Shield Height

[frazzgnarth]

A thought occurred to me. Given the following rule:

2.3. The maximum height of a shield is 18 inches less than the height of the wielder.

Would it be illegal to pick up the shield of someone who is much taller than you after they have died on the field, merely because their shield doesn't meet those requirements for you. So if someone builds a shield that is 5 feet tall because they are 6'6", could someone who is only 6' tall pick up said shield and wield it after it has been dropped on the ground?

Edit: So if you're scavenging its probably fine, if you're cheesing, its illegal. Thanks!

* Soo Ma Tai - That and if you're wielding a shield that is overly large for your frame, its just going to make you easy to move around using your shield.

[Cyric]

Its a grey area. If you're picking up the shield for one fight because your shield got broken and its the closest one around, a Marshall will probably let it go. If you start the battle using it, or continually switch equipment with the 6'6" person to get the bigger shield, a Marshall should call you on it.

[Brutus]

Actually, it's not a gray area at all. The rules are the rules, and if you pick up a shield that is within 18" of your height, you are doing something illegal (though no one will fault you much for not being aware that you're breaking the rules).

With that said, this is the worst rule in the BoW and should be changed as soon as possible. Your example perfectly illustrates how unplayable this rule is.

[Soo Ma Tai]

I have always thought it was a poorly written rule, amyone should be able to scavenge anything off the field and use it legally. There should just be simple dimensional limits for shields. If you are small and are packing a big * shield, so what? Though you may have greater protection, you are limiting your shot selection. I see it as give and take there.

[Slagar]

I agree, but I've always taken it one step further. If somebody wants to pick up a shield so big they can't freakin' see around it, let 'em. They'll never win a fight that way. You can't swing around a barn door without turning yourself into candy anyways, so why make them illegal? I agree this rule is kind of a relic, and we could nix it without hurting anything.

Problem with fixed shield dimensions is line fighting. I'm a skirmisher, I don't ever need anything bigger than 30" or so, ever. If somebody wants to tank up a line, a 54" tall shield with spears and archers behind you is absolutely a viable tactic. Not my cup of tea, but undeniably field effective. Making those illegal seems kinda sketchy, and specifically hampers line-style fighters/units.

My 2 cents, anyway.

[Soo Ma Tai]

I actually have no prob with nixing shield dimensions all together. I mentioned it to give an out for those who think it's necessary to keep play balance. I don't care if you make a shield that is 10' tall and 6' wide....I'll just kick it over, or go around it. I think the disadvantages cancel out the advantages equally.

[Derian]

Moving this to RD&D as this forum is for answer questions only.

[Cade]

I actually have no prob with nixing shield dimensions all together. I mentioned it to give an out for those who think it's necessary to keep play balance. I don't care if you make a shield that is 10' tall and 6' wide....I'll just kick it over, or go around it. I think the disadvantages cancel out the advantages equally.

This has been brought up a few times, and i agreed with the argument then, and I couldn't agree more now.

Its a completely self legislating issue. The bigger the shield, the more unwieldy it becomes. Not to mention the more expensive it becomes to build. Two red hits still brings down a shield of any size, so a giant shield isn't any more or less overpowered than it is now.

[Arrakis]

I would caution that, unless you've been to a big Dag event at a small site, lately, you don't know the power of nonsensically huge shields in long walls with piles of spears.

54x36 inches is a fine max dimension for any shield and is equivalent to the max for a 6' tall (high end of average) person as the rules currently stand.

[Forkbeard]

I would argue that huge sheilds, en masse, on a small field sound like the most awesome day ever.
we need no limits.
Fb

[Arrakis]

I would argue that huge sheilds, en masse, on a small field sound like the most awesome day ever.
we need no limits.
Fb

Sure. If you like standing, not fighting.

It emphasizes *, archery, and whining about people until they start taking little brushes and **** as solid spear shots.

Worst. Not Belegarth at all.

Vote down.

[Forkbeard]

Im just reading, "red weapon buffet, ALL YOU CAN EAT FOR FREE!"
FB

[Brutus]

One thing our leaders should be mindful of is not what makes the game the "best" for them (since they are usually older, they are also tend to be the most experienced fighters), but what makes the game the best for all. From my experience, most people have a harder time fighting against large shields than small ones.

And if big shields were such a huge disadvantage for their bearers, then why has there been a drift towards larger and larger shields over the past decade?

Our realm caps shield size at 120" perimeter. It's easy to check and makes the fighting better.

[Sir Par]

So lets leave the max width at 36 Inches and kill the height rule.

[Brutus]

Big shields are bad for the growth of this sport. They also make fighting lame. 95% of fighting is just a high cross fight.

I would love to see a max perimeter rule. That's probably too progressive, so the next best thing IMO would be an objective height max (i.e. 48")

[Arrakis]

Big shields are bad for the growth of this sport. They also make fighting lame. 95% of fighting is just a high cross fight.

I would love to see a max perimeter rule. That's probably too progressive, so the next best thing IMO would be an objective height max (i.e. 48")

++ either of these. A perimeter rule would restrict squares and triangles and things more than ovals and circles, but ehn.

[Brutus]

Yeah, perimeter rules favor circular shields (a circle has the highest ratio of surface area to perimeter, so if your perimeter is limited, the way to get the shield with the most surface area is to make a circle). But I am convinced a circle is not the most effective shape for a shield.

Here's some examples:

3x2 punch shield = 120" perimeter
Standard Edhellen Kite shield = ~120"
Numenorean heater shield = ~108"
28" round shield = ~88"
4x2 punch shield = 144"

[The Great Gigsby]

So lets leave the max width at 36 Inches and kill the height rule.

I thought about this, but concluded that it was a bad idea. There needs to be an upper limit since there's currently nothing preventing a fighter from turning a shield sideways and using it like that.

I don't want to see anything that limits people's ability to fight with what they already have so I'm not at all supportive of the perimeter rule, unless it was increased. The goal of a revision like should be to set a reasonable upper limit without making anyone's equipment illegal. This is more of a "common sense" rule than anything else.

Big shields are bad for the growth of this sport. They also make fighting lame. 95% of fighting is just a high cross fight.

I don't think they're bad for the growth. Why do you say that? Big shields allow new guys and unskilled fighters (with no interest in improving) live longer on the field and be useful in a formation. I remember my first day at Bel, I used a 2x4 tower shield and felt like Hercules. I like big shield on the field. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to stop opening with a high cross.

Whatever changes are made need to be playtested at a major event beforehand.

[Arrakis]

Giggles: There is a limit to what is personally useful, sure. But if I gave a bunch of guys 3x5 foot shields and let spears and archers hide behind them, the team opposite with 28" rounds and a mix of support weaponry isn't going to have any fun and **** WILL slow to a crawl.

Why do you want to let someone on the field with a **** mantlet?

[Brutus]

You may have felt like Hercules with your giant shield. I'll wager for every newbie that gets to use a tower shield their first day out there are 10 that have to fight AGAINST them all day.

Thus why it is bad for recruitment.

Another way to self-police shield size is to make a distinction between heavy/light shields (2 vs 1 red hit to destroy), and base the weight on the size of the shield. Then there's an incentive to keep the shield size down, at least if you want your shield to take 2 reds.

[The Great Gigsby]

Arrakis, I think the formation you described would be awesome to see. If you want to start an effective Iron Crown, go for it.

9/10 times, the people that use unnecessarily large shields are the ones that really have no business using them but pick them up anyway for reasons that fall outside of the "everybody must strive to be the best fighter" mindset. People use large shields because they want to live longer on the field, they want to be in a shield wall, because they're big people themselves and don't derive as much advantage from a small shield, because it's the only shield they've got, or because they think it's fun.

Big shields aren't bad for Belegarth. They may be bad for fighters that want to improve, but achieving excellence has always been strictly optional.

[Brutus]

9/10 times, the people that use unnecessarily large shields are the ones that really have no business using them but pick them up anyway for reasons that fall outside of the "everybody must strive to be the best fighter" mindset.

In the past decade there has been a huge increase in large shields. When I first started fighting, the technology wasn't there to make a large, rigid shield that wasn't equally large and unwieldy. Now materials have been brought into the game that make such shields lighter than even a very small strapped shield. You say 90% of large shields are used not because they make the bearer a better fighter. I think that's one of the more naive opinions I've ever read.

Plain and simple, large shields are effective. They might not force you to develop as a fighter, but what about good fighters who start with something smaller, then switch to larger shields? They become even harder to kill.

A little history. I started fighting in Numenor at a time when round shields were the only shield you didn't need special permission to use. I can remember maybe 3 people getting special permission for something else in the several years I fought there before the rules were relaxed so that Numenor could keep up with the rest of the realms at big events, where tower shields ruled the field.

I quickly learned that fighting at home where everyone had smaller shields was much more enjoyable than going to events where it was high-cross, high-cross, high-cross... ad infinitum. I would like to see Belegarth return to a more sane sampling of shield size. I think the enjoyability of the combat would be enhanced while making the game more accessible at the same time.

[Arrakis]

Giggles, you're speaking dumbness. Go to Ragnarok. Now go to Geddon. Tell me you didn't HATE fighting all of those high-cross queens with 54x30 tower punches at Rag and LOVE fighting good fighters with 30" rounds and 2x3 punches at Geddon.

Until you've been to some Dag events, you really have no business commenting on how "awesome" it would be to have a field full of incredibly static fighters where no one can do anything but play the high game.

[Forkbeard]

I wont vote for a height under 60".
Huge shield are stupid. They are also real, useful part of large scale sword battles.
That is all.
fb

[Brutus]

Fork, are you making the realism argument? I agree that large shields are realistic, but I don't see why they are necessary in our game. I think it just comes down to playability.

I recognize that this is something of a subjective call that we'll never be able to fully agree on. However, I think combat is more fun when there are a variety of valid attacks, rather than more than just one.

[The Great Gigsby]

Arrakis, I gave my opinion and stated what I've observed in 5+ years of fighting in Belegarth and you try to shoot it down by calling it dumb? I expect better from you.

I think 60" is a reasonable height cap. I've never seen a shield taller than that, and I hope I never do.

[Arrakis]

Find me more than ONE 60"-tall shield from history.

Protip: CAN'T BE DONE.

Giggles: Too * bad. If you say that 2+2 = 5 based on years of doing math, I'm still going to tell you it's dumb.

Let me say this **** slowly:

Huge. Shields. Slow. Down. The. Game.


And.

Make. It. Suck.

[varadin]

arrakis, i will argue the exact opposite. While fighting with a large shield might make the overall pace go slower in some instances it also allows for the game to be different to have some life.

Honestly while you go to an amtgard battle you will see 70%(made up number) of the fighters fighting bat and strap round. Sure this leads to a great mental game and allows you to level the playing field thus showing you a greater level of fighting skill. While they are all really good at fighting against bat and roundshield tossing in the mix a flail and a tower and the majority have no idea whats going on, hell punch and Pie can wreck a few folk out there since they have no idea how to fight against it.

Honestly making the game with less styles and less variation dumbs it down. While I love a good technical fight where I know the tools are even, the fact is I like to be able to fight against someone who has a different style throws in a curve ball. Making you have to think and test yourself. To just always assume they are using round and bat leads to a lot of the very same fights over and over again.

[Arrakis]

Varadin, your argument is self-defeating. Allowing these monster-shields has been proven, in Dagorhir, to REDUCE variability of style. No one fights two-sword in Dagorhir. No one. Because standing in a wall of giant shields with spears sticking out of it with two swords and no shield is like walking up to an enemy archer and stabbing yourself with the arrow for them or just leaping forward onto the point of one of the spears in the enemy huge-shield-line.

If we allow enormous shields explicitly, people will use enormous shields. Then more people will use even enormouser shields. See, Brutus' example above.

What we're saying by allowing very large shields is that we'd really prefer that everyone use a 3x5 tower and that all of those guys who like round shields should knock that **** off, get a REAL shield or pick up a spear or a bow and **** get with the program.

Lower max shield sizes encourage better fighting and more style diversity.

[Forkbeard]

Brutus, Arrakis, please dont think I'm being the cut and paste your word dude. There are a few issues here and it's important to me that understand what I'm saying.

If we allow enormous shields explicitly, people will use enormous shields. Then more people will use even enormouser shields.

Right now we allow these shields and the are not used overmuch. I don't understand where you're coming from here. Nothing would change save that if we had a 60" max you would be getting what you want. Right now I can only think of one person taller than me, but if a 7' tall dude comes out to fight, right now he could have a 66" shield.

What we're saying by allowing very large shields is that we'd really prefer that everyone use a 3x5 tower and that all of those guys who like round shields should knock that **** off, get a REAL shield or pick up a spear or a bow and **** get with the program.

Really dude? Becuase I didn't get that memo.

Fork, are you making the realism argument? I agree that large shields are realistic, but I don't see why they are necessary in our game. I think it just comes down to playability.

So your saying that in real mideval battles people didn't use different equiptment according to the terrain and conditions? And it isn't fun when units do that at large events?
Well, I disagree. Useing differnt equipment and and tactics on different terrain is what won battles. Doing it in our combat not only makes it more fun for the team with the supirior position, but their opponents as well, giving them a harder nut to crack and making them think about how to break in and win the day.
I find a whole event of regular toilet bowl skirmish battle more like a big practice. Fun, but regular.

Let me tell you something about my unit.
We are a unit of mainly grown ups with jobs. We have the means to maintain multiple sets of equipment. I myself have 11 shields of 8 different sizes and shapes. When we come to an event we bring all sorts of equipment from small round shields for running around to huge wide towers for line fighting. When the terrain allows for choke points we bring out the huge shields and fight that way. We have spent years learning to be better at this than any other team.
Are you really saying that we shouldn't be allowed to do this? Take advatage of supirior position and arms suitable for the task? No, we won't. That is part of our fighting experience just as much as running around in a circle with small shields dueling. I love that ****, but there is a whole side of this game that, while it may not be important to you, is VERY **** important to alot of us.

And how dare you say that allowing big shields make the way you want to fight "invaid". What the **** do you think your saying to us about how we want to fight?
FB

[Brutus]

All your saying is that big shields are effective. That's the point I've been making too, that they are TOO effective. The game isn't as fun. Come to Springwar or Octoberfest and tell me what you see.

I made this point in the Riverbend Rules thread, you guys have a different situation out west. The prevailing styles of fighting are different. Out here, the min-maxers have won the day, and it's just an arms race. Minimum weight counterbalanced turbo-clubs (or max flails), big shields, and cheese as far as the eye can see.

[Forkbeard]

Dude, it's always been that way. The day I started playing this game people were * about the new stuff "those *" made this year and it shouldn't be legal but it is.
It goes on and on and on. Next year a new glue will become available, or a new gell foam, or a new kind of unblreakable core you can bend, and the arms race will go on.
Shield size has nothing to do with this.
FB

[Arrakis]

Fork, I promise: This is a bad idea. Go to Ragnarok. Tell me it does not suck.

Better yet, ask someone shorter than you if they prefer fighting you while you have a 30" round or a 60x30 tower.

[Forkbeard]

The ones who are better than me don't mind at all. The ones who are not learn to get better. Why is that a problem?
And back to my original point, why is your style more valid that mine?
And how are you not getting that now, right now and for every day that belegarth has exsisted people have been making and using thse shields. They exist and are not an advantage, nor the most widely used shield. I have several that go unused by me and my tribe, though any of them could borrow them any time.
They ARE valuable in some scenario battles and on the field some events are held on.
Your being a douche. And youre wrong.
I politely made my point becuase it was important. Everyones style is valid. Huge shields have a place on our field. And in our rules. They are staying.
FB

[Slagar]

This argument is stemming from two different definitions of 'good'. There's 'field-effective' and 'technically effective'. Towers are field-effective, no two ways about it. They are not technically effective, 1v1. The end. I'm 100% ok with all the chuds hauling their towers to my event field, and playing the 'field-effective' game they like. I enjoy eating them allive when the flow of battle separates one of them from his security blanket / line, and if it really starts to get on my nuts, I go spar with the dozen or so people at every event who enjoy the technical game. Seriously that easy.

To the point that having the option of using crappy gear retards the development of most fighters, yeah it does. That isn't my problem. Me and mine will use the gear we like best, and statistically it sure as **** looks like our gear helps us become better fighters very quickly. I've yet to find anybody who minds being a better fighter, so I'm happy with it, and the tower-shield chuds are happy with their gear, so everybody's happy.

There's no reason to legislate people into trying to become better. The Belegarth pond isn't so small that there aren't more than enough people who do it voluntarily, and nobody who's posted in this thread is so incredibly awesome that they can't find people using technically effective gear to challenge them if they wanted to (I know I never have problems hunting up an ass-whooping when I feel the need to improve).

[frazzgnarth]

Is it just me, or are we seriously off base for this topic? The original question/suggestion was that shield height (which currently has a ruling) be modified from something that is subjective and can make gear legal for some people but not for others, and turn it into something objective, like having a set max height.

60" seems a very reasonable number, as it keeps all current shields legal assuming they were built by someone trying to max out their coverage who is 6'6" tall, which is an unusually tall person to begin with.

The current rules cannot really be checked when someone puts their shield through check at an event, so why not make the rule something that can be?

Discussions of whether or not one type of shield is effective or should be allowed on the field have very little to do with this. These shields are already allowed on the field. I'm just trying to make the rules an easier read. People are going to min-max or fight with whatever size shield they want regardless of keeping the rules the way they are or changing it to a set amount. I personally fight with either a 2'x3' cored punch teardrop or a 2' cored round strap. Would I build a 5'x3' door if the rules were changed? No, because if that was my intent, I would already own a 4.5'x3' door. The difference of 6" vertically on what I'm allowed to use for my shield would only increase encumbrance while providing minimal added protection. I can scrunch up my body to get an extra 6" of protection if that's what I was going for.

tl;dr Thread was about clarifying/simplifying the rule for weapons check/marshaling purposes, not which style was better for what purpose.

[Slagar]

Yeah, I know, but the thread outgrew the original question. If this thread should have told you anything, it's that this is a contested issue, and building up enough support for even a small change just isn't worth the effort. Props for making the attempt, though.

[The Great Gigsby]

Arrakis, the problem I have is that you didn't bother actually refuting any of the points I made.

The real point is, adding a shield height cap in the range of 60" wouldn't change anything. Who fights with a shield taller than five feet? Four feet? Three feet? Are these fighters with monster shields really that big of a threat? I must not have gotten the memo. Are we worried about 5' tall fighters turtling behind 5' shields being juggernauts on the field?

If we allow enormous shields explicitly, people will use enormous shields.

Uhhh... I thought we already did that?

[Dane]

And if big shields were such a huge disadvantage for their bearers, then why has there been a drift towards larger and larger shields over the past decade?

We're trending back toward smaller shields over the last couple years, at least in Bel. Several knights are even putting down their heaters in favor of a round.

Shield size doesn't really bother me. Getting rid of giant shields would turn a lot of field-effective fighters into speed bumps, yeah, but good fighting = killing in any case. Use what you want.

[Elebrim]

From what I have read so far, it seems like using rules to force down shield dimensions creates a doorway to allow "technical" fighting take precedence over "field-effective" fighting. It seems like a culturally-influencing rule rather than a rule that would fall under the Big 3 of Safety, Playability, or Realism without some considerable stretching. Kinda like the stabby thing again, if you look at it in a particular way. And personally, I like a diverse playing field to fight on. Terrain, varieties of styles, strategies, are all fun. Legislating any part of that out is not good in my book.

I like the cross gaming with Amtgard; they have a lot of things we could learn. But I question why lately it seems like we must do everything that Amtgard does or else we are no longer the best fighters. I don't think it's right or necessary.

As for an actual rule, shield height is one of the only rules that is still dependent on the individual fighter in question. In our current world of factory-line weapons checking, it does not make sense anymore, so for that context a fixed figure of 5 or 6 feet makes sense. There is still the question of people stepping out onto a field with oversized shields. I think that in some ways it is a self correcting issue (People using overly-large shields on the field would find themselves relegated to only a few useful roles in heavy lines, and the "more serious" people would learn the tactical advantages different shield sizes and eventually branch out on their own), but it is still an issue to consider.

If the rule needs to be changed (I don't really care) why not make it an "OR" rule? Something along the lines of "No taller than 18" less than the height of the wielder OR 5'6", whichever is lesser." It provides checkers a fixed reference to use in the factory line, and also allows heralds on the field a reference point to call people out who are blatantly using oversized shields at the start of a battle. Best of both worlds.

[Thorondor]

If the rule needs to be changed (I don't really care) why not make it an "OR" rule? Something along the lines of "No taller than 18" less than the height of the wielder OR 5'6", whichever is lesser." It provides checkers a fixed reference to use in the factory line, and also allows heralds on the field a reference point to call people out who are blatantly using oversized shields at the start of a battle. Best of both worlds.

I think you're after 4'6", not 5'6"...with the 5'6" mark a person would have to be 7' before the "or" would kick in if I'm thinking correctly.

[Elebrim]

4'6" or 5' is fine. I basically just threw out a number; my 5'9"/5'10" self won't ever hit that point anyway.

[Azgarehta]

Here's an idea. Arnor has a house rule that wooden cored shields take 2 red hits. Lighter shields take 1 red hit. You want a giant 3x5 foot tower shield? you're carrying around a lead weight all day, unless you want reds to trash you.