1 Handed Green vs Armor

[Wisp]

Noticed a big thread on the Dagorhir board (which I had my account locked for some unknown reason today btw) regarding allowing 1 handed green weapons to pierce leather armor (metal is still no effect).

Major kudo's if that playtest happens and that rule gets passed. Any chance Belegarth will follow suite if it happens? In my opinion, this will open up a lot of options to the game that currently are not there (and personally my biggest complaint about Dag/Bel).

Will

[Arrakis]

Sounds like an interesting debate and possible rules change.

I would support single green being effective vs. chain, as well.

Were they talking about allowing them to do one point of damage to an armored area, or to do two points of damage, thus effectively bypassing the armor completely?

[varadin]

if i remember correctly Rausumea did this for a bit at there practice. Something with flails being green as well if i remember correctly. Since i dont see them doing it now i can just assume it didnt go well.

Really i think its kinda stupid. Too many people are running around with speed bats with greens on them as well just imagine the increase in stabbing tips just for the easy kill on leather.

Can't see it changing on the sure fact of the already leather wearers on the field getting rather upset about a nerf.

[Arrakis]

But how many people out there have been * for how long about the total unrealism of stabbing weapons being unable to do any damage vs. an armored opponent? It discounts many valid historical fighting styles and weakens others significantly.

And what's wrong with increasing the amount of stabbing and the number of stabbing tips that get built? Throw more minds at the problem of designing the Perfect Stabbing Tip and it's more likely we'll find it more quickly.


EDIT: If the proposal is to allow one-handed green stabs to do one point of damage to leather (or non-plate...) armor, how would that make a kill against a leather-wearer any easier than just hitting him twice?

[Wisp]

* indicates an altered rule for the proposal.

*5. Armor

5.1. General:

*5.1.1. There are two types of armor that provide different levels of protection.

*5.1.2. Each type of armor protects only the area it covers.

5.1.3. Helmets and neck armor protect from yellow/white weapon hits to the head and neck when worn on the head.

5.1.4. The front, back and sides of the torso are considered a single strike zone for armor coverage.

5.1.5. All armor within a strike zone counts as a single piece of armor no matter how many separate pieces of armor are actually present.

*5.1.6. Armor may not be concealed. It must remain noticeable to other players. You may wear a surcoat or tabard over the armor as long as the armor is noticeable from all sides.

5.1.7. The first hit from a blue weapon to an armored strike zone has no effect.

5.1.8. The second blue hit:

5.1.8.1. To an armored torso results in death.

5.1.8.2. To an armored limb results in loss of the limb.

*5.1.9. A one-handed green thrust has no effect on metal armor, even if previously struck with a blue weapon.

*5.1.10. Armor protection against blue weapon strikes is not eliminated due to a previous green or yellow weapon hit.

*5.1.11.1. Light armor does not offer protection against red weapons or green weapons.

*5.1.11.2. Metal armor does not offer protection against red weapons or two-hand green thrusts.

5.1.12. Rigid plastic safety equipment for knee and elbow protection is permitted but should be concealed under clothing. It does not count as armor.

5.1.13. No one in armor may initiate grappling.

5.1.14. Rigid armor including helmets must not protrude more than 0.5-inch from the body.

5.1.15. Rigid armor including helmets must have no points (must be penny round).

5.1.16. Rigid armor including helmets must have blunted edges.

5.1.17. Armor must not catch any appendages. Fingers should not catch in armor.

5.1.18. Armor must be passed by heralds from two separate realms, assuming an inter-realm event.

*5.2. Metal armor:

*5.2.1. Metal armor is any form of plate or chain made from iron, steel, bronze, brass, copper or titanium. Aluminum and other modern alloys are not allowed, with the exception of titanium.

5.2.2. The minimum thickness of non-plate metal armor is 16-gauge.

5.2.2.1. The minimum thickness of plate metal armor is 18-gauge.

5.2.3. The maximum thickness of metal armor is 1/8 inch.

5.2.4. Acceptable Standards for 4:1 European Weave Chain mail
(removed chart)

5.2.5. No metal knee or elbow armor with the exception of ring or chain mail.

5.2.6. Metal helms may only be constructed with 18- to 16-gauge. Helms may not have non-period grills. All other armor standards apply.

5.2.7. Any corners should be rounded to at least 1/2" radius.

*5.3. Light armor:

*5.3.1. Light armor is any armor that does not count as metal armor under rules section 5.2.Metal armor:

5.3.2. The minimum thickness for leather armor is 3/16 inch. The minimum thickness requirement can be achieved by layering several pieces of thin leather.

*5.3.3. Any Studded, Leather scaled, or Leather brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if 2/3 of the area is covered, and the studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2" apart.

5.4. Armor may not be constructed of plastic or other non-period materials.
--------------------

Personally, for a game that prides itself on KISS, it seems that it would be much easier to just say armor provides 1 pt of protection (sluff the shot one time for free, whatever you want to call it) across the board and wear what you like. Maybe give heavy armor 2 pts vs light armor 1. Something like that. I had a hell of a time trying to get straight how armor reacted when pierced with green, then hit with blue, etc. etc. etc...

