single green damage to armor

[Arrakis]

Belegarth is clearly designed as an approximation of unarmored combat. Otherwise, we'd require armor, allow headshots, and just do counted blows to 10 or something for incapacitation. You could stretch pretty easily and say that stabbing or hacking me in the arm with an Oakeshott Type XI sword will prevent me from using that arm offensively and contribute materially to putting me out of a fight. Saying that hitting me twice or stabbing me twice or anything elsing me twice in my arm in a bronze bazuband or a steel arm cannon or a even a decent gambeson with chain over it is going to disable that arm and contribute to putting me out of the fight is ridiculous.

Armor was allowed into the original Dagorhir rule-set because the guys who ran it were like, "Oh, cool, you made sweet plate mail (sic) armor? It should totally let you take more hits!" Yeah, it can look good on the field. To encourage it and stick to our "realism" at least in name, we allow those wearing it to soak an extra shot. Fine. Sounds good.

But the ability, Forkbeard, to ignore one-handed stabs entirely while wearing armor was, until recently, not a major balancing feature of armor, primarily because the only one-handed stabs you ever encountered were from spears who could most of the time very easily just two-hand you, instead. Now, the balance is shifting towards more one-handed stabbing weapons present on the field and many times the number of one-handed stabs thrown per event than in years past. That means that the on-field value of armor is rising: your armor is now immune to a larger percentage of shots than it was before, by very large margin. If the average shot ratio on the field used to be 100:1 one-handed hacks to one-handed stabs, it's gotta be 20:1 now. That means your armor is five times, that's 500%, more effective than it used to be.

If we don't change this rule, armor gets 500% better. If we do, it gets 1% worse, historically speaking, and now people who have the time or money to buy good armor have to learn to block stabs like the rest of us do. Armor wearers get the benefit of increased skill and non-armor wearers get the benefit of not having to buy armor since now that it's 500% better there's basically no reason to try to be competitive without it.


In order to maintain balance between armored and unarmored combatants, especially in an era of very lightweight, very low encumbrance leather armors, we need to allow single green stabs to do one point of damage to armored target areas.

[Isk]

Arrakis has clarified what I meant pretty well, so I'll leave it alone, other than to say I was there during the evolution of armor rules in the west and that is EXACTLY how it happened. For a while plate armor did soak 3 shots. I remember a guy who was a pretty mediocre fighter, had just a plate breastplate and he became a serious powerhouse on the field with those three free hits. I have made and worn several types of armor in my time because it is cool. I am hoping my new set of bel-tastic leather turns out nice as well.

Fork, you rock. Thanks for being open to both sides of this and thanks for play-testing this at Samhain. I am really looking forward to fighting some Uruk-hai.

[Ketsif]

..why not just have metal armors be immune to stabs and leather armors have stabs work same as slashes? It would make more people wear chain/plate and give more variety to the armor on the field.

[Tiberius Claudius]

..why not just have metal armors be immune to stabs and leather armors have stabs work same as slashes? It would make more people wear chain/plate and give more variety to the armor on the field.

I believe a major tenet of Loptr's original intent was to simplify things.

Making "one armor do one thing and another armor do another" seems to only be a swap of "stabbed limbs hang and don't contribute to death, but hacked arms do".

It is simpler to say "stabs do 1 point of damage" than to say "sometimes this and sometimes that". It seems like the discussion now is covering whether or not that's too much of a simplification for people's tastes, rather than to do away with leather and composite armors or encourage other types on the field.

[Thorondor]

..why not just have metal armors be immune to stabs and leather armors have stabs work same as slashes? It would make more people wear chain/plate and give more variety to the armor on the field.

What does studded armor count as in this? It's leather base and metal studs...
What about ringmail? It's leather base with metal rings on it...

Does any metal on the armor make it count as metal armor? If so, why not consider leather armor metal since it has metal rivets. Or are you going to make armor with any leather on it not count as metal armor? If so, then technically any leather straps on metal would make it count as leather armor. This means ONLY chainmail would count as metal armor and be immune to stabs. But that would just cause more chain on the field and not plate...and even then, what about leather/chain combo like on some armor...would those be considered leather or metal? Or would it be metal parts are immune to stabs and the leather parts aren't??

Get where I'm going? There's WAY too many variables to say "this counts as this" and "that counts as that." If so, then you get into an Amtgard style tiered armor where you get bonuses for period materials and workmanship on top of the type of armor it really is (pretty sure those are the two bonuses armor can get)...

~Þ~

[Juicer]

This is so much *. It works just fine as is. All the pocket-stabbers are just * that their sweet new move doesn't work against anyone wearing a chestplate. Change it if you will, but I'm with Plithuit. It seems like the first step towards changing stab rules entirely, which I heartily disagree with, and made that known two years ago when we last talked about this *. I wouldn't mind being able to damage armor with one-handed green, but I don't like where it leads.

[Arrakis]

This is so much *. It works just fine as is. All the pocket-stabbers are just * that their sweet new move doesn't work against anyone wearing a chestplate. Change it if you will, but I'm with Plithuit. It seems like the first step towards changing stab rules entirely, which I heartily disagree with, and made that known two years ago when we last talked about this *. I wouldn't mind being able to damage armor with one-handed green, but I don't like where it leads.

Where does it "lead", since it's clearly so obvious to you and so clearly not a slippery slope argument?

If people didn't really wear armor, I wouldn't care, but too many people wear armor on a national field for stabbing to remain a second-class citizen like this.

[Elebrim]

This is so much *. It works just fine as is. All the pocket-stabbers are just * that their sweet new move doesn't work against anyone wearing a chestplate. Change it if you will, but I'm with Plithuit. It seems like the first step towards changing stab rules entirely, which I heartily disagree with, and made that known two years ago when we last talked about this *. I wouldn't mind being able to damage armor with one-handed green, but I don't like where it leads.

Where does it "lead", since it's clearly so obvious to you and so clearly not a slippery slope argument?

If people didn't really wear armor, I wouldn't care, but too many people wear armor on a national field for stabbing to remain a second-class citizen like this.

Truth. Truth and a half. I bolded to emphasize the relevant sections to demonstrate how truthy this really is.

Armor isn't broken as it is. It isn't designed to be uber-realistic, but rather uber-playable. It's designed, like Forkbeard said, to approximate how it would actually behave on a field in a historic context - given the rest of the rules in the game. Even if the exact points of comparison don't line up with history due to the rest of the game's rules, the overall balancing effect does.

And yes, I have had many scenarios where the save versus a one handed stab has saved my life and changed the outcome for my whole team.

Whether or not everyone likes it, the game's rules are designed to be equal opportunity in nature. Turin is right that there is a consideration made for culture - not everyone who plays is a stick jock, or even remotely wants to be a stick jock. If there were, we'd be on ESPN 7 and there would be jerseys instead of garb. Therefore, there is a place within the rules as they are for more or less everyone who is physically able. A "simple" change like this changes how the game is played, thereby changing who can play and making the game less equal in opportunity.

I for one want my fellow unit members and friends who are not all freaking tanks to be able to pick up a sword, go out, have fun, and come back - alive. I think more people will get hurt from bad stabs and only a few people will have more fun.

[Ketsif]

Elebrim- Considering the amount of emphasis that is placed on safety in terms of stabbing tips and the fact that armor is, in fact, armor- I'd rather be stabbed while wearing armor than while not wearing armor. I'm not sure how this change would affect the casual player more than the more experienced 'tanks' anyways considering that it's usually the more experienced players who wear armor. If it's the fact that stabbing tips would become even more prevalent- that's happening anyways and people are trying to change the rules to match this change in culture. I'm just not seeing the issue you are trying to bring up being related to armor rather than weapon checking.

edit/add: Thoronder/Tiberius- I see you guys' points and concede to them.

[Isk]

The point being made is actually that the game has been balanced while stabbing was rare. The issue of stabs not affecting armor didn't come up that much. Stabbing has become more common, therefore armor is more valuable changing the balance of the game from what it was before. Reference Arrakis' numbers above, if stabs were 1/100 shots and now they're 1/20, armor is 5x more effective, which changes the balance.

[rant]I own and wear armor, I am not great at landing successful stabs. I don't even stab very often. I am not arguing for this rule because I think it would power up my best moves. If anything, it will make the game harder for me. The only reason the distinction exists is not some well thought out, "This will provide superior balance to our game" passed down from the gods. It is this way because at some point in Dagorhir's development they thought, "Hey stabs shouldn't hurt armor, that'd be cool." Stabs not affecting armor is not more realistic (the opposite, actually), it is not safer and I don't see why giving armor invulnerability to stabs in any way provides better balance.[/rant]

This suggested change needs to be playtested and we'll find out on the field if it changes the game in mind-bendingly horrible ways or just makes it that much smoother and simpler. We played by the 1h green = 1h blue rules again tonight and it worked smoothly, not altering the balance among the weapons, but removing one little mental checklist from the game. I am looking forward to seeing how this works out at Samhain this weekend.

[The Great Gigsby]

Elebrim, you should playtest the proposed rules change at your local park and then report your results. A skilled fighter in armor should be able to counter a stab just as deftly as they will a hack. Marty McNoob is going to eat dirt either way.

To me, the logic behind a change like this is to simply make a hit = a hit = a hit. I've been doing this for about 5 years now, and I still don't pay attention to armor stopping stabs or piercing damage not counting towards a death on limbs or any number of silly backwards rules that you all like to keep around for whatever reason. It's confusing and illogical and I don't care that much about winning to play by them.

[Elebrim]

The point being made is actually that the game has been balanced while stabbing was rare. The issue of stabs not affecting armor didn't come up that much. Stabbing has become more common, therefore armor is more valuable changing the balance of the game from what it was before. Reference Arrakis' numbers above, if stabs were 1/100 shots and now they're 1/20, armor is 5x more effective, which changes the balance.

More stabbing (1/100 "then" vs. 5/100 "now") doesn't mean that armor is 5x more effective. The armor balancing effect is just 5x more obvious than it was before, because it is coming into play 5x more often. It doesn't mean that the rule is now magically out of balance, it means that the rule is doing exactly what it was designed to do and we're just now paying more attention.

Giggles - I'm sorry that a bunch of us have fun with the "silly backwards rules" that you don't like.

Ketsif - I think you missed part of the point - the current stabbing rules add an incentive for people to wear armor apart from the extra hit. The rule change being proposed is a disincentive for armor. But the rise in stabbing will exist anyway, which means that more unarmored people will get stabbed - more casual players, by your description.

As stabbing got more popular over the past year, the standard in stabbing tips has gone down to allow harder stabs. You yourself said that even when made safely, you would prefer to get stabbed while wearing armor than while not wearing armor. It is a forceful way to get hit - and more casual players will not appreciate always getting slammed that way when someone stabs them.

The rule change is also - if you caught the theme I quoted previously - specifically to power up stabbing in response to its rise in popularity. "Hey, we do this more now, so we should make it cooler and better than before." Sorry, but I'm fine with challenging myself to get better within the rules as they are rather than change them to customize myself and any new trick I may pick up.

[Big King Jimmy]

The point being made is actually that the game has been balanced while stabbing was rare. The issue of stabs not affecting armor didn't come up that much. Stabbing has become more common, therefore armor is more valuable changing the balance of the game from what it was before. Reference Arrakis' numbers above, if stabs were 1/100 shots and now they're 1/20, armor is 5x more effective, which changes the balance.

More stabbing (1/100 "then" vs. 5/100 "now") doesn't mean that armor is 5x more effective. The armor balancing effect is just 5x more obvious than it was before, because it is coming into play 5x more often. It doesn't mean that the rule is now magically out of balance, it means that the rule is doing exactly what it was designed to do and we're just now paying more attention.

Okay, I see your point, but you have to admit that armor is blocking 5x the number of stabs is was previously, and that's got to account for something. Can we agree that with the increase in stabs body armor is at least more tasty and delicious than it was before? Anytime something doesn't change but you want it more a critical eye should be given to the situation.

Ketsif - I think you missed part of the point - the current stabbing rules add an incentive for people to wear armor apart from the extra hit. The rule change being proposed is a disincentive for armor. But the rise in stabbing will exist anyway, which means that more unarmored people will get stabbed - more casual players, by your description.

Emphasis mine. Not the right word for the situation, semantics possibly but I feel it's an important distinction. Disincentive implies a penalty for the action, ie: commit a crime, disincentive is jail. There is still an incentive, just a smaller one. Therefore, the rules change being proposed no matter how you slice it still leaves armor giving an incentive for wearing it. I don't disagree with your point, but I think that the way it's worded makes it sound worse than it actually is.

As stabbing got more popular over the past year, the standard in stabbing tips has gone down to allow harder stabs. You yourself said that even when made safely, you would prefer to get stabbed while wearing armor than while not wearing armor. It is a forceful way to get hit - and more casual players will not appreciate always getting slammed that way when someone stabs them.

Again, not really. Stabbing tip technology has done nothing but improve the last year. And especially over the last 5. I feel that stabbing tip checking perhaps has be relaxed a little, but what do you know, the rogues constantly volunteer for weapons check. If you want to influence that, the best way is to man up and volunteer. I'm not saying that's a personal problem for you, it's more of a blanket statement. If you don't like the way things are checked, become the checker, problem solved, unless the head weapons checker disagrees.

I'd prefer to get poked with a pencil while wearing armor vs not, or tickled, or punched, or even hit with a perfectly passing blue sword or even red rock. At the end of the day, armor is made to protect, period, and a blow of any of these types (if you can call being tickled a blow) is more comfortable when protected as armor is intended to do.

I can understand your point on the casual player, but that person should probably be equally or even more afraid of red shots and arrows to the face. Or javs, eek. And while I don't seek to argue against your point by one upping your evidence (I believe that's probably some form of false logic) stabs aren't any worse now than they were 5 years ago. They're just more prevalent and come in a nicely packaged setup, it's basically marine foam and you're done. And so we're getting stabbed more, those stabs are coming with better form, and they feel harder. It's not a drop in stabbing tips, it's more educated stabbing. That's like giving a normal guy a gun, and then the same gun to a pro shooter and blaming the gun when the pro shooter has better grouping.

The rule change is also - if you caught the theme I quoted previously - specifically to power up stabbing in response to its rise in popularity. "Hey, we do this more now, so we should make it cooler and better than before." Sorry, but I'm fine with challenging myself to get better within the rules as they are rather than change them to customize myself and any new trick I may pick up.

Yah, true. But if WC disagree, we change the rules. But your logic there's no point in changing them, we have a set, and should train ourselves to act within them, therefore why have a WC? This game evolves, it's a living rules set. That's the nature of the beast.

[The Great Gigsby]

Giggles - I'm sorry that a bunch of us have fun with the "silly backwards rules" that you don't like.

Of every argument I've made for and against this rules change, the one you latch onto is "Giggles doesn't like people having fun." Okay, you got me.

The rule change is also - if you caught the theme I quoted previously - specifically to power up stabbing in response to its rise in popularity. "Hey, we do this more now, so we should make it cooler and better than before."

I'd like to think that we're mature enough to not have to resort to lobbying for our pet weapons class. I fight with a pole most of the time. When I fight s&b or single blue, I throw stabs 25%-75% depending on the skill level of who I'm up against. Stabs could be completely ineffective and I'd still throw them (actually I'd go back to Amtgard) because it's good fight mechanics and it's a very realistic technique. My love for stabbing has nothing to do with my support for this proposal; my passion for having a more balanced, playable, and realistic combat system is. Stabbing isn't some newly discovered tech. It's the proto-tech. When you punch somebody, guess what? You're stabbing them. With your fist.

Sorry, but I'm fine with challenging myself to get better within the rules as they are rather than change them to customize myself and any new trick I may pick up.

Did you support ultralight weapons when they were removed from the BoW because they challenged yourself to get better within the rules as they were? What about the change to metal gauntlets? Didn't the risk of getting accidentally hit in the jaw with a metal fist challenge yourself to get better within the rules as they were?

[Elebrim]

Jimmy - Most of the people who have been speaking up here have benefited from the save versus a one handed stab before the increase in stabbing took place, so I don't think it is fair to say that we should reexamine the rules and potentially negate that benefit (fair call on the language) just because they are benefiting more. Armor users are not doing anything differently; it's everyone else throwing more stabs that is different. The rule being discussed stands to obviously benefit only those who changed (i.e. the people stabbing), and removes benefits from those who stayed the same (armor wearers) and did nothing wrong in the process. Hence my argument that this is all tantamount to "Hey, let's make X thing we do more often even better."

On the stabbing standards point - My bad for using a poor choice of language. What I should have said was not that the standard of construction has gone down, but that they have become harder over time. Not less safe or more poorly constructed, but harder. I like the marine foam and have used it for a few years now. And I have worked at least half or more of the events I go to every year helping with weapons check in some capacity, so I've seen this firsthand - both the good and the bad. There is a point where even when a stabbing tip is designed to be "safe," it can still hit too hard - kinda like how a brand new sword almost always has to be broken in because it hits too hard, even though all the padding is technically fine otherwise.

I agree that there are other risks on the field apart from stabbing, but right now we are only dealing with stabbing and the impact of any rule changes. I'm just staying on focus.


Giggles - I knew you were part of the anti-fun conspiracy! I was just trying to point out like Turin did earlier how more than a few people have used pejorative language in describing the current stabbing rule-set and the people who favor the current rules. It's the standard fallacy of misrepresenting the arguer instead of focusing on the argument presented.

I recognize the technical and strategic value of stabbing, hence why I'm trying to become better with them myself. But that still doesn't necessarily translate into a demand for a change in the rules surrounding them. And while you may not want to lobby for it just because it's the cool new thing to do, other people are doing just that and are doing it openly.

And on your rules points - just because there is a mechanism to change the rules doesn't mean that we have to always use it. That's why we're here having this discussion at all. And comparing primarily a safety rule issue (gauntlets) to primarily a playability rule issue (this issue here) is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not a remotely accurate comparison.

[Reverend]

Forgive the pseudo-rambling, I've not had much sleep and wanted to get my thoughts out on the play testing while it's still fresh in my mind.

Samhain is over now.

I both fought and heralded this event, while play testing the 1hG = 1hB, and Pierce counts to DbD...

We did not have an "Everything is stabby" weapon check, if it wasn't marked and built for stabby, it wasn't checked for stabby.

And I have to say, it was really **** awesome as a herald. When someone got stabbed/hit, there was no possible way for them to try and cheese which limb has what damage.

Actual conversation I had:
"Dude, I got stabbed in the arm." "And then you got hit in the leg, go down, you're dead."

As a fighter, it really **** sucked. I wear greaves, torso armor, and a helm.

I watched two mediocre spear fighters take out an entire line with synchronized 2hG to the shins. I felt way to many knuckles, hafts, and 2hG stabs in the face (with 1h weapons), throat, and back of my head because people would rather try and stab to take the armor than throw a shot that is easier to block.

Until this weekend, I have never been stabbed in the throat/face/head unless I made a mistake or it was some wild-ass newbie who doesn't know what they're doing.

Did I use 1hG? Yes, all of my weapons pass for stab.

Did I use stabs against armor? Once or twice because I missed the gap I was aiming at by an inch or so.

Did I throw more stabs in? Not really.

This play test showed me that these proposals (together and separately) fail miserably for the first tenants of this sport: Safety and playability.

Actual conversation I had with a fighter after he stabbed me in the eye:
"Mate, you gotta work on your shot placement, this wild stabbing nonsense is going to hurt someone." "Why should I work on shot placement? I can just keep stabbing 'till I get through your armor."

I would much rather take an accidental blue/red strike to the neck/head than a stab because someone missed my bicep or back.

I'm sure I'll have more later, but I've got to get a shower.

[Arrakis]

Some retards would rather fight sloppy than learn to fight? What's new?

Not a good reason to not pass something.

[Reverend]

Some retards would rather fight sloppy than learn to fight? What's new?

Not a good reason to not pass something.

It wasn't just "some retards", it was a significant number of fighters who were, in my opinion, causing a significant safety issue.

I know you've been an absolutely perfect fighter for hundreds of years and no one can ever match your experience and you've never been wrong...

But people wanted feedback on how this plays out. I provided my feedback on it. Don't be a douche.

Edited to add: I still had fun, and people are sure to disagree with me, but I have never before as a fighter felt this much in danger of actual physical injury.

I used the worst example I could remember off the top of my head to help illustrate what appeared to be a prevalent mind-set.

[Thorondor]

Actual conversation I had with a fighter after he stabbed me in the eye:
"Mate, you gotta work on your shot placement, this wild stabbing nonsense is going to hurt someone." "Why should I work on shot placement? I can just keep stabbing 'till I get through your armor."

To be honest, as a herald I'd tell him to work on shot placement once I noticed this behavior. If he kept throwing wild stabs I would pull him from the field for a few fights and explain to him that he was being unsafe and what would happen if he kept doing so. If he kept throwing wild stabs after being spoken to twice, I'd pull him from the field for the day.

It's the same as someone throwing wild shots with a blue and smacking people in the head. IF they continue to be unsafe, pull them from the field.

It wasn't just "some retards", it was a significant number of fighters who were, in my opinion, causing a significant safety issue.

If you make an example of a few of these fighters, the others will either 1) get the message that being unsafe isn't going to be tolerated or 2) not get the message and be thrown off the field as well.

This almost reminds me of the 'shenanigans' issue that was going on for a little while...after enough people got the message (that they'd be kicked from the event) the problem resolved itself for the most part. I haven't heard of any shenanigan issues on the boards in a while now. A few odds and ends might happen, but not nearly as bad as it had gotten.

[Loptr]

*snip* so I don't think it is fair to say that we should reexamine the rules and potentially negate that benefit just because they are benefiting more. Armor users are not doing anything differently; it's everyone else throwing more stabs that is different. The rule being discussed stands to obviously benefit only those who changed and removes benefits from those who stayed the same and did nothing wrong in the process. Hence my argument that this is all tantamount to "Hey, let's make X thing we do more often even better."

I do not agree with this statement. As a crossgamer I "grew up" throwing stabs as a regular part of my shot calibration. I always found the stab to armor rule out of touch with the goal of "medieval recreation". Stabbing is a fairly new tactic to the Bel fields I frequent. It is truly awesome to witness the change that is taking place in the game. Peeps are learning to throw AND block stabs. I will posit the people that do not change (IE: learn to block, NOT peeps in armor *) ought to have the reality of taking damage from stabs. Blocking the stab is a skillset like any other skillset it is learned over time. This includes the ability to properly place a stab. Speaking to Reverends point about safety. It's like the Bel ditch as SKBC it was crazy aggressive. This was because 40 sword knights/stick jocks were able to try out "new toys" in the form of bashing and kicking etc. There was some borderline safety issues. But this comes with anything new, there is an adjustment period. The idiot who is consistently unsafe needs to be made an example of.

I recognize the technical and strategic value of stabbing, hence why I'm trying to become better with them myself. But that still doesn't necessarily translate into a demand for a change in the rules surrounding them. And while you may not want to lobby for it just because it's the cool new thing to do, other people are doing just that and are doing it openly.

I for one could care less about the cool kids club. I am trying to openly discuss what I percieve as a shortcoming in this wonderful game. It is inevitable as stabbing tips become better designed, less rigid on testing for pillow hits, you are going to see an uptick in a highly viable tactic. Especially one that is historically accurate against an armored opponent.

And I have to say, it was really **** awesome as a herald. When someone got stabbed/hit, there was no possible way for them to try and cheese which limb has what damage.
Actual conversation I had:
"Dude, I got stabbed in the arm." "And then you got hit in the leg, go down, you're dead."
As a fighter, it really **** sucked. I wear greaves, torso armor, and a helm. I watched two mediocre spear fighters take out an entire line with synchronized 2hG to the shins.

Correct me if I am wrong. Does not Dbl green from a spear pierce and bypass armor? How has this changed the game? Is it lame? But its not illegal.

I felt way to many knuckles, hafts, and 2hG stabs in the face (with 1h weapons), throat, and back of my head because people would rather try and stab to take the armor than throw a shot that is easier to block.
This play test showed me that these proposals (together and separately) fail miserably for the first tenants of this sport: Safety and playability.
Actual conversation I had with a fighter after he stabbed me in the eye:
"Mate, you gotta work on your shot placement, this wild stabbing nonsense is going to hurt someone." "Why should I work on shot placement? I can just keep stabbing 'till I get through your armor."

Two thoughts on this Rev.
1. As I mentioned above. When a new "toy" is brought out it tends to get over used by peeps that don't really understand how to use it. I do not feel this is a reason to shot down a good idea. This is a good time to educate the masses on how to stab.
2. I wish you'd had the guy thrown off the field for that conversation. That is the mindset of an unsafe fighter not an unsafe skillset. As mentioned above peeps should be made examples of so that the message is clear. Just because stabbing is viable doesn't mean you can start being sloppy.

I do NOT want to discourage the use of armor. I am in full agreement quality armor on the field is a fine sight to behold. At the same time I saw some truly craptastic armor at Samhain. It is my opinion that what is considered armor has been cheesed by some into the thinnest leather jacket with some studs added for flavor/"protection". Armor kicks * and I intend to construct some sweet thick hardened leather. At the same time I am interested in armor for two reasons, it makes me feel like a badass (which ups my game) AND I gain an extra hit thereby staying in the game longer.

I keep hearing the argument of this is not fair to armor, why change it now. Well I feel I have made my case a number of times on this.
Safety, playability and realism. I feel all of these criteria are met. Wild out of control players must be dealt with regardless of their infraction.

Thanks to everybody for the civil and on topic conversation. I truly respect each of you for your cool headedness.

Loptr

[Reverend]

Actual conversation I had with a fighter after he stabbed me in the eye:
"Mate, you gotta work on your shot placement, this wild stabbing nonsense is going to hurt someone." "Why should I work on shot placement? I can just keep stabbing 'till I get through your armor."

To be honest, as a herald I'd tell him to work on shot placement once I noticed this behavior. If he kept throwing wild stabs I would pull him from the field for a few fights and explain to him that he was being unsafe and what would happen if he kept doing so. If he kept throwing wild stabs after being spoken to twice, I'd pull him from the field for the day.

It's the same as someone throwing wild shots with a blue and smacking people in the head. IF they continue to be unsafe, pull them from the field.

If I had been heralding, I would have. But I wasn't wearing the yellow, so I didn't do much beyond talk to him each time and point out to the heralds what was happening.

It wasn't just "some retards", it was a significant number of fighters who were, in my opinion, causing a significant safety issue.

If you make an example of a few of these fighters, the others will either 1) get the message that being unsafe isn't going to be tolerated or 2) not get the message and be thrown off the field as well.

This almost reminds me of the 'shenanigans' issue that was going on for a little while...after enough people got the message (that they'd be kicked from the event) the problem resolved itself for the most part. I haven't heard of any shenanigan issues on the boards in a while now. A few odds and ends might happen, but not nearly as bad as it had gotten.

I'd hope that this is the case.

I'll be honest, I could probably get behind the pierce to armor does same as blue to armor.... but I think the pierce counts towards DbD completely breaks the spirit of the game.

[Reverend]

And I have to say, it was really **** awesome as a herald. When someone got stabbed/hit, there was no possible way for them to try and cheese which limb has what damage.
Actual conversation I had:
"Dude, I got stabbed in the arm." "And then you got hit in the leg, go down, you're dead."
As a fighter, it really **** sucked. I wear greaves, torso armor, and a helm. I watched two mediocre spear fighters take out an entire line with synchronized 2hG to the shins.

Correct me if I am wrong. Does not Dbl green from a spear pierce and bypass armor? How has this changed the game? Is it lame? But its not illegal.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Under current rules, I can get pierced in both legs on a line and still be a viable fighter from my knees. My team can use me as a fulcrum or part of an anvil tactic.

But, with the proposed/play tested pierced limbs count towards DbD, this possibility is eliminated.

As effective as these two inexperienced spearmen were, imagine a competent spearman. The only way that you'll see people try to counter this is with giant **** huge shields. Which is going to slow combat, which is going to defeat the entire "let's make this game faster" aspect of this.

Like I said, I could probably be convinced to back the 1hG to armor, but not in conjunction with pierce to limb. And especially if the pierce to limb passes.

I felt way to many knuckles, hafts, and 2hG stabs in the face (with 1h weapons), throat, and back of my head because people would rather try and stab to take the armor than throw a shot that is easier to block.
This play test showed me that these proposals (together and separately) fail miserably for the first tenants of this sport: Safety and playability.
Actual conversation I had with a fighter after he stabbed me in the eye:
"Mate, you gotta work on your shot placement, this wild stabbing nonsense is going to hurt someone." "Why should I work on shot placement? I can just keep stabbing 'till I get through your armor."

Two thoughts on this Rev.
1. As I mentioned above. When a new "toy" is brought out it tends to get over used by peeps that don't really understand how to use it. I do not feel this is a reason to shot down a good idea. This is a good time to educate the masses on how to stab.
2. I wish you'd had the guy thrown off the field for that conversation. That is the mindset of an unsafe fighter not an unsafe skillset. As mentioned above peeps should be made examples of so that the message is clear. Just because stabbing is viable doesn't mean you can start being sloppy.

I do NOT want to discourage the use of armor. I am in full agreement quality armor on the field is a fine sight to behold. At the same time I saw some truly craptastic armor at Samhain. It is my opinion that what is considered armor has been cheesed by some into the thinnest leather jacket with some studs added for flavor/"protection". Armor kicks * and I intend to construct some sweet thick hardened leather. At the same time I am interested in armor for two reasons, it makes me feel like a badass (which ups my game) AND I gain an extra hit thereby staying in the game longer.

I keep hearing the argument of this is not fair to armor, why change it now. Well I feel I have made my case a number of times on this.
Safety, playability and realism. I feel all of these criteria are met. Wild out of control players must be dealt with regardless of their infraction.

Thanks to everybody for the civil and on topic conversation. I truly respect each of you for your cool headedness.

Loptr

Fair enough, I can get behind this. My mind has been changed... provided the green to DbD is forgotten entirely.

[Kage]

I have kept pretty quiet on this topic but, I believe it has marinated enough now that I can make a decent post regarding it. For those that do know me and know me well they already know this but; I try to stay humble on and off the field. I personally see myself as a mediocre fighter, however I am usually told other wise. I do my best to thank the person for their compliment, but let them know its not because I'm better than them. This brings me to the fact that I do own armor, but I don't normally wear it. I feel I should be able to kill armored fighters unarmored and walk away. When I wear armor it has nothing to do with giving me an extra hit or being immune to stabs. It does make me look a lot better on the field though, and more often than not I don't even count it when I'm wearing it.

Stabbing has been around for a long time and armor has been around just as long. For reference sake I was around when Bel was still part of Dag. Hell to me I've been around along time, but by no means as ancient as Sir Cedric and Sir Angmarth. I do not see armor being unbalanced against stabbing at this current juncture of the sport. I do stab when the opportunity is there but i don't think my stab should be able to injure a guy through armor. It's just cheesing the rules to make it easier for the FotM to kill stuff. This is just something people want passed because their cool new trick doesn't work like they want it. That is the simple truth.

Now I usually have large amounts of respect for everyone. Even if I've never met them. It is not my intentions to belittle or * off anyone. I am not attacking you, but I will try to answer some of the questions that were asked through out the length of the thread, some are my own. Matter of fact let's do it interview style. I hope that some of you will find this both humorous and entertaining.

"Coffee with Kage"

HI! What's your name?
Kage

What's that your drinking there? That's not coffee.
Nope it's not. I don't much care for coffee.

But the title...
What about it?
Nevermind

How long have you been in Belegarth?
Just finished up my 11th season fighting.

Whats you status in the sport?
uh... what? Dude I fight and have a good time with friends. If you mean rank I don't have one, but I am a Squire so that might account for something.

Will you continue to wear your armor as much as you do if stabs go through?
Simple answer is no. Even though I normally don't wear my armor on the field it does have its advantages. I do get an extra hit from hacks and the immunity to one handed stabs. If my armor does less for me there is less of an incentive for me to even put it on. It's hot, it's encumbersome, and sometimes just gets in my way. If it can't do half of its job anymore the cons out weigh the pros. Here's a thought... Go ahead pass stabs go through armor, but I want to have "3.6.2.2. Using a material with a thickness of at least 20 gauge." repealed from the book of war. If this doesn't make sense to you this would allow "Cheeze Mail" to be legal once again. I mean hell if stabs get that; armor should at least get that.

How many people do you know that wear armor on a regular basis?
Oh lets see. Forkbeard, Most of the Western Urks... umm **** ... some back east.

Do you think that armor is prevalent enough to argue that stabs need to go through armor?
uh... prevalent? Dude I would like to see everyone in armor, but considering the fact that maybe 1:20 people wear armor on a normal basis I don't see the reason.

Arrakis' math suggests that armor will become 500% better. What are your thoughts on that?
I hate math. I wish that dude would speak to me in normal English sometimes.

Some people have said that armor doesn't need to be invulnerable to stabs. Can you go into so detail for or against?
Didn't I already answer that? Fine. Armor is fine leave it alone. Oh... you wanted more... Again armor has it's benefits for a price. It's hot. It's encumbersome, some by weight some by movement restriction. After a good year the **** can smell like a dead buffalo. Some is just plain uncomfortable. And those disadvantages have to be there to get that one extra hit because our society has deemed all those necessary for it to be armor. So I think its fair. Don't believe me look at the titanium thread... tl;dr THE **** DIDN'T WEIGH ENOUGH AND WAS DEEMED NOT ENCUMBERSOME ENOUGH THERE FOR NOT ARMOR GRADE ENOUGH EVEN THOUGH THE **** IS METAL!!!

But Titanium isn't peri...
Shut up! Titanium has been around since the earth was born.

What do you think about stabs counting as part of the limb total towards death?
Personally I think it's dumb. I'm with some others on here a good spearmen will demolish a line with just stabbing the legs out from under the other side. End result a few spearmen chasing each other around trying to stab each other while dodging arrows. Hell I might go with the FotM and pick up a spear myself as my primary at that point, or just pick up a bow until there is a rule about non-reusable missile weapons in the BoW.

What are your thoughts on the play testing done so far?
To be fair I shouldn't comment but I feel that I need to. From the sounds of Samhain (I didn't get to go) there were plus sides and down sides. Sure it's the "new toy" but really it's not new. I feel that the testing at Samhain was a failure, and allowing stabs to go through armor can become a large safety risk for fighters. Again let me be clear: I was not there, so I may be way off base. I also firmly believe one test is not grounds enough to squash it.

What do you see Bel as: medieval combat or unarmored combat.
Wow. Medieval is in the name for Christ's sake. If you want to have a medieval combat type sport then Bel is for you; if you don't UFC is that way.

Now for those of you that read the whole thing I hope my views have gone across smoothly. Also I hope that you enjoyed it even at least slightly, or might have gotten a chuckle out of it. If this does go to a WC discussion I will keep it much more serious when it gets there.

[The Great Gigsby]

This is just something people want passed because their cool new trick doesn't work like they want it. That is the simple truth.

Uhhh... nope. Saying that is like saying, "This is just something people don't want passed because they're bad fighters that can't block."

We all know it's not that cut and dry.

[Forkbeard]

We play tested 2 new rules.
Any 2 limbs counts as death.
1 Hand stabs go through armor.
Frist of all, I learned that people are mostly stupid. My god it's hard to get a simple concept throught thier thick skulls. ****.
Second, while I have always felt that living with more than one limb damaged was **** dumb, this weekend I found out that doing away with it make bows way too powerfull. Being the guy who takes 2-5 arrows AT A **** TIME, I have to say this rule change idea sucks. I was previously for it, but I have seen the light. This talk from REv about spears being more powerful is true, but it's the arrow that are getting way more powerful and they do not need it.
I am officialy against changing this rule.
On to one hand stabs and armor.
I did not think that changing this added anything to the game. I killed some people by stabbing them through armor, but only like 2. I didn't get stabbed one handed once. At least not that I noticed.
I did notice the attempts.
The way our aromr rules work now, people need to aproach me (fully armored)differntly than they do Joe Douchweasle in his tunic. This creates a hesitation in most fighters. Some of you don't think so, but it's there. It is a palpable part of the game for people wearing armor. Being able to 1 hand stab through armor took this away. I believe that hesitation is what we are going to loose. I also believe it is more valuable than some of you think.
It's only a textural difference and maybe some of you do not think it's worth saving.
I do. I am against changing this rule as well.
If more stabbing means armor is more powerful, good. Armor should be more powerful.
Some of you say people should learn to block stabs better. I say we all should learn to stab better and hit more armpits.
If people not deserving armor benifits from thier crappy armor, lets make the armor rules harder. We could get rid of crappy armor instead of weakening nice armor.
All in all, I say no.
FB

[Arrakis]

Okay...

Kage: Here's the "I don't like math" translation: Back when I was the only person on half the fields I visited that owned even ONE sword with a stabbing tip on it, not being able to do damage to armored target areas with a one-handed stab wasn't a large issue. Now that everybody with half a brain and a piece of marine foam has a blue/green in their * (and a lot of us won't even build a blue without a stab-tip anymore), it's kind of a big deal. This is a volumetric effect. Ask around. I'm sure you'll find people who didn't wear their armor much back in the days of mostly-hacking combat who put that * chain shirt on every major field battle so they don't get hook stabbed to death. That's what we in the business refer to as using a crutch to make up for poor fighting or "pussying out".


Fork, et al: I sure am glad to know that so many people are more concerned with having people fear to approach them and getting to thumb their noses at better fighters just because they bought a piece of tanned cow and wrapped it around their torso than they are with encouraging skilled fighting and more nuanced combat. That's what I really look for in a medieval combat organization.

[Elebrim]

Arrakis - You're resorting to petty comments now. Please, I think that you're better than that.

Kage's commentary is legitimate and really, REALLY valuable. The balancing effect for stabs was already in the rules from waaay back in the before times - armor was a saving grace. Not counting pierced limbs towards death was a balancing effect. Taking those away away screws up the balancing effect of the game for everything else that does piercing damage - spears and arrows are overpowered, and armor loses value. It also encourages people who don't know what they are doing to be unsafe. Did you not read Reverend's description of what happened at Samhain? Piercing was way overpowered and the fighting was way too unsafe. I wish I could have been there to see it in happen person.

Rules have to have more value than just technical. They have situational, practical, and common sense value as well. Using math all the time to justify things technically can begin to separate you from considering those other reasons - especially common sense.

[Angmarth]

To address Fork's concern about overpowering of bows, I do believe you have to adopt "no reusable missiles if you adopt the 2 limb death rule. (This is what we play in St. Louis.)

[Arrakis]

Re-clarifying: I'm ONLY supporting single green doing one point to armored target areas.



In the event of adoption of green counting towards DbD, I'd want double green to go away entirely and archery to either get mad nerfed or not count towards DbD ever.

[Isk]

And I have to say, it was really ****-off awesome as a herald. When someone got stabbed/hit, there was no possible way for them to try and cheese which limb has what damage.

I didn't herald at Samhain, but from heralding at our own practices I have to echo Rev's sentiment. As a herald, I love this change.

As a fighter, I actually liked the way 1hG counting toward DbD worked out, but you made a valid point, Rev, about the role a double-legged S&Ber can still play. I personally enjoyed the rule for the same reasons I like it as a herald. Two hits and he's dead. Two hits and I'm dead. I don't have to think about it, just die. I didn't encounter the line being taken apart by spears or archers so I am glad both Fork and yourself weighed in on that (from both sides since Fork used a spear much of the day).

I like the simplicity of 1hG = 1hB, but the points about overpowering spears and archers were the concern and while it played out about as usual for me, it sounds like that may have just been circumstantial. Unbalancing the game to make archery significantly more powerful is very unappealing to me, although I also arch. I'll wait and see how it works out for Rhun.

The balancing effect for stabs was already in the rules from waaay back in the before times - armor was a saving grace. Not counting pierced limbs towards death was a balancing effect. Taking those away away screws up the balancing effect of the game for everything else that does piercing damage - spears and arrows are overpowered, and armor loses value.

Elebrim, I appreciate the tone you have maintained in arguing rationally and civilly for your point of view. You do keep repeating this statement, though, and I just don't personally believe the "1h stabs don't go through armor" or "stabs don't count toward DbD" rules were nearly so carefully planned as you put forward. My early days in Dag were in Provo (Now Ered Duath) from 1992. At that time realism was the primary goal and stabs were not counted for DbD because of some idea of bleeding to death from hacks. "1h stabs don't damage armor" comes from the same grounds with people primarily thinking of solid metal armors. Leather armor, at least in my part of the West, was mostly unheard of so this logic made a sort of sense. IME, at that time the primary concern was not game balance (playability), it was realism.

I don't personally feel realism is the right direction to approach this from because then we should treat different types of armor differently and we would need to make truly effective armors so powerful it wouldn't be much fun for people not wearing armor. Just hacking or stabbing someone's full plate armor with your single-blue or green isn't realistic. Attacking full-plate realistically requires different tactics and I don't think that can be enforced in the game without lots of complications. Realism and armor would unbalance the game heavily in favor of armor because, in reality, armor heavily unbalances the odds.

Nowadays, we have been playing these rules at a high level and have adjusted to a certain balance that is working well. I believe the stabbing rules are what they are because that's the way the rules gelled and now we're all used to it, not by a truly well-thought consideration of what would create the best balance. It could quite easily have been different and personally I'd like to see KISS applied and just make it all the same where armor is concerned.

[Kasada]

I'd really just like to see someone make a realism test to determine this:
1. Take a real, sharpened sword.
2. Take a set of chain on a mannequin.
3. Attempt to insert sword, one handed, into mannequin through chain.
4. Repeat process with a piece of hardened leather (to avoid waste, just staple or tape on a square of it or something).
5. Repeat processes with a piece of plate.

If the stab damages the armor enough that a second stab or a swing would sufficiently harm the mannequin, then 1hG should count as a hit against armor. If not, it shouldn't. No "game balance" politics involved, since it doesn't make any sense to assume that's the reason for 1hG not counting before.

Look at it this way; if we change the rule to let some armor take 1hG, but not others, we'll complicate the game a little, yes. At the same time though, it won't be *that* much more complicated, and it will be quite a bit more realistic. If that isn't worth it, think about this; if you want to see more armor on the field, you probably don't mean barely-passing chain or leather. You want to see quality leather or plate. If plate doesn't let 1hG through but other armors do, suddenly the people who wear armor for that advantage (probably few and far between) will be getting better armor and making the game look better.

[Loptr]

Did you not read Reverend's description of what happened at Samhain? Piercing was way overpowered and the fighting was way too unsafe. I wish I could have been there to see it in happen person.

I was there as were a number of my friends. I receiveed one shot to my head (* you Karion and your arrows). One chop to my neck and perhaps a half dozen stabs to my torso. Non of the peeps that crossgamed with me mentioned any form of unsafe hits to their head and or necks (not being Bel players they did get surprised by arrows to head).

I challenge the safety issue yet again. Random idiots need to be dealt with period.

For the record I am soley interested in single green damage to armor.

Loptr

[bo1]

ok so some issues are coming to light.

arrows get super powered by the peirce limbs count to death. but why do we need arrows to count to this total. we can leave arrows as they are, but then we lose the simplicity of the rules again.

spears are already the power on the field. hydra has known this for quite some time, glad to see you all catching up, i kid i kid. but honestly spears are powerful now, but with the limb total counting the people on the ground are dead instead of little castles.

perhaps the pierce counting to limb total is too much, but rhun is still testing it, we have had good luck at practices so far. i will chime in after rhun closer.

[Isk]

Looking forward to your results, Bo.

Kasada, the issue is so much more complex than that and our goal here is a simple, realistically based but playable rule set. This has been disussed over and over and over. If you want to get in the middle of the debate, search and read through some of the threads on Armor Archive, myArmoury and Sword Forum.

These might be interesting:
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=54870
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=20723
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1062
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=987
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[Loptr]

An article on a BBC site I found noteworthy.

Relevant paragraphs below

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2522657

The point of mail was to prevent slashes and broad-headed arrows from penetrating and causing wounds. A thrust with a spear or sword would penetrate enough to kill or seriously wound and an axe would cleave through. Plate was invented to prevent slashes from wounding as well as to deflect thrusted weapons and narrower arrowheads. For a while this was the ultimate advantage, but improvements in armour-piercing technology in swords, axes, bows, crossbows and spears eventually rendered plate to be 'possibly protective' and not a guarantee of battle survival.

[Forkbeard]

Arrakis, I think you are overly concerned with what you call "better fighters". In the end, we aren't "fighters. We are Belegarth Players. If we were fighters, I wouldn't "die" from getting smacked on the *. We're playing a game, and it's the texture of that game we are discussing when we talk about changing rules.
Apearently to you, there is no more to this game than the ability to tag a person with a stick. I say there is more to it. There is also the ability to make a suit of armor. And the ability to WEAR IT. in 110 degrees in a swamp. Or when your cut and it's diggin into you and it hurts like hell. I say the ability to do that for hours on the field is a skill. Being able to fight while wearing the sweaty, pinchy, smelly mess is very much a part of being good at the game of Belegarth.
You speak of nuance in combat. Fear when apraoching better armed people is a nuance as well.
Changing this rule will add nothing to our field. The people who stab alot will continue to stab alot. If they are good, they will stab people in gaps in their armor. We loose nothing if the rules stay the same.
If we change it, we will loose something. Armor will be less powerful. I don't think anyone will throw out their armor, but I think less people will make new armor. We will also loose a nuance(I'm loving that word) in our combat.
For the record, I noticed NO increase in unsafe nonsense at Sam Hain. I thought everyone fought well and honoralby. It was a tough field and a couple people got beat up some, but Aquilonia is a tough realm and we play rough. The guys from St george and Vegas are tough guys, too, so there was plenty of enthusiasm, but I didn't notice any of this sloppy stab crazyness.
I did stab Carion in the eye. But he wasn't wearing armor so I would have done it play test or no.
If this comes up for a vote, I'll put it up to my realm to decide, but for me personaly, this is done.
FB

[Arrakis]

Forky, I'm concerned with high-quality Belegarth Game Players. I am under no delusions about our real combat prowess, which is a large part of why I don't care about somebody's capacity for standing in hot sun in full armor kit for hours. A useful skill at the Battle of Hastings? To be sure. An intrinsic part of my Belegarth experience? Nope.

*shrug* Ever try to stab someone wearing a chain shirt in a "gap" in their armor? And where are these parts of soft leather "armor" kits that dig into you and hurt you?

I just don't think that the "nuance" of the ability to stand around in 50 pounds of chain is as important as the nuance of making stabbing a useful component of combat on an armored field.

For the record, I guess: I'd love to see double green disappear, by the by, and archery relegated to off-the-field competitions or, maybe, the ability to do one single-green hit of damage.

[Thorondor]

I'd love to see double green disappear, by the by, and archery relegated to off-the-field competitions or, maybe, the ability to do one single-green hit of damage.

You would have better luck starting your own game than to see archery become off-the-field competitions only.

Just saying...

[Arrakis]

Thanks, Thorondor, I had no idea that that might be the case.

[Thorondor]

No problem Arrakis, glad I could shed some light on that for you.

[Magnus of the Red Hand]

Ok here is my $.02, some of this might be off topic cuz this thread is about stab vs armor, but I'm lumping everything together here cuz I'm lazy.

First let me preface this by stating a few things for those who I have not yet met on the field.

#1 I wear a good amount of armor (just over 40lbs of leather and chain)
#2 I stab a lot and have for many years (mostly from glaives and red swords)

here are my thoughts on what went down at Samhain.

Single Handed Stabs vs Armor: First of all I was not stabbed any more than usual. I think there were more people who were stabbing, but it didn't directly correlate with more killing. I was actively more aware of people that were stabbing looking to get through my armor, but it really didn't pan out. In all I think I was hit with maybe 2 one handed stabs that pieced my armor due to play testing. I might have landed 3 or 4 stabs on armored folks that would have normally not counted but all and all, not big deal.

That being said I do agree with FB that under our current ruleset you do have to approach an armored fighter a bit differently than a unarmored one, and I like that. With our current armor rules the extra hit per location armor gives, in concept, is a huge deal and it can be very effective on the field. However in this age of 12.01 oz. qwiktoobs® its easy as hell to deliver 2 shots to an armored opponent in less than a second, really negating the advantages of wearing armor. Truth be told, I think the restrictions of armor vs our current weapons rule set is heavily slanted towards weapons unless you are wearing min-maxed pocket brig or the like. I'm **** tired of the race to the bottom regarding equipment just to compete, but thats a rant for another time. Back to the topics at hand. As a stabber and a admirer of simplistic rules, I like the standardized damage, but as an armor wearer I think that armor gets the shaft already. I am torn.

Death by Dismemberment (DbD) via Stabs: I was not on the receiving end of much of this, but I did dish it out a bit and I have to say it just reinforced by belief that this is the way to go. I think the only differentiations we should have on hits are whether they are one or two handed strikes. A pierce should no longer have to sit at the back of the bus for a stab. Since my first days of fighting with Dag and then Bel groups I've thought this and my opinion has not changed. 2 wounded limbs should = death. Period. Regardless of how the wounds were inflicted. People are bringing up that this makes spears and archery too powerful. Let me address each of these issues.

Spears: I am all for it. Spears are one of the most used weapons in the history of warfare because they are simple, deadly and they **** worked. I have Zero problem with a good spearman slaying a whole line of fighters with stabs to the legs because thats the way spears should work. With the safety restrictions we put on spear construction, even nice low profile spears, they dont even begin to remotely reflect thier real life counterparts in form or function and because of such I think they deserve every advantage.

Archery: This is a bit more tricky. Personally I'd say 75% of arrows I'm on the receiving end of hit me in the torso or head. However on many occasions Ive been arrowed in multiple limbs and I **** hate it, I would rather just be dead. Yes arrows should be deadly but there comes a point where the deadliness of archery begins to overbalance the rest of the field. I think the easiest solution to this this would be solved by no re-usable missiles, but again thats another topic. Being a huge proponent of standardized damage I say 2 limbs should = death, but because of my reservations about the already well established power of archery should arrows be the exception to the proposed DbD rules? There are already may unique aspects to archery (ie strikes to the head, ignoring armor, no blocking with weapons, etc...) Would this really be too much to wrap your head around?

To summarize: After this playtest at a major event and playing by these rules at practice for years I believe that all melee damage should be standardized, the only differentiation being between one and two handed strikes. As far as one handed stabs vs armor, my burning desire to keep the rules KISS certified dictate that stabs should be treated no differently than slashes, at the same time realizing that it does nerf one of the few advantages armor has going for it. As for archery, there are so many special rules for it already I don't have a problem with making it the exception to the proposed DbD revisions (Melee damage: DbD, Ranged damage: no DbD )

My apologies for the Death by Wall of Text. (DbWT)

Edit: Arrakis' idea about arrows doing a single hit of damage instead of ignoring armor sounds like a fine idea to me.

[Elebrim]

Forky, I'm concerned with high-quality Belegarth Game Players. I am under no delusions about our real combat prowess, which is a large part of why I don't care about somebody's capacity for standing in hot sun in full armor kit for hours. A useful skill at the Battle of Hastings? To be sure. An intrinsic part of my Belegarth experience? Nope.

So... automatically, any and all armor tanks on the field are suddenly not "high enough quality" fighters for you? Seriously?

*shrug* Ever try to stab someone wearing a chain shirt in a "gap" in their armor? And where are these parts of soft leather "armor" kits that dig into you and hurt you?

I aim for armpits and necklines quite a bit. And it wouldn't be too hard next time I wear armor to count the areas of skin getting rubbed raw on my wrists, shoulders, armpits, and neck, not to mention the welts and bruises caused by rivets, leatherslap and chainslap when a particularly good hit lands in one of those areas after a full day of fighting. I'm sure others can attest to similar issues.

I just don't think that the "nuance" of the ability to stand around in 50 pounds of chain is as important as the nuance of making stabbing a useful component of combat on an armored field.

Try overheating in the stuff sometime when you fight hard in 90 degree heat. It sucks.

If armor gets nerfed, the weight and encumbrance will not be worth anything and more people will ditch their armor.

Isk - Obviously I wasn't fighting in 1992. But as I fight and train with people who were, I can say that my understanding of why the rule was written that way was that it was to up the power of armor and give people more of an incentive to wear it. Don't know about any sort of considerations for bleeding out that were taken at the time, so I can't agree or disagree with you on that.

What I can comment on is what I have seen for the last 6-8 years of fighting, and that has been a game balance that had worked well before I got into fighting and continued to work well after I did. Obviously it worked well in the 90s as well, else it wouldn't have lasted this long. So why are we willing to throw off that 20 year old balance with the oncoming of a new fad in stabbing that has only arisen in the last 1-2 years? Especially when the change at hand has such a seemingly unbalanced effect, especially because it factors into other weapons apart from just the one-handed Green/Blue Speeba - I mean swords - everyone is thinking about.


On the subject of Samhain, did anyone else herald at the event that can report on what they saw? A herald's perspective (macro-view) could be more revealing in this case because they are in a better position to observe. It seems like we have a mixed bag of first person perspectives - some individuals who fought that didn't have a huge problem with the changes, and other individuals who fought that did have big problems. But I find it interesting that the only report from a herald (Reverend) is pretty negative.

[Caleidah]

Stop with the ad hominems. In general. Keep it a discussion of rules and not an argument of personal character being a deciding factor.

[Isk]

Elebrim, to be fair, I left and came back. I have not fought straight through from 1992 to the present; I was just there when this was being hammered out. I feel it's important to clarify that the rules, through limited trial and error, eventually became what we have today. They could easily have become something else as the very existence of Amtgard's and Belegarth's rules prove. Extensive testing of many possible variations was not conducted and evaluated, but the game did evolve into a balance that has been working well. The point of this discussion is that the old balance is changing.

Several people in this thread have characterized stabbing as a fad, which seems to imply it will fade once the shininess has worn off. IMO, the only reason stabbing was less common in the past was the difficulty of maintaining passing stabbing tips. Now that stabbing tips can be maintained easily, everyone is learning to use the technique. As has already been stated, this is what changes the balance of the game and will keep it permanently changed as stabbing stabilizes alongside hacks in every fighter's repertoire. Armor thus becomes more valuable and we are here to decide:

Do we leave the rules alone and accept the shift in the weapon-armor balance to increase the value of armor or
do we adjust the rules and have armor retain it's "age-old" value when 1hG was not a common attack on a Belegarth/Dagorhir field?

We can't ignore that changing "1hG damages armor" also affects spears, but things really aren't that different for them. They have a little more range against armored opponents is all.

I echo Elebrim's call for comments from other heralds-- with a correction, though. Rev's report as a herald was extremely positive. It was his report as a fighter that was in the mixed bag of first person opinions. Can we get an opinion from Griff, Osric and the others who wore yellow for the big battles?

[Loptr]

On the subject of Samhain, did anyone else herald at the event that can report on what they saw? A herald's perspective (macro-view) could be more revealing in this case because they are in a better position to observe. It seems like we have a mixed bag of first person perspectives - some individuals who fought that didn't have a huge problem with the changes, and other individuals who fought that did have big problems. But I find it interesting that the only report from a herald (Reverend) is pretty negative.

Kindly double check your facts. The only herald perspective claimed a very positive experience. (emphasis mine)
Can Mikey or Kelik or another herald please chime in?

And I have to say, it was really **** awesome as a herald. When someone got stabbed/hit, there was no possible way for them to try and cheese which limb has what damage.
Actual conversation I had:
"Dude, I got stabbed in the arm." "And then you got hit in the leg, go down, you're dead."

As a fighter, it really **** sucked. I wear greaves, torso armor, and a helm.

L

[Arrakis]

Forky, I'm concerned with high-quality Belegarth Game Players. I am under no delusions about our real combat prowess, which is a large part of why I don't care about somebody's capacity for standing in hot sun in full armor kit for hours. A useful skill at the Battle of Hastings? To be sure. An intrinsic part of my Belegarth experience? Nope.

So... automatically, any and all armor tanks on the field are suddenly not "high enough quality" fighters for you? Seriously?

Elebrim: Now with Logical Fallacy action!

*shrug* Ever try to stab someone wearing a chain shirt in a "gap" in their armor? And where are these parts of soft leather "armor" kits that dig into you and hurt you?

I aim for armpits and necklines quite a bit. And it wouldn't be too hard next time I wear armor to count the areas of skin getting rubbed raw on my wrists, shoulders, armpits, and neck, not to mention the welts and bruises caused by rivets, leatherslap and chainslap when a particularly good hit lands in one of those areas after a full day of fighting. I'm sure others can attest to similar issues.

I guess you should make a decent gambeson for under your chain or pad and roll your edges or wear linen under wool under your kit or any of the other number of tricks long used by armor-wearing fighters to keep themselves from discomfort. Also, did you seriously just suggest that I start trying to stab people in the neck on the off-chance that I'll get them low enough on the collarbone that they'll take it instead of just calling neck and thirsting for my blood?

I just don't think that the "nuance" of the ability to stand around in 50 pounds of chain is as important as the nuance of making stabbing a useful component of combat on an armored field.

Try overheating in the stuff sometime when you fight hard in 90 degree heat. It sucks.

You overheat, okay. I overheated in a linen tunic at Geddon this year. I guess that means I can ignore stabs while wearing my tunic, right?

If armor gets nerfed, the weight and encumbrance will not be worth anything and more people will ditch their armor.

Wasn't there just a thread asking this and that was exactly not the case?

[Loptr]

OK Kids

Please stop leaving turds in this sandbox.

Kindly keep posts relevant and respectful. Take the personal * to PM.

Loptr

[Magnus of the Red Hand]

Just talked with everybody at our practice last night about the play tests at Samhain and what their thoughts were.

Boiled down to two things:

Everybody enjoyed the stabbing damage counting towards death
Nobody really liked one handed stabs piercing armor.

Now keep in mind this is just a cross section of people from my realm at the event, but it included a few first time eventers who had only been coming to practice for a few weeks. Being fresh to the sport I highly value their insight and opinions because they don't have years of 'thats how we've always done it' influencing their opinions.

[badgremlin]

a few questions and comments. How many spear users were on the field? how many per team? How many archers? How many with armor?

I have been in a group that is using the two limbs = death for nearly a year now. Stab or slash.

My experience;


With the lack of spears on a field I'm assuming most people don't know how to fight against them in a line setting. Take the report of two nooby spear users slaughtering a line. It holds true as long as they are the only spears on that side of the line. Add in a spear on the other side and suddenly the spear fighters are blocking each others' shots. We can also say the proper teamwork can cause any dual combo to be deadly. Two reds eating a line? Two spears? Two archers? and so on.

This rule could make our battles more SCA like in having about as many spears and shields on a field.

This change shouldn't lead to an increase of door shields, but rather more spears per team. Which will increase archers and then shields to counter the archers. If it does lead to more doors then more reds will appear to even it out.

[bo1]

i just want a clrification, so one handed stabs pearced armor, or did a point to armor. just want to make sure i understand as i wasnt able to be there.

arrow doing a single point would be amazing. and would make sure you see tons of armor, and then missle get to stay reusable. this wasnt ever tested that i know of, perhaps we should do this as well.