Topic: Tube shield; Would it be legal? (Read 3215 times)

Alric · « **Reply #50 on:** January 04, 2011, 11:50:52 am »

Some of Rome's shields would fail if measured on the curve, but many or most of them are flat. I don't think measuring on the curve would fail many shields, only the worst offenders.

Squire Lizard · « **Reply #51 on:** January 04, 2011, 10:28:15 pm »

You would really have to bend some interpretations and rules to fail it for being "wider than 3 feet"
IF it was comepletely torn apart and the foam unfurled you could though...

YES, it IS cheese. He does this to POINT OUT flaws in logic and the rules and to help clarify things. So maybe instead of harping on the guy, hows about we up our game when it comes to wording and understanding of the rules and try to weed out situations that rely on interpretations because it's when someone has to interperate that **** starts rolling down the slippery slope of idiocy.

Drunken Bob (For Congress) · « **Reply #52 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:06:13 pm »

Quote from: Big James on January 03, 2011, 11:30:50 pm

I would fall it for the wider then 3 feet part due to the curve and all

You couldnt fail it for that sir, as it is only 3 feet wide when held as a shield,

Quote from: Squire Lizard on January 04, 2011, 10:28:15 pm

You would really have to bend some interpretations and rules to fail it for being "wider than 3 feet"
IF it was comepletely torn apart and the foam unfurled you could though...

And if you did completly unfurl it you would have a solid piece of foam that was 3 feet wide, and chin to ankle,

When I wear the barrel shield I am wearing it on its side. because a shield can be worn in any manner. when i hold it the barrel is exactly 3 feet wide and if you measure along the curvature, which is actually top to bottom it is a little under 5 feet, which is chin to ankle

So even if you did measure it along the arc, it is still a legal shield - per the rules

Odran · « **Reply #53 on:** January 09, 2011, 12:25:02 pm »

Quote from: Alric on January 04, 2011, 11:50:52 am

Some of Rome's shields would fail if measured on the curve, but many or most of them are flat. I don't think measuring on the curve would fail many shields, only the worst offenders.

I could see situations in which measuring over a curve would cause a large, but not ridiculous, curved round shield to fail. Generally, reasonably curved shields do look better than flat ones. I don't really think the curvature would give an "unfair" advantage, and I'm afraid that measuring across the curve might encourage flat shields.

Granted, this would only effect a few shields, but I think there might be better ways to forbid tube shields. And as Drunken Bob said, if he can claim he's holding the shield sideways, his tube shield passes even measured across the curve. Maybe a maximum thickness limit would be a better idea (like 18" or 2').

Casimir Glassjaw · « **Reply #54 on:** January 09, 2011, 02:59:40 pm »

D-Bob, is the interior of the barrel padded 'safely' like the rest of the shield? Because if not someone could technically fail it for the face of the shield not being safely padded.

Baron Fafnir · « **Reply #55 on:** January 10, 2011, 06:55:54 pm »

Quote from: Casimir Glassjaw on January 09, 2011, 02:59:40 pm

D-Bob, is the interior of the barrel padded 'safely' like the rest of the shield? Because if not someone could technically fail it for the face of the shield not being safely padded.

Wait...what?

Casimir Glassjaw · « **Reply #56 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:15:04 pm »

See attached picture for visual aide.
Bob claims that the shield when held by the straps is 3' wide and the height from his chin to ankle, but curved outward into a complete circle to create the barrel shape. This means that the covered and padded portion of the shield that you see on the outside is actually the back of the shield. If I recall correctly, the inside of the barrel is not padded at all, meaning that if it were unwound as DB speaks of when determining it's height...then you would see that the face of the shield was infact unpadded and therefor illegal by Dagorhir's rules.

Sorry it is sideways, can't figure out how to rotate the image on the phone, so just turn your head.

Squire Lizard · « **Reply #57 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:34:59 pm »

The whole shield is a coreless foam shield...

So no, the FOAM on the face is not padded.

I know what your point is Cas, I am not trying to be an ass here. I just thought it was funny

Casimir Glassjaw · « **Reply #58 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:41:11 pm »

I thought it had a plastic core, my bad, you do see where I am comingf from though...so yeah, immitaters beware!

Squire Lizard · « **Reply #59 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:45:11 pm »

Yeah, I knew from the get go

As much as I LOVE giving DB a hard time (he WILL attest to this) he followed all the rules as they are written and pointed out a very valid loophole. It is what he does best. Tongue in cheek sillyness to show us just how stupid some of the things we do are.

I LOVE this shield...when he is using it

SOOO much fun to kick

stylgar · « **Reply #60 on:** January 13, 2011, 04:09:02 pm »

Alric, this brings to mind one of Magnus' threads in the general forum. Accepted practice throughout the game measures on the chord, not the arc. Regardless of original intent, which I suspect was arc, chord has become the standard.
So Alric is within his rights to measure the chord, but expect a hue and cry from the crowd on Vale Ave. (Trans-linguistic wordplay FTW)

Azriel Draconis · « **Reply #61 on:** January 15, 2011, 11:33:47 pm »

i fear the design of that particular shield interfears with this rule......

Quote

4.7.8 - When a shield is destroyed by two red-weapon hits, the wielder of the shield must immediately drop the shield. Additional hits from any type of weapon that strike before the shield is dropped count as though the shield isn't there (generally counting first against the shield-wielder's arm, then their torso).

dont you normally drop the shield after its been broken?

Casimir Glassjaw · « **Reply #62 on:** January 16, 2011, 03:35:59 pm »

It is easier to remove when broken by a red then a back shield is.

Drunken Bob (For Congress) · « **Reply #63 on:** January 16, 2011, 07:51:11 pm »

Quote from: Casimir Glassjaw on January 10, 2011, 07:41:11 pm

I thought it had a plastic core, my bad, you do see where I am comingf from though...so yeah, immitaters beware!

Nope, completly coreless, as well as completly covered with cloth inside and out

Swordbrother Haldor · « **Reply #64 on:** January 21, 2011, 09:39:55 pm »

If they fail that way, the -are- cheese by many people's standards.

The problem is there is no national, consistent method for checking weapons to remove (at least some of) the subjectivity of weapons check. I also check shields by the front of the shield, not the "worm hole" method of edge to edge across the top.

The Dacian · « **Reply #65 on:** January 25, 2011, 06:51:41 am »

Oh, Bob, you RL Troll, you.

you give me lulz.

It fails, sure....but I *DO* appreciate the humor.

Sir Robert Valcore of the Teutonic Knights · « **Reply #66 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:31:54 am »

Quote from: Odran on December 26, 2010, 09:56:23 pm

Quote from: Blackhawk the Apollyon on December 26, 2010, 06:35:25 pm
Quote from: Odran on December 26, 2010, 06:09:27 pm
If shield width is measured as the length of the curve, would shield bosses be counted toward the width or not?
Really?
Why do you even exist?
Ok...I if I have a 23" wide garbage can lid, and I duck tape a pie plate to the middle of it, how wide is the garbage can lid?

If it does count, then decorative shield bosses on flat shields could cause them to exceed the width limit. I'm asking because I have seen some round shields that aren't curved, but aren't exactly a flat a surface either. For example, one with a wooden core with the center cut out which was held with the hand somewhat inside the shield, more or less like a real shield boss.

Sir Robert Valcore of the Teutonic Knights · « **Reply #67 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:47:21 am »

If I made a helmet that was just a big cone that extended from head to toe, would that be legal?

Drunken Bob (For Congress) · « **Reply #68 on:** February 03, 2011, 10:30:24 am »

Quote from: sirrobertvalcore on January 31, 2011, 02:47:21 am

If I made a helmet that was just a big cone that extended from head to toe, would that be legal?

I dont see why not, but a helmet only would count as head armor and then normal armor after that..

but then I wear a wok that protects my shoulders as well, so I wouldnt take my word for it if I were you.

Goats Kordatar · « **Reply #69 on:** February 03, 2011, 02:53:28 pm »

A wok? Really? Can we see it?

Drunken Bob (For Congress) · « **Reply #70 on:** February 03, 2011, 03:01:51 pm »

yes, yes you may

Inextirpable Kyrax · « **Reply #71 on:** February 03, 2011, 03:37:17 pm »

Quote from: sirrobertvalcore on January 31, 2011, 02:47:21 am

If I made a helmet that was just a big cone that extended from head to toe, would that be legal?

As Bob said, yes it would be legal, but it would only protect against missile weapons to the head and neck. Blows that would otherwise land elsewhere would still count as blows against an armored part of your body. In other words, missiles would go right through and kill you or disable that limb, hand-held weapons would "damage" the armor in the first blow and take out the body part in the second, etc.

The same principles apply if your helmet had an aventail, a piece of armor that extended down past the neck and onto your torso or shoulders: The head and neck would be protected by the helm, and the torso parts would be treated as regular armor.

Olos · « **Reply #72 on:** February 03, 2011, 03:58:29 pm »

^ what that guy said.

Drunken Bob (For Congress) · « **Reply #73 on:** February 03, 2011, 04:30:48 pm »

And one of the reasons I made this (besides it being silly and pointless) is that I take a lot of neck shots because i move a lot when I fight, and this helps dissuade people from straight down shots or angle shots that are meant to get me on the collar bone, because 4 out of 5 times they get me in the neck

Squire Lizard · « **Reply #74 on:** February 03, 2011, 05:52:17 pm »

Well Bob, it's good to know that I am that 1 in 5 person who always lands shots on your collar bone

Good thing I'm so badass huh?

Goats Kordatar · « **Reply #75 on:** February 03, 2011, 06:35:09 pm »

Neat! Love the cowbell BTW.

Drunken Bob (For Congress) · « **Reply #76 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:22:44 pm »

Quote from: Squire Lizard on February 03, 2011, 05:52:17 pm

Well Bob, it's good to know that I am that 1 in 5 person who always lands shots on your collar bone Good thing I'm so badass huh?

Oh you have gotten me in the neck a few times, but it is mostly at rag that i worry about. you notice, I dont wear the wok to namaqua

Dagorhir Web Boards

News:

Author Topic: Tube shield; Would it be legal? (Read 3215 times)