thought of the wiki, but people are soooo lazy. If I just linked it I wouldn't get nearly as much response. I only want to maintain one list, though. The nice thing about the wiki is anyone can help maintain it, too.

http://geddon.org/index.php/DagBelRules

There's the wiki version, with Madog's addition. Let me know which you like better and I'll change the other to a pointer to avoid confusion/inconsistency.

SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)

Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)

Noticeable Force applied a lot to those who dont take red hits on shields
i was a herald a few times at rag, and at one point all heralds were called together to point out that many Romans that didnt take their red hits and having all right to beat anybody with a yellow funoodle and call dead.
Once, I and another herald were watching a guy lose a leg and calling decent red hits to his shield as not hard enough as his shield was shaking from solid contact.

Why cant people just die already?!?!?

Isk wrote:Solusar: The MoA from 2008, apparently the most recent version, linked here, states:
4.1.8. Hafts on axes, flails, maces, polearms, and the like must be safely padded except
for a reasonable area for a handhold. This means the haft padding on swung
weapons must be as safe as their striking surface. The haft on spears (which are
thrusting-only weapons) is not required to be as heavily-padded as that of a swung
weapon.

I re-read the rules and you're right, I stand corrected. That's what I get for posting sober.

Can't really blame you, it's not in their main rules linked from their homepage. Those are outdated by several years and this is not there. I only found this, more recent version, when Chicken linked to it.

Outhro Youkker wrote:Once, I and another herald were watching a guy lose a leg and calling decent red hits to his shield as not hard enough as his shield was shaking from solid contact.

Why cant people just die already?!?!?

Because the shield is their security blanket, and they'll cry and wet the bed without it. There are plenty of hit-taking shieldmen out there, but there's about an equal amount who don't WANT to lose it and who abuse the "shieldman's-call" aspect of the game. Or, to call them by the shorter name, cheaters.

Perhaps a question with a less obvious answer is: Why do Redsword fighters insist on aiming at an unreliable target that doesn't actually incapacitate their enemy instead of trying to hit the shieldman's body or limbs?

SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)

Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)

Wrong Madog - that's Amtgard that's a touch game.

The Dagorhir rule is worded - solidly with noticeable force. Only douchebags leave out the solidly part.

Arrakis wrote:Perhaps a question with a less obvious answer is: Why do Redsword fighters insist on aiming at an unreliable target that doesn't actually incapacitate their enemy instead of trying to hit the shieldman's body or limbs?

Because sometimes that's the only target you get, and when you are swinging at it with enough force the shieldmen start getting cowardly. Most shieldmen will take a good red shot, and if not, I'll swing harder. And I've been hit by my glaive while wielding a plywood cored shield - wouldn't want to get hit harder by that weapon.

Otherwise, I agree. If you've got a torso or limb shot, take it.

I've had the current rules set bookmarked for some time Isk, I apparently overlooked that rule. Mostly because I've never built a flail or axe.
Something I'd like to point out (at my dismay):
4.3.6 The fighter wielding the shield judges if the blows are solid “shield-breaking” red hits; however, the physical size of the fighter delivering the blows must always be considered; i.e., a “solid” hit from a smaller, lighter person will generally feel “lighter” than one from a more massive fighter.
Thank god Belegarth doesn't have this rule.

Kyrax wrote:

Arrakis wrote:Perhaps a question with a less obvious answer is: Why do Redsword fighters insist on aiming at an unreliable target that doesn't actually incapacitate their enemy instead of trying to hit the shieldman's body or limbs?

Because sometimes that's the only target you get, and when you are swinging at it with enough force the shieldmen start getting cowardly. Most shieldmen will take a good red shot, and if not, I'll swing harder. And I've been hit by my glaive while wielding a plywood cored shield - wouldn't want to get hit harder by that weapon.

Otherwise, I agree. If you've got a torso or limb shot, take it.

I agree with Kyrax. I'll shoot for something more useful, but when all you see is boot-barn door-head, with maybe a little weapon poking out the side... well, I could what one fellow did to me and claim they put their head in the way of my strike, but I don't roll that way. Sometimes the shield is the only option, and sometimes people remove that option by declining to take anything short of force capable of knocking them on their *. Not all of us have weapons as hefty as Kyrax's, nor can we all wield such things effectively; I think I've still got a tweak in my back from that one event he let me use one of his glaives.

Mercer: First shot - Hard shot to their shield edge on the shield side. Second shot - Wind up towards the shield edge, then throw an arm chop at their inevitable flat snap. That sort of thing. Or just throw a leg whiff followed by a false-edge weapon-side shoulder shot. I just don't think Redsword fighters take full advantage of fakes; a lot of them would just rather blast the shield a few times and then not have to worry about it any more.

Sooooo, back on topic.

Kyrax: Added the solidly, I'm not really even sure there is enough of a difference to include this comparison, personally.

Juicer: I'm not sure if we should include that as a distinction or not, probably should for the sake of being thorough. And looking back at that thread, it was Juicer, not Chicken, that actually put the link to the MoA up.

Everyone: Do we keep it here or keep it in the wiki. I only want to maintain one...

Isk wrote:Added the solidly, I'm not really even sure there is enough of a difference to include this comparison, personally.

It seems like semantics to me "substantial force vs. solidly with noticeable force," but threads like this make it clear that there are Dagorhirrim that interpret blowing off light shots as cheating.

http://www.dagorhir.com/forums/index.php?topic=15055.0

To further complicate things, the current Dag rules state "what constitutes a 'solid strike' is necessarily subjective and thus relies on the honor of both the attacker and the person who is struck."

which is at odds with Bel rule 1.3. "The target of an attack makes combat hit determinations."

It looks like the differences are not that big- and I only see a few that I think we could improve. Over all- good information. easy to cross play with either group with out major changes.




Hmmmmmmm........ Guess if it was so good- there would be no shields.

Arrakis wrote:Mercer: First shot - Hard shot to their shield edge on the shield side. Second shot - Wind up towards the shield edge, then throw an arm chop at their inevitable flat snap. That sort of thing. Or just throw a leg whiff followed by a false-edge weapon-side shoulder shot. I just don't think Redsword fighters take full advantage of fakes; a lot of them would just rather blast the shield a few times and then not have to worry about it any more.

It's the sort of thing that gets done in sports where shields don't break.

I see a lot of flurbification in Dagorhir recently. A lot of rules changes that literally serve non intended purpose. Surely I'm not turning into Satanaka...

Plate armor can be 18ga in Dagorhir.

Isn't there a Bel rule that if I get hit in two locations, I only have to take the on that hit harder? In Dagorhir, if you get hit hard enough in two places you're expected to take both (most often this is someone getting both legs swept with a good red swing).

Dagorhir swords can't pass more than .5" through a 2.5" hole if they are built for stabbing.

No, one swing = one hit in Belegarth. The only other rule regarding multiple locations is that if you're hit in a limb and the torso with sufficient force, you take the torso shot.

On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:

Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).

Kyrian wrote:On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:

Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).

DQFT

-bort

HA!!!!!!!!

Good one- I liked that. I think you might be ok for on of those crazy engineer types... herheheheheheheehe

Arrakis wrote:It's the sort of thing that gets done in sports where shields don't break.

I see a lot of flurbification in Dagorhir recently. A lot of rules changes that literally serve non intended purpose. Surely I'm not turning into Satanaka...

That is a good one Kyrian. I like that.

Kyrian wrote:On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:

Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).

Kyrian wrote:On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:

Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).

Thank you Kyrian, that is an excellent description that I will use with my noobs.

Thanks, Alric. I have incorporated your clarifications.

To keep this thread from going too far on a tangent, I created a separate topic in the fighting forum regarding differences in shot taking. You might want to check it out.

HERE

Alric wrote:Isn't there a Bel rule that if I get hit in two locations, I only have to take the on that hit harder? In Dagorhir, if you get hit hard enough in two places you're expected to take both (most often this is someone getting both legs swept with a good red swing).

Not a rule in Dagorhir either (Derian corrected the Belegarth side of that equation) - that's just someone showing good honor and taking two hits.

I've always played it that you took the worst of the hits if tagged in two places, armored and unarmored or torso/limb. But it isn't explicitly in the Dagorhir rules (unless I've missed something in the new or old MoAs and Handbook).

