single green damage to armor

[Soo Ma Tai]

They played as single hand stabs cause damage like a blue. 1/2 point of damage to armored areas. Two stabs to an armored torso would equal death.

[bo1]

thanks, that is what i thought. the word peirce is dicieving.

[Isk]

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.

I have really mixed feelings about this idea. It massively nerfs archery and we'd see less archers, IMO. You would also definitely see more armor, particularly on florentine, spear and red fighters. You could treat helmets like any other armor. As a little bit of balance, I think single green stabs should definitely damage armor if missiles are dropped to 1 point of damage. Speaking of which, if you do this, would you drop javs to one point as well?

Does this have any real chance of passing the WC, though? It will probably be more productive to keep your play-test similar to what was done at Samhain so we have more comparable data.

[Arrakis]

It'd be nice to see tests of 1) Just green damaging armor, 2) Just green counting toward DbD, and 3) Both.

[Caleidah]

After some discussion on this after practice this evening, we are going to playtest both sides of this issue here in Tir Asleen. We'll take a few weeks with everyone wearing every scrap of armor they own so that we can get a feel for the "control" matter and then move on to more tests. News will come as events warrant.

[Elebrim]

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?

My mistake. I pieced Reverend's concerns about safety and game balance in with his heralding commentary, which was much more limited; I guess my own bias toward safety concerns from when I have heralded bled into that interpretation.

Isk - Good point about game development over time; it was made last time this rule change was brought up. My response to that though is that the game and its rules did develop in a particular way, and that any changes need to focus on enhancing that more natural development rather than pulling it in a particular direction. Did Amtgard add shield bashing to their rule set after we started cross-gaming and ditching with them? No; they didn't feel it to be a part of their game. Should we change our armor rules now that stabbing techniques gained from cross-gaming are becoming more popular? That's what we have to answer, and my answer would be similar to Amtgard - no; it doesn't feel like a part of our game. It's great training and makes our skills better, but it doesn't mean that the rules must be adjusted to accommodate.

If more people put shield spikes on their shields, would we then have a movement to re-add shield spike damage to our rules? No, I don't think so. So why this?

I still disagree with the assumption that because more one-handed stabbing is on the field, armor is now overpowered. Again, just because a rule is being employed more often due to a change in fighting styles doesn't mean that the rule is now more powerful. It just means it's showing up more often.

[Isk]

I agree that we should not be changing our rules to match another game, this IS our game. Stabbing is and always has been part of our game, though. The increase in stabbing isn't because we have cross-gamers, it's because durable stabbies are now accessible and common. This is not us changing to suit newcomers, we are doing this organically as we have improved our tech and are expanding our game.

With this improved tech an old rule is having far greater impact than it did previously. A somewhat similar analogy might be the implementation of weight minimums once the tech had improved to allow extremely light weapons. We wanted the game to stay essentially the way it had been so we put in weight requirements.

Being completely invulnerable to a form of attack which is increasingly common because of technical advances makes armor more effective on the field than it was previously. This shifts the balance from where it had been. The proposed change, green does 1 point of damage to armor, seeks to keep the balance where it has been. Whether it succeeds in doing so is the reason play testing is needed and being done. We'll see how well it achieves this goal as people continue to try it out.

[Arrakis]

Before late-ish 2008, * near the ONLY time a single-green got called on a national field was when a spearman was pool-cueing unarmored targets or a javelin or dagger got used to stab somebody. There just about weren't any blue weapons with green tips. Thus, armor was worn for the extra blue hit and to force spears to double green you. My swords, from my very first weapons, have been stabby, ever since I started fighting in 2007, and I've been stabbing people and hearing "Is that stabbing?!?!" since Day One because people were so unused to the idea. Since Day One, I wondered why stabbing wasn't effective against armor, especially when (remember, I was new) it was historically and realistically more effective against armor than hacking weaponry.

If an advantage never came up and now it comes up all the time, it does make the advantage more desirable and more advantageous. If you used to blow off two shots per event because of 1hG-does-nothing-to-armor and now you blow off 30, that's an improvement in your favor. That's your armor being more powerful: it blocked a higher percentage of your total shots received.

Don't you think people are going to wear more armor as stabbing becomes more prevalent, specifically to ignore one-handed green? I know that when archers get thick on the field, everyone picks up their helms. Same thing.

[Elebrim]

If an advantage never came up and now it comes up all the time, it does make the advantage more desirable and more advantageous. If you used to blow off two shots per event because of 1hG-does-nothing-to-armor and now you blow off 30, that's an improvement in your favor. That's your armor being more powerful: it blocked a higher percentage of your total shots received.

I understand why you say that: you're attributing the increased number of shots to additional value in the armor. That being said, I still disagree with it. The rule has existed before, and has been employed before by many people. I'm not attributing the increased number of shots to an increased value in armor, but rather to the increased number of people throwing a type of shot to begin with. Armor has the same value it always had; nothing has changed about armor. To me, all this rule change does is accommodate that larger number of people throwing that particular type of shot. It seems like the armor wearer is getting weakened or punished for doing the exact same thing he or she has always done.

Don't you think people are going to wear more armor as stabbing becomes more prevalent, specifically to ignore one-handed green? I know that when archers get thick on the field, everyone picks up their helms. Same thing.

Yeah... but isn't that a good thing?

When archers come out, more people pick up shields too. But do we say that such a move cheeses archers and archers should be allowed to break shields with XYZ number of shots? No, it's a natural move to defend against arrows. And when more shields come out, more reds show up to break them. Do we weaken reds to protect shields? No, it's a natural move. And when more reds come out, more archers come to pick them off... it's a balance issue. Everything has a strength and a weakness.

So why when more greens come out do we suddenly feel the need to weaken armor and accommodate them? Doesn't that not make sense?

[Isk]

. . . it's a balance issue. Everything has a strength and a weakness. . .

THIS I absolutely agree with and is what we are discussing.

Armor has the same value it always had; nothing has changed about armor.

While nothing has changed about the armor itself, it does NOT have the same value. Stabbing is not a silly fad that has grown up, stabbing was an important part of our medievalesque game that was almost completely neglected. The tech has caught up and it is coming into its own, finally. Because the tech has changed, armor IS more powerful as it blocks more of the shots being thrown at it. Armor was only completely invulnerable to a very small percentage of shots before this improvement in the tech. Now as more and more stabs are being thrown, armor is completely invulnerable to a significant percentage of the shots being thrown on the field.

I really don't see that there is even a discussion to be had over whether armor has become more effective as a result of a progression in weapons technology. The armor rule didn't change, but the technology of weapons did. Now the percentage of shots that armor completely ignores, taking no damage whotsoever, is higher. Higher percentage of shots thrown do absolutely nothing == armor is more effective. The weapons tech changed and as a result armor does its job better.

The question is: Do we want to do nothing and allow armor this additional advantage or do we want to make the full range of attacks used by S&B and florentine fighters the same power they have had in the past.

[Arrakis]

Yeah, it's a matter of deciding:

a) Do we allow armor to retain its historical abilities, rendering it more valuable on the modern field?

or

b) Do we slightly reduce the effectiveness of armor in an attempt to retain the historical value of armor in light of the current and predicted trend of damage types seen on the field?


We've been seeing more stabbing and more armor-wearing to counter it for the last two years. I would argue that we've enough evidence of the increased field value of armor on modern fields to make this change with our eyes open and restore the historical game balance we're used to, but I can understand the position that this increased value of armor is a good thing. I just can't see a reason to force stabbing into a secondary role.


Then again, if everyone wears armor on the field to not have to worry about learning to block stabs, that means I'll clean up in tourneys where armor isn't allowed... :P

[Arrakis]

As an aside to my last post, in addition to the game balance issue, I would argue that allowing stabs to retain some efficacy against armored target areas would make our fighting more dynamic and bring the average skill level of the average Belegarth fighter up. That's always desirable, to me.

[Kage]

. . . it's a balance issue. Everything has a strength and a weakness. . .

THIS I absolutely agree with and is what we are discussing.

If you truly believe, Isk, that everything should have a strength and weakness then you should agree somewhat to the fact that stabbings check and balance is armor. What we are discussing is the disadvantage of using a weapon single green. Checks and balances are there, I promise. In my eyes there isn't much difference in saying "Let's get rid of reds. We will just make it so that blues used two handed count as two." For me that's really the bottom line. I'm not going to say that's what will happen just an example of my train of thought. Now before you go all "copy paste quote" on me; I can see how people might want green damage to be on par with red and I really can sympathize that way, even though I still disagree. I still firmly disagree though that pierced limbs should count to the death by dismemberment. Dismemberment means to be removed from the body; therefore my arm would have to have been hacked off not just handicapped. Checks and balances. Checks and balances. If need be I'll make another post listing the checks and balances I can think of off the top of my head.

We've been seeing more stabbing and more armor-wearing to counter it for the last two years.

Arrakis, I really do have mad respect for you. But couldn't it also be that there are some people who like Forkbeard, Magnus of the Red Hand, Old Horse, Sieglatan, Enderonimus, and even yourself that have rose the bar in that department; which caused more people to want armor that is unique and quite frankly bad *? I am not saying that this is what it is; I'm not looking for a "yes" or a "no"; what I am asking could this be a possibility? I'm not sure that I can say just yet that people have been putting on armor to negate stabs. It just seems really unlikely to me. I have seen since I've seen you on the boards; as well as some cross gamers; an increase in the quality of garb across the board. Can't say it was you entirely, but I do feel personally that you have had some influence in the direction it took. Also adding that garb has no real lasting effect on fighting besides making you look good on the field it leads me to this question: Essentially, do you think the increase in armor could be that some fighters are trying to emulate the fighters they have the most respect for?

I understand why you say that: you're attributing the increased number of shots to additional value in the armor. That being said, I still disagree with it. The rule has existed before, and has been employed before by many people. I'm not attributing the increased number of shots to an increased value in armor, but rather to the increased number of people throwing a type of shot to begin with. Armor has the same value it always had; nothing has changed about armor. To me, all this rule change does is accommodate that larger number of people throwing that particular type of shot. It seems like the armor wearer is getting weakened or punished for doing the exact same thing he or she has always done.

This I fully agree with as well as pretty much the rest of the post. Most of it is how Elebrim puts it "a natural move." Elebrim, to tentatively answer your questions: I think it is because armor makes them feel like a good portion of their fighting technique is removed because of it. I can see how it make sense, but I still think they should use the disadvantage to develop further so their techniques will work under the right set of circumstances. I usually have no problem stabbing an armored target to open up something else.

As a side note: I would like to publicly thank all those that found my ramblings in my first post humorous. Thank you for all the PMs, I appreciate it.

[Dane]

then you should agree somewhat to the fact that stabbings check and balance is armor

The check and balance to stabbing is not getting stabbed. You evade it or defend it. Armor shouldn't perpetually bail you out when you fail in your defensive responsibility - it should bail you out once. (I exclude helmets, here, because the only reason they grant immunity to missiles is so that people actually wear them.) Open up the possibility of single green strikes dealing damage to armored target areas and you make more weapon combinations and combat styles viable. Diversity on the field is good.

[Forkbeard]

We've talked about this and now we've playtested it.
I am absolutly against changing the armor rules. One handed stabs affecting armor will make armor less powerful.

Do we let armor become more powerful as stabbing continues to be more and more common or do we try to keep armor about the same by letting 1hG damage armor.

The answer to this question is yes, we let armor "become more powerful". If the change in peoples voluntary fighting style makes armor more powerfull, then it should be more powerfull.
If the way you fight makes me win, you should fight differently. I should not be made weaker.
FB

[Arrakis]

We've talked about this and now we've playtested it.
I am absolutly against changing the armor rules. One handed stabs affecting armor will make armor less powerful.

Do we let armor become more powerful as stabbing continues to be more and more common or do we try to keep armor about the same by letting 1hG damage armor.

The answer to this question is yes, we let armor "become more powerful". If the change in peoples voluntary fighting style makes armor more powerfull, then it should be more powerfull.
If the way you fight makes me win, you should fight differently. I should not be made weaker.
FB

Wuss. Can't have us poking a hole in your security blanket.

[No'Vak]

We've talked about this and now we've playtested it.
I am absolutly against changing the armor rules. One handed stabs affecting armor will make armor less powerful.

Do we let armor become more powerful as stabbing continues to be more and more common or do we try to keep armor about the same by letting 1hG damage armor.

The answer to this question is yes, we let armor "become more powerful". If the change in peoples voluntary fighting style makes armor more powerfull, then it should be more powerfull.
If the way you fight makes me win, you should fight differently. I should not be made weaker.
FB

Wuss. Can't have us poking a hole in your security blanket.

You're attempting to patch the hole in your security blanket by poking one in his.

[Tiberius Claudius]

Re-reading this whole thread, opinions really seem to be delineated along the lines of "those who currently/primarily wear armor" vs "those who don't currently/primarily wear armor", with those who do being in favor of leaving armor alone so they can maintain a current advantage and those who don't likewise being in favor of weakening armor so that they can gain an advantage. Each side seems to think the other is wrong out of a sense that fairness and balance is being trodden upon. "Why should I get short changed on the deal?"

While I don't yet wear armor (making it), I am in favor of changing the rules to make 1hg = 1hb in the name of simplicity so that a hit is a hit is a hit. I would wear armor even if we got no in-game advantage simply because it looks cool. It's awesome that I can get an extra shot to make up for me screwing up or the other guy just being better than I am, however that isn't a pre-requisite for me. Heat, weight, encumberance, maintenance, creating the * stuff - I'd still wear it just for the fun of it because I like a little bit of RP in my foam fighting. That being said, since arrows and javs go right through the armor anyway, what do I really care if a stab can hurt it? I still get an extra hit even though it's a stab. If I get hit in the torso twice by a stab then I deserve to die and I'll work on learning how to fight and block better. I haven't 'grown up' with the experience of being immune so it isn't a loss for me.

I believe that such a change will make us more sport-like. The only thinking that would need to take place is whether or not the shot was hard enough. We play a game and I think simple is better, not because we can't handle thinking on the fly but because I think it will make our game faster. I thoroughly enjoyed Samhain this year in part because there weren't tons of legged gimps crawling around, nearly immune because they had a big shield. Yeah, I know that had a lot to do with 2 stabbed limbs equaling death, but if armor can get broken faster that will speed up the game as well. We fought, one side won, we got up and did it all over again. If you die early, you're back in quick. If you live the whole round, you get to dominate again. Awesome.

The check and balance to stabbing is not getting stabbed. You evade it or defend it. Armor shouldn't perpetually bail you out when you fail in your defensive responsibility - it should bail you out once. (I exclude helmets, here, because the only reason they grant immunity to missiles is so that people actually wear them.) Open up the possibility of single green strikes dealing damage to armored target areas and you make more weapon combinations and combat styles viable. Diversity on the field is good.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and especially that armor should give an edge but not immunity - though realistically in some situations it certainly would provide immunity. We could expand the armor rules to make certain types take more hits or be immune to certain attacks while others are susceptible, but that sort of thing was done away with to the point where we reached the rules that we currently have out of a desire for simplicity. Playability over realism.

Admittedly, as they stand now, our rules aren't truly complicated - after all, we've managed to learn them and play with them successfully for years. Sure, it takes some getting used to when you're new, but anyone who really likes the game will learn them despite the quirkiness. I don't mind our rules as they stand now because I enjoy the game, but even though I don't consider the current rules broken I would like to see them become simplified to make us more sport-like and representative of the approximation of unarmored combat that our game really is.

We've heard major players state that they would not wear armor or wear armor less if this rule change came into effect. That's disappointing for sure, but will it really ruin the game, or will it just make some people - albeit important, vetted people, but "just" people nonetheless - unhappy? We've also read that it would encourage the use of min/max cheap armor that is visually unappealing as well as unrealistic. I also feel that that would be disappointing and not something that I want to see, but if that becomes the case, perhaps we'll need additional rule changes to remedy it. Some might argue that a rule change in one area to correct or guide the effects of a rule change in another area isn't very "simple", and that may be true. However, if in the end the game becomes better or remains fundamentally the same while somewhat different, is that really so bad?

I'm glad that this play testing is occurring and I hope it will get a fair shake. Whatever is decided is decided; but the boards can often get clogged with the strong personalities of those who for right or for wrong have seemingly appointed themselves "protectors of the game" and all other opinions can be damned. Sure, experience and in-game leadership positions count for a lot, but I sincerely hope that any decision is made for the good of the game and not for personal reasons.

[Arrakis]

Wuss. Can't have us poking a hole in your security blanket.

You're attempting to patch the hole in your security blanket by poking one in his.

Conceit fail. There is no "hole" and no "security blanket" on my end. I'm not arguing that I shouldn't be weakened or whatever. I'm arguing that it doesn't make sense for armor to be immune to 1hG on grounds of Playability and Realism.

[Mekoot Gorlock]

I agree with Elebrim and Fork. This is a matter of people throwing a shot more than they once did. Shots come in and out of fashion the same a weapon styles (we are due for flails and punches to come back). I don't primarily wear armor, and I have switched to using a spear most of the time. I think that if I could break armor with one hit from a one handed spear it would be totally over powered. If you want to stab someone with armor on you should have to aim for gaps, or swing the sword (because it makes it more fun). It is way more satisfying to hit someone in the gap with a stab than double through the armor.

People should work on changing their framing rather then the rules. Most of the people arguing for this rule are people who are good and want to keep getting better, you are people that take pride in your skill and what you can accomplish. I suggest that you focus on the skill it takes to stab someone in the armpit, or the space between the top of their armor and their neck (its always there), rather than the times that you feel you died early because you fought someone with armor and stabbed them in it.

[Arrakis]

Sure. I can do that. I do it regularly.

But why shouldn't habitual armor-wearers have to learn to block stabs? They have to learn to block blue hits because if they don't they lose protection and then they die/get wounded. By your argument, why not make armor immune to all green AND all blue hits? I mean, you can always aim for the gaps, right?

[Loptr]

Kage,

I appreciate your style and tongue in cheek posting.

I am firmly with you, the badasses in badassed armor are influencing the drive to more armor. I don’t think it is highly motivated by ignoring a stab except by perhaps a small percentage (I consider that cheese * but whatever). I am highly motivated to build my armor and hopefully Fork will be willing to share his time and skillz with me and my beer.

Angmarth posted a comment earlier in this thread:
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

To everybody-

I have a check and balance for you it is skill (which is the greatest CnB IMHO). Stabbing is and should be a skillset for any and all peeps using a blue/red. Armor has to avoid being poked by arrows, spears and javs. Is blocking a short/long sword stab such a difficult concept let alone skillset?

I keep hearing armor has not changed why should it be required to change. At the same time nobody is addressing the fact that blue stabs were fundamentally irrelevant (and therefore not really a concern so no need to review balance) for the majority of Bel due to onerous construction regulations and technique. With the advent of marine foam peeps are building and using green tips on blue swords. Tech has become more and more readily available and safety has not been compromised. Hence the reason for this very conversation.

Taking the reality of stabbies becoming more accessible to the masses. How can one make the simplistic argument this is a flavor of the month? Additionally why do we keep ignoring the historical fact of piercing damage? This is not a learn to stab better argument, this is a learn to stab AND learn to block better skillset.

Bottom line:
If blues start causing single green damage it will cause the game to increase over all skill on both sides of the fence.

L

[Turin]

Kudos, once more, for everyone's commitment to maintaining civility & honesty.

