Striking Flail Haft

[Slagar]

So I was shooting the **** during a build day, and a couple of the guys were cranking out flails. The topic came up as to why the hafts of the flails weren't padded as striking surfaces. I told them that it was illegal for flail hafts to be striking surface, and when I checked that, it turned out to be just that. Not a result of any other rule, but a standalone, "You can't do it".

They asked why, though, and damned if I could think up an answer, aside from hating flails enough that giving them any additional advantage makes me twitch.

So, historically if somebody rushed a flail you would absolutely just clock them in the dome with the haft. While it wouldn't be fatal, it still, imo, falls well within the 'realism' threshhold we keep ourselves to elsewhere. Safety-wise it's a huge improvement, given how many people get hafted to **** with flails any time there's one on the field.

Given that, I have to assume it's playability, basically the people making the rules didn't like the idea beefing them up any extra.

But I mean, it's hardly a game breaker, given how freakin' wonky the swing mechanics would be on a flail actually 'trying' to haft someone. Moreover, anybody who took this option when building their flail would be weighting it down pretty horribly. And on top of that, the improved safety of having flail hafts actually padded when they inevitably slam into my ribs sounds pretty great.

So, can anybody tell me why flail hafts shouldn't be allowed to count as striking surfaces? I freely admit to having comparatively little foam-smithing experience, so maybe I'm missing something.

I kinda doubt many people would bother to take advantage of it, but having it expressly illegal seems kinda goofy.

[varadin]

Its not allowed because of this rule,

3.4.5. A single strike can only damage one Target Area.

by allowing a haft to hit as well as the ball i would technically be able to crank you in the arm and the back and you would have to take both. Having it happen in one swing though eliminates that and forces it to just be back(the worse of the two injuries).

Flails are very much in no need of a buff you are correct there so playabilty could be broken by this. But while i encourage more padding on weapons I see this as a safety concern. Flail are hard to control, not many people who use them have full control of them at all times. When a flail changing direction the weight shifts in the weapon. With this weight shift being thrown into it, me now swinging the haft at someone spells danger to me. It throws off your aim and with the weight shifting I see the chance of punching or handeling someone rushing in on you a far greater risk with a flail then any other weapon.

And yes while realistic if i were to crank you with the haft of a flail it would hurt the idea of it doing any damage is absurd. Its a piece of wood being dragged by the ball of the flail. The ball has all the energy in it and to hit with the haft in real life would do nothing more then annoy your attacker.

[Thorondor]

Realism can also play a part here...or lack there of. Our flails have MUCH shorter chains and the heads are a lot lighter than their historical counterparts. Varadin has the gist of it, the ball and chain would really slow down the haft of the flail. PLUS, using the historical counterpart, if you're hitting with the haft, you're doing it wrong...REALLY wrong.

[Glass]

Its not allowed because of this rule,

3.4.5. A single strike can only damage one Target Area.

by allowing a haft to hit as well as the ball i would technically be able to crank you in the arm and the back and you would have to take both. Having it happen in one swing though eliminates that and forces it to just be back(the worse of the two injuries).

Flails are very much in no need of a buff you are correct there so playabilty could be broken by this. But while i encourage more padding on weapons I see this as a safety concern. Flail are hard to control, not many people who use them have full control of them at all times. When a flail changing direction the weight shifts in the weapon. With this weight shift being thrown into it, me now swinging the haft at someone spells danger to me. It throws off your aim and with the weight shifting I see the chance of punching or handeling someone rushing in on you a far greater risk with a flail then any other weapon.

And yes while realistic if i were to crank you with the haft of a flail it would hurt the idea of it doing any damage is absurd. Its a piece of wood being dragged by the ball of the flail. The ball has all the energy in it and to hit with the haft in real life would do nothing more then annoy your attacker.

I don't think it breaks that rule. I agree with the other comments though, they're fine the way they are. But imo this rule's merely in place so people can't take two body parts with one swing. Hypothetically, if we could strike with the haft, we'd treat it the same as a sword, if it hits two different target zones you take the worse one i.e. body over arm etc. Again, I wouldn't like to see this happen, but this rule isn't the reason it isn't.

[duckymcfeelgood]

The playability break alone is enough to never let this happen.

[Big King Jimmy]

That rule was only put on the book a few years ago, maybe 3? After it was discovered that some westerners WERE making flails with striking haft padding. The east went "Whoa, not supposed to do that." The dudes doing it went "Why? Doesn't say I can't, seems totally fine." so the rule was added, and now you REALLY can't. Instead of just kinda can't.

[Forkbeard]

After it was discovered that some westerners WERE making flails with striking haft padding.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I never saw any flails like this at any western event, ever. Nor have I ever heard of it.
No one allwoed striking with the haft even when we allowed pole flails. My realm used pole flails back then, so this talked about regularly and was never allowed anywhere.
FB

[Kage]

I think it was something that they were doing in Arizona. I could be wrong; it was longer than three years ago though more like 5 or 6.

[Forkbeard]

Well, that explains it. Those AZ people are **** crazy. I say they are not really in the "west". More in the South with no water or black folks.

[Elebrim]

1.4.5.6. Only the head of a flail is a striking surface.

There's the relevant rule. Also, consider this:

1.5. Prohibited Weapons:

1.5.1. Entangling Weapons (nets, lassos).
1.5.2. Unmanned Weapons (traps).
1.5.3. Non-compliant double ended Weapons (nunchaku, double ended daggers).
1.5.4. Punching Weapons (punching daggers, tonfas).
1.5.5. Any Weapon when used as intended violates the rules stipulated in the Book of War.

A flail with a striking surface on the haft is very similar in thought pattern to a nunchaku. Since the handle isn't the only place a person can hold their own weapon (i.e. hand is considered a part of the weapon), what is to stop some stupid person from grabbing the ball and swinging the safely combat padded haft at someone? It's a striking surface, after all! But that would mean said flail is usable from both ends, meaning it's a non-compliant double ended weapon.

My $0.02.

[Slagar]

I'm well aware that it's illegal. I'm asking why that rule exists. So far the replies have basically been what my intuition kinda told me, which is because it * well should be. A better argument than that probably doesn't apply here, nor does it need to.

Your argument here is ridiculous. Striking with the pommel and handle is expressly illegal, regardless of the haft.

[Elebrim]

I was just providing an alternate possibility. Having striking-legal haft padding creates a weapon which can successfully strike from either side of the joint, regardless of how stupid or dangerous it is. Note that I agreed it was stupid:

Since the handle isn't the only place a person can hold their own weapon (i.e. hand is considered a part of the weapon), what is to stop some stupid person from grabbing the ball and swinging the safely combat padded haft at someone? It's a striking surface, after all!

I should have put "safely padded" in quotes for better emphasis on the sarcasm. My bad on that one.

In theory, you wouldn't even need to swing from the ball. You could just get someone who haft beats people and uses the ball for reach when he/she needs it. Still striking from both sides of the joint, still a non-compliant double-ended weapon.

[Slagar]

Huh. Never considered the 'striking from both sides of the hinge' aspect. Seems like a fairly technical interpretation of 'double-ended'.

The point of this exercise was to have a legit answer next time someone asks me why they can't build it that way, instead of 'just because'. At this point I've got some interesting food for thought. Thanks.

[Kage]

I think the rule was made mainly because of safety issues the community saw with the haft being legal to hit with due to people trying to min/max based on the rule set at the time. So if they really have to have an answer "The community sees it as being unsafe, and they made the rule to limit the striking surface to the head because of that" would be what I would tell them.

[Slagar]

I'm talking about padding a flail haft to the degree we expect from round sword / bats. As striking surface. I fail to see how that's a safety issue?

What you're describing is a playability issue, where people are intentionally hafting because now it counts as a hit, and that breaks the game, I think? Which is what everybody else has already said.

Frankly, I don't see it, but I'd be extremely curious to build one of these and hand it to someone like Morbian or Graavish and see what it does to playability. If it really is a breaker, I'd be surprised. Whatever, I was just curious. At this point, it seems clear to me there isn't a good answer, aside from 'because a handful of people thought it would be overpowered'.

[Thorondor]

I still stand by realism...if you're hitting someone w/ the haft you're doing it all wrong...

[Forkbeard]

It is **** stupid to think that it is in any way unsafe to strike with a flail haft.
It is playability and realism that makes it illegal.
It would NOT work IRL. For Thor's reasons.
It **** with playability in that it makes flais even more fast and powerful. Since flails are aloready slightly more effective that their RL counterparts, adding more striking surface to them makes them MORE powerful, thus, no way, Jose.
I block flail hafts with my forarm under the right circumstances. I grab the baft in others. These are viable blocks on this weapon in Bel and in RL. It would negate my ability to defend against them if the haft were striking surface.

When new people demand that I explain the wierd parts of our rules and they do not like my answers, I just tell them that the majority of the smart people in this sport said so, that's why. Shut up and fight.
FB

[duckymcfeelgood]

I just tell them that the majority of the smart people in this sport said so, that's why. Shut up and fight.
FB

I think this is the smartest thing ever said by anyone ever about swinging foam. thank you

[calebmonkey]

yeah thats sig worthy