Grabbing the Chain of a Flail?

[Sir Anastasia]

I got into an argument with a person on the field about this one:

I know its illegal to grab the striking surface of a weapon, but what about the chain of a flail-not the head, not the shaft...

Personally, I think its a bad idea. What do you guys think? Also, IF this is explicitly outlined in the BOW, please include rule # whether legal or not. Thanks

Anastasia of Chamonix

[Dabbanoth]

Its a bad idea, but its not Illegal, as it isnt striking surface.

But if you grab my flail chain, i wont feel bad sheild edging you, its not illegal just a * thing to do. Remember a loophole in the roles does not give anyone the right to be a *.

[Theros the Large]

Grabbing a flail by the chain is not expressly forbidden in the rules. That being said it is an extraordinaily bad idea to perform in reality. Almost every time I have seen an action like this it ends in an angry grapple, a broken weapon and harsh words.

It's a given that weapons get broken on the field but this is really the same as if someone grabbed your sword by the flats and twisted off the blade. Not really a cool thing to do, agreed?

The best thing to do is NOT grab the flail and just block it with your shield or your weapon hand and proceed with the fight as usual.

[Arrakis]

I wouldn't grab a chain, to be sure, but if one were to wrap around my arm, I would feel no compunctions against jerking said flail out of my opponent's hand in that manner. It's a risk you run fighting with a flail with a long chain.

[Davit]

The easiest way to deal with this is to have him provide you an example of when he/she could grab a flail chain and not have the ball hit his hand. I personally think it is possible, but so unlikely that he shouldn't do it without taking the limb.

[bo1]

agreed, it is so unlikely that i don't think it is wirth discussing. the haft of the flail is open for grapple, with minimal confusion about hits taken or not.

[debuenzo]

his hand would be on a weapon before the strike landed, so the shot wouldn't count

[Davit]

As a hearld I would tell the person to take the arm, because you can't prove to me that the ball didn't hit your hand before the chain.

[JoeMick]

his hand would be on a weapon before the strike landed, so the shot wouldn't count

Huh? where does it say anything like that? Any time i have seen or been part of a grapple if the shot still connects well you take it.

[debuenzo]

the rules say a hand on a weapon or shield is part of that weapon or shield

if the person grabbed the chain prior to the head hitting his hand or wrist, the shot would not be valid

as a herald, i dont think you should call shots on "that was highly unlikely that you didnt get hit first"
perhaps a safety issue w/ tearing up a weapon, but not what you suggest

[Sir Anastasia]

I didn't think whether the head of the flail connected even mattered. If I grabbed the blade of his weapon-I lose the hand, whether or not he's swinging. If I grab a handle-my hand is fine. This question is: 1) whether the chain is considered blade or handle. 2) If realistically you could grab a 1" chain (in this instance) without touching the ball/blade. 3) If you can, is there a reason to forbid it due to safety concerns/ concerns regarding damage to the weapon.

I have already decided to ban this in my realm for the following reasons:

1) In this instance, the chain is covered in cloth-looks like a blade, so keep it super simple and say its part of the blade (playability).
2) It's really hard to grab a chain without touching the ball and losing the limb (realism).
3) I don't want all the flails broken this way (safety/weapon damage).

-Anastasia of Chamonix

[Elebrim]

As a hearld I would tell the person to take the arm, because you can't prove to me that the ball didn't hit your hand before the chain.

I'm not quite following your logic there...

[Mercer]

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged. These rules are intentionally sparse to allow for ease of use. The Marshal, according to these rules, and medieval foam combat precedent, settles all disputes.

Covers the whole she-bang.

[Elebrim]

Right, I got that part. I'm just trying to see where grabbing a non-striking surface of a weapon is considered "creative interpretation of the rules." Would it be hard? Heck yes. But would it be legal despite the risks involved? Also heck yes.

[Mercer]

In the reality of grabbing a flail, it would be successful up until the point the head of it came around and smashed your hand or forearm to flinders. Realism - Fail.

Grabbing a flail chain before it hits you would be virtually impossible for either side of the equation to agree on, and would slow down play by the inevitable shouting match that would ensue. Playability - Fail.

Grabbing at a flail chain invites damage to the weapon, either the head or the rope "dingleberries", thereby possibly causing an unsafe weapon mid-battle. Safety - Conditional Fail.

