Moderator: Belegarth: Forum Moderators
-----------------------
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
-----------------------
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
-----------------------
SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)
Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)
Isk wrote:Solusar: The MoA from 2008, apparently the most recent version, linked here, states:
4.1.8. Hafts on axes, flails, maces, polearms, and the like must be safely padded except
for a reasonable area for a handhold. This means the haft padding on swung
weapons must be as safe as their striking surface. The haft on spears (which are
thrusting-only weapons) is not required to be as heavily-padded as that of a swung
weapon.
Outhro Youkker wrote:Once, I and another herald were watching a guy lose a leg and calling decent red hits to his shield as not hard enough as his shield was shaking from solid contact.
Why cant people just die already?!?!?
SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)
Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)
Arrakis wrote:Perhaps a question with a less obvious answer is: Why do Redsword fighters insist on aiming at an unreliable target that doesn't actually incapacitate their enemy instead of trying to hit the shieldman's body or limbs?
Kyrax wrote:Arrakis wrote:Perhaps a question with a less obvious answer is: Why do Redsword fighters insist on aiming at an unreliable target that doesn't actually incapacitate their enemy instead of trying to hit the shieldman's body or limbs?
Because sometimes that's the only target you get, and when you are swinging at it with enough force the shieldmen start getting cowardly. Most shieldmen will take a good red shot, and if not, I'll swing harder. And I've been hit by my glaive while wielding a plywood cored shield - wouldn't want to get hit harder by that weapon.
Otherwise, I agree. If you've got a torso or limb shot, take it.
It seems like semantics to me "substantial force vs. solidly with noticeable force," but threads like this make it clear that there are Dagorhirrim that interpret blowing off light shots as cheating.Isk wrote:Added the solidly, I'm not really even sure there is enough of a difference to include this comparison, personally.
Arrakis wrote:Mercer: First shot - Hard shot to their shield edge on the shield side. Second shot - Wind up towards the shield edge, then throw an arm chop at their inevitable flat snap. That sort of thing. Or just throw a leg whiff followed by a false-edge weapon-side shoulder shot. I just don't think Redsword fighters take full advantage of fakes; a lot of them would just rather blast the shield a few times and then not have to worry about it any more.
Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).
Kyrian wrote:On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).
Arrakis wrote:It's the sort of thing that gets done in sports where shields don't break.
I see a lot of flurbification in Dagorhir recently. A lot of rules changes that literally serve non intended purpose. Surely I'm not turning into Satanaka...
Kyrian wrote:On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).
Kyrian wrote:On the topic of sufficient force, I think Sir Brennon of Amtgard on e-Sam had one of the best explanations on defining a good shot:Brennon wrote:I think an emphasis on 'clean' and 'percussive' with a minimum force threshold is the best system: If you've got two of the three, it's a good shot. If it's clean and percussive, it doesn't have to be terribly hard. If it's clean and solid, it doesn't have to be percussive (stabs, mainly). If it's percussive and solid, it doesn't have to be clean (an incomplete block won't save you from a solid wrap).
Alric wrote:Isn't there a Bel rule that if I get hit in two locations, I only have to take the on that hit harder? In Dagorhir, if you get hit hard enough in two places you're expected to take both (most often this is someone getting both legs swept with a good red swing).
Easy Ridir Giggles wrote:It seems like semantics to me "substantial force vs. solidly with noticeable force," but threads like this make it clear that there are Dagorhirrim that interpret blowing off light shots as cheating.Isk wrote:Added the solidly, I'm not really even sure there is enough of a difference to include this comparison, personally.
http://www.dagorhir.com/forums/index.php?topic=15055.0
To further complicate things, the current Dag rules state "what constitutes a 'solid strike' is necessarily subjective and thus relies on the honor of both the attacker and the person who is struck."
which is at odds with Bel rule 1.3. "The target of an attack makes combat hit determinations."
Arrakis wrote:I see a lot of flurbification in Dagorhir recently. A lot of rules changes that literally serve non intended purpose. Surely I'm not turning into Satanaka...
I think you are exactly right Kyrax; the differences are minor. The differences can be important, though, so I started this thread to pull into one place all of those differences as a reference for bel people gaming at a dag event (and of course vice versa, but I can't really post it for the dag folks). Maybe we should expand it to include Amtgard, but that definitely needs the table version in the wiki.Kyrax wrote:My guess is that the differences between Belegarth and Dagorhir are minor, at least when compared to touch-fighting LARPs. Amtgard seems to be inbetween D/B and LARPS.
Kyrax wrote:SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)
Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)
Wrong Madog - that's Amtgard that's a touch game.
Poo wrote:Kyrax wrote:SirMADOG wrote:Bel:
Sufficient force required to take type 1 or 2 damage, (you have to hit someone hard)
Dag
Noticeable force required to take damage. (You have to touch someone)
Wrong Madog - that's Amtgard that's a touch game.
Wrong Kyrax. Go to texas or come up to wisconsin. texas amtgarders hit harder than many bel fighters i know.
Oisin wrote:It's also worth noting that pommel and tip checking in Dagorhir is straight up and down only, no tilting the template so that the corner passes through and fails diagonally.
This is specifically to allow square-tipped swords to pass, which fail in Belegarth.
Cyric wrote:Oisin wrote:It's also worth noting that pommel and tip checking in Dagorhir is straight up and down only, no tilting the template so that the corner passes through and fails diagonally.
This is specifically to allow square-tipped swords to pass, which fail in Belegarth.
Generally speaking, square tip swords do not fail belegarth.
Return to Other Medieval Recreation Sports
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests