ARMOR

[Angmarth]

After a discussion with Sir Morpheus at Spring War, we agreed to discuss this rule here on the forum.

Rule 3.3.5 - The presence of armor must be easily discernable to count as armor.

This brings to mind a couple of things, the first of which is garb which partially to completely covers armor. The example in question is my surcoat which covers my chainmail body. My sleeves which are chain/plate are completely visible and are obviously not hanging out in mid-air. I have worn this garb for a year and attended multiple events without complaint. Only recently has a question been raised.

The second is the latest armor craze, cloth/leather brigadine. While it is currently an accepted armor style, I feel that it is akin to the azon mail which we have banned. There is little to no encumberance when compared to the other accepted armor styles. This armor is neither visible nor discernable (IMHO) as armor.

While the visibility arguement is a matter of opinion (we are all on our honor anyway), the discernable description has merit in dismissing it. (I'm not getting in to the discussion on encumberance yet.) You have basicly a glorified catchers chest protecter. I will whole-heartedly admit the pieces I have seen are examples of excellent costuming craftsmanship, but I do not think they are viable examples of what armor should appear as. Thoughts?

[Vokor]

Brigandine A flexible body defence consisting of a large number of metal plates riveted inside a cloth covering.


I understand what you are saying, But I think it still with in the rules and also help the look of thew sport, as for someone not know the youhave armor on well that is just silly. you can see it clear as day as well as hear it.

Now I would not say that the latest trend is anything like the azon mail, It is heavier and also much thicker. Now if you want to be able to distinguish it from a surcoat I think we could work some thing like that out. I did not have any issues with it this week end at all. I thought it looked great and made the field look much better thank in years past. just MHO

[Magpie Saegar]

If plates of armor (leather or metal) are riveted to a cloth, (so you can see the leather/metal)... then it is easily discernable. If there is cloth on both sides with the plates of whatever in little pockets... then it can be hard to tell, if it's someone you meet for the first time on the battle field. That's been something that's bothered me from time to time.

[Angmarth]

The new armor isn't heavier, and it doesn't consist of metal plates. It consists of leather plates, the definition in our book of war allows this. I would like to see a ratio of mass to coverage and compare. I think you would find the comparison much closer than you think.

*EDIT*

To address Magpie's point, discernable does not necessarily equal visible.

dis?cern (dĭ-s?rn', -z?rn') Pronunciation Key
v. dis?cerned, dis?cern?ing, dis?cerns
v. tr.

1) To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect.
2) To recognize or comprehend mentally.

[Kyrian]

When I think of brigandine, this comes to mind:







Referencing D+D and also our rules for studded armor, i.e., studs no more than 1/2" apart, I believe this is where it was interpreted as the studs being the armor instead of the plates riveted to them. I've never been fond of that.

Would you fail the above as armor since the studs aren't less than 1/2" apart? I wouldn't primarily because the studs help to identify the fact that there are plates underneath the fabric. Using the interior view of this particular brigandine, notice that the plates are actually overlapping. If someone were to make this style of brigandine using leather plates, that might address the issue of encumbrance.

I love the look of the new armor but I would like to see something else easily identifiable that would make it clearly look like armor. As Magpie said, perhaps it should be riveted or studded in some manner.

[Dr. Kazi]

Addressing Angmarth's other issue--armor and tabards. At least twice at Springwars I encountered people who were wearing breastplates (or something) under full tabards, and, unlike Angmarth, without any continuing shoulder armor. I had no idea it was there. The first time the guy fell down right in front of me, and I only hit him once and didn't end up killing him simply because the armor was completely invisible. The second time my opponent was kind enough to inform me of the presence of his armor.

I thought that the point of the narrower "arming tabard" which I encountered alot several years ago was to allow one's armor to be visible around your garb and thus obey rule 3.3.5. Thoughts on this situation?

[Forkbeard]

We're not talking about brigandine here. Lets just get that confusion out of the way.
We're talking about the ninja armor. Little squares of leather sewn in little pockets. The pockets are in rows and none of the leather squares are more that 1/2" apart.
Here's a nice example:
It is really light and easy to move in, but it leagal acording to the BOW. It looks enough like armor. THis is a good example of this style of armor, though. When done badly, this type of armor looks like **** and shouldn't be allowed on the feild. Fourtunatly, when this armor is poorly made, the plates are more than 1/2" apart and it can be kicked off the feild.
I will agree that it's barely armor. But it's legal, and it can look good, so it's ok by me.
If I were to wear it(picture a GIANT ninja hiding in your bushes), I'd paint details around every square so they were a little more visible and I wouldn't wear any garb over it.
I've never seen a problem with Tabbards over armor either. We're suposed to call armor or we lose it. If you hit some one and they don't say "armor" and don't die, it ain't because of their tabbard.

[xiao]

My armor in said picture above is Brigandine FB.

Brigandine, a form of body armour, is a cloth garment, generally canvas or leather, lined with small oblong steel plates (or leather) riveted (or sewed) in to the fabric.

It's a beautiful armor style and I love seeing it everywhere.

As long as everyone who wears it has good shot calling skills the problems eliminate themselves. Introducing your armor to the herald before fighting helps.

What is the ultimate problem, people dont know its armor because they have never seen it or are not educated in said armor style, or people are upset too easily when they think they killed someone and armor is called (you can't call your melee shots anyway)

I never have a problem seeing the armor, Claws, Kabibbles, Tiji, Katina, Killian...it's everywhere and easy to identify.



Azon is light and it breathes. I was against banning it.

Brigandine is light yet insulates like a winter coat, soaks with sweat, and molds. Sucks fighting in the sun or humidity (geddon temps)



Forkbeard's dead on about the tabbards.

[Sir Morpheus]

In my opinion A piece of armor has to be visible to be counted and in brigandine the cloth is part of the armor.

Brigandine armor isn't the issue under debate Brigandine is in the rules and has been legal for lonnger than I have been in this game the issue was can Armor be concealed by garb and still be counted?

but the rule uses the word "Discernible".

it all comes down to to how you define Discernible.

[Tren]

The only real concern I'd ever see about calling armor that's concealed by a tabard, or more so a surcoat, is if someone tried to cheat by wearing shoulder armor that appears to extend below the surcoat but doesn't. I'm thinking something along the lines of chainmail sleeves that would appear to be attached as part of a hauberk. I've see people use half-finished hauberks in this fashion to count as arm armor, but that's also why you have heralds on the field to check armor and keep an eye out for that sort of cheating.

Beyond that, wearing chainmail under a surcoat is accurate as far as garb, and as long as the mail has sleeves it's not difficult to see and logically discern that there is a chain shirt under the surcoat.

[The Lost Celt]

The second is the latest armor craze, cloth/leather brigadine. While it is currently an accepted armor style, I feel that it is akin to the azon mail which we have banned. There is little to no encumberance when compared to the other accepted armor styles. This armor is neither visible nor discernable (IMHO) as armor.

If the armour is legal thickness than I don't see what the problem is - and I'll argue that this particular type of armour is a helluvalot better looking than some of the pieces of crap I see pass as armour on a regular basis. Specifically goblin type armours made in composite forms and modern garments or garment weight leathers modified to meet the minimum requirements. (and hey, with goblins that's cool, but we've all seen the other * attempts)

Think of this, plenty of historical armours were made with a cloth backing - the popular arguments target more cloth covered armours as non-discernable, yet I can come out in public looking like something from Mad Max and this is acceptable?

I certainly wouldn't be calling it cheese though, a modified motorcycle jacket is cheese, and those can be made to pass. I wouldn't argue encumberance either, since I have leather armor twice the legal thickness and the only problem I had with movement in it involves using the restroom

I think the REAL problem is there's a few out there that can't seem to identify players in armour unless they're sporting the latest fashion in World of Warcraft or whatnot, and that to me is a more disturbing trend....

[Borric]

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-

[varadin]

I have armor thats almost identical to the armor in question except its visible. Leather scale 3x3 tied together, looks good is just as manuverable (even for my fat *) and never once has been asked Is that armor? Personal i like the cloth pockets with leather in them. Its a different style and it looks good on most people. I tend to laugh because half the guys in it are sweating bullets since there black armor with no openings doesnt allow **** for cooling.

As for too maneverable for how light it is.. * my armor doesnt slow me down at all and looks good. My only downside is a little bit more upkeep.

Tabards over armor im fine with IF they have some type of showing armor still. Wearing just a chainmail vest would * me off but having sleaves popping out prooves they are attached to something. And if they dont have full armor on... its thier honor and its them cheating find those guys and punish them. I like standing next my realm mates all wearing the same black tabard with a white wyvern on it. Shows unity even though we all have a different garb/armor style.

[A Pimp Named Kabibbles]

In real fighting back in the day, wouldnt hideing your armor be a decent tatic? so your enemy might swing at some hidden armor rather then hit a unarmored area? i gess the rule is only around so a hearald could call someone dead from many feet away.