Dueling Shield

[Cheeseheart]

So a few days ago somebody who is mostly interested in developing skills using historically accurate (and to my knowledge, popular) weapons styles, but plays Belegarth nonetheless asked me about making what I guess is commonly referred to as a "dueling shield." I did a search for it in our forums and nothing really came up on it. Perhaps my searching skills are poor.

In any case, this is what I'm asking about:



And the relevant rules that come to mind are:

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged. These rules are intentionally sparse to allow for ease of use. The Marshal, according to these rules, and medieval foam combat precedent, settles all disputes.

2.2. Defensive Equipment is any item that gives combat advantage to its wielder by preventing Injury, and is unable to inflict damage on opponents. There are two types of Defensive Equipment - Shields and Armor. All Defensive Equipment must meet the requirements outlined in Appendix A.

3.5.2. Shields may be used in any reasonable manner and still be considered a Shield.

1.4.6. Double-ended Weapons must conform to all of the following:

1.4.6.1. Double-ended Weapons must not be more than 7 feet long.
1.4.6.2. Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of this weapon must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.
1.4.6.3. Regardless of length, a Double-ended Weapon is a Class 1 Weapon when swung and Class 3 when thrust.

2.1. Shield must be padded on the edges and face so as not to cause injury when struck with a forceful blow of an arm/hand.
2.2. The maximum width of a shield is 3 feet.
2.3. The maximum height of a shield is 18 inches less than the height of the wielder.
2.4. The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.
2.5. Shield spikes are allowed for decoration.

I am mostly concerned about the "creative interpretation" rule. As far as I can tell, there are not restrictions against both Offensive and Defensive equipment being affixed to one another, with proper labeling for striking and non-striking areas. But I was also thinking that the weapon could be a quarter-staff with an excessively large "handguard." Being that are are no rules about handguards or crossguards and such, I assume such a thing would not be prohibited. If this were the case, then the "handguard" would act as a shield, but NOT be breakable by red weapons, which would be a problem. But then again, weapons don't damage any other weapon (other than Class 1 or 2 on a bow) whether it makes contact on striking surface or not. There would be no restrictions to length or width of the "handguard" and would approximate a shield that could potentially go against our shield guidelines, but it wouldn't be a shield.

Also, I am aware of entanglement issues, but I was thinking of a piece of equipment that looked mostly like a shield with only one (1) non-curved protrusion from either side, which would be the 18" of striking surface for a quarter-staff. And this is the affixing idea. Use an bandpole core of whatever length you can get away with due to sheild height restrictions and quarterstaff length restrictions, (for me it would be about a 78" or 80" core, with a total of 48" that could be allocated for shield and 18" on either side for striking surface [48" + 18" + 18" = 84" which is max length of quarter-staff] ) which would act both as handle of the shield and core of the quarter-staff.

I'm confusing myself a bit when writing this, but it seems these would be the right measurements. Or would the length of the quarterstaff part of the weapon itself have to conform to shield height restriction? If that would be the case, then I'd end up with a 51" quarterstaff with a measely 15" shield in the middle, which wouldn't be like the dueling shield at all.

Input?
Critiques?
Forkbeard-style critiques?
Down-right NO's (please include relevant rules)?

Also, I'm not at all concerned with the effectiveness of this tentative piece of equipment in our game.

[varadin]

Your best option would be to make a quarter staff. and a shield. Have them two separate things and then have him fight with it in one hand.

Dueling shields as one entity would just be outright illegal. Either blocking arrows with a weapon or striking(and causing damage) with a shield. He can make a shield that looks like one but having it count for any damage would be outright silly, and ends up causing more confusion then its worth.

[Cheeseheart]

But shield contact IS Legal, and if the arrow hit the striking part of it, then the arrow would pass through it just like any other weapon. If the part that approximated a shield was in fact considered a shield it wouldn't matter if it hit that. If it wasn't considered a shield, and was a handguard, then it would go through regardless.

And can you point be to the rule that says the two together as one entity would be illegal?

Mind you, I'm trying to play devil's advocate on both sides.

[Fitz Caliston]

Your Dualing Shield seems to be what Amtgarders call a Middle Madu, or in some areas of europe was referred to at a Haiti:

Grix's awesome Leather covered Madu:





Sir Brennon of Amtgard teaching Middle Madu at SKBC with me as the bunching bag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gwhWjJbs

I've always been told that they are illegal to use in Bel.

[Cheeseheart]

Thanks for the reference, I hope to see some at an Amtgard event I'll be at tomorrow. They look kinda cute
Do you know WHY they are illegal for Bel?

[Fitz Caliston]

cute! lol. They are anything but cute, I swear I had a cracked (or at least bruised rib after that class).

[Cheeseheart]

What part of it caused the injury? Was it the striking part or the parrying part?

And if the weapon itself isn't cute....well at least the girl in that picture might be cute if she wasn't making an ugly battle face

[Fitz Caliston]

It was the repeated stabs over and over to my floating ribs that B liked to throw. Nothing is really "dangerous" about it. A Mid-madu fighter just likes to hear "the Sound" from thier opponenet when they get in close.

[Caleidah]

Do you know WHY they are illegal for Bel?

Book of War, Appendix A

2.4. The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.

Putting the extended edges would make areas that flagrantly violate the rules. Now, there is the issue of things like teardrops and heaters, and I would fail those through a check if the point was long and illegally narrow for a large portion of it.

That's just my .02, though, so you can read whatever you want into it.

Oh, also, it would be either a breakable weapon or an unbreakable shield.

[Cheeseheart]

But like I said, if that part that looks like a shield wasn't actually a shield, because it'd be a handguard, then it is neither unbreakable shield or breakable weapon.

[Forkbeard]

They are illegal becuase shield can't be weapons and vice versa. This probly is a throwback to the days when all shields had plywood cores and needed to have a layer of open cell over them.
They are also a punch weapon. I know it doesn't look like it, but it is. That's why Fitz ribs hurt and the people who use them"like to hear the noise". The noise is from the heavy stab to the side. It is heavier than normal from the wieght of the sheild. In Bel combat, this is insensified.
I'm not against these weapons, I'm just telling you why I think they have always been illegal.
I think they are stupid becuase outside of a couple trick shots, like the side stab, they are useless and hard to hit properly with. They suck in the SCA for sure. They DON"T hit hard enough there and are easy to defeat.
Tell the dude there were other weapons in history. Pick one.
FB

[Cheeseheart]

Thank you, Fork....did you for some reason tone down your response?

While this makes sense to me:

They are illegal becuase shield can't be weapons and vice versa

Is there something that says this explicitly in the BoW?
If there isn't, maybe there should be

Thanks for all the input. Though it does worry be that there are all of these loopholes that I pointed out, that I suppose could technically still obey BoW. It's all wording I guess

And yes, he usually just does some swashbuckling (or as close to it as can be) when he does fight with us, and he's really **** pimp at it. But he seems to be really wet about these things. And I'll be sure to ask him about the "punching" aspect of them soon enough.

I may attempt to build one one of these days to use for a modified version of Belegarth that he and I do using helmets.

[Forkbeard]

I'm getting into a historicaly accurate group that doas head shots, too.
Fun on a bun. Can you beleive those fools want us to hit them in the head?
ANyway, you could follow the Amt intructions for one and let him use it at practice. Why not? You can playtest any weird **** you want, at least this is a real thing and not directly a punch weapon.
FB

[Cheeseheart]

Head-shots by melee weapons adds such a great new aspect to the game. We count handshots and footshots as well....in fact, most strikes, even to limbs, would cause death in our game. It's exhilarating and you always have to be on your toes, because hell, you can't even punch block to save your life.

[Cade]

I can't think of a reason this type of weapon should be illegal in our current game. I can see why it was illegal back in the day, but why is it now? Aside from them not being all that popular.

Ether its a shield...in which case it can't do damage according to the rules.

Or its a weapon...in which case it wouldn't block arrows according to the rules.