Having followed this thread throughout its duration, here are my conclusions so far:
1. Armor is important to our identity as a community. Maintaining the advantages of armor within game-play helps to encourage more armor to be worn on the field.
2. Stabbing was indeed an historically prevalent & effective technique.
3. The occurrence of stabbing has gone up in our game. If the rules remain as they are, stabbing will not go down, as a trend. In fact, it may continue to expand as more people learn good technique.
5. If the rules remain as they are, more stabbing occurrence does make armor more powerful in the current, & foreseeable context.
6. Taking damage with 1 hand stabs through armor takes some (or much) of that growing power away from armor.
7. One handed stab damage to armored areas makes spears more powerful. More powerful spears would probably translated into more spears on the field. More spears would be both more historically accurate & bring greater variety to the weapon combination seen on the field &, therefore, greater skills development.
8.After reading the posts in this link, http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041, it becomes apparent that archery in our game is way over powered against armor, specifically against mail.

In conclusion, based on the points above, I wound be in favor of one handed stab damage to armored areas IF it were tempered with arrows doing the exact same type of damage.

[Thorondor]

8.After reading the posts in this link, http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041, it becomes apparent that archery in our game is way over powered against armor, specifically against mail.

Remember though, all of our armor is viewed equal in strength/weakness. This means arrows are either the right power (leather, plate) or over powered (mail). From the simple majority, it seems that arrows are the right power (2v1).

[Shino]

Lachlan said this in the GM thread and I think that everyone should consider this.

A perfect point. We make armor less strong, but we begin to overpower spears and javs.

I believe that armor should be encumbering and it usually is. It's hot, heavy and unnatural to wear. Armor also requires some thinking if one plans to use it correctly. To be stab (single Green) proof gives armor a kind of attribute that adds to the experience of the game.
Hey, Archers can call their shots and thats a unique element of arching. (oh, and archers can kill people with armor)

A lot of people using one style of attack is not grounds to redefine our armor rules. If tomorrow everyone picked up red weapons would we reconsider shield strength rules or would we expect the trend to balance/fade out without the need for serious intervention?

Regardless of what happens with this debate I hope that any vote hereafter be taken in person, by voting realms, at a national event war council. I am against voting on BoW issues on the boards.

[Mekoot Gorlock]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't learn how to block a stab. By that argument they can say (and peten did say) that you should learn how to throw a hacking shot.

Single handed stabs not doing anything to armor forces people to fight in different styles against different people. Everyone changes the way that they fight depending on the equipment the other person has. What you are suggesting would make stabbing drastically more powerful, without giving any power to anything else. Stabbing would be used all the time, against everyone and that doesn't lead to a diverse field, with a large variety in fighting styles and shots thrown.

I suggest that a rule actually be written up, so that play testing can be standardized, and reported on until December when the next voting period opens. Then the rule can be voted on, and the will of the community will be done.

[Angmarth]

I stand by my statements earlier in these threads. It doesn't really change the game for 1hG to equal 1hB. Simply because MOST 1hG's simply aren't hard enough. 1hG's from a spear to a TORSO, is where it is usually good enough. 1hG's to a shin usually usually slide and don't strike solid. Folks who are arguing for 1hG to count as blue, need to be aware that your strikes are going to often fall in the LIGHT/GRAZE category. I have been stabbed by the hardest of stabbers with the worst tips and most of the time it just isn't all that boss. I hear a lot of folks here talking about how badass their stabs are, but in reality they just aren't all that awesome. Those same folks when swinging, can deliver a much more solid strike. The one thing that will be GUARANTEED to happen if 1hG = 1hB, there will be a dramatic increase in people in people calling light/graze.

[Magnus of the Red Hand]

In my perfect world I would create an awesome, yet simple combat system.

All single handed hits would count the same, to armor or the body, regardless of a swing or stab.

I would then add

arrows doing the exact same type of damage

And to finish it off I would add a little flavor with two handed swings damaging a shield and two handed swings & stabs cutting right through armor.

And after crafting this awesomeness I would then ride my giant battle cat to the Mammary Mountains and relax on the shores of the Babbling Beer Brook congratulating myself on a job well done.

On a more serious note, we should not be contemplating modifying our rule set to accommodate/discourage whatever the Flavor of the Month fighting style is. I hold the opinion I do because I've been a proponent of standardizing damage since I first learned the Dag/Bel rules.

Even so I think folks like FB, Shinbro and others bring up the very valid point that armor is not becoming more powerful, its just the fact the some folks are finally realizing how to use the pointy end of a stick. If we are going to modify how our combat works, we have to do it for a valid reason and not because "Ooh I've got a new toy, OMG it doesnt work against armor, we have to nerf armor quick!"

[Arrakis]

Remember: Just because some people want to change a thing for a bad reason DOESN'T make the change a bad change and doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to make the change.

[Isk]

And after crafting this awesomeness I would then ride my giant battle cat to the Mammary Mountains and relax on the shores of the Babbling Beer Brook congratulating myself on a job well done.

Magnus, I have always wanted a battle cat. If you ever realize this dream, please let me know where to pick up my ride. As I've already said, I do believe armor has gained value now that stabs can be and are a more significant part of the game, but I am completely with you in my personal reason for wanting to change to 1hG = 1hB. In my opinion and my experience playing by these rules the game is simpler, faster and smoother.

I suggest that a rule actually be written up, so that play testing can be standardized, and reported on until December when the next voting period opens. Then the rule can be voted on, and the will of the community will be done.

To do this we need to decide if we are testing just 1hG damages armor or 1hG = 1hB. I'll put both rules changes here:

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.

Or

3.2.2.3. Class 3 (thrusting) Weapons wielded one-handed cause one hit of damage to any 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.

**Edited for a strikeout oversight.

[Juicer]

Just to add a point, I almost never wear armor, and I often use stabs. AND YET, I am against this * rule change. The thread in General Mayhem started by Peten (P.S. Thank you Peten for bringing this to the attention of the masses) illustrates all of my points quite well I think.

[Sleeper]

i heard that armour isn't damaged when it takes a hit, its the area of your body underneath said armour that is damaged, thats why stabby tips dont work when single thrusted. and i thought my leather arm armour represented steel plate armour the way the foam on my sword represented a steel blade. only thing that would remedy this would be to have different classes of armour, which doesn't see, likely.

[Soo Ma Tai]

True, armor is never damaged/destroyed, so it still protectes you from single greens, even after hit with a blue.

[The Peten]

Once your armor is slashed, hacked, bashed... It is gone. Someone give me a REAL reason why the green rules should changed... A CIVIL reason for rules to be changed.

[Thorondor]

Once your armor is slashed, hacked, bashed... It is gone. Someone give me a REAL reason why the green rules should changed... A CIVIL reason for rules to be changed.

False...the limb/torso under the armor is half damaged. That is why you can trade off armor after getting hit once and the other person who puts it on gets the extra point of damage as well...when this would ever happen, who knows, but it's legal under the rules.

[The Great Gigsby]

False...the limb/torso under the armor is half damaged

We should change that. It's unrealistic, stagnates the fighting (when people retreat to trade armor), doesn't really contribute anything to our combat, and adds an extra complication that we really don't need.

[Rocca]

Interesting. I've been playing this game for a long time and I always played it the way Peten stated. Damage goes to armor, then player. *shrug* I'm against a rule change, but maybe we should change the wording on the armor rule.

edit* I have a nice set of armor but I often don't wear it. I am perfectly able to block stabs, however if armor was made even more weak I would not wear it at all. *shrug* That's just me, and, as I said, I don't wear it often or rely on it for my defense.

[Cade]

I'm in favor of more realism personally. If historically stabbing would go through armor, than make it go through armor. I wear armor, and i also stab a lot. If i had to worry about guys stabbing through my armor i would still wear it gladly because its badass and still useful for an extra hit.

Its not like we are going to have dozens of people wandering around in armor with no defense against one handed stabs. What we will have is a bunch of shieldmen who if they are smart, still use their shields to block stabs.

I doubt very much that much would change over all.

Now if you want to really * people off and confuse the apparently hordes of retarded people incapable of handling more than one or two rules at one time, what we should do is make plate and or chain worth more than leather in some way. I know i know, Inconceivable!

Regardless of which, i doubt anything much will change, mostly because change isn't really needed and enough of the loud people get * when someone changes something. Realistically armor should be vastly more powerful and useful than it is currently, and im good with ether outcome

[No'Vak]

False...the limb/torso under the armor is half damaged

We should change that. It's unrealistic, stagnates the fighting (when people retreat to trade armor), doesn't really contribute anything to our combat, and adds an extra complication that we really don't need.

I have absolutely never seen this happen ever in four years....

[Thorondor]

False...the limb/torso under the armor is half damaged

We should change that. It's unrealistic, stagnates the fighting (when people retreat to trade armor), doesn't really contribute anything to our combat, and adds an extra complication that we really don't need.

I have absolutely never seen this happen ever in four years....

I've never seen it happen since 01; but its still a viable option. Why people would want to, who knows...it takes longer to switch out the armor than to die and res for the next battle.

[Loptr]

Once your armor is slashed, hacked, bashed... It is gone. Someone give me a REAL reason why the green rules should changed... A CIVIL reason for rules to be changed.

What up Peten I have not seen you for a few years.


I feel my previous posts do exactly what you are asking for.

To summarize (again)........
Stabbing tip construction was onerous and difficult, this has changed with the acceptability of marine foam.
Because stabbing tips were hard to build and pass, stabbing was quite rare. Due to the rarity of stabbing on the field it was not really an issue with the current ruleset.

Peeps want to suggest that stabbing is a "flavor of the month". I completely disagree, stabbing is becoming available to the masses. Bel is on the cusp of a significant change in how we fight. There will be more stabbing and learning to block stabs. This is going to drive skill on both sides of the stab.

I continue to believe that stabbing. Proven to be safe and playable needs to look at realism. History points to stabs to armor as more effective than slashes.

Fork singly makes the best argument agains IMHO. The pause in approaching an armored oponnent. I share Forks opinnion that quality armor on the field is desirable and a good thing.

There also seems to be the argument of why change something that has worked fine? It seems redundant but again stabs are becoming more prevelant. Having a situation where you can ignore legitimate, safe, playable and historically accurate stabs seems bizarre to me. Angmarth made a point nobody has addressed. That is what is a"legitimate stab", as he has pointed out a good number of stabs will be skippy,glancing and buttery crap. The good enough stab will be in there but clearly not every single stab by any sense of the word.

