by Hideshi » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:55 pm
Magpie Saegar - This may be true, but it rather hinges on people starting to intentional swing for their opponent's foot. Again, while you can make this your personal style, I have yet to hear of any one that would encourage this as a viable style so the risk, in my admittedly wildly speculative estimate, does not seem terribly increased from the current situation.
Rasheab - While heavy boots may have been part of the original reason, it strikes me as somewhat odd that it's assumed you can feel a good hit through full plate, but not a heavy boot. I wear hardened leather armor, and I imagine that would present more of an issue that a heavy boot, so why is there a rule in one case but not the other? As for drama, perhaps it would occur this way on occasion, but I think hitting the ground first would feel sufficiently different that one would not be overly surprised by your target calling "light." Further, given the general frequency of "foot on ground" calls to start with, I would guess that such cases would crop up infrequently enough to not significantly add to the overall drama. Especially in comparison to, oh say, taking red hits on shields (but that's a whole different kettle of fish). Also as an aside, I too, fight barefooted.
As for why the rule should be changed, I have not advocated any particular reasons yet. Personally, I have rather faint hopes of the rule actually changing, simply because trying to do so would incite a ridiculous amount of drama from the community at large, which would likely parrot your, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," argument almost word for word and then completely ignore me. I'm also slightly cynical of human nature, in case you couldn't tell.
However, I also personally think that rules in rule sets should have a purpose. After all, if a rule doesn't have a purpose, why is it a rule in the first place? Further, I think people tend to have more fun when there are fewer rules. I can think of few people that are excited by being told they can't do something. The other major reason is that I think it will lead to less drama overall, since people won't have to make judgements about whether it was a foot strike or an ankle strike. I know I've seen a lot of drama over whether a strike was in an inclusive zone or an exclusive zone (and I'm sure I'm not the only one), so I think anything to cut down on those debates is a good thing.
Ultimately, this rule just feels unneeded to me, so I would be in favor of cutting it. It simplifies the rules, removes a weird edge case that has, in my opinion, no reason to exist, and it makes for less confusion since you don't have to have any internal debate over where precisely something hit in at least one more case.
As a second aside, this is precisely why archers are allowed to call their shots, because people miss them.
JoeMick - Again, who is, "repeatedly slamming the tip of the weapon in the ground," to try and hit people's feet? If you are doing that, then it is your own fault for not taking care of your weapons. Likewise, I seriously question people aiming for feet with any regularity. At least, not if they want to stay alive very long. That said, I'm not a doctor, but I would be surprised if foot injuries suddenly eclipsed any other sort of injuries in term of frequency.
Why do you feel the rule makes large melees run smoother?
While I concede that anecdotal evidence is so weak as to not deserve the title of, "evidence," in this case what I am really trying to do is provoke out some solid, hard evidence against my experience (rather than conjecture), since I am somewhat incredulous that it exists. That said, the anecdotal evidence was a secondary refutation of an argument that I think I have already shown doesn't apply. To restate, it doesn't matter if you, as the attacker, can tell if you hit foot or ground, since your opponent makes the determination and then you trust his/her honor. As for pommels, well, I know I've taken more than one pommel hit in my fighting career and I'd still be up for debate on pommel rule reform. But that's another topic for another thread.