Moderator: Belegarth: Forum Moderators
Hardiron wrote:I would like to note above, nowhere does it declare that both ends must have swinging strike padding, nor do both ends have to qualify for class one. The only requirements are that both ends follow class 3 rules, and that both ends have at least 18” of padding in a cylindrical fashion. It does not specify strike padding. Below is a link to the weapon for reference.
Hardiron wrote:1.4.6. Double-ended Weapons must conform to all of the following:
1.4.6.1. Double-ended Weapons must not be more than 7 feet (210 cm) long.
1.4.6.2. Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches (45 cm) in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of this weapon must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.
1.4.6.3. Regardless of length, a Double-ended Weapon is a Class 1 Weapon when swung and Class 3 when thrust.
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.
1.4.1.4. The maximum handle length for a Class 1 Weapon is twelve (12) inches (30.5 cm) or one-third (1/3) of the overall length, whichever is greater. This cannot exceed one-half (1/2) of the overall length.
Derian wrote:Well, ****. Par is right.
is exactly the problem. I maintain that with no interpretation, but a direct reading of the minimum requirements of the weapon by someone not familiar with the general disdain towards staffs would build one of these completely innocently. I built it for this reason exactly, to show a hole in the rules that really cant be covered by 1.4 in my opinion, as any advantage I may gain with the second stab tip is more than negated by giving up the class two status, nor do I believe that I am creatively interpreting anything. As to your first point, I do not read the rules that way, to interpret it so would, in my opinion, be a decent reach of an interpretation itself, and one that would not be obvious or clear.Despite your weapon failing, I'm sympathetic because how could you know this from just the way the rules are written?
Tordek wrote:With all due respect to Sir Kegg, Alom, he is not the Book of War. He also said that he hates Staffs and I got the clear impression he thinks they shouldn't be in the game at all. I do not intend to sound punkish or agressive, but as Brutus pointed out, there are areas of the sport that do not have access to Kegg, new realms that may start and build a weapon similar to this seeing no problem in the rules and fight with it for years until they go to their first big time national event only to get laughed out of weapons check.
As for 1.4.6.2, Striking surfaces could refer to either a stab tip or a swung section, and since it is immediately followed by only mentioning class 3, but states nothing about class 1, it would be difficult for a builder not familiar with Sir Keggs hatred of Staffs. More to the point, in my opinion it is not a creative interpretation, but a direct reading.
I'm not even sure why you are referencing 1.4.1.4 as it pertains to class one weapons, not double ended weapons which have a specific separate section, and only count as class one when swung. the operative word there being "when". Their handle and haft padding rules are subject to that stipulated under the double ended weapon section, not the class one section. Second counter argument to 1.4.1.4 is in regard to speed bats that have a relatively small striking surface (say 12-18") but then have a large portion of haft padding before the handle begins. As per current precedent out west, all of those weapons pass. Now, if there were need for me to have actual exposed core handle, I could remove a 6" section of the haft padding from the exact center of the staff, but I left the center portion padded so that when I entered a pole bind I wouldn't be as likely to injure someone should their person come into contact with the haft.
Brutus, to your second point, I spent almost nothing on it. It was one of my first generation omni glaives that I cycled out because it was getting kinda old and worn out, and I wasn't sure it was up to red work anymore. However, your quoteis exactly the problem. I maintain that with no interpretation, but a direct reading of the minimum requirements of the weapon by someone not familiar with the general disdain towards staffs would build one of these completely innocently. I built it for this reason exactly, to show a hole in the rules that really cant be covered by 1.4 in my opinion, as any advantage I may gain with the second stab tip is more than negated by giving up the class two status, nor do I believe that I am creatively interpreting anything. As to your first point, I do not read the rules that way, to interpret it so would, in my opinion, be a decent reach of an interpretation itself, and one that would not be obvious or clear.Despite your weapon failing, I'm sympathetic because how could you know this from just the way the rules are written?
A simple rules change to revert the rules for double ended weapons back to what Sir Keg originally intended would be to add the phrase "Class 1 and..." to rule 1.4.6.2 immediately proceeding "Class 3". However, as was pointed out, no one here has yet to scream at me for making the weapon (yet), so I will be putting it through extensive play tests to determine its safety and play ability, and report back in a few months with the field data.
Tordek wrote:Precedent is insufficient, we have to have our rules written sufficently clearly that anyone can read them and take away what we intend for them to.
Return to Rules Discussion And Development
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests