Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Percy]

Any word on changes?

[Outhro Youkker]

first time I have gone to war council, and I have to say.... Nope, didnt gain a headache; Just disappointment at all the exact rules that had to be set and modified to be so clean cut that less cheese is possible.

havent unpacked the vehicle. dont ask me yet

[Sir Brunor OrcSlayer]

can we ask you now?

[Rafiq's Slightly Used Camels]

I know that Magnus of Narnia's garb wording update passed.

[Izad]

I heard something. im not sure if its 100% accurate. But anyway, Speed Bats are basically out. And any club or "bat" has to have a minimum circumference of 2.75 inches around the entire striking surface.

[Athron]

I see the mighty and powerful "weapons checking template manufacturers union" lobbied hard to get a new essential  dimension passed

[Tycho Velius]

All weapons, period, club or otherwise (apart from flails, which are freaks anyways) must have at least 2.75 inch dimensions on the striking surface (swords, clubs, and bats) and all blue weapons (again, I think non-flail) must be between 14(?) and 48 inches and have a striking surface of at least 6 inches.

I think.

[Beorn Ulfsson Greyiron]

All weapons, period, club or otherwise (apart from flails, which are freaks anyways) must have at least 2.75 inch dimensions on the striking surface (swords, clubs, and bats) and all blue weapons (again, I think non-flail) must be between 14(?) and 48 inches and have a striking surface of at least 6 inches.

I think.

please tell me this doesn't mean that the striking edge of swords has to be 2 3/4 inches wide. please.

[Tycho Velius]

It doesn't. The whole rule is 1.75x2.75, I believe. The original flat dimension of weapons is unchanged.

[Syr Olaf]

4.1.11.2 - All red and blue weapons (except flails) must conform to the following:

Sir Magnus Garb changes passed as it should almost unanimous vote.

4.1.11.2.1 - Minimum dimensions of 1.25 inch by 2.75 inches.

4.2.2 - Blue weapons must have a minimum length of 6 " of striking surface (except sword length of 12")   and an overall length of 16" from above the handgrip to the tip and a maximum total length less than 48 inches.

4.8.6 bashes and checks may be be legally made with the front or edges of a shield.

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

Plastic dip shields passed.
 
"T" should have the minutes of RWC up for the other changes in a few days

[Antonis]

What the HELL. We banned metal gauntlets? Really? All we need is more MMA gloves on the field, right? God you people are slow.

[Kneef]

Yep. This slow person voted for it personally and would vote for it again. I'd rather have people's MMA gloves assault my vision than have people's plate-mail gauntlets assault my jaw.

To clarify, chain-mail and leather gauntlets are still perfectly legal, just not plate-mail. Get off your high horse, Antonis.

[Lady Krystal]

Metal gauntlets being prohibited does give me a sad face, but I've also been punched in the face in this game so..

I also heard something along the lines of the shields will now be measured across the face for their 3' instead of across the arc? Or was this just proposed/tabled/not passed?

[Antonis]

Yep. This slow person voted for it personally and would vote for it again. I'd rather have people's MMA gloves assault my vision than have people's plate-mail gauntlets assault my jaw.

To clarify, chain-mail and leather gauntlets are still perfectly legal, just not plate-mail. Get off your high horse, Antonis.

But it wasn't a problem before. Personally I did not hear of any plate gauntlets horribly maiming anybody, and I doubt it happened, because frankly, knuckles hurt a lot more than a flat piece of metal. Finger gaunts would be an exception to this.

If people who knew didn't have experience with metal gauntlets had abstained, I imagine this would have gone very different.

[Sgt Kiff Skitterzz]

Prepare for the leather armor only mafia.

[Blackhawk The Apollyon]

In a moment of idiocy RWC decided that I should be the head weapons checker next year. May they all rot in hell!! 

[Gorbag]

4.2.2 - Blue weapons must have a minimum length of 6 " of striking surface (except sword length of 12")   and an overall length of 16" from above the handgrip to the tip and a maximum total length less than 48 inches.

It might be that I am slow or trying to look at this rule but I'm having a hard time understanding it. Am I interpreting it correctly when I say swords have to have 12'' of striking surface, everything else but flails has to have at least 6'', and all weapons, including swords, have to go for 16'' above the handle? Meaning that sword with 12'' of blade now fails?

[Leaf of Redwater]

No, 16" is overall. 12" of blade and 4" of handle + pommel.

And I was looking forward to making some metal clamshells, but I guess ill stick with lacrosse gloves.

[Krix Mercades]

4.1.11.2.1 - Minimum dimensions of 1.25 inch by 2.75 inches.

What was the logic behind this? Seems arbitrary and pointless.

[Zandakar Three-Bows]

4.1.11.2.1 - Minimum dimensions of 1.25 inch by 2.75 inches.

What was the logic behind this? Seems arbitrary and pointless.

My guess is that they'll require more padding, if they mean the width of the flat of the sword.

[Gorbag]

No, 16" is overall. 12" of blade and 4" of handle + pommel.

And I was looking forward to making some metal clamshells, but I guess ill stick with lacrosse gloves.

The rule I quoted says 16'' above the handgrip which I have to interpret as 16'' of "blade". If that was a typo, awesome, but that's what it looks like to me.

[Lady Krystal]

Previous rules required non-single striking surface swords to have a flat measurement of 3". I assume it's to blanket all blues to a 2.75" cross section (now effecting clubs/maces and not just swords, since there weren't any rules to any dimensions outside of "blue swords" before).

[Zandakar Three-Bows]

But the minimum was 2.5" for one sided.  I thought it meant that the new minimum would be 2.75" to be the minimum for one sided.

[Lady Krystal]

It might have been upped then. I'm honestly not too sure, I didn't get to make Rag so I'm just going off what's been posted.

Thankfully, Tannhauser will be posting up the full RWC minutes probably in the next 2 weeks, and I think those get exact wordings out and how they were interpreted at War Council.

[Leaf of Redwater]

No, 16" is overall. 12" of blade and 4" of handle + pommel.

And I was looking forward to making some metal clamshells, but I guess ill stick with lacrosse gloves.

The rule I quoted says 16'' above the handgrip which I have to interpret as 16'' of "blade". If that was a typo, awesome, but that's what it looks like to me.

I read and reread that, and totally missed it. You are correct, sir.

I think it could be interpreted that >4" of that does not have to be "Striking Surface" but does have to be at least padded haft.

[Beorn Ulfsson Greyiron]

4.2.2 - Blue weapons must have a minimum length of 6 " of striking surface (except sword length of 12")   and an overall length of 16" from above the handgrip to the tip and a maximum total length less than 48 inches.

Well. Goodbye to the thought of building seax-sized seaxes. I guess we basically all have to have at least ~20" OAL blues now.

[Nika Caelyn]

I also heard something along the lines of the shields will now be measured across the face for their 3' instead of across the arc? Or was this just proposed/tabled/not passed?

The only thing that was changed for for shields is that they cannot have a curve of more than 180 degrees. The 3' still remains as edge to edge, not across the curve.

4.1.11.2.1 - Minimum dimensions of 1.25 inch by 2.75 inches.

What was the logic behind this? Seems arbitrary and pointless.

My guess is that they'll require more padding, if they mean the width of the flat of the sword.

The logic was that it was (somewhat) of a compromise between the 2.5 for bats and 3 for swords. My understanding was that the flat of a two sided sword still remains at 1.75, but now the striking surface must be 2.75.

[Blackhawk The Apollyon]

The 6" part of the rule is to require "all" blue weapons to have a stated minimum striking surface. Previously, only swords had such rules. So axes and other non swords have rules governing striking surface size. The 2.75 was a compromise between the 3" lobby and the 2.5" lobby. 

By wording it as a minimum dimension 2.75 x 1.25, all blue weapons must meet or exceed those measurements. So a circular weapon would exceed the second dimension as long as the diameter is 2.75" which becomes the default minimum diameter.

[Krix Mercades]

Not really much of a compromise, basing on .5" core for one handers you'll still be exceeding 3" to meet legality if you use standard camp pad.

[Blackhawk The Apollyon]

Not really much of a compromise, basing on .5" core for one handers you'll still be exceeding 3" to meet legality if you use standard camp pad.

The standard size of camp pad should not be used as a governor of what constitutes a safe weapon as it is clearly NOT the best foam to build weapons out of, just the easiest to get your hands on. And if you are going for a safe weapon built to minimum specs, blue foam wont be what you use anyway.

[Whisper Moonson]

If this is true, I'd like to propose a new rule of order for RWC next year: All rules proposals have to be subjected to a harsh editorial review. Proposals that are vague, self-contradictory, or possible to interpret in widely divergent ways will automatically be rejected. Proposals that make it past the editorial review must be voted on as-is. No changes or amendments allowed.

Maybe this way, we can prevent the passage of "clarification" rules changes that make the rules even more confusing.

