Checking blues as reds?

[savetuba]

having 2 hands on a weapon checked as a "blue" weapon isn't safe to use two hands on in combat. They're not padded or checked to be used in such a manner...if others did use 2 hands on their weapon during the tourny i didn't notice and i haven't watched the whole video so i could be wrong...but our heralds really try to do their job. Anyway at Choas wars atleast (where i weapon's check and herald) we don't pass blue weapons to be used with 2 hands on them...

hope that helps

Elwrath

Now I do remember in many battles people using blues with 2 hands. In fact if you look closly in Tasis's Videos you will see a few people using a blue with 2 hands. (one reference is 8:56 far left till 8:59 on Belegarth CWX Banner Battles Part 2. someone seems to be using 2 hands on a blue)

My question is: Should we check all blue weapons for use with 2 hands? Requirments being if the handle appeared to have room for 2 hands, if it was more than a blue, and if the blade was a certain length. OR we test all blue weapons for 2 handed uses.

[Olos]

shouldn't really be that big of a problem unless people are doing full force red swings with them, which shouldnt really be happening.

[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.

shouldn't really be that big of a problem unless people are doing full force red swings with them, which shouldnt really be happening.

This in not some tap game. This is a full contact game with swings coming full force. Full force swings should be the standard, not some rare occurence. All weapons should be tested for safety at the extremes since opponent movement adds force to many hits. A questionable one handed hit from a weapon checker standing still will likely injure someone running into the blow on the field.

It is actually pretty simple. If someone gets injured from a legal hit, no matter how hard, the weapon checker failed and that weapon should not have been passed. (On field weapon berakdown is another matter.) All those people who state they can break bones with a passed wepon are just proving the incompetence of their weapon checkers.

[Olos]

Well, there is currently a rule that says you can't use a blue weapon 2 handed (wasn't it just changed to this in the past few years?), so people shouldn't be swinging them 2 handed in the first place.

Doesnt really matter that much to me though, when I get a new guy out, if they are a little cautious, I have them do a full force baseball swing across my back, and all of my swords have felt fine doing that.

[savetuba]

Well, there is currently a rule that says you can't use a blue weapon 2 handed (wasn't it just changed to this in the past few years?), so people shouldn't be swinging them 2 handed in the first place.

3.2.2.1. Class 1 (one-handed) Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area. Any Weapon swung with one hand no matter the size is a Class 1 Weapon, including equipment that qualifies as Class 2 Weaponry.

That is the only rule in the entire BOW that deals with hands on a weapon.

Images from Edhellen:

I'm assuming the far left swords arn't 48 inches. (about 36 inches I would assume)

Now because the sword on the far left has room for 2 hands it has a chance of being used with 2 hands. Though it is blue should it be checked like a red is?

[Olos]

I had thought there was a rule stating you couldn't use a weapon shorter than 48" with 2 hands, regardless of handle length.

I really really need to read through the BOW a couple times one of these days, but I never have the time to read the whole thing.

[Peregrine]

I had thought there was a rule stating you couldn't use a weapon shorter than 48" with 2 hands, regardless of handle length.

I really really need to read through the BOW a couple times one of these days, but I never have the time to read the whole thing.

No, more posting for you, till you read the book of war.

[Olos]

Gah, what else am I gonna do while at work?

Besides, I fully understand the most important rule in the BOW

[Olos]

Ok, I read the BOW, was a little slow there for a bit

I could have sworn that it was a rule that you could only use 1 hand on a blue weapon, but maybe it was just a realm specific thing?

[debuenzo]

i really like that rule
blues should only be wielded single handedly in my opinion

[savetuba]

then what about blue green? if you can only use 1 hand on blue weapons then having a blue green sword is out of the question.

[debuenzo]

when doing green damage, you could wield it two handed

i basically meant blue weapons while swung should only ever be one handed....
if it also classifies as green, then you can wield it as such (like a punch dagger)
most green weapons are checked w/ both one and two hands anyhow

[savetuba]

but is there enough support for a new 'one hand on blue weapons only' rule? Then there is the issue of those who grab their own blade on a blue. Could it be inturperted as that is illegal?

[Chicken]

I see no reason to ban two-handed blue fighting. I agree with Freyson, though - blues with long handles should be checked two-handed. Personally, I don't crank a two-handed blue as hard as I might a red in testing because that's quite unlikely to be how it's used, but I do always check them with two hands after it passes a hard swing with one hand.

Also, the idea of something being two-hand legal for stabbing but only one hand legal for swinging is stupid and unsafe.

[debuenzo]

Also, the idea of something being two-hand legal for stabbing but only one hand legal for swinging is stupid and unsafe.

what do you mean by that?

[Olos]

Also, the idea of something being two-hand legal for stabbing but only one hand legal for swinging is stupid and unsafe.

what do you mean by that?

saying "ok, you can use this with 2 hands to stab someone, but not to swing at someone with" does sound kinda stupid, but I don't totally know about "unsafe"

[Cyric]

Also, the idea of something being two-hand legal for stabbing but only one hand legal for swinging is stupid and unsafe.

Not checking any stabbing weapon for 2 handed use is stupid and unsafe. Every stabbing weapon should be checked for two handed use. Otherwise, it won't be of any use against armor.

[Chicken]

Also, the idea of something being two-hand legal for stabbing but only one hand legal for swinging is stupid and unsafe.

Not checking any stabbing weapon for 2 handed use is stupid and unsafe. Every stabbing weapon should be checked for two handed use. Otherwise, it won't be of any use against armor.

I agree completely, all stabbing weapons should be tested two handed if it's reasonably possible to use them that way (though that's not to say that a short sword needs to be tested the same as a spear, but that's another debate). 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?

If two-handed blue swinging were banned and not tested-for, I think you'd have to ban double-green stabbing with a blue as well to avoid that situation, thus making stabbing swords even more rare than now, which is hardly a good thing. It would also take away a perfectly historical fighting style.

If you don't think your weapon is safe to be swung in two hands, have a short handle and you're set. Since it's entirely optional, I see no reason why it shouldn't face a more rigorous testing standard and, if still safe, be allowed on the field.

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]

I think blues should be allowed to be used two-handed.

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)

If a weapon does not have efficient padding to be used with full force then it should be considered a safety hazard and not allowed on the field. Most people will agree that some crazy * happens; why not eliminate some of those situations?

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.

Freyson makes a very good point.

[savetuba]

so from now on should weapon checkers check all blues that have long handles with 2 hands? Or should their be a rule made?

[Big King Jimmy]

Just a quick thought about this....

Let's say a sword has a handle for one hand, then a single layer of haft padding the size of a second hand, then the blade starts from there. I could see a new fighter picking that up and trying to swing it too handed. Any thoughts on this.

I like longer handles, to get maximum length while cutting weight. While thinking of a workaround, I thought of just turning that into haft padding. But then I thought of this.

[debuenzo]

im not saying that the weapon would be unsafe while wielded w/ two hands....i just think that it's easier for the person being hit to determine what damage they are taking
i usually think two hands= red
one hand = blue

[savetuba]

true, but most weapons are marked in a very visable place wether they are blue or red. That and most red users shout 2 or red when they hit someone so there isn't any confusion.

However, in the thick of battle when someone hits you, do you take the time to look to see what weapon hit you? Or do you assume it was a blue and continue on?

[Mercer]

Unless it's called (or absolutely obvious, as in it's a massive sword or glaive), it's blue.

[Sir_Mel]

I agree that if a blue is only tested as a one handed weapon it is unsafe to be used with two hands. However, I don't think we should completely rule out the use of blues with 2 hands. 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.
So, should you only be allowed to use blue swords one handed? I don't think so. However, 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.

Later

[debuenzo]

very well, i change my opinions due to all the above statements

[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.
There never has been a rule about using blue weapons in one hand. It's a rumor thats gotten out of control.
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.
FB

[Soo Ma Tai]

Blue weapons can be used two handed, there is no rule that says otherwise, and the only place I have ever seen any such policy enforced is at western events. Weapons should be tested for safety and blue weapons should be tested for two handed use. I can use a standard edhellen long sword two handed no prob. 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.

[Squire Moxk]

i think you guys are being overly periniod a red sword is offten padded more than a blue because it has more mass and greater leverage to it than a blue sword not because it is swung two handed.

[Kenneth]

*Summary of argument provided in next post if this one is TLDR*
To the best of my knowledge, the rule against using two hands on a blue weapon is not just an isolated phenomena of the West. I am fairly certain Numenor also interprets the rules in this way. I am also fairly certain most national weapons checkers in the Midwest-central region interpret the rules in this way because most weapons checkers in this area only test blue weapons one handed.