Yes, this is interpreting creatively. The intent behind "hand on weapon" is to protect the hand wielding it, not the hand garbbing at or near a striking surface. Yes, this is a stupid, unrealistic, cheeseball tactic. It might work with your friends or those of like minds to ninja-esque shenanigans, but it won't fly overall. The first time it breaks someone's weapon, expect to get beaten with the core.

[Elebrim]

I acknowledge what you're trying to do, but in summary what you just said was akin to "Well, it's near impossible, so we'll call death if someone pulls it off." Functionally, it's the same thing as calling someone dead because they grabbed the courtesy padding behind the head of an opponent's spear because "Well, there is a high probability that the spear head should have stabbed them, so obviously they must be dead."

And I'm not entirely sure I buy the weapon-safety excuse. Bringing any weapon onto the field invites damage to that weapon, and we've all been there for those fun moments when a blade flies off of the fiberglass core or the ball of a flail flies off and leaves only the handle behind. I have seen flail chains get caught over shield edges and yanked on incredibly hard; why not call the shieldmen that yank on flail chains dead?

Yes, grabbing the flail chain is risky, but by our rules there is nothing wrong with it. If it is actually done without violating any other rules then why punish the person who succeeded in doing so? Is preemptive death-calling for a successful, difficult tactic really an effective or fair heralding strategy?

[Mercer]

You're either skipping it, or choosing to ignore it; realism is still a valid point in the game, and it fails on that.

There's a reason why the rule I quoted is there: so that things like this won't be read "between the rules" and result in bullcrap on the field.

Also, by your reasoning, I could grab any weapon you bring on the field (whether doing so "kills" me or not) and twist it off the core, and it's perfectly fine, because you brought it on the field. Again, that's bullcrap, and you know it. Knowingly engaging in activities that have a high probability of rendering a weapon immediately unsafe is not TECHNICALLY illegal, but it should get you yanked.

I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you anymore; I've laid out exactly why, in the rules, this shouldn't be done, but you're going to continue on as you like. Have fun, and I hope you enjoy your l33t ninja skillz.

[Elebrim]

Realistically, yes, there is a high probability that a person's hand would be injured by grabbing a flail chain. But punch blocking, by that logic, would also "realistically" mean that people lose fingers each time they block a weapon shot. That's the reason why realism is last in the magic three; safety and playability come first. Yes, in reality such and action would be amazingly difficult and dangerous, but so would many of the other things our rules allow that we aren't discussing here.

Also, you misconstrued my point about grappling. It's in the standard waiver; a fighter cannot sue or otherwise demand recompense for damages or accidents that occur to his or her equipment on the field through normal use. If you intentionally twist and rip the haft padding off of my weapon, then I have grounds. If you kick me in the back of the knee and blow it out maliciously, I have grounds. But if you grapple me and the haft padding is damaged via a normal, game-legal action, or fall into me by accident and my knee is blown out, I cannot hold your responsible for damages because it was my risk of bringing my weapon/myself onto the field.


Mercer, I'm not discussing this for the sake of promoting the grabbing of flail chains, as I also think it is extremely noobish to try. I raised a question because a consensus of heralds just advocated calling a fighter dead for a rules-legal action because they "think" it might be dangerous. Yes, a herald should enforce the rules, but only when an infraction has occurred. Basketball refs don't call a travel when the person was "about" to take the extra step, or when the person "looks like" they are going to foul another player, only when that step actually was taken or the foul actually happened. Why do we feel like we should call people dead when they haven't actually broken a rule?

*EDIT* If people think this is a serious issue, go to the WC and petition a new or revised rule so you have grounds for the call. Don't read into the rules and assume something that isn't actually there in writing.

[Thorondor]

Grab the chain of the flail. Let the ball hit you in the forearm or the wrist; then take the arm. The "hand on a weapon" doesn't extend up the user's arm just because it was a cool idea.

If a herald feels confident that the ball hit the person's arm, they are more than able to tell the person to take the arm. If you argue with them, they can just tell you to take a death and/or kick you off the field for a few fights to calm down.

Either way, your amazing feat will mostly go un-noticed until you start ruining flails and people start taking it out on you by bashing you harder, shield punching/edging you, full swinging reds at you, and doing other things that are "legal" according to our rules.

OR...
You can learn to defend against a flail.
Learn to punch the shaft of the flail with your shield protecting your body.
Learn to use the flail's mechanics to your advantage and swing for the arm when they swing at you.
Avoid people who use flails on the field.
Shield bash people that use a flail and hope you kill them before they kill you.



Anyways...here's my break down of the issue...
I don't know how small your hand is, but my hand (in a fist around a rope) is between 4 and 4.5 inches wide/long/whatever. That gives me a maximum of 1.5 to 2 inches of error room when trying to grab a maximum length flail chain. I don't know the exact probability of failing to grab ONLY the chain and not being hit w/ the ball, but I'm going to assume it's extremely high.

Figure in the ball moving in a 360 degree sphere
Figure in the person swinging the flail can move in 3 a dimentional plane. (Forward/back, up/down, left/right) with any amount of variance in any of those 3 planes.
Figure moving your arm in a 3 dimentional plane (see above).
Figure your wrist moving in multiple planes (rotation of the hand, up/down motion, etc).
Then figure in the speed variations of all of this.

A perfect robot would be able to pull this off, but I don't think a human could do it more than once out of a few hundred thousand tries.

Every other time, you're probably going to..
1) Miss the chain and the flail head misses you
2) Miss the chain and the flail head hits you
3) Grab the chain and the flail head hits you
4) Grab/hit the flail head making you loose the hand and arm.
5) Grab the shaft which makes this a moot point

[Arrakis]

Rule 3.7.5.

Gripping the striking surface of an opponents Weapon results in the disabling of that limb.

was written to prevent damage to weapons and improve playability. Just in case y'all weren't aware.

Oh, and cause somebody said something that made me think of this, remember: YOU CANNOT WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO SUE. EVER. But you certainly can severely injure your chances of winning a lawsuit by signing a heavily inclusive waiver.

[Theros the Large]

This whole argument is silly.

A herald can call someone dead or call a limb shot if they believe that they saw a hit. In my years of heralding I have never seen anyone successfully grab a flail chain without the ball making contact with SOMETHING on their body.

This being said, if I saw someone attempt this manuver again I would naturally assume that due to the amazingly low probability of this chain grab being successful that the person got hit in the hand or arm by that flail head.

The hand on weapon rule applies only to the person who is actually weilding that weapon. Grabbing a flail chain does not give you the ability to call the hand on weapon rule.

As a herald, I would call the arm shot. Then I would tell you not to argue with me about it as I was heralding. If you persisted in arguing I would be forced to tell you to sit down for a few fights. If that did not persuade you to calm down you would be removed from the field for the day.

But then again this whole argument is ridiculous anyhow...

[Aegis]

This whole argument is silly.

A herald can call someone dead or call a limb shot if they believe that they saw a hit. In my years of heralding I have never seen anyone successfully grab a flail chain without the ball making contact with SOMETHING on their body.

This being said, if I saw someone attempt this manuver again I would naturally assume that due to the amazingly low probability of this chain grab being successful that the person got hit in the hand or arm by that flail head.

The hand on weapon rule applies only to the person who is actually weilding that weapon. Grabbing a flail chain does not give you the ability to call the hand on weapon rule.

As a herald, I would call the arm shot. Then I would tell you not to argue with me about it as I was heralding. If you persisted in arguing I would be forced to tell you to sit down for a few fights. If that did not persuade you to calm down you would be removed from the field for the day.

But then again this whole argument is ridiculous anyhow...

While I agree that its incredibly low percentage and incredibly hard, simply calling someone armed because something is hard, is wholly and totally wrong, and Im so opposed to it its not funny. If you see them get hit call it, but dont assume.

Thats like saying oh that noob is fighting Veteran X, he cant possibly win, veteran is having a terribly hard time killing him, he musta killed him by now so that noob must be dead so ill just call him dead.

Seriously, if you dont see it dont call it.

and if they break their fingers in the attempt, they signed a waiver and then tried something stupid.

[Thorondor]

While I agree that its incredibly low percentage and incredibly hard, simply calling someone armed because something is hard, is wholly and totally wrong, and Im so opposed to it its not funny. If you see them get hit call it, but dont assume.

When you can tell from 15' if the ball hit them or not when they grabbed the chain, let me know...until then, I'm with Theros on this. When I'm heralding, I'll call the arm shot because the .00000000001% (one in 100 billion) chance that they were successful isn't enough to offset the chance they they actually pulled it off.

Anyone that's heralding will know how flails act, either from fighting with one, or against one. You can't say that a flail head wouldn't keep moving if you grabbed the chain and somehow missed grabbing the ball.

If someone wants to try to figure out the actual %, please do, my calculator errors out after the third 360degree range of motion...

[Arrakis]

This isn't a problem for engineering and statistics, it's a problem for psychology.

Anyone who is stupid enough to try to do something so likely to end in the loss of their arm more than once in their fighting career isn't going to want to call themself dead for trying said maneuver. In other words, the only people * or retarded enough to attempt to catch a flail by the chain are almost certainly protected by either ego armor or stupidity armor and therefore won't call themselves dead even if they are hit by the ball in their absurd gambit.

Thus, yes, call any **** moron who tries something that astronomically idiotic dead as fast as you can get the words out of your mouth and then tell them, after the battle, that that was really quite stupid and that they should never do it again becase it isn't safe and will continue to get them called dead.

Simple.

[Theros the Large]

Here is how the exchange would look to me as a herald. Lets say I am 10 feet from the two fighters. I see fighter A swing his flail towards fighter B. Fighter B reaches out with an empty hand towards the rapidly moving flail. I see SOMETHING happen around the flail haft/chain/head. Now, taking into consideration the speed of most flail shots and the very unlikely chance of a successful chain grab how would you call it if you were heralding?

I would assume that the guy got hit in the EMPTY hand with which he was trying to grab the flail chain. An empty hand is the same as your arm as far as hits go. If fighter B did not take an arm after that exchange I would call him out on it.

There is no malice when I say this. It would look like a hit to fighter B's hand to any herald observing that fight. The last time I checked there weren't a lot of arrow catching, flail grabbing ninjas running about the Belegarth battle fields.

Now lets assume that fighter B manages to get a hold of some part of the flail. Fighter A then attempts to pull their flail back while fighter B tries to yank the weapon out of fighter A's hand. This is either a dangerously unsafe flail that has captured a wrist, which I would want to stop immediately OR a silly attempt to grab a flail by the chain/haft and wrestle it from fighter A. This will usually also end badly.

Either way it would appear to me as a herald that there could be a potentially dangerous situation. I think that saying we as heralds would be wrong in this situation is preposterous.

[Aegis]

what if the fighter grabbing the chain grabbed it after it broke the 90deg swing angle and grabbing it from the backside where even if the ball touched there would be no force...

then we also get into weapon destruction safety issues with, haha ive got a bracer on, ill take the 1 hit to my armor to rip your weapon away from you and kill you.

I think its better to just outright call it a safety issue for the fingers and weapon destruction concerns and outright ban it, herald killing anyone stupid enough to try it, success or no.

[Thorondor]

Even after it's past the 90deg angle, grab the chain and it could still bounce back and get your wrist. Flails like to do strange things...and that's why I won't own one anymore. If its the only thing on the ground, I'll use it, but its not my first or third or fifth choice to fight with...

Of course, that leads into a whole different topic of people hitting themselves with their flail and ignoring the hit...

[debuenzo]

I agree with aegis on the herald thing
i've always been led to believe that the person receiving the blow should determine their own hits...not the herald (unless it is an obvious cheat...and in this case it seems that it would be hard to call either way, as many have said)

and the chain is a non-striking portion of the weapon
grabbing the chain would be like grabbing the haft, which is legal

and, i also agree with elebrim...this seems like a silly manuever
but as it stands, i see it as a legal one

[Mercer]

Claiming you grabbed the chain, when you got hit by the ball, is a cheat. Grabbing at the chain at all is just plain stupid.

[Elebrim]

Stupid, yes. Illegal, no. 99% of the times someone tries it the ball will hit their arm and the herald should call the arm shot if it is ignored.

But there is still the 1%, just 1%, of the time that it will work and somehow the ball will not hit the arm. Which is why heralds cannot assume fault until they actually see the shot happen and directly observe the ball bouncing off the arm.

Again, if people feel so strongly about it, petition a rule to prevent grappling a flail's chain to the WC. Until then, stop trying to improvise rules based on personal bias or opinion.

[Angmarth]

Normally I wouldn't jump in on this conversation, but I just can't help myself.

I probably do as many or more grabs and disarms as anyone who is playing now or who as ever played any sort of foam fighting. The ONLY time you can even remotely attempt this is IF you are armored and IF you have not been hit. Any grabs and disarms that I have ever done almost ALWAYS result in either A) taking a shot to get the grab, or B) it looking like you were hit while you got the grab. As many have pointed out, the ball WILL hit you or... it will LOOK like it hit you. In either case you had best be wearing bracers (where I think you would actually be struck) or you are going to be branded a cheater and rightly so.

There are easier and far more effective ways to grab an opponent and keep him from hitting you. Attempting some sort of Naruto maneuver to grab the chain is just plain ludicrous, and will only get you watched by heralds for cheating.

[Mercer]

Until then, stop trying to dodge around the intent of the rules based on personal bias or opinion.

Fixed to what you should be saying. Because that's all your argument is: "The rules don't say I can't." The rules don't say I can't set your weapons in fire on the sidelines, either.

[Arrakis]

Well. said, Angmarth.

I really don't see this ever coming up except in the case of some newbslice doing something that everyone knows is stupid.

[Big King Jimmy]

Until then, stop trying to dodge around the intent of the rules based on personal bias or opinion.

Fixed to what you should be saying. Because that's all your argument is: "The rules don't say I can't." The rules don't say I can't set your weapons in fire on the sidelines, either.

Gold.

This arguement is cataloged for later use.

[Aegis]

Even after it's past the 90deg angle, grab the chain and it could still bounce back and get your wrist. Flails like to do strange things...and that's why I won't own one anymore. If its the only thing on the ground, I'll use it, but its not my first or third or fifth choice to fight with...

Of course, that leads into a whole different topic of people hitting themselves with their flail and ignoring the hit...

sufficient force = not even close on bounceback

and thats a whole nother discussion right there, with flails that hit like cotton candy and people cry cause you felt the light breeze but not their weapon.

[Angmarth]

You don't need sufficient force to lose a limb when you grab (or touch) a striking surface that isn't swung at you, you merely have to make contact with it.

[Arrakis]

*Notes that even his lighter-weight flail (a 32" bag head) weighs 16 ounces: 8 of that shaft, 5 of that head, and 3 of that cover and dingleberries.*

Build hefty flails! They're more fun!

[Thorondor]

I probably do as many or more grabs and disarms as anyone who is playing now or who as ever played any sort of foam fighting.

Being on the receiving end of some of these, I'd have to agree...and also add in that getting run over and then died on by a dead Angmarth is NOT the way you want to spend your last 'living' moments.

and thats a whole nother discussion right there, with flails that hit like cotton candy and people cry cause you felt the light breeze but not their weapon.

Hehe...that'd be the other reason I don't use flails. It's not as easy to make someone feel your shot (legally at least)...

[Mekoot Rowan]

A while ago (about two years) I decided I wanted to get good at grabbing weapons. While I am prepared to agree with most of what Angmarth said, I'd have to add from my own experience, that there are weapons which are good to grab and those which are not good to grab.

Good to grab:
Clubs with a foot or more of haft padding
Javelins and pretty much all spears
swords with extra long handles that seem to be becoming all the rage

Not to grab:
Flails
Standard swords with six inches or less of handle

It's not that weapons on the no-grab list are impossible, it's just incredibly unlikely, as other people in this thread have pointed out.

However, the difficulty of determining where and how someone else was hit is the very reason that our game runs on an honor system (that and a lack of affordable, breathable, pressure sensitive body suits).

I feel that a herald/marshal calling someone dead should happen with the same percentage as a succesful flail grab. Almost never. I supervised fighting for about four hours at Geddon and only once called someone dead.

This issue of flail grabbing is probably never going to come up, but it should be treated like any other grab, trust a person to report accurate hits unless you unmistakably saw something land.

[Elebrim]

Until then, stop trying to dodge around the intent of the rules based on personal bias or opinion.

Fixed to what you should be saying. Because that's all your argument is: "The rules don't say I can't." The rules don't say I can't set your weapons in fire on the sidelines, either.

The point I was making wasn't about the grabbing of flail chains. I already agreed that it is dumb to try. The point I was making is that a group of heralds said they would call someone dead anyway even if it succeeded in that 1% occurrence.

You all stopped actually reading what I was saying a long time ago. I'm done here.

[Thorondor]

The point I was making is that a group of heralds said they would call someone dead anyway even if it succeeded in that 1% occurrence.

You all stopped actually reading what I was saying a long time ago. I'm done here.

If I was sure it was successful in that .0000....1% chance, I wouldn't call the arm.

Some things aren't smart to try (grabbing flail chains), some things aren't legal to grab (arrows), some things are smart to grab (that jav going towards your buddy's face).

[Aegis]

Until then, stop trying to dodge around the intent of the rules based on personal bias or opinion.

Fixed to what you should be saying. Because that's all your argument is: "The rules don't say I can't." The rules don't say I can't set your weapons in fire on the sidelines, either.

The point I was making wasn't about the grabbing of flail chains. I already agreed that it is dumb to try. The point I was making is that a group of heralds said they would call someone dead anyway even if it succeeded in that 1% occurrence.

You all stopped actually reading what I was saying a long time ago. I'm done here.

same point I made Elebrim, which ties to another of my peeves, Any 81 can become a herald, not that all heralds are 81's, but you seriously require NOTHING to become one, a vague understanding of the rules at most events. Its really really sad and backwards.

[Mercer]

You all stopped actually reading what I was saying a long time ago. I'm done here.

It's perfectly clear what you've been saying: you prefer a legalistic interpretation, and rules that encompass every possible jackass thing someone can come up with, rather than the system that's worked for longer than I've been playing (which happens to be 15 years as of this spring) where common sense tells you what flys within the rules and lawyering is deeply frowned upon and a rules set that doesn't require 5 hours of reading to comprehend. Belegarth has never been about all-encompassing rules that account for every possible legality and maneuver, and it never will be. Legislating for idiocy is a never-ending process, and I'm glad we don't do it.

We've been reading what you're saying; it just belongs in a different kind of game, perhaps Magic: the Gathering or Warhammer.

As to the dearth of competent heralds, or excess of incompetent ones, perhaps there should be a standardized, national test developed, rather than the fly-by-night style in which it's been done in the past. I would say that I'd be willing to start throwing something together for people to critique and debate, but I don't have that kind of authority or position. Now THAT would be something to get with War Council reps about.

[debuenzo]

what's so bad about heralds?

IMO, they have to keep the field safe and prevent obvious and extreme cheating

the rest of the game is basically up to us and our own honor system

sorry to get off topic
but again, mercer, i agree with elebrim on this one
it is a legal grapple as it stands

[Arrakis]

That's fair, guys. It's legal like so many things are, in that the first time someone does it against you and nearly messes up your flail and the herald doesn't call them dead for it, yo ujust nod and say, "Okay." Then, next time that person comes at you with a sword and an empty hand you start a flail swing, shield punch their arm, and then wail on them with the flail two or three times, paying extra attention to make sure you haft the hell out of them, too.

Situation Taken Care Of, Belegarth Field Justice-style.

[debuenzo]

sounds fine to me

[Aegis]

what's so bad about heralds?

IMO, they have to keep the field safe and prevent obvious and extreme cheating

the rest of the game is basically up to us and our own honor system

sorry to get off topic
but again, mercer, i agree with elebrim on this one
it is a legal grapple as it stands

the issue wasnt as much of whether its legal as much as whether a herald should arbitrarily just call someone armed for trying it cause its difficult.

as for the herald thing, its nothing against heralds, its against just anyone becoming a herald with no standards whatsoever.

[Mercer]

Here's a thing, since the legalist interpretation has reared its head: where does it say in the rules that you may grab a weapon at all? The grappling section in the rules talks about opponents, and last time I checked, my weapons were not a part of me.

See, the nitpicking crap runs both ways; everyone knows that the standard behavior in the game allows incidental-surface-grabbing, but there's nothing in the rules to support it.

[Angmarth]

Technically your hand is considered part of the weapon. (Not to pick nits. )

[Mercer]

Ah, but the reverse is not true... so you could technically grab the hand, but not the weapon itself.