Hand on Blade

[Satanaka]

It would seem that if you held your own BLADE- (you would loose the hand) and if you got hit in the sword or blocked with it- common sense would say that you could get the hand cut- MUCH LIKE getting hit in the hand.

A bunch of us (most Veterans) were talking about this. If it is a double edge blade- you'd loose the hand- if it's a single edge blade- then you could use it to block.

Someone mentioned that many of the blades used were doubled edge- BUT that they were not that sharp- as well as the person had metal gauntlets on.

I know that over the last 6 years we (as in Belegarth leadership) have been makeing more rules that clarify and define and fine tune.

Of course- I'd think this is common sense- BUT- for every one that doesn't think so- Why would we not call it a damaged hand like the sword hitting it- IF they have a hand on a blade????

********* Rules********
3.7.3. Blocking a Weapon strike by laying a Weapon against a Target Area and/or Shield is illegal.
3.7.5. Gripping the striking surface of an opponents Weapon results in the disabling of that limb.

[Angmarth]

It would seem that if you held your own BLADE- (you would loose the hand) and if you got hit in the sword or blocked with it- common sense would say that you could get the hand cut- MUCH LIKE getting hit in the hand.

A bunch of us (most Veterans) were talking about this. If it is a double edge blade- you'd loose the hand- if it's a single edge blade- then you could use it to block.

Someone mentioned that many of the blades used were doubled edge- BUT that they were not that sharp- as well as the person had metal gauntlets on.

I know that over the last 6 years we (as in Belegarth leadership) have been makeing more rules that clarify and define and fine tune.

Of course- I'd think this is common sense- BUT- for every one that doesn't think so- Why would we not call it a damaged hand like the sword hitting it- IF they have a hand on a blade????

Thanks

Oisin or some other history buff can verify this, but I believe that half-handing or however you say it was very common. It is accepted (to my knowledge) to assume that "all hands are gauntleted" following the rules that hits to the "hand on weapon" do not count.

EDIT - To keep the KISS system in place it would have to refer to ANY striking surface if touching your own weapon were to result in loss of limb. That would make ZERO sense if someone was using a "club" or "stick".

[Kage]

I'm feeling too lazy to retype the whole thing so...

3.1.5. Hand(s) - Area below the wrist (exclusive). An empty Hand is a legal Target Area. Any Injury to the Hand is considered Injury to the Arm. A Hand on a Weapon or Shield is considered part of that Weapon or Shield.

3.7.3. Blocking a Weapon strike by laying a Weapon against a Target Area and/or Shield is illegal.

3.7.5. Gripping the striking surface of an opponents Weapon results in the disabling of that limb.

Honestly this one has been debated before. These 3 rules are the main ones used for hand on weapon type questions. A hand on a weapon is just that a hand on weapon. Hands holding a weapon are no longer viable targets so they are no longer valid target areas. I bolded opponents for a reason. You can grab your swords striking surface all you want, but not your opponents swords striking surface.

So long story short. Yes, I am of the opinion, that you can block the way you asked without anviling.

[Magpie Saegar]

"Half-swording"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword

According to this wikipedia page, as well as according to an "Archaic Weapons" class that I took at the University of Wisconsin (which met across the hall from Kendo), half-swording was very common, especially between people in plate armor. We were taught to do it making sure to put most of our force into gripping the flat of the blade, and making the assumption that we were wearing properly protective gloves/gauntlets. In our class and in some manuals I have looked through, half-swording was used commonly to guide the sword tip in to a more forceful stab, to reverse the sword and strike with the pommel/crossguard, or to bind and disarm an opponent.

While fighting with a blue-sword-with-crossguard or with my min-red, I frequently block like the person in the following video. Aside from pommel strikes and head shots, this type of fighting is viable in Belegarth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fUDf7pGn0Q



SO TO RECAP, the reasons Magpie thinks half-swording should be viable in our game are as follows:
* It has historical precedent
* It poses no threat to safety (unlike gripping an opponent's striking surface -- which breaks down the foam more)
* It does not unbalance the game
* It's hella-fun and looks awesome when done well
* we could assume that hands were gauntleted
* a hand on a weapon is part of that weapon -- not a target area
* playability is not a serious issue -- it's obvious enough to tell the difference between half-swording and accidentally chopping your hand off.

[Satanaka]

Just to play Devil's Advocate-
I like what you post and agree for the most part- but:

1) **Assuming** gets us in trouble. If you have metal gauntlets- cool- then you can do it- I do not agree that we auto assume everyone has metal gauntlets.

2) I am still playing in my mind if weapon on the blade and blocking a hard hit- do I lose the arm- via the hand like if I reached up and grabbed a person's blad that was stationary???? Or- any hand tounching any weapon and/or shield- is auto protected and un-hitable?????

What is REALLY fair? If I can't grab a stationary sword blade then how can I justify holding my own blade (without a true metal gauntlet) and block hard hits??????

What is Fair and Balanced????

Magpie of Rhun:
* we could assume that hands were gauntleted
* a hand on a weapon is part of that weapon -- not a target area

[Derian]

This seems like such a minor point I'm not sure we should be arguing about 'fair and balanced'. Very few people actually do this, and those who do don't gain much of an advantage over those who do.

I'm in favor of clarifying the rules just so that we don't have to have arguments about it.

[Satanaka]

*?


dear Derian- tis is what we call conversation. not a debate, not an arguement. It's not to add a rule or write a new book. Simple conversation. Now what is NOT needed is someone TURNING it into something it is NOT.

If I might be of any other service to explain to you- please ask.


If we are going to "argue", discuss, converse, debate the "number of people that __________ rule number ____________.... then we could look at MANY NEW rules and ask your very same question.

So Derian- where was your response of "...Very few people actually do this..." when we were talking about shield bashing idio--- woops- people that wear a shield on their backs? (wink)

and this to- is nothing but simple conversation Derian...


dear

This seems like such a minor point I'm not sure we should be arguing about 'fair and balanced'. Very few people actually do this, and those who do don't gain much of an advantage over those who do.

I'm in favor of clarifying the rules just so that we don't have to have arguments about it.

[Derian]

Wow, that was completely unnecessary.

I was talking about the arguments that happen on the field because of the lack of clarity in the rules, but thanks for pulling the thread down.

[Satanaka]

WOW- that is just waht I thought you did...

See- how posting can be taken in many different ways and lights????

I thought for sure that you were just being a pain and going off the deep end.

I think there IS enough doubt to have a good converasation on this. I am not sure how to go on this one due to seeing some good facts and points on both sides. Maybe Derian- that is why I posted the topic.

Then- I perceive that you just tried to muddy it up and "accuse" people of argueing- which seemed silly, Derian.

Does that make sense?

IF YOU are rally trying to add- please do- because I do not see a clear solution- both sides have some valid points.

Wow, that was completely unnecessary.

I was talking about the arguments that happen on the field because of the lack of clarity in the rules, but thanks for pulling the thread down.

[Angmarth]

Saki,

To keep things simple all strikes from weapons are the same if they are of the same class. That means they have to be treated the same. If you want to lose an arm for holding your swords striking surface, then you have to lose an arm for touch the striking surface of a club.

I think you are looking at a level of complexity that just doesn't need to be there.

Which is simpler?

A - Assume everyone has on metal gauntlets while holding a weapon or shield in any way in any hand...

or

B - Lose a limb if you touch the "blade" of a sword or dagger, but not if if you touch a club, mace, hammer, tube 'sword'. If you touch a flail the wielder has to inform you if it has "spikes" on it. You need to know that John the Black's single sided pirate katana is brutally sharp compared to Eric the Mauve's viking dull sword which he can legally touch because it is really a thin metal club.

I think you get the idea.

[Arrakis]

Jesus Christ, just let people halfsword. It's not a big frikkin' deal and it adds some realism as far as stabbing-tipped redsword technique is concerned.

[Rasheab]

Why do we have to assume everyone is wearing -metal- gauntlets? Leather armor counts the same as metal armor here, and it is reasonable to assume people are wearing some kind of gauntlets when they are fighting.

Besides the KISS principle that Angmarth clearly stated.

SO TO RECAP, the reasons Magpie thinks half-swording should be viable in our game are as follows:
* It has historical precedent
* It poses no threat to safety (unlike gripping an opponent's striking surface -- which breaks down the foam more)
* It does not unbalance the game
* It's hella-fun and looks awesome when done well
* we could assume that hands were gauntleted
* a hand on a weapon is part of that weapon -- not a target area
* playability is not a serious issue -- it's obvious enough to tell the difference between half-swording and accidentally chopping your hand off.

[debuenzo]

A bunch of us (most Veterans) were talking about this. If it is a double edge blade- you'd loose the hand- if it's a single edge blade- then you could use it to block.

Saki,
So if you can grab the non-striking part of a single edged sword for a successful block, could you lay the non striking part of a single-edged sword on your arm, leg, or torso for a successful block?

[Kage]

I don't think that was Saki's point. I can see his argument from a realism point of view though. However, I don't share his views because history has taught us that half-swording was done and somewhat effective.

[Poo]

Why do we have to assume everyone is wearing -metal- gauntlets? Leather armor counts the same as metal armor here, and it is reasonable to assume people are wearing some kind of gauntlets when they are fighting.

Doesn't matter what sort of gauntlet they're wearing, its not like it breaks after 2 halfsworded blocks.

[Satanaka]

Guys- I am not suggesting nothing- I just was looking at something that someone else mentioned and could see thet there are valid points on both sides. (ie- "...Discussion & Development..")

ME- WANT TO ADD MORE RULES?? Come on- someone needs to put the crack pipe down.

My "Sage" advice ( ) & my own thoughts are the same as Angmarth- "...Keep it Simple & Common Sense"

So in short- it was just conversation- BECAUSE I read where someone else was talking about it- I am just glad that ALL OF YOU reacted as I had hoped you would. Now- if some idiot tries to make a rule out of this- I am sure that you same guys will respond as you have here.

Thanks.
Satanaka

Debuenzo: "So if you can grab the non-striking part of a single edged sword for a successful block, could you lay the non striking part of a single-edged sword on your arm, leg, or torso for a successful block?

I'd think this would be Anvilling.

[Forkbeard]

Our local interpritation of the rules is that you can grab your own striking surface, but no one else's.
Half-swording is totaly legit. Why couldn't you do this. I used it last night against a guy from a fencing class who dicovered javlins.
FB

[Derian]

I'm not in favor of making a rule, but rather clarifying the existing ones. For instance:

3.7.5. Gripping the striking surface of an opponents Weapon results in the disabling of that limb. Gripping the striking surface of your own weapon has no effect.

I like that one, because it makes the most sense.

Alternatively:

3.7.5. Gripping the striking surface of a Weapon results in the disabling of that limb.

[Soo Ma Tai]

When that wording was passed by WC the idea was that you can't grab an opponents weapon by the striking surface, but you can grap one that is unattended or being weilded by you.

So, yes, half swording is legal. Picking up a weapon off the ground by the striking surface is legal. Grabbing an opponents weapon by the striking surface is not. This was the intention of WC.

[Kage]

As much as I dislike changing rules around; I think Derian has a good fix. His first choice does clear up the rule very nicely and I would be for the clarification as written or something much like it if this discussion goes that far.