Even if the rules were to technically permit a blue weapon to be swung with two hands, this may be the case of a regional unwritten rule creeping in, similar to the magic switch rule.

Personally, I don't think this is an unwritten rule. I admit, the rules are always subject to interpretation. However, the interpretation that a blue may be used and checked as a red just doesn't make sense. It seems to be just like saying a rock can be used as a red, or a blue can be used as an arrow just because it is feasible to use them as such.

I think I understand where the "rule" came from.

Here is my reading of the rules:
Rule- 2.1.1. (Class 1) One-handed swung Weapon.
Rule- 2.1.2. (Class 2) Two-handed swung Weapon.
Rule- 3.2.2.1. Class 1 (one-handed) Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area. ***Any Weapon swung with one hand no matter the size is a Class 1 Weapon, including equipment that qualifies as Class 2 Weaponry.***


For the sake of simplicity, class 1= blue, class 2=red.

Thus, a blue weapon is defined as being swung by one hand(2.1.1) and a red weapon is a two-handed swung weapon (2.1.2). To be a blue weapon, you must meet certain specifications, namely those of section 1.4.1. To be a red weapon, you must meet different specifications, namely those of 1.4.2. You test a blue weapon to "full force" as it is defined. In other words, the full force of a one-handed swing. You test a red weapon to a full force swing, but the red weapon is defined as a two-handed swing. Hence, you test a red weapon with full force using two hands.

Further, 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. Similarly, rule 1.4.3.1 implies a class 3 weapon MAY be other classes also. I.E. A sword may have a stabbing tip.

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.

Intuitively, this makes sense. Suppose I were to make a sword that passed the requirements of being a class 4 missile weapon's arrow. This appears to be technically possible. I don't think anybody would actually permit me to shoot the sword/arrow at someone. As a second example, suppose I were to make a rock that was actually a red weapon. Although it would be difficult to meet a few of the requirements, it does appear to be technically feasible. I don't think anyone will let me both throw my rock at someone's head, and be allowed to swing at them as a red weapon.

If even these examples where the weapon meets both specifications are not allowed, why would people test a weapon that does NOT meet the weapon category specifications? A blue weapon does not pass red weapon requirements. It is not long enough. That's just like testing a rock as a red. A rock does not meet the requirements of being a red. A rock is defined as a "head only missile weapon", just like a blue weapon is defined as a "one-handed swung weapon." That apparently doesn't matter. I CAN put both hands on a rock. I can swing a rock. It is a feasible way to use a rock. Of course, since I'm testing to red specifications, I'd be taking a two handed swing at somebody's face with a rock. The previous usage of "full force" seems to say this is how we should test rocks.

As a similar example, I can use a blue weapon as an arrow. It does not seem to matter the blue weapon is defined as a blue weapon, and it also does not seem to matter the blue weapon does not meet the specifications of an arrow. As long as I can feasibly use the blue weapon as an arrow, I should test it as an arrow. The blue weapon fails the requirements of being an arrow, therefore the weapon fails.

The posts above my post seem to be calling for a weapon to be tested for any standard the weapon can even feasibly be used as, even if the weapon does not meet the rest of the specifications of the weapon category. 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. Well heck, I could fail almost every weapon on the national field that way.

The key is this- 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. It is just like double-green hit testing with an arrow, both in failing to conform to the weapon specifications, and in failing to conform with the intended usage of the weapon (to be shot by a bow).

Testing a weapon to specifications it does not match in the first place just because it is feasible is strange. If I was supposed to test every blue weapon that could be swung with two hands as a red on the hit test, then I've also been completely remiss in testing every blue weapon as a double green.

My interpretation of the rules may not be correct, but it certainly seems to be a reasonable interpretation of them.

-Kenneth

[Kenneth]

Summary of the above post:

#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.
-Rule 2.1.1: One-Handed swung Weapon. Otherwise, a class one weapon could also be fired as a missile weapon. Unlike other classes(2->1; 3->1,2; or 4->3), there are no rules that permit a class one weapon to be swung as a class two weapon.

#4. You test "full force" the way the weapon was intended to be used.
-I don't think anybody wants to test arrows for "double green".

