single green damage to armor

[Isk]

if we are going to require enhanced stabbing construction I think we need to keep green. Not everyone is going to want to build greens onto blues.

THIS is really the issue with keeping or discarding the 'stabbing' class.

[badgremlin]

yep, my post was tl;dr as most of the following arguements could have been cuvered in it.

take blue sword, marked with green & blue tape. By the post I made, that would be a stabbing blue weapon. take blue club, marked with blue tape. that would be a non-stabbing blue weapon.

sword deals blue damage/1 point stab or slash
club deals blue damage/1 point slash only

take red sword, marked with green & red tape. that would be a stabbing red weapon. take red club, marked with red tape. that would be a non-stabbing red weapon.

sword deals red damage/2 point stab or slash
club deals red damage/2 point slash only

take spear, marked with green tape. that would be a stabbing only weapon. If over 4 feet it deals 2 points, under 4 feet = 1 point. Held with one hand over 4 feet = 1 point.

only thing that changes is the amount of damage points done during a stab. Checking stays the same. Also eliminates stabs as a 4 limbed fighter. only arrows/thrown can limb a fighter.

[Azgarehta]

I agree with Angmarth about eliminating short greens. My dagger is a green/blue 18", and its about the minimum you'd want for a dagger. There are some people that have green-only daggers that are less than 18", and they're pretty close to punching weapons.

As a spearman, I don't find any problem with the current rules. Single green as Blue makes sense and I don't think it'll be world changing. Spears will have a longer threat range against armor, but will still have to double green to be efficient. Eliminating double green is a safety issue. If there are more spearmen doing single green, there will be more poles flying around with less control. You'll see a lot more people speared in the nuts and the face from less controlled thrusts.

On the subject of Archery not going through armor: it would make armor useful for spearmen and florentiners, and would heavily nerf Archers. You'd see a lot more armor on the field, which looks good, but I'm not sure at what cost to the archer population.

Two limbs as death: We play this in Arnor, makes games fast. Its good.

tl;dr version: Spears are fine, Lern2play

[Sir Par]

We have to keep green as a damage type becuase fundamentally its a different type of weapon, and damage. If we are making green damage count for the same type of damage as blue, thats cool, we'll adjust the green rules. It has to stay its own type of damage because is most realms, and at the national events, a stab from a "blue foam only" sword most likely won't pass. As it stands right now you need some evalite or something to make a passing stabbing weapon. We have to keep the class, and the damage type. If we want it to be counted the same as a blue against armor, delete the BOW sentance that says single green is ignored by armor. TADA! Topic handled.

[Thorondor]

If we want it to be counted the same as a blue against armor, delete the BOW sentance that says single green is ignored by armor. TADA! Topic handled.

Now that's WAY too easy of a solution

[Sir Par]

Well everyone is like "gotta keep it simple, lets add a dozen rules!" Nope. One sentance down, topic handled.

[Angmarth]

... It has to stay its own type of damage because is most realms, and at the national events, a stab from a "blue foam only" sword most likely won't pass. As it stands right now you need some evalite or something to make a passing stabbing weapon. ...

This is because for all of our talk about hard hitting and being badass, we (as a national group) are total and complete wussies when it comes to stabbing tips. I will say this again from the mountain tops... 11 years and counting of using STANDARD Edhellen blue tips as stabbing with ZERO injuries. I can not stress how rough we play in St. Louis, and so do the Amtgard people who come and play at our park. We have a much greater amount of stabbing in our Belegarth realm due to this house rule and the influx of Amtgard folks who play with us. We have had broken fingers, shattered hands, dislocated knees, numerous pulled muscles, deep bruises, stitches from busted lips, broken and shattered noses, scratched/torn cornea and even guys playing full contact with a picc line in. We have NEVER endured an injury from a stab... not one.

[Sir Par]

Thats awesome Angmarth, but regardless of how Arnor does it, the rest of us haven't caught up to you yet. And we probably wont, for a long time. So we need a set of NATIONAL rules that follows the NATIONAL way of thinking.

[Azgarehta]

Hey, we can get the national field to Arnor standards if we weapons check stabs on people's chests!

[Sir Par]

No he just needs to go to EVERY EVENT EVERYWHERE and place himself in charge of weapons check. That ought to do it.

