single green damage to armor

[Rocca]

Yet we allow steel alloys on the field...

My point was not about what we allow on the field. If your referencing shark chain as a reason that historical armor was resistant to stabs, then it is not a good comparison. *shrug*

[Treethump]

I actually enjoy the current system because it helps provide some depth, customization, and strategy to the game. In the same way that helmets can be a strategic choice with disadvantages, armor can, and should, be a strategic choice with varied advantages/disadvantages.

Armor, especially that which isn't being mix/maxed, usually decreases a fighter's speed, mobility, flexibility, and endurance. It's always been my belief that armor negating one-handed stabs was a game choice to promote different fighting styles, different fighting tools, and different fighting strategies rather than trying to adhere to some sense of realism or historical accuracy.

I enjoy games with layered rules, a system of checks and balances, and some ability to customize your role. It makes encounters more interesting and varied, promotes people to learn and train with a variety of weapon styles, and injects some small amount of strategy into not only your movements, but your armor and weapon choices.

The change wouldn't impact me, as I don't normally wear armor, but I thought I'd raise this point for keeping the system in place because I see armor as part of a layered system of rules that promotes variety, strategy, and makes it more difficult to min/max one particular style.

-Sir Treethump
Numenor

[Kage]

Yet we allow steel alloys on the field...

My point was not about what we allow on the field. If your referencing shark chain as a reason that historical armor was resistant to stabs, then it is not a good comparison. *shrug*

Ok now I'm on the same page with you.

Well said Sir Treethump!

[Arrakis]

Immunity to single-green doesn't promote different styles; it represses them. Shortspear and shield is virtually useless in our game. What styles does immunity to single green promote?


Kage: Shark bites aren't singular primary puncture wounds like a sword stab is. It's a much broader, less concentrated impact. It's not like stabbing somebody with a sword or a spear or a dagger; it's like pushing a big-toothed wood-saw at someone. There's less force concentration. It's closer to a hack with a sword than a stab with one.

[Tiberius Claudius]

I've been thinking about this and I can't answer why the solution must be "all or nothing". I like simplification, but that's not always the best answer so I'm just tossing this out there as a compromise; take it as you will.

Knowing that it will add a little more depth and complication to the rules, what if armor could block two (2) single handed stab strikes that landed w/ sufficient force with the third disabling the target area?

This way single handed stabs still count and armor still retains a good deal of protection against the type of attack.

Again, just my .02 as a suggestion.

[Thorondor]

Knowing that it will add a little more depth and complication to the rules, what if armor could block two (2) single handed stab strikes that landed w/ sufficient force with the third disabling the target area?

I can see it now when 2 fighters come up against each other and ask about armor status...the poor person in full armor would have to say something like "right leg gone, torso is gone, left leg two stabs, bracer one stab" instead of "right leg and torso are gone." Say it out loud, it just sounds stupid...and in the time that it takes to say all of that the fight could be over.

If we increase the amount of things people have to keep track of, we'll loose armor or people, or both. We're trying to simplify the game and rules set, not make it more complex.

[Tiberius Claudius]

I can see it now when 2 fighters come up against each other and ask about armor status...the poor person in full armor would have to say something like "right leg gone, torso is gone, left leg two stabs, bracer one stab" instead of "right leg and torso are gone." Say it out loud, it just sounds stupid...and in the time that it takes to say all of that the fight could be over.

If we increase the amount of things people have to keep track of, we'll loose armor or people, or both. We're trying to simplify the game and rules set, not make it more complex.

Yeah, saying that would absolutely sound ridiculous. However (granted I've been playing this game only a year-and-a-half) I've never gone up to someone during a battle on the field and asked their armor status. I always engage anyone as if they're 100% undamaged and am pleasantly surprised when I find out that they had already taken a hit or two.

I do agree that it is a more complicated addition to the rules and I acknowledge its drawbacks, hence it was a suggestion as an alternate way of thinking about the situation. Thanks for your response and for thinking about it.

[Cade]

I can see it now when 2 fighters come up against each other and ask about armor status...the poor person in full armor would have to say something like "right leg gone, torso is gone, left leg two stabs, bracer one stab" instead of "right leg and torso are gone." Say it out loud, it just sounds stupid...and in the time that it takes to say all of that the fight could be over.

If we increase the amount of things people have to keep track of, we'll loose armor or people, or both. We're trying to simplify the game and rules set, not make it more complex.

Yeah, saying that would absolutely sound ridiculous. However (granted I've been playing this game only a year-and-a-half) I've never gone up to someone during a battle on the field and asked their armor status. I always engage anyone as if they're 100% undamaged and am pleasantly surprised when I find out that they had already taken a hit or two.

I do agree that it is a more complicated addition to the rules and I acknowledge its drawbacks, hence it was a suggestion as an alternate way of thinking about the situation. Thanks for your response and for thinking about it.

Yea, we have been playing about the same amount of time, and i haven't asked anyone ether. One thing i have discovered though is the absolute terror of anything that adds, changes, or modifies the rules in any way. Hence why we have a ruleset for stabs that makes no sense and armor that treats every material completely the same with no end in site.

its a good idea, but its one more thing to keep track of and thats a big no no. Idealy IMO, stabs should be counted the same as blue damage. Its simpler, makes sense...sure a few people whine about it, but a different crowd is whining about it not doing damage now so when your bound to * off a crowd of people, why not have it makes sense and at least come out on top.

[No'Vak]

I almost always ask the status of a fighters armor when I go up against any upper tier fighter. Its very important imo.

[Forkbeard]

I haven't ever known why people think I have to tell them the stautus of my armor.
I've done it, becuase it seems like tradition, sometimes. But I always feel stupid afterward.
Is it even in the BoW that I have to do that ****?
I don't ever ask people about thier armor. ****! You only need to hit them twice. I always plan on hitting armored people twice. If they go down early, yay for me.
FB

[No'Vak]

Seems to me if someone didn't give armor status since we play armor going away as the target underneath getting damaged, that if you refused to give your condition its like lying about combat damage.

And kind of similar to refusing to say which team you're on.

[Arrakis]

I almost always ask the status of a fighters armor when I go up against any upper tier fighter. Its very important imo.

Why? It doesn't influence where you strike a top-tier fighter (you strike them wherever you CAN) and it doesn't change what you hit them with (armor always stops one-handed stabs, no matter what has happened to the armor beforehand).

[No'Vak]

Because.

If his weapon arm armor is gone I'm going for that.

Seems to work pretty good ymmv. I KNOW it works for me so yeah.

[Dane]

Why? It doesn't influence where you strike a top-tier fighter (you strike them wherever you CAN) and it doesn't change what you hit them with (armor always stops one-handed stabs, no matter what has happened to the armor beforehand).

It does influence it quite a bit, actually. If a fighter's greaves are good, I'm not going for a high-risk double leg. If his body's gone but arms are good, I'm going to work for a hip wrap or shield-side shoulder wrap. If the opposite's true, I'm going to try and bait returns so I can take an arm. I'm looking for the quickest way to gain an advantage or a kill, so knowing what armor is in what condition is very important information.

[No'Vak]

Why? It doesn't influence where you strike a top-tier fighter (you strike them wherever you CAN) and it doesn't change what you hit them with (armor always stops one-handed stabs, no matter what has happened to the armor beforehand).

It does influence it quite a bit, actually. If a fighter's greaves are good, I'm not going for a high-risk double leg. If his body's gone but arms are good, I'm going to work for a hip wrap or shield-side shoulder wrap. If the opposite's true, I'm going to try and bait returns so I can take an arm. I'm looking for the quickest way to gain an advantage or a kill, so knowing what armor is in what condition is very important information.

Dane I knew we would agree on stuff sometime.

[Arrakis]

*shrug*

Dane, you're considering this from a top-tier v. top-tier perspective. Most people aren't. I, for example, try to hit top-tiers wherever I can get a shot in, not someplace specific. I find that knowing oh, his left armor armor is gone (or something) and then focusing on a particular shot just locks me into a predictable, losing mindset.

[The Lost Celt]

I'm meaning this constructively, if I can nail you twice in a split second with a small blue weapon there isn't any reason I couldn't do the same with a mass weapon and equal death, I can hit you once with a red weapon and you're dead, but a green does no damage?

I do polearm, what I can say on the field is nobody I've managed to double over with my shots has called me on it, even when within the rules they could've discounted it. (pool que shot is a misnomer, a sliding shot with a red is valid yet a green thrust is not? I think the tank mentality made this rule, as long as the force is directed it should be the same)

Historically weapons were designed to pierce armor through stabbing, and a lot of weapons had narrower points to deal with that, but I don't take this game as historical....

As far as playabilty and realism are concerned all I have to say is an archer is more effective, and they can shoot you in the face....

[Forkbeard]

Both of you have goven examples of why it gives you an advantage when I tell you my armor status.
But you didn't say why you think I have to tell you anything. It's not a rule and I'm not answering these questions in battle anymore. Whe asked my armor status, I'm only going to reply"SEXY" from now on.
Left arm sexy. Torso.....SEXY!
And I don't HAVE to tell you what team I'm on. I know id doesn't say anywhere in the book that I have to do that. When you ask what teaem I'm on, I always say"Yours". Then I act accordingly.
FB

[Arrakis]

Both of you have goven examples of why it gives you an advantage when I tell you my armor status.
But you didn't say why you think I have to tell you anything. It's not a rule and I'm not answering these questions in battle anymore. Whe asked my armor status, I'm only going to reply"SEXY" from now on.
Left arm sexy. Torso.....SEXY!
And I don't HAVE to tell you what team I'm on. I know id doesn't say anywhere in the book that I have to do that. When you ask what teaem I'm on, I always say"Yours". Then I act accordingly.
FB

Perfidy is always cheating, Farkbeard.

[Slagar]

Technically there is no rule that says it's 'illegal' for me to walk up to you and and shield edge you in the throat repeatedly. It's 'discouraged' as being a huge * move, and kinda ruining people's day. I'd apply the same logic there, Fork. It may not be illegal, but you look like a huge douche. The BoW may not say it specifically, but I'd call you dead for it, if I was heralding. Rule 0 is always in effect. Follow me?

[bo1]

i agree, fork that is poor play. probibly not illegal, but poor play just the same.

[Kage]

Mostly a Western play style vs. Eastern play style. When I'm asked what side I'm on I usually shrug and say nothing, if they attack me I fight them no matter if they are team or not. If they realize I'm team sweet, or if they are enemy and dumb enough to walk away sweet. As for my armor I almost never where it so it doesn't matter to me. I hit them till they lay down.

[Forkbeard]

I think it's a douchy thing to ask people about their armor status.
I haven't ever done it. I don't care what is happening with you. I just hit people. Some times it doesn't work out, sometimes it does.
I see no reason not to double tap people in armor every time I can. It happens to me pretty much when ever some flanker slob gets the drop on me. Wack, wack, no problem.
Maybe it comes from fighting primarily red. I kill every equally most of the time and had never needed to ask about anyones armor.
Would it be better if I give a cyrptic, but possibly desipherable response? Like Sexy(good), or Skanky(broken).
FB

[bo1]

you do whatever you wish, my opinion has been stated.

[Plithut]

I would be willing to bet money on; if the current rules got changed to reflect the green/blue damage as the same type today, within a year or two we would be revisiting the rules regarding spears/archery/greens again due to change. I GUARANTEE that if the rules get changed you will see less and less Red Users, Florentiners, and you would almost never see armor. Why would I want to wear anything that would encumber me that conveys even less protection than it does under the current rule set? Oh, and you think archers are bad NOW? The explosion of archers and spear users because of this rule change would be nauseating.

If anything I see these pushes to change the rules as a further step away from looking medieval. I agree with others when they say learn shot variety with different weapons styles. I agree that it is more the problem of realms not teaching their fighters the proper fighting mechanics than a problem with the rules. The rules are already easy enough as is.

And since we seem to have 3 topics regarding the same conversation I am just going to copy and paste my reply into all of them.

[Tiberius Claudius]

I would be willing to bet money on; if the current rules got changed to reflect the green/blue damage as the same type today, within a year or two we would be revisiting the rules regarding spears/archery/greens again due to change.

In what way(s)? Please be specific rather than prophesy portents of doom. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to get your take on it because it is important to consider.