From the four points above, it follows that class 1 weapons should be tested with one hand, not two.

-Kenneth

[savetuba]

You test "full force" the way the weapon was intended to be used.

so if I built a "blue" weapon with a 12" handle so that I can use it with two hands if I choose to. It is intended to be used with 2 hands, thus having more tork in the swing, but only meets the blue standards.

It is then tested as a blue only and durring some battle I use two hands to swing it and the weapon hurts someone. Then what?

The issue is for safety; should a blue with room for 2 hands be tested for a full force strike?

[Kenneth]

No, because a full force strike should be tested the way the weapon was objectively intended to be used.

Logically, the argument you just made is as such:
1. I build an arrow that I can fit two hands onto if I choose to.
2. The weapon is intended to be used with 2 hands, thus being able to double green, but only meets arrow standards.
3. If it is tested as an arrow only and during some battle I use two hands and swing it and the weapon hurts someone. Then what?

4. The issue is for safety; should an arrow with room for 2 hands be tested with a full force strike
------------------------------------------

Here are the problems with the above argument:
1. Just because you can fit two hands onto an arrow does not mean you can use it as a spear. The arrow fails as a spear. (Summary point #2).
2. You can intend the weapon to be used in any way you want, that doesn't mean that is how the weapon is truly intended to be used. An arrow is to be shot from a bow, not stabbed with. (Summary point #3).
3. It was tested as an arrow because that's all the weapon is. An arrow. It isn't a spear. You want me to test and fail weapons for things they don't pass as? (Summary point #1).

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. You are advocating testing and failing weapons for not meeting specifications the weapon is not supposed to meet in the first place.

The solution is simple. People don't stab with swords because they are not certain a weapon has been passed as a green. It is possible blue weapons are greens. It is not possible a blue weapon is a red. Red weapons having the capability of being swung as blue does not mean blue weapons have the capability of being swung as red. There is a specific rule that allows red weapons to be swung as blue. There is no such rule that allows blue weapons to be swung as red. Stop swinging blues with two hands, just like you don't stab with blue only swords.

You can't just take one point and ignore the other three points. What you did was take point four, but ignored points one, two, and three.
-Kenneth

[Olos]

No, because a full force strike should be tested the way the weapon was objectively intended to be used.

Logically, the argument you just made is as such:
1. I build an arrow that I can fit two hands onto if I choose to.
2. The weapon is intended to be used with 2 hands, thus being able to double green, but only meets arrow standards.
3. If it is tested as an arrow only and during some battle I use two hands and swing it and the weapon hurts someone. Then what?

4. The issue is for safety; should an arrow with room for 2 hands be tested with a full force strike
------------------------------------------

Here are the problems with the above argument:
1. Just because you can fit two hands onto an arrow does not mean you can use it as a spear. The arrow fails as a spear. (Summary point #2).
2. You can intend the weapon to be used in any way you want, that doesn't mean that is how the weapon is truly intended to be used. An arrow is to be shot from a bow, not stabbed with. (Summary point #3).
3. It was tested as an arrow because that's all the weapon is. An arrow. It isn't a spear. You want me to test and fail weapons for things they don't pass as? (Summary point #1).

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. You are advocating testing and failing weapons for not meeting specifications the weapon is not supposed to meet in the first place.

The solution is simple. People don't stab with swords because they are not certain a weapon has been passed as a green. It is possible blue weapons are greens. It is not possible a blue weapon is a red. Red weapons having the capability of being swung as blue does not mean blue weapons have the capability of being swung as red. There is a specific rule that allows red weapons to be swung as blue. There is no such rule that allows blue weapons to be swung as red. Stop swinging blues with two hands, just like you don't stab with blue only swords.

You can't just take one point and ignore the other three points. What you did was take point four, but ignored points one, two, and three.
-Kenneth

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.

Obviously we would not test an arrow for stabbing, or a spear for swinging, as that is strictly prohibited by the rules, but there is no specific rule against use a blue 2 handed.

[Skorr]

Maybe the BOW needs amending on this issue. I think it can be safe for some blue weapons to be swung 2 handed, although counting only for blue damage. If you would like your blue weapon to be checked for 2 handed striking, then it should be checked as an exception, not the rule. I wouldn't want someone checking a graphite or single kitesbar core two handed, and the owner of those weapons would probably not intend for that type of use. 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. Maybe two bands of blue tape instead of one for 2 handed blues? And yes, stabbing weapons should always be assumed to want to pass 2 handed.