[Isk]

We have to keep green as a damage type becuase fundamentally its a different type of weapon, and damage. If we are making green damage count for the same type of damage as blue, thats cool, we'll adjust the green rules. It has to stay its own type of damage because is most realms, and at the national events, a stab from a "blue foam only" sword most likely won't pass. As it stands right now you need some evalite or something to make a passing stabbing weapon. We have to keep the class, and the damage type. If we want it to be counted the same as a blue against armor, delete the BOW sentance that says single green is ignored by armor. TADA! Topic handled.

Par, I absolutely agree we need to keep the weapon class until Belegarth as a whole is ready to allow a blue padded stabbing tip. I don't understand why you think we need to keep green/stab/poke as a separate type of damage. Can anybody give a reasonable justification (in terms of safety, playability or realism) for treating stabs differently from hacks?

I don't see it making any difference for safety at all.

For playability it will make the game easier to teach, play and herald. It makes arrows, javelins and spears marginally more powerful.

Where realism is concerned, we are making HUGE generalizations about what happens to a human body when hit by various weapons already. To me the difference between a hack and a stab wound from a 2" wide sword is minor compared with the generalizations we already make.

The changes I would prefer to see to the BoW, all of which are strikeouts that simplify the rules, would be:

3.2.2.3. Class 3 (thrusting) Weapons wielded one-handed cause one hit of damage to an unarmored Target Area. Class 3 Weapons also cause two hits of damage when wielded two-handed against a Target Area, ignoring any Armor the Target Area may have. If the Target Area is armored, the Weapon must be wielded two-handed to cause damage to the Target Area. A one-handed strike causes no injury to an Armored Target Area.

3.4.1.5. Two disabled limb Target Areas (Arms and/or Legs) cause Death. Limbs injured with Class 3 and Class 4 Weapons do not count towards this total.

3.4.2.2. Disabled Arm - A disabled Arm may not hold anything. If the Arm is disabled by a Class 1 or 2 Weapon then place Arm behind back. If the Arm is disabled by a Class 3 or 4 Weapon, leave Arm dangling limply at side.

3.4.3.1. All subsequent strikes with Class 3 or 4 Weapon on the same Target Area previously injured only by a Class 3 or 4 Weapon are ignored.
3.4.3.2. All subsequent strikes to a disabled arm an Arm disabled by a Class 1 or 2 weapon pass through to the Torso.
3.4.3.3. All subsequent strikes to a disabled Leg disabled by a Class 1 or 2 weapon are ignored.[/strike]

I would be glad to just see stabs affect armor, but I see no reason not to also make them do the same damage as blues and streamline the game that much further with these seven simple strikeouts

[Isk]

No he just needs to go to EVERY EVENT EVERYWHERE and place himself in charge of weapons check. That ought to do it.

Oh, and I support this plan. Blue stabbies FTW!

[Thorondor]

Can anybody give a reasonable justification (in terms of safety, playability or realism) for treating stabs differently from hacks?

Safety = nothing there that I see
Playability = actually easier to treat them the same
Realism = an arm that would be stabbed would still be there to block a hack until it was hacked off by a sword...but we treat swords the same as maces, so we assume the arm would be bludgeoned off when struck by a blue/red...

So actually from a realism standpoint, we're just shifting the assumption we already make from maces/flails/etc to include spears/arrows/javelins/etc.

That actually would make sense. But we still need to keep the green tape to determine what is safe for stabbing at a national level until blue stabbies become the norm.

~Þ~

[Rasheab]

I agree with Angmarth about eliminating short greens. My dagger is a green/blue 18", and its about the minimum you'd want for a dagger. There are some people that have green-only daggers that are less than 18", and they're pretty close to punching weapons.

I disagree. Punch weapons are specifically prohibited, and if short greens were effectively the same as a punch, they would already be banned. Additionally, stabbing weapons shorter than 18" are useful in grappling situations.


Regarding playtesting, we (Hawaii/Manoa) will try out:

Treating single handed green and blue the same
2 limbs = death

We don't have any armor, so we can't playtest that part of the proposed changes. (However I like Par's/Isk's strikethrough solutions.)

[Forkbeard]

Par, You are wrong.
In Aquilonia we use standard blue swords for stabbing. Ered Duath does too, mostly.
We checked ALL blues folr stabbing at Yestare and will do the same at Sam Hain. We've done this becuase Angmarth is very, very RIGHT.
I will vote to make blue stabs affect armor.
I will vote against anything else.
You guys are not going to add on a bunch of other crap to "streamline the rules".
These other proposals are not necesary. Stop trying to add pork to a cool thing.
And so, Par, you're right about what needs changed. The ONE line about blues stabs NOT affecting armor.
All this other * around with the wording is so much *.
FB

[Arrakis]

Alright! So, can we get some solid playtesting for one-handed green stabs doing one point against armored target areas and then put that proposal through? Who here's a WC rep?

[Sir Par]

We'll playtest it tonight at practice! Fork, I know you utah guys run the "everything stabs" mentality but most of the Idaho realms do not. At Chaos, the western NATIONAL event they were not checked that way and several that were checked that way, failed. Just because you guys and Arnor do it does not mean the hundreds of other realms out there are comfortable with that being the standard.

[Loptr]

Alright! So, can we get some solid playtesting for one-handed green stabs doing one point against armored target areas and then put that proposal through? Who here's a WC rep?

Fork is.

I bet he might be willing to play test at Samhain.

Lets start a seperate thread for the other items specifically are we gonna modify/do a way with green.
Can a mod seperate out the relevant bits easily?

L

[Soo Ma Tai]

I am also a WC rep. Yes Fork, I would love to playtest that at Samhain. I know we used to stab with everything till our first CW, then we went without stabbies until the last year or so. I would be in favor of the proposed rule of having 1-hand stabs deal blue. I am also in favor of less stringent stabby checking, but that is a different issue.

[Isk]

Ok, cool. I'm all for making one-handed greens able to damage armor.

In ATD we will still be testing the more complete, simpler version of:
1h Green Damage == 1h Blue Damage

[bo1]

rhun has volunteered to use a version from after octfest to rhun closer for a test run.

our rules we will be using for our 100 person rhun closer event.

blues stay the same
reds stay the same
green dammage will count to limb total. single green will be one point to armor, double will be 2 points to armor.
missles will be 2 points of dammage, helmets will be unchanged.

the missles may change to 1pt, but helmets will then offer an additional point. so 2 arrows/javs/rocks to the head will kill you. but that would be unlikely.

[Plithut]

Forgive me for sounding... unenthusiastic about these recommended changes, but why? Are our rules really that hard to decipher? Is this rule broken? If it is where and how?

I understand that it would help clarifications when explaining rules to new people, but I feel as if this is an unnecessary change to a rule system that works. Yes, the BOW is LOADED with outdated rules, and yes it does need to be modified to keep up with the trends in the sport, but it also needs to withstand the test of time. These topics make me uneasy because its in direct response to a fairly recent trend in the sport. Arguably in the last two years, stabs have gone from trick shots from certain people to everyday shots in most peoples *. I dont want to see the games fundamental rules get changed for something that has recently exploded.

That being said, I look at these arguments and all I can see is people getting upset over dying over miscommunication. Yes, it happens, I mistake people for being dead because of two missing limbs, to turn my back on them and get hit. In response, I now overkill people, hitting them two or even three more times than necessary, this way there can be no contention in either persons head. The one thing that I had to teach myself at a very young age in this game was not to get frustrated over dying. We all get back up in 5 minutes again to repeat the process. Its a game, we run around calling ourselves different names, dressed up in funny clothing, hitting each other with padded sticks. If you are taking it too seriously, take a step back and regroup (this comes from someone who's entire hobbies and friend base revolves around Bel).

I have always been under the impression that one of the reasons for green and armor rules was to balance the game. Our armor rules are truly one of the more... muddled... parts of the game. The proposed rule changes would cascade down through MANY other rules, and I see a possible mess because of it.

Ive lost my train of thought, but I am sure I will revisit this post/make others regarding it.

[Loptr]

Plithut,

For me the question is this. Why doesnt a single green deal 1 point of damage to armor?

For this topic I could care less about the strange pierce ruleset. This topic got derailed by that conversation.

Historically stabs are equally and sometimes more effective way to deal with an armored oponnent. As I understand it, once upon a time Bel stabbed alot and then it kinda went away. You are absolutely correct it has certainly increase a lot over the last 2 years.

So for the historical realisim arguments I think its a bunk argument.
For the "this is how we have always done it", I feel it is time to revisit this thought. With the idea of does this this rule still make sense? I see this as a minor adjustment to a very limited section of the BoW. The impact may be significant in that stabbing is becoming prevelant and currently armor totaly nerfs a clean stab. When I am crossgaming in the ditch at Amt stabs easily make up 30-60% of the shots thrown by the competent fighters. So I am coming from a very different POV.

Loptr


L

[Azgarehta]

There is a lot more stabbing because of the community acceptance of marine foam and the easy availability of it. Open cell tends to break down easily and often fails to provide sufficient padding for a stab. That, and people started passing harder stab tips.

[Isk]

Plithut,

Please take the discussion of stabs counting toward DbD to this thread. Here we are now just discussing single greens doing damage to armor. You said you are concerned it will cascade and affect other rules dramatically, but could you be more specific? None of us wants to unbalance the game, we just really can't see a good reason for stabs not to damage armor at all.

We are actively playtesting this in our realm and I'd like to watch out for anything you can see that would be indicative of the mess you are concerned with. Then we can, from experience actually playing by these rules, comment on how they change the game.

[Angmarth]

Here is a post I made on the "Electric Samurai" Amtgard board back in 2005. It demonstrates how some of our old rules changed and how others simply moved forward without evolving.

Here is the story as I understand it, Kyrax can correct me if I am wrong in whole or in part.

In the dark ages of Dagorhir (before the birth of Amtgard) the only armor allowed was metal. Most of that was plate breastplates owned by the Legions of Rome. It was decided at some point, that a 1h thrust could not penetrate plate mail and so the rule was born. Since we play by the simplest of rules, chain was considered as good as plate and life moved on. At some point, leather was desired to be used for greaves and bracers. This was voted on and accepted by the powers that be, and life went on. Then with the influx of many new Western Realms (some as far west as Illinois - I know that sounds absurd) leather was brought before the Rag War Council and it was decided that as long as leather remained a minimum of 3/16" thick, it could be used for body armor.

The stabbing rules never changed. We kept the rule of 1h stabs not going through armor since all armor was considered equal. I think at one point there were some special rules about types, but those have been lost in the simplistic rules we have today.

The BIGGEST thing would come from this would be the "nerfing" of armor vs. 1h stabs. While I am not necessarily opposed to it, I think it is something should not be lost in the discussion. There are 3 issues here I think. All are interconnected and each should be addressed by anyone who is planning on playtesting or voting on anything.

1) How hard is passable for stabbing? (While not everyone will agree with my acceptable level of rigidity for tips, I think everyone would agree that the requirements should be relaxed.)

2) Should 1h greens = 1h blue for damage?

3) Should the idea of "green" be eliminated entirely and simply replaced with 1h and 2h strike?

[Elebrim]

Just saw this updated conversation this past weekend.

Here is the WC Gen. Discussion thread on the last time this rules change was attempted: http://board.belegarth.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=29361&start=0.

Relevant to this conversation is Juicer's comments on how he could effectively decimate shield walls with one handed stabs, and how arrows would also become more deadly because of the loss of a piercing vs. slashing distinction.

Juicer, what do you think would make a 10' spear so much better under the new rules? I wipe 8'+ spears with NO armor on all the time. And if spears ARE better under the new rules... isn't that historically appropriate?

Also, how does that overpower archers? If they can still shoot you in the armored torso or unarmored head and kill you from 50 feet by missing you completely and then hollering at you that you're dead, they really can't get much more powerful.

Allow me to take this one at a time.

The 10' spear is merely so I can reach even more people to brutally murder. It would work with an eight footer too. If this passed all I have to do is continually pool-cue stab legs up and down the line until everyone is DEAD. All the shieldmen on my side have to do is block for me and occasionally throw a half-assed shot to open up another leg for me. I can see it now: Bam. I stab a greave five people down. "armor". bam. I stab it again. Legged. He puts his back leg up and I just repeat the procedure or stab the unarmored area that is now open to me. He's dead. All of this is terribly easy and I don't even have to open myself up because they're all single green shots. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with spearwork and know how fast you could do this.

As for historically accurate, I believe it goes something like this: Safety, PLAYABILITY, Realism. In that order. These rules would nerf armor and cheese the hell out of spears. And bows. Speaking of....

Bows. Can't get much more powerful you say? With the current rules, you get shot in the arm, you can still be effective (and you have a one hit shield of sorts). You can also use said arm to block further shots at you. I see that one used all the time by non-shield users, and it works. Again, PLAYABILITY. Why fix what isn't broken? Wasn't your original intent behind this to be able to conceal armor? Well you've ditched that and this rule change now looks a lot like the one WE JUST DISCUSSED. Maybe it wasn't worded to your satisfaction, but the same intent was behind it. Someone could have easily re-worded it. Nobody did. It got shot down then, and I bet if you proposed this one, it'll get shot down now.

For the record, I still agree with the quoted text above. And I still think this kind of rule change is a bad idea for Belegarth.

[The Great Gigsby]

Elebrim, you're arguing this the wrong way. Belegarth can adapt to changes in the rules, we've done so in the past. We should at least wait to hear from realms and events that have offered to playtest before making judgements. I remember playtesting the new weapon weight rules at Chaos IX. Nobody got hurt back then.

The question is, which set of rules is objectively better and more in line with Belegarth's goals?

Just for good measure, I'll go ahead and refer you to Loptr in this thread becauase no one is yet to answer his question:

Why doesnt a single green deal 1 point of damage to armor?

For this topic I could care less about the strange pierce ruleset. This topic got derailed by that conversation.

One more question, why is this proposed rule change a bad idea for Belegarth?

[edited to not sound so presumptuous and snappy]

[Forkbeard]

I think one of the reasons one hand stabs do not damage armor is not centered on stabs at all.
It is there to make armor more powerfull. Just like Helmets being totaly immune to flying ****. Without that bonus, which is not all that realistic either, no one would ever wear a helmet again.
By taking away a part of the current bonus for wearing armor, we are also talking about taking away one of the very few reasons to wear it at all. Armor adds ALOT to our game. This is going to make it less popular. People ARE goin to wear it less.
Is that something we want?
FB

[Arrakis]

Armor adds ALOT to our game. This is going to make it less popular. People ARE goin to wear it less.
Is that something we want?

What does armor "add" to the game (the playing of the game, not the atmosphere) other than a way for anybody with the cash to scrape together an ultra-minimal two-layers-of-7-oz-leather breastplate to get an extra hit against blues and to become ENTIRELY immune to one whole entire class of damage? We don't let armor ignore all blue hits, we just let it soak one. Why not the same with stabs?

I can tell you why: Because stabbing was way less common back when the tips had to be open cell and bunny fluff to pass and people thought "****, why not make metal armor (the only kind allowed at the time) immune to one-handed daggers?" Now, of course, we can build decent stabbing tips on all of our striking weapons AND 12oz unhardened leather is armor. Time to reevaluate, I say.

[Turin]

(the playing of the game, not the atmosphere)

"emphasis mine)

See, right here, this is like the one big thing happening. Arrakis, you & others appear to draw a hard-line distinction between things like "atmosphere", RP & garb; and how the game it played- it's rules, utensils, & technical concerns. This is ridiculous in either direction. It is not impossible to honor both sides of this coin. Does that mean I expect everybody to have an elaborate origin story? No. Does it mean I expect everybody to always hit like truck to take their hits? No. Its all a balance somewhere in the middle.
The game has changed. We do need to address it. But as we do, we need to be sensitive & sympathetic to as many people as we can. Who really cares if more less-skilled fighters are on the field? More variety is more fun, period. More people is more fun.
We are a community of people who have similar, but not identical interests. What we are not is a place for abject competition; we are not a place for making stick-jocks feel good about themselves while leaving (or forcing) others out. Similarly, we are not a place for 24 hour RP, either.
Upholding rules that encourage armor use is important to the game as a whole because it makes us look & feel better as a whole. This an important point that Forkbeard has, circumspectly, brought up. This is a consideration that needs to be weighed with new rules propositions: "How does this change our community", not just "how does this change how we fight".

[Big King Jimmy]

Agree with Turin. One of my favorite old school quotes "Belegarth (It was dag at the time) isn't a game, it's a lifestyle."

[Slagar]

All this aside, I'd like to challenge the idea that only allowing armor to soak one green hit will somehow nix half the armor on the field. I don't wear armor much, but I do sometimes. I've never, ever, worn armor for the sake of it's invulnerability to stabs. And if it went from invulnerable to 'soaking' up stabs, it wouldn't make me not wear it. I don't know of anybody who'd leave their armor at home over this.

If anybody here would do so, or knows someone personally who would, then please post and say so. Otherwise this is a straw man, and a way to make this discussion into an argument against people who have a crusade against armor, and by extension RP, puppies, and rainbows.

[Big King Jimmy]

I also agree with Slagar. I wear armor for that extra blue shot, immune to one handed stabs... I don't think it's ever even come up.

