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