[Kenneth]

Olos- I'm showing why you should not interpret the rules the way you are. Each rule I cited added a little bit to the answer.

At this point, there has been enough evidence cited that the rules should be interpreted as disallowing swinging a blue weapon with two hands. See the very long original post. Hence, the burden should now be on the people who say it is legal to swing a blue with two hands to cite me a rule that says it IS legal.

I can cite the rule that says I may use a red with one hand. I can cite the rule that says I may use a blue as a spear. I can cite the section that implies I may stab with a javelin. I can't cite a rule that allows me to use a blue with two hands. What does it imply when there are several rules that create special exceptions in how you may use a weapon? If your usage does not fall within one of the special exceptions, you shouldn't use the weapon in that way.

Find me a rule that strictly prohibits stabbing with an arrow, and I'll show you a rule that strictly prohibits using two hands on a sword.

Skorr-
I'm not sure I see a policy reason behind allowing certain blues with two hands. In my mind there is a playability issue. Suppose I made a "red" weapon that was actually 1 oz. too light. I run around swinging it with two hands. Everybody thinks it is a red. There is no requirement to call my colors. People start dropping their shields after they get hit twice by my "red". That causes a lot of confusion. "No no, it was a blue, pick your stuff back up!" I think this is just a creative way of interpreting the rules that should not be allowed.

If I see somebody swinging a red with one hand, I know it is a blue. If I see someone stabbing with a javelin, I know it is a green. What the heck do I call a sword swung with two hands by a sword that looks long enough? Hang on a second, let me check the tape on the pommel? Should we put in a requirement that people call their colors from the front too? (3.7.2).

-Kenneth

[Forkbeard]

One more time, for those of you who haven't been listening.
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.
It would still only be blue damage.
And
There isn't a rule against it.
Your crazy examples of using swords as arrows and rocks as shields, or whatever, are not only lame, but completely beside the point. Some of them clearly would be unsafe. All of them are too stupid to be actually used.
What we are talking about is not only totally safe, but is the way everyone have always used hand weapons.
For example, after loosing my shield to a glaive, 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.
I'm sure other people have better examples of how this comes up in combat for them.
FB

[Kenneth]

One more time, for those of you who haven't been listening.


Blue swords blades and red sword blades are the same. Made of the same materials.

Weapons made of the same materials are not automatically the same weapons. There are more than a few Edhellen red weapons which have an additional layer of foam on them. Double core Edhellen swords have a slightly deeper cut in the foam. Certain kitespar longswords have a wider cut. Lighter Edhellen swords typically have less padding than heavier Edhellen swords.

Swords from Henneth-Annun have a box of four pound foam around the core, surrounded by two pound foam. They also have a considerably thicker core. The fact that some swords are essentially the same does not make all swords the same. I've seen many different weapons. Some have narrow blades. Some weapons don't flex one bit. Some have stiffer foam. Some have more weight in the tip and less weight in the pommel. Just because blue Edhellen weapons (may) pass to be swung two handed does not mean all weapons of the same type pass. 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.

The blue has less mas and leverage, so can't ever hit as hard.
It would still only be blue damage.

First and second base propositions are false. A blue sword may have more mass than a red sword. A blue sword may also have more "leverage" than a red sword. (A blue sword longer than 48 inches, but under 24 oz). A blue sword MAY have less mass and leverage, but does not necessarily have both less mass or less leverage. More importantly, a blue tip weighted word may both have more mass and more *torque* than a red pommel weighted kitespar sword.


Conclusion is also false. "Hardness of hit" (Potential to cause damage) is not defined solely by mass and leverage. Flex, vibration of core, stiffness of foam, striking surface surface area, striking surface location, and balance point are all factors in how hard a weapon will hit. Some reds hit like pillows, and some blues hit like bricks.

And
There isn't a rule against it.

We disagree. I believe rule 2.1.1 explicitly defines a class one weapon as a one handed swung weapon, not a two handed swung weapon. If you disagree, then there is no rule that explicitly bans arrows from being used as spears.

Your crazy examples of using swords as arrows and rocks as shields, or whatever, are not only lame, but completely beside the point. Some of them clearly would be unsafe. All of them are too stupid to be actually used.

