My ideal fighting system

[Physic]

Since we are looking at changing some rules and there was a big long discussion on it I sat at work last night and thought about what would my ideal rule system would be if I could change things. This is all based on my opinion of what would make fighting more fun for the greatest number of people. I also feel that it would create a game balance that flows better , is easier to understand, eliminates confusion and allows simple new fighter teaching. This is just for people to think about and discuss or come up with your own ideas.


The first thing I would do is follow the Amtgard point system with a few differences.

- Stabbing, one hand slashing, missile weapons (Unlike Amtgard missile weapons will still be able to target head) = 1 points of damage
- Our current rules for 2 handed slashing weapons (still have shield breaking ability) = 2 points of damage
- Armor adds 1 point of damage to a hit location (remove missile invulnerability to helms)


- Any two limbs taken equal death ( no dangling arms or dead legs)
- If a leg is injured you are not able to move on it other then turning in place or for safety reasons. ( safety reasons are situations where you avoid a shield bash or people falling on you)


Some of the arguments of this system would be that missile weapons would be weaker against armored opponents. This is something that should be done as it would allow other weapon styles to be more usable in large field battles. Right now florentine and red sword fighters are free kills for an archer. Wearing armor would allow them more survivability. Allowing arrows to take armor off a helm would help balance this. Archery would still be very powerful against unarmored opponents.

Armor would become more powerful. This would hopefully lead to more of it on the battlefield which only makes our game look better. It would hopefully slow the battle down slightly which would create more opportunity for organized battlefield tactics.

Stabbing will be able to take a point off of armor which should have been done a long time ago. Removing 2 handed stabbing makes things easier and helps balance the addition of allowing thrusts to remove armor points.

Not allowing people to run on their knees would make the game look better and hopefully prevent some long term injuries. It is in no way realistic and looks retarded.

Removing the dead leg rule would be more realistic and easier to explain.


Can you imagine how easy this would be to explain? Feel free to give your thoughts on this.

[Forkbeard]

Smooth and well thought out.
I like it.
FB

[Big King Jimmy]

I kinda like it. I always thought that the ability to use a glaive to break shields wasn't worth the added weight in a prolonged line fight, this would help balance that significantly.

[Sir Anastasia]

I am sure armor seems like a great thing to encourage on the field, but might there be unintended consequences from this? What is the average price for cheap armor? I am sure it would still be a significant cost. I always feel that serious cash investment for play is a hinderance to recruitment and maintaining large numbers. I also feel that my experience of fighting is cheapened when I have to hit my opponents twice for every one shot they have to hit me. I think this can be very frustrating for new people, and it is still frustrating from me. I think the game advantage conveyed by armor is partially cancelled out by the archery rules as they stand. Armor looks great on the field-no arguments on that here, but I don't think we should encourage it beyond showing up and looking foxy.

-Anastasia of Chamonix

[Kyrian]

I (and my knees) really like the no fighting on the knees. Also, it would clearly differentiate alive fighters from dead ones. Alive ones would still be standing. You won't get the guy on a knee lying in wait amongst a bunch of dead fighters.

I think it could make a Spartan or Landsknecht unit much more effective since single-handed stabs would be effective against everything.

It would probably encourage more armor and more stabbies and yay for less complex rules.

Would anyone be willing to playtest it?

[Forkbeard]

Yeah, I play test it.
And as for armour. It should be encouraged. All the time. You ask about the price. Armour is cheap if you really want it. Anyone can make it with very little money and some effort. It can be cheaper than weapons.
FB

[Cyric]

It sounds really good to me, but we can't pass a single rule change without massive back and forth arguing on the same point, much less a complete overhaul of the rules.

[Big King Jimmy]

It sounds really good to me, but we can't pass a single rule change without massive back and forth arguing on the same point, much less a complete overhaul of the rules.

QFT.

[Physic]

Someday people will realize having a complicated and confusing rule system is not the answer. The more new fighter friendly we are the eaiser it will be to retain them at practice and allow for a more enjoyable time at large scale events. It is pretty sad when there are still times when I get confused in the heat of battle. Transition from other games coming to us would also go much smoother.

[bo1]

i love it. It solves every problem, creates none. armor gets a bonus and archery gets a nerf. i am onboard for playtesting.

expect rhun practices to be usuing these rules for a bit.

[Soo Ma Tai]

What Physic has proposed here is what most of my realm has said they would like to see if the two limb rules is used. As the proposed change stands now, It seems to confuse the rules almost more than simplifying them. If we are to go to a two limb is death rule then we need to revamp the whole system to something like or exactly like what physic has proposed here.

As for armor, it should be encouraged. It should just not be required to play, which is why I never did SCA. I have a full kit for Belegarth, plus some extra stuff, and honestly, I almost never, ever wear it. I basically only wear it when i want to look cooler than my basic garb allows for. I rarely wear it for the ingame advantage it provides, though I am sure most of those who wear their armor do so for the bonus hit.

[Derian]

This would really simplify things. I think the best way to begin down that path is to let the current proposed stabbing rule die out (it's incomplete), and put forward one to standardize damage.

All one handed strikes do one point of damage: blue, single green.
Two handed strikes do two points of damage and negate armor: red weapons, double green, missile weapons.

The only part I don't like about what Physic proposed is the helmet rule. If missile weapons can damage helmets, there is pretty much no in game advantage to wearing them. People would only wear them for the extra protection from errant shots and looking cool.

[Soo Ma Tai]

Another thing I would change is this...

2.1.1. (Class 1) One-handed swung Weapon.
2.1.2. (Class 2) Two-handed swung Weapon.

To read as this...

2.1.1. (Class 1) A swung weapon under 48" in length.
2.1.2. (Class 2) A swung weapon over 48" in length.


The reason I would change the wording is to end the confusion about weather or not you can use a Class 1 weapon with two hands. Because you should be able to, but I have been told before by heralds that I cannot. This seems to be the interpretation of the rules out west here, but I do not think that was the intention of the wording when written, as when I first started fighting it was common practice to use a blue two handed.

[Chicken]

Derian expressed my opinion precisely and completely.

What I'd love to see would be several realms trying this out for a month or two, and preferably realms from across the spectrum. No offense, but Physic, Angmarth, and Forkbeard have a lot in common, fighting wise, and I don't think this is really a hardcore-type issue. I'd love to hear back after half a dozen realms from the light and fast to the hard and brutal, from the old and vet filled to the young and noobish all give it a shot.

Soo - That's certainly a grey area in the rules as written - I've always gone with the standard that if you can reasonably put two hands on the handle you should test it with two hands, then let it be used that way or fail it completely. I think that wording doesn't help too much, though; you'll just have more new people confused about whether they can swing a red in one hand and why it counts as blue if they do.

[Soo Ma Tai]

It would still say a class 2 weapon swung one handed is considered class 1 for damage purposes. I don't see how that makes it any more confusing at all.

All it does is remove the calling of a class 1 weapon "one-handed" and class 2 "two handed". Instead of the class being designated by the number of hands you put on it, it is determined by size. Out here they don't test Class 1's with two hands (crazy if you ask me) and just say you can't use it that way.

Your argument confuses me Chicken, I don't understand why someone might think you couldn't use a red in one hand? As my wording removes number of hands completely from determining the class of a weapon.

[Derian]

Chicken --

I'll see if I can get NB to try it out for a bit. We're pretty different from the others that have volunteered to test it.

[Hatchet]

I think Physic has a nifty system, personally I think our current system is ok except the only thing I would change is increase red weapon weight/length minimums and institute shields being destroyed on one hit.

[Oisin]

I completely disagree about double green and archery only doing one point to armour, and helmets should remain as proof against missiles, but standardizing damage and limb rules is a very good thing.

Any two limbs = death = a good thing.

Single green = single blue = one point of armour damage = a good thing.

I also really like the idea of eliminating knee-running. You're right Physic, it looks really stupid, and is completely against the point. I know some people (Thraka?) who can run 80% as fast on their knees as on their feet. I think that a limited amount of knee movement should be allowed, or else legged fighters should be allowed to walk slowly (but NOT fight while standing) in order to relocate. Making legged fighters completely stationary seems like a bad idea to me. Maybe allow them to move at no faster than a slow walking pace?

The problem with helmets not being proof is that often, you can't tell what just hit your head, especially through a metal helmet that restricts your vision a fair bit. Is that a rock? Is that an arrow? Or was that the guy next to me who just accidentally tapped me with his sword when he was swinging the other way? Helmets being proof against missile fire is just a plain playability issue.

As far as armour goes, I don't think it needs to be made more powerful, especially since most of the armour on the field is minimum leather. I don't want to open this can of worms again, but Physic, making armour take two arrow hits won't have the effect you intended. You want to see more high quality metal armour (or that seems to be what you've been getting at for years now), and I'd love to see that. But making arrows count like a blue hit will just increase the amount of crappy minimum weight leather. All the people who were already going to be wearing nice armour (either leather or metal) will already be wearing it, and everyone else will just rivet a few layers of suede together so that they can get that one arrow hit.

Archers don't need to be nerfed. A number of the dedicated stick-jock and hardcore shieldman types keep insisting that archery is too powerful, but I've never heard a good argument as to why. Wear a helmet, carry a shield, and have good field awareness and you'll be safe against archers 95% of the time. Do spear and red and florentine fighters often get killed by archers? Sure, but the solution is for them to get a buckler, not to nerf archers. I fight quite frequently on both sides of that issue (as both a spearman and an archer, which I do as frequently as I go sword and board), and a spearman (or redsworder) with a buckler and helmet and a good sense of field awareness has a decent chance of getting a huge number of kills, even if it is unlikely that they will survive the whole fight.

Archers get run over by shieldmen all the time, and I've never heard an archer * that shields should be nerfed. As it stands, the balance of weapons is good. Everything is powerful, but everything has weaknesses.

As it stands, Physic's proposed rule changes seem to me to be an attempt to make sword, board and full armour an even MORE powerful presence on the field. I don't feel that would be good for the game. We already have a well-balanced system in which different weapons combos are all effective when used at the right place and the right time. We shouldn't **** with that.

[Chicken]

Soo -

By the same token that people think that a blue weapon being one handed means it can't be two handed, I can see someone saying that since it's over 48" it's red, even if you've only got one hand on it. That'd be incorrect, but an easy mistake to make given that wording. I'll admit, going from there to "you can't wield it with one hand" is a stretch, but there's nothing in the rules whatsoever to say that you can't swing a blue with two hands either and people still come to that conclusion .

I think you're wording is a little more accurate than the current form (though you could change 2.1.2 to "A two handed swung weapon over 48"" to be really precise), but I think to fix the ambiguity you're talking about you'd really want to change this:

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.
3.2.2.2. Class 2 (two-handed) Weapons cause two hits of Injury to the Target Area.

to this

3.2.2.1. Class 1 Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area. A Class 1 Weapon swung with both hands is still considered a Class 1 weapon.
3.2.2.2. Class 2 Weapons cause two hits of Injury to the Target Area if swung with two hands. A Class 2 weapon swung with one hand is considered a Class 1 weapon.

Personally I think the second sentence on 3.2.2.1 is excessive, but I also don't see any reason in the rules why you would think it isn't legal to swing a blue in two hands in the first place. Meh.

[Chicken]

Physic -

I'm curious if there's a reason why you'd eliminate double green, other than for balance? This awesome thread shows a poleaxe thrusting spike utterly devastating some beautiful maille. Allowing single green to damage armor would certainly be distinct buff to spears (and glaives, and stabby blues most of all), but it seems kinda strange not to acknowledge how powerful a thrust you can make with a polearm.

I also am a fan of leaving helmets be - it may not be accurate, but it sure is nice to just be able to say "don't shoot me in the head". Or at least not to have to take it when they do . I'd hate to see fewer helmets on the field as a result, too.

[Sir Anastasia]

I can build two blues (class I) for under $25 dollars. Can I get armor for that price? I doubt it, especially if you want it to look nice. As for newbs making it cheaply at home to remain competitive- once again-it won't look nice. I use a sword/board all the time and I don't think archery is over-powered. As for the polearms/florentines, they are welcome to hide behind my shield too, there is plenty of room. Some weapon combos are meant to have back-up on the field. I absolutely hate the idea of giving armor more power.

I very much feel that armor is a bought advantage-those with the extra cash can afford nice armor more easily and can live longer as a result. I don't like this, and I think it is a real barrier to recruitment. Imagine walking on to a field for the first time and everyone but you has armor. Would you have enough fun to come back, buy your own armor, or would you feel discouraged when your hits seem to do nothing against the tanks? I take pride in the fact that I have to learn shots that either get around armor or to be fast enough to get in my two hits. But make no mistake, when I die after one hit and my opponent is still alive-it's a massive feeling of suck.

-Anastasia of Chamonix

[Derian]

90% of people who have armor beyond bracers and/or greaves have enough skill that no first timer is going to be able to touch them anyways, so it's really a moot point, I think.

Additionally, each realm is free to modify the rules as they see fit. Nan Belegorn disallows (or rather, suggests and it's followed by everyone) armor when we do our recruiting pushes. It'll start to make it back in when we get closer to event times in order to acclimate newer people.

[Sir Anastasia]

The 10% is what counts for them! Also, I have been fighting for 8 years and I do not wear armor, so just because you aren't wearing it, doesn't mean you are a newb. For the people who have the XP and fight without, it can be very frustrating to deal with armor. It is never an equal fight-that is the reality of it.
-Ana

[Cyric]

I can build two blues (class I) for under $25 dollars. Can I get armor for that price? I doubt it, especially if you want it to look nice.

Armor is equal in the sense that anyone with the money or time can get it. A full suit of chain can be made with minimal money investment, it just takes a lot of time. You could probably make a suit of chain for $30 in materials. A spool of wire, a couple pairs of pliers, wire snips, a dowel to coil the links on, and maybe a power drill to wind them. about 80 or so hours of work and you can have a really nice looking hauberk.

Armor and skill are still unequal in the game as it stands now. All it takes is some hard work to get better, or some hard work to make armor.

[Rasheab]

I feel the same as Anastasia regarding armor. I don't begrudge it though, as it is historical. The poor folk didn't have armor, the well off ones did. But when I first started Belegarth the main fighter in our group was sword and board with armor. And boy was that a frustrating learning curve.

It is frustrating to a person new to Belegarth. I was not new to boffering, but having to hit someone twice for each hit I took was difficult to adjust to. I disagree Derian, a first timer to Belegarth is not nessessarily a new person to fighting. And I devotely believe in beginners luck. They do things that catch experienced folk by suprise, and would kill them if not for the armor. It might not be consistent or often, but I know that when I was starting I felt accomplishment when I killed the above mentioned fighter, even if I died multiple times in between.

[Physic]

Im not quite understanding the armor argument. These rulings would only dramatically affect missile weapons. It would actually lose some advantage over melee weapons as you would be able to now peirce through it. Most new fighters do not start off using archery. It is far more expensive than armor.

[Arrakis]

Beware that in any rules change that specifies that two-handed strikes deal two points of damage, you're going to have to deal with the issue of blue strikes NOT doing two points of damage when swung two-handed.

I'd propose:


2.1.1. (Class 1) A swung weapon under 48" in length.
2.1.2. (Class 2) A swung weapon over 48" in length.

3.2.2.1. Class 1 Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area.
3.2.2.2. Class 2 Weapons cause two hits of Injury to the Target Area if swung with two hands or one hit of Injury to a target area if swung with one hand.

Remember, Weapon Class is primarily a Weapon Checking convention; damage should never be specified as "Type 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever" and no weapon that isn't of a particular class (i.e. isn't checked and marked as that class) should ever be referred to as being of that class. A Red is NEVER a Blue, but sometimes it hits like one.

[Sir Anastasia]

I would advocate that a "single green" hit should penetrate armor as well as damage from projectiles. It seems to me that historical armor would have been particularly susceptible to stabbing damage and therefore changing the rules to reflect that suits me fine. I strongly object to changing the projectile damage such that 2 arrow shots would be needed to hit a target area. I also wanted to say that time=money, and in with that in mind, armor is always expensive. Don't get me wrong though, I do wear armor sometimes (although its more for fashion than game advantage) and I spent a ton of money on it. I agree armor adds a bit of credibility to our game and certainly those who have great armor look awesome in it. I just don't want to give it any more advantages than it already has. Let's encourage armor for its aesthetic properties and its prestige, and not because it cheapens game-play by conferring a ton of advantages.

-Anastasia of Chamonix

[Physic]

Here are my thoughts on why fighting should be modified from its current system. As it stands now, archery is the most powerful weapon on the large scale battlefield. If you are a bad sword and board user you will more then likely not get many kills on the field. You will almost never be able to defeat a skilled fighter in a confrontation that has balanced numbers. Most kills will require sneak attacks. Archers on the other hand do not have to deal with the skill level of the person they are facing. Their kill rate is dependent on how well they shoot and knowing when to shoot. Factor in the range available, the ability to shoot through weapons and armor, and being able to call shots adds up to a very powerful weapon style. I believe that the cost of archery is the only thing that keeps it from dominating the battlefield.


Missile weapons in melee have also nearly eliminated several fighting styles. The next time you are at a major event take notice the number of florentine and red weapon user you see on the field. These styles are free kills for archers. Allowing them to survive one shot from an archer would most certainly increase the appeal to these styles. They would have to be in armor for this to apply.


