Belegarth
http://board.belegarth.com/

shield breakers
http://board.belegarth.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=18973
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Izanaki [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  shield breakers

Shield breakers might wanna wear a shield.
**Trying a new format for how i post ideas so then you can immediately tell what its about.

For shield breakers that have problems with people that get body shots on them i would suggest that you take a shield of any kind, place a shoulder strap on it, and then secure it around your neck so then the shield hangs down infront of you on your chest.

This helps defend against body shots, etc, thus only leaving you open to shots to the arm, but armor can help, and same with helms to fend off arrow shots.

Author:  Orso, [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

i personally never would hang it around my neck or infront of my body.
Now puting it on my back with two straps like a backpack would be someing i would consider.

Author:  Alabraxis [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

why not just an oversized buckler on your lead arm? That way if it looks like they're coming in for a body shot you can shift your weight into a shield check.

Author:  Digoza [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:01 am ]
Post subject: 

Joyous has toyed with the idea of getting a larger, towerish type shield and putting two shoulder straps on it to wear "back-pack" style for when he fights red. Unfortunately, he hasn't gotten to try it yet, since he hasn't had the time (or free-time of others that are fluent in weapons/shield building) to build it yet. But from what I gathered, it'd be a pretty good thing to do. I see spear users that have shields on their backs all the time; when I arch I wear a shield on my back, as does Kyrian. So, I don't see why it would be any different for a red user, aside from the fact the the muscle/body movement is way different.

but as for wearing one around my neck? no, I'd be too worried about breaking my neck or being choked somehow.

Author:  Chicken [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:43 am ]
Post subject: 

I don't red much, but I spear all the time and I love my buckler. My lead arm tends to be my enemies' main target, because it's the first thing that comes into their range. Also, since it's on their weapon side and mobile, it's well situated to block all the lazy, easy shots that people tend to throw when they close in, not realizing that I can actively block pretty effectively. It also shadows my torso from archers if I place it right, and since I can move it it can save me from headshots too.

And, of course, it doesn't hinder me in the slightest, unlike a shield hanging off my neck would.

It's certainly an appealing notion to have a shield cover your front torso, but I'd take the mobility and arm cover of a buckler over it any day. Plus, it wouldn't provide any cover to your sides and back, which are very open targets to a closing opponent anyway.

Author:  Izanaki [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

yeah, it does seem better to just use a buckler or something, the whole wearing a shield on your torso thing was more of an experimental idea that i figured would be a good idea to post and maybe address.

I personally wouldnt do it though since i've already build a spear and buckler, and i dont feel like converting my strap shield into something i can wear on my front. Maybe i'd do something to hold it onto my back but not at this time since im pretty much sword/board unless i dont have a shield and then im florentine.

Author:  Esalvapar [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

2.2.1. Shields and Bucklers are rigid objects that are padded on the front and sides, and are equipped with handles or straps. A Shield may not be constructed in a manner that would confer the advantage of unbreakable armor.

I've always thought that rule was meant to prevent this, but it seems otherwise. Just what does this rule mean, if not that?

Author:  Black Cat [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

The rule is there so that you can't have a worn shield that wraps around your body, protecting you from all sides.

Author:  Izanaki [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

good point, i should have remembered to check the rules, i guess i figured since it works on the back that it would work on the front.

Author:  Black Cat [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

It still would. The point I am bringing up is that you can't have a body shield that protects you in the front, back, and sides simultaneously.

Author:  Elerosse [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't know if its explicitly against the rules, but I doubt you could get it passed. It would still be broken after two red hits, and therefore fine under the no unbreakable armor rule.

Author:  Esalvapar [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 

All shields can be broken with two red hits, however. I believe the rule is directed for all other weapons, that would not be able to bypass the shield. No matter how many times you would get hit with a blue weapon in the back, your "armor" wouldn't break.
It seems to me that the rule is meant to keep shields mobile, and armor stationary.

Author:  savetuba [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:11 am ]
Post subject: 

Jikogu wrote:
No matter how many times you would get hit with a blue weapon in the back, your "armor" wouldn't break.


EXACTLY!

That is why I wear a back shield. While glaiving I have people rush me all the time thinking I'm an easy kill. My def against that is the shield on my back and the dagger hanging from my neck. Most will start back pedeling trying to block and reach for thier side arm. I take a few steps back only to stop and rush them. Closing the distance between the fighter and me I use the fighter's shield as front armor. keeping my arms tucked in forces the attacker to aim for my legs. However, I have a few seconds to either push his shield out of the way and green him in the chest, or grapple him/her and green him/her in the back.

A shield on your back forces a lot of wrap shot fighters to try something new. And ussually when someone has to try something new it takes them awhile to pull it off.

Author:  Dabbanoth [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:23 am ]
Post subject: 

i wouldnt wear one on my chest, for lack of mobility, but i would totally do a teenage-mutant-ninja-sheild on the back

Author:  maverick_stormcrow [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Shield

My red sword and I fight quite often, however, I never thought of trying a shield on my back. Has anyone had success with this?

Author:  Georghiu Leonte [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:15 am ]
Post subject: 

Sheilds on the back are popular in the realm I fight in..granted its a fairly small realm, but I see very few disadvantages for having a shield on your back, and alot of advantages.

Author:  graavish [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:52 am ]
Post subject: 

i've seen mekoot davit go with this but instead of a red sword go flourentine. he adds alot of complex spining so that unless he is attacking he always presents his back you so that you hit shield. the only thing about the spins is that since his legs are open he has to put you into a very akward positon to not hit his legs.

i imagine that much the same tacit could be applied to red swords and back shield

Author:  Forkbeard [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

I use a pretty big buckler, I think it's about 18 or 20" round. It has some notches cut out of it though. I always use it with any red. It's the only way to go if you plan on taking on every S&B guy you run across.
I have a 36" round sheild with a SINGLE strap that I wear on my back sometimes. It block all sorts of **** simply becasue it sticks out on the sides and above my shoulders a little.
Sheilds with back pack straps, however, should be banned. I can't think of any more blatant violation of any rule on the field. They aren't mideval at all.
FB

Author:  savetuba [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Forkbeard wrote:
Sheilds with back pack straps, however, should be banned. I can't think of any more blatant violation of any rule on the field. They aren't mideval at all.


So how would an army off several thousand carry their shields on the march when horses were reserved for royalty or food? I'm sure they would put them on their back.

Author:  Georghiu Leonte [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 

It seems to me your shield, historically would be a huge part of your 'back pack'. Think about it for a second. You have something that would keep water off of anything you were carrying on a march, you have something that if you stopped the march for whatever reason, could easily recline against a tree and let you get some shut eye. I can't help but think a shield would be one of the most important things on a march, and one of the most useful items to have strapped to your back. But meh. This is based off of assumptions..I am pretty sure however I have read something on the shield serving as backpack idea..but where? When? No idea.

Author:  V-Hil [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:59 am ]
Post subject: 

I think Forkbeard is implying it's use as a backpack in combat, not on the march. I can envision and have read about mounted soldiers/archers carrying their shield on their backs, but only have ever heard of an archer keeping it their when the **** hit the fan.

Author:  Forkbeard [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm talking about the sheilds I have seen that have straps, from a nylon hiking style backpack, attached to them so the weilder can wear the sheild like a backpack. This is chessy. THis sheild is costructed to be worn as armor.
History, however has several examples of sheild worn on the back by a single strap worn diagonaly across the chest, while still pretty lame with our lightweight sheilds, this is and should always be within the rules.
I like to see someone balance thier sheild on the outside of their packpack full of ****. And then fight.
And we're not talking about marching, we're talking about running around the field. If we could make marching around and **** part of this game I'd be in better shape.
FB

Author:  GvK [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:20 am ]
Post subject: 

I agree with Forkbeard.

Author:  Georghiu Leonte [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:13 am ]
Post subject: 

I agree it might be creative interpretation of the rules..but then if were * about how many straps..then we open up a bigger can of worms because it isn't 'historically accurate' to have a shield strapped on the back with multiple straps.

My solution? If someone is cheesy..I have no problem knocking someone around if they have a shield on their back. Shield kicks..shield chekcs..whatever. I make sure im not going full tilt..because you could really hurt someone...but if i see a shield I don't see why you shouldn't give it a nice push just because its not on their front. They will learn or they will get hurt. I will feel slightly bad for a half second if someone gets hurt from getting shoved/kicked from the back..but then I will realize this is a game..the rules involve manuplation of a shield with your foot and or body so whats the difference?

Author:  savetuba [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Georghiu Leonte wrote:
I have no problem knocking someone around if they have a shield on their back. Shield kicks..shield chekcs..whatever. I make sure im not going full tilt..because you could really hurt someone...but if i see a shield I don't see why you shouldn't give it a nice push just because its not on their front.

...the rules involve manuplation of a shield with your foot and or body so whats the difference?


BoW wrote:
3.5.4.3. A person may not Bash or Check an opponent's rear quadrant.

Author:  Skorr [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

That refers to bashing or checking someone with your shield.

But Georghiu, "hurt" is never a part of the game.

Author:  Georghiu Leonte [ Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Bleh..alright I was being a little too blunt. I don't do things unsafe. I have never been stopped by a player or a herald.

Bash is a relative term. To me Bash or Check implies full tilt. I am not a herald and I think Heralds would have trouble with this rule, but maybe I am wrong. You bash or check someone (by my definition) in an attempt to knock them down. I 'bash' (when not going full tilt, against a rear shield) in an attempt to push. Is it unsafe? Thats a herald's job to call. If they ask me/tell me to stop I will. Has it happened yet? No. Will I stop if they ask me to. Yes. But Bash and Check are pretty subjective.

3.5.4.1. A Shield Bash is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent from a distance further than two steps away.
3.5.4.2. A Shield Check is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent starting from a distance less than two steps away

If a bash and check are defined by distance..fine..but Distance X Mass X Acceleration = Meaningless ****. So to me these definitions assume someone is moving with the intention of knocking someone over..or in my terminology full tilt. (If I am wrong I would love to be corrected..because that would mean rear shields would be pointless and unbalance the game)

Also:

3.5.4.3. A person may not Bash or Check an opponent's rear quadrant. Shield pushing or incidental contact in an opponent?s rear quadrant is allowed.

Perhaps I did not speak clearly with my post, for that I apologize. I should of defined it as pushing. But then again this comes to a Heralds disgression. Does pushing imply you press one shield against another and then push. Or push forward, then make contact and continue to push? It seems like a cass of BOW being ambiguous to allow the Heralds to run the game, which I think is a good thing.


As far as saying 'hurt'. You are correct I shouldn't of uses that word, as it does reflect that this game is extremely unsafe and its players aren't safety minded. That is definitely not me thinking a post through. However as I said previously, I fight safely..and if ever I am on the field with a herald and he has a concern I would be happy to hear it. I do not want to 'hurt' people. However, in a full contact game (relatively so) people are going to get pushed around and hit with swords. That is part of this game. To imply getting hit with a foam sword isn't 'hurt' is simply wrong. The swords don't feel delightful, or else we would allow a head as a target.

I apologize for the wording of my previous post. I agree this game should be safety minded to an extent. People shouldn't try to hurt people, or knowingly flex the rules to allow people to get hurt. At the same time, you see an opening and you swing. You see a shield at the front and you bash. You see a shield on the back and you 'push' (as opposed to my previous terminology). People will get hurt. Play safe, or leave the field. I play safe.

Pushing someone from a rear shield will get people killed in game, which could 'hurt' them. A hopefully hurt their pride enough they realize one of two things. A) They should be more aware of who's behind them, or B) Hanging a shield on your back does not mean you can ignore the fact you have a giant blind spot, your back.

Author:  Forkbeard [ Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Georghin, First let me say that I fully understand your slip of the tounge(so to speak) about "hurting" people. I say the same type of insensitive **** all the time. I get in trouble for it, also.
But this is our automatic reaction to people coming as close to cheating us at a game we love and feel we understand.
This is why I feel that there are more than a few cheesy things in this game the we should get rid of. We see them and automaticly, the first thing that comes to mind is, "Kick 'em in the back. Hurt 'em a little and they'll see that's a stupid thing to do." We always act like grown ups an avoid doing these violent and illeagal things, but the instict is there.
I wonder we shouldn't steamline our equipment creation process and get rid of a couple extra cheesy things.
Probly never happen, I know this so please don't waste your time telling me. This is only an example of why I think the way I do.
FB

Author:  Forkbeard [ Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:30 am ]
Post subject: 

I also realized I've de-railed this debate, somewhat.
Red's and what to use with them to make you more effective.
I already said I think a buckler is a great way to go. Make them all foam. Cored buckers a goofy feeling on the arm. I make mine from solid closed cell. Yes I feel it should only be worth one red hit, but sadly that ain't the game I'm playing.
I also think if your gonna be a truly versitile red fighter, you need a sidearm that you can draw and put away very quickly and without looking at what your doing. This really only comes into play if your red is too big to be used in one hand. When rushed, I drop the back hand on my glaive and hold it verticaly while drawing the sidearm with the now free back hand. With my arm holding the glaive(and wearing the buckler) blocking most everything, I'm free to abuse my opponent at will. This seems to open up alot of oportunites for arm and back shots on the rusher. If you DON'T kill them, you need to be able to put away the sidearm again so your ready for another red hit to his sheild.
FB

Author:  Raccoon [ Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:18 am ]
Post subject: 

If your gonna fight with any style that uses up both hands (red, arching, florentine, etc...) you should definately use a backshield or a buckler. Since there is no style that can't have a shield mixed in, if you're being serious then you should be using one. If made right neither should really hinder you in any way.
Just remember
Don't take the field, before you grab a shield.

Author:  Georghiu Leonte [ Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:25 am ]
Post subject: 

I agree whole heartedly with a sidearm..or two. It seems silly to me that the current style of play seems to be running out on the field with only the weapons you can carry and no sheaths, nothing. In playing this sport (and others like it) I can't help but feel its unrealistic..and well, it has no real versatility.

Yes a few extra weapons do weigh you down, but enough that ti matters, and gets in your way if you efficently sheath them? Heck no.

I am still gathering the weapons I want to make. I have two red axes, I am going to remake one as a sword, hopefully a one handed red..I have two blues..but next I really want to make short, efficent sidearm weapons so I can be more versatile. Not just because the usefullness in game, but because its totally unrealistic and laughable to think a soldier only had a sword (or two) and a shield. I mean what did he cut his meat with when he was eating!? Every soldier at least had an additional knife on his person, if not a small axe or other utility based weapon.

Author:  Forkbeard [ Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've been working on a decent backsheath for my red sword for the last year. The last one I made actually works, just not with a sword with a stabbing tip. It shrunk a little at the end of the process. The next try will be perfect and I'l post all about how I did it.
I really like using the red one the back trick when arching. I wear the buckler, which is kind of hard to get used to. When people decide to "rush the archer" I turn into a homicidal maniac with a red sword and they run away.
I have always been obsessed with carrying around a ton of gear. But I'm big as a **** truck. I can hual around some stuff.
FB

Author:  Georghiu Leonte [ Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:16 am ]
Post subject: 

I am decent sized..but I too have had that obsession. I have alot of sketches of how I want my sheaths to work...

As far as style..I guess thats the reason I like many weapons..I like to be flexable. I want to have a polearm, but the moment someone gets through it, has a weapon to swing at them before they finish congratulating themselves for getting around a polearm.

Author:  Forkbeard [ Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Only a rare few people have what it takes to try to grab my glaive. I love it when they do.
The current backsheath is made of hard leather. Like I said, it's too tight for a stabby, so it's not working to my liking, but I figured out the trick. I made it with the smothe side of the leather on the INSIDE. The cloth weapon cover slides right out of it like **** through a goose.
I also hradend the whole thing and shaped it to fit(just to fit the wrong sword). It's only riveted about 2/3 of the way up the seam. The top third the seam is open, but the hardend leather keeps it together. This lets the sword flex it's way out when I draw it over my shoulder. It is a red sword, after all.
The next attempt, I think this will be backsheath version 6 or so, is going to be made much biger than this one. Loosy-goosy. But sitll hard leather and shaped corectly. I'm going for a really fast draw, or nothing at all.
FB

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/