Belegarth
http://board.belegarth.com/

Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)
http://board.belegarth.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42088
Page 1 of 1

Author:  MurphyTheDerpy [ Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

I attended a build night with a few friends from our university's realm and someone brought up an interesting weapon idea. A chakram, now we would have classified it as a rock and just make a foam frisbee without a center. But then I asked, "what if it could be used as a slashing weapon?" Then we started debating about crescent moon blades and their legality. The head of our realm said he wasn't sure so I decided to ask on here. The intended shape of the weapons would be similar to this
Image.
If the weapon is legal I'm hoping to use something like this for a core. And then dap and wrap it twice or thrice. To get a good grip on it I was thinking maybe drilling a hole into the wood ends and slotting through a piece of fiberglass core.
The weapon would be intended for practice only as a means to help train blocking and speed.

Author:  zimboptoo [ Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

My guess is that it would get failed as a punching weapon. While you may intend it only to be used for "slashing", it's generally accepted that a weapon has to be safe when wielded by anyone, not just as intended by the original designer. And realistically, it would be very difficult to get a hit of significant force just by slashing with this, since it can basically only make draw cuts. So I think even you would be tempted to punch with it.

Of course, if you only ever use it for "practice" then you don't have to convince a weapon checker, just the other people in your realm. But if you really want to train blocking, it's probably best to practice with weapons that you'll actually use.

If you want something that gives you similar defensive size and speed, I would suggest making a punch buckler (essentially a min size (12" diameter) punch shield). They're absurdly light and maneuverable, and make great practice for proactively blocking shots. Pair that with a stabby-tipped short sword and you've got a fairly similar level of speed and close-up capability, without the potential for accidentally punching someone in the face.

Author:  MurphyTheDerpy [ Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

Well that's a shame ._.' Would I still be able to try making a coreless chakram and treat it as a rock at least?

Author:  Tails [ Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

Fails as blue for the above mentioned punching. Would pass as rock, so long as it conforms to all the rock rules.

Author:  MurphyTheDerpy [ Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

Someone said it needs to measure to at least two inches all around...It's a bad idea as a Frisbee rock too ^.^'

Author:  Thurat [ Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

Book of War wrote:
1.4.9. Class 5 Weapons have a minimum diameter of 4 inches (10 cm) and are constructed entirely of foam, cloth and tape (coreless).


The BoW does not explicitly state that rocks must be 4" in diameter on all axis, only that they must have a diameter of 4". I've seen "throwing axe" rocks before that were constructed similarly to the weapons you're wanting to make. They were just cloth shaped like axes, stuffed with batting or some other soft filling. A similar design might work for you.

Author:  timff8 [ Sun May 03, 2015 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

The experimental weapons faq said throwing axes and the like shouldn't be used because they make rocks uncompetitive - "2.Game balance with rocks. If you can make a throwing dagger, rocks become useless. And without a significant construction difference, this problem won’t go away. (If you do add a construction difference, you get safety concerns.) "
it's from here -
http://wiki.belegarth.com/Experimental_Weapons_FAQ

I have no idea how canon that is though.

Author:  zimboptoo [ Sun May 03, 2015 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

timff8 wrote:
The experimental weapons faq said throwing axes and the like shouldn't be used because they make rocks uncompetitive - "2.Game balance with rocks. If you can make a throwing dagger, rocks become useless. And without a significant construction difference, this problem won’t go away. (If you do add a construction difference, you get safety concerns.)"


Your quote is out-of-context. The page you linked to is NOT arguing that throwing axes/daggers/chakrams shouldn't be used as rocks, it's just explaining why they are counted the same as rocks (don't pierce armor, only damage the head) rather than being their own category.

Thurat wrote:
The BoW does not explicitly state that rocks must be 4" in diameter on all axis, only that they must have a diameter of 4". I've seen "throwing axe" rocks before that were constructed similarly to the weapons you're wanting to make. They were just cloth shaped like axes, stuffed with batting or some other soft filling. A similar design might work for you.


On the other hand, "diameter" implies it's circular/spherical, which in turn implies at least two axes (although not necessarily 3). It would be nice if the rules were more explicit, though. The wording for flail heads, which specifies two axes and uses circumference rather than diameter, is better.

Author:  timff8 [ Mon May 04, 2015 12:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Half chakrams as blues? (legality and practicality)

Oh okay my mistake; the phrase "built as a rock" led me to assume using a non-spherical shape was taboo.
Clearing up the shape would be nice, yeah; has an event ever failed rocks shaped like Frisbees to anyone's knowledge?

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/