I feel this single green on a blue stab simplifies the game and adds a new level of skill to the game in attack and defence.

I am not a proponent of the pierce rule change, unless javs and arrows become less powerful (IE: 1 point) I feel that is way to entrenched to be viable. I crossgame and have grown up on stabs and no pierce rule. Getting stabbed in both legs is the fault of my battlefield awareness not a broken rule. But again that is not the intent of this thread.

I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over. Perhaps I have given you a real set of reasons and a civil explanation of why I feel this makes sense?

Loptr
p.s. I intend to build armor and wear it. I love the thought of looking badass on the field (along with the mental boos tthat provides) and I like having an extra hit per location so I can stay in the fight longer.

[No'Vak]

Peeps want to suggest that stabbing is a "flavor of the month". I completely disagree, stabbing is becoming available to the masses. Bel is on the cusp of a significant change in how we fight. There will be more stabbing and learning to block stabs. This is going to drive skill on both sides of the stab.

This.

If stabbing is going to become this prevalent then I'd say give it some time.

I believe playtesting for more than just these few months should happen before a rule is brought up to vote. Especially something that will change the game this much.

[Dane]

Is getting stabbed while wearing armor safe?
Yes.

Is changing the rule playable?
Yes. In fact, it's more playable as it simplifies some rules and enhances the playability of other weapon types.

Is it realistic?
Yes, stabs penetrating armor is realistic, far more so than them not doing so.

[Reverend]

Is getting stabbed while wearing armor safe?
Yes.

Is changing the rule playable?
Yes. In fact, it's more playable as it simplifies some rules and enhances the playability of other weapon types.

Is it realistic?
Yes, stabs penetrating armor is realistic, far more so than them not doing so.

Is not getting stabbed while wearing armor safe?
Yes.

Is not changing the rule playable?
Yes. In fact, this is the way it has been played for nearly 20 years.

Is it realistic?
Yes, most stabs that would penetrate armor were from heavy, two-handed weapons or hyper-thin weapons, so having one-handed stabs not pierce armor is far more realistic than not.

[Dane]

Is not getting stabbed while wearing armor safe?
Yes.

Is not changing the rule playable?
Yes. In fact, this is the way it has been played for nearly 20 years.

Is it realistic?
Yes, most stabs that would penetrate armor were from heavy, two-handed weapons or hyper-thin weapons, so having one-handed stabs not pierce armor is far more realistic than not.

1. We're talking about adding something, so that's not relevant.

2. The fact that it's been done is not an argument of merit.

3. Single-handed stabs commonly penetrated leather and chain. Physics are such that you can stab harder one-handed. So yeah, one-handed stabs penetrating armor is more realistic than not at all.

[Kage]

Peeps want to suggest that stabbing is a "flavor of the month". I completely disagree, stabbing is becoming available to the masses. Bel is on the cusp of a significant change in how we fight. There will be more stabbing and learning to block stabs. This is going to drive skill on both sides of the stab.

I agree that the change in foam has helped the drive in more and more stabbing legal weapons and that stabbing has become more available to the masses. However, I disagree and still believe that it is a "flavor of the month" thing and some people just want more. This reminds me of some of the classes that are popular in MMO's complaining they aren't good enough although they make up a good percentage of the population in the game.

I continue to believe that stabbing. Proven to be safe and playable needs to look at realism. History points to stabs to armor as more effective than slashes.

3. Single-handed stabs commonly penetrated leather and chain. Physics are such that you can stab harder one-handed. So yeah, one-handed stabs penetrating armor is more realistic than not at all.

It is true stabbing is more effective than slashing, but I firmly believe that armor was always influenced by the increase of weapon technology. Basically that armor adapted to the weapons. New weapons were made to combat the armor that was made to protect against the old weapons. An example of this is bronze weapons >> bronze armor >> iron weapons.

Now leather I can agree with that it was vulnerable to piercing weapons. Chainmail or plate on the other hand wasn't really. It is both good against slashing and stabbing. The size and number of the links in this case determine how well it protects. I have seen sharkmail work personally and all it really is, is chainmail. Very small links but chainmail none the less. Chainmail works this well because it is flexible and actually absorbs most of the impact and transfers it over a greater area. The guy in my party who was bit didn't have any puncture wounds from this shark, but did suffer some broken bones as well as some deep tissue damage. It works against croc bites as well, but unfortunately it doesn't hold up well against a death roll. However, it still didn't puncture the mesh but destroyed the guys arm none the less. From the sounds of it you can stab harder than this 8 foot shark or crocodile could bite, which to me just seems unlikely. Chainmail did its job very well and outlasted time-of-use wise most of the others. What brought an end to chainmail was the employment of low velocity firearms; i.e. hand cannons and early muskets. This brought out plate, which was used in heavy calvary until ww1 in some countries. And before anyone cites Deadliest Warrior as a reference; it's an absolutely horrible reference. Too new? Ok Linothorax, it was amazing. I'll let UWGB handle that one. Link
I recall this vid being somewhere on the forums but here it is again.


Short story. Stabs going through armor are probably not historically accurate. Will there be trauma under the armor, yes. However, I don't think most of it will be life threatening. The only instances I can think of where a stab would go through armor Rev already brought up.

[Arrakis]

Chainmail or plate on the other hand wasn't really. It is both good against slashing and stabbing.
...
What brought an end to chainmail was the employment of low velocity firearms; i.e. hand cannons and early muskets. This brought out plate, which was used in heavy calvary until ww1 in some countries. And before anyone cites Deadliest Warrior as a reference; it's an absolutely horrible reference. Too new? Ok Linothorax, it was amazing. I'll let UWGB handle that one. Link
I recall this vid being somewhere on the forums but here it is again.


Short story. Stabs going through armor are probably not historically accurate. Will there be trauma under the armor, yes. However, I don't think most of it will be life threatening. The only instances I can think of where a stab would go through armor Rev already brought up.

All of this is incorrect from a historical standpoint. Do better research than watching some Discovery Channel.

As far as realism goes, get some chain and a good arming sword with a nice thrusting tip and stab it. Watch in amazement as it splits and you ruin any living thing under it!

[Rocca]

I have seen sharkmail work personally and all it really is, is chainmail.

Shark Armor is not period materials - the current models are made of titanium and a carbon polymer, and the ones that are made of steel are of a stronger steel then historical steel armor. It is not a valid comparison.

[Isk]

Discussing whether or not green should damage armor on the grounds of realism is silly because we treat all armor (garment leather with a few rivets, hardened leather, butted mail, riveted mail or full gothic plate) exactly the same. The vast menagerie that comes under the heading of 'armor' in Belegarth pretty much invalidates any rational discussion of what does and does not realistically penetrate armor. This broad definition works well for the purposes of our game and I am not encouraging distinctions between different types of armor.

IMO, whether or not we allow green to damage armor hinges exclusively on playability. Those in favor argue that since stabbing tech has improved and stabbing techniques can now take an equal place alongside hacks in any blue fighter's repertoire, armor is too effective since it is totally invulnerable to 1/3 - 1/2 of their attack options.

On the flip side, it is argued that since armor itself has not changed, the rules governing its protective characteristics should not change. It is also argued that the increase in stabs is a temporary trend and allowing green to damage armor would be pandering to a faction who just want to make their techniques more powerful. There is also concern that spears will be overpowered as this increases their reach against armored opponents.

At the end of the day, it appears we have a religious war and inertia will prevail. Personally, I dislike the fact that armor is completely invulnerable to any type of shot. Unbreakable helmets and unstabable breastplates irritate me. I'd like to see this change. Do I love the game just the way it is? Absolutely. Do I wear armor? I almost always wear my helmet, I have often worn my greaves and have worn my torso armor and vambraces every practice since I finished them. I stab some and am getting better at it, but it's by no means my best shot. I like this change because to me it makes the game better. If Magnus ever forms his perfect game, I'll cross-game with him once he pulls himself away from the babbling beer brook.

[Kage]

Shark Armor is not period materials - the current models are made of titanium and a carbon polymer, and the ones that are made of steel are of a stronger steel then historical steel armor. It is not a valid comparison.

Yet we allow steel alloys on the field...
For reference the first shark suit WAS made out of steel. My point is it works in its ability to protect divers from the puncturing effects of shark teeth and it really is nothing more than small diameter chainmail.

All of this is incorrect from a historical standpoint. Do better research than watching some Discovery Channel.

I did mention I saw the shark bite the dude right? Discovery Channel is a bad source sometimes, but I think you missed the part where its a recreation using the closest things to the period as they could. As well as that project was done by a college and has papers written on the subject. I don't see a 1 handed thrust going through that. As for an Arming sword, (I'm just going to assume you mean a Oakeshott XV) it's job was to compromise chainmail, but it was only really effective at penetrating at the groin, neck, and armpit where there was less/weaker armor. You might get about 2.5 inches in one of those thrusts depending on the taper simply because the blade is tapered to all hell; but still not enough to do a sufficient amount of damage in my opinion. There is also a difference in strength of chain mail depending on if its butted, riveted, or welded. Butted being the worst because it could be separated easier which is no surprise, however perform those stabs against a welded suit and you won't get through that easily and can even possibly get your blade caught in the links. Also the strength was determined by size and type of material used. Most people don't know that butted mail really isn't historically accurate which makes most sword tests worthless in my opinion. I'm not saying chainmail is impenetrable to stabs, but REAL chainmail can hold its own most of the time. I will never claim any armor is impenetrable. Case in point, the ballistic vests we know use are not stab proof nor are they bullet proof. Stab vests are based on the design of chainmail using a kevlar weave. Again this is all I know with out doing some serious web browsing.

(My knowledge of safety vests was done earlier because my knight works in a corrections institute, and in an effort to get to know him better and understand him I studied what he did for a living.)

Isk, I love that post. I think you are on the right track with how this is going to end up, but disagree with some of it but for the most part awesome. I'm still of the opinion that different types of weapons do different damage though.