Belegarth

Rowan wrote:

Bevin wrote:

Big Jimmy wrote:I don't care how you hold it, or how dumb it is. The point still stands that if you don't punch with it, you can't call it a punching weapon. he still wants to chop, just hold his sword differently, doesn't even want a stabby with it. I see no issues.

Except the whole "no real pommel" thing.

Up until the moment some noob other than the owner picks it up and goes and punches someone. This is the same "I could use it safely" arguement that comes up all the time. If a weapon could be unsafe in someone's hands then it shouldn't get passed.

What's stopping some noob from not stabbing with a sword you have now that isn't stabby? This sword isn't stabby, because it has no stabbing tip. Your sword isn't stabby, because it has no stabby tip. Some noob picks up this weapon and stabs with it because it's real life counterpart had a dagger tip, some kid picks up your sword and stabs with it because in real life swords are pointy.

Jimmy, you're side stepping the point. This isn't about it being a stabbing weapon. It's about it being a punching weapon. You can generate a hell of a lot more force with a punch than with a stab, making core breach more likely.

I guess it comes down to personal preference. I'm not aware of a rule that specifically says all weapons must have a pommel, so I don't think you could fail it for that. You could fail it if you feel it is unsafe though (like you think someone may pick it up and punch with it), which is what I would do.

BoW wrote:1.1.4. Pommel - Non-Striking Surface that covers the end of the Handle.

Covers. Not may cover. Not can cover. Covers. Does cover. As in, must exist and do this job.

Why do you people want to make these coked-out weapons? I guarantee it's not because you have nothing left to learn from more classical weapon styles. If you're not having fun on the field with a more conventional weapon, I recommend you take a long, hard look at why that is instead of just assuming a new, ridiculous weapon design will fix things.

If you have a serious design that you wish to posit, please ask about it; people will be glad to opine. But, please, something not from a high-magic or futuristic videogame. The weapons that have been used throughout history were used for a reason: they worked. Take a look at the weapons that have been around for a few dozen centuries and try building some of them:

War scythe (See Poland, every war they've ever had, basically)
Halberd (Swiss guard forever)
Zwiehander (sturdy, safe crossguard building is not easy)
Khopesh or Kuhkri (bent blades)
Main Gauche (fencing sidearm)
etc.

One could go on and on! So why oh why are you looking to ridiculous sources like video games for not just weapon inspiration, which is fine, but actual designs? You're copying the design of some game graphics artist who's probably never even swung a long stick at somebody else, much less wielded a sword. Why?

Arrakis wrote:

BoW wrote:1.1.4. Pommel - Non-Striking Surface that covers the end of the Handle.

Covers. Not may cover. Not can cover. Covers. Does cover. As in, must exist and do this job.

Are you kidding me? This section is out of weapons checking definitions. Not weapon specifications.

1.1.2. Non-striking Surface – Any padded surface of the Weapon that is not a striking surface.
1.1.4. Pommel - Non-striking Surface that covers the end of the Handle.

These 2 rules read almost exactly the same. The definitions section tell you what terms refer to what parts of a weapon, not whether or not they have to exist. A pommel is on a weapon to stop the bottom of it from entering an eye socket (Must not easily pass through a 2" hole, 2" hole is an eye socket) if the weapon has no bottom, and no part of it can enter an eye, I don't see why it has to have a pommel.

If you can't call the point of a scythe can't be green and the blade can't be red because belegarth weapons are not their real life counterparts, then failing a weapon without a stabbing tip based on the fact that it's "real life counterpart" was stabbing doesn't make any sense either.

despite how a person intends to use a weapon you have to look at design intent. a weapon designed as such is made with a punching style strike as the intended use. A weapon designed with such a handle should be failed because if it is designed to be used in a punching fashion you can bet your * it will be(intending to swing it doesn't change the fact it is designed for punching). To use it swung as a regular sword would be aquard and totally inefficient. you pick up something like that the natural hand positioning makes it a weapon one would stab with, not swing. your hand is totally in the wrong angle to support a swung attack. even if not done intentionally a stab would eventually occur by reflex alone.

Why, then, Jimmy, according to that sort of interpretation, you're arguing that since the Armor Definitions section merely defines several types of material that are acceptable, since nowhere does it say that armor must be made of one of the Defined materials, that you can make passable armor out of any period material whatsoever, including bone, horn, linen, cloth, thin metal, and suede?

If a weapon has a handle, it requires a pommel.

Armor checking definitions:

3.1. Definitions
3.1.1. Leather - Armor constructed of tanned animal hide.
3.1.2. Metal - Armor constructed of metal. Includes chain and plate.
3.1.3. Rigid Metal - Armor constructed of discrete or continuous metal plate.
3.1.4. Chain - Metal Armor constructed of interlocking metal rings.
3.1.5. Helmet - Armor for the Head and Neck.
3.1.6. Cops - Rigid metal knee and elbow Armor.
3.1.7. Composite - Armor constructed of both metal and leather.
3.1.8. Penny Round - Armor checking standard where the edge of rigid metal Armor is compared to that of a penny:
3.1.8.1. The edge of rigid metal Armor shall have the smoothness of the edge of a penny.
3.1.8.2. The edge of rigid metal Armor shall have less cutting ability than the edge of a penny.
3.1.8.3. The radius of any rigid metal corner must be greater than the radius of a penny.

Metal armor rules:

3.5. The minimum thickness for leather Armor is 3/16 inch. The minimum thickness requirement can be achieved by layering up to two pieces of thinner leather.
3.6. Metal Armor
3.6.1. Metal Armor must be made from period metals and alloys such as iron, bronze, brass, or copper. Modern steel alloys are also allowed.

That covers all the armor in our game. I see what your saying, but failing a new weapon because it doesn't have a pommel, despite the fact that there is no spot on it that needs the protection that the pommel was intended for, is just looking for an excuse to fail the weapon. The pommel rule was not added to the BoW to prevent people from creating weapons with loop handles, it was to protect fighters from a point sticking out from the bottom of a weapon. I could understand failing it because the "sides" of the handle weren't padded, that's the part that I would most fear coming in contact with someone, but if it was padded that's pommel enough for me.

Just as you shouldn't be able to find a loop hole in the rules to gain an advantage, neither should you use a loophole in the rules to stop someone from trying something safe. I believe that weapon is safe, and assuming there is something glaringly obvious I'm missing that I would catch when seeing it, I would pass it on a local field for play testing.

* Rumbeard:
How does that argument not cary over in to other arias, like spears? 90% of n00bs that have picked up spears in my realm have wanted to swing them not stab with them (even after being told they are stabbing only). With the way you hold them it makes sense to swing them, does that mean that spears should not be allowed on the field unless they can also be used as a glaive (thus no longer being a spear)?

Fair enough, Jimmy.

I still don't think building it's a good idea, though.

Arrakis wrote:Fair enough, Jimmy.

I still don't think building it's a good idea, though.

Oh, let me be clear, TOTAL waste of resources. I could wipe my * with the foam that gets used for that and it would serve a better purpose. But some people learn better by making mistakes.

I hate to say it, but I totally agree with Jimmy on his last post, and a few before it.
#1 I know a lot of you are into the whole "period" thing, but we do include fantasy in our game. Letting people try new things is part of how they learn.
#2 If making silly things that I/the rest of belegarth don't like makes you happy, be down. However, if I can come up with a legitimate reason to fail it as a weapons checker, I will no matter if I like the concept of the weapon or not.
#3 The whole pommel thing is stupid, if it's safe it will pass, if not it will fail, it does not * with safety, it does not * with playability nor does it make the game unfair to anyone. And like Jimmy has pointed out, no where does it say that a weapon needs a pommel, if it did we couldn't have rocks or arrows. As far as I'm concerned no where does it say that a pommel must be made out of foam either, if the rope/foam before you get to the rope prevents someone from getting gouged in the eye by core, it's cool.

And lets remember that the main concern here is SAFETY, then Realism, which means not (in my opinion) IS is real, but CAN it be real. And finnally we need to talk about the playability, aka does it create an unfair advantage for anyone while using said weapon. Those are the reasons we have the rules, and those are the reasons we need to follow the rules. Interpretation does and will take place, however if all these conditions can be met, then the weapon passes.

a spear being swung is a good example of design intent not being used right. it is meant for stabbing but because of the way you hold it beginners are likely to swing it. the difference between a spear and a sword of the design in question is one of safety. swung a spear isn't likely to hurt anyone if it is padded properly, a weapon designed to use the force of a punch is going to do just that. now if the weapon was constructed with a good stabby tip i'd say experiment. the design is a standard sword blade which on such a weapon could do real damage which is why punching weapons are forbidden.

all our arguments aside here, If you don't concider that a punching weapon by design then what is? let's clarify, not how a person intends to swing the weapon but the overall construction.

a swung spear that is properly padded still hurts like hell and can do some real damage.

Then, by the definition of the rules, it's not properly padded.

Unless you mean a full-out strike with the spear's courtesy padding, which should never happen.

In general I think I agree with Jimmy. But I still don't think it's safe.

you can justify anything if you argue it enough. ANY approved weapon can hurt someone.

I am 6'4'' and 280 pounds, I have knocked people off their feet with a 3 ft blue and left em with rather large bruises. I have no doubt i could do real damage with any Belegarth legal weapon if I wanted to. The point isn't can a weapon hurt someone but what is the likelyhood of it. you wanna find a way to justify using a punch weapon then do so. I sure as hell won't be the person your fighting with it. If punch style weapons were safe they would be legal.

Arrakis wrote:Unless you mean a full-out strike with the spear's courtesy padding, which should never happen.

Your right it should never happen, but when swinging a spear it is exactly what happens 90% of the time. A spear head is really small and hard for anybody to somebody, especially if they are a noob.

Cib.... what does that even mean? I do not understand what you're trying to say.

Also, I've never seen anyone swing a spear as though they were trying to do weapon damage. I've seen people swing a spear to knock a shield aside, I've seen them swing a spear to block a strike, to cover themselves, and to redirect their weapon quickly, but never to hit someone with the haft padding!

i was talking about a full swing that hits with the haft padding and it really does happen.

If I saw someone take a full-out swing at someone else with a spear, their * would be sidelined for a week, if not longer. What the ****?

PSA: If you see someone doing something totally **** retarded, beat the **** out of them, tell them why you beat the **** out of them, and then let them decide what will probably happen if they ever do it again. This is the principle of LEARNING. Now, go forth and fight stupidity!

kade wrote:i was talking about a full swing that hits with the haft padding and it really does happen.

case in point, this illegal shot that hit me sideways at Last years rag.

Not only did he swing his spear, but there's tons of flex on that and that's a scary amount of courtesy padding.

Solusar wrote:Not only did he swing his spear, but there's tons of flex on that and that's a scary amount of courtesy padding.

You want spears to flex a ton. The more it flexes the less energy (ie: pain) is transfered to the other persons body.

agreed, A rigid spear would stab and deliver all of the force to potentially damaging results, Flex on the other hand happens even on a stab sending some of that heavy force shooting sideways instead of straight on.

That being said, Bandshoppe spears swung sideways hitting with the haft leave bruises. Upside my head would have knocked me out, and resulted in serious fighting when I recovered.

I do understand what you guys are saying, but there I also know there are flex limitations and I'm just saying that's a lot of flex. Mostly an observation more than anything else.

I laugh my * off when reading these arguments because some ppl get pretty aggressive xD

I Am Just Posting Ideas For Sticks To Safely Hit People With ('Weapon IDEAS") ...

I'm not going to make the 'punching sword' i asked if it would be considered a punching weapon even if it was intended for swinging, this question being answered; it was basicly dropped. As for the principle of being 'period realistic' is there really a defined period our weapons have to be based on?? med-evil of course but back then i'm sure you killed someone with everything at your disposal, and the sword in question was most probably effective if used (but not in our sport).

If i see or imagine some crazy stupid idea i will always try to find a way to make it safe and usable ^__^ if you don't like it DON'T MAKE THEM or FAIL THEM AT EVENTS (i've had weapons failed because ppl 'didn't like them' boohoo idc i respected their opinion by not using it)
-----------------------------------------------------------
To hopefully ease some tension here is a buckler i've been thinking of making

The 1 and 2 are what i planned on going with, something to cover my forearm to my elbow while still letting me hold something in my left hand.
2. Shields
2.4. The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.
But if the ends don't comply with this rule i would have to use number 3
(this rule seems a little too undescriptive to me, can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean?)

2.4 The minimum dimension on the face of a shield is 12 inches.


I think as long as the shield is 12 inches wide in the center you should be fine. I've seen many shields pass that have a narrow point, take a tear drop for example.

Just don't call it a buckler and you will be fine.

It's a vague rule. I've always seen it interpreted to mean that a shield must be able to completely cover a 12" circle, so you're fine. My buckler is heater shaped (like your #1, but pointed down and shorter) and no one's once given me crap about the point in years of use.

FYI, be sure it ends a little before your wrist and that you can strap it on tight, or it'll slide down and you won't be able to move your hand properly. Also, while getting the infinite arm block is certainly nice, you might find that a little more vertical coverage (and perhaps even a little less horizontal) will make it do wonders against archery, too.

haha well thx, gotta make sure, the rule woulda been funny to fail every single shield with a corner >.>

I see a lot of people using a buckler on their arm while holding a red or two swords, and i didn't want to make armor xD

I made a cardboard cutout of the arm-shield thing and it looked like a FISH!!!
so i though dood . . . paint a fish on it, heres some stuff i might modify n put on it when i make it >.>
1st

2nd


voooooooote
which one would you put on it?

The first one. The second one looks goofy.

MagnusofDregoth wrote:The first one. The second one looks goofy.

Ditto.

first defiantly. Cool design.

Jeean wrote:1st

Hey, nice fish.

Was it tasty? /joking

All joking aside, I must say that the first one is the best out of the two by far. About the only thing that the second one scores higher on is goofiness.

Aegis wrote:

case in point, this illegal shot that hit me sideways at Last years rag.

What horrors are people learning before they go to Rag?
Hits like that deserve the one who did it, to be hit with the rulebook a few times. Then do the same, but less, to their leader so that they stop teaching that crap.

4 votes for non-goofy?
works for me, i'll try to get some pix when i get it finished which will hopefully be within a month xD
I'll make sure to get some good paint too >.> my shield . . . . x.x


i used a cloth spray paint >.< which didn't like the fabric or the cardboard stencil i made.
So i'ma go with acryllic this time!

Here is a sword idea, it is based of a concept art weapon I found on the net once called thurutch.

uh cib . . i don't c anything . . and i couldn't find anything on the net lol am i missing something?
Oh and i got the shield done (it rocks.. seriously.. best idea i've had)
BUT at 7 in the morning, when i finally got everything done and was ready to paint the case, i saw this and thought it looked kewler than a fish so BAM!

Its the Kanji for NINJA ... but thanks for voting anyway! buy a cupcake today ^^;
I didn't want to modify the case with tailfins like i had planned cuz it was SEVEN IN THE MORNING and the kanji looked kewl

Ok... weird. I posted, and it showed the picts I had attached.. now they seem to be gone...

Lets try this again... Oh, IC... I can't upload files anymore... That might have done it...

Sketch I found online once upon a time...


Idea for foam version:


There we go. It would be better if I knew how to bend PVC, but I just cant get it to work...

I think it is a good a idea the wavy handle with wavy blade.

Curves are easy(you basically nailed it), 20$ is cheap, nylon is the cheat code (and I * it out),

A foam hand basket would make your plasma sword pass for safety though the pommel thing could get it lawyered.

If you build it like in your diagram(solid on one core) and paint on your plasma sword, and add no green tape, it could eliminate the desire to "punch", plasma sword cannot wrap shot without tendon damage, or flat hits perhaps both, and the wrap shot issue is the only reason I do not own one right now. The cross handle I built was a 8in length of fiberglass screwed to the core and taped like mad.

I built one back in the day, but tendons got sore real fast, so I abandoned it and never got it passed.

Lazy blacksmith's 2scents.

JerryPons85 wrote:I think it is a good a idea the wavy handle with wavy blade.

Please don't necro threads.

Didn't realize it was so old. oh wells. I'm gunna drop some high octane knowledge on this thread N E Wayz.
Put your PVC in the sink.
Boil water.
Let water stop boiling.
Pour now scalding hot but not boiling water down shaft of PVC.
Apply pressure to bend. Repeat as necessary.
not complicated, is safe for children over 12,
The kukri I fashioned this way is still in use four years later. Granted, in Stygia but in use all the same.

Jeean wrote:meh, the case might b hard to get on but if u sew it wavy it'd work

I analyst it and yeah your right it works.

aww, did the poor lost noob necro a thread? please check the date of the post you are quoting or at least the last one before you hit reply, if its older than a few weeks its dead.