Checking blues as reds?

[Kenneth]

Eh. Maybe so. I'd like to point out I didn't respond to his first comment - One more time for those of you who have not been listening. Nor did I truly respond to his shortbus or chump comment. I asked him to stick to the points because I don't appreciate personal attacks. I don't mind people arguing with me(Savetuba), bringing up related issues (Skorr), pointing out areas I'm wrong (Magpie), or bringing to my attention non-published rules changes (Olos). I explain things to the best of my ability. Personal attacks though are just rude and serve no purpose. I spend a deal of time and care writing my posts. For somebody to dismiss my argument as being on the shortbus, or call me a chump for doing my best to fairly play the game is just insulting.

I don't like sideline heralds. I dislike swinging when I'm dead, although like most people, I do swing late. I don't want to be the guy who keeps running when I've been double greened in the leg just because the other guy didn't call it. Sideline heralds may be able to see the shot, that doesn't mean I will be able to. I would rather take the shot and drop, or stop and ask than keep moving and be told later I was essentially cheating. I knew a spear hit me in the leg. I'm not going to pretend it just hit my armor and keep going when there is a good chance the other guy had two hands on the spear. It is the same thing for swords. I just don't value winning that much. If I die, so be it. Being called a chump for trying to play by the rules...well...


I'll take your points in reverse order:
Its hard to say if a sword is intended to be used with two hands, even if it does have a big long handle. I have many long handled swords that I swing with one hand and have never swung with two. I assume most people have similar swords. I can fit both of my hands on most blue weapons. I don't want to break anybodies stuff testing it. I don't want to be miserable having every blue swung two handed at my back. I don't want to make my fellow weapon testers miserable by swinging every blue two handed at their back. When I test weapons, I try and give a pretty good swing. Adding two more swings per weapon is just asking for most weapons checkers to quit. There may be quite a few blue weapons that still pass. I don't think I'll like them hitting me though. I also think the 60th blue sword will fail before it even touches my back. STOP! STOP! I FEEL THE AIR PRESSURE, THE WEAPON FAILS.

In terms of precedent, I can't honestly say I know. I have been fighting since before the split, but I certainly was not weapons checking before the split. I highly doubt I had read the manual of arms before then, and I doubt I would have understood the implications. However, I do recall being told that a blue weapon was not to be swung with two hands. Whether that was a right or wrong statement, I can't say. In terms of time frame though, it would be around the split. Again, I can't say with certainty what the original intent was, nor can I say with certainty what the traditional field rule has been. It seems the rule exists in the West also, so it doesn't seem to be just a local rule. I go by what I recall. I will say that if blues were intended to be swung two handed, then logically, they should also be tested with two hands also.

Personally, I don't really care about the single blue being swung two handed issue, except when it logically implies that blue weapons should be tested with two hands (As Freyson argued). Seemingly as I can't really argue the full force definition (after all, we check all reds two hands against the back), I'm left with arguing against using two hands on a single blue. Fortunately, there is an argument the way the rules are written now. Do I think we will see lots of arrow/spears on the field? Not really. Then again, I never thought I would see the red flail of doom, or the final fantasy sword that had a grip in the middle of the blade either. People are...inventive.

In terms of the rewrite, from what I recall, it was pretty much a fast job. Kegg went through the Manual of Arms and flat out rewrote it to avoid copyright issues. At some point, I think it becomes hard to mean the same thing without sounding almost exactly like the MoA, and we just didn't want to be sued.

In terms of a clean up...I'd love one. Looking at how the war council operates though, I doubt that will happen. There is a significant voting block that does not seem to vote. There is also a pretty strong "Do not touch" mentality when it comes to the Book of War that is not entirely deserved given its recent age. I remember arguing years ago with a guy named Fading Colors. Everybody hated the guy and thought he was wrong, but it turns out he was right (In my mind). The way the rules were(still are?) worded, it was possible to have super thin leather armor with a single washer in it pass as armor.

-Kenneth

[Oisin]

Ah, I hadn't dug through the whole thread to see that Forkbeard was taking shots at you, so yeah, I can see why you reacted that way. Appologies.

At this point, I don't really have anything more to say because I think that most or all of what's worth saying has been said. I guess it really comes down to, what do we want to do/allow? Since I don't use blues two handed, and don't really care if others do, I'll abstain.

Edit: I think I might be wrong about the last part of what I wrote here. I've remove it until I can check myself . . . about the copyrightablity of sport/game rules, if anyone else wants to look. I don't believe you can copyright the rules anymore. The form of publication or even the for-profit distribution, perhaps, but not the actual rules. Also, how would Belegarth's status as a non-profit organization effect the application of said laws? I'm not a copyright lawyer, I don't really know anything about this.

[Elebrim]

Safety, Playability, Realism.

If something can be done legally, then provisions should be kept in place to ensure it is safe. I say do a provisional two-handed check on blues if they have a long enough handle for it; they should pass, and if not then the weapon probably needs to be re-bladed anyway.

If we really wanted to get specific, we could vary the markings to show which blues are safe for two-handed use and which aren't, but in the grand melee this would probably amount to squat unless a hold was called.

[Olos]

And the argument for extra hits is pretty well null. If you can fit two hands on it, you could start with the 2 hand swings, and if it passes hit test for that, it will pass for one handed.

[Forkbeard]

First, I'm like this in real life, ask anyone.
Look, I'm done. We just keep repeating the same **** back at each other with me getting more insulting the more times I repeat myself.
I know where this is going for me, so unless something worth arguing about comes up, I'm out.
FB

[savetuba]

It has been a few months and people have had the time to absorb the info presented here. I have picked out several points that people have made.

I have also added those whose agree with the original question; should long handled blues be checked for two handed swings. Reason: safety.

Freyson
Chicken
Faolan
Melannen
Soo Ma Tai
Aidoann Fvctvlike
Elebrim
Olos

(if I have assumed wrong please let me know)



Freyson
ap1.3.1. All striking surfaces of Weapons must be padded adequately to prevent personal injury when striking an opponent with full force on that surface.
It is much easier for most people to get more force swinging with two hands than with one. All weapons need to be tested FULL FORCE. That means if you can get two hands on it, you check it with a two handed swing.


Chicken
What I think is stupid and unsafe is the idea of some n00b taking the field with a single blue/green long-hilted longsword held in two hands for armor-piercing stabbing but which isn't padded safely for two-handed swinging. What are the odds that they're actually going to always take one hand off before swinging when someone runs up and startles them?
Almost all of my swords have a long enough handle to be used two-handed, and I'll occasionally use them that way when fighting single blue for the extra strength and improved defense. I certainly expect them to be tested two-handed, just as that I expect that if I pick up a long-handled blue off the field I should be able to wield it safely in both hands.

Faolan
If a weapon can't be used in any practical manner then it doesn't pass. (ie. I wouldn't pass a dagger if it couldn't be used two handed)

Melannen
Many single blue fighting styles depend on using 2 hands in order to execute successful blocks and parrys. I agree that certain blues should be tested as two handed weapons. Obviously, if you have a 12 in blue "knife" that's not stabbing, you need to test it 2 handed for it would be near impossible to use with two hands anyway. However, as big jimmy stated, many people prefer to have long handles on their blue swords in order to have some extra length on their sword while cutting down on weight. I personally like to have the option of using the blue with one hand or two.
should blues be tested as if they were going to be used as a red? Yes, I agree with the thinking that a weapon should be tested as if it were going to be used in the most painful way (aside from flat, haft, or handle) the weapon could strike. If this includes the weapon being used with two hands, then it should be tested as such.

Forkbeard
This is not an issue. It's a myth made up god knows where and propogated by some people in the west and maybe elsewhere.
Look at those Edhellen weapons again.
A blue sword is made with the same solid 1/2" core as the red sword. It has exactly the same padding in exactly the same proportions. I see tons of them on the feild. I use them pretty much exclusively. So does about everyone I know. They are inspected nearly the same way.
How can the short one with less leverage and mass possibly be more dangerous than the longer heaveir one?
It can't. no issue.

Soo Ma Tai
Weapons should be tested for safety and blue weapons should be tested for two handed use
Forkbeard is right, from what I can tell, this is a western issue for the most part, and I don't have any idea who came up with this policy but it needs to stop.

Aidoann Fvctvlike
If the handle is long enough to get two hands on it, check it with a two-handed swing. Simple as that.

