It is currently Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:50 pm


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:04 pm 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 1528
Location: Arcadia, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
Quote:
1.3.7. The amount of tape on a striking surface should be kept to a minimum.


There was a debate this weekend regarding how this rule should be interpreted due to weapons that had a single layer of packing tape applied longitudinally, not spiraled, on a cylindrical weapon. For those who haven't seen this style of construction, the packing tape reduces the formation of shears and tears in the foam thereby extending the lifespan of the weapon. Duct tape and spiraled tape are different situations since they can radically affect how a weapon hits, i.e., adding considerably more slap and sting to shots. I interpret the rule to mean that having tape completely covering a striking surface doesn't necessarily make the weapon fail for construction. As long as the tape does not compromise how the weapon hits then it should be OK.

_________________
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:09 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 2055
Location: Irvine, CA
Started Fighting: 31 Aug 2001
Realm: Marshal of Anduril
Unit: Wardens
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Extreme Taunting
I am still unclear on this. Is the weapon in question made with tape on the striking surface that is on the cloth cover or is it underneath the cover (like a common Amtgard build)?

_________________
Cofounder and Marshal of Andúril
Cofounder Battle for the Ring
Order of the Shining Tower
Order of the Western Flame

See you at Battle for the Ring in January www.battleforthering.com


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:11 pm 
The Nightbringer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:52 pm
Posts: 2299
Location: Madison WI, AKA Rhun
Favorite Fighting Styles: whatever peter the quick is doing just like everyone else
i would agree, although in the past( 3 years ago) i did disagree. i have learned that bats last forever taped this way and they dont hit hard or slap. i see it as the next logical evolution in weapons tech.

hey it used to be couch cushion and pvc with blue jean right?

_________________
Sir Beauregaurd Brutus Elevo
Knight of Rhun
High Commander of
Clan of the Hydra
That's Mr. Implacable to you.
If you disagree disrespectfully, the boards are a much better read.
Dane


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:22 pm 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 1528
Location: Arcadia, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
Anastasia of Chamonix wrote:
I am still unclear on this. Is the weapon in question made with tape on the striking surface that is on the cloth cover or is it underneath the cover (like a common Amtgard build)?


The packing tape is put down in strips on the long axis of the weapon with the edges of the tape slightly overlapping to completely cover the foam in tape. Then the cloth cover is placed on the weapon.

_________________
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:46 pm 
Skull Crusher
Skull Crusher
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:52 am
Posts: 1381
Location: State College, PA
Started Fighting: 16 Sep 2004
Realm: Denuvald
Unit: Ex - Clan of the Hydra
I see the validity of that technique, Kyrian, but there's no way I can conceive of 100% covered in tape as a minimum.

I would argue that that shouldn't pass with the rules written this way. But if I were to rules lawyer, I'd mention that the rule just says it should be kept to a minimum, not that it has to be. Thus I believe that rules and laws should never have the word "should" in them.

In the end, I'd care more about how the weapon hits, whether that's what the BoW was telling me to do or not.

_________________
Magpie of Rhun/Denuvald - A stranger in a strange land.
Dream Blog.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:57 pm 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 1580
Location: Philly, PA
Started Fighting: 01 Sep 2001
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and board, Red, Red +back shield,
As long as it passes hit test I'm cool with it.

_________________
Squire Solusar Oma'Ragh McFeelgood, the Usurper
Squire to Sir Rune of Mittlemarch
I fight Dagorhir, but I'm still cool somehow.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:39 am 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 3:26 pm
Posts: 1934
Location: Pentwyvern
Started Fighting: 20 Apr 2001
Realm: Pentwyvern
Unit: EBF
Ive seen these style of weapons have far more slap in some cases, and in others never die and add nothing to the hit. Personally if it doesn't cause lasting damage or somehow the tape cuts me through the cover I am fine with them on the field. Minimal is subjective thus why it should be worded better. Id rather see something along the lines of

"tape on a striking surface may cause the weapon to fail if it effects hit or properties of a weapon"

But that would just be for weapons checkers benifits of failing it because it hits to hard/slaps. Where as thats all I see the present rule doing. Never have I seen a weapon fail outright because of tape on the striking surface its because of tape effecting hit thus the HIT fails.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:22 am 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:57 am
Posts: 1957
Started Fighting: 23 Aug 1999
Realm: Numenor
Unit: Knights of Numenor
I've seen a bunch of these come through various weapons checks, but they usually pass a hit test, and as bo pointed out its part of the build to make them last longer. I personally hate it, but the way the rule is currently worded it passes.

I think the original spirit of the rule was to keep duct tape off weapons, which does cause too much slap and causes damage to the weapon over a short amount of time. Packing tape doesn't have the same impact.

Its a similar argument to modular arrows: what rules are people going to choose to ignore in order to advance weapons tech, and how far are weapon checkers going to allow people to get away with it? Do we need a rule change to encompass these changes?

_________________
Knight of Numenor


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:48 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Stygia (Missoula, MT)
Realm: Stygia
Unit: Western Uruk-Hai- White Skull- HoRDe- VB
There is no need for a rules change and here's why. As was said, that rule is ment to keep the duct tape covered weapons out of the check line. The slap like crazy, and oft times hit like a brick. Back in the olden days of buils using PVC, rubber cement, and lots of duct tape. It was necessary to put this in the rules to keep noobs from coming out with bricks, which happened enough as it was.

The rule is more of a guideline than a hard fast rule since "to a minimum" is interpretive. If a weapon passes on all other accounts, hits fine, etc. Then it should pass. If it doesn't pass and hits like a brick, this rule can be cited, but really the hit test is what fails it. This is really just in there to help keep failing weapons from even being built.

TL;DR- Having the striking surface covered in tape doesn't auto-fail the weapon. As long as it passes everything else, the tape rule is moot.

_________________
Soo Ma Tai, Warmaster
Sir Fancy Pants
Uruk-Hai, Horde, White Skull, VB
Antler Up, Herd Win!


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:27 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:46 pm
Posts: 5611
Location: Kung Foo Island
Started Fighting: 15 Jun 2000
Realm: Aquilonia
Unit: Western Uruk Hai
Favorite Fighting Styles: Just the Tip
I disagree. A very few amt dudes make swords this way that pass. The majority are using pool noodle and covering it with tape to do as Kyrain says. To keep the foam for shearing and tearing off the core. That is not a safe design. Good speed bats don't require this kind of taping.
In my experience, these 100% taped amt weapons are fine when used for light hitting amtfighting, but really do slap alot harder when used for harder hitting fighting. They are built for light combat rules. They should stay on a light combat field.
100% taped surface is in no way minimal.
Please keep in mind, this is not a part of my cusade against quicktubes. However I feel about them, they can be made perfectly safe. The best designs for the are really very good and I have no issue what so ever with their safety. The standard amt-bat, with the tape over fun noodle with a cloth cover over it, sucks and should not be allowed in full contact combat. If these cross gamers from amtgard waht to fight with us, they have to make safe equipment(to our standard of safety, not theirs). We do not allow their arrows or some of their other equipment like punch weapons because while they make work great in LIGHT CONTACT combat, they will hurt several people if allowed in our full conact system.
FB

_________________
Warlord of the Western Uruk-Hai

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:54 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Stygia (Missoula, MT)
Realm: Stygia
Unit: Western Uruk-Hai- White Skull- HoRDe- VB
All I am saying is that built to our spec. Having tape on the striking surface doesn't cause an auto fail. Case in point. Most of the weaons I brought out for the first two years had duct tape on the entire striking surface, yet passed at every event I went to. It's a matter of construction. When built like amt weapons, they are going to fail, most likely. When done properly, they ~can~ still pass.

_________________
Soo Ma Tai, Warmaster
Sir Fancy Pants
Uruk-Hai, Horde, White Skull, VB
Antler Up, Herd Win!


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:55 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Posts: 5476
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear
Forkbeard wrote:
I disagree. A very few amt dudes make swords this way that pass. The majority are using pool noodle and covering it with tape to do as Kyrain says. To keep the foam for shearing and tearing off the core. That is not a safe design. Good speed bats don't require this kind of taping.
In my experience, these 100% taped amt weapons are fine when used for light hitting amtfighting, but really do slap alot harder when used for harder hitting fighting. They are built for light combat rules. They should stay on a light combat field.
100% taped surface is in no way minimal.
Please keep in mind, this is not a part of my cusade against quicktubes. However I feel about them, they can be made perfectly safe. The best designs for the are really very good and I have no issue what so ever with their safety. The standard amt-bat, with the tape over fun noodle with a cloth cover over it, sucks and should not be allowed in full contact combat. If these cross gamers from amtgard waht to fight with us, they have to make safe equipment(to our standard of safety, not theirs). We do not allow their arrows or some of their other equipment like punch weapons because while they make work great in LIGHT CONTACT combat, they will hurt several people if allowed in our full conact system.
FB



Forkbeard, the problemt ehre is fun noodle, not tape. A lot of quick tube tech starts with a weapon that would normally pass just fine on its own, then tape is added to double or triple the life of the weapon. And all while adding nothing to the hit test.

_________________
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:27 pm 
Slayer
Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 1082
The way that I was taught and the way I have seen enforced at every event I have been to has been: A strip or two at key points for structural purposes is fine. Completely covering the entire thing in tape isn't.

Does anyone remember the old "if I cover it in cloth tape, I'm good" nonsense? The argument was that if they covered their striking surface with cloth tape, then they had a cloth cover, but they were shot down because covering the striking surface isn't minimum.

Either it's all bad or it's all good.

_________________
Oderint Dum Metuant


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:08 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Posts: 5476
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear
Right... but the reason that was bad is because it hit like a mac truck. The rule was added as a way to simply put in the rules "Hey, a bunch of tape on your weapon makes it hurt." These don't hurt. If they pass hit test, let 'em go. The mere existence of tape, in any amount, on a weapon should not make it fail weapons check on its own.

_________________
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:25 pm 
Slayer
Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 1082
Big King Jimmy wrote:
Right... but the reason that was bad is because it hit like a mac truck. The rule was added as a way to simply put in the rules "Hey, a bunch of tape on your weapon makes it hurt." These don't hurt. If they pass hit test, let 'em go. The mere existence of tape, in any amount, on a weapon should not make it fail weapons check on its own.


Then can we get a motion in the next voting cycle to remove this rule? Because it doesn't easily lead itself to that interpretation.

_________________
Oderint Dum Metuant


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:29 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Posts: 5476
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear
I've been thinking about it for a couple of voting periods already. I know my realm would support my decision as they use the packing tape tech.

_________________
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:22 pm 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 1528
Location: Arcadia, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
How do either of these sound:

1.3.7. Tape is allowed on the striking surface as long as it does not compromise the weapon's safety.

or

1.3.7. Tape is allowed on the striking surface as long as it does not compromise the weapon's ability to deliver a safe hit.

The first version is a bit more general and does leave a bit of wiggle room for the weapon checkers. The second is more specific on how the tape could impact whether the weapon passes or fails.

_________________
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:45 pm 
The Nightbringer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:52 pm
Posts: 2299
Location: Madison WI, AKA Rhun
Favorite Fighting Styles: whatever peter the quick is doing just like everyone else
what about specifying duct tape on the striking surface is to be kept to a minumum, other tape is allowed as long as it doesnt comprimise the hit of the weapon. seems like ti would get at the heart of the issue and be as simple and staight forward as possible with almost no room for wierd interpretations.

_________________
Sir Beauregaurd Brutus Elevo
Knight of Rhun
High Commander of
Clan of the Hydra
That's Mr. Implacable to you.
If you disagree disrespectfully, the boards are a much better read.
Dane


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:45 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57 pm
Posts: 3463
Location: Stygia (Missoula, MT)
Realm: Stygia
Unit: Western Uruk-Hai- White Skull- HoRDe- VB
Honestly we should just get rid of that line in the BoW. Then put together a simple foam smithing guide, that somewhere states that having tape, esp. more than minimal amounts, on a striking surface, can cause a weapon to fail for hitting to hard.

_________________
Soo Ma Tai, Warmaster
Sir Fancy Pants
Uruk-Hai, Horde, White Skull, VB
Antler Up, Herd Win!


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:56 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 11:01 am
Posts: 2243
Location: Somewhere in the void of space
Realm: Acheron
Unit: EBF
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and Board
That would be ideal, but I would see rules monkeys saying that it's not against the rules anymore and try and wiggle their way around it. Changing the rule, for the time being, seems like a better idea than droping it completely.

_________________
Mefit the Geek wrote:
You'll get what I give you and like it!


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:23 am 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Posts: 5476
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear
Rules monkeys get their weapon failed on the "because I say so" clause. It's my favorite.

_________________
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:13 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:46 pm
Posts: 5611
Location: Kung Foo Island
Started Fighting: 15 Jun 2000
Realm: Aquilonia
Unit: Western Uruk Hai
Favorite Fighting Styles: Just the Tip
I want to see some kind of ban on funnoodle striking surfaces. They feel ok for about 5 minutes, then they start to break down and get dead spots. They are trash and I feel like in this particular instance the weapons that Rev failed were fun noodle amt weapons covered in tape to hold them together.
Like I said before, properly made quicktubes with a layer of tape to extend their life for years are obviously differently made things that a fun noodle and tape amt-bat.
If we modify this rule as you guys are sugesting, we will see many, many more of these crappy weapons.
Well made quicktubes are annoying but very safe.
Fun noodle weapons are dangerous.
FB

_________________
Warlord of the Western Uruk-Hai

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:16 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Posts: 5476
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear
While I agree, that's a seperate issue Forkbeard and you should make a seperate post for it.

_________________
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:30 pm 
Thug
Thug
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 430
Location: Dunharrow
Started Fighting: 0- 4-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword/Round
No where in the book of war does it define the types of foam allowed to be used in construction or methods of construction and I think this is a good thing.

If you have a problem with people using noodle at belegarth events/practices then you need to play within the current rules. Do more spot checks on the field between battles, if the noodle starts to fart out and you can feel core even slightly then throw it off the field. Make sure that people are calling light shots light not just accepting it because it made contact. Eventually playing within the rules will discourage people from using them in our game.

I use noodle bats in certain training exercises and sparing situations because it works for teaching specific things, but i would not bring them on a national field because when they are completed they weight about 6 ounces and they can't deliver a sufficient force hit. They are just not ideal for our game, but if people want to try to deliver sufficient force swings with a noodle bat with 6 ounces of counter weighting then that's their right, and it's your right to call light and crush them.

_________________
Dunharrow
Amyr


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:21 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 2055
Location: Irvine, CA
Started Fighting: 31 Aug 2001
Realm: Marshal of Anduril
Unit: Wardens
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Extreme Taunting
I think tape on a striking surface should mean on the cover (not necessarily in the construction underneath, because we don't have many construction based rules)...as in, there should be no tape on the cover where there is striking surface. This would have eliminated the "cloth tape" cover weapons, or weapons with tape holding the cover on in stupid ways, as well as allowing us to fail any weapon with tape on it that added confusion if it could appear like a contrast strip for non-striking. Basically, I thought it was there to allow you to fail cloth covered weapons that have covers held together with tape (patches, holding dog ears, ect), as both a safety and playability option. I like the 2nd re-wording, but I would still like something that mentions having no tape on the cover of striking surfaces explicitly. The original wording can mean all things, and minimal can be interpreted as either a hit-test issue or a weapon appearance issue.

_________________
Cofounder and Marshal of Andúril
Cofounder Battle for the Ring
Order of the Shining Tower
Order of the Western Flame

See you at Battle for the Ring in January www.battleforthering.com


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:24 pm 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:57 am
Posts: 1957
Started Fighting: 23 Aug 1999
Realm: Numenor
Unit: Knights of Numenor
tape on the cover of a weapon already denotes that it is a non striking surface.

_________________
Knight of Numenor


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:50 pm 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 1528
Location: Arcadia, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
I don't think we should specify what kind of tape is illegal because who knows what kind of tape we may see in the future, i.e., kevlar tape, carbon fiber tape, etc. In addition, there are ways to make packing tape-covered or any other type of tape-covered weapons fail such as by spiral wrapping or over-compressing the foam. Better to future-proof the rule and still leave it to the checker to decide that a weapon is unsafe without a completely tape-covered striking surface outright failing.

_________________
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:42 am 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:33 pm
Posts: 1510
Location: Walla Walla, WA
Unit: Horde
Re: tape on weapons, as so many have already said, I don't mind it so long as the weapon passes a hit test. Some techniques involving tape don't affect the hit at all while some do. Not to mention, it's often hard to tell how much tape and what kind is on a weapon without removing the cover. I would be in favor of removing 1.3.7 altogether.

Soo Ma Tai wrote:
Honestly we should just get rid of that line in the BoW. Then put together a simple foam smithing guide, that somewhere states that having tape, esp. more than minimal amounts, on a striking surface, can cause a weapon to fail for hitting to hard.
I really like this idea as well as a supplement to the BoW that standardizes weapons checking procedures. Why not set up a committee of experienced players to draft something and get it voted in as an official document?

_________________
-Giggles

HORDE WIN!


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:57 am 
Gladiator
Gladiator

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:43 pm
Posts: 977
Location: SLC, Utard
Realm: Acheron
Favorite Fighting Styles: Tappy Tappy
Seriously......
Packing tape by itself should not be an auto fail.
The weapons hit should be the deciding factor.

_________________
Viking rattBastard


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:31 am 
Slayer
Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 1082
If we are going to leave it up to the hit test anyways, I see no need to keep this rule in any form.

I'm going to stand by my original view, 100% covered cannot be considered as "minimum" tape. Nor should we try to legislate what tapes can be used to completely cover it.

So, let's just remove the entire thing. If someone packs on the duct tape and it affects the hit test, then it fails. If they pack on the duct tape and it doesn't affect the hit test, then it passes.

_________________
Oderint Dum Metuant


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 pm 
Slayer
Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:24 pm
Posts: 1179
Location: Champaign, IL
Started Fighting: 18 Oct 2006
Realm: Numenor
Unit: The Amyr
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and Board
The concern some poeple have is that some materials (such as pool noodle) pass the thit test when new almost universally. They just break down extremely quickly over the course of even a day, so that a weapon safe at 10:00AM may very well core out and welt the **** out of somebody by 4:00PM. And sure, spot checks would helpthat, but we are a volunteer organization and getting enough people to run even one weapon check is a pain in the *. So the idea is that precluding weapons made from the only commonly used material known to suffer this problem may not be unreasonable. Definitely more reasonable than failing an otherwise excellent weapon just because there's tape on it.

I'm not advocating any particular option, here, just clarifying a point. This is an interesting discussion, but I'm frankly not qualified to say **** about smithing, it's jut not my arena.

_________________
Numenorean expatriate
Gaffi Stick of the Sand Plains
Retainer to Squire Trogdor


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:58 pm 
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 2055
Location: Irvine, CA
Started Fighting: 31 Aug 2001
Realm: Marshal of Anduril
Unit: Wardens
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Extreme Taunting
I think that is an excellent point. I also think most people using that tech are Amt or light hitting group. If we have a pool noodle, we kill people by 4PM, but they don't... this material ban is more irritating for events geared towards cross-gaming.

Obviously, we should have rules that everyone has to follow too. Unfortunately, any weapon can fail during combat at any time. Not all pool noodle fail by 4PM either. I am content passing them in the AM and telling them their weapons' suck (but pass) and that they need to spot check them and that they may be subject to spot checks by staff. There are many practical issues to consider when thinking about this particular material ban. I do not think the damage done by these weapons in the hands of these people is greater than the damage done to the sport if cross gaming becomes more difficult.

_________________
Cofounder and Marshal of Andúril
Cofounder Battle for the Ring
Order of the Shining Tower
Order of the Western Flame

See you at Battle for the Ring in January www.battleforthering.com


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:15 pm 
Slayer
Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 1082
Please limit your discussion on foam types to the appropriate thread. This thread is specifically about tape on striking surfaces.

_________________
Oderint Dum Metuant


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:26 pm 
Slayer
Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:46 am
Posts: 1063
Location: Idaho Falls, ID
Realm: Ebonhold
Reverend wrote:
I'm going to stand by my original view, 100% covered cannot be considered as "minimum" tape.


Took the words right out of my mouth. Axe the rule or axe the tech; either way I care not because I only really care about the hit test and making sure only safe weapons reach the field.

_________________
Kage
21st Knight of the Highlands of Chaos
Ebonhold
Coffee with Kage


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:31 am 
Warning: Knows Math
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 4792
Location: near Newark, NJ
Started Fighting: 17 Jun 2007
Realm: Goldenvale+East Kingdom
Unit: Omega Company
Favorite Fighting Styles: No gimmicks.
The rule clearly only exists to point new foamsmiths in the correct direction. It's a little helper-rule, like the one suggesting that shield contact to the head and neck is discouraged. Both of them are saying, hey man, don't do this thing if you can not, unless you really know what you're doing. If you do do it and someone gets hurt, your * is going to be on the line.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:19 am 
Warrior
Warrior

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:41 am
Posts: 722
Started Fighting: 25 Feb 2008
Arrakis wrote:
The rule clearly only exists to point new foamsmiths in the correct direction. It's a little helper-rule, like the one suggesting that shield contact to the head and neck is discouraged. Both of them are saying, hey man, don't do this thing if you can not, unless you really know what you're doing. If you do do it and someone gets hurt, your * is going to be on the line.


My sarcasm detector is faulty today, was this all serious or was there sarcasm in it. TY


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:44 am 
Warning: Knows Math
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 4792
Location: near Newark, NJ
Started Fighting: 17 Jun 2007
Realm: Goldenvale+East Kingdom
Unit: Omega Company
Favorite Fighting Styles: No gimmicks.
Serious.

I honestly believe the tape rule is worded the way it is specifically to allow tape to be used by knowledgeable foamsmiths while encouraging newbies not to use it and providing a rule that can be used to fail duct-tape-wrapped newbsticks without having to hit some poor back with it.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:18 pm 
Hero
Hero
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:50 pm
Posts: 1433
Location: St. George, UT
Started Fighting: 20 May 2009
Realm: An Tir Dearg - Realm Leader
Unit: War Wolves of An Tir Dearg
Favorite Fighting Styles: S&B, spear, longsword
Reverend wrote:
If we are going to leave it up to the hit test anyways, I see no need to keep this rule in any form.

I'm going to stand by my original view, 100% covered cannot be considered as "minimum" tape. Nor should we try to legislate what tapes can be used to completely cover it.

So, let's just remove the entire thing. If someone packs on the duct tape and it affects the hit test, then it fails. If they pack on the duct tape and it doesn't affect the hit test, then it passes.


+1

_________________
Remy the Wroth wrote:
Just don't call it boffing/boffering. That's not what we do. We fight. With swords. To the sorta-death. I can't stand it when someone says boffering. Plus is means sexin' in the UK.



RIP Surt, Adunakhor of Barad'dun
Image


Top
 OfflineProfile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
GuildWarsAlliance Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net. Modified by