Lets simplify it...what happens if someone makes a sword with an absurdly large hand guard. Like a 12 inch hand guard. Would it be illegal for him to absorb red shots with it? The red shot isn't hitting his body...its hitting the weapon. It seems like cheesing the rules, but i can't really think of what the difference is between that and punch blocking. Aside from punch blocking being harder.

Its just one of those wacky gray areas where our rules get in the way of realism. Like...if im using a teardrop, i should be able to knock someone over and then stab them with the point...It should work, it would work in reality, but it doesn't because if the way the rules are written.

[Fitz Caliston]

In Amt a madu is concidered a polearm attached to a shield.

The weapon portion has to have at least 1ft of strike legal padding to slash, and at least 6 inches of strike legal padding and a stab tip to stab.

With todays technology you can make a middle madu that you would actually have to add weight to in order to bring it up Bel min weight for a blue so there really isn't that much extra weight adding to the stab, what it does do is add stabbility to your stab. Believe me, the Guys that use these on a regular basis stab just as hard with a normal short. and I've never seen a middile madu that I would consider a bunch weapon, all the ones I've seen are held with the weapon in line with were the center grip handle of the sheild goes. So it's like holding a blue and a center grip shield in the same hand and having the blue extend up past the shield.

In Amt, if a red weapon destroys the Shield the whole thing is destroyed, if an arrow hits the weapon portion (in amt that destorys a weapon) the entire thing is destroyed.

It wouldn't be dificult to adjust to Bel as someone above mentioned, if the projectile hit the shield portion your fine, if it hit the weapon portion it passes through. If a red hit the shield it does Red damage, if it's paried by the Weapon portion it's a weapon block. It's not that difficult to figure out.

[Cheeseheart]

These are all the things I've considered...leading me to believe there is some place for it within our guidelines.

[Cyric]

Quote:
They are illegal becuase shield can't be weapons and vice versa


Is there something that says this explicitly in the BoW?
If there isn't, maybe there should be

lrn2rulz.

since you quoted most of this in your first post, it should have answered your own question.

2.2. Defensive Equipment is any item that gives combat advantage to its wielder by preventing Injury, and is unable to inflict damage on opponents. There are two types of Defensive Equipment - Shields and Armor.

If you build it as a shield you intend to strike with, it is clearly illegal.

If you build it as a weapon with a big hand guard it would have to conform to the double ended weapon rules, most notably:

1.4.6.2. Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of this weapon must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.

Also, your hand guard would have to conform to this rule:

2.4. The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.

and thus be under 12 inches face wise. If you came to my field and tried to argue that you weren't using that as a shield, i would toss your weapon. If it's bigger than 12 inches, it's trying to be a shield. your hand doesn't need 12 inches of handguard.

Obviously, it would not be able to block arrows. Any arrow that would hit it would travel through accordingly.

This has been done before, and not very successfully in a battlefield capacity. And attempts to cheese the rules will always fail.

Finally, my personal favorite:

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged.

[Sir Anastasia]

Thanks Cyric, that's what we were looking for. I told him it would be more or less illegal in most forms, but that it would take someone cool and old school to explain all the loops to us.

Just to be certain though, this weapon would be legal if it conforms to the rules for a quarter staff AND has a hand guard less than 12", Is that correct?

Additionally, blue and red shots can be blocked by it and arrows travel through it to the target area behind it. Is that correct?

This, as an offensive weapon and not a defensive piece, cannot be destroyed by normal game play, Is that correct?

I know these are redundant to your post, but I would like to be very certain as to how I properly explain this to people in the future if it comes up again.

Thanks again,
Anastasia of Chamonix

[Kage]

I've always interpreted something as a shield as long as one direction/ axis has at least 12 inches of surface. Always looked at it that way too because shields can't be wider than 36 inches but they can be taller than 36 inches.

Just to be certain though, this weapon would be legal if it conforms to the rules for a quarter staff AND has a hand guard less than 12", Is that correct?

Additionally, blue and red shots can be blocked by it and arrows travel through it to the target area behind it. Is that correct?

This, as an offensive weapon and not a defensive piece, cannot be destroyed by normal game play, Is that correct?

1) Correct, It's a hand guard not a shield. It doesn't have to be less but I sure would appreciate it so there is absolutely no confusion as to what it is. It's just easier on us poor people who have to check weapons. Some are still going to look at it and say "* is that?" and "How the hell do I check this?"

2) Correct, blocking an arrow with it intentionally should result in death as well. That would fall under rule 3.8.6.2.

3) Correct, but it might be slightly against the spirit of the game if you know what I mean. Rule 1.4.

[Squire Moxk]

2.5. Shield spikes are allowed for decoration.

I would rule these as shield spikes. doesn't matter where or how they are attached they are still shield spikes, also I would fail any hand guard significantly larger than the hand its meant to guard for trying to be a shield.

[Tiercel]

Also, your hand guard would have to conform to this rule:

2.4. The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.

and thus be under 12 inches face wise. If you came to my field and tried to argue that you weren't using that as a shield, i would toss your weapon. If it's bigger than 12 inches, it's trying to be a shield. your hand doesn't need 12 inches of handguard.

Obviously, it would not be able to block arrows. Any arrow that would hit it would travel through accordingly.

This has been done before, and not very successfully in a battlefield capacity. And attempts to cheese the rules will always fail.

Finally, my personal favorite:

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged.

Almost everything you said was 100% clear-cut taken from the rules. I'm just pointing out that the BOW does not put a maximum on hand guard size, nor pommel size. I'd honor your wishes on your field, of course, and leave the weapon on the sidelines, but I'd have to feel it would be due to your personal interpretation on what is and is not cheesing the rules. I don't see an explicit outlawing of something that looks like a madu, quacks like a madu, but it agreed upon by field officials that it won't be treated like a madu. The reason I even mention this is that when someone interprets the rules, it spreads by word of mouth among the newest of fighters until it becomes inseparable from the BOW in their minds, and then when some new situation comes along someone says something like "WELL, this is pretty close to the ____ rule, so since you're close to breaking that rule, this is cheesing." And that situation might not have actually been at all against the spirit or the letter of the BOW.

I've had people tell me that if a red hits an unarmored arm, it continues through to kill the body because it does two points of damage. I've had people tell me it's not true. I've had people tell me if a rock is larger than twelve inches you MUST pause after every three steps with it, even though he said it wasn't to be treated as a red, and someone else tell me this wasn't true. All of these people had a good deal of experience and firmly believed the rules reinforced what they said, and that was how they always had played since they had been taught to fight.

I can already think of one really sweet weapon that has a handguard that is not circular (it's a cross, and thus can be interpreted as being a portion of a ring and having a "diameter"), but might come close to the "12-inch rule" and thus be thrown out by weapon checkers that listen to you without question and are trying to interpret the rules based on what they hear from you, even though you yourself would perhaps approve the weapon.

Wow... that was wordier than I liked.

[Cheeseheart]

also I would fail any hand guard significantly larger than the hand its meant to guard for trying to be a shield.

I love the discussion here, and I love that it's not come down to attacks on anyone. But the statement above is something I disagree with. I ask how can someone do this? What precedent is there for this in the BoW that says if a handguard is "significantly larger than the hand" then it should be failed? How do you qualify or quantify that statement? That's why we have length/weight mins/maxs...and there are none on handguards. It seems like it would be a failure due to a very personal interpretation, without consideration to the other sides of the argument, arbitrary, was the world I was looking for. And nobody likes when they feel that something has been done arbitrarily against them, and that's not the way of this sport.

On a second note, though I am Cheeseheart, my intentions were not to "cheese" the rules, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be the intentions of anyone else wondering about this weapon. I was just questioning the feasibility of building such a piece of equipment, and wondering what its reception would be and why....I wouldn't intend on using this thing for Belegarth

[Cheeseheart]

The above being said, do we need to make some kind of motion about the size of handguards? Something like "the maximum length of a handguard on any axis is 11.5"? Perhaps a better phrase for handguard so as to not allow for ambiguity, which is ultimately what this thread is about . I don't know where in the BoW such a rule would be placed, though.

[Caleidah]

also I would fail any hand guard significantly larger than the hand its meant to guard for trying to be a shield.

I love the discussion here, and I love that it's not come down to attacks on anyone. But the statement above is something I disagree with. I ask how can someone do this? What precedent is there for this in the BoW that says if a handguard is "significantly larger than the hand" then it should be failed? How do you qualify or quantify that statement? That's why we have length/weight mins/maxs...and there are none on handguards. It seems like it would be a failure due to a very personal interpretation, without consideration to the other sides of the argument, arbitrary, was the world I was looking for. And nobody likes when they feel that something has been done arbitrarily against them, and that's not the way of this sport.

Cheeseheart, stop being a turd. What moxk means is a tie in to the other rule.

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged.

If someone has a massive handguard, they are obviously trying to cheese the rules with it.

Do you want to use a middle madu like this? Make a punch with a grooved handle and grip a staff in that hand as well. VOILA. You've created the same thing without turding around and demanding a slug of new rules be made.

[Cheeseheart]

Someone had to go and be condescending.....

Okay, let's move it to GM now.

[Cyric]

I've had people tell me that if a red hits an unarmored arm, it continues through to kill the body because it does two points of damage. I've had people tell me it's not true. I've had people tell me if a rock is larger than twelve inches you MUST pause after every three steps with it, even though he said it wasn't to be treated as a red, and someone else tell me this wasn't true. All of these people had a good deal of experience and firmly believed the rules reinforced what they said, and that was how they always had played since they had been taught to fight.

People get rules wrong all the time. I'm here to clear things up.

1. For reds to the arm, if the arm is alive, it is the target of the strike. 1 swing = 1 hit. Since the red does 2 points, both points go to the arm.

2. Red Rocks is a regional ruleset used by Wolfpack. It has no bearing outside of the realm of Wolfpack and events they run, such as Wolfpack Opener. The person is trying to quote a bastardization of the rule.

I'm just pointing out that the BOW does not put a maximum on hand guard size, nor pommel size. I'd honor your wishes on your field, of course, and leave the weapon on the sidelines, but I'd have to feel it would be due to your personal interpretation on what is and is not cheesing the rules. I don't see an explicit outlawing of something that looks like a madu, quacks like a madu, but it agreed upon by field officials that it won't be treated like a madu.

I don't feel that hand-guards or pommels need to have maximum stated dimensions. the rules are supposed to be flexible, and leave a human element of interpretation open for people to be creative without trying to exploit some rules. If someone wants to come out with a 3 foot long pommel, that's fine, since a pommel is basically haft padding and has to cover the end of a weapon.

In addition to what i stated before, a hand-guard is limited to 12 inches by the application of this rule:

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.

Telling me that your 15 inch diameter hand-guard on your quarterstaff is a hand-guard is *, as it also confers the advantage of unbreakable armor but stopping all shots coming towards it except arrows, but under current rules arrows ignore armor anyway. Since it's "part of the weapon" it can't be broken by class 2 weapons. Since 12 inches is the minimum for a shield, anything smaller than that is by default legal.

I thought about using 2.5 like Moxk did, as it could be applicable too.

The easiest rule suggestion to fix all this would be to add madus to 1.5, prohibited weapons.

[Big King Jimmy]

Build a sword into one of those foam Hulk fists, since giant hard guards are a no no, but giant gloves seem to be okay. /joke

[Squire Moxk]

The easiest rule suggestion to fix all this would be to add madus to 1.5, prohibited weapons.

I don't think its needed. 2.5 covers it fine.

Cheeseheart you are also forgetting that even if your "handguard" was a legal part of your weapon it can not rest on any part of your body other than your hands when blocking a shot, or its an anvil.

[Thomas MacFinn]

Two piece construction doesn't run into these rule issues.



The thing in my left hand has a clear shield portion that can be dropped if given two red hits and a weapon portion that follows weapon rules. In our local group, Dag used to carry a downward pointing sword in his shield hand quite often.

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.

[Fitz Caliston]

In addition to what i stated before, a hand-guard is limited to 12 inches by the application of this rule:

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.

A rule specifically for "Shields and Bucklers" has no bearing what so ever on a weapon or it's component parts. You can't project the rules for Shields onto Weapons as you are attempting to do with handguards.

As has been shown by the rule stating that a Shield must have a dimension of 12 inches to be a shield ANY "handgard" with a dimension less the 12 inches is NOT a shield. If it is not a shield then the rules for shields have no bearing on it.

Also, adding a rule to the BoW that Bans Madu's would require the BoW to define what a Madu is considered such as, "A Madu is any melee weapon attached to a Shield in any way". At which point it could be just as easy to define madu's and allow them as it is to disallow them.

[Arrakis]

Wow. There's a lot of good reasons for 1-piece madus to be illegal and a lot of ignorant turdery and rules lawyering to try and force everyone to think they're legal in this thread.


Madus aren't legal because they can't be offensive and defensive equipment at the same time. If you want a rule for that, tough ****; there's no rule stating that your breastplate can't be a yellow weapon, either.

Hand-guards can't be enormous because it's an obvious attempt to gain advantage by creative interpretation of the rules.

Derp.

[Cade]

Wow. There's a lot of good reasons for 1-piece madus to be illegal and a lot of ignorant turdery and rules lawyering to try and force everyone to think they're legal in this thread.


Madus aren't legal because they can't be offensive and defensive equipment at the same time. If you want a rule for that, tough ****; there's no rule stating that your breastplate can't be a yellow weapon, either.

Hand-guards can't be enormous because it's an obvious attempt to gain advantage by creative interpretation of the rules.

Derp.

I would say there are a lot rules to making them illegal, but no real good reason. If you want to say they are unsafe, then fine say they are unsafe and tell me why, but a rule isn't a reason.

Who decides what an enormous hand guard is? Six inches? More? Less? how is a large hand guard different from using a massively large lacrosse glove like a lot of people are starting to do.

I know its up to interpretation and whatever the checker thinks in most cases, and your right in the stands your taking here, but i don't see why a madu should be illegal and holding a staff and shield at the same time isn't. I know the rules, but i don't see the reason behind them.

If it turns out that there isn't a good reason behind the rule, thats when we should toss a new post up in the rules section and let people debate an actual change to the rules. Even if nothing ever gets done about it, the process will have been followed.

[Fitz Caliston]

So we've determine we can't combine a Shield and a weapon. (we'll drop the absurdity of offensive and defensive equipment rule)

The discussion we're on now is a Weapon with a hand guard. Does the BoW have limitations on hand guard size or placement? Does it say you can't have a hand guard on a staff? What are the specifications for hand guards in the BoW?

Hand-guards can't be enormous because it's an obvious attempt to gain advantage by creative interpretation of the rules.

We're not saying the hand guard needs to be enormous, we've determine that it needs to be under 12 inches or risk being interpreted as a Shield. Calling a Handguard a shield if/when it is clearly disqualified from being a shield (due to rule 2.4) is an obvious attempt to gain advantage by creative interpretation of the rules.

2.4. The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.

By the BoW if the guard is under 12 inches we will not be talking about a "Madu" (weapon + Shield) but rather a Weapon with a hand guard meaning it can parry other melee weapons but can not block Projectiles, even on the less then 12 inch Guard.

Otherwise all hand guards would be illegal because every weapon with one would be considered a Madu.

[The Great Gigsby]

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged. These rules are intentionally sparse to allow for ease of use. The Marshal, according to these rules, and medieval foam combat precedent, settles all disputes.

You're pretty much on target, Fitz. A hand guard larger than the hand it's intended to cover is a deliberate attempt to cheese the rules and defy precedence. If I'm checking weapons, I'll probably fail it.

Belegarth doesn't allow madus. The closest you'll get is holding a weapon in your shield hand. Lots of folks do this. It has it's advantages and disadvantages.

[Cyric]

A rule specifically for "Shields and Bucklers" has no bearing what so ever on a weapon or it's component parts. You can't project the rules for Shields onto Weapons as you are attempting to do with handguards.

As has been shown by the rule stating that a Shield must have a dimension of 12 inches to be a shield ANY "handgard" with a dimension less the 12 inches is NOT a shield. If it is not a shield then the rules for shields have no bearing on it.

If the item in question, such as a madu, is a combination of a shield and a weapon, the shield and buckler rule most certainly applies.

Like i said before, if it's bigger than 12 inches, it's trying a shield. if it's smaller, then it's legal.

I have a pair of lacrosse gloves that i use, and they are in no way even close to offering me the same protection an 11 inch hand guard would. they add maybe an inch at most to the size of my hand, and stop at my wrist. They are very similar in size to the mma gloves that are pervasive throughout the sport, so you guys can stop that argument right now.

[Tiercel]

Madu.

[Cyric]

Madu.

Crossguard.



Handguard.

It should be pointed out that the way a madu is wielded does differ it from a sword.

[No'Vak]

If you build it as a weapon with a big hand guard it would have to conform to the double ended weapon rules, most notably:

Quote:
1.4.6.2. Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of this weapon must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.

Just wondering what you meant by this. Although I may be reading this wrong because I just got off work a bit ago.

And, thanks for the lulz guys.

[Cyric]

meaning that the madu part would technically be a double ended weapon, so would have length and padding requirements as such.

[No'Vak]

meaning that the madu part would technically be a double ended weapon, so would have length and padding requirements as such.

I was stuck on the sentence about handguard lol, thanks for the reply.

[Squire Moxk]

If the item in question, such as a madu, is a combination of a shield and a weapon, the shield and buckler rule most certainly applies.

Like i said before, if it's bigger than 12 inches, it's trying a shield. if it's smaller, then it's legal.

I think we are just going to have to disagree about this one. I don't think it needs to be 12 inches in diameter to be intentionally against the spirit of the rules. Which would make it fall under rule 1.4.

[Cyric]

I'm not saying it's against the spirit of the rules to have a big hand guard, but it is legal under the way the rules are currently written.

[Forkbeard]

If you built the madu type weapon, with a really big handguard, you would be intending to use it as a shield. Illegal!
Evwn if you never block arrows with it, you're still using it as a shield against hand weapons, but it is not destroyable by red weapons. Illegal!
Since the weapon was purposly built this way, I would not accept your nonsense agruing. I would quote rule 1.4 to you and tell you to stop being a * and trying to take advantage of the rules.
However, thsi is a viable, legal weapon in other games, so make one and go play them, like I said.
In the end, they are stupid weapons. They don't work very well as either a shield or a weapon. I've never fought some one who wasn't better off using regular weapons. I think the only time I've ever been killed by one was a sneaky stab with a long one in a big group fight. In the SCA, they are pitifuly easy to defeat as you can hit people in the face.
We are not going to change any of the rules to allow these.

[Soo Ma Tai]

"I would say there are a lot rules to making them illegal, but no real good reason. If you want to say they are unsafe, then fine say they are unsafe and tell me why, but a rule isn't a reason."

There was once a time in Dag/Bel, when shields could be offensive as well as defensive. They could have shield spikes which caused wounds. There was much sluffing and arguements as to which hits were good and which were just shield bashes. It was determined at this time that shields being used as weapons was a bad idea, due to confusion over hits, etc.. WC determined that shields would only be defensive and weapons offensive, and that the two concepts could not be combined into one item. This is why the Madu is illegal in Bel and will remain that way.

[randy]

What if I made a middle madu, but didnt add the shield? I simply use the core of the weapon as a handle and the virtual handguard allows me to still punch block. Would that be legal?

BTW Cheese, I have a middle madu ill bring it for Battle of the Rings. Ill also try and make what im talking about here as a demo.

[Arrakis]

Do you mean, a very short quarterstaff? As long as it follows the rules for double-ended weapons, you're golden. Thomas from Dun Abhon made something similar a while back.

[randy]

Do you mean, a very short quarterstaff? As long as it follows the rules for double-ended weapons, you're golden. Thomas from Dun Abhon made something similar a while back.

Yep thats exactly what I was thinking. if you really wanted to, you could put a small hand-guard on there for posterity... middle madu's are fun, but why not just fight with a dagger offhand?