Call them lame or stupid all you want. That doesn't mean people won't use them. I've seen more than a few lame weapons. I've seen more than a few weapons that are too stupid to practically be used on the field. That doesn't mean they are not used.

What we are talking about is not only totally safe, but is the way everyone have always used hand weapons.

False. Most weapons checkers in the Midwest-central region do not check blue weapons with two hands. Further, just because everybody does it does not make it correct. See: Magic switch, which provides an advantage to an armed fighter, and a decided advantage to an armed fighter who happens to be using a punch shield instead of a strap shield.

-Kenneth

[Oisin]

All those people who state they can break bones with a passed wepon are just proving the incompetence of their weapon checkers.

This is not true. My metacarpals were shattered by a normal, legal Edhellen red sword that has passed at numerous events, both local practices and national events. You CAN definately break bones with a legal swing from a legal weapon, it just depends on the physics of the situation, and which bones we're talking about.

[debuenzo]

wouldnt an arrow need a pommel to be a legal green stabbing weapon?

[Magpie Saegar]

A blue sword may also have more "leverage" than a red sword. (A blue sword longer than 48 inches, but under 24 oz).

As far as I can tell, a sword 48 inches or longer MUST be 24 oz or more.

1.4.1.3. With the exception of double-ended weapons, a Class 1 Weapon must be shorter than forty-eight (48) inches.

1.4.2. Class 2 - All Class 2 Weapons must conform to the following:
1.4.2.1. The minimum length is forty-eight (48) inches.
1.4.2.2. The minimum weight is twenty-four (24) ounces.

Not only does this allow no room for 48+ inch weapons weighing less than 24oz, the way weapons are checked at national events follows these rules. If I had a class 2 -length weapon that was class 1 weight.... it would not count as class one, it would fail.


I realize that this does not discredit your entire argument, but it is a point you overlooked. Just thought I'd point it out.

Also, question: (ignoring current Belegarth rules). Historically, one handed swords could be used two handed, right? Safety-wise, (if we require double blue tape) we can check (double) blues for two handed swinging at weapons check. Playability-wise, if it really is an issue, we can require "double blue" attacks to yell "blue" when swinging hard at armor or a shield.

In practice, I don't think I've EVER been hit with or seen anyone hit with a class one weapon (with two hands) in such a way that it could ever be confused as a class two. IF, due to weapon length, the weapon's class is ambiguous while on the battle field, people either A) look at pommel B) ask the fighter or, more often, C) assume it's class I if red is not called.

I realize this is a modification to the rules, which I personally think is pointless in that it only complicates playability, but it is worthwhile since suddenly enforcing one-handed ONLY class I weapons is an even worse complication in historicality and playability. I personally believe that class one weapons were always intended to be ABLE to be used two handed, but that it was just assumed common sense. I obviously have no evidence to this other than the fact that it is not explicitly denied.

[Kenneth]

Whoops, so I missed a rule. Sue me ^_~.

On a more technical point, the original statement being replied to is not "sword" but "blue". Hence, it is still possible to have a blue longer than 48 inches and the original answer is still wrong on both points =P.

Realistically speaking, its a minor point because I don't think it is a matter of leverage anyways. It is a matter of torque. Although torque is length dependent, it is also weight distribution dependent. The torque on a blue can be greater than a red, which is what the main point really was. Hence, why I used "Leverage" and wrote torque in **'s. I felt that was the more important point.

Re: Arrow "pommels"- There's no rule that says what a pommel has to look like =-). I can have a foam arrow knock. Nobody said the weapon had to be practical. Think quarterstaves, the Final Fantasy 7 sword, original hammer of Loderia, or that huge flail that had a head about as big as I was.

I've been hit by class one weapons that are swung two handed. I've had to stop and ask what that was, and by the time they say "blue" I'm dead because I stopped instead of kept moving. It is kind of a lose lose situation for those being swung at. Either you stop, ask, and get hammered because people don't realize you've stopped for a call, or you keep moving and risk being called a cheater for blowing off a "red" shot. Sideline heralds are never very forgiving.

In terms of balance issues, I am proactive about rules changes. In terms of safety issues, I am reactive about rules changes. I don't see a major pressing safety issue to implement a two blue tape standard, or any other rules change. I also don't see any balance issues. I see playability issues, but it isn't something that's essentially screwing the game up. I think we can let it slide along the lines of the magic switch.