I GUARANTEE that if the rules get changed you will see less and less Red Users, Florentiners, and you would almost never see armor.

Why? Reds still do 2 points of damage and still break shields. Florentiners will still have advantage by being able to attack w/ two weapons on different sides of the target. Both types of kits can still do stab damage, so the florentiners would actually gain advantage because of the 1 handed stab effectiveness.

Why would I want to wear anything that would encumber me that conveys even less protection than it does under the current rule set?

You may not want to wear armor but I'll still wear it because it looks cool and because wearing it still grants protection. None of us are so out of shape that we can't perform wearing some armor.

Oh, and you think archers are bad NOW? The explosion of archers and spear users because of this rule change would be nauseating.

I agree that archers would need to get nerfed to doing a single point of damage to compensate for the new rule. I think that's a good thing though. However, spears are the most common historical weapon throughout all of history as both hunting tools and weapons of war. They are cheap, simple to use, and convey the advantage of reach against one's enemies. If having more of them on the field is a result, it's more historical and I throughly enjoy that idea.

If anything I see these pushes to change the rules as a further step away from looking medieval.

History would disagree with you. Additionally, garb is still required and shields can still be used so I'm not sure what exactly constitutes looking less medieval in your eyes. Can you elaborate?

I agree with others when they say learn shot variety with different weapons styles. I agree that it is more the problem of realms not teaching their fighters the proper fighting mechanics than a problem with the rules. The rules are already easy enough as is.

The rules are easy to understand as is, however they could be easier. I disagree that this is a "problem" with realm's not teaching proper fighting mechanics. IMO, this isn't really a "problem" at all and if a stab hits solidly and cleanly on a target then it should do damage. I am of the belief that this topic is a serious look at our game mechanics and an attempt to streamline them and adjust them to this new generation of tech and tactics. All sports and organizations go through self-appraisal and change and this is a good thing in every way. I'm thoroughly pleased at the amount of civil and well-thought discourse that is being brought to the table by both sides. I have no doubt that whatever play testing and WC decides will be honest and truly for the betterment of the game.

[Plithut]

In what way(s)? Please be specific rather than prophesy portents of doom. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to get your take on it because it is important to consider.

I believe that we would be revisiting the rules in a couple of years to nerf down green damage if the proposed change happens. My statement applies more to green damage = blue damage than it does to armor and green damage, but I believe it still applies. The reason I say this is because I believe that the armor rules are too weak, and to take away one of its MAIN advantages in our sport seems outlandish and silly. People do realize that you can do a double green with a blue sword right? I also say that we will be revisiting the rules because this entire proposal is only in response to rise in the the popularity of stabs today. So next big trend in the sport we will make rules about that too, to make things easier for the people who are now using it mainly.

Why? Reds still do 2 points of damage and still break shields. Florentiners will still have advantage by being able to attack w/ two weapons on different sides of the target. Both types of kits can still do stab damage, so the florentiners would actually gain advantage because of the 1 handed stab effectiveness.

The reason you will see less and less of these styles is because of how POWERFUL stabbing will become. You dont need to tell me about the advantages and disadvantages of each weapon style, I've been in the sport long enough to handle each with moderate proficiency. Currently we have a decent balance of different weapon styles on the field. It is my belief that if the proposal becomes a rule, that people move from red/florentine to spear/archery because of the increased power of stabbing. As a result, people will move to more green/yellow and we will see less of the other styles on the field. If anything I believe that this rule change will confine weapon styles instead of expanding them.

You may not want to wear armor but I'll still wear it because it looks cool and because wearing it still grants protection. None of us are so out of shape that we can't perform wearing some armor.

While you might not know me Tiberius, I pride myself on the armor I make and really enjoy showing it off. Yes, I am egotistical. Why else would I build armor? I want to look like a badass. But whats the point? In the current rule set people have to THINK to make kills. So your opponent is armored, you have to approach them differently than an unarmored person, so what? Is it really so difficult for people to learn the proper hack/slash swings? Or am I the only one that this change screams, "I WANT MY NEW SHOT TO BE MY BEST SHOT SO LETS CHANGE THE RULES?"

I agree that archers would need to get nerfed to doing a single point of damage to compensate for the new rule. I think that's a good thing though. However, spears are the most common historical weapon throughout all of history as both hunting tools and weapons of war. They are cheap, simple to use, and convey the advantage of reach against one's enemies. If having more of them on the field is a result, it's more historical and I throughly enjoy that idea.

History would disagree with you. Additionally, garb is still required and shields can still be used so I'm not sure what exactly constitutes looking less medieval in your eyes. Can you elaborate?

So that's two rules you want to change? Great, lets open up another discussion and start getting all of our archers * off too. While I understand that Historically spears were the most common weapon, I really think that argument is moot. Have you looked at what we do, there is almost nothing historical about it. We create 'weapons' out of foam and run around in nowhere close to historically accurate garb. If you change the rules, you are actually promoting the death of armor (which is already in a pretty sad state as is). You want to look historically accurate, then we need to promote MORE armor, not nerfing the crap out of it.

The rules are easy to understand as is, however they could be easier. I disagree that this is a "problem" with realm's not teaching proper fighting mechanics. IMO, this isn't really a "problem" at all and if a stab hits solidly and cleanly on a target then it should do damage. I am of the belief that this topic is a serious look at our game mechanics and an attempt to streamline them and adjust them to this new generation of tech and tactics. All sports and organizations go through self-appraisal and change and this is a good thing in every way. I'm thoroughly pleased at the amount of civil and well-thought discourse that is being brought to the table by both sides. I have no doubt that whatever play testing and WC decides will be honest and truly for the betterment of the game.

I agree, a stab that hits solidly or cleanly on a target area should do damage, but if the person is wearing armor, then you were stupid to throw the shot in the first place. Just because YOU cant kill ME with a stab in the armor does not mean that MY armor should get nerfed and YOUR stabs buffed. I am not saying that the BoW is perfect, but dont fix what isn't broken.

[Thomas MacFinn]

Immunity to single-green doesn't promote different styles; it represses them. Shortspear and shield is virtually useless in our game. What styles does immunity to single green promote?

I may have missed it, but did anybody attempt to answer this very interesting question?

[Tiberius Claudius]

Immunity to single-green doesn't promote different styles; it represses them. Shortspear and shield is virtually useless in our game. What styles does immunity to single green promote?

I may have missed it, but did anybody attempt to answer this very interesting question?

I would think that the argument by default promotes "non-single green" styles, ergo any others that are out there because of the ineffectiveness of the valid tactic.

Plithut, thanks for the response and the PM. Don't worry about tone, it's the internet.

While I am ignorant of the history of any politicking behind the rationale for this particular or any of these types of rules changes, from what I know of Loptr (initial voice of this newest iteration of the proposed rule change) at events he's on the up-and-up on the field. More importantly, however, from my own experience play testing these rules in ATD as well as my own reasons for enjoying the game and where I'd like to see it go, I love these rule changes. In my realm we hit hard and play fast (not that we hold a monopoly on the concept or that we're unique) and these streamline the game to be more "hit, die, rez, repeat" as opposed to a lot of toilet bowling and javie tag.

If this rule change ends up being relegated to a House rule at individual realms, that too is fine with me. At regional and national events I'm still going to die after two stabbed limbs because I don't feel like being an armless meat shield and I don't want to spend battle after battle kneeling. Again, the rule as it is isn't "broken", I would just like it simplified so that "a hit = a hit = a hit".

I see your point about fixing the "fixes" down the road, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in my mind. Yeah, I know its a bit counterintuitive, but look at the US Constitution and all the amendments we have added to it. If enough people playing the game want it to change in a certain way and the appropriate discussion and investigation has taken place then it should - or should not - be changed. If things need to be smoothed out because of unforseen consequences that's just the way it is. If the game ends up evolving into something new or something similar that's just the result of the people who play it taking care of it. The argument "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies in some ways, but some people consider the rule broken.

This really is one of those topics where emotions run high because everyone loves the game and wants to see the best for it. Everyone thinks that their own ideas are worth merit and I'm glad the game is having this discussion and I've no doubt that no matter what the game will continue on and still be popular. If somehow it just implodes, well there's tons of foam fighters with gear and skill who'll pick up and re-make what Bel used to be. I'm not arguing for fragmentation or "**** the naysayers", just putting it out there that change has always happened - or not happened - and life goes on.

[Rocca]

Just musing, and people can ignore this as they will, but:

If we want to be historically accurate we should have way more different types of damage, people should never say what team they are on, you should never have to tell people about armor or body damage, and we would hit the **** out of people to make sure they were dead (double tap would not be viewed as douchy, just standard).

Point is: Historical accuracy argument is moot point. Historically inspired, yes, restricted, maybe, but accuracy? No.

[Tiberius Claudius]

You guys are both right that the game isn't nearly historically accurate, but to relegate that aspect to the realm of "mootness" rejects a core concept of the game, IMO. The precedent of the governing of the game includes historocity as an important aspect for rules consideration. Granted, it rightfully takes a back seat to safety and playability, however it is still there as a benchmark. That's why we don't play with nerf suction cup dart guns.

I agree that if we were striving for a highly accurate history lesson on the field then we should have all sorts of categories of damage and armor classes. We'd have to get rid of fantasy elements and require researched garb made out of period materials and maybe even require participants to speak in the language of their persona. Yeah, like that would ever happen - and it really shouldn't, unless people wanted to do that sort of thing. But that's not what Bel as a whole is about and making rules to legislate that would be ridiculous and detrimental to the game. In fact, no one has ever suggested such a thing and its left open to folks to do on their own as a special little thing to make their enjoyment of the game that much more complete.

That being said, it is important to consider what medieval battle fields were like within the confines of the rules set and safety concerns. Afterall, we're called the Belegarth Medieval Combat Society. Plithut argues:

While I understand that Historically spears were the most common weapon, I really think that argument is moot. Have you looked at what we do, there is almost nothing historical about it. We create 'weapons' out of foam and run around in nowhere close to historically accurate garb.

I wholeheartedly disagree because of the very points that he makes. We "fight" with weapons (and I argue that with the injuries that are sustained on a regular basis [broken noses, bruised ribs, black eyes, chipped teeth, and the occasional concussion] that these are in fact less-than-lethal weapons) that are reasonable facsimiles of their medieval counterparts. Some of us don't wear historically accurate garb or armor but then again some of us do. I'm not tooting my own horn when I say this but with the exception of not wearing caligae (equivalent of cleats) I wear hand sewn historical garb and armor (including underwear) so long as it is within my budget or ability to make myself (I do substitute modern metals when available) to the point of wearing a real bear pelt in feast garb - head and all. Most try to wear something that at least gives the feel of the era because the rules mandate it - a nod to historocity tempered with understanding that not everyone is a bookworm or has the money or the desire to go all out.

It's a fine line to walk but the precedent behind accepting new rule changes appropriately considers, while keeping in check, the important role that historical accuracy plays in our game.

[Rocca]

You guys are both right that the game isn't nearly historically accurate, but to relegate that aspect to the realm of "mootness" rejects a core concept of the game, IMO.

Point is: Historical accuracy argument is moot point. Historically inspired, yes, restricted, maybe, but accuracy? No.

*edited for emphasis

[Forkbeard]

Arrakis wrote:
Immunity to single-green doesn't promote different styles; it represses them. Shortspear and shield is virtually useless in our game. What styles does immunity to single green promote?


I may have missed it, but did anybody attempt to answer this very interesting question?
I'll take this.
Right now, armor is worn by about 10%-20% of the field at any given event. MOST people do not wear it. Therefore most people you fight don't wear it.
Also, at practice, even less people wear armor. With all these armor-less fools running around, we STILL never really see more than a handfull of people trying to fight spear and sheild. Why, be cuase it is usefless on it's own in Bel combat.
It has nothing to do with armor. Its the weapons all the way. In real life , you can slash with your spear. You can hit with the but, you can brain people with the shaft and you can STAB TO THE FACE. Taking away all these attacks cripples the weapon style. Now add in that in real life you can hit people with your sheild and reder them unconsious and injure them badly. Now add in the fact that spear and sheild is really only effective in groups, like a phalanx, which we don't really do, you've basicly completely ruined the style.
All this amounts to the same cripling that quarterstaves go through in our game. In real life, it is a much more effective weapon than a Bel legal quarterstaff.
Have you ever tried to fight an un armored fighter with short spear and shield while they go S&B?
I have, several times. It one of the things I do at practice to keep me from ruining noobs. Until you have video of you owning everyone at your practice with this style you should drop it. It is an ineffective style for Bel and changing armor will not change it.
Second Question: Armor wearing is the style that benifits from imunity to stabs. Everyone benifits who wears armor.
FB

[Loptr]

Plithut and Fork,

Thank you! You two havemade arguments that I can accept and settles with me. For the time being I am bowing out on this discussion and will ee what happens. Perhaps in a year a fresh look will be a good thing.

The last thing I want to see is less quality armor on the field. I feel this is based on malaze, apathy and a pathetic percieved lack of funds than anything else.

I still believe that single green stabs to armor is a good thing. I also agree the concept of archers becoming overpowered is a similar problem. I dont buy into the single green to armor equals that, however its a factor in the web of fairly simple rules.

Thanks for all of the civil discourse from both sides of the party. There has been some truly impressive dialogue on this topic with very little name calling.

I would love to see an ongoing series of play testing. The results will prove to be interesting regardless.

Loptr

*edit* for worse than normal grammer.

[Shino]

Remember: Just because some people want to change a thing for a bad reason DOESN'T make the change a bad change and doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to make the change.

I want to be rid of our free market system and have every market exclusively monopolized by the Gov. because I hate shopping. Doesn't sound like a bad thing right? But it makes me happy.
You cannot seriously think that way can you?

I took some time away from this discussion to let my initial reactions subside. Now I see that this argument is neither about stabbing or armor. This argument is about the speed of play and making changes in the rules to further speed up game play.
It's like we can't kill people fast enough here so we want to do away with any speed bumps we can identify.

This game is almost mindlessly fast as it is.

[No'Vak]

Remember: Just because some people want to change a thing for a bad reason DOESN'T make the change a bad change and doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to make the change.

I want to be rid of our free market system and have every market exclusively monopolized by the Gov. because I hate shopping. Doesn't sound like a bad thing right? But it makes me happy.
You cannot seriously think that way can you?

I took some time away from this discussion to let my initial reactions subside. Now I see that this argument is neither about stabbing or armor. This argument is about the speed of play and making changes in the rules to further speed up game play.
It's like we can't kill people fast enough here so we want to do away with any speed bumps we can identify.

This game is almost mindlessly fast as it is.

Not when people suck .

[Kensman Bam]

I know we keep re-hashing this, and I love to know who and why this keeps being brought back up. I believe we have a good system here without one being more overpowered than the other. I agree with Plithut and Forkbeard on this, and I know The Southern Marches will not vote in favor of this ...again....sigh.

[No'Vak]

I fear it'll actually pass.

Not that I hate cross gaming, I think its great and totally awesome. But just because it works in amt doesn't make it fit our system.

[Forkbeard]

You aren't paying attention, then.
I doubt this will even be voted on. It certainly won't pass.
FB

[Isk]

Remember: Just because some people want to change a thing for a bad reason DOESN'T make the change a bad change and doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to make the change.

I want to be rid of our free market system and have every market exclusively monopolized by the Gov. because I hate shopping. Doesn't sound like a bad thing right? But it makes me happy.
You cannot seriously think that way can you?

I took some time away from this discussion to let my initial reactions subside. Now I see that this argument is neither about stabbing or armor. This argument is about the speed of play and making changes in the rules to further speed up game play.
It's like we can't kill people fast enough here so we want to do away with any speed bumps we can identify.

This game is almost mindlessly fast as it is.

This is why I like this change. I want the government to do my shopping because I hate having so many different colors of t-shirts to choose from. White and black should be enough for anyone.

Seriously, though, the removal of an obstacle to the smooth and intuitive flow of the game is why I like this rule. It doesn't have anything to do with Amtgard. I like the Amtgarders I've fought with, but I've never fought on their field. Just like everyone else who plays regularly, I like the game the way it is, but that doesn't mean that it should never, ever change. I think this change is a speedbump remover that would make the game play smoother and cleaner, so I am for it. We are still playtesting the 1h green=1h blue damage rules in ATD and we have really liked it.

Fork is right, though. It's not likely to be voted on or pass unless there is some phenomenal change in public opinion after Rhun Closer.

[No'Vak]

My brain likes conspiracy theories makes life exciting.

[Kasada]

I submit that telling people about armor status is a realism issue. That is, if we were dealing with real weapons, you'd be able to tell pretty easily if someone's armor was 'broken' somehow.

Also, the way I read it, once armor is broken it's treated as not there, meaning that a slash followed by a stab is perfectly legit. If 1h stabs continue to do nothing to armor, it matters even more to know armor status, because you can still stab broken armor.

[Sir Par]

WRONG Kasada. Armor never actually takes any damage. Its the target behind it that does. For ease of explanation if we go by the point system, armor reduces hits by 1/2 a point. So a blue that does one point actually does 1/2 point to the body, and nothing to the armor. The second hit does an additional 1/2 point of damage to the body, equaling one point, disabling body. A red weapons does 2 points of damage, reduced by 1/2 it does 1 and 1/2 points of damage to the body disabling body. The BOW specifically states that 1 handed stabs to an armored portion of the body are IGNORED, regardless of whether or not its been struck by a blue. It also states that 2 handed stabs bypass armor, they don't deal points the way blues or reds do.

[Cade]

WRONG Kasada. Armor never actually takes any damage. Its the target behind it that does. For ease of explanation if we go by the point system, armor reduces hits by 1/2 a point. So a blue that does one point actually does 1/2 point to the body, and nothing to the armor. The second hit does an additional 1/2 point of damage to the body, equaling one point, disabling body. A red weapons does 2 points of damage, reduced by 1/2 it does 1 and 1/2 points of damage to the body disabling body. The BOW specifically states that 1 handed stabs to an armored portion of the body are IGNORED, regardless of whether or not its been struck by a blue. It also states that 2 handed stabs bypass armor, they don't deal points the way blues or reds do.

See, this is one of those things that when explained to a new person makes them go "huh?"

[No'Vak]

Its the indepth explanation not really one for a new person.

Its not really that hard of a concept to grasp though.

Takes one point to disable limb by slashing. Armor halves the points a swing gives to a limb. Blue = 1 point Red = 2.

Not really that hard.

And if you can't understand single green is ignored you shouldn't be sword fighting its not that complicated.

[Sir Par]

If you're trying to explain the nuances of armor to a newb on the first day then you're trying to shove too much at them. Give them the basics, and send them out on the field. Then tell them to read the BOW before next week and if they have any questions, they can ask you next practice. Problem solved.

[Soo Ma Tai]

As a matter of note concerning armor status questions...here's the rule.

3.4.2. All Injury effects must be accurately portrayed and reported.

This means that although I don't have to tell you my armor's status, I do have to tell you if I have taken a 1/2 point of damage to my torso, which would in turn tell me that the armor has been "broken" (I know it's not broken, etc.)

So yes, Fork, and whoever else thinks you don't have to tell me what's up if I ask, you are wrong, at least sort of. You must tell me your wound status, which inherently tells me your armor status as well.

[Forkbeard]

I disagree.
It says injuries. Not armor status.
Why would I need to tell you that I had a small cut in the back of my torso armor? That's just dumb.
FB

[Arrakis]

Forkbeard: You don't have an armor status. Your armor is never "broken" or whatever. But if I ask if you've received any non-wounding or non-lethal damage, you have to tell me that you've taken one half point of damage to the left arm and the torso if somebody hit you in each of those places with a bluesword while you were wearing armor there.

That's the point of Soo's post.

[Forkbeard]

That wierd half point of damage crap isn't in the rules, either.

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

That is popular way to explain it. But it ain't the rules.

3.2.2.1. Class 1 (one-handed) Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area.

3.2.2.2. Class 2 (two-handed) Weapons cause two hits of Injury to the Target Area.

I say, red weapons do 2 points. Blue does one. Whe my armor is hit, it is damaged. It just isn't damaged everywhere, so you can't stab through it.
Reporting armor damage isn't in the rules.
FB