A question about double-ended weapons that came up at our first practice yesterday. The rules as written (1.4.6.2) say that both ends "must follow Class 3 Weapon standards" for the weapon to be legal. The way I'm reading that, it basically says that double-ended weapons have to pass hit tests for stabbing as well as hacking (which is a unique requirement among weapon classes).
So, assuming I'm interpreting that correctly, what's the rationale for that?
In our case, we had someone build a taiaha (Māori spear-staff hybrid), with only the bladed end intended for stabbing. I allowed it on the field as an experimental weapon, on the grounds that (a) it was sufficiently asymmetric that I don't expect anyone who knew what it was meant for would stab with the mace-type end, and (b) even when there were technical departures from 1.4.6.2, there was still enough padding that I wasn't worried about safety (the "non-stabbing" end was actually pretty blunt; and the blade was also non-cylindrical, but the flat had enough give that it hurt less than the striking surface).
But, I also acknowledge that compared to the community as a whole, I don't have much experience. So, are there any non-obvious reasons why a double-ended weapon needs to be more stab-safe than, say, a sword or a glaive? Or is the wording of 1.4.6.2 partly because the rules were written with an assumption that quarterstaves are the only form of double-ended weapon that someone would make?
EDIT BECAUSE CAN'T REPLY: ah, so the chain of reasoning went: flat blades twist around too much -> both ends must be cylindrical (or near enough) -> too hard to distinguish the two ends -> just make them both stabbing, dammit. Right? Cool, that's a satisfying answer, thanks .