Kenneth
the rules typically indicate when "downgrades" are permitted, which modify the original weapon definition. For example, rule 3.2.2.1 indicates that a red weapon may be used as a blue. Rule 1.4.7 states javelins must also pass as a class 3 weapon. The implication is that javelins may be used as a class 3 weapon also.
However, nowhere do the rules state you may use two hands on a one-handed swung weapon. In other words, the rules set forth specific situations when downgrades are allowed, but I don't believe they set forth specific situations when "upgrades" such as blue to red are allowed. The implication is that "upgrades" are not allowed unless they are specifically set forth in the rules. There is no specific rule that permits using two hands on a one-handed weapon. Therefore, it should be disallowed.
Most blues are not long enough, nor heavy enough to be reds. Thus, they violate both rules 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2. I should test a blue as a red anyways? I may as well test all blues as greens. That actually results in zero rule violations, and is just as likely to occur as swinging a blue with two hands.
Full force should be tested the way the weapon was intended to be used. Swinging a blue with two hands is not the intended use of a blue because the weapon does not meet the specifications of being a red in the first place.
#1. You may not use a weapon in a way it is not intended.
-You can't swing an arrow like a sword, you can't throw a sword like a rock.
#2. A weapon that has a handle long enough to fit two hands on is not automatically a class 2 weapon.
-There are additional requirements to be a class 2 weapon, specifically length and weight. If the weapon is too light or too short, it is a class 1 weapon regardless of how many hands can fit on the sword.
#3. A class 1 weapon is intended to be swung with one hand.
#4. You test "full force" the way the weapon was intended to be used.
4. No, because you're making an illegal swing with two hands on the class 1 sword. Just like it is illegal to stab with an arrow. The definition of a class 1 weapon is a one-handed swung weapon, just like the definition of an arrow is a missile weapon. You don't test arrows for stabbing, why should you test a class 1 for a two handed swing.

Olos
Your whole argument hinges on whether or not it is legal to swing a blue with 2 hands, and even though there is no specific rule for it, there is no specific rule against it either, so we are left to interpret.

Skorr
f you would like your blue weapon to be checked for 2 handed striking, then it should be checked as an exception, not the rule.
But some weapons, for example the standard Edhellen equipment, is perfectly safe for two handed swinging (counting of course only for blue damage) but should be requested to be checked accordingly and marked as such for people other than the owner.

Kenneth
At this point, there has been enough evidence cited that the rules should be interpreted as disallowing swinging a blue weapon with two hands.
I can't cite a rule that allows me to use a blue with two hands.

Forkbeard
Blue swords blades and red sword blades are the same. Made of the same materials.
The blue has less mas and leverage, so can't ever hit as hard.
There isn't a rule against it.
I grip my blue sword in booth hands to get a stronger block, stop the glaive short and slide up the haft and kill the guy, keeping both hands on my sword the whole time.

Kenneth
The fact that some swords are essentially the same does not make all swords the same. I've seen many different weapons.
A weapon may be less safe than other weapons, but still be safe enough to use on the field. I see no reason to subject those weapons to a higher weapons checking standard they are not designed to meet in the first place.

Forkbeard
My argument is that blues don't need to be checked as reds. I have never seen this done and never expect to. It isn't neccesary.
This whole thing isn't an issue. It fine to hit somebody with 2 hands on a blue sword. I could cause no problems with safety or playability and it's historic.

Oisin
Dagorhir: the relevant rule from their Manual of Arms reads, "3.2.2.1. Blue weapons: Weapons marked with blue tape are one handed hacking and smashing weapons and cannot be considered a red weapon even when used with two hands." This clearly states the legality of using blue weapons two handed, but only for blue damage.
This is probably a question for those with more experience in weapons making and checking, but IMHO, all blue swords with big long handles that are obviously intended to be usable by two hands should be.

Elebrim
Safety, Playability, Realism.
If something can be done legally, then provisions should be kept in place to ensure it is safe. I say do a provisional two-handed check on blues if they have a long enough handle for it; they should pass, and if not then the weapon probably needs to be re-bladed anyway.

Olos
the argument for extra hits is pretty well null. If you can fit two hands on it, you could start with the 2 hand swings, and if it passes hit test for that, it will pass for one handed.


In a few of these points people have admitted to using blue weapons 2 handed but think they are safe even though they were not tested to be used in such manner.

[Oisin]

I suppose it might be relevent to add that my argument comes from precedent, aka, that our rules are basically a rewrite of theirs, and that most of our patterns of use and ruling have been inherited from when Belegarth was all a part of Dag.

[Forkbeard]

WHy would you bring this dead horse back out? Do you just want us to beat it some more, or what?
FB

[Peregrine]

dead horse was brought bake out In late Feb. this is April whose beating what??

[Forkbeard]

Sorry, my bad. I read that wrong. I thought it was March 27th. My internet has been down. Trying to catch up, ya know.
FB