I don't think anybody said anything about actually enforcing the rule about only swinging a blue with one hand (I could be wrong). It shouldn't be allowed, just like magic switch shouldn't be allowed. I think what I'm "after" is not being required to test every blue weapon two handed. My hands are actually very small. Put together, they are slightly under 6''. I can fit both of my hands on the vast majority of blue swords out there. I won't be happy to swing two extra cracks per weapon, and I think most people will be even less happy to receive two extra swings per weapon FROM me. I also suspect I will break a portion of the longer kitespar weapons sooner rather than later just to weapons check them. I've snapped a few kitespar now with one hand. I'm pretty certain I would end snapping at least some kitespar with two hands while weapons checking.

Actually...hmm...I bet I could try and snap every "ultra light" long weapon I didn't like. I withdraw all my previous arguments and will henceforth diligently test all blue weapons with two hands! (Kidding)

-Kenneth

[Forkbeard]

Holy ****, back up the short bus again.

Re: Arrow "pommels"- There's no rule that says what a pommel has to look like =-). I can have a foam arrow knock. Nobody said the weapon had to be practical.

Pomels have to be 2" wide. You would also need padding down the shaft of the arrow. Any herald I know would laugh this off the feild.

I've been hit by class one weapons that are swung two handed. I've had to stop and ask what that was, and by the time they say "blue" I'm dead because I stopped instead of kept moving. It is kind of a lose lose situation for those being swung at. Either you stop, ask, and get hammered because people don't realize you've stopped for a call, or you keep moving and risk being called a cheater for blowing off a "red" shot. Sideline heralds are never very forgiving.

This never happened or if it did, your a chump. I'ts up to the attacker to call "RED". If they don't you don't ask them, you take a blue. This is not an issue.

False. Most weapons checkers in the Midwest-central region do not check blue weapons with two hands.

Of course they don't check blues as reds. That was never part of my argument. 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. Nuff said.
F to the Bizzeee.

[Kenneth]

Holy ****, back up the short bus again.

Thank you.

Pomels have to be 2" wide. You would also need padding down the shaft of the arrow. Any herald I know would laugh this off the feild.

It is a stupid weapon. That does not mean it is an illegal weapon.

This never happened or if it did, your a chump. I'ts up to the attacker to call "RED". If they don't you don't ask them, you take a blue. This is not an issue.

I am a chump then. There is no requirement to call Red from the front in order for it to be a red shot (3.7.2). Calling your colors from the front is a courtesy call that not all people follow. I would generally rather take a hit first and have somebody tell me to get back up than to keep swinging and have somebody tell me that was actually a red or single green shot. If I can't tell immediately, I take the worst and hope for the best. At the very least, I'll stop and ask. Unfortunately, that gets me killed sometimes. I would rather be a chump who goes down than somebody who keeps swinging long after they should be dead.

Of course they don't check blues as reds. That was never part of my argument. 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. Nuff said.
F to the Bizzeee.

Freyson did. The point I was responding to was that we have supposedly always allowed blues to be swung two handed. As I wrote in my original post, I am fairly certain Numenor does not allow it. If it was explicitly authorized to swing blue weapons with two hands, then we SHOULD be checking all blue weapons with two hands. In terms of the Book of War, it is not fine that you hit somebody with two hands on a blue sword. You do it anyways, but it is an action similar to the magic switch. However, if we were to explicitly recognize swinging a blue with two hands as a valid action, then we would have to check every blue weapon with two hands because that is the proper full force definition check.

Forkbeard, I don't really care who you are. I doubt you really care who I am. How about you stop with the keyboard jockeying and stick to arguing the points?

-Kenneth

[Olos]

Kegg on the "Magic Switch" (taken from the post about shot in motion not to long ago):

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:42 am Post subject:
On a side note...

if your are using the "magic switch" and/or counting shots in motion then you are cheating as far as the rules are concerned. Though I realise that the switch and shot in motion stuff are widely accepted, they are both ~explicitly~ against the rules. In another thread it was pointed out that the rules are the rules and it takes a vote of WC to change them. If we want to allow for the magic switch or shots in motion, then we do need to change the rules, otherwise everyone who does those things are cheating.

1.) Calling someone a cheater is very strong language if you don't know the history of a given rule.

