1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Topics For Experienced Members

Moderator: Belegarth: Forum Moderators

1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Kyrian » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:04 pm

1.3.7. The amount of tape on a striking surface should be kept to a minimum.


There was a debate this weekend regarding how this rule should be interpreted due to weapons that had a single layer of packing tape applied longitudinally, not spiraled, on a cylindrical weapon. For those who haven't seen this style of construction, the packing tape reduces the formation of shears and tears in the foam thereby extending the lifespan of the weapon. Duct tape and spiraled tape are different situations since they can radically affect how a weapon hits, i.e., adding considerably more slap and sting to shots. I interpret the rule to mean that having tape completely covering a striking surface doesn't necessarily make the weapon fail for construction. As long as the tape does not compromise how the weapon hits then it should be OK.
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy
User avatar
Kyrian
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
Pronouns: he/him

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Sir Anastasia » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:09 pm

I am still unclear on this. Is the weapon in question made with tape on the striking surface that is on the cloth cover or is it underneath the cover (like a common Amtgard build)?
Cofounder and Marshal of Andúril
Cofounder Battle for the Ring
Order of the Shining Tower
Order of the Western Flame

See you at Battle for the Ring in January www.battleforthering.com
User avatar
Sir Anastasia
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Started Fighting: 31 Aug 2001
Realm: Marshal of Anduril
Unit: Wardens
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Extreme Taunting

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby bo1 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:11 pm

i would agree, although in the past( 3 years ago) i did disagree. i have learned that bats last forever taped this way and they dont hit hard or slap. i see it as the next logical evolution in weapons tech.

hey it used to be couch cushion and pvc with blue jean right?
Sir Beauregaurd Brutus Elevo
Knight of Rhun
High Commander of
Clan of the Hydra
That's Mr. Implacable to you.
If you disagree disrespectfully, the boards are a much better read.
Dane
User avatar
bo1
The Nightbringer
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Madison WI, AKA Rhun
Favorite Fighting Styles: whatever peter the quick is doing just like everyone else

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Kyrian » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:22 pm

Anastasia of Chamonix wrote:I am still unclear on this. Is the weapon in question made with tape on the striking surface that is on the cloth cover or is it underneath the cover (like a common Amtgard build)?


The packing tape is put down in strips on the long axis of the weapon with the edges of the tape slightly overlapping to completely cover the foam in tape. Then the cloth cover is placed on the weapon.
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy
User avatar
Kyrian
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
Pronouns: he/him

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Magpie Saegar » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:46 pm

I see the validity of that technique, Kyrian, but there's no way I can conceive of 100% covered in tape as a minimum.

I would argue that that shouldn't pass with the rules written this way. But if I were to rules lawyer, I'd mention that the rule just says it should be kept to a minimum, not that it has to be. Thus I believe that rules and laws should never have the word "should" in them.

In the end, I'd care more about how the weapon hits, whether that's what the BoW was telling me to do or not.
Magpie of Rhun/Denuvald - A stranger in a strange land.
Dream Blog.
User avatar
Magpie Saegar
Skull Crusher
Skull Crusher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:52 am
Location: State College, PA
Started Fighting: 16 Sep 2004
Realm: Denuvald
Unit: Ex - Clan of the Hydra

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Solusar » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:57 pm

As long as it passes hit test I'm cool with it.
Squire Solusar Oma'Ragh McFeelgood, the Usurper
Squire to Sir Rune of Mittlemarch
I fight Dagorhir, but I'm still cool somehow.
User avatar
Solusar
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:10 pm
Location: Philly, PA
Started Fighting: 01 Sep 2001
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and board, Red, Red +back shield,

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby varadin » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:39 am

Ive seen these style of weapons have far more slap in some cases, and in others never die and add nothing to the hit. Personally if it doesn't cause lasting damage or somehow the tape cuts me through the cover I am fine with them on the field. Minimal is subjective thus why it should be worded better. Id rather see something along the lines of

"tape on a striking surface may cause the weapon to fail if it effects hit or properties of a weapon"

But that would just be for weapons checkers benifits of failing it because it hits to hard/slaps. Where as thats all I see the present rule doing. Never have I seen a weapon fail outright because of tape on the striking surface its because of tape effecting hit thus the HIT fails.
User avatar
varadin
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 3:26 pm
Location: Pentwyvern
Started Fighting: 20 Apr 2001
Realm: Pentwyvern
Unit: EBF

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Cyric » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:22 am

I've seen a bunch of these come through various weapons checks, but they usually pass a hit test, and as bo pointed out its part of the build to make them last longer. I personally hate it, but the way the rule is currently worded it passes.

I think the original spirit of the rule was to keep duct tape off weapons, which does cause too much slap and causes damage to the weapon over a short amount of time. Packing tape doesn't have the same impact.

Its a similar argument to modular arrows: what rules are people going to choose to ignore in order to advance weapons tech, and how far are weapon checkers going to allow people to get away with it? Do we need a rule change to encompass these changes?
Knight of Numenor
User avatar
Cyric
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:57 am
Started Fighting: 23 Aug 1999
Realm: Numenor
Unit: Knights of Numenor

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Soo Ma Tai » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:48 am

There is no need for a rules change and here's why. As was said, that rule is ment to keep the duct tape covered weapons out of the check line. The slap like crazy, and oft times hit like a brick. Back in the olden days of buils using PVC, rubber cement, and lots of duct tape. It was necessary to put this in the rules to keep noobs from coming out with bricks, which happened enough as it was.

The rule is more of a guideline than a hard fast rule since "to a minimum" is interpretive. If a weapon passes on all other accounts, hits fine, etc. Then it should pass. If it doesn't pass and hits like a brick, this rule can be cited, but really the hit test is what fails it. This is really just in there to help keep failing weapons from even being built.

TL;DR- Having the striking surface covered in tape doesn't auto-fail the weapon. As long as it passes everything else, the tape rule is moot.
Soo Ma Tai, Warmaster
Sir Fancy Pants
Uruk-Hai, Horde, White Skull, VB
Antler Up, Herd Win!
User avatar
Soo Ma Tai
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Stygia (Missoula, MT)
Realm: Stygia
Unit: Western Uruk-Hai- White Skull- HoRDe- VB

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Forkbeard » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:27 am

I disagree. A very few amt dudes make swords this way that pass. The majority are using pool noodle and covering it with tape to do as Kyrain says. To keep the foam for shearing and tearing off the core. That is not a safe design. Good speed bats don't require this kind of taping.
In my experience, these 100% taped amt weapons are fine when used for light hitting amtfighting, but really do slap alot harder when used for harder hitting fighting. They are built for light combat rules. They should stay on a light combat field.
100% taped surface is in no way minimal.
Please keep in mind, this is not a part of my cusade against quicktubes. However I feel about them, they can be made perfectly safe. The best designs for the are really very good and I have no issue what so ever with their safety. The standard amt-bat, with the tape over fun noodle with a cloth cover over it, sucks and should not be allowed in full contact combat. If these cross gamers from amtgard waht to fight with us, they have to make safe equipment(to our standard of safety, not theirs). We do not allow their arrows or some of their other equipment like punch weapons because while they make work great in LIGHT CONTACT combat, they will hurt several people if allowed in our full conact system.
FB
Warlord of the Western Uruk-Hai

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear
User avatar
Forkbeard
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5604
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:46 pm
Location: Kung Foo Island
Started Fighting: 15 Jun 2000
Realm: Aquilonia
Unit: Western Uruk Hai
Favorite Fighting Styles: Just the Tip

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Soo Ma Tai » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:54 am

All I am saying is that built to our spec. Having tape on the striking surface doesn't cause an auto fail. Case in point. Most of the weaons I brought out for the first two years had duct tape on the entire striking surface, yet passed at every event I went to. It's a matter of construction. When built like amt weapons, they are going to fail, most likely. When done properly, they ~can~ still pass.
Soo Ma Tai, Warmaster
Sir Fancy Pants
Uruk-Hai, Horde, White Skull, VB
Antler Up, Herd Win!
User avatar
Soo Ma Tai
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Stygia (Missoula, MT)
Realm: Stygia
Unit: Western Uruk-Hai- White Skull- HoRDe- VB

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Big King Jimmy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:55 am

Forkbeard wrote:I disagree. A very few amt dudes make swords this way that pass. The majority are using pool noodle and covering it with tape to do as Kyrain says. To keep the foam for shearing and tearing off the core. That is not a safe design. Good speed bats don't require this kind of taping.
In my experience, these 100% taped amt weapons are fine when used for light hitting amtfighting, but really do slap alot harder when used for harder hitting fighting. They are built for light combat rules. They should stay on a light combat field.
100% taped surface is in no way minimal.
Please keep in mind, this is not a part of my cusade against quicktubes. However I feel about them, they can be made perfectly safe. The best designs for the are really very good and I have no issue what so ever with their safety. The standard amt-bat, with the tape over fun noodle with a cloth cover over it, sucks and should not be allowed in full contact combat. If these cross gamers from amtgard waht to fight with us, they have to make safe equipment(to our standard of safety, not theirs). We do not allow their arrows or some of their other equipment like punch weapons because while they make work great in LIGHT CONTACT combat, they will hurt several people if allowed in our full conact system.
FB



Forkbeard, the problemt ehre is fun noodle, not tape. A lot of quick tube tech starts with a weapon that would normally pass just fine on its own, then tape is added to double or triple the life of the weapon. And all while adding nothing to the hit test.
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington
User avatar
Big King Jimmy
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Reverend » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:27 pm

The way that I was taught and the way I have seen enforced at every event I have been to has been: A strip or two at key points for structural purposes is fine. Completely covering the entire thing in tape isn't.

Does anyone remember the old "if I cover it in cloth tape, I'm good" nonsense? The argument was that if they covered their striking surface with cloth tape, then they had a cloth cover, but they were shot down because covering the striking surface isn't minimum.

Either it's all bad or it's all good.
Oderint Dum Metuant
User avatar
Reverend
Slayer
Slayer
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Big King Jimmy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:08 pm

Right... but the reason that was bad is because it hit like a mac truck. The rule was added as a way to simply put in the rules "Hey, a bunch of tape on your weapon makes it hurt." These don't hurt. If they pass hit test, let 'em go. The mere existence of tape, in any amount, on a weapon should not make it fail weapons check on its own.
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington
User avatar
Big King Jimmy
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Reverend » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:25 pm

Big King Jimmy wrote:Right... but the reason that was bad is because it hit like a mac truck. The rule was added as a way to simply put in the rules "Hey, a bunch of tape on your weapon makes it hurt." These don't hurt. If they pass hit test, let 'em go. The mere existence of tape, in any amount, on a weapon should not make it fail weapons check on its own.


Then can we get a motion in the next voting cycle to remove this rule? Because it doesn't easily lead itself to that interpretation.
Oderint Dum Metuant
User avatar
Reverend
Slayer
Slayer
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Big King Jimmy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:29 pm

I've been thinking about it for a couple of voting periods already. I know my realm would support my decision as they use the packing tape tech.
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington
User avatar
Big King Jimmy
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Kyrian » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:22 pm

How do either of these sound:

1.3.7. Tape is allowed on the striking surface as long as it does not compromise the weapon's safety.

or

1.3.7. Tape is allowed on the striking surface as long as it does not compromise the weapon's ability to deliver a safe hit.

The first version is a bit more general and does leave a bit of wiggle room for the weapon checkers. The second is more specific on how the tape could impact whether the weapon passes or fails.
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy
User avatar
Kyrian
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
Pronouns: he/him

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby bo1 » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:45 pm

what about specifying duct tape on the striking surface is to be kept to a minumum, other tape is allowed as long as it doesnt comprimise the hit of the weapon. seems like ti would get at the heart of the issue and be as simple and staight forward as possible with almost no room for wierd interpretations.
Sir Beauregaurd Brutus Elevo
Knight of Rhun
High Commander of
Clan of the Hydra
That's Mr. Implacable to you.
If you disagree disrespectfully, the boards are a much better read.
Dane
User avatar
bo1
The Nightbringer
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Madison WI, AKA Rhun
Favorite Fighting Styles: whatever peter the quick is doing just like everyone else

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Soo Ma Tai » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:45 am

Honestly we should just get rid of that line in the BoW. Then put together a simple foam smithing guide, that somewhere states that having tape, esp. more than minimal amounts, on a striking surface, can cause a weapon to fail for hitting to hard.
Soo Ma Tai, Warmaster
Sir Fancy Pants
Uruk-Hai, Horde, White Skull, VB
Antler Up, Herd Win!
User avatar
Soo Ma Tai
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Stygia (Missoula, MT)
Realm: Stygia
Unit: Western Uruk-Hai- White Skull- HoRDe- VB

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Zeldrine Cold » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:56 am

That would be ideal, but I would see rules monkeys saying that it's not against the rules anymore and try and wiggle their way around it. Changing the rule, for the time being, seems like a better idea than droping it completely.
Mefit the Geek wrote:You'll get what I give you and like it!
User avatar
Zeldrine Cold
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 2312
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Somewhere in the void of space
Realm: Acheron
Unit: EBF
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and Board

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Big King Jimmy » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:23 am

Rules monkeys get their weapon failed on the "because I say so" clause. It's my favorite.
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington
User avatar
Big King Jimmy
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Forkbeard » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:13 pm

I want to see some kind of ban on funnoodle striking surfaces. They feel ok for about 5 minutes, then they start to break down and get dead spots. They are trash and I feel like in this particular instance the weapons that Rev failed were fun noodle amt weapons covered in tape to hold them together.
Like I said before, properly made quicktubes with a layer of tape to extend their life for years are obviously differently made things that a fun noodle and tape amt-bat.
If we modify this rule as you guys are sugesting, we will see many, many more of these crappy weapons.
Well made quicktubes are annoying but very safe.
Fun noodle weapons are dangerous.
FB
Warlord of the Western Uruk-Hai

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear
User avatar
Forkbeard
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5604
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:46 pm
Location: Kung Foo Island
Started Fighting: 15 Jun 2000
Realm: Aquilonia
Unit: Western Uruk Hai
Favorite Fighting Styles: Just the Tip

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Big King Jimmy » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:16 pm

While I agree, that's a seperate issue Forkbeard and you should make a seperate post for it.
King of Dunharrow
Commander of Clan of the Hydra
Biggy Biggy J
Rather Large James
James of Enviable Girth
Jimmington
User avatar
Big King Jimmy
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 5474
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Elgin, IL (Dunharrow)
Started Fighting: 0- 5-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: Bat and Board, Archery, Spear

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Squire Moxk » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:30 pm

No where in the book of war does it define the types of foam allowed to be used in construction or methods of construction and I think this is a good thing.

If you have a problem with people using noodle at belegarth events/practices then you need to play within the current rules. Do more spot checks on the field between battles, if the noodle starts to fart out and you can feel core even slightly then throw it off the field. Make sure that people are calling light shots light not just accepting it because it made contact. Eventually playing within the rules will discourage people from using them in our game.

I use noodle bats in certain training exercises and sparing situations because it works for teaching specific things, but i would not bring them on a national field because when they are completed they weight about 6 ounces and they can't deliver a sufficient force hit. They are just not ideal for our game, but if people want to try to deliver sufficient force swings with a noodle bat with 6 ounces of counter weighting then that's their right, and it's your right to call light and crush them.
Dunharrow
Amyr
User avatar
Squire Moxk
Thug
Thug
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Dunharrow
Started Fighting: 0- 4-2001
Realm: Dunharrow
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword/Round

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Sir Anastasia » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:21 pm

I think tape on a striking surface should mean on the cover (not necessarily in the construction underneath, because we don't have many construction based rules)...as in, there should be no tape on the cover where there is striking surface. This would have eliminated the "cloth tape" cover weapons, or weapons with tape holding the cover on in stupid ways, as well as allowing us to fail any weapon with tape on it that added confusion if it could appear like a contrast strip for non-striking. Basically, I thought it was there to allow you to fail cloth covered weapons that have covers held together with tape (patches, holding dog ears, ect), as both a safety and playability option. I like the 2nd re-wording, but I would still like something that mentions having no tape on the cover of striking surfaces explicitly. The original wording can mean all things, and minimal can be interpreted as either a hit-test issue or a weapon appearance issue.
Cofounder and Marshal of Andúril
Cofounder Battle for the Ring
Order of the Shining Tower
Order of the Western Flame

See you at Battle for the Ring in January www.battleforthering.com
User avatar
Sir Anastasia
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Started Fighting: 31 Aug 2001
Realm: Marshal of Anduril
Unit: Wardens
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Extreme Taunting

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Cyric » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:24 pm

tape on the cover of a weapon already denotes that it is a non striking surface.
Knight of Numenor
User avatar
Cyric
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:57 am
Started Fighting: 23 Aug 1999
Realm: Numenor
Unit: Knights of Numenor

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Kyrian » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:50 pm

I don't think we should specify what kind of tape is illegal because who knows what kind of tape we may see in the future, i.e., kevlar tape, carbon fiber tape, etc. In addition, there are ways to make packing tape-covered or any other type of tape-covered weapons fail such as by spiral wrapping or over-compressing the foam. Better to future-proof the rule and still leave it to the checker to decide that a weapon is unsafe without a completely tape-covered striking surface outright failing.
"...change requires action, it doesn't just happen. Define your actions by how you think the game should be, not how the game is. The game will follow."--Big Jimmy
User avatar
Kyrian
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Started Fighting: 0- 8-1991
Realm: Andor
Unit: Clan of the Hydra
Favorite Fighting Styles: sword and board
florentine
archery
Pronouns: he/him

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby The Great Gigsby » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:42 am

Re: tape on weapons, as so many have already said, I don't mind it so long as the weapon passes a hit test. Some techniques involving tape don't affect the hit at all while some do. Not to mention, it's often hard to tell how much tape and what kind is on a weapon without removing the cover. I would be in favor of removing 1.3.7 altogether.

Soo Ma Tai wrote:Honestly we should just get rid of that line in the BoW. Then put together a simple foam smithing guide, that somewhere states that having tape, esp. more than minimal amounts, on a striking surface, can cause a weapon to fail for hitting to hard.
I really like this idea as well as a supplement to the BoW that standardizes weapons checking procedures. Why not set up a committee of experienced players to draft something and get it voted in as an official document?
-Giggles

HORDE WIN!
User avatar
The Great Gigsby
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Walla Walla, WA
Unit: Horde

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Loptr » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:57 am

Packing tape by itself should not be an auto fail.
The weapons hit should be the deciding factor.
Viking rattBastard
Loptr
Gladiator
Gladiator
 
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: SLC, Utard
Realm: Acheron
Favorite Fighting Styles: Tappy Tappy
Seriously......

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Reverend » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:31 am

If we are going to leave it up to the hit test anyways, I see no need to keep this rule in any form.

I'm going to stand by my original view, 100% covered cannot be considered as "minimum" tape. Nor should we try to legislate what tapes can be used to completely cover it.

So, let's just remove the entire thing. If someone packs on the duct tape and it affects the hit test, then it fails. If they pack on the duct tape and it doesn't affect the hit test, then it passes.
Oderint Dum Metuant
User avatar
Reverend
Slayer
Slayer
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Slagar » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 pm

The concern some poeple have is that some materials (such as pool noodle) pass the thit test when new almost universally. They just break down extremely quickly over the course of even a day, so that a weapon safe at 10:00AM may very well core out and welt the **** out of somebody by 4:00PM. And sure, spot checks would helpthat, but we are a volunteer organization and getting enough people to run even one weapon check is a pain in the *. So the idea is that precluding weapons made from the only commonly used material known to suffer this problem may not be unreasonable. Definitely more reasonable than failing an otherwise excellent weapon just because there's tape on it.

I'm not advocating any particular option, here, just clarifying a point. This is an interesting discussion, but I'm frankly not qualified to say **** about smithing, it's jut not my arena.
Numenorean expatriate
Gaffi Stick of the Sand Plains
Retainer to Squire Trogdor
User avatar
Slagar
Slayer
Slayer
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:24 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Started Fighting: 18 Oct 2006
Realm: Numenor
Unit: The Amyr
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and Board

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Sir Anastasia » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:58 pm

I think that is an excellent point. I also think most people using that tech are Amt or light hitting group. If we have a pool noodle, we kill people by 4PM, but they don't... this material ban is more irritating for events geared towards cross-gaming.

Obviously, we should have rules that everyone has to follow too. Unfortunately, any weapon can fail during combat at any time. Not all pool noodle fail by 4PM either. I am content passing them in the AM and telling them their weapons' suck (but pass) and that they need to spot check them and that they may be subject to spot checks by staff. There are many practical issues to consider when thinking about this particular material ban. I do not think the damage done by these weapons in the hands of these people is greater than the damage done to the sport if cross gaming becomes more difficult.
Cofounder and Marshal of Andúril
Cofounder Battle for the Ring
Order of the Shining Tower
Order of the Western Flame

See you at Battle for the Ring in January www.battleforthering.com
User avatar
Sir Anastasia
Grizzled Veteran
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Started Fighting: 31 Aug 2001
Realm: Marshal of Anduril
Unit: Wardens
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Extreme Taunting

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Reverend » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:15 pm

Please limit your discussion on foam types to the appropriate thread. This thread is specifically about tape on striking surfaces.
Oderint Dum Metuant
User avatar
Reverend
Slayer
Slayer
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Kage » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:26 pm

Reverend wrote:I'm going to stand by my original view, 100% covered cannot be considered as "minimum" tape.


Took the words right out of my mouth. Axe the rule or axe the tech; either way I care not because I only really care about the hit test and making sure only safe weapons reach the field.
Kage
21st Knight of the Highlands of Chaos
Ebonhold
Coffee with Kage
User avatar
Kage
Slayer
Slayer
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:46 am
Location: Idaho Falls, ID
Realm: Ebonhold

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Arrakis » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:31 am

The rule clearly only exists to point new foamsmiths in the correct direction. It's a little helper-rule, like the one suggesting that shield contact to the head and neck is discouraged. Both of them are saying, hey man, don't do this thing if you can not, unless you really know what you're doing. If you do do it and someone gets hurt, your * is going to be on the line.
User avatar
Arrakis
Warning: Knows Math
 
Posts: 4784
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Central Jersey
Started Fighting: 17 Jun 2007
Realm: Crystal Groves
Unit: Omega
Favorite Fighting Styles: No gimmicks.
Pronouns: He/Him

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Ignatius » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:19 am

Arrakis wrote:The rule clearly only exists to point new foamsmiths in the correct direction. It's a little helper-rule, like the one suggesting that shield contact to the head and neck is discouraged. Both of them are saying, hey man, don't do this thing if you can not, unless you really know what you're doing. If you do do it and someone gets hurt, your * is going to be on the line.


My sarcasm detector is faulty today, was this all serious or was there sarcasm in it. TY
Ignatius
Warrior
Warrior
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:41 am
Started Fighting: 25 Feb 2008

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Arrakis » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:44 am

Serious.

I honestly believe the tape rule is worded the way it is specifically to allow tape to be used by knowledgeable foamsmiths while encouraging newbies not to use it and providing a rule that can be used to fail duct-tape-wrapped newbsticks without having to hit some poor back with it.
User avatar
Arrakis
Warning: Knows Math
 
Posts: 4784
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Central Jersey
Started Fighting: 17 Jun 2007
Realm: Crystal Groves
Unit: Omega
Favorite Fighting Styles: No gimmicks.
Pronouns: He/Him

Re: 1.3.7: How do you interpret "minimum"?

Postby Tiberius Claudius » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:18 pm

Reverend wrote:If we are going to leave it up to the hit test anyways, I see no need to keep this rule in any form.

I'm going to stand by my original view, 100% covered cannot be considered as "minimum" tape. Nor should we try to legislate what tapes can be used to completely cover it.

So, let's just remove the entire thing. If someone packs on the duct tape and it affects the hit test, then it fails. If they pack on the duct tape and it doesn't affect the hit test, then it passes.


+1
Remy the Wroth wrote:Just don't call it boffing/boffering. That's not what we do. We fight. With swords. To the sorta-death. I can't stand it when someone says boffering. Plus is means sexin' in the UK.



RIP Surt, Adunakhor of Barad'dun
Image
User avatar
Tiberius Claudius
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:50 pm
Location: St. George, UT
Started Fighting: 20 May 2009
Realm: An Tir Dearg - Realm Leader
Unit: War Wolves of An Tir Dearg
Favorite Fighting Styles: S&B, spear, longsword


Return to Rules Discussion And Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron