Anvilling revisited

[Isk]

We've had a discussion going in the realm regarding incomplete blocks and some of our people would like some additional feedback from outside the realm. Our realm leadership has taken the position that an inadequate block, where your weapon's striking surface, pommel or haft is driven back against your body with sufficient force, should be taken as a hit. We've based this on:

3.7.3. Blocking a Weapon strike by laying a Weapon against a Target Area and/or Shield is illegal.
3.7.4. Sheathed or otherwise worn Weapons cannot block attacks.

and other discussions on the boards about anviling in general. This quote from Fork seems to summarize the leadership's perspective on it:

People are always trying to block huge red shots with a sword in front of their shield, and sometimes it works. But if you slam thier sword into thier shield and rock their whole * world, it's anivling and they are cheating.

The counter-argument is: the person is attempting to block, not simply laying the weapon against their body, and since at the end of the strike the defender's weapon is still between the attacker's weapon and the target, the defender shouldn't have to take the hit. The counter-argument may acknowledge that if it's a valid striking surface pressed back, you should take the hit, but if your own weapon is driven against you flat or it's the pommel or haft, then it should not count.

Neither position is arguing that causing someone's pommel to bounce against their arm or torso should count as a hit. We are talking about a weapon strike that carries through with force and the pommel, haft or blade of the defender's weapon is sandwiched between the attacker's weapon and the target area.

If the defender attempts to block a strike and the attacker is still able to drive the defender's weapon back against his body with sufficient force is it a successful block or is the defender anviling?
Does it matter if the part of the defender's weapon pushed back against their body is the pommel or haft?
Is this different from incompletely blocking a red hit to your shield?

[Slagar]

The 'leadership' position is right. Basically, the idea that laying a flat against yourself counts as a block opens up all kinds of opportunities for cheese, and violates the 'unbreakable shield' rule.

The potential for that rules interpretation to be cheesed to death exists in spades. It's just ridiculous. Like, I started writing up the worst example I could think of, and just deleted it because it was retarded. Brainstorm a few yourself, you'll see what I mean.

For a real world example, take a piece of rebar and lay it against your shin, and then take another piece of rebar and have a fighter-sized dude swing it at your leg. Tell me how that 'block' works out.

[Isk]

Thanks for the quick response Slagar. I may not have been clear enough. The rules are completely explicit if it's laying against you when it's struck. The question comes up when your weapon ends up pressed against you, with sufficient force, but was a sincere effort on your part to block the attack. Especially if it's the pommel or haft that you attempt to block with and it is driven solidly back against your body.

[No'Vak]

Thanks for the quick response Slagar. I may not have been clear enough. The rules are completely explicit if it's laying against you when it's struck. The question comes up when your weapon ends up pressed against you, with sufficient force, but was a sincere effort on your part to block the attack. Especially if it's the pommel or haft that you attempt to block with and it is driven solidly back against your body.

Just because you sincerely efforted to block it doesn't negate the face that it hit you with sufficient force, thus its anviling.

[Cade]

Definitely Anviling. Intent is hard to judge, and even harder to prove.

Anyway, in the real world, your sword would still cut you if driven back against your own body.

[Soo Ma Tai]

If the defenders weapon, pommel, hand, striking surface, etc. is pushed back against him from the blow, and the blow still strikes with sufficient force. The hit is good.

[Loptr]

The question comes up when your weapon ends up pressed against you, with sufficient force, but was a sincere effort on your part to block the attack.

Sincerity has * to do with this bro. Sufficeint force is sufficient force is sufficient force. Encourage them to take the * shot, stop cheating and wait 5 min or so for the next battle. Bel death is certainly not a permanent effect.

Suck less, block better.

Lopty

[Forkbeard]

What kind of stupid blocking action are you guys doing? This" hit back into my body" scenario never really happens unless a fighter is continually trying to hover their weapon just above their body parts.
i have NEVER seen this happen unless that is the case. It has increased in the weapon on shield instance in the last year as some * has been getting away with it and teachin it to other *, but it,s already fading away again.
its anviling, but why do you think its happening in YOUR realm and no where else?
Fb

[Isk]

Thanks for the helpful and, as always, colorful responses. That's the way I understand the rules and that's the way we'll continue to teach them. Block more, suck less, sounds like the thing to pass along.

Fork, this isn't a widespread problem and I think you are exactly right as to why this is happening. When it occurs the individual(s) in question is/are holding their defense much too close to their torso. To keep the air clear, I promised to clarify this nuance with the rest of the sport. Now we'll go back and continue helping them with their technique.

[Forkbeard]

In that case i would tell them what we said and knock it off.
explain thouroghly that different weapons, hell even differnt fighters hit radically different.
Remind them that i knocked a guy down with a red shield hit at your event. You don't just hold your sword in front of yourself to defend against that. You have to move around and actually do STUFF to live through hits like that.
this ain't no tea party, sheila.
Fb

[Isk]

Thanks, Fork. We'll help Sheila to start doing stuff.

[Sir Par]

It happens A LOT with people who use a down-weapn in their shield hand to assist with leg guarding. A powerful shot to the down weapon often carries through to the leg, and is rarely taken as such. Make sure you're you're teaching people how to take that shot.

[Tiberius Claudius]

Wow.....it's like you've been to our field or something........

[Forkbeard]

Which is why that extra sword in the shield hand shoukd not be allowed. It is gay rules cheesing. That **** would NEVER work for real. No one would ever try that crap in a fight with real swords.
people who do it in bel are douches.
fb

[Caleidah]

And that's not the point of this thread, Fork. If people can block -properly- with a down sword, more power to 'em. If my shot against it knocks their weapon into them with anything like force, they should take it. Otherwise, they're just general cheating douches.

[Forkbeard]

I see it as the whole point to this thread.
stupid * think they can use a weak * block and it will work. They are such huge * at practice about theissue and their leaders have so little control that they had to come here to be told that something that totaly does not stop an enemies attack is NOT, in fact, a block.
of course its not a valid block!
The issue is in what" rules lawyering" way are these kids being taught to play where this kind of * gets this far?
FB

[Loptr]

something that totaly does not stop an enemies attack is NOT, in fact, a block.
of course its not a valid block!

I dont agree with this stetement Fork.
There is indeed a sufficient force rule, if the block slows the shot enough to no longer deliver sufficient force it should not be taken. I am fairly certain your not advocating taking light hits.

Bottom line to me is, if you're hit with sufficient force by an enemy, a friend or your own dumbass you need to take the resulting damage.

Loptr

[Forkbeard]

I agree. But he's stated over and over that the shots in question ARE landing with sufficent force.
Also, to further my point, if my fighting style allows weapons to hit me regularly, even without enough force, and this happens enough for the people I fight with to complain about me and question my honor, I would simply stop doing the half * blocking I am doing and change my style to be more effective.
Again I say that this downsword * is not something that anyone would do in any agressive fighitng situation other than sneaky, rules edge skating foam combat. The people who do it well use it more to stab than to block, and it makes a pretty weak stab. When the first person breaks their wrist blocking red shots like this, it's going to become less popular real fast, just watch.
FB

[Cade]

i always did find the sword and shield in the same hand to be rather idiotic.

Basically it comes from a bunch of idiots using tiny shields and mocking people with tower shields. They use the extra sword to turn their tiny shield into a tower shield so they can still have their moral high ground and the advantage of the extra coverage.

But your right, it doesn't work well, and even though it may slow a shot somewhat, its generally still sufficient force and they should take it. However, they don't. Few people call them on it because frankly the ones doing it are the vets, and its supposed to be an honor thing anyway.

If some kid won't take an obviously sufficient shot...the unwritten rule is to hit him harder and or go tell the martial. This works just fine when the person abusing the rules is new or rather unknown, but when you have a group of vets abusing the rules, no one says anything.

[No'Vak]

I really don't see a problem with a downsword. I've never had much luck putting an extra sword in a belt or anything, so if I want to carry another length sword around I do it in my shield hand.

And I mean really how many times does a shot come from an angle directly perpendicular to the downsword and hit it in a manner to drive it straight back? Idk, it comes down to people not taking their hits. Which is cheating.

[Loptr]

Down Sword is the GHEY!!

+1

[Isk]

They are such huge * at practice about theissue and their leaders have so little control that they had to come here to be told that something that totaly does not stop an enemies attack is NOT, in fact, a block.
of course its not a valid block!
The issue is in what" rules lawyering" way are these kids being taught to play where this kind of * gets this far?

Thanks for that, Fork. Actually, the kid who was having the problem has decided that he will no longer play because he feels singled out for pushing the edges of the rules in a few areas. He chose to see it as the realm 'disrespecting' him. I came here to raise the question as a polite gesture to soothe his ruffled feathers because I'd like him to stick around if he can get past some of this. Yes, I got the answer I expected and had already given to the person in question. In a position of responsibility I will stand by the rules as I understand them, but if I'm challenged on the accuracy of something I have said I feel that I ought to make certain it is completely accurate for the next time. I felt this forum was the appropriate place to clarify this issue and I appreciate the clarification and reinforcement of our reading of the rules that everyone offered.

I do not feel there is a rules-lawyering problem on our field. Tiberius' comment about Par "having been on our field or something" was in reference to this ONE fighter. I cannot off the top of my head think of anyone else who uses a down sword and shield with any regularity at our practices.

And I mean really how many times does a shot come from an angle directly perpendicular to the downsword and hit it in a manner to drive it straight back?

No'Vak, using a down sword like Kade described with a buckler or using it florentine can often result in an incomplete block on the legs. It's really hard to keep a solid shot from pushing the sword back against you when your thumb is on the side away from the leverage. The highest quality shot you have with the down sword is the stab Fork mentioned, and you really open yourself up when you go for it. I agree with carrying a spare sword in your shield hand, though. It has come in handy for me before; just not so much for blocking.

[No'Vak]

They are such huge * at practice about theissue and their leaders have so little control that they had to come here to be told that something that totaly does not stop an enemies attack is NOT, in fact, a block.
of course its not a valid block!
The issue is in what" rules lawyering" way are these kids being taught to play where this kind of * gets this far?

Thanks for that, Fork. Actually, the kid who was having the problem has decided that he will no longer play because he feels singled out for pushing the edges of the rules in a few areas. He chose to see it as the realm 'disrespecting' him. I came here to raise the question as a polite gesture to soothe his ruffled feathers because I'd like him to stick around if he can get past some of this. Yes, I got the answer I expected and had already given to the person in question. In a position of responsibility I will stand by the rules as I understand them, but if I'm challenged on the accuracy of something I have said I feel that I ought to make certain it is completely accurate for the next time. I felt this forum was the appropriate place to clarify this issue and I appreciate the clarification and reinforcement of our reading of the rules that everyone offered.

I do not feel there is a rules-lawyering problem on our field. Tiberius' comment about Par "having been on our field or something" was in reference to this ONE fighter. I cannot off the top of my head think of anyone else who uses a down sword and shield with any regularity at our practices.

And I mean really how many times does a shot come from an angle directly perpendicular to the downsword and hit it in a manner to drive it straight back?

No'Vak, using a down sword like Kade described with a buckler or using it florentine can often result in an incomplete block on the legs. It's really hard to keep a solid shot from pushing the sword back against you when your thumb is on the side away from the leverage. The highest quality shot you have with the down sword is the stab Fork mentioned, and you really open yourself up when you go for it. I agree with carrying a spare sword in your shield hand, though. It has come in handy for me before; just not so much for blocking.

When it happened to me always moved it left or right, I guess I just can't picture in my head the sword moving straight back.

[Forkbeard]

Wait a minute.
are you trying to imply that my"your doing it wrong, stupid" answer is somehow related to this guy quitting?
It sounds to me like the guy was a *, a rules lawyer, and an egomaniac.
we don't need people who can't follow the rules.
good riddance.
fb

[Black Cat]

I know I don't fight much; but personally, I thought the whole point of carrying a down-sword in your shield hand is so that you have an instant back-up sword just as capable as your primary weapon in case you get disarmed. This is a tactic I would personally find myself doing a lot if I sword-and-board. I however would not deliberately try to block with it, and would prefer to be using a shield that exposes as little of the sword as possible.

Deliberately blocking with a down-sword sounds like a really weak move to me, functionally speaking. Or a cheap-ass move if the person doing it isn't taking the hit when their sword gets slammed back into them.

[Isk]

are you trying to imply that my"your doing it wrong, stupid" answer is somehow related to this guy quitting?

Not at all. I doubt he's ever read this thread and I appreciate your input on helping Sheila to start doing stuff. I hate to see anybody with enthusiasm leave, but if after trying to bring them around someone persists in letting people or things get under their skin and 'dramatic' we are generally better off letting them shuffle along to find their happy place.

[Arrakis]

I agree. But he's stated over and over that the shots in question ARE landing with sufficent force.
Also, to further my point, if my fighting style allows weapons to hit me regularly, even without enough force, and this happens enough for the people I fight with to complain about me and question my honor, I would simply stop doing the half * blocking I am doing and change my style to be more effective.
Again I say that this downsword * is not something that anyone would do in any agressive fighitng situation other than sneaky, rules edge skating foam combat. The people who do it well use it more to stab than to block, and it makes a pretty weak stab. When the first person breaks their wrist blocking red shots like this, it's going to become less popular real fast, just watch.
FB

Cool and all, but my downsword stabs are harpoonings. You will move backwards and make The Noise.

[Slagar]

What he said.

Also, google 'madu'. Read lots. It's not quite the same thing, but it's as close as you can get in our rule set. They're fairly awesome.

[Forkbeard]

A madu is solid, not a sword held in hand that moves at your wrist.
And madus are gay. Only SCA women use them seriously. Guys only use them to make fun of people.
FB

[Slagar]

Yeah, but building a weapon into a shield is illegal in our game. You make do with the ruleset you have, not the one you wish you had.

[bo1]

i was about to say i can down sword stab someone and make them go cross-eyed, but arrakis beat me to it. the shot has huge power and is very fast and accurate. you fake wrap and stab them in the arm pocket.

madu being illegal is the only reason we dont have them, and down sword is a reasonable alterative to the style.

but as to the op, if the block gets crushed into the taget, the shot should be taken unless its power is depleted to the point of near nothing. not that you cant call it light, you can, but in a game of foam and fun, take the hit or block it all the way.

[Sleeper]

So what you respectable dudes are implying is: I gotta give people shield breaking redshots, even if they don't have a shield? Just to power through someone's downsword or flourentine use? That makes redswords, even the minimun ones even more dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I would love this and win alot more if people would take my shots that power through their block but all I can see is people ending up just trying to give an opponent a wicked redshot just to sufficiantly force through an enemies block instead of trying to be quick enough to get a medium shot off.

[Arrakis]

So what you respectable dudes are implying is: I gotta give people shield breaking redshots, even if they don't have a shield? Just to power through someone's downsword or flourentine use? That makes redswords, even the minimun ones even more dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I would love this and win alot more if people would take my shots that power through their block but all I can see is people ending up just trying to give an opponent a wicked redshot just to sufficiantly force through an enemies block instead of trying to be quick enough to get a medium shot off.

Wait, what?

[Slagar]

Sufficient force /= tactical nuke. People who call light on shots just because they tickled your sword coming in belong in the SCA, not here. Sometimes, though, you just aren't hitting through a block. If I set it up right, with proper body mechanics / alignment, then yeah, you aren't getting through it. Don't care what you're swinging. Try hitting where I'm not blocking, instead. Usually a quicker win.

Yeah, you gotta hit with force, even through blocks. That's why we pad the sticks. People who don't like that should avoid fighting redswords for the most part. That's what I do. I won't spar 'em, and I let enthusiastic noobs do the 'sprint at the red guy and soak up red shots' thing against any red fighter who isn't really good. **** is uncomfortable.

[Peregrine]

Which is why that extra sword in the shield hand should not be allowed.
fb

Using a stabbing tip sword in the shield hand can be very effective, just like the Scottish dirk and targe. I do think a lot of cheating takes place when people call down sword