Sheild Breaking Rules

[Forkbeard]

A weird thing happend to me at THaw Brawl.
Some Douche-Bag actually ARGUED with me about the rules. THis hasn't happened to me for years.
He insisted that red hits to a sheild edge DO NOT count, no matter how hard. I told him this was not the case and all red hits OF SUFFICENT FORCE to any part of the sheild count towards destroying a sheild. He told me that A) I was wrong and needed to learn the rules(bad start) B) his buddy from Idaho ?Kage? wrote the Bel Rules and C) he'd been fighting 10 years and he should know.
I thought if he'd been fighting in this area for 10 years he would have met me before. Douche-bag.
So, we went and asked his suposedly learned freind and he set the douche-bag straight. THe guy was actually even a * about it until he started to figure out that he was wrong.
My question for you all is: Does anyone else think this?
Are there any more * out there who think that red hits need to land on the FACE of your shield to count?
FB

[Cyric]

This is a somewhat common problem, and happened to me a few years ago at a local practice. But you're right, hits to any part of the shield count.

[Derian]

Yeah, I can't really even see how one might think that. Do they think the edge of the shield somehow isn't part of the shield?

[Arrakis]

That'd probably be the best way to take apart a historical wooden shield.

[Big King Jimmy]

Wow Fork, where'd you bury the body?

[Soo Ma Tai]

He eated it

[Bortas]

When I started in '95, that was the rule as I was taught: shield ages aren't impacted by reds. Clearly, things have changed.

As for how that started, couldn't tell you... I learned from Tasis who learned form Thane.... who spawned most of western fighting....

-bort

[The Great Gigsby]

That'd probably be the best way to take apart a historical wooden shield.

I thought it was fairly common for wooden shields to have some kind of rawhide or metal edging to prevent this from happening. Not that it has any bearing on the rules.

[Isk]

That'd probably be the best way to take apart a historical wooden shield.

I thought it was fairly common for wooden shields to have some kind of rawhide or metal edging to prevent this from happening. Not that it has any bearing on the rules.

I think the word you wanted was discourage this from happening. Wooden shields got chewed and the rawhide facing, or a metal strip on the edge just slowed that down. I remember this being a major point in at least one saga I have read where they brought multiple shields as they used them up during dueling.

[Rasheab]

When I started in 2003, I was also told that shield edge didn't count. Because of common lineages way out west, I'm not sure if it's connected to what Bortas said. However we resolved that misunderstanding years ago in our group.

[Davit]

I've always told newer red fighters that hitting the shield edge of a strapped shield makes it HARDER to count, because it doens'nt always feel like the same amount of impact. But never ever have I told anyone that their shot doesn't count unless it was light, flat, to my face, the person was already dead (only when heralding) or in the case of jav's too damned close.

[Reverend]

The only situation I can think of similar to Fork's where I wouldn't count a Red hit to a shield edge came up in practice the other week.

Relatively weak player with a standard Edhellen glaive, we've just started to get him to swing it (prior, he only ever stabbed, we wanted to teach him to be effective with the entire weapon) and he over-shot his swing to the edge of my shield.

The blade didn't impact on me, and the only thing that hit my shield edge was incidental padding.

This relatively unlikely scenario is the only time I can think of (other than a light hit) that an shield-edge strike wouldn't be taken.

[Forkbeard]

Yeah, my 260 lb * hit his sheild about 8 times with my 8'6" glaive.
Anyway, lets not allow this myth to go on.
I've seen many old fighters crawling out of the woowork for the last couple years and it seems to be picking up. This is a great thing and I want it to continue. Let's all try to keep these guys current on the rules, though.
FB

[Arrakis]

Every time I get a Topic Reply Notification in my inbox and see "Shield Breaking Rules" I mentally add about 9 exclamation points and exclaim "Hell, yeah, it does!"

[Satanaka]

I know this is wrong- and I'll pay for it later- but I would have loved to be there and listened to that conversation and try to hold my laughter....

A weird thing happend to me at THaw Brawl.
Some Douche-Bag actually ARGUED with me about the rules. THis hasn't happened to me for years.
He insisted that red hits to a sheild edge DO NOT count, no matter how hard. I told him this was not the case and all red hits OF SUFFICENT FORCE to any part of the sheild count towards destroying a sheild. He told me that A) I was wrong and needed to learn the rules(bad start) B) his buddy from Idaho ?Kage? wrote the Bel Rules and C) he'd been fighting 10 years and he should know.
I thought if he'd been fighting in this area for 10 years he would have met me before. Douche-bag.
So, we went and asked his suposedly learned freind and he set the douche-bag straight. THe guy was actually even a * about it until he started to figure out that he was wrong.
My question for you all is: Does anyone else think this?
Are there any more * out there who think that red hits need to land on the FACE of your shield to count?
FB

[Forkbeard]

It was pretty funny. He really thought I was trying to * him.
FB

[Mercer]

Some people are under the mistaken impression that they have to hear a BOOM of the weapon hitting the front of the shield for it to count. This and a few other persistent little myths are a flaw of the somewhat viral method of teaching the game... mistaken ideas get passed from person to person, and they don't know any better, especially if they don't face different players a lot.

I do have to commend you, FB, for not ripping his throat out right there for talking down to you.

[varadin]

I personally hate the myth that if you don't yell "Two/Red" while swinging a two handed weapon and hitting a shield people wont take them.

[Derian]

I don't think that's a myth. I won't take a red shot unless the wielder calls 'RED' or 'TWO' or whatever. Without that call, I have no idea whether or not their swings indeed had two hands on them for the duration of the strike as I'm typically paying attention to other things.

If a red wielder wants someone to take their shots as red, it's their responsibility to let the defender know that the attacks were indeed red if they landed with sufficient force, just like it's the responsibility of a spear user to let the defender know that their attacks are armor piercing because they were dealt with two hands.

[Arrakis]

I wonder if there's a better way to deal with such things.

[Derian]

It's not really a big deal.

I know I personally find that screaming 'RED' just adds to the fun. I'm sure others feel the same way.

[Elebrim]

I don't think that's a myth. I won't take a red shot unless the wielder calls 'RED' or 'TWO' or whatever. Without that call, I have no idea whether or not their swings indeed had two hands on them for the duration of the strike as I'm typically paying attention to other things.

If a red wielder wants someone to take their shots as red, it's their responsibility to let the defender know that the attacks were indeed red if they landed with sufficient force, just like it's the responsibility of a spear user to let the defender know that their attacks are armor piercing because they were dealt with two hands.

In my opinion, this falls into the same category as archers calling shots - if you, the target, clearly see/feel the arrow hit you, you should take the hit. Asking for an archer's call to clarify is helpful, and generally good when you are hit in the middle of another engagement or didn't see/feel it initially hit. But if you don't take an arrow because "the archer never called it," you're cheating. And when people blow off arrows, archers call their shots more, and usually much more poorly.

Same thing with reds - if your shield is struck with sufficient force, and the wielder is clearly wielding a red weapon with two hands, then you should take red. Yes, the person swinging should call it to clarify, especially if it's a confusing situation or they are swinging from the side/behind. But if the attacker hits a shield with a dozen odd red hits and the opponent won't take any of them on the technicality that "they didn't call red", he/she looks like a huge cheater. If it's from behind, taking the blue hit is to be expected, but that's a different circumstance altogether. If people blow off red shots, the red wielder will either A) call it more frequently, or B) fire more poor/dangerous red hits to compensate.

[Arrakis]

Derian, I dislike having to waste the breath needed to holler "RED!" every couple of seconds when fighting mini-red.

[Big King Jimmy]

I know Derian, and I'm sure he doesn't mean he's ignoring reds that aren't called that he clearly sees are red. I think he's saying that in a hectic line battle, a red fighter who wants his hits to be known as red should probably call red.

[varadin]

I know Derian, and I'm sure he doesn't mean he's ignoring reds that aren't called that he clearly sees are red. I think he's saying that in a hectic line battle, a red fighter who wants his hits to be known as red should probably call red.

i agree there, and im not saying its not a good habit to call red. I just hate the people you knock over and they say "you didnt call red so im not taking it as red" They are few and far between but it does happen. When it does its cheating plain and simple.

The only time you are required to call colors/numbers is from behind. Other then that I just give people the benifit of the doubt that they are in fact useing two hands unless i can see other wise. Its kinda like the rule of getting hit in arm and torso take the torso.

[Chicken]

Truth.

There is a point about not knowing whether two hands remained on the weapon for the whole swing - less so for a red I think, but definitely for a spear. Every event I have to retract a few calls of "TWO!" because they're 2" too far away and my hand slips at the last instant.

But yes, if you know you were hit with an (X) and choose to take it as something else or ignore it altogether because no one told you that's what happened, you're a dirty cheater. Which Derian is not, to be clear .

[Derian]

Let me amend my post:

I'll not take shots that are marginal if the wielder doesn't call them out.

If I get leveled (even if they're one handed, to be honest) or they're clearly red, I'll take them. However, often I'm not watching their hands and lack of communication + weak shots == try again.

[Satanaka]

Then- your cheating.

or did we create ANOTHER rule that says YOU HAVE TO CALL YOUR SHOT OR RED SHOT?

Sorta reminds me of people that don't take an arrow shot unless someone "calls" it- they are cheaters- rhinohydes...

I don't think that's a myth. I won't take a red shot unless the wielder calls 'RED' or 'TWO' or whatever.

[Rasheab]

Let me amend my post:

I'll not take shots that are marginal if the wielder doesn't call them out.

If I get leveled (even if they're one handed, to be honest) or they're clearly red, I'll take them. However, often I'm not watching their hands and lack of communication + weak shots == try again.

[Satanaka]

cool. Thanks...

Missed that.

Let me amend my post:

I'll not take shots that are marginal if the wielder doesn't call them out.

If I get leveled (even if they're one handed, to be honest) or they're clearly red, I'll take them. However, often I'm not watching their hands and lack of communication + weak shots == try again.

[Rasheab]

Np.