Gods above and below! Is it so hard to just say "Blue weapons must be longer than 16 inches and shorter than 48 inches?" Now it looks like we've got dimension requirements that are muddier than ever, without fixing anything that was wrong. I also don't see the 1.25" by 2.75" change making a lick of difference. It's the exact same rule that people have been playing around before, with a different number plugged in.

I weep bitter tears of editorial rage. You see them? See the tears?

I'm not too happy about the banning of metal gauntlets, either. I think it's a step in the wrong direction that's based more on fear and supposition than actual safety.

[Blackhawk The Apollyon]

If I wasn't at Rag and having the time of my life, I would have curled up in a fetal position after this years RWC and wept for hours.

[Sir Mirelle of Narnia]

If I wasn't at Rag and having the time of my life, I would have curled up in a fetal position after this years RWC and wept for hours.

Right there with you

[Sir Magnus of Narnia]

If I wasn't at Rag and having the time of my life, I would have curled up in a fetal position after this years RWC and wept for hours.

Right there with you

Add me to the pile. Next year I plan to bring a cross word puzzel and a bottle of no-doz

[Oisín Leathshúileach]

Well done everyone.  Example 1 of why rules should never be written by a committee. 

[Hanzo of Narnia]

This RWC was a ****ing **** show...

but it did demonstrate how the awesome abilities of chapters with 6 people to have as much say as chapters with 50+ ****s **** up even more...

[Silk]

Wow.. I'd almost like to know what all the ***'d out words were...

You're right. Governing by committy does suck. I propose that from now on we submit all rules proposals to Graymael as the active Dagorhirrim holding copyright. We think up all the crap we want to ruin each other's time with and he gets to decide if he likes it or not. I mean it seems only right to let the man protect what is legally considered his intelectual property.

I'm mostly kidding there, but I am a fan of monarchy in my Dagorhir. Take that with the humor-salt it was intended to be flavored with.

On the more serious side, hearing the weapon demension rule I could only think: "Now no one wins, you happy?" Now pretty much everyone has to update their armories. 

[Garret Ironshield]

Hey, something good came out of it:

PD'ed shields passed.

Can anyone recap the rules passed on clubs/speed-bats again? I'm having a hard time understanding them.

[Inextirpable Kyrax]

How 'bout we don't recap and guess.  Let's give it a couple of days and wait for the official and complete set of changes. 

[Garret Ironshield]

That's cool, too.

[Blackhawk The Apollyon]

Can anyone recap the rules passed on clubs/speed-bats again? I'm having a hard time understanding them.

A typical speed bat/club is a cylindrically shaped blue weapon, this is the weapon addressed here by me in layman's terms:

It must be more than 12" and less than 48" in overall length.
It must weigh a minimum of 12oz.
The striking surface must be at least 6" long.
The striking surface must have a minimum diameter of 2.75
2/3rds of the weapon must be safely padded
The balance point must be forward of the top end of the handle.
The tip may not pass 1/2" through a 2" hole (2.5" for green).
The pommel may not pass 1/2" through a 2" hole.
The striking surface must be covered in cloth.
When used as intended will NOT result in bruises, break bones, or knock out teeth if an unarmored person is struck with a full-strength swing.

Hope that helps.

[Tannhäuser.]

I'll do my best to get the minutes (with full proposals) all typed up and posted tonight.

Warning:  This year's minutes are going to contain a full editorial write-up immediately after the official stuff, because it was PAINFULLY clear people speaking at war council had never been to one before and did not understand how the procedure works.

Worse yet, people had no interest in listening to reason, and needed to speak all 100 ways they were 'right' when everybody there was going to pass the amendment anyways.  Or alternatively, the same 3 people were debating an amendment that was clearly not going to get the 75% support necessary to pass.

COMMON SENSE (please?)

[Thrush Svartehjertet]

I'm not too happy about the banning of metal gauntlets, either. I think it's a step in the wrong direction that's based more on fear and supposition than actual safety.

You mean like quillions?  lol  I'll never forget the year they made all of the Forgotten One's cut the quillions off all our swords because they were "dangerous" (they stuck off 1").  I actually asked the weapons checker if he had ever fought before.

Thrush
berserk

[Blackhawk The Apollyon]

I'm not too happy about the banning of metal gauntlets, either. I think it's a step in the wrong direction that's based more on fear and supposition than actual safety.

You mean like quillions?  lol  I'll never forget the year they made all of the Forgotten One's cut the quillions off all our swords because they were "dangerous" (they stuck off 1