by Borric » Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:57 pm
I also have issues with the easily discernable standard. It is my understanding through my interpretation of the rule and the opinions of other heralds that the purpose of this rule was threefold:
(1) To allow opposing fighters to be able to see that you are wearing armor.
(2) To allow opposing fighters to be able to ascertain where they may place a hit, thus negating the presence of the armor; and
(3) To prevent people from claiming that they are wearing armor under garb when they were in fact not wearing any. (I.e.: Lying about armor).
Each of these rationales make sense, however I question them when incorporating other tenants of Belegarth; An Honor-based fighting system, Period garb/armor, and Realism. Now I would like to apply these six standards to Angmarth?s Unit, myself, and other fighters with surcoats/large tabards.
The reason I bring up honor is that the entire foundation of our brand of foam fighting is predicated on the belief that the attacked fighter will call their shots accurately and fairly; and subsequently that the attacker will not call their shots. This belief, in my mind, addresses two out of the three of the above rationales. Admittedly though, the idea of allowing opposing fighters to see if you are wearing armor though is a little more nuanced and requires a little more than just, ?This is a game of honor?.
The goal of allowing opposing fighters to see your armor is also designed for game balance. A fighter should be able to walk up to a [honestly] non-armored fighter and feel comfortable in the knowledge that one shot to any legal area will incapacitate the fighter in some way. The next rational step would be that an attacker seeing a fighter wearing armor would change their tactics accordingly. It is at this step that I think the situation changes.
The attacker realizes that the opponent is armored, and must enter a moment of pause and consideration. (That is unless they are totally ambivalent or just running by and don?t care about the death of the opponent) In my opinion, when a fighter sees any type of armor in a particular area, they should assume that the remaining limb area is armored. For example: As Angmarth stated his chain hauberk extends down his upper arm. An attacking fighter should assume that it is attached to something, though they can?t see it through his surcoats. A second example: I wear leather pauldrons which are mainly cover my arm but extend to my shoulders. Under Rule 3.3.3, the shoulders are activated as body armor with or without the presence of body armor. Now if you see that piece extending from my arm, then the fighter should realize that I have body armor, whether or not they can see it. It is then up to my honor to call subsequent hits, even if I am also wearing body armor under my surcoats. To make the argument less complicated, my point is that once the idea of body armor is transmitted, either by sight or deduction, then it should be assumed to run the course of the area, and it is upon the defender to call their hits.
For those that don?t buy this argument, it?s a practice that is already done. Fighters w/ tabards and chain are granted the belief that their suit of chain runs continuously under their tabards, and are on their honor to call sub-neck shots, * shots, etc. We already extend the benefit of the doubt, all I?m saying that in the case of surcoats, the belief in the existence of armor should be extended a little. A leap of Belegarth faith if you will, albeit a logical leap in my opinion.
I perfectly understood the problem I was getting myself into when I wanted to have a surcoat, as I?m sure others have realized. However, I also honestly feel that the easily discernable rule has the unfortunate side effect of constraining very good, and historically prevalent garb.
-Sorry about the long post-
Borric the Just
Knight of Numenor
Numenorian Ambassador to Muxlovia