It is probably very generous to say that at most events thirty percent of the fighters are wearing significant amounts of armor. That means that seventy percent of the field would not even be affected by this rule change. This is something that could potentially lead to more team based strategy. Heavily armored units would not just get mowed down by a few archers. Archers would have to coordinate attacks if they want to take out targets of interest.


I really like this system and think that it is far superior to what we are using now. It has the potential to increase weapon diversity, create an environment that would slow down battle a bit which would give time to implement more strategy into the game, the flow and balance would be superior and we would have a system that is easy to learn and teach to new fighters which would hopefully lead to more new fighters retainment and easier realm start up.


Unfortunately I dont think our game is ready for a complete fighting overhaul. Most people would not be willing to do the testing and research needed to make sure something like this would work. People would have to be open minded and be willing to communicate honestly about their findings. In the end its simply that people fear the thought of what change will do for their experience. People are content with the clunky system we are using and selfishly not even willing to consider making something that in the long run would be better for everyone.

[Arrakis]

Physic: Agreed.

[debuenzo]

I agree with Oisin...
In this game, most armor is leather, which isn't a significant hindrance to the wearer. Adding an extra hit against missles is too generous. Perhaps if more people wore heavy plate or chain, then sure, give it an extra hit of protection.

But I'm glad that you're thinking Physic, it's these kinds of suggestions that have the potential to make the sport better and will generate discussion.

[Forkbeard]

Anastaisia, I completely disagree.
If you watch the sales, a side of leather is 75 to 90 dollars. Rivets are 10 bucks. Thats a whole, head to toe suit of armor for the average sized person for $100. Weapons from Edhellen cost that(S&B) with shipping to anywhere outside the midwest.
And even wearing light leather armor, you suffer. The heat is incredible and you NEVER get full range of motion. In fact most plate I've been around is so much more well made(because you usually have to buy it already made) that most leather armor, it fits better abd doesn't weigh that much more than leather. Chain is heavier, but has the best range of motion there is.
Armor need more advantages, not less.
FB

[Black Cat]

The only thing I disagree with on Physic's ruleset is not allowing double-green damage. A spear is hard enough to effectively use against an armored sword-and-board user without a guard as it is. Not allowing double-green only makes fighting such an opponent with a spear that much harder. Allowing pool-cues to do a single point of damage would offset this somewhat, but I somehow don't see anyone being able to hit a sword-and-boarder twice in the same target zone with a spear with any amount of reliability.

Also, polearms historically do a lot more damage while thrusting than archery does. Handling a piercing weapon directly allows for a lot more torque than shooting a projectile out of a bow. Melee piercing weapons are a lot heavier than arrows, so more force can be concentrated onto the point. Follow-through on a thrust can also add force to the point.

As for the nerf on archery, it would make our sport more realistic, while reducing the effectiveness of archery. Arrows didn't pierce armor (at least not plate armor) nearly as effectively as some like to claim. Archery might be reasonably playable under the new ruleset, but it would be best to playtest the ruleset to make sure.

[Oisin]

Black Cat, I agree completely about double greens.

As for the nerf on archery, it would make our sport more realistic, while reducing the effectiveness of archery. Arrows didn't pierce armor (at least not plate armor) nearly as effectively as some like to claim. Archery might be reasonably playable under the new ruleset, but it would be best to playtest the ruleset to make sure.

This, however, I disagree with. It would be a great statement if anyone in Belegarth actually wore metal plate armour. There are a very, very few people (myself included--my cuirasse is steel lamellar, and I'm working on steel shoulders) who do, but we should not give the benefits of steel plate armour to the vast masses who wear minimum weight leather. That's like arguing that your 1996 Corolla goes 220 mpg just because a Formula 1 car does.

Now, I'm not saying that we should give metal plate armour special status, but arguing that all armour blocking arrows is realistic just because some did doesn't really follow.

I agree that our system needs an update/revision, but I don't think we've found the right one yet.

Forkbeard--Steel plate armour weighs about 2.5 times per area covered than does leather plate armour. 20 gauge plate armour is too flimsy, cheap and rare to be considered, so I'm going to ignore it.

18 gauge steel (effective minimum thickness of plate armour) weighs 2 lbs per square foot unworked. 16 gauge steel (above average/high quality thickness) weighs 2.5 lbs per square foot unworked. 12 oz leather (minimum thickness leather armour) weighs 0.75 lbs per square foot unworked. 16 oz leather (above average/high quality thickness, the thickest leather armour I've ever seen or heard of on a Bel field) weighs 1 lb per square foot unworked. I can't say exactly how much a square foot of maille weighs, but it weighs even more than the plate armour does.

Assuming 18 gauge steel and 12 oz leather are roughly equivalent in terms of their value, and 16 gauge steel and 16 oz leather are the same, you come out with steel armour weighing 2.5 times as much per area covered than leather. On top of that, I'd guess (I may well be wrong) that a much higher percentage of metal armour in Belegarth is of higher gauge than leather armour is higher thickness, and that's even without considering the cheese that presents itself when you consider min/maxing techniques like ninja brig and studded leather, which weigh even less and cause even less encumbrance and thermal issues.

You are correct about most metal plate armour being more flexible and better fitting than a lot of leather armour, but that's because more people wear badly made leather armour than wear badly made metal armour. I'd venture to guess that nearly all of the game's badly made metal armour is maille, which does not restrict range of motion and breathes wonderfully but weighs far more than anything else.

Forkbeard, making plate armour with leather, you can get exactly the same range of motion as you can making it with metal. If you're doing it right, you lose almost no flexibility, but it takes more work, more parts, and more skill to do that, and most people making leather armour (you're right, most of our game's leather armour is homebrew, compared to nearly all metal plate, which is purchased) either don't know enough about armouring and physiology to do it right, or don't take the time to make all the extra parts, straps, and undergarments required to properly fit a metal harness.

[Arrakis]

18 gauge steel (effective minimum thickness of plate armour) weighs 2 lbs per square foot unworked. 16 gauge steel (above average/high quality thickness) weighs 2.5 lbs per square foot unworked.

Oisin, higher quality armor in the SCA tends to be 20 to 18 ga spring or stainless steel. That's considered "tournament" weight (i.e., not suitable protection from full-force glaive shots on the oblique at a run, but perfectly suitable for one-on-one combat). A lot of the "field" grade stuff is lower quality simply because it's more likely to have the hell beaten out of it on a regular basis and the fact that a lot of it ends up concealed for accuracy of kit.

[Oisin]

Yeah, I decided to ignore that sort of stuff, Arrakis, because it's kinda irrelevant to Belegarth.

Who in Belegarth wears SCA high quality tournament grade armour of tempered spring steel, or the right alloy of stainless? Anyone? That stuff is hand-made, hand-fitted, and costs a boatload just for the raw materials, plus the labor! There might be someone out there who cross-fights and wears some of their SCAdian kit on our field, but no one's going to buy that kind of armour to use in Belegarth.

And even at 20 gauge, steel still weighs 1.5 lbs per square foot unworked, which is twice as heavy as minimum weight leather and half again as heavy as the thickest armour grade leather, so I don't think it really effects my point too much.

[Black Cat]

Black Cat, I agree completely about double greens.

As for the nerf on archery, it would make our sport more realistic, while reducing the effectiveness of archery. Arrows didn't pierce armor (at least not plate armor) nearly as effectively as some like to claim. Archery might be reasonably playable under the new ruleset, but it would be best to playtest the ruleset to make sure.

This, however, I disagree with. It would be a great statement if anyone in Belegarth actually wore metal plate armour. There are a very, very few people (myself included--my cuirasse is steel lamellar, and I'm working on steel shoulders) who do, but we should not give the benefits of steel plate armour to the vast masses who wear minimum weight leather. That's like arguing that your 1996 Corolla goes 220 mpg just because a Formula 1 car does.

Now, I'm not saying that we should give metal plate armour special status, but arguing that all armour blocking arrows is realistic just because some did doesn't really follow.

I agree that our system needs an update/revision, but I don't think we've found the right one yet.

Forkbeard--Steel plate armour weighs about 2.5 times per area covered than does leather plate armour. 20 gauge plate armour is too flimsy, cheap and rare to be considered, so I'm going to ignore it.

18 gauge steel (effective minimum thickness of plate armour) weighs 2 lbs per square foot unworked. 16 gauge steel (above average/high quality thickness) weighs 2.5 lbs per square foot unworked. 12 oz leather (minimum thickness leather armour) weighs 0.75 lbs per square foot unworked. 16 oz leather (above average/high quality thickness, the thickest leather armour I've ever seen or heard of on a Bel field) weighs 1 lb per square foot unworked. I can't say exactly how much a square foot of maille weighs, but it weighs even more than the plate armour does.

Assuming 18 gauge steel and 12 oz leather are roughly equivalent in terms of their value, and 16 gauge steel and 16 oz leather are the same, you come out with steel armour weighing 2.5 times as much per area covered than leather. On top of that, I'd guess (I may well be wrong) that a much higher percentage of metal armour in Belegarth is of higher gauge than leather armour is higher thickness, and that's even without considering the cheese that presents itself when you consider min/maxing techniques like ninja brig and studded leather, which weigh even less and cause even less encumbrance and thermal issues.

You are correct about most metal plate armour being more flexible and better fitting than a lot of leather armour, but that's because more people wear badly made leather armour than wear badly made metal armour. I'd venture to guess that nearly all of the game's badly made metal armour is maille, which does not restrict range of motion and breathes wonderfully but weighs far more than anything else.

Forkbeard, making plate armour with leather, you can get exactly the same range of motion as you can making it with metal. If you're doing it right, you lose almost no flexibility, but it takes more work, more parts, and more skill to do that, and most people making leather armour (you're right, most of our game's leather armour is homebrew, compared to nearly all metal plate, which is purchased) either don't know enough about armouring and physiology to do it right, or don't take the time to make all the extra parts, straps, and undergarments required to properly fit a metal harness.

I see your point about the armor. I guess it wouldn't be as realistic as I thought. Though the whole point of the proposed nerf was to make shield-less styles more playable against archers than they are now. Unfortunately, an armored sword-and-boarder with a tower shield would be able to pick up the same benefits while carrying a cheese tower shield that weighs next to nothing. If it wasn't for that, I would still be for playtesting the nerf for playability reasons, but now that I've thought about those * featherweight full-sized tower shields, I'd rather see archery keep its current level of power in the game. That, and I don't want to see my arrows getting half-blocked by ninja brig or shoddy studded cloth.

Ahh, the power of cheese.

[Arrakis]

A point:

With an enormous tower and a helm, you're already indestructible to arrows from the front 120 degree arc, at least. Reds and Flors would definitely gain by far the largest benefit from such a change.

I like it.

And I really realllly don't care about the difference between metal and leather armor. I just don't.

[Physic]

Shields are why you would allow arrows to go through helms under this rule system. Current rules I can sit behind a tower shield with a helm and not worry about arrows at all.

I gave a very generous estimate saying thirty percent of fighters at a national event wear full armor. In reality I think that it is much closer at 10 to 15 percent range. We are looking at archery having full abilites toward 70 to 90 percent of the battlefield. To me it is not realistic at all to allow archery to have full power against 100 percent of the people on the field.

Think about it. If an archer looks down a line now the only thing stopping them from killing anyone they see is a sheild and helmet. Consideriing that helms are used much less then body armor, probably in the 5 percent range. This means 95 percent of the field is able to be instantly killed by an archer. I honestly do not understand how you guys can feel this is balanced,.

[Black Cat]

If helms were to actually be nerfed as well as archery (which a few on here have opposed and is something that is likely to see too much opposition), the change would benefit the shieldless fighters more while giving Mr. Megahelm Coreless Tower Shield Guy some kind of weakness in his otherwise impenetrable defense. That would actually be worth the nerf, at least in my opinion.

Otherwise, all it does is add power to anyone (including sword-and-boarders) who can afford to invest in making and wearing armor while gimping archers too far. At least under the current ruleset, I am still able to gank those tower-punch punks from behind, regardless of what kind of armor they might be wearing.


Edit: What do you propose we do about javelins? You can't call your shots on those and a javelin thrown by a strong wielder with sufficient follow-through is almost as powerful in the real world as most weapons we classify as being 'double-green' damage dealers. Javelins can also be caught or blocked by any means, unlike arrows which must be blocked by a shield and otherwise cannot be blocked under the rules.

[Cyric]

Your scenario is also that archers can sit at the back of the line and shoot without threat, which is rare. At the very least a competent fighter will try and push through a line or flank around to disrupt an archer. Once an archer is disrupted, they're usually an easy kill for someone with a shield. Even with a red or Florentine, all that person has to do is make the archer miss once, and they can usually close the difference and take out the archer. Enemy archers are also a consideration, as most archers don't let someone shooting across from them live very long if they can at all help it.

I think the arrow rules are fine in your system, i'm just saying that archery isn't the mega power you're making it out to be. In a bridge battle situation, yes. Open field, like at Oktoberfest, not so much. The same dynamics of gameplay govern melee and missile weapons: being able to hit your target, and being able to defend yourself. These challenges are there whether you are shooting or swinging.

[Rasheab]

Is there a reason we aren't distinguishing between "types" of armor? I don't propose adding extra hits, but what if plate armor was given the bonus vs. arrows, while leather uses the rules we have now (arrows penetrate).

[Aslaug]

Is there a reason we aren't distinguishing between "types" of armor? I don't propose adding extra hits, but what if plate armor was given the bonus vs. arrows, while leather uses the rules we have now (arrows penetrate).

I always thought that would be cool.

[Cyric]

Is there a reason we aren't distinguishing between "types" of armor? I don't propose adding extra hits, but what if plate armor was given the bonus vs. arrows, while leather uses the rules we have now (arrows penetrate).

We don't do that now for simplicity's sake. all armor counts the same so it's easier to keep track of.

[Aslaug]

Is there a reason we aren't distinguishing between "types" of armor? I don't propose adding extra hits, but what if plate armor was given the bonus vs. arrows, while leather uses the rules we have now (arrows penetrate).

We don't do that now for simplicity's sake. all armor counts the same so it's easier to keep track of.

I really don't think making plate proof against arrows would be difficult to keep track of at all.

[Rasheab]

It's what we do now, but would it really make it harder to play?

Arrows wouldn't auto-penetrate plate, counting in effect as a single handed stab. Simple, gives a bonus versus arrows to those willing to wear the heavy stuff, making it harder for archers to take down the really heavily (/dedicated) armored groups, while keeping archery deadly versus light armor.

Oh poor chain, I just don't know what to do with you. (Figure of speach of course. I propose the bonus only to plate armor.)

[Derian]

The idea with these rules is to simplify fighting, not simplify one part and add in complexities to another.

Additionally, if plate had an extra advantage, there would be a much higher incidence of people wearing shoddy plate on the field. As I'm sure we can all guess, shoddy plate has a much higher chance of hurting someone than shoddy leather.

[Oisin]

Additionally, if plate had an extra advantage, there would be a much higher incidence of people wearing shoddy plate on the field. As I'm sure we can all guess, shoddy plate has a much higher chance of hurting someone than shoddy leather.

This is utter truth.

Also, if plate were proof against arrows, people would add a single plate bracer and gauntlet and then start actively blocking arrows, which presents a whole slew of safety and playability issues.

[MagnusofDregoth]

The issue with making plate proof is the complexity in determining what counts as "plate." I foresee great difficulty in coming to a consensus on this point.

Also,

Why not make all 1-handed attacks count as 1 point of damage, and all 2 handed attacks count as 2 points? So, if I thrust or hack with two hands, I ignore your armor, otherwise, I remove your armor protection.

I realize that helms are less common than other armor, but, in all honesty, that's pretty backwards. In real medieval combat, the helm was the indispensable piece of armor, and especially in this game, in which it is likely that you will get hit in the head with an arrow when you least expect it, you should really be wearing one.

Nerfing helms would definitely ease the tensions regarding the nerfing of arrows, so in that respect, I can see it working. But, if you look at historic helmets (which, of course, were solid metal) you find that basically no missile weapon, except a gun, would be able to damage it. They were thicker than torso and limb armor, and moreover, their curvature and the ridges and/or points that they often had meant that arrows would easily deflect off.

[Oisin]

I was asked to post the following by badgremlin, who has not yet been enabled to post in this forum:

I'm not going to use quote boxes because they're annoying for a primary post.

Start badgremlin

- One hand slashing/stabbing = 1 points of damage
- Missile weapons & 2 hand slashing/stabbing = 2 points of damage
- Shield breaks with 2 points of damage from swung 2 hand weapons only (same as current)
- Leather Armor adds 1 point of damage to a hit location
- Metal Body Armor adds 2 points of damage to the body only (No metal limbs swatting arrows)
- Any two limbs damaged = death
- Damaged leg = Immobility.

Two is the magic number. 2 Limbs = death. 2 Points of damage to shield = dead shield. 2 Points of damage to limbs = dead limb. 2 Points of body armor = dead armor. 2 Hands = 2 weapons/equipment. 2 types of damage = simple.


Argument over metal body armor... Who can honestly say they forget about a double green or red to the body even if you are wearing chain? Gives metal armor a bonus for weight by allowing the wearer to take 3 damage to the body. So one arrow won't kill someone in metal, but the one arrow to a limb kills the limb and it might kill the limb's owner.

Afraid of shoddy metal armor? Have faith in the checker to toss bad metal armor out and/or increase metal body standards.

/End badgremlin