[Arrakis]

(the playing of the game, not the atmosphere)

"emphasis mine)

See, right here, this is like the one big thing happening. Arrakis, you & others appear to draw a hard-line distinction between things like "atmosphere", RP & garb; and how the game it played- it's rules, utensils, & technical concerns. This is ridiculous in either direction. It is not impossible to honor both sides of this coin. Does that mean I expect everybody to have an elaborate origin story? No. Does it mean I expect everybody to always hit like truck to take their hits? No. Its all a balance somewhere in the middle.
The game has changed. We do need to address it. But as we do, we need to be sensitive & sympathetic to as many people as we can. Who really cares if more less-skilled fighters are on the field? More variety is more fun, period. More people is more fun.
We are a community of people who have similar, but not identical interests. What we are not is a place for abject competition; we are not a place for making stick-jocks feel good about themselves while leaving (or forcing) others out. Similarly, we are not a place for 24 hour RP, either.
Upholding rules that encourage armor use is important to the game as a whole because it makes us look & feel better as a whole. This an important point that Forkbeard has, circumspectly, brought up. This is a consideration that needs to be weighed with new rules propositions: "How does this change our community", not just "how does this change how we fight".

I'm not going to respond to this in this thread. If you wish to have a debate on the merits of considering a set to be equivalent to the union of two smaller subsets, please start a new thread on the topic.

[The Great Gigsby]

I wear armor for that extra blue shot, immune to one handed stabs... I don't think it's ever even come up.

Not very conducive to the thread but it makes me chuckle when I think about it. I was fighting Jesus last year at Okfest and stabbed him pretty hard in the chest with a sword. He looked at me funny for a good second which threw me out of the fight before he pointed at the armor he was wearing and then clubbed me like a seal. Kind of a *facepalm* moment for me.

Fighters have obviously adapted to swing when a stab may be more optimal so it's not a huge deal with short weapons. This change would affect spears and reds more than anything else.

[Turin]

I'm not going to respond to this in this thread. If you wish to have a debate on the merits of considering a set to be equivalent to the union of two smaller subsets, please start a new thread on the topic.

Your response appears to belittle mine as 1) not germane & 2) unimportant.
Regarding the former, although post may have seemed a digression, it was meant to bring in a new angle of consideration to the current topic. Although the people in this thread have done an exemplar job in keeping the subject matter tightly focused, I'm advocating to keep a single broad issue in mind during discussion. I'm not looking to start a new thread (yet) or derail this one.
Touching the latter, meh, that may be your view. Correct me if have made assumptions unintended; words are slow.

[Loptr]

Turin has a valid point if this actually does impact the use of armor.
Atmosphere should be a consideration.


I do not believe that this rule modification would preempt people from wearing armor.

Why do peeps wear armor?
1. To look badass?
2. To get an extra point of protection?
3. To nerf stabs?
4. Profit?

1. I love quality armor and I love the amount of it I see on the Bel field. I don’t want to see this reduced.
2. This is my motivation to get some armor made (in addition to #1). I like the idea of being able to stay in the fight longer due to armor providing a point of protection.
3. Is there anybody that honestly wears armor specifically to be able to stop stabs? If so assuming this idea passes. Will they stop wearing armor?
4. I am always down for profit.

I sincerely believe single green doing one point of damage brings a level of realism and a higher caliber of fighting technique to the game. I find it difficult to believe that this concept will stop peeps from wanting armor. A point of protection is still a point of protection.

While I respect the history of the game and the evolution of how this rule came to be. I find it amazing that one of histories most effective tools against armor is ignored. Stabbing is an integral component of my fighting technique. I repeat again, out in the west we are on the cusp of stabs really becoming prevalent. This will round out combat skill from an aggression and defensive point.

In conclusion: rules are considered from this priority if I am not wrong.
Safety, Playability, Realism
There is not a concern from a safety stand point (assuming proper weapon checking). From the playability stand point it is stupid simple to process on the field. From a stand point of historical accuracy stabs are highly effective against armor. I don’t buy into the idea it will reduce armor and impact the atmosphere/medieval experience nearly as much as sundresses and Underarmor (Not under proper garb) as acceptable garb.

Loptr

[Arrakis]

I'm not going to respond to this in this thread. If you wish to have a debate on the merits of considering a set to be equivalent to the union of two smaller subsets, please start a new thread on the topic.

Your response appears to belittle mine as 1) not germane & 2) unimportant.
Regarding the former, although post may have seemed a digression, it was meant to bring in a new angle of consideration to the current topic. Although the people in this thread have done an exemplar job in keeping the subject matter tightly focused, I'm advocating to keep a single broad issue in mind during discussion. I'm not looking to start a new thread (yet) or derail this one.
Touching the latter, meh, that may be your view. Correct me if have made assumptions unintended; words are slow.

I'm just trying not to clutter that thread. I'd really really like to see that pass and the more derailments the lower the chance it will.

Also, as regards your original post: The game as defined as a set of mechanical rules (which cannot be copyrighted under US law) is separate, legally, from the "flavor" of the game (a copyrightable entity). Thus, D&D and the d20 system; thus the art on magic cards vs. a technical description of what the cards do; thus licensed copies of pro team's football jerseys vs. the game of football.

And I'm sick of seeing "armor is pretty!" as a "good" reason to make it more powerful. Who cares? Our rules are most representative of unarmored combat! ****, nice garb looks better than a bunch of twits in **** leather armor and no garb at all; why don't we give people with a linen or wool tunic the ability to ignore all missile weapons to encourage better garb?

Because it's stupid to reward people IN GAME for LOOKING GOOD.

[Sir Par]

Honestly, as stabbing becomes more and more prevelent you will see an INCREASE in armor if this rule is left alone. I hate getting pocket stabbed. Hate it, hate it, hate it. (don't we all?) At Chaos I got to walk through at least 4 pocket stabs because of the armor I was wearing, and hesitated on stabbing a ton of people because of their armor. Last night at practice I got to ignore a stab to my legs because I was wearing greeves. Even though stabbing (historically) goes right through chain and usually leather, I think we should leave it alone if the goal is to get more people to wear armor.

[Soo Ma Tai]

I can't reply in the pertinent thread unfortunately. Perhaps one of you who can will pass this along, but on Sunday since I was the only person in armor I took it upon myself to loudly announce that I would take single stabs as one armor hit if it happened.

It happened a couple of times. My heart was not broken. I did not want to shed my armor and cry because it's no longer useful. It was a slight inconvenience, no more, and it encouraged people to stab me which made the fighting a little more unpredictable and therefore interesting.

I liked it.

[Isk]

I hate getting pocket stabbed. Hate it, hate it, hate it. (don't we all?) At Chaos I got to walk through at least 4 pocket stabs because of the armor I was wearing, and hesitated on stabbing a ton of people because of their armor. Last night at practice I got to ignore a stab to my legs because I was wearing greeves. Even though stabbing (historically) goes right through chain and usually leather, I think we should leave it alone if the goal is to get more people to wear armor.

To me, that is a perfectly eloquent expression of the reasons why this rule should be changed. As stabbing becomes more prevalent, armor becomes invulnerability from a significant form of attack for a price; how is that justified? So that more people will wear armor?

I feel like a major reason we are having this discussion is because we want to keep armor balanced the way it has been in the past. Armor has offered one point of protection against hacks, the most common attack that it faced. As stabs become more prevalent, armor becomes more valuable as Par has pointed out. If we want to keep the game balanced the way it has been, armor should be just as vulnerable to stabs.

[Thorondor]

Do we really want more people to be wearing horribly looking leather armor? Now if more people had the leatherworking ability of, lets say Forkbeard, then we would be fine. Also, many people who wear armor don't wear helmets, which gives you invulnerability to missile weapons. We don't have a ton of helmets floating around the field (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). The thought that people that were going to wear armor for that extra hit would also want immunity against missiles in the face is false. People wear the armor because it looks good on the field.

Most of the time I forget I'm immune to stabs when wearing my chain and take the shot anyways. If someone can stab me with sufficient force, I'll take it because they deserve to get the kill.

[Loptr]

I wear armor and get to ignore stabs

With all due respect. It is my opinnion that this is exactly the reason why we should be reviewing this rule.
Where is the realism in being able to cheese quality stabs?

L

[Kasada]

Let me just say I'm in favor of making stabs count against armor, partly for simplicity (people don't have to worry about what part of a weapon hit them if they have armor). However, in the interest of fairness, I'm going to play "devil's advocate" for a moment here.

Realism: A stab hits a very small area. A small hole does not make the entire rest of that section of armor useless or destroyed. A slash, however, goes across a larger area and may very well damage armor enough to negate its protection.

[Thorondor]

Realism: A stab hits a very small area. A small hole does not make the entire rest of that section of armor useless or destroyed. A slash, however, goes across a larger area and may very well damage armor enough to negate its protection.

Remember, how we play is not "armor is destroyed" it's "body part is half destroyed." That means while you may only have a penetrating wound to your arm/leg/torso, you are still injured and a second shot (be it stab or slash in this proposal) would injure you the rest of the way causing the limb to be fully disabled.

[Forkbeard]

The armor rules now are not very realistic, no.
But making armor less powerfull will not make it more realistic. In real life, armor makes you a much more bad * than an unarmored dude. No, you don't get a prescribed amount of additoinal hits, that's not how it works. But you do not get hurt, or hurt as much, from the normal run of combat.
The rules now give armor wearers a small part of this by not allowing one hand stabs to penetrate it.
It IS a huge thing. You guys say you don't think about it, but I do. All the time. Both when I'm wearing it and when I'm stabbing people(mostly at the same time). It changes the way I approach combat. I must be more wary and carful when fighting well armored people.
If we change this rule, I will wear the armor less. It's hot and doen't really do that much anyway. Taking away the "no one hand stabs" is taking half the power out of it. Or maybe like a third. Anyway, I don't think this is cool.
If ugly lame * leather is the problem, lets make a quality rule for armor. I would love that ****.
Loptr, lets not make this about garb. You wear jeans.
FB

[Loptr]

Loptr, lets not make this about garb. You wear jeans.

Since Griff talked to me about 4 yrs ago I have not worn jeans to Bel or Amt. Possibly to a practice when pressed for time a couple times after the move and my **** was in boxes.

[Isk]

Regarding Realism, armor and the game of Belegarth:
[rant]I am drawn to this game because it is a fast, hard-hitting sport that, for a sport, is a reasonably realistic approximation of unarmored pre-firearms combat. Forkbeard is absolutely, 100% right. Walking onto a real fighting field in full Gothic plate would make you a freaking bad-a tank that is very, very difficult to kill. Fighting any armored opponent in real life requires very specific techniques and those techniques vary significantly depending on the type of armor worn. Most of these attacks, especially against hard armors, target joints and are difficult to execute safely in a sport context.

So, as long as just hacking away at someone in chain/plate/hardened leather the same way I hack at bare skin counts as a hit, wearing armor makes this game less realistic. I don't really want that. This is a primarily unarmored game and that's what our rules of combat and our weapon safety requirements are designed for. Some armor on the field is cool. It adds atmosphere and giving one free hit is a reasonable, but not overpowering incentive. It doesn't need to be invulnerable to an entire class of attacks for people to wear it. I am in the middle of making my own set of Bel armor right now and I will still be finishing it and using it even if it doesn't grant invulnerability to one hand stabs.[/rant]

Finally, regarding Playability again: a major reason we are having this discussion is because we want to keep armor balanced the way it has been in the past. Armor has offered one point of protection against hacks, the most common attack that it faced. This discussion comes up because stabs are becoming much more common and armor is therefore more valuable. If we want to keep the game balanced the way it has been, armor should remain just as vulnerable to the primary attacks on the field.

[Forkbeard]

Loptr, I'm just teasin, ya big girl.
I think we should keep on track and off garb, though.
And remember, I'm arguing both sides of this, to you all and to myself. I like this and I don't at the same time.
I don't think the game is becoming "unbalanced", however. The increasing use of stabbing weapons does not require the lessening of armor. I don't understand how we can keep something balanced the way it was in the past by changing it now. It is balanced. Keeping the rules the way they are keeps stabbing weapons balance in that area.
I don't, and I don't think everyone else thinks, that Ble is a game representing unarmored combat. to me, it's a game representing Medi-Eval combat designed to be as smooth running and balanced as possible.
The way things are, you have to think when fighting an armored opponent. I think you having to think that extra bit about how your going to kill me makes it more realistic. I also like the delay so I can kill you. This is part of the edge I get from the armor. It's more than just 1 hit.
I also like the idea of stabbing fools to death all day. Most of you suck and it will be fun.
I just don't know if the fun of stabbing counters the lessening of the armor experience.
We will play test this at Sam Hain. We'll go with one hand stabs hurt armor and 2 limbs count as death.
FB