Blue weapon weight minimums...

[Teej]

1.4.1.1. A Class 1 Weapon under twenty-four (24) inches in length has no weight minimum.
1.4.1.2. A Class 1 Weapon twenty-four (24) inches in length or longer must weigh a minimum of twelve (12) ounces.

This is more of an idle question. It does not effect my gameplay at all. Anyway, To'Gur a few of his boys from N. Florida and I were building weapons in my garage. We finished a tapeless blue and well, it was probably the lightest thing I've held as far as Belegarth goes. I've never done weapons tapeless... anyway we were trying to figure out where we're going to put the weight (pennys) and it got me to thinking about this main point:

Should a single-edged blade be immune to this rule, categorized with (or similar to) weapons under 24 inches? Perhaps require less weight, but still have a minimum?

Just curious what some of you rule-sages think. Something I considered for sabre, cutlass, or katana types... I personally don't know how much a difference it would make, but assume with 2-3 layers of foam missing from one side, the weight difference would be significant; I have never done a single-edged blade myself.

[Derian]

Moving this to RD&D as it's not really a clear cut rules question.

[Forkbeard]

No. The rules should be the way they are.
FB

[Teej]

Like I said, it does not matter to me either way, I'm not claiming for or against... I'm just tossing some chum in the water. I use a 32" double-edged blue myself.

I've seen a Katana compared to a broadsword and they have the same potential (based on the hand of the user), despite the fanboy rumors started by anime types. The only real difference between the two was the edge and maneuverability (well... and the softer metal on the inside serving as a shock-absorber). However, I do understand that our sport is not about realism per se: saftey first, then playability, then accuracy...

I was just curious of everyone's thoughts on it since I sat on it for a bit.

Is that a safety issue for you Forkbeard?
IE: Idiots using a single-edge for the advantage and courtesy padding/coring the **** out of someone in the heat of the moment?

Or just not messing with a working formula?

Cause I know you generally favor accuracy, not being big on pixie stick weapons; favoring edges and controlled swings over turboclub and flail use.

[Arrakis]

Katana and sabers weighed just as much as two-edged weapons of the same length, sometimes more (sabers, falchions).

[Teej]

Didn't know that; is that density, length, or more area from the curve? Combination of the above?

[Big King Jimmy]

A lot of fighting styles I can think of at this point don't ever actually throw a full wrap (or rarely), they throw more flat wraps, which use the same side of the blade as a normal shot. I wouldn't want to put a sword under 12 oz's in anyones hands who knows * they're doing and can still pull a decent strength shot out of it.

[Arrakis]

Didn't know that; is that density, length, or more area from the curve? Combination of the above?

Most weigh differences between swords of similar length come about due to pommel weight and blade profiling differences. For example, an Oakeshotte type X at the same length as a falchion would likely weigh somewhat less than said falchion due to the broad fuller down the length of the type X and the thicker, stiffer spine on the falchion. Too, the falchion had a smaller pommel, keeping it balanced farther forward than the Brazil nut-type pommels typically seen on type X blades balanced those swords.

Similarly, IIRC, cavalry sabres were typically pretty heavy relative to other swords specifically so they could chop and slice clean through limbs and necks on the ride and not just get stuck and jerked out of your hand.

[varadin]

A lot of fighting styles I can think of at this point don't ever actually throw a full wrap (or rarely), they throw more flat wraps, which use the same side of the blade as a normal shot. I wouldn't want to put a sword under 12 oz's in anyones hands who knows * they're doing and can still pull a decent strength shot out of it.

I really hate that shot being called at flat wrap. How i've always heard it is a flat wrap is a flat snap the hits with the back edge. Just like a flat snap with a wrist roll for the wrap. The difference between a flat and a reflex wrap is the hip motion.

What you are calling a flat wrap i've always just called a chop at a wierd angle.

I see a lot of the chops happening more and more but a true wrap will always have its place and to cut away that shot is just stupid IMO.

[Slagar]

There's also the problem of defining 'one-sided' to close up loopholes for * rules-lawyers. I know for a fact that I'd try at least once to argue that a bat is 'one-sided', just because it'd be fun to try.

Normally I'm all against the 'if it's not broken' argument, but between the complexity necessary to actually define what you mean, and extremely limited utility of encouraging one-sided weapons (read: they're freakin' stupid), I'd probably vote this change down. I'd be happy to hear someone make a case for promoting one-sided weapons, or for what this rules change would offer to improve the game, but as is I don't see it.

[Kage]

1.4.1.1. A Class 1 Weapon under twenty-four (24) inches in length has no weight minimum.
1.4.1.2. A Class 1 Weapon twenty-four (24) inches in length or longer must weigh a minimum of twelve (12) ounces.

This is more of an idle question. It does not effect my gameplay at all. Anyway, To'Gur a few of his boys from N. Florida and I were building weapons in my garage. We finished a tapeless blue and well, it was probably the lightest thing I've held as far as Belegarth goes. I've never done weapons tapeless... anyway we were trying to figure out where we're going to put the weight (pennys) and it got me to thinking about this main point:

Should a single-edged blade be immune to this rule, categorized with (or similar to) weapons under 24 inches? Perhaps require less weight, but still have a minimum?

Just curious what some of you rule-sages think. Something I considered for sabre, cutlass, or katana types... I personally don't know how much a difference it would make, but assume with 2-3 layers of foam missing from one side, the weight difference would be significant; I have never done a single-edged blade myself.

Teej since you asked for a "rule-sage" as you put it I will give it a shot. I've always took the rules as to what they exactly say on paper. In this case single-sided or double it doesn't matter I would fail a single edged weapon that was more than or equal to 24 inches but less than 12 ounces required in the BoW. Hope that answers it for you.

[Juicer]

There's also the problem of defining 'one-sided' to close up loopholes for * rules-lawyers. I know for a fact that I'd try at least once to argue that a bat is 'one-sided', just because it'd be fun to try.

Normally I'm all against the 'if it's not broken' argument, but between the complexity necessary to actually define what you mean, and extremely limited utility of encouraging one-sided weapons (read: they're freakin' stupid), I'd probably vote this change down. I'd be happy to hear someone make a case for promoting one-sided weapons, or for what this rules change would offer to improve the game, but as is I don't see it.

I'd rather see single sided swords than a bunch of quicktubes, honestly. Call me crazy, but those things look **** retarded. Besides all that, single sided weapons are already mentioned in the BoW, wouldn't be too hard to toss in a couple lines making the weight limit not effect them. Single-edged swords take way more skill than a perfectly-balanced-omni-dildo. Maybe killing the weight limit on one-siders would encourage their use... meh.

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges? After all, historically weren't those "mass" weapons? Requiring more weight to do damage? It only makes sense. Besides, with that added advantage of not having to learn edge control, shouldn't we take a weight penalty to make up for it? I'm including flails in this. Let's raise the weight limit on all non-sword blues to say.... 16 oz.? How does that work for everyone?

[Arrakis]

I wouldn't care one way or another. I wouldn't mind a bit if the weight min for all blue weapons went up to 1/2 oz/inch or 16 oz if over 24" or 12 oz if under 24" and 20 oz if over or whatever. I don't see a need to do it, but I also wouldn't * for very long.

[Slagar]

If it meant nerfing flails even a bit, I'd be first in line. Most of my bats are 16-18oz. anyway (one exception, right now). Yes I recognize the inherent hypocrisy in harshing on flails, no I don't care.

On the other hand, I do hate one-sided weapons. I have recurring nightmares of some burly noob picking one up backwards on the field. That plus removing the option for false-edge wraps makes me cringe every time I see one.

Meh. Different strokes, and all. I don't see this one picking up enough steam anyway.

[Angmarth]

There's also the problem of defining 'one-sided' to close up loopholes for * rules-lawyers. I know for a fact that I'd try at least once to argue that a bat is 'one-sided', just because it'd be fun to try.

Normally I'm all against the 'if it's not broken' argument, but between the complexity necessary to actually define what you mean, and extremely limited utility of encouraging one-sided weapons (read: they're freakin' stupid), I'd probably vote this change down. I'd be happy to hear someone make a case for promoting one-sided weapons, or for what this rules change would offer to improve the game, but as is I don't see it.

I'd rather see single sided swords than a bunch of quicktubes, honestly. Call me crazy, but those things look **** retarded. Besides all that, single sided weapons are already mentioned in the BoW, wouldn't be too hard to toss in a couple lines making the weight limit not effect them. Single-edged swords take way more skill than a perfectly-balanced-omni-*. Maybe killing the weight limit on one-siders would encourage their use... meh.

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges? After all, historically weren't those "mass" weapons? Requiring more weight to do damage? It only makes sense. Besides, with that added advantage of not having to learn edge control, shouldn't we take a weight penalty to make up for it? I'm including flails in this. Let's raise the weight limit on all non-sword blues to say.... 16 oz.? How does that work for everyone?

I think that the balance point of the mass is the real issue, but I would certainly welcome a higher weight minimum.

[Todo]

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges? After all, historically weren't those "mass" weapons? Requiring more weight to do damage? It only makes sense. Besides, with that added advantage of not having to learn edge control, shouldn't we take a weight penalty to make up for it? I'm including flails in this. Let's raise the weight limit on all non-sword blues to say.... 16 oz.? How does that work for everyone?

This.

[No'Vak]

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges? After all, historically weren't those "mass" weapons? Requiring more weight to do damage? It only makes sense. Besides, with that added advantage of not having to learn edge control, shouldn't we take a weight penalty to make up for it? I'm including flails in this. Let's raise the weight limit on all non-sword blues to say.... 16 oz.? How does that work for everyone?

This.

[Cade]

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges? After all, historically weren't those "mass" weapons? Requiring more weight to do damage? It only makes sense. Besides, with that added advantage of not having to learn edge control, shouldn't we take a weight penalty to make up for it? I'm including flails in this. Let's raise the weight limit on all non-sword blues to say.... 16 oz.? How does that work for everyone?

This.

Couldn't agree more.

I would joyfully increase the weight on my clubs if it meant others would have to do the same.

[The Great Gigsby]

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges?

I like this idea. Although, it might hurt some crossover fighters that are stuck on their 12 oz. quicktubes and min/maxed flails. Something to consider. I know the last weight increase was mostly painless.

[Angmarth]

Again, the weight isn't the issue... it is where the weight is distributed. If you place all of the mass at the center of rotation it will artificially speed up strikes. This effect is simple conservation of angular momentum. Watch a spinning ice skater as they bring in their hands and the spin speeds up. You can make any weapon swing artificially fast if you weight it in the handle.

[Forkbeard]

I'm sorry I ignored this for so long.
I'm with angmarth. The real issue is where "mass" weapons like flails, clubs, maces ect balance. This not only effects how the real weapon works, it effects it's lethality. But there isn't an easy way to judge that at weapon check as far as I know.
There is no reason to allow single edged swords to be lighter.
But we should definetly increase the wieght of non-sword blue weapons to 16 oz. I'd even say 20oz.
Some rule jokey should lawyer up some language to that effect.
FB

[Black Cat]

But we should definetly increase the wieght of non-sword blue weapons to 16 oz. I'd even say 20oz.

I like the idea of 18 oz. for blues with more than 2 striking edges.

Doubling that to 36 oz. min for omnidirectional reds sounds like a bit much though, so I would like to see it set to 32 oz. The reason for proposing this increase is because still having red clubs at 24 oz. when blues are at lowest 18 oz. seems silly.

