Moderator: Belegarth: Forum Moderators
Soo Ma Tai wrote:I actually have no prob with nixing shield dimensions all together. I mentioned it to give an out for those who think it's necessary to keep play balance. I don't care if you make a shield that is 10' tall and 6' wide....I'll just kick it over, or go around it. I think the disadvantages cancel out the advantages equally.
Forkbeard wrote:I would argue that huge sheilds, en masse, on a small field sound like the most awesome day ever.
we need no limits.
Fb
Derian wrote:Well, ****. Par is right.
Brutus wrote:Big shields are bad for the growth of this sport. They also make fighting lame. 95% of fighting is just a high cross fight.
I would love to see a max perimeter rule. That's probably too progressive, so the next best thing IMO would be an objective height max (i.e. 48")
I thought about this, but concluded that it was a bad idea. There needs to be an upper limit since there's currently nothing preventing a fighter from turning a shield sideways and using it like that.Sir Par wrote:So lets leave the max width at 36 Inches and kill the height rule.
I don't think they're bad for the growth. Why do you say that? Big shields allow new guys and unskilled fighters (with no interest in improving) live longer on the field and be useful in a formation. I remember my first day at Bel, I used a 2x4 tower shield and felt like Hercules. I like big shield on the field. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to stop opening with a high cross.Brutus wrote:Big shields are bad for the growth of this sport. They also make fighting lame. 95% of fighting is just a high cross fight.
9/10 times, the people that use unnecessarily large shields are the ones that really have no business using them but pick them up anyway for reasons that fall outside of the "everybody must strive to be the best fighter" mindset.
If we allow enormous shields explicitly, people will use enormous shields. Then more people will use even enormouser shields.
What we're saying by allowing very large shields is that we'd really prefer that everyone use a 3x5 tower and that all of those guys who like round shields should knock that **** off, get a REAL shield or pick up a spear or a bow and **** get with the program.
Fork, are you making the realism argument? I agree that large shields are realistic, but I don't see why they are necessary in our game. I think it just comes down to playability.
Uhhh... I thought we already did that?Arrakis wrote:If we allow enormous shields explicitly, people will use enormous shields.
And if big shields were such a huge disadvantage for their bearers, then why has there been a drift towards larger and larger shields over the past decade?
Graavish wrote:it's not the weight of the weapon that makes for a solid hit, it's how much i don't like you when i'm swinging.
Elebrim wrote:If the rule needs to be changed (I don't really care) why not make it an "OR" rule? Something along the lines of "No taller than 18" less than the height of the wielder OR 5'6", whichever is lesser." It provides checkers a fixed reference to use in the factory line, and also allows heralds on the field a reference point to call people out who are blatantly using oversized shields at the start of a battle. Best of both worlds.
Return to Rules Discussion And Development
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests