Double ended Javelins

[Satanaka]

I was talking with someone and we got talking about weapons- Javelins came up- and the question: "Why can't we build them so we can throw with either end?"

Beside the "cause the rules say so...."

I started thinking about it. If both ends are legal for Javelin standards- I could not come up with the best reasons. Yeah- "... no pommel strikes..." rule- but a Javelin IS outside that frame of reference. What am I missing????
The rules for "Double Ended Weapons" was designed for Staffs and such and makes NO sense when refering to a Javalin.

What am I missing????

Thanks.

[Derian]

I think the only halfway reasonable argument against them is that it might lead to some throws where people are throwing pommel first.

I don't think that's a very large issue, so I'd be in support of at the very least testing them out.

[Aegis]

if people cant figure out to throw the yellow end at the other person, they shouldnt throw a javelin ever. and as long as single sinded javelins have nothing remotely yellow on the pommel, life should be good.

but before a rules nazi comes and misquotes me into another long waste of time, it is only my opinion that double sided javelins SHOULD be ok, not that they are or are not at this time.

[Satanaka]

but if the are both Yellow ended...
there is no pommel.

This would make the weapon safer- due to both ends passing as a javelin.
the center would be the same as all javelins.

[Aegis]

I think the concern is, if we start allowing double javs, then people might misthrow a singlesided jav.

[Isk]

Resurrecting this thread and referencing this one to see if anyone has playtested this or if there has been any decision made on double-ended javs. Has anyone used them at national events? I like double-ended short javs, personally feel they are safer and have allowed them on the field here at realm practices.

[Mekoot Rowan]

Quick question from a realism standpoint: If a double ended javelin is thrown by an inexperienced person, spins in the air and hits with the other point, is that considered a valid hit?

I don't think play testing this would be a problem. Failing weapons would follow similar strictures to q-staffs in that if one end fails then the whole thing fails.

[Isk]

Realism: I probably wouldn't count it. A javie has to be flying straight to work, a spinning javie is haft. On the field it's a little more sketchy, but a full opposite hit shouldn't count, IMHO.

We are play-testing them with both double ended and single on the field together. We'll watch for mistakes, but we are a brand new realm so I don't how much weight our experience will carry.

As far as failing them goes, a double-ended javie that only just fails on one end can always just have that end taped over/trimmed down and we call it the pommel

[Soo Ma Tai]

A double ended Javie can still be used as a melee weapon, in which it becomes a stab only staff without proper padding, or a spear with a pommel spike, both of which are forbiddin in the BoW. Double ended Javies Fail. At least that's my take on it.

[Isk]

A double ended Javie can still be used as a melee weapon, in which it becomes a stab only staff without proper padding, or a spear with a pommel spike, both of which are forbiddin in the BoW. Double ended Javies Fail. At least that's my take on it.

I don't know why that hadn't come up yet in either this thread or the one I linked above (or I didn't think of it myself), but that is a bigger rules problem that should definitely make them fail without a formal change to the BoW.

1.4.6.2. Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of this weapon must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.

Could be something like:

1.4.6.2. Swung Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of all Double-ended Weapons must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.

At the end of the day, double-ended javies are nice and I actually think they are safer and better balanced. Is there a really compelling reason beside the "new people might use them wrong" not to change the rules to allow them?

[Elebrim]

A double ended Javie can still be used as a melee weapon, in which it becomes a stab only staff without proper padding, or a spear with a pommel spike, both of which are forbiddin in the BoW. Double ended Javies Fail. At least that's my take on it.

The pommel spike issue is a good point, but as quarterstaves are the only weapons that can be thrust with either end in the first place I don't know if it applies here. I mentioned this in the Rules Questions thread, but I'll copy it here as I think it is still relevant.

There was another discussion in Rules Discussion on staves about the meaning of the word "Padding" in rule specifically whether or not the word meant it had to be striking surface padding or just haft padding. If the term "Padding" is taken just as haft padding - then it's entirely possible to build a javelin with two stabbing tips. It would pass only as a Class 3, not a Class 1 since the padding wouldn't be a striking surface, so it could then also be a Class 4 and conform to both definitions.

Apart from my terrible grammar in the first sentence, I think that the point applies. If the double-ended weapon has sufficient courtesy padding, but is clearly not an actual Class 1 striking surface, then the question of passing as a Class 1 when swung would be a non-issue. However, it would still be a Class 3 when thrust, and if both ends passed as Class 4s then there would be no

Quick question from a realism standpoint: If a double ended javelin is thrown by an inexperienced person, spins in the air and hits with the other point, is that considered a valid hit?

If it hits with the point, then I don't think it matters. In my mind, it's kinda like saying that hitting someone with a standard blue on a backswing doesn't count when you missed on the initial swing, because you "didn't mean to hit them" with the backswing. If the shot hits, then it hits regardless of which blade it hits with.

[Isk]

If it hits with the point, then I don't think it matters. In my mind, it's kinda like saying that hitting someone with a standard blue on a backswing doesn't count when you missed on the initial swing, because you "didn't mean to hit them" with the backswing. If the shot hits, then it hits regardless of which blade it hits with.

Sure, if your backswing hits with sufficient force on the edge it counts. I have a harder time taking a spinning javie that rolls across me with the tip as a serious fighting injury, though.

I guess the way the rule is worded you could construe it to mean courtesy padding for 18 inches, that just doesn't feel like what was intended...

[Thomas MacFinn]

Does this apply to this discussion?

1.4.1.5. The minimum overall length of a Class 1 is 12 inches plus the length of the handle and pommel.

[Big King Jimmy]

No, the rule doesn't state that a weapon must have a handle or pommel.

[Todo]

I can see some chump flinging the javelin end-over-end, vertically or horizontally and **** someone's **** up.

'Cause that would HURT if it went wrong.

[Elebrim]

Well, I would imagine a herald might get on their case just as much as (or worse than) the guy who tries to tomahawk a single-tipped javelin. As it was mentioned before, only the point on the javelin counts, and the same graze/deflection rules still apply.