So for clubs, flails, etc.; 18 oz. for blues and 32 oz. for reds. Good idea?

[Angmarth]

As far as I am concerned, it is an all or nothing issue. I would prefer that there be a balance point with heavier minimums, and I would like to think that my fellow swordfighting alumni would support this. The reality is, many want to have t00bs that have 8oz+ in the handle. The preposterous part, from my point of view, is that many of those supporting this technology are those I would consider to be good-excellent fighters. On one hand we preach realism and awesometastic realistic combat (complete with kung-fu grip grappling!), all the while we are holding a weapon that resembles a weighted rolling pin (with all the weight in on grip end). I (apparently a minority opinion) would prefer that weapons and LEAST look like their counterparts. I know our flat blade swords look more like popsicle sticks than viking broadswords, but at least they aren't ROUND. I would like to think that people would want this appearance, but I can't control the direction things go on my own... it takes all of us to make changes if that is what we want to do.

[Angmarth]

But we should definetly increase the wieght of non-sword blue weapons to 16 oz. I'd even say 20oz.

I like the idea of 18 oz. for blues with more than 2 striking edges.

Doubling that to 36 oz. min for omnidirectional reds sounds like a bit much though, so I would like to see it set to 32 oz.

So for clubs, flails, etc.; 18 oz. for blues and 32 oz. for reds. Good idea?

I appreciate your zealous approach BC, but unless you change the balance point, folks will simply add a few pennies or lead stripes to the handle. This is the crux of this issue.

[Forkbeard]

I couldn't agree more.
How do we do it, though. Do we build a little fulcrum(is that what the middle part of a teeter totter is called?) to balance weapons on for weapon check and say they must balance x % of their length up from the pommel? Or X distance from the top of the hand grip?
I'm all for this, I just don't have a clue as to how we would do it.
FB

[Cade]

Balance the weapon on your hand or wrist. Sure its not exact, but nether is how we check most other things so its at least consistently not exact. If something is questionable, pull out a little triangle fulcrum and test it out. Its n harder to build that our round 2" templates that we use to check pommels and tips. It doesn't need to be done on every weapon, just the ones where its questionable.

So lets say that mass weapons have to balance in the top 1/3rd of the weapon. Or if that's too much, the top half of the weapon. Pick a number that simulates or approximates the reality of mass weapons and go from there.

[Big King Jimmy]

Trust me, you do not want anyone to have to ADD weight to the striking end of a weapon. That's how people get hurt.

[Forkbeard]

Good point Jimbo.
There will be no real repairing weapons that fail for this. If your too heavy in the pommel area and already are at min weight, your weapon is trashed under this idea of a rule.
But is that bad?
Suposing this was the rule, people would make sure when building a weapon that it would balance right before they started glueing on foam. All this takes in the biegining stages is some ductape around the end of the core.
This would fix everything that is wrong with clubs and flails at one time. Balance above the halfway point(?) and 16 oz minimum.
FB

[Slagar]

Eh. Didn't we just flame the hell out of dagorhir for doing exactly this? Legislating the way people build weapons is goofy, and stagnates weapon design. I'm fine with minimums, we already have those and they serve a purpose, and are pretty universally agreed upon to be necessary (even if there's no consensus on what exactly they should be set at).

Now we're talking about introducing a completely new set of rules for the sake of changing the game to how you think it should be. I get that you don't like current trends in weapon building or whatever, but you pushing rules changes to outlaw what other people are doing isn't any different than other people pushing rules changes to buff stabbing, right? Gotta pick a side, man. Either you love the game the way it is, or you think it could be changed for the better. Personally, there are things about this game I don't like, and could stand to be improved. I'm ok with that, and I'm ok with the War Council voting on pretty much any suggested change, because that's what they're for.

You, on the other hand, have consistently come out against changes in the rules, because you like how the game is, and we've doing it this way forever, and whatnot. That's cool too, and I respect that. But you can't have both.

So sure, let's bring this up to a vote, and see what the will of the people is. Bring it on. That's always been my position. Just important to make sure you're ok with it to, because that pendulum will swing back with quickness, with how active this part of the forums has been lately.

Personally, I'd vote no on this rules change. The openness and flexibility of our weapons standards is fertile ground for innovation and new tech. It's one of the best things about our ruleset and I'd vote against anything that made it harder for people to innovate, without offering something pretty substantial in the way of safety or playability back in exchange.

Edit: Sorry, I should be especially clear. "You" is Forkbeard. He's a vocal and well-respected poster here, so his opinion carries enough weight that I feel like addressing him personally isn't irrelevant to this debate.

[Forkbeard]

I disagree, I can, I do have it both ways. I was all for the change in the game that created weight min's and both spoke ad nauseum about it and voted for it. I've also promoted and voted for other changes that failed.
I don't see how me being for leaving some thing alone and being for changing other things is imposible, or the issue.
I'm against the stabbing thing because it takes away from armor and brings nothing to the table.
I'm all for this because it will fix a problem I have had with our way of making "mass" weapons for many years.
This wouldn't change the whole game. It would make clubs clubs instead of omi directional swords. It would make flails into maces on chains. It would make hammers and axes, well, hammers and axes.
And in the long run, this is really only discusion and development, not the war council. We're just talking about how things could be better. Don't get so antsy in your pantsy, lad.
Oh, and I didn't flame Dag for this at all. Just for that breif "no calling light" issue.
FB

[Slagar]

I double-checked, and you're right, others were flaming dag for their construction methods, you were also posting on other topics. Conflated the two. My bad.

Alright, fair points. I disagree with your positions on both rules changes, personally, but I do see where you're coming from in either case. Thanks for the straight answer.

[Arrakis]

It would make clubs clubs instead of omi directional swords. It would make flails into maces on chains. It would make hammers and axes, well, hammers and axes.

A couple of things:

1) I see no problem with omniblade swords existing; they are slightly safer than flatblades and somewhat easier to construct and, I believe, theoretically can last longer than a similar quality flatblade. The only failure is realism and, some would say, playability. Whether they're, on the balance, good or bad for our game can be argued either way, I feel.

My point is that an omni-blade is a construction intended to represent a sword, not a mass weapon. If there was some playability/combat rules difference between the two, as there is in the SCA (mass weapons kill on shoulder and hip shots, swords take the associated limb), then I could understand wanting to force all omnis to be clubs/mass weapons (so there could be no confusion on the field); however, in a game where all blue weapons are blue weapons and count hits the same, it seems like it would just be taking away the option of building a roundsword for the sake of somebody thinking it's too outdated a piece of technology. That'd be like outlawing open cell on shields just because it's old, I feel.



2) I've been rules lawyering in my head all day about this part and I just can't think of a non-ridiculous way to legislate this to get to the result you posted above.

Ex: All weapons with more than two legal striking directions as measured perpendicular to length of the core must weigh BLAH and balance BLAH BLAH.

Includes: bats, clubs, maces, quad-hammers, flails, quarterstaves (uh oh! Balance rule exception!). Excludes: Swords, shortswords, axes, hammers, double-bit axes, pollaxes, picks, halberds...

That fixes the clubs, maces, flails problem nicely, but it legislates nothing for axes or hammers. Sure, we could say that building an ax is already giving up enough advantage to a sword-wielding opponent so that the ax doesn't need to be included in this change (that is the reason for the change, to be sure: the idea that a roundsword has the advantage over a flatbladed sword), but then we complicated the rules to fix a perceived issue with playability while screwing realism up by requiring SOME traditionally-forward weighted/heavier weapons to be forward-weighted/heavier, but not others.

Ex2: We could make it so that EVERYTHING but swords has to weigh BLAH and balance BLAH BLAH, but that would essentially lead to 100 people on the field using flatblades, two guys who think they're dwarves and some newb yelling "Axes rule!" using axes, and one guy who styles himself a cleric swinging a mace. Oh, plus the usual large contingent of folks using flails, only now they've reduced the weight of the heads down to 2 oz or less so AND they've wrapped the core at the top of the haft with duct tape up to about 3/4" in diameter under the one layer of bluefoam they're using for their haft padding so it hurts more when they haft you in the head or shoulder.

Awesome. All hail the mighty reign of the flatblade sword and the fishing flail. MAYBE if we (also?) legislated a minimum head-weight (6oz, say) we could make fighting with a flail less unrealistic. But otherwise, that change would just get rid of the remaining five axes and all of ten maces you see on an average event field and force a whole bunch of long-term bat-fighters to start using flatblades. Do you know what forcing roundie users to use flatblades gets you? An incredible amount of uncalled, unnoticed, extra-painful, illegitimate flat shots. Go herald at any event and JUST watch for people flatting on high crosses and deep wraps. JUST on those two shots. You'll see a dozen in the first 15 minutes, and you'll see two of those shots called back for being flat and MAYBE one of them called flat by the target.


I'm not here to offer solutions, because right now I have none. I'm just here to think. Belegarth's rules model a complicated nonlinear system. Changing any one thing can have far-reaching and unintuitive effects. Best to examine closely.

*thumbs up*

[Angmarth]

Awesome. All hail the mighty reign of the flatblade sword and the fishing flail. MAYBE if we (also?) legislated a minimum head-weight (6oz, say) we could make fighting with a flail less unrealistic. But otherwise, that change would just get rid of the remaining five axes and all of ten maces you see on an average event field and force a whole bunch of long-term bat-fighters to start using flatblades. Do you know what forcing roundie users to use flatblades gets you? An incredible amount of uncalled, unnoticed, extra-painful, illegitimate flat shots. Go herald at any event and JUST watch for people flatting on high crosses and deep wraps. JUST on those two shots. You'll see a dozen in the first 15 minutes, and you'll see two of those shots called back for being flat and MAYBE one of them called flat by the target.

The head of my flail was made especially for me and weighs over 12oz by itself. In my opinion they should all be made this way. Anyone who has ever used it can attest that it reacts in a way more in like an actual flail.

[Arrakis]

Last flail I built had a 9 oz head and it was brutal. Acted totally unlike every other flail I'd picked up that wasn't my 8 oz head flail.

I think the 9 oz head flail is still for sale... those interested, inquire with Izzy, who sometimes holds merchandise for me...

[Juicer]

Hahahaha!

Nothing to contribute, just wanted everyone to be aware that I find this thread quite amusing.

[Forkbeard]

Arrakis, I think the playabilty problem with flat blades is the fact that the people who use them are not using them like a sword. THey use them like a club weilded by a superhero. Fantasy.
I think that people who can't use a flat blade without hitting people with said flat should get the **** off the field until they can fight safely.
I think that high crosses and deep wraps are crappy shots in most cases. You can tell becuae when unskilled people do them with flat baldes they flat people. If you can't throw a shot safely, you aren't good enough to throw it.
But, like you say, I can't think of any non-rediculous way to legislate this. That's not surprising as I'm not very good at legalese.
Jucier, I know, right? Dude came in here wanting to LOWER weight on one weapon and now we're talking about increasing it on something else instead.
**** BRILLIANT.
It's why I love me some Angmarth.
FB

[Juicer]

Oh that's not why I'm laughing. Well, maybe a little... Besides it wasn't Angmarth's proposal, it was totally mine. Just sayin', once this crazy train starts rollin' and people go, "Who's brilliant idea was this, anyway???" You can safely answer, "Oh that was El Tigre Rojo!"

[Black Cat]

Yep. It was Juicer's idea.

Proof (12th post in thread):

There's also the problem of defining 'one-sided' to close up loopholes for * rules-lawyers. I know for a fact that I'd try at least once to argue that a bat is 'one-sided', just because it'd be fun to try.

Normally I'm all against the 'if it's not broken' argument, but between the complexity necessary to actually define what you mean, and extremely limited utility of encouraging one-sided weapons (read: they're freakin' stupid), I'd probably vote this change down. I'd be happy to hear someone make a case for promoting one-sided weapons, or for what this rules change would offer to improve the game, but as is I don't see it.

I'd rather see single sided swords than a bunch of quicktubes, honestly. Call me crazy, but those things look **** retarded. Besides all that, single sided weapons are already mentioned in the BoW, wouldn't be too hard to toss in a couple lines making the weight limit not effect them. Single-edged swords take way more skill than a perfectly-balanced-omni-dildo. Maybe killing the weight limit on one-siders would encourage their use... meh.

I propose a better idea: Why not INCREASE the weight limit on clubs? Or better yet, any weapon with more than 2 striking edges? After all, historically weren't those "mass" weapons? Requiring more weight to do damage? It only makes sense. Besides, with that added advantage of not having to learn edge control, shouldn't we take a weight penalty to make up for it? I'm including flails in this. Let's raise the weight limit on all non-sword blues to say.... 16 oz.? How does that work for everyone?

[Juicer]

Thank you, stenographer.

[Angmarth]

My contribution had nothing to do with extra weight (while I would find it appetizing to double or triple the weight of weapons), it is the placement of a balance point to stem the tide of the weighted handles with the blade (or other striking surface) weighing nothing.

I think Big Jimmy is grossly overestimating how many people will be critically injured by increasing the mass of the striking surface. We do not have ANY t00bs in St. Louis used on a regular basis. There are only a couple at all and they belong to some of our Amtgard cross overs. To their credit (our cross overs) most of them use either Edhellen standard flats or barrel maces as they know that is the standard for our group.

[Arrakis]

Angmarth, remember: in a game with an impact force minimum, a lightweight striking surface and a balance point inside the grip is not advantageous. It is much more difficult to land a legal shot with a 12 oz weapon whose balance point is even with the thumb when the weapon is gripped, negating the perceived advantage in speed.

[Arrakis]

Arrakis, I think the playabilty problem with flat blades is the fact that the people who use them are not using them like a sword. THey use them like a club weilded by a superhero. Fantasy.

No, people fighting in Belegarth with Sword-Like Foam Batons are not using them like they should be using them if they are trying to simulate the use of a sword. But then, how does one encourage proper edge addressing, proper cutting form, accurate amounts of draw in cuts, or non-edge blocking when all we require is sufficient impact force? How does one correctly simulate the stickiness of metal blades, the flex characteristics of a real blade, or the vibration modes of a steel sword with a foam stick?

Belegarth has handwaved all of that good stuff into "hit hard enough" and replaced pommel and crossgaurd strikes and unarmed strikes with wrap shots that are of dubious efficacy in a real swordfight, found a way to allow some of the grappling used in medieval swordplay, and made it safe to use shields offensively. We're ahead of the rest of the simulated combat world, with the possible exception of the EMP, and I'm not really sure how to improve from here as an organization, in regard to safe, accurate simulation of combat.


I would absolutely support special games or tourneys at major events, though, the way the Combat of the Thirty or the Hastings/Maille Battle at Pennsic are done. Run a tourney or a series of battles separate from the main fighting at Chaos or Geddon where to fight you have to have a flatblade sword that weighs at least 1oz/inch and balance between 2 and 6 inches above the top of the handle or a mass weapon that weighs 1.5 oz/inch and balances at least 50% of the way up the weapon, all shields must be cored with at least 1/2" plywood, and no leather armor is permitted, for example. That'd be cool as hell. I'd make new gear just to fight in it. But it isn't an appropriate set of rules changes for the whole of the sport, in my opinion.

[Slagar]

That's only true when people have the sack to actually call light on light shots, and put up with the flack that gets them. I've written several **** pages on multiple forums about why that doesn't happen. Just saying.

[Arrakis]

That's only true when people have the sack to actually call light on light shots, and put up with the flack that gets them. I've written several **** pages on multiple forums about why that doesn't happen. Just saying.

I do it, all the time, and will continue to do it, to anyone who hits me not quite good enough. But then, maybe I'm a *.

*shrug*

Generally good advice: Encourage new people and old to call light and, also, call anything that you throw and land that's insufficient light for your opponent, as well, to encourage them.

[Caleidah]

I personally would have no issue with it, having enough strength to continue fighting. However, I have concern for the weaker fighters in this game of ours. We run the risk of alienating a number of people that are simply not strong enough to keep swinging stick.

As it stands, we have more than enough criteria to ensure that people are hitting hard enough. The weapons have a minimum weight, and people have the right and responsibility to call off shots that shouldn't count. Obviously it's hard to call flat on shots that hit you that you didn't see, but if a shot hits you and is too light, you should call light on it. The rule of minimum force exists for a reason. I don't think this is necessary at all.

[Forkbeard]

replaced pommel and crossgaurd strikes and unarmed strikes with wrap shots that are of dubious efficacy in a real swordfight,

Thank you for aknowlagin this Arrakis. I couldn't agree with that more.
I also like the idea of a limited combat. I'd like to see it limited to historicly accurate looking armor, instead of no leather. Too many leather helmets are only inaccurate from material annd look great. Good combat needs helmets.
I'd also include garb. Just like the Combat of the Thirty. That is the coolest thing I've seen in fighting. If we could come up with an equivalent, I would love to take part.
FB

[Isk]

No, people fighting in Belegarth with Sword-Like Foam Batons are not using them like they should be using them if they are trying to simulate the use of a sword. But then, how does one encourage proper edge addressing, proper cutting form, accurate amounts of draw in cuts, or non-edge blocking when all we require is sufficient impact force? How does one correctly simulate the stickiness of metal blades, the flex characteristics of a real blade, or the vibration modes of a steel sword with a foam stick?

Belegarth has handwaved all of that good stuff into "hit hard enough" and replaced pommel and crossgaurd strikes and unarmed strikes with wrap shots that are of dubious efficacy in a real swordfight, found a way to allow some of the grappling used in medieval swordplay, and made it safe to use shields offensively. We're ahead of the rest of the simulated combat world, with the possible exception of the EMP, and I'm not really sure how to improve from here as an organization, in regard to safe, accurate simulation of combat.

Nicely laid out, Arrakis. This is why I play this game and not some other. From my experience, both with Western and Eastern Martial Arts and my background in analyzing ancient iron stuff: this is the best and most realistic pre-firearms combat sport of any size that exists in the US.

Here's to a bright future where this game continues to evolve as the most playable, realistic, large-scale martial sport, without guns, that you can play.

Regarding the topic of this thread, axes are already head heavy as are real clubs. "Omniblades" or "quick tubes" are the only thing that would really be affected by a balance point change. I am very much in favor of adding a weight requirement for flail heads. Super-light flail heads are often hard to even feel.

[Magnus of the Red Hand]

Flail heads should have a 16oz min weight. Currently our flail combat has ZERO historical/real life relevance. This will not fix everything, but its a huge and well needed step.

I also like 16oz min weight on all non edged single handed weapons more than 24". Beautiful idea folks!

[Sir Par]

If we were going for realistic with flails we'd pretty well ban them since they aren't ANYTHING like real flails. Which were mostly used form horseback. Don't have horses either.

[Tiberius Claudius]

If we were going for realistic with flails we'd pretty well ban them since they aren't ANYTHING like real flails. Which were mostly used form horseback. Don't have horses either.

Instead of banning them, we could always change their construction to resemble the giant nunchucks they were. Maybe even put them on 4+ foot poles with multiple heads.

Just sayin'