Easy Ridir Giggles wrote:

Isk wrote:Added the solidly, I'm not really even sure there is enough of a difference to include this comparison, personally.

It seems like semantics to me "substantial force vs. solidly with noticeable force," but threads like this make it clear that there are Dagorhirrim that interpret blowing off light shots as cheating.

http://www.dagorhir.com/forums/index.php?topic=15055.0

To further complicate things, the current Dag rules state "what constitutes a 'solid strike' is necessarily subjective and thus relies on the honor of both the attacker and the person who is struck."

which is at odds with Bel rule 1.3. "The target of an attack makes combat hit determinations."

Yes Giggles - and there are clearly folks in that thread correcting that mistake. Some are new and will quickly learn better at a big event others, well see above about "Douchebags". Hit calibrations vary in all games to one degree or another. My guess is that the differences between Belegarth and Dagorhir are minor, at least when compared to touch-fighting LARPs. Amtgard seems to be inbetween D/B and LARPS.

Arrakis wrote:I see a lot of flurbification in Dagorhir recently. A lot of rules changes that literally serve non intended purpose. Surely I'm not turning into Satanaka...

Propaganda - Dagorhir changed two rules total this year, both on missile weapons and seeking to address safety issues. So hardly "a lot".

Kyrax wrote:My guess is that the differences between Belegarth and Dagorhir are minor, at least when compared to touch-fighting LARPs. Amtgard seems to be inbetween D/B and LARPS.

I think you are exactly right Kyrax; the differences are minor. The differences can be important, though, so I started this thread to pull into one place all of those differences as a reference for bel people gaming at a dag event (and of course vice versa, but I can't really post it for the dag folks). Maybe we should expand it to include Amtgard, but that definitely needs the table version in the wiki.

If someone hits me hard enough with a red that hits both of my legs at the same time and I stumble/fall/flip, I will accept death.
Realistically, that just sliced me shins off and possibly hit the next guy.

Similarly, if I am stabbed in the torso with two single-handed weapons simultaneously, I will take that as a double-green and then die. It's all subjective, after all.

plus it is suppose to be fun

From a recent thread on the Dag board, they do not require a shield to be stiff. No 'taco' rule. Added to the table.

****, that's right.

I can't believe we didn't address that omission at the war council this year. Oh well, I guess other concerns were more pressing.

Kyrax wrote:

SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)

Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)

Wrong Madog - that's Amtgard that's a touch game.

Wrong Kyrax. Go to texas or come up to wisconsin. texas amtgarders hit harder than many bel fighters i know.

Seconded. At Sword Knight boot camp, I got hit harder than at almost any other event I have been to--and this was with swords weighing only 6 to 10 ounces.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would want to hit someone any way other than as hard as they can. Isn't the ability to hit people the biggest draw of this sport?

Poo wrote:

Kyrax wrote:

SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)

Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)

Wrong Madog - that's Amtgard that's a touch game.

Wrong Kyrax. Go to texas or come up to wisconsin. texas amtgarders hit harder than many bel fighters i know.

Poo - not really looking to get into a debate on Amtgard. My point was only that Dagorhir and Belegarth require more than just contact (and to correct a mistake about Dagorhir's rules). I do know that some Amtgard folks can hit pretty hard even here in the West, just that it isn't required. And like in all of these games, local standards can vary between realms/chapters/parks.

Amtgard requires clean, not hard. Just so happens that clean is usually what I would consider sufficient force by Bel standards. Kyrax is absolutely correct.

Sufficient force in Bel/Dag varies by event/realm/fighter. I find clean does not always equal sufficient as sufficient is not defined. Sufficient then sometimes turns into "apparent to those not in the fight". This really requires honor to be paramount and in a game where honor is whatever you want to define it as, (pesky evil characters or goblins, or whatever) it is not as big of a deal as say in the SCA where a bad showing of honor can doom your career for a long time to come.

To bring this all together back to one of my little pet points I like to poke at... an awards system would go some distance at correcting this.

Will

Tappy tappy!

In other news, adding a crossover guide for Amtgard and Darkon would be nice.

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.

Oisin wrote: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.

Cyric wrote:

Oisin wrote: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?