Dagorhir Web Boards

Dagorhir Web Boards

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0  (Read 2189 times)

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« on: November 29, 2011, 08:41:49 pm »
I was reminded of the armor rules rewrite proposal by a recent post about the armor gauge contraction. The point of this rewrite is to remove the contradictions and clunkiness of the current rule language. While it does have some minor changes, it does not aim at making any significant or controversial changes to the rules.

Here is the rewrite per the last update by Hanzo:

link to previous post

Quote
5.1.14 - Rigid body armor including helmets must not have projections which protrude more than 1/2 inch from the armor itself. Projections include spikes, horns, and other forms of rigid decoration. Neither aventails nor brims, nasals, and crests which do not terminate in points or spikes are considered to be projections.

(this gets rid of the redundant rule 5.1.15 and also clears up exactly what the rule means when it says things cant poke out more than .5")

5.1.15 All armour must have safely smooth and rounded edges for safety. All exposed corners must be rounded so as not to be sharp.

(pretty standard)

5.1.16 - Armor must not be able to catch any appendages such as fingers, within reasonable combat circumstances

(a tough one to word but apparently some *some less than knowledgeable people* think they can cut their finger off in my spaulder)

5.1.17 - Armor must be inspected and passed by checkers or heralds at each event it is worn at.

(never seen inter realm check on armour, its impractical)

5.2 - Metal Armor:

5.2.1 - Metal armor may be made of iron, steel, bronze, brass, or copper, or titanium.
Aluminum and other modern alloys are not allowed, with the exception of titanium and
stainless or galvanized steel.

5.2.2 - The minimum thickness of metal armor is 1mm thick (or slightly thinner than 18ga).

(minimum thickness across the board is 18ga, this way there is no stupid distinction between plate and non plate armours)

5.2.3 - The minimum thickness wire for chain mail is 1mm (or slightly thinner than 18ga)

(you'll see where this is going soon)

now 5.2.4 & 5.2.5 are null and void and cant muddle **** up.

5.2.7 - Acceptable Standards for 4:1 European Weave Chain mail:
5.2.4 - Acceptable Standards for 4:1 European Weave Chain mail:
If a blunt 1/5" dowel rod can easily pass through the weave of the shirt it is deemed illegal.

(thought behind this: It makes checking chainmail easy and most of all POSSIBLE FOR THE EVERY DAY ARMOUR CHECKER. The moth hole clause is added in there as a sort of protection so if someone wants to really make 18ga butted out of crap steel to save on a bit of weight, which they really aren't they should fall through as the shirt will begin to moth hole extremely fast)

5.2.8 - Rigid metal knee or elbow armor is forbidden (ring or chainmail is permitted).

(I leave this rule in because I want the initial re-write to pass and not get bogged down by the drooling **** monkeys of RWC...one day I'll bring enough bananas to appease them)

5.2.9 -(removed for redundancy in 5.1.15)

5.2.10 Metal helmets may not have non-period grills attached to them.

(yay for having 14ga helmets be legal!)


However, I don't think Hanzo got around to updating everything. Here is my proposed update of the rules. Comments, in italics for clarify, are based on the changes compared to the last version by Hanzo:



5.1.14 - Rigid body armor including helmets must not have projections which protrude more than 1/2 inch from the armor itself. Projections include spikes, horns, and other forms of rigid decoration. Neither aventails nor brims, nasals, and crests which do not terminate in points or spikes are considered to be projections.

5.1.15 All armour must have safely smooth and rounded edges for safety. All exposed corners must be rounded so as not to be sharp.

5.1.16 - Armor must not be able to catch any appendages such as fingers, within reasonable combat circumstances

5.1.17 - Armor must be inspected and passed by checkers or heralds at each event it is worn at.

5.2 - Metal Armor:

5.2.1 - Metal armor may be made of alloys primarily consisting of iron, copper, or titanium (such as steel, bronze, and brass). No other metals (such as aluminum) are allowed as armor.
(my rephrasing of the rule. There might be a better way to phrase this)

5.2.2 - The minimum average thickness of metal armor is .047"  (or slightly thinner than 18ga).
(corrected thickness from 1 mm to 1.2 mm, then converted to customary units. Added the word average to allow for the thickness fluctuations)

5.2.3 - The minimum thickness wire for chain mail is .047" (or slightly thinner than SWG 18ga).
(corrected thickness from 1 mm to 1.2 mm, then converted to customary units.)

5.2.4 - Acceptable Standards for 4:1 European Weave Chain mail:
If a blunt 5/16" (.312") metal dowel rod can easily pass through the weave of the chain mail, it is deemed illegal.
(corrected dowel rod diameter from 1/5" and specified material since a wooden dowel rod's diameter is somewhat under it's nominal measurement. Added decimal equivalent for reference. Also, rules renumbered)

5.2.5 - Rigid metal hand, knee or elbow armor is forbidden (ring or chainmail is permitted).
(updated per rule change in last RWC forbidding rigid hand armor)

5.2.6 Metal helmets may not have non-period grills attached to them.

(rule #'s 5.2.7 - 5.2.10 removed due to re-numbering and rule condensing)
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 12:17:18 pm by Odran »
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2011, 08:42:23 pm »
(This explanation is in separate post for clarity.)

The proposed update will legalize 14 gague and thicker helmets, which is rather uncontroversial.

The new chainmail test will effectively change the maximum ring diameter for chainmail, depending on the wire gauge. Butted and rived/welded chain are would be treated the same. This will allow for relatively loose 18 gauge butted chain, which might fall apart. However, if someone's armor is falling apart, it can be failed by a herald, and the owner will be forced to be constantly repairing said armor to keep bringing it back to the field. The rule will also lower the maximum ring diameter for 12 gauge armor somewhat. This could be fixed by specifying a different sized dowel rod for the test if the wire is over 2.6 mm (12 gauge) in diameter, at the cost of a slightly more complicated armor check. However, no one seemed to be concerned about that in the last post.
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Arrakis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Storrs, CT
  • Posts: 6465
  • Realm: Anvard
  • No gimmicks.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 12:17:05 am »
The new chainmail test will effectively change the maximum ring diameter for chainmail, depending on the wire gauge. Butted and rived/welded chain are would be treated the same. This will allow for relatively loose 18 gauge butted chain, which might fall apart. However, if someone's armor is falling apart, it can be failed by a herald, and the owner will be forced to be constantly repairing said armor to keep bringing it back to the field.

This sounds like a bad idea.  Why would you want to increase the burden on heralds to have to fail stuff "because it's unsafe", which is harder to make stick than "it's not the right size"?

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2011, 04:02:40 am »
I would also like to remind that it was the decision of Rag War council (XXVI) that "rigid metal hand armor" is now officially forbidden.
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2011, 04:52:02 pm »
@ Jack Stewart

Thanks, I updated it.

@ Arrakis

The failure would not be based on "I think your armor weave is too loose," but rather "your armor is literally falling apart". Chainmail failure isn't based on solely ring diameter relative to wire gauge. The material of the wire and how tight the chainmail garment is on the wearer have a greater influence. If someone's 5/16" butted 18 gauge chain holds together, I don't see any reason to fail it.

The main advantage of the rule change is that is makes chainmail checking easier. The current rules are unclear For example, are the gauges AWG or SWG, does 5/16" mean literally 5/16", or the size of rings produced from a 5/16" mandrel.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 05:35:18 pm by Odran »
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Arrakis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Storrs, CT
  • Posts: 6465
  • Realm: Anvard
  • No gimmicks.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2011, 05:18:14 pm »
@ Jack Stewart

Thanks, I updated it.

@ Arrakis

The failure would not be based on "I think your armor weave is too loose," but rather "your armor is literally falling apart". Chainmail failure isn't based on solely ring diameter relative to wire gauge. The material of the wire and how tight the chainmail garment is on the wearer have a greater influence. If someone's 5/16" butted 18 gauge chain holds together, I don't see any reason to fail it.

The main advantage of the rule change is that is makes chainmail checking easier. The current rules are unclear For example, are the gauges AWG or SWG, does 5/16" mean literally 5/16", or the size ofrings produced from a 5/16" mandrel.

That's even worse.  So what if their chain is falling apart?  It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that it can't be!  My armor is appropriate to my character cause I'm a monster or whatever blah blah blah.

You're just making it harder to fail ****ty armor.

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2011, 05:36:46 pm »
If its ****ty nature makes it a hazard, then there is no issue.
(Just for the record, I have cut my hand on maille that I was trying to repair. It can easily be a safety issue.)
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Arrakis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Storrs, CT
  • Posts: 6465
  • Realm: Anvard
  • No gimmicks.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2011, 09:04:41 pm »
If its ****ty nature makes it a hazard, then there is no issue.
(Just for the record, I have cut my hand on maille that I was trying to repair. It can easily be a safety issue.)

I don't disagree, but then you need Heralds With Sack (tm) and those are always in short supply.  Better to allow even Heralds Who Suck to fail things that need failing with ease.

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2011, 09:46:33 pm »
The main advantage of dowel rod test is that it is easier.

Under the current rules, suppose a suit of butted chain mail is made from stainless 1.6 mm wire. 1.6mm diameter could either be 16 gauge (SWG) or 14 gauge (AWG). If it is 16 gauge, the max ring diameter is 5/16" (7.94 mm). If it is 14 gauge, the max ring diameter is 3/8" (9.53 mm). However, (going from numbers from theringlord.com) a ring with a 1.6mm wire diameter and a nominal ID of 5/16" is actually 8.51 mm. For a nominal ID of 3/8", it is actually 10.44 mm. So, depending on how the armor checker is interpreting the rules, the maximum ring diameter could vary by 30% easily.

And that is assuming the armor checker has the tools, knowledge, and inclination to actually check ring diameter.

The dowel rod test is set up such that 4-in-1 weave made from 1.6 mm (16 gauge SWG) with a nominal ID of 8 mm or 5/16" will pass. I.e. "standard" purchased chain will pass. It might be a bit generous with 18 gauge (1.2 mm) butted chain. However, the proposal explicitly sets the minimum wire thickness for chain at 1.2 mm. Under the current rules, if one assumes that the gauges are in AWG, then wire down to 1.0 mm is legal.

Hanzo did propose a "mothhole" rule. However, it was removed as some people were worried that it might be used to forbid armpit holes and decorative holes in chainmail. If someone's armor is falling apart, it can and should be failed under rule zero. And more importantly, rebuilding a suit of chainmail of after every practice will get real tedious real quick.
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Arrakis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Storrs, CT
  • Posts: 6465
  • Realm: Anvard
  • No gimmicks.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2011, 10:18:27 am »
The main advantage of dowel rod test is that it is easier.

Under the current rules, suppose a suit of butted chain mail is made from stainless 1.6 mm wire. 1.6mm diameter could either be 16 gauge (SWG) or 14 gauge (AWG). If it is 16 gauge, the max ring diameter is 5/16" (7.94 mm). If it is 14 gauge, the max ring diameter is 3/8" (9.53 mm). However, (going from numbers from theringlord.com) a ring with a 1.6mm wire diameter and a nominal ID of 5/16" is actually 8.51 mm. For a nominal ID of 3/8", it is actually 10.44 mm. So, depending on how the armor checker is interpreting the rules, the maximum ring diameter could vary by 30% easily.

And that is assuming the armor checker has the tools, knowledge, and inclination to actually check ring diameter.

The dowel rod test is set up such that 4-in-1 weave made from 1.6 mm (16 gauge SWG) with a nominal ID of 8 mm or 5/16" will pass. I.e. "standard" purchased chain will pass. It might be a bit generous with 18 gauge (1.2 mm) butted chain. However, the proposal explicitly sets the minimum wire thickness for chain at 1.2 mm. Under the current rules, if one assumes that the gauges are in AWG, then wire down to 1.0 mm is legal.

Hanzo did propose a "mothhole" rule. However, it was removed as some people were worried that it might be used to forbid armpit holes and decorative holes in chainmail. If someone's armor is falling apart, it can and should be failed under rule zero. And more importantly, rebuilding a suit of chainmail of after every practice will get real tedious real quick.

Alright, I'm convinced.  Go for it.

Oddayin the Ghoul

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Fort Drum NY
  • Posts: 178
  • Realm: Winterfell
  • Unit: Army of Mordor.
  • Bring your children unto me, and pay tribute.
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2011, 07:40:53 pm »
/like
Logged

Bring your children unto me and pay tribute. The weak amongst them I will consume and the strong I will raise at my left hand. The elders of your village will call me a villain. The parents will call me a monster. But your young people... they will call me a god. For I am the beast they wish to be.

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2011, 06:28:30 pm »
I'm wondering if we should have the armor thickness in English units. 1.2 mm about equal to 0.04724". I would round it to .047" (1.194 mm). Using fractional inches, 1.2 mm is about equal to 3/64" (0.04688" or 1.191 mm).

Also, for the sake of consistency, if the metal thickness requirement is in fractional inches or millimeters, the leather thickness requirement should be in the same format. 3/16" is equal to .1875" I would round it to .187", or about 4.763 mm, which I would round down to 4.7 mm. (I don't want to round up, as not to offend anyone's borderline thickness leather armor.)

It doesn't matter which system is used. I would go with the system it would be easiest to measure with. Most vernier calipers are in metric and fractional inches, while most dial calipers in decimal inches. Digital calipers are generally in metric and decimal inches, and sometimes also in fractional inches. I personally think dial calipers are the easiest to use, but I might be biased since I use them at work.
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2011, 06:45:05 pm »
I'd pick one, say fractal inches and specify what their (rough) equivalents are in metric (or vice-versa). Whichever one, someone more knowledgeable in metal-working would say is better...?
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Arrakis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Storrs, CT
  • Posts: 6465
  • Realm: Anvard
  • No gimmicks.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2011, 07:03:27 pm »
Question:

Armor made from 16 ga sheet stock is not typically uniformly 16 ga when it is finished, especially for pieces like couters, poleyns, helm halves and other heavily dished pieces. 

Does this rule change imply that measurements taken of the finished product must be exactly (or less than, or greater than, in each case) the measurement one would expect to take from unworked 16 ga sheet?

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2011, 07:34:12 pm »
Question:

Armor made from 16 ga sheet stock is not typically uniformly 16 ga when it is finished, especially for pieces like couters, poleyns, helm halves and other heavily dished pieces. 

Does this rule change imply that measurements taken of the finished product must be exactly (or less than, or greater than, in each case) the measurement one would expect to take from unworked 16 ga sheet?

The rule is intended to allow armor made form 18 gauge sheet metal and 18 gauge (SWG) wire while forbidding armor made from thinner materials. In other words, it is intended to keep and clarify the current armor standards, for the most part.

To address your concern, would adding the word "average" in rule 5.2.2 help, so that an overzealous armor checker won't fail 18 gauge armor because that one point is 1.13 mm thick. Rule 5.2.2 would then read:

5.2.2 - The minimum average thickness of metal armor is 1.2 mm thick (or slightly thinner than 18ga).

Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Antonis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Posts: 1262
  • Realm: Anvard
  • Unit: Nod
  • Dagorhirrum
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2011, 07:41:13 pm »
Question:

Armor made from 16 ga sheet stock is not typically uniformly 16 ga when it is finished, especially for pieces like couters, poleyns, helm halves and other heavily dished pieces. 

Does this rule change imply that measurements taken of the finished product must be exactly (or less than, or greater than, in each case) the measurement one would expect to take from unworked 16 ga sheet?

The edges of armor is mostly thicker, because of dishing.
Logged

Public Service Announcement:
Troll: To annoy and spam a forum
Lurk: To read and not post
Antonis, Commander of Nod

Arrakis

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Storrs, CT
  • Posts: 6465
  • Realm: Anvard
  • No gimmicks.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2011, 11:43:03 am »
Question:

Armor made from 16 ga sheet stock is not typically uniformly 16 ga when it is finished, especially for pieces like couters, poleyns, helm halves and other heavily dished pieces. 

Does this rule change imply that measurements taken of the finished product must be exactly (or less than, or greater than, in each case) the measurement one would expect to take from unworked 16 ga sheet?

The edges of armor is mostly thicker, because of dishing.

What about raised pieces?

<mode="nitpick">

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2011, 12:40:55 pm »
I updated to armor specs to customary units, since all the other measurements in the MOA are in customary units. From my experience, measuring in decimal inches is much easier than measuring in fractional inches. For reference'

18 gauge SWG wire is:
.048" or 1.219 mm

18 gauge sheet (carbon) steel is:
.0478" or 1.21 mm

18 gauge sheet galvanized steel is:
.0516" or 1.31 mm

18 gauge sheet stainless steel is:
.0500" or 1.27 mm

Sheet metal can vary slightly. As an example, 18 gauge carbon steel has a tolerance of .004", or a range of .0438" -.0518". And, finished armor is not going to have the same thickness at every point as the sheet metal it was made from.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any 18 gauge plate armor to measure, so I can't be sure if a .047" average minimum requirement will pass 18 gauge plate consistently. However, I also don't want to suggest lowering the minimum requirement based on speculative larp physics, and accidentally allow 19 gauge armor to pass. Lowering requirements will always be easier to raising them. If someone has access to 18 gauge plate armor and a caliper, I would appreciate some measurement data.
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight

  • Global Moderator
  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Hagerstown, MD
  • Posts: 11952
  • Realm: Knight of the Angaron Knights
  • Unit: Knightly Knight of Free Cities
  • Quintuple Knight.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2011, 01:25:34 pm »
That also assumed mild steel. For other metals including other steels the gauges are different.

And actually looking at plate the smallest of 18 gauge metal is about 1 mm.

Now I would argue that 1 mm is good for plate and riveted chain, but for butted chain we use 1.25 mm
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 02:50:29 pm by Jari Kafghan the AWESOME! »
Logged

The Ragnarok Wiki
The Free Cities - Playing Dagorhir to a higher standard.
Not the mod you want, the mod you deserve.

Angel Of Regret

  • New User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Realm: Green Eryndor (Bowling Green, OH)
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2012, 09:17:59 pm »
Sorry of this has already been asked somewhere else, but in the current moa it says minimum thickness of armor is 16ga while here it says 18ga. Which one is correct? I ask cause I have armor made of 18ga and I'd rather not go through the process of welding shims to the plates to bring it up to 16ga if I don't actually have to.
Logged

Kyrax the Hobbled

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Mallenorod (Northern California)
  • Posts: 6252
  • Realm: Mallenorod
  • Unit: Western Guard (The Guard, Aratari)
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2012, 09:24:19 pm »
Sorry of this has already been asked somewhere else, but in the current moa it says minimum thickness of armor is 16ga while here it says 18ga. Which one is correct? I ask cause I have armor made of 18ga and I'd rather not go through the process of welding shims to the plates to bring it up to 16ga if I don't actually have to.

Here's what you're missing:

Quote
5.2.4 - The minimum thickness of plate metal armor and riveted/welded chainmail is 18 gauge.

Butted chain has to be 16 guage, as does scale, brigandine or other non-plate armors.  Does that make sense?  Here's the whole section of those rules:
Quote
5.2.2 - The minimum thickness of metal armor is 16 gauge.

5.2.3 - The minimum thickness wire for chain mail is 16-gauge.

5.2.4 - The minimum thickness of plate metal armor and riveted/welded chainmail is 18 gauge.

5.2.5 - The minimum thickness of metal armor not included in the previous rule is 16 gauge.

5.2.6 - The maximum thickness of metal armor is 1/8 inch.
Logged

Mallenorod@dagorhir.com
Quote from: Paraphrased from Leonidas
Think about your honor as if it were the only currency you had available to you in Dagorhir.  Every time you do something on the field, you are either making a deposit into your account, or making a withdrawal from it.

Angel Of Regret

  • New User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Realm: Green Eryndor (Bowling Green, OH)
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2012, 09:34:03 pm »
I'm still a little confused, I have plate metal armor that is 18ga. From the way it's worded, it sounds like id need to wear welded chainmail with this armor to pass. Does my armor pass on its own or doesnt it?
Logged

Ilyas ibn Yahya

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Pittsburgh
  • Posts: 1356
  • Realm: Angaron
  • Also known as "hell yes"
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2012, 10:10:34 pm »
I'm still a little confused, I have plate metal armor that is 18ga. From the way it's worded, it sounds like id need to wear welded chainmail with this armor to pass. Does my armor pass on its own or doesnt it?

Whoa!

That's an interpretation I had never even thought of. No the rule means that 18 gauge is the min thickness for either plate metal armor or riveted/wielded mail. It does not mean that 18 gauge is the min thickness for the combination of plate and mail. So yeah your rig passes on that count.
Logged

Angel Of Regret

  • New User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Realm: Green Eryndor (Bowling Green, OH)
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2012, 10:19:29 pm »
Thank you so much. I think what was throwing me for a loop was "metal armor" and "plate metal armor" using both terms in the same set of rules but referring to different things is kinda hard to follow. I'm still not sure what the difference is but I'm just so relieved I don't have make my armor thicker. It still needs rounding is some spots but that should be easy.
Logged

Kelmain

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Realm: Aratari
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2012, 06:27:11 am »
Just to test the waters, would anyone be in favor of moving armor rules the opposite direction, toward making it need to have actual protective value?  The idea of 18 gauge butted mail makes me blanch.  I like the idea of a dowel rod test, but I’d also like to see a durability test.  Nothing crazy.  Something like the rings must not be able to be deformed by grasping and pulling the armour. 

Seriously, does anyone really get any satisfaction out of wearing armour that is easier to tear apart than a cotton undershirt?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 12:16:37 pm by Kelmain »
Logged

Dorkbattle it may be, but Dag is still, at it's core, a manly/womanly activity.  Stop wussifying it!

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2012, 06:08:22 pm »
While I like the principle of what you're saying, do you really want to spend either huge amounts of time or money on armor, only to have someone rip it apart?

Also, butted has to be 16 Ga, unless welded.

(Sh*t, I think that means that some of my maille no longer passes...)
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Zagar

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Nara, Japan
  • Posts: 47
  • Realm: Jade Isles
  • Unit: Army of Mordor
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2012, 06:47:13 pm »
I would also like to remind that it was the decision of Rag War council (XXVI) that "rigid metal hand armor" is now officially forbidden.

Just to point out that this is not technically correct.  The "rigid metal hand armor" issue was brought up on Monday's RWC as a safety issue and banned for the purpose of that Ragnarok.  It was never brought formally as a rule change and thus, should not be included in the MOA.  According to the ByLaws there are two different types of decisions, administrative (including safety) and rule changes.  The hand armor was an administrative issue.

Edit for clarity:  What I mean is that there was not a "new" change banning metal hands.  See excerpt from minutes of last RWC.

Quote
Metal gauntlets discussion – gauntlets should have always been restricted.  Clarification that this ONLY applies to rigid metal plate.  For this Ragnarok, we agree that no plate metal can be worn on the hands.  Approved by acclaim.

Wording change is desired to change gauntlets to hands. New proposal 5.2.8 – Rigid metal hand, knee or elbow armor is forbidden (ring or chainmail is permitted).  All others for, 4 against.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 06:52:41 pm by Zagar »
Logged

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2012, 09:27:41 pm »
Also, butted has to be 16 Ga, unless welded.

The table in rule 5.2.7 lists a minimum ring diameter (1/4") for 18 gauge steel. That is in contradiction to rule 5.2.5. So, depending on which of the contradictory rules one wants to follow, 18 gauge butted chainmail may or may not be legal.

Just to test the waters, would anyone be in favor of moving armor rules the opposite direction, toward making it need to have actual protective value? 

You mean outlaw unhardened leather armor? </sarcasm>

I don't think armor falling apart would be much of an issue, mainly because of the extreme inconvenience of rebuilding a suit of armor after each battle. If someone has the time to be constantly repairing armor, they would have the time to build it right. I actually had the issue the first time I used my chainmail. When I noticed it was badly ripping, I removed the armor, mid-battle. I did it partly for the safety reasons, but mainly, because I didn't want it rip apart, and have to completely rebuild it.
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2012, 10:05:19 pm »
I would also like to remind that it was the decision of Rag War council (XXVI) that "rigid metal hand armor" is now officially forbidden.
Just to point out that this is not technically correct.  The "rigid metal hand armor" issue was brought up on Monday's RWC as a safety issue and banned for the purpose of that Ragnarok.  It was never brought formally as a rule change and thus, should not be included in the MOA.  According to the ByLaws there are two different types of decisions, administrative (including safety) and rule changes.  The hand armor was an administrative issue.
Edit for clarity:  What I mean is that there was not a "new" change banning metal hands.  See excerpt from minutes of last RWC.
Quote
Metal gauntlets discussion – gauntlets should have always been restricted.  Clarification that this ONLY applies to rigid metal plate.  For this Ragnarok, we agree that no plate metal can be worn on the hands.  Approved by acclaim.
Wording change is desired to change gauntlets to hands. New proposal 5.2.8 – Rigid metal hand, knee or elbow armor is forbidden (ring or chainmail is permitted).  All others for, 4 against.
I think that's largely an argument of semantics...It wasn't in the MoA prior to that War-Council, and now it is in the MoA. That's all I care about. Or rather do not care about, for it does not effect me in the least. (I wear maille'd gauntlets)


Also, butted has to be 16 Ga, unless welded.
The table in rule 5.2.7 lists a minimum ring diameter (1/4") for 18 gauge steel. That is in contradiction to rule 5.2.5. So, depending on which of the contradictory rules one wants to follow, 18 gauge butted chainmail may or may not be legal.
I believe that table simply was not updated to deal with the change. Perhaps it should be made known to those to edit the MoA?
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2012, 10:50:36 pm »
Also, butted has to be 16 Ga, unless welded.
The table in rule 5.2.7 lists a minimum ring diameter (1/4") for 18 gauge steel. That is in contradiction to rule 5.2.5. So, depending on which of the contradictory rules one wants to follow, 18 gauge butted chainmail may or may not be legal.
I believe that table simply was not updated to deal with the change. Perhaps it should be made known to those to edit the MoA?
[/quote]

The table was added at Ragnarok XXI (2006 I believe). Quoting from Rule changes page:

Quote
(Changed from 5.2.4. The minimum thickness wire for chain mail is 16 gauge. )

Previously, no chainmail could have thinner wire than 16 gauge. Not only was it a weight concern in ages past, but thinner wire would shred unless reinforced and only butted chainmail was available on the market. Now there are affordable, thinner chainmail gauges on the market that have welded, riveted, and/solid links. It is the intent of this rule to make this available and effective for Dagorhir enthusiasts.

It looks like the table, with legal 18 gauge butted mail, was added when 18 gauge riveted chainmail was legalized. Therefore, I think the table would take precedent over 5.2.5 UNLESS rules 5.2.3 or 5.2.5 where added after Rag XXI. Since the list of rule changes stops with 2006, that could be the case.
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Kelmain

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
  • Realm: Aratari
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2012, 11:20:18 pm »
Quote
Quote
Just to test the waters, would anyone be in favor of moving armor rules the opposite direction, toward making it need to have actual protective value? 

You mean outlaw unhardened leather armor? </sarcasm>

I don't think armor falling apart would be much of an issue, mainly because of the extreme inconvenience of rebuilding a suit of armor after each battle. If someone has the time to be constantly repairing armor, they would have the time to build it right. I actually had the issue the first time I used my chainmail. When I noticed it was badly ripping, I removed the armor, mid-battle. I did it partly for the safety reasons, but mainly, because I didn't want it rip apart, and have to completely rebuild it.
I don't care about armor falling apart.  People can walk around raining flimsy rings like rose petals for all I care.  I just don't think that crap should count as armour.  While I would dearly love to see leather scaled up as well, I'd trust 3/16th of an inch of unhardened leather to stop most types of blows marginally more effectively than flimsy chain that wont even hold together under its own weight and movement.  But all that s**t is just weak sauce IMO.
Logged

Dorkbattle it may be, but Dag is still, at it's core, a manly/womanly activity.  Stop wussifying it!

Alric

  • of Drentha
  • Administrator
  •  
  • Online Online
  • Location: Gainesville, FL
  • Posts: 11877
  • Realm: Angaron
  • Unit: Drentha
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2012, 11:24:47 pm »
It looks like the table, with legal 18 gauge butted mail, was added when 18 gauge riveted chainmail was legalized. Therefore, I think the table would take precedent over 5.2.5 UNLESS rules 5.2.3 or 5.2.5 where added after Rag XXI. Since the list of rule changes stops with 2006, that could be the case.

Remember that the ENTIRE rule book was overhauled in 2008. The rules that are up now (inconsistencies and all) came from that reboot.
Logged

-Alric, of Drentha.   |   alricofdrentha (at) dagorhir.com   |   Ilsa's garb shop: www.tailoredtunics.com !

Odran

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 744
  • Realm: Lothlorien
  • Unit: Tirith-en-Ardh
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2012, 07:42:58 pm »
It looks like the table, with legal 18 gauge butted mail, was added when 18 gauge riveted chainmail was legalized. Therefore, I think the table would take precedent over 5.2.5 UNLESS rules 5.2.3 or 5.2.5 where added after Rag XXI. Since the list of rule changes stops with 2006, that could be the case.

Remember that the ENTIRE rule book was overhauled in 2008. The rules that are up now (inconsistencies and all) came from that reboot.

So is the table in error, or is there an actual inconsistency? According the rule update page, 18 gauge butted mail was legalized at Rag XXI. The gauge/I.D. table is the same as the current rules. Did RWC from Rag XXIII re-forbid, or attempt to re-forbid, 18 gauge butted mail? Or, is the rule update page possibly in error
Logged

Quote from: Blackhawk The Apollyon
I don't need you to be happy, I just don't want to call you an ambulance.

Alric

  • of Drentha
  • Administrator
  •  
  • Online Online
  • Location: Gainesville, FL
  • Posts: 11877
  • Realm: Angaron
  • Unit: Drentha
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2012, 10:39:38 pm »
Inconsistency, I believe. The Rag 23 rewrite had a lot of typos and inconsistencies, unfortunately. It accidentally eliminated some of the rules and clarifications that had been voted in in previous years (at the time, the rules page on the website hadn't been updated for a few years - I think this is why so many things fell through the cracks when the rewrite happened at RWC 23).
Logged

-Alric, of Drentha.   |   alricofdrentha (at) dagorhir.com   |   Ilsa's garb shop: www.tailoredtunics.com !

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2012, 03:11:23 am »
Alright, jumping back into this thread, I have two questions...

One. Who is proposing this now? Odran?

Two. Leather/ metal armor mixes? I.e. Brigandine, ringmaille, etc...

I think that 5.3.2 - "Studded, scaled, or brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if 2/3 of the leather is covered by metal, or the studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2" apart." - should specify that the leather and/or metal should have to be of legal thickness to be armor.
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Cassius

  • The artist formerly know as Casimir Glassjaw
  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Byzantium
  • Posts: 255
  • Unit: Black Company (aux)
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2012, 05:37:08 am »
So they currently don't have to be?
Logged

Quote from: Nobody Ever
There isn't enough bread on this sandwich.
"Many a time a man's mouth broke his nose." -Anam ó Súilleabháin

Silk

  • Global Moderator
  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: VA
  • Posts: 3569
  • Realm: Aratari
  • Unit: Gwynedd
  • ...purple!
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2012, 06:50:08 am »
I think the current rule may be muddy that either can be legal for it to count.

5.3.2 - Studded, scaled, or brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if 2/3 of the leather is covered by metal, or the studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2" apart.

First, it doesn't state clearly that any of it has to be a certain thickness. Granted rule 0 and the "no loopholes" thing should have anyone referencing the rules for metal OR leather thickness.

Second, you can use either thin leather with legal metal, OR decorative metal with legal leather. This rule doesn't specify that.

I do feel that the ruling becomes clearer when you read the entire section on armor though. More specifically these parts all together:

5.2.2 - The minimum thickness of metal armor is 16 gauge.
5.2.3 - The minimum thickness wire for chain mail is 16-gauge.
5.2.4 - The minimum thickness of plate metal armor and riveted/welded chainmail is 18 gauge.
5.2.5 - The minimum thickness of metal armor not included in the previous rule is 16 gauge.
5.2.6 - The maximum thickness of metal armor is 1/8 inch.

5.3.1 - The minimum thickness for leather armor is 3/16 inch and may be achieved by layering several pieces of thin leather.
5.3.2 - Studded, scaled, or brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if 2/3 of the leather is covered by metal, or the studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2" apart.


Since any piece of armor has to be one or the other to count, you use the rules applicable to that piece. Steel greaves? Use metal rules, Chain aventail on a leather helm? Well, you'll need the leather rules for the main part of the helm and the chain rules for the aventail. You want studded look with lightness? Go ahead and use light studs spaced more than a half inch apart, so long as your leather is legal. I'm no rules genius, but it seems pretty common sense to me.
Logged

~Dame Silk~
Elitist Bitch
Beloved by GOD

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2012, 12:33:27 am »
You'd think that's how it'd be done, but I've heard enough to convince me that perhaps spelling it out is not a bad idea. I am reminded of this phrase:
"There's no such thing as idiot-proof, just that nobody's found a big enough idiot... "
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Silk

  • Global Moderator
  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: VA
  • Posts: 3569
  • Realm: Aratari
  • Unit: Gwynedd
  • ...purple!
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2012, 06:25:30 am »
Simple phrase that fixes it: You may not layer leather and metal for functionality, if an item of armor consists of both, one or the other must be sufficient by its self to be armor.

Actually, I felt a little dumb writing that. I know that there are stupid people out there, but it's fairly obvious.
Logged

~Dame Silk~
Elitist Bitch
Beloved by GOD

Jack Stewart III

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Vermont
  • Posts: 1582
  • Realm: Anvard (Northern)
  • Unit: Green Hilted Swords
  • Lv.1 Battering-Ram, W/ +3 to Brian-Damage.
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2012, 10:52:54 pm »
"You may not layer leather and metal for functionality, if an item of armor consists of both, one or the other must be sufficient by its self to be armor."
I think that is a great way to word the requirement!
Logged

First Order of the Frostborne, Lieutenant du Roi of the Green Hilted Swords and Heir to the House of Stewart.

Royalty should lead by example in a time of plight, inspire confidence in a time of doubt, and give hope in a time of despair.

Danoth the Tyrant

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: michigan
  • Posts: 1395
  • Unit: The Frost Blade Clan
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2012, 09:36:05 pm »
"5.1.15 All armour must have safely smooth and rounded edges for safety. All exposed corners must be rounded so as not to be sharp."

I would personally like someone to specify that rounded edges does not mean ROLLED edges.  Some edges on steel armor simply cannot be rolled or it will ruin the way the armor functions thus making it dangerous where as before it would have been fine. Yes...i have ran into people who have trouble understanding this difference between rolled and rounded.
Logged

Dust & Bones

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
  • Realm: Winterfell
  • Unit: Cairnhold Legion
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2012, 10:52:04 pm »
The short answer is that people who don't know anything about metal armor shouldn't be checking metal armor.

Sort of like how you don't have the non-coms check Red weapons.
Logged

Magnus

  • Knight-Errant
  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Posts: 6793
  • Realm: Canaur
  • NIHIL TIMENS
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2012, 11:34:47 pm »
Why would non-coms (other than injured fighters) have anything to do with fighting? I mean, bringing water and helping put on armor is great, but if someone isn't an actual participant in Dagorhir fighting...come on, it should be obvious.
Logged

Knight of Taurendor
+Benedictus Dominus Fortis Meus Qui Docet Manus Meas Ad Proelium Digitos Meos Ad Bellum+
ἆσσον ἴθ᾽ ὥς κεν θᾶσσον ὀλέθρου πείραθ᾽ ἵκηαι.

Dust & Bones

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
  • Realm: Winterfell
  • Unit: Cairnhold Legion
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2012, 12:05:29 am »
Why would non-coms (other than injured fighters) have anything to do with fighting? I mean, bringing water and helping put on armor is great, but if someone isn't an actual participant in Dagorhir fighting...come on, it should be obvious.
Exactly my point.

Right along with that, someone who doesn't know a cuisse from a pauldron probably shouldn't be checking (metal) armor.
Logged

Magnus

  • Knight-Errant
  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Posts: 6793
  • Realm: Canaur
  • NIHIL TIMENS
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2012, 12:15:19 am »
I guess I'm just incredulous at the notion that anyone would have non-combatants doing stuff involving combat. Have you seen it happen?
Logged

Knight of Taurendor
+Benedictus Dominus Fortis Meus Qui Docet Manus Meas Ad Proelium Digitos Meos Ad Bellum+
ἆσσον ἴθ᾽ ὥς κεν θᾶσσον ὀλέθρου πείραθ᾽ ἵκηαι.

Rafiq's Slightly Used Camels

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
  • Posts: 1048
  • Realm: Tartarus Invictus
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2012, 12:40:10 am »
Think about it this way, it'd be like having someone who only ever uses a bow swinging red weapons. Sure they are on the field and they see reds, but there's a chance they have no idea how to calibrate a light/med/hard hit with a red.

Or the opposite, someone who has never done anything but get hit with an arrow checking to make sure it is safely constructed before doing the hit test. Again, they have been hit with it, they know what it is, but what are the chances that they know what a properly constructed arrow feels like?
Logged

Grand Schindler of the Garbstapo
Fedoras save me the time of having to get to know someone before i assume things about them.

Danoth the Tyrant

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: michigan
  • Posts: 1395
  • Unit: The Frost Blade Clan
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2012, 08:02:19 am »
Im just bent out of shape because this is the second year in a row someone has failed one of my guys steel pauldrons for being "too hard" no im not making this **** up.

If something stupid like this happens again im going to throw a **** fit.
Logged

Blackhawk The Apollyon

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: Maryland
  • Posts: 3291
  • Realm: Aratari
  • Unit: Apollyons
  • www.Badassgarb.com
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2012, 08:24:06 am »
Im just bent out of shape because this is the second year in a row someone has failed one of my guys steel pauldrons for being "too hard" no im not making this **** up.

If something stupid like this happens again im going to throw a **** fit.
Where is this happening?
Logged

Blackhawk@dagorhir.com
Vice President - Dagorhir Battle Game Association, Inc.
Ragnarok's Head weapons checker
Speed does not equal intense. Realistic, brutal, savage, simulated dark age combat is intense. You want speed, go run track.

Danoth the Tyrant

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: michigan
  • Posts: 1395
  • Unit: The Frost Blade Clan
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2012, 08:49:49 am »
Ragnarok weapons/armor checking. We have a 1/4 inch lip on a pauldron as well that is also ROLLED for extra saftey. The lip is next to the neck so we dont gouge our necks with this one design. But anyway a guy also failed that even though it breaks NONE of the rules and literally is one of the most non-lethal things ive seen on steel armor. But this guy claimed that we could gouge our necks on it and get hurt. You would have to first snap your neck in order for it to bend in the direction it would need to cause maybe a bruise....

Uhg....yes...ive dealt with my load of **** from ****ing idiots running armor check.
Logged

Danoth the Tyrant

  •  
  • Offline Offline
  • Location: michigan
  • Posts: 1395
  • Unit: The Frost Blade Clan
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Rules Re-write 2.0
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2012, 08:52:39 am »
Oh we also had chainmail fail once because "its not as thick as i would like it to be...." The chain was 16 guage 1/4" rings. So please.....blackhawk make sure there arent any idiots this year. **** if im there i will gladly offer my services every morning for armor/weapons checking.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.207 seconds with 23 queries.