[Kyrax]

Right now Dagorhir's just talking about it. Obviously any change to Armor rules is a big one, and one that should only be approached cautiously. So at least over in Dagorhir, I would not try to claim that the rule change is one thing or another. For now, most of the discussion in favor of such a proposal argues for treating one-handed stabs to leather as if the armor doesn't exist - it would go right through. So call it ignoring the armor, or in Belegarth terms counting as two hits to the armor. But that is their solution, and Belegarth could come up with their own way of looking at it.

Personally, I started in this game when only metal was armor, so I've always liked metal armor for the protection that it gives you in the game and in real life. I've got both plate torso armor and a chainmail hauberk, and if I'm to fight again I'll probably wear the plate for the protection it'll give to my repaired spine. But my support for this idea comes more from how it will empower spears and other long weapons against leather armor, than any benefit it'd give me as an armor wearer. As someone pointed out, the shield and short spear combo is one that isn't effective in Dagorhir and Belegarth because of how we handle one-handed stabs on armor. It would also be nice to see more of those weapons on the field as they were a very common historical combination.

[savetuba]

the spear was a very common weapon, one that is rarely seen on our fields. If such a rule change were to happen there would be an increase of spears as well as more metal armor on the field.

[Kyrax]

Rarely seen? At Belegarth? Really?

Sorry I missed meeting you at Chaos X, I heard a rumor that you were there. If you noticed me on the field, you might have seen me fighting with a borrowed spear. I used one in almost every field battle that I could borrow it from one of the Western Uruk Hai.

Spears aren't the first weapon choice for many folks, but for some of us, once you've tried one you almost can't turn down the chance to kill enemies at range. It's like archery, but with a little more up-close-and-personal kick - in the gut. Besides, a two-handed spear already goes through armor (i.e. two hits to it), so this is mostly to advantage the weapon-and-shield fighter more than spearmen.

[savetuba]

Wow, I was fighting with the western uruks that event(even attended their barreling). Then at chaos 11 I fought against them and got an arrow in the eye for "betraying" them. Last time I go eventing without a helmet.


Most of the events I have been at the number of spears is usually 1/9th of the population with shield users being the majority followed by dual weapons and archers.

I have fought with a spear for over 6 years now in every US biased group except SCA hard suit. And during that time I have rarely fought against other spear users. If such a rule encourages other people to pick up a spear and have fun then I'm all for it.

[SmileyX]

the way i see it with double greens is sorta like a red

both hands on the red and swingen it and u get a red

one hand and the hit would be considered a blue

so i think the same could be said with greens

because a one handed thrust is not as powerful as a two handed thrust

witch i think would go into the hole could this really pierce the armor with the force given

but thats the way i sees it

[The Great Gigsby]

Spear is definitely an acquired taste, but I don't think one handed stabs penetrating armor will make them a more popular choice, just a more potent one. Honestly, because I rely on the "pool-cue" shot so much, I tend to seek out unarmored targets more often which can be a hassle. I would definitely be for this ruling. Looking at the trinity:

From a safety standpoint, it's impact is insignificant; we would potentially see more stabby weapons show up on the battlefield.

From a gameplay standpoint it would give more balance to an underused, underappreciated, and (from my standpoint,) underpowered technique. An increase in stabbing weapons would only improve the quality of fighting. I would love to see the majority of weapons on the field able to stab, it's a fiercely effective technique that gets discredited because of safety issues.

And realistically, stabbing someone is one of the most historical and effective methods of killing their *. It still holds up to the test of time, whereas slashing has largely gone out of style.

IMO, the open cell stabbing tip nonsense needs to be heavily reviewed.

[Kyrax]

Most of the events I have been at the number of spears is usually 1/9th of the population with shield users being the majority followed by dual weapons and archers.

I have fought with a spear for over 6 years now in every US biased group except SCA hard suit. And during that time I have rarely fought against other spear users. If such a rule encourages other people to pick up a spear and have fun then I'm all for it.

I wouldn't go so far as 1/9th, but yeah sounds like we're not too far apart. Most of my fighting was back East, where I'm used to seeing spears against or alongside me.

Enough off-topic - back to the regular discussion.

[Physic]

My opinion is that stabs should just be doing blue damage and red damage when wielded 2 handed. All you have to do is make stabs not be able to break shields. This would make the rules much easier to explain and get rid of the retarded pierced limb rule.

[Arrakis]

My opinion is that stabs should just be doing blue damage and red damage when wielded 2 handed. All you have to do is make stabs not be able to break shields. This would make the rules much easier to explain and get rid of the retarded pierced limb rule.

QFT.

[savetuba]

My opinion is that stabs should just be doing blue damage and red damage when wielded 2 handed. All you have to do is make stabs not be able to break shields. This would make the rules much easier to explain and get rid of the retarded pierced limb rule.

That definitely makes it all KISS!

[Kyrian]

My opinion is that stabs should just be doing blue damage and red damage when wielded 2 handed. All you have to do is make stabs not be able to break shields. This would make the rules much easier to explain and get rid of the retarded pierced limb rule.

To me, that's an elegantly simple solution. I can also see it apply to arrow and javelin hits since you're using two hands to use bow and one to throw a javelin. Can anyone think of how it could be lawyered?

[Arrakis]

I consider myself pretty advanced in the most ancient and orderly art of rules lawyering, but, if written up consistently and correctly, I can't really see how such a ruling could be abused.

Rules changes (changed bits in bold)

3.2. Weapons
-3.2.1. Weapons which strike with sufficient force can score a hit and/or Injury to the Target Area.
-3.2.2. Weapons yield various amounts of damage according to the classification of the Weapon and the armor/damage status of the target.
--3.2.2.1. Class 1 (one-handed) Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area. Any Weapon swung with one hand no matter the size is a Class 1 Weapon, including equipment that qualifies as Class 2 Weaponry.
--3.2.2.2. Class 2 (two-handed) Weapons cause two hits of Injury to the Target Area.
--3.2.2.3. Class 3 (thrusting) Weapons wielded one-handed cause one hit of damage to a Target Area. Class 3 Weapons also cause two hits of damage when wielded two-handed against a Target Area.

3.4. Injury
-3.4.1. Effects of Injury:
--3.4.1.1. One or more hits of Injury to an unarmored Target Area disables that Target Area.
--3.4.1.2. Two hits of Injury to an Armored Target Area disable that Target Area.
--3.4.1.3. A disabled Body causes Death.
--3.4.1.4. A disabled Head causes Death.
--3.4.1.5. Two disabled limb Target Areas (Arms and/or Legs) cause Death. Limbs injured with Class 4 Weapons do not count towards this total.
-3.4.2. All Injury effects must be accurately portrayed and reported.
--3.4.2.1. Death - Lay down immediately. Do not move unless instructed by a Marshal.
--3.4.2.2. Disabled Arm - A disabled Arm may not hold anything. If the Arm is disabled by a Class 1 or 2 Weapon then place Arm behind back. If the Arm is disabled by a Class 3 or 4 Weapon, leave Arm dangling limply at side.
--3.4.2.3. Disabled Leg - kneel on ground with the non-injured Leg up.
-3.4.3. Subsequent hits to the same location:
--3.4.3.1. All subsequent strikes with Class 3 or 4 Weapon on the same Target Area previously injured only by a Class 3 or 4 Weapon are ignored.
--3.4.3.2. All subsequent strikes to an Arm disabled by a Class 1 or 2 weapon pass through to the Torso.
--3.4.3.3. All subsequent strikes to a Leg disabled by a Class 1, 2, or 3 weapon are ignored.


That's what the new rules would look like under the proposals I've heard so far. Notice that I took out that ignorant holdover clause about ignoring armor that was left over in the double green rules from how Dag handles armor. Yay streamlining!

[savetuba]

Hate to say it, but this thread should be moved to rules development to get more opinions on the matter.

[Arrakis]

That sounds like a plan. Since we're now discussing the development of rules. Heh.

Mod, plz move!

[Kyrian]

Done.

[Cyric]

so what would arrows and thrown javelins count as? would they count as reds? It wouldn't make any sense to get rid of pierced limbs for weapons, but not for missiles.

[Elebrim]

I would also suggest leaving it as-is. It allows the clumping of "swung" and "piercing" weapons into two functional groups, each with distinctions based on one or two hands. Ranged even falls into this distinction; with the exception of headshot-approval, it does the same thing as Double-Green.

I can't see how changing this rule makes things easier; as Cyric said, pierced limbs would still have to be dealt with for ranged purposes. In my opinion, it would force everyone to relearn the rules for no reason, and remove an aspect of realism (piercing vs. swung damage effects) that has been remarkably well integrated into the rules since I began fighting.

[Arrakis]

Elebrim, I haven't heard a convincing argument that a stab or thrust which incapacitates a limb won't kill you just as quickly (via blood loss) as a cut or slash that incapacitates a limb. Any incapacitating stab wound is going to sever as many or more blood vessels, muscles, and tendons as an incapacitating gash.

Personally, I don't mind pierced limbs, I mind that you can't die from them and that one-handed stabs from my swords or javelin don't do any damage if someone is wearing armor or, worse yet, do no damage to an armored target area that I've already struck with a blue weapon. So, if you'll read back through my rules revision, it still provides for pierced limbs, it just doesn't keep you from dieing from pierced limbs (excepting, as of the last revision I posted, javvies and arrows).

That said, sure, why not change Rule 3.4.1.5. to just say

"3.4.1.5 Two disabled limb Target Areas (Arms and/or Legs) cause Death."

and leave it at that? Now arrows, javs, spears, and sword tips can all send you one step closer to the grave, even if you're wearing armor.

Sounds to me like it would speed up combat just a hair and increase use of stabbing weapons (a consistently historically valid technique).

[Mekoot Rowan]

It seems alot like what you're trying to do is make armor more useless than it already is. Good steel plate is expensive. Fun to see on the field, but beyond the price range of many fighters. If there were a difference between "levels" of armor I think that the exact opposite reaction would take place and you would see less armor rather than more.

It really does seem like you're trying to fix something that really isn't broken.

I don't think these rules need changing.

[Oisin]

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is about the best way I can possibly think of to * things up in a really effective manner. Imagine if you didn't ever take your car in for maintenance, or go to the doctor, until something was really, seriously wrong . . . by that point, you're already ****.

I think that we do have at least one problem that I can think of, even if it isn't a very big one yet: minimum thickness, soft leather armor, and studded leather armors or leather and cloth brigandines that are even lighter and less restrictive. The stuff is crap that wouldn't stop a persistent butterknife, and yet we count it to the same degree as the really nice, thick hardened leathers and metal armors.

Sure, that can be followed up with the argument, "what about all the **** chainmail?", to which my reply is, they're carrying around 20 lbs of worthless crap, which makes up for the fact that it all but tears itself apart, whereas people wearing three layers of soft suede or a ninjabrig are carrying around roughly 3 pounds of worthless crap that does nothing to restrict your movement or flexibility.

[Physic]

It seems alot like what you're trying to do is make armor more useless than it already is. Good steel plate is expensive. Fun to see on the field, but beyond the price range of many fighters. If there were a difference between "levels" of armor I think that the exact opposite reaction would take place and you would see less armor rather than more.

It really does seem like you're trying to fix something that really isn't broken.

I don't think these rules need changing.

Of course the rules that are currently in place work. People would not be playing it otherwise. We can look at other organizations that have similar but much more complicated rules that also "work". The point is we should be constantly evaluating ourselves in all aspect of the game to see if we can make it a better game for everyone.

When it comes to armor I believe that a minority of the people wear the armor for advantage reasons. Most people wear armor for either wanting to look good, show off there crafting skills, or they want to represent a historical/fantasy characterization. Considering the small amount of stabbing weapons currently on the field and the reasons I listed they would not affect peoples choice in wearing armor.

More importantly I think making stabbing better would increase its use on the field and create more fighting elements to our game. Adding different shots and fighting techniques to Belegarth could also very well increase the need for armor.

[Cyric]

I think that the new stabby tips that edhellen is working on will go a long way towards re-incorporating stabbing techniques into fighting. Swords have long been slashing only since it's hard to make a safe, durable stabbing tip. I have one, and i do a lot more stabbing now, and i get a lot of kills because people just aren't ready for it. Once they become more common, people will start wearing body armor to protect against single handed stabs.

[Mekoot Rowan]

Considering the small amount of stabbing weapons currently on the field and the reasons I listed they would not affect peoples choice in wearing armor.

I believe that the amount of stabbing tips is tied more directly to their durability than to their ineffectiveness against armor. As Cyric points out, if the new edhellen stabbies are as good as we all hope they are then this would change itself.

I disagree with your assessment of armor being mostly for looks. I feel it's really about staying alive longer so you can have more fun by fighting more people. If anything it may be about 50-50 looks and longevity.

Also, what's so great about plate armor? There is alot of really nice looking leather gear out there. Check the Armory and look at some of Ender's amazing work.

I agree that we should always be evaluating our rules for possible improvements, but this isn't an improvement, it's just a complication.

[Arrakis]

So, if Edhellen's stabbies are good and become prolific, then everyone goes out and buys the cheapest leather or chain they can afford and now stabs don't work against 90+% of combatants (because what's the good in stabbing a limb when you know it'd be more effective to slash one and your stabs no longer do ANYTHING to the person's body) and stabbing falls by the wayside again, almost immediately.

And we're back where we are: Nearly no stabbing tips on the field (if they're never effective, why build them onto your weapons or pay the upcharge to buy them?) and more people have minimal-grade armor. I guess that's good for those among us who armorsmith on commission, but is it really that good for the sport?


If we want to truly increase the efficacy of stabbing, the only lasting, balanced way to do that is going to be to allow one-handed green strikes to do one point of damage to armored target areas.

Remember, I'm not arguing for instakills with one-hand greens, and personally I'm not arguing for stabs only dealing damage to leather or chain. My revision is simple: Green weapons do one point of damage to any (armored or unarmored) target area and do two points of damage when wielded two-handed.

[Mekoot Rowan]

I honestly don't think that this is going to change much. Even if there is a proliferation of stabbing tips, the simple expense of time, cost and effort will keep the amount of armor on the field relatively the same.

What you're talking about it just nerfing one kind of armor, and it's even less simple than you think. People with composite armors are going to now have to keep track of what parts are metal and which are leather.

You're essentially turning class one into class three for very little reason. If they do points of combat damage then shouldn't piercing count toward death? It just throws how the system works out of whack.

This is a complication that just gives armored people more to keep track of and gives them less for the time and/or money they spent getting armor.

Oisin-While 'ninja brig' is a little weak in my opinion, three layers of suede would not pass as armor due to "3.5. The minimum thickness for leather Armor is 3/16 inch. The minimum thickness requirement can be achieved by layering up to two pieces of thinner leather." The way I see it, if you can find a soft suede that is thick enough to pass in two layers then you probably tanned it yourself and deserve to wear it. Most suede is like 2-3 oz leather, meaning that even three layers would probably only be 9 oz. stacked and still not enough to pass.

[Arrakis]

What you're talking about it just nerfing one kind of armor, and it's even less simple than you think. People with composite armors are going to now have to keep track of what parts are metal and which are leather.

You're essentially turning class one into class three for very little reason. If they do points of combat damage then shouldn't piercing count toward death? It just throws how the system works out of whack.

Did you even read the thread?

I propose NOT "nerfing" just one kind of armor but increasing the effectiveness of stabbing across the board. No exemption for metal. If our plate can only enable a fighter to take one more blue shot than normal then there's no realism argument for allowing it to be proof against one-handed stabs, especially not when two-handed stabs blow it totally away.

Likewise, in another post of mine... Here, I'll just repost it, I need to include something I said later anyway:

Rules changes (changed bits in bold)

3.2. Weapons
-3.2.1. Weapons which strike with sufficient force can score a hit and/or Injury to the Target Area.
-3.2.2. Weapons yield various amounts of damage according to the classification of the Weapon and the armor/damage status of the target.
--3.2.2.1. Class 1 (one-handed) Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area. Any Weapon swung with one hand no matter the size is a Class 1 Weapon, including equipment that qualifies as Class 2 Weaponry.
--3.2.2.2. Class 2 (two-handed) Weapons cause two hits of Injury to the Target Area.
--3.2.2.3. Class 3 (thrusting) Weapons wielded one-handed cause one hit of damage to a Target Area. Class 3 Weapons also cause two hits of damage when wielded two-handed against a Target Area.

3.4. Injury
-3.4.1. Effects of Injury:
--3.4.1.1. One or more hits of Injury to an unarmored Target Area disables that Target Area.
--3.4.1.2. Two hits of Injury to an Armored Target Area disable that Target Area.
--3.4.1.3. A disabled Body causes Death.
--3.4.1.4. A disabled Head causes Death.
--3.4.1.5 Two disabled limb Target Areas (Arms and/or Legs) cause Death.
-3.4.2. All Injury effects must be accurately portrayed and reported.
--3.4.2.1. Death - Lay down immediately. Do not move unless instructed by a Marshal.
--3.4.2.2. Disabled Arm - A disabled Arm may not hold anything. If the Arm is disabled by a Class 1 or 2 Weapon then place Arm behind back. If the Arm is disabled by a Class 3 or 4 Weapon, leave Arm dangling limply at side.
--3.4.2.3. Disabled Leg - kneel on ground with the non-injured Leg up.
-3.4.3. Subsequent hits to the same location:
--3.4.3.1. All subsequent strikes with Class 3 or 4 Weapon on the same Target Area previously injured only by a Class 3 or 4 Weapon are ignored.
--3.4.3.2. All subsequent strikes to an Arm disabled by a Class 1 or 2 weapon pass through to the Torso.
--3.4.3.3. All subsequent strikes to a Leg disabled by a Class 1, 2, or 3 weapon are ignored.

[Mekoot Rowan]

Ok, I may have misread something, but I thought the original discussion was about this

allowing 1 handed green weapons to pierce leather armor (metal is still no effect).

. After that you (arrakis) said that you would support it also going through chain. After that there was some discussion of this encouraging people to build plate mail wherein the poster said that they thought it would look good.

Hence, I was under the impression that the one handed stab-throughs only applied to leather and chain.

Assuming that in its current form the proposed rule affects all armor, my qualms with it are still not dealt with.

The point remains that this almost entirely eliminates the differentiation between piercing and slashing, which I don't like.

Even if you're not nerfing one kind of armor then you're nerfing all of it and what I said about peoples' time, effort and funds to get armor is even more true.

This new understanding does make the proposed change less complicated, but I think it does it at the expense of a game aspect that there is nothing really wrong with.

Oisin, your medical analogy is a little bit off. What we're doing now is like a yearly physical, if your doctor didn't notice anything appreciably wrong with you, would he schedule you for surgery just for fun?

I understand where you're coming from, but disagree with where you're going. I just don't see why we need this change.

Just because I'm one of the few people here who is against this doesn't mean I should become some sort of pariah.

[Elebrim]

Down south, almost 75% of the weapons have stabbing tips. And the rules still work fine. The rules are functional as-is. I have been shanked more down here than I ever have been up north, and it's been a great learning experience; it changes the way you think about swinging angles and chains of shots, and searching for holes in armor to stab for is a challenge in and of itself.

While I am also curious as to Edhellen stabbies (heck, I'll probably buy one to test myself), why is it that their upcoming release suddenly demands a change in the rules? If they work, they can work within the rules as-is. As they have for years, and will continue to work.

[Arrakis]

"Down South" must mean a lot farther South than Nashville. Stabbing up here is rare enough that people still blink and ask "Is that green?" when I gank them from the front.

I started only a little less than a year ago and I've always felt that stabs were both underrepresented and underpowered. If a blue shot to an armored arm that is of sufficient force still does damage to the arm underneath, why shouldn't a stab that is of sufficient force do the same?

Too, the difference between stabbed and slashed limbs has only ever caused confusion and difficulty on the field, in my admittedly limited experience. I can't count the number of people who've called themselves dead after being stabbed in one leg, fighting for a while, then taking an arm shot or something. Likewise, since we portray stabbed legs the same as hacked legs, I've seen people arm-shot a legged fighter and figure that was that, turn, and get killed by the seemed-like-they-should-be-dead fighter.

In terms of realism, come on now. If a stab hits me that keeps me from using my arm, I guarantee I'm gushing as much blood as I would be if a slash had done the same.

The differentiation between stabbed limbs and slashed limbs adds nothing of value to the game, in my opinion. I just can't see why maintaining a needlessly confusion-causing and totally worthless (of no intrinsic value) rule would be of any use to anyone. I mean, unless you like being an all-limbs-stabbed trophy who gets to lie there for the next 15 minutes of the regen battle...

[Mekoot Rowan]

If a blue shot to an armored arm that is of sufficient force still does damage to the arm underneath, why shouldn't a stab that is of sufficient force do the same?

It does, but only if the armor has been slashed first. Or am I reading that wrong in the current rules?

Too, the difference between stabbed and slashed limbs has only ever caused confusion and difficulty on the field.

What I'm reading here is that people need to pay more attention to what's going on. If the person doesn't say they're dead, or fall to the ground, then they aren't dead and it's really your fault. If they call themselves dead and then get back up because they remembered that one leg/arm was pierced I would call that cheating. Once you are dead, you are dead (a few exceptions to this that I won't go into here).

In terms of realism, come on now. If a stab hits me that keeps me from using my arm, I guarantee I'm gushing as much blood as I would be if a slash had done the same.

From what I remember reading, pretty much the reverse of the way we play now would be more 'real.' So that piercing would count for death and slashing would not as limbs that are cut off will most often develop a solid clot at the end of the stump where moving muscles of a pierced limb wiill just cause the wound to keep breaking open. I have little formal training beyond first aid so someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong.

The differentiation between stabbed limbs and slashed limbs adds nothing of value to the game, in my opinion.

It seems that we have differing opinions on this key point. I feel like they add an extra challenge and dimension to the game which is fun and interesting.

[Arrakis]

One-handed green shots do no damage to an armored target area even if said target area has already been dealt damage by a blue strike.


Also, what challenge? The challenge of being unable to use one of the most common and effective historical combat techniques ever invented against 60+% of the people you see at events? The challenge of having to remember that that leg was stabbed, the other one was slashed, so you don't have to die yet?

And what extra dimension? Stabbing is too weak right now as a combat technique to add an extra dimension to the slashing-dominated combat on our fields. If it were un-nerfed by the rules changes in my last post, it would become a valid, viable thing to do in combat and truly add a new dimension to our combat.

Having to remember that a particular wound doesn't count towards death isn't an extra dimension; the proliferation of a vastly underused class of sword, dagger, and javelin/shortspear techniques is.

(PS: I was not being entirely facetious in my questioning regarding challenge and dimension. You clearly feel there is some of both of those to the rules as they now stand regarding stabbing and I am interested in hearing your position.)

[Mekoot Rowan]

Quite simply, the piercing rules do exactly the same thing as armor. They allow someone to fight just a little bit longer. Doing what they came to do just a little bit more.

I think you're a little off base with your comment about greens and armor. If you check the BoW section on armor you'll find it says nothing about class 3 strikes to armor. All it says is that armor confers an extra combat hit. This would seem to me to mean that once it takes that his, the armor is effectively destroyed, or rendered so damaged that it is no longer of any use as armor. This means that once it has taken a class 1 hit, the target area no longer counts as armored.

If there is another relevant rule can someone please quote it?

I think that this is one of those things that every realm figures out for itself and plays with as a house rule. If what you're saying is that it should be codified that class three kill against broken armor then I agree. However, changing class three damage to class two is ridiculous.

You'll still have to deal with piercing from arrows, so I fail to see the benefit in that way. If you lump projectiles in with the new rule then what you're saying is that people die instantly from getting shot in the extremities with arrows, which I don't believe for a second, having taken some very bad shots hunting and being forced to track animals down over miles of rough ground.

Also, I think you're going a little overboard when you say that you can't stab against 60% of people on a national field. I really doubt that many people have full armor, and if they do they don't wear it all day every day. A few do, but most ditch it unless it's some important scenario, like unit battles. If you're trying to attack a large group wearing armor then (ie the Uruk Hai) then I'm afraid you're just SOL if all you're planning on doing is stabbing them to death.

Is stabbing historically accurate? Of course it is, but the fact that you don't see it done has little or nothing to do with how it works against armor.

[Arrakis]

Rowan, every ruling I've ever seen on these boards regarding greens and previously-struck armor ruled in favor of a strict interpretation of the rules. That is, that an armored target area is always an armored target area and that said area has two points of "health". One-handed green shots never do damage to an armored target area, so even if an armored target area has taken one point of damage, it still cannot be damaged by a one-handed stab.

Check the standing rules for one-handed green weapons. You'll see what I mean. Armor doesn't "break", you just get to take extra damage before going down if you're wearing it.


Regarding my possible overestimation of people wearing armor on the field: There were a lot of people wearing leather chest pieces at Equinox, at least.

Also, I would argue that the fact that one-handed stabs do nothing to armor does have a fair amount to do with their lack on our field. If they at least did one point of damage to armor, like a blue weapon does, then there would be more incentive for people to deal with the maintenance requirements and more difficult build of green-tipped weapons.

[Kegg]

I think you're a little off base with your comment about greens and armor. If you check the BoW section on armor you'll find it says nothing about class 3 strikes to armor. All it says is that armor confers an extra combat hit. This would seem to me to mean that once it takes that his, the armor is effectively destroyed, or rendered so damaged that it is no longer of any use as armor. This means that once it has taken a class 1 hit, the target area no longer counts as armored.

If there is another relevant rule can someone please quote it?

Huh... actually there is an entire section on Class 3 Weapons and armor.


3.2.2.3. Class 3 (thrusting) Weapons wielded one-handed cause one hit of damage to an unarmored Target Area. Class 3 Weapons also cause two hits of damage when wielded two-handed against a Target Area, ignoring any Armor the Target Area may have. If the Target Area is armored, the Weapon must be wielded two-handed to cause damage to the Target Area. A one-handed strike causes no injury to an Armored Target Area.

No where in the rules does it say that armor is destroyed. Specifically it says.

3.3.1. Armor confers one additional hit to the Target Area covered by the Armor.

It does not say that armor takes the first hit, it does not say armor is destroyed. It says explicitly that area covered by armor gets one additional hit.

As the author of that sentence, it means exactly what it intended to say. It was not an error or sloppy wording.

You may ask why? Because that is the way the originator's of the game wished it to be. That's the way it was play-tested. That is the way it was adopted. The original reasoning is that armor lessened the blow causing damage, but that it was not incapacitating. The second blow caused additional damage, which cumulatively became incapacitating.

With the above said, I think one hand stabs should do one point of damage. Period, whether armored or not. Stabbing damage should equal swing damage. It was that way in the first draft of the BoW. I have used it in other rules sets since. Just lost a War Council vote when it was voted on.

[Mekoot Rowan]

Sigh...I guess I need to read closer.

So essentially kegg, what you're saying is that one stab wound to the chest, if the person was wearing armor, wouldn't necesarrily kill him. However two probably would.

I can see the reason in that. Would that apply to limbs as well? While I like the idea of this applying to the torso I feel like piercing should remain on the limbs. It would take an awful lot of stabs to stab someone's arm off.

[Arrakis]

Well said, Kegg. I didn't know that stabbing was as viable as slashing in the first draft of the BoW. I learn something new every day!

Rowan, my upper arm is 13" in circumference as measured by a measuring tape I have on hand (your results may be much bigger around...). Assuming my arm is circular in cross-section at that point (which it isn't, and the circular assumption actually operates against my argument here), that makes my arm 13/pi =4.13" in diameter. Assuming a 6" deep thrust by a sword with a tip that is, be conservative and call it 3/4" wide at a point 6" back from the tip, two thrusts near one another would leave 2.6 inches of undamaged diameter, presuming the thrusts were clean, straight, and withdrawn without any side-to-side tearing motion.

In other words, a pair of thrusts will cut your arm halfway off, at least. And that's just by diameter. If you include that the thrusts are likely to be centrally localized for them not to be glancing blows, and calculate severed area, you end up with larger percents of tissue detached than remaining attached.

Too, It's doubtful in the extreme that two good whacks from a shortsword will cut your arm off if you're wearing armor.


It's about game balance and playability. Stabs are needlessly underpowered right now. Why not give them at least near-parity with blue weapons?

[Elebrim]

Again I ask, why a rules change? The current rules are playable and safe. Realism with regards to armor function is also more or less accurate; chainmail physics are designed to protect more effectively against piercing-type strikes than slashes, and plate armor also prevents most weak stabs. Leather is tough enough to take initial hits, but repeated strikes cut through. More powerful thrusts can still break through gaps in all types, hence our rules distinction between double and single green.

Making stabs do the equivalent of slashing damage changes the fundamental balance of the game. It would definitely affect playability and safety, as stabbing tips break down much more quickly if improperly cared for or put under extreme stress. Realism vs. armor would definitely be altered. Is that really necessary?

[Arrakis]

Elebrim, chainmaille physics state that slashing damage does almost no damage to flesh beneath the armor while stabs do nearly 100% of their initial damage.

IAAME (I Am A Mechanical Engineer)


It sounds like there's a significant portion of the the Belegarth community that would support playtesting the rules revisions outlined in my last post that basically allows green weapons to do one point of damage to armored target areas. How should we go about playtesting this?

[Mekoot Rowan]

Rowan, my upper arm is 13" in circumference as measured by a measuring tape I have on hand (your results may be much bigger around...). Assuming my arm is circular in cross-section at that point (which it isn't, and the circular assumption actually operates against my argument here), that makes my arm 13/pi =4.13" in diameter. Assuming a 6" deep thrust by a sword with a tip that is, be conservative and call it 3/4" wide at a point 6" back from the tip, two thrusts near one another would leave 2.6 inches of undamaged diameter, presuming the thrusts were clean, straight, and withdrawn without any side-to-side tearing motion.

Why not give them at least near-parity with blue weapons?

I didn't think I'd have cause to say this, but you're thinking too much like an engineer. You're making the assumption that two stabs are going to happen perfectly legthwise. While this may be entirely possible for a fencing master, it is well outside the range of the average fighter.

Incapacitating the arm? Hell yes. Causing death? I don't think so.

While two shortsword hacks probably wouldn't take off an arm either, I would think they would have a higher probabiliity. It seems alot like this was a playability ruling when it was made rather than realism.

Also, on the chainmaile side of things, doesn't it make a big difference to the physics if the maile rings are welded so that they won't pulll apart. I'm pretty sure I watch a history tech show on the H channel that showed welded links standing up to an arrow and allowing only about 1" of penetration on the pointed tip.

[Oisin]

Arrakis--are you telling me that there is a ME formula relating the type of attack delivered with a sword and the amount and type of actual biological damage dealt? I rather doubt it, and if such a thing does exist, it must have some severe limitations.

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge as a student of (sometimes experimental) history and archaeology*:

*Please note that most of what follows is valid until about the first half of the 12th century, after which, my knowledge breaks off quite a bit.

As Arrakis noted, Chainmail is nearly completely proof against slashing attacks, this is documentable in any number of sources, including modern accounts of chainmail used as protection by butchers, shark-divers, etc.

Welded (or more often riveted) rings of strong gauge backed by a thick gambeson provide much better protection against piercing blows (stabs froms a sword or spear, a shot from an arrow) than popular opinion would hold.

At most angles, blows are unlikely to gain purchase in the links, and are likely to skip off, or at most tear a few links and then tangle in the mesh.

At near-perpendicular angles, the question must take into account a number of factors: the quality of the individual maille garment in question, the force of the blow and the momentum of the object delivering it, and the design of the weapon. Maille does do a somewhat decent job of dispersing impact energy, and combined with a gambeson, is likely to stop piecing attacks from weapons not designed primarily to engage armored opponents, including most swords and arrows of the time. Spears, since they allow the wielder to concentrate a very large amount of energy and momentum into their attack, would probably do a very effective job of piercing maille, as would thin-bladed daggers.

Unless you have a sword specificially designed to attack an armored opponent, which did not happen until later, you are going to have a very hard time actually piercing maille, and thus, a number of special techniques were adopted, including methods for attacking the vulnerable areas of the maille, such as the armpits, or knocking the person over and then using the leverage provided by the ground and the full and considerable weight of your body plus probably your own armor to force your sword through. Also, daggers and spears.

Archery is not all that effective at piercing maille unless exceptionally powerful bows, and/or arrows specifically designed to penetrate armor, are employed, or the shot is fired from close range. To use a well-known example, William's archery bombardment of the Saxon positions at the battle of Hastings produced very few casualties--traditional lore holds that Harold himself was pierced through the eye and killed, but even if that is true (and many historians would argue against), that's bad luck not pierced maille. Crossbows and English/Welsh longbows would do a * good job of piercing armor, but they are both weapons systems (and in the case of the longbow, an entire social system) optimized to attack armored targets. Javelins would probably do a much better job of piercing maille due to their higher mass (and small head in the case of Roman pila, which would have often been used against mailled opponents), but at a much shorter range. There are contemporary accounts of knights on Crusade who were hit many times in their armor by arrows without receiving more than superficial wounds, even though the arrow in many cases penetrated the maille and became entangled, so that the knights had to stop at times and remove the arrows from their armor if they became too many.

[Arrakis]

I think we're getting somewhat off-topic here, but...

How often do you see riveted or welded maille on our fields? Now, how often do you see butted maille?

See my point? A blade with a strong taper and a stiff point would rip apart most of the chain on the field with one thrust. I can draw you some applied force/stress-strain diagrams next event we both end up at, if you want. It's just mechanics that if you put a tapering point into a small hole and press, large amounts of force will be exerted against the walls of the ring, separating it at it's weakest point (often right outside of the weld-pool area for a weld, the rivet or around the rivet for riveted, or at the butt for butted).

Also, historically, people died from thrusting wounds a lot more often than from slashing wounds. That's why stabbing was outlawed in most tournaments.



Anyway, I just think the game would be simpler and more playable without losing any real value vs. the value gained by bringing stabbing up to par with slashing.

[Oisin]

Lol, to be honest, most butted chain wouldn't even stop stiff cuts for long, the stuff is crap that tears itself apart with its own weight. To answer your question, though, I know of about 4 or 5 people who have riveted chain, including myself. I understand that a thrust is much more effective against chainmail, but it's not a 100% damage transfer as you stated in your above post, and you still have to get a really good hit to even penetrate the chain at all.

The pattern of chainmail is such that while it is fairly easy to break a single link, you probably have to break more than one to allow most swords or arrows to penetrate far enough to do real damage, which is part of what makes daggers and bodkin arrows so deadly: they can slip fully through the hole created by a single broken link, whereas a broadhead arrow or most swords cannot pass through a single broken link far enough to penetrate the gambeson and then do any real damage to the flesh underneath.

And yeah, I know, you can add gambesons to the list of things that nobody wears in Belegarth, but hey . . .

[Mekoot Rowan]

Ok, regardless of how armor works from a technical standpoint, I don't think we should break up the armor classes any more than they already are. No matter what happens, all armor can take a single combat hit before becoming ineffective.

If there were a way to keep the current rules, but allow stabs to go through armor that had taken a combat hit I would support that. I don't feel that class 3 and class 1 should be merged like you're proposing Arrakis.

Piercing is adds dimension to the game and should be kept.

[savetuba]

so if someone already took a blue hit how does someone like me with a spear know i can one hand stab to that location? It would be easier to see metal than stop and ask and hope I'm not killed for asking.

[Arrakis]

Weapons are classed for three reasons:

1. Damage
2. Checking (safety)
3. Target Areas

I AM NOT SUPPORTING A MERGER OF ONE HANDED STABS INTO CLASS 1.

People keep putting those words in my mouth and it is NOT what I am saying. Class 1 is swung and must be checked as such (see 2 above). Class 3 is stabbing and must be checked as such (see 2 again). We don't say that a two-handed green stab counts as a red hit except on shields; we say it does two points of damage.

So, since, as the rules are written for armor and for damage, it would be impossible (or absurdly difficult) to write a rule to allow green weapons, wielded in one hand, to do damage to an armored target area only on the condition that the target area in question had first been struck by a blue weapon, why, Rowan, do you not want to see greens capable of keeping up with blue weapons?

I just don't see what dimension it adds to the game. If we want people to live longer, like you seemed to be arguing in your last post, why not make it three limbs is death instead of two? Hell, why not add one point of armor for every piece of clothing covering the target area; that would let people fight way longer!


I just feel like it would add more variety to our combat to remove this silly restriction on stabbing that it sounds like many well-respected "founding fathers" didn't want in the game in the first place.