2.) There was a SPECIFIC War Council ruling on this exact question that the correct interpretation of rules on disabled limbs and weapons allowed for a switch. That the current wording is not violated by allowing the switch, that there was no need to change the wording of the rule. Therefore unlike most questionable activities in the sport it SPECIFICALLY is not CHEATING. The discussion was animated, your EXACT point was made (by me in fact). That point of view lost in a free and open debate. You can choose not to like it, but it is definitely not cheating.

Not making a statement on the current discussion, but making a comparison to the magic switch doesn't help your case.


As an aside, Kegg states that the magic switch issue was resolved in a War Council. Maybe a petition could be made to decide the issue one way or another.

[Kenneth]

With all due respect...I suspect what happened was that magic switch was so prevalent WC decided to specifically allow it. Look, they can't even pass a motion for shot in motion =-).

Historically speaking, magic switch definitely violated the rules the way they were written. I think I'm with Kegg on this one. It may be a losing point of view, but it isn't necessarily incorrect. It may not violate the rules now, but there was a pretty significant camp that believed it did then, as noted by Soo Ma Tai. When I started, the magic switch was just becoming more common place, but it was still viewed as cheating on a good portion of the national field. The magic switch was just harder to stamp out than a * and got the WC nod.

So, I suppose we could analogize it to magic switch before the WC nod instead of magic switch as it is now. It certainly is similar to the "old" magic switch =P.


-Kenneth

[Olos]

Eh, call it whatever you will, I don't really care too much on this particular subject. Most of the people I see using blues 2 handed are doing it to gain extra blocking leverage rather than extra hitting power, and don't hit too terribly hard. Anyways, I find that I can crack someone across the back (with a blue) almost as hard one handed as I can 2 handed, (of course, a heavy tip weighted blue, just shy of red length with a long handle would be a different story), you could not get a very good swing with that one handed, but 2 handed would be quite powerful, but again, you don't see many of those on the field, cause what is the point of having a weapon designed like that if you can't call red.

[Olos]

And yes, similar to the "old" magic switch, though not nearly as prevalent or game changing, or as contested

[Oisin]

Forkbeard, I don't really care who you are. I doubt you really care who I am. How about you stop with the keyboard jockeying and stick to arguing the points?

-Kenneth

Dude, you don't know who Forkbeard is? C'mon . . . didn't you see the hobo in the Army blanket/bathrobe crossbreed? The really big tall Uruk?

Anyway, seriously now, not everyone is a lawyer, and while you may be correct about debating points etc (and in principle I guess I agree with you), you can be a bit less, um, condescending? We all know you're a smart guy. Not trying to bash or anything, but just FYI when you throw your intellectual might around, you might come off as arrogant or as a know-it-all. I know this because I have at times been criticized for doing the same thing.

Anyway, as to the actual topic under debate, the legality of swinging a blue sword two handed really falls down to personal interpretation. General practice and acceptance on the field and among heralds, as well as I have been able to see at events and practices, is that it is legal and that the debate is simply because of rules that were not worded to clearly reflect the intent of the writers. While this may be somewhat confusing now, which is really not that big of a deal, it probably originates in the split between us and Dagorhir.

It would appear that, although we still follow almost the exact same rules as before the split, the Belegarth rules were entirely rewritten after the split to differentiate them from those used by Dag. While I cannot say whether this rule has been revised since that time, 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.

I believe that, given the fact that our rules are devised almost entirely from theirs (excepting some innovation and change since the split) and since we are still continuing to use the colors to define weapon types in this very debate, this earlier precedent is still applicable to determine the intent of the rule. I know someone will criticize me by saying, "But this isn't Dagorhir, we have our own rules," and I recognize this as well as the fact that we must play by our own rules and not theirs; by turning to the Dagorhir rules, I am simply looking at the source document from which our own rules were written to try to determine both original intent and what rules were used by our own realms in times past.

Basically, in my opinion, the Belegarth Book of War is simply badly worded. I believe that both intent, precedent, and common opinion allow for blue swords to be used two handed.

Which brings up the question of, should they be checked for two handed swings? 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.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Oisin

PS--All other things aside, the Dagorhir Manual of Arms is written and presented in a much better format that ours, and reads much more clearly. I think that our BoW needs a basic rewrite and clean up.