Quarterstaff (Double ended weapon)

[bowen]

2 questions regarding double ended weapons

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) Does this mean that non-stabbing Double-ended Weapons are not legal?

2) Can a Double-ended Weapon's striking surface cover the entire weapon? Or must there actually be a handle in the middle?

[Kyrax]

1) Does this mean that non-stabbing Double-ended Weapons are not legal?

2) Can a Double-ended Weapon's striking surface cover the entire weapon? Or must there actually be a handle in the middle?

1) No - both ends must be Class 3 legal or neither end can pass as Class 3 (stabbing).

2) Yes, there is a minimum amount of striking surface listed, but there is no maximum. Having all of it padded is good, as that lessens the chances of hafting a person.

[Kegg]

Might have to disagree Kyrax, you are not allowed to hold the striking surface of your weapon against your body (even hands), as that could be considered anvilling.

[Freyson]

Umm going to have to disagree with you there Kegg. There is no rule about holding your own weapon. The applicable rules are:

3.1.5. Hand(s) ? Area below the wrist (exclusive). An empty Hand is a legal Target Area. A Hand on a Weapon is considered part of that Weapon.

This would mean that a hand on a weapon would not be anvilling, but would be considered part of that weapon.

3.7.5. Gripping the striking surface of an opponents Weapon results in the disabling of that limb.

This would not apply since in this case the person would be grabbing their own weapon.

3.7.3. Blocking a Weapon strike by laying a Weapon against a Target Area and/or Shield is illegal.

This is the anvilling rule. It would not apply since the person is not laying a weapon across a target area to block a weapon strike, they are holding a weapon to wield it. A person laying the weapon across a target area to block a strike would violate this rule. Holding a weapon, by whatever part, to wield it actively is not anvilling, unless of course we wish to start calling all those punch blocks hits.

All together, theses rules come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with holding your own weapon in any way you wish to hold it. Blocking a strike by laying a weapon across the target area is a far cry from swinging

[Kegg]

A couple of counter arguements.

You hold a sword by the handle. You open hand support the striking edge. A blow hits the sword hard.

Your empty hand is a legal target. You are not holding anything with the hand. Sounds like anviling to me.

Apply same to quarter staff.

If striking surface swinging is legal, can I swing a sword by the blade?

[Freyson]

Actively supporting a sword blade to have a more powerful and stable block is different from passively laying a sword across the hand/arm/shield/body to suck a hit. It is the difference between actively using your own weapon to block and passively laying your own weapon across an area so it blocks for you. In your example the wielder is not anvilling by supproting their own weapon, they are actively blocking.

Applied to the staff, holding by the striking surface is not anvilling either. It COULD possibly be considered anvilling if the user was just standing around and someone came up and hit the staff while it was laying across them, but the odds of that are small.

Can you swing ANY sword by the blade? No. You can swing your OWN sword by the blade. As the sole wielder of a weapon you are in control of it and not likely to injure yourself unless you are swinging at yourself. Holding a sword by the blade and swinging the quillions or pommel into an opponent, gripping the sword blade to thrust, and gripping the sword blade to block are all common practices in reality. Anyone can wear a thin pair of leather gloves, grab a sword by the blade, and beat the hell out of a watermelon with no damage to their hand.

The main purpose of the anvilling rule is to stop people from covering themselves in weapon to suck up hits. The secondary reason for the rule was to keep people from laying a weapon across a target area and just walking into hits, letting the weapons passively suck of damage. You cannot be anvilling if you are being acitve with the blocks.

The main reason for loosing a limb by grabbing an opponent's weapon was to stop people from reaching out and blocking with a hand. The second reason was that originally (5-7 years ago??) the rule said 'blade' not 'striking surface. It is much easier to hold on to a foam weapon in a grapple than a real one. The blade would be pulled out of the hand and in reality slice the hand open. The rule was changed to all striking surfaces, but it is still only applied to those instances when a weapon is under contention. There has never been a rule against using your own weapon how you want to use it.

[Kegg]

We probably should move this to a different thread to discuss this further (and let others join in on the conversation). I am ammenable to most of your arguements and may even tend to agree with your interpretation.

I am not sure if everyone else would though.

[Kage]

I have to totally agree with Freyson. I interpreted the rules the same way as he did. The rules don't disallow any one from holding onto the striking surface of his or her own weapon.

The only quesiton that I have had as of late is if two people are in a grapple and one happened to catch the handle of the opponents sword, who is in control, and who can grab the blade? Is it nobody's sword and they both lose an arm, is it that both are in control, or is it still the original weilder's sword still? Off topic for the most part, but something that I had been wondering about because of rule 3.7.5 and 3.1.5

Just a thought

[Kage]

I have to totally agree with Freyson. I interpreted the rules the same way as he did. The rules don't disallow any one from holding onto the striking surface of his or her own weapon.

The only quesiton that I have had as of late is if two people are in a grapple and one happened to catch the handle of the opponents sword, who is in control, and who can grab the blade? Is it nobody's sword and they both lose an arm, is it that both are in control, or is it still the original weilder's sword still? Off topic for the most part, but something that I had been wondering about because of rule 3.7.5 and 3.1.5

Just a thought

[Kage]

I have to totally agree with Freyson. I interpreted the rules the same way as he did. The rules don't disallow any one from holding onto the striking surface of his or her own weapon.

The only quesiton that I have had as of late is if two people are in a grapple and one happened to catch the handle of the opponents sword, who is in control, and who can grab the blade? Is it nobody's sword and they both lose an arm, is it that both are in control, or is it still the original weilder's sword still? Off topic for the most part, but something that I had been wondering about because of rule 3.7.5 and 3.1.5

Just a thought

[Kage]

* Debug Message always makes me do that.

[Thorondor]

The rule was changed to all striking surfaces, but it is still only applied to those instances when a weapon is under contention.

That would be during a grappling match as well as on the field. One person can not have TOTAL control over the weapon, therefore no one can grab the striking surface.

~?~

[Kage]

Thats what I thought but I wasn't sure

[Freyson]

Basically there are 4 possibilities:

1) Fighter A has the weapon by the non-striking surface, fighter B has the weapon by the striking surface. Result - B looses arm.

2) Fighter A and Fighter B are both holding the non-striking surface. Result - 2 guys playing tug o' war.

3) Fighter A and Fighter B both have a grip on the non-striking surface and a grip on the striking surface. Result - Depends on the herald watching, either both loose a limb or neither loose a limb.

4) Fighter A and fighter B both have a grip on the striking surface. Result - Same as #3.

This basically all depends on possession, not ownership. The ?opponent?s? weapon in the rule is the weapon in possession of the opponent, not one lying on the field. The tough stuff comes in when possession is contested or not apparent at the same time as a gripping of the striking surface, like in examples #3 and #4. Originally the rule was applied only to gripping a blade. The reason for this was that there is no way someone can hold onto a sharp blade while someone else was trying to rip it out of their hand. Plus it is infinitely easier to hold onto a compressible piece of 3? wide foam than a real blade. The rule was changed to include all striking surfaces for safety reasons. One guy holding onto a weapon handle and yanking while someone else holds onto the foam and pulls the other way is not too good for the safety of the weapon. It was easier to call someone limbed for gripping the striking surface than to recheck a weapon after a good grapple.

In #3 both have possession of the weapon and neither have possession. Both are holding by a non-striking surface and a striking surface. Even with a sword, in reality both would be moving both hands in such a way that until one of them let loose the hilt there would be little chance of a real injury. I can see why for safety reasons a herald may call both limbed, but if a herald is close enough for that they are close enough to do a quick safety check on the weapon right after.

In #4 both are holding the weapon in a way that neither is able to do much more damage to the other guy?s hand without doing it to their own. Neither can get a good enough grip on a blade, and if it was a club type weapon it wouldn?t matter. Again, it is a safety issue of the foam.

In Southern Marches we grapple quite a bit. It is not uncommon to see a grapple every fight. We usually would not call limbs on #3 and #4. But as soon as the possession was established then the limb would be lost. I would say that these are situational depending on the weapon and reality. Let the herald decide, that?s their job.

[Forkbeard]

I'm with Freyson, also. People should always be able to grab their own weapons anywhere. That looks funny. "I'll grabb my 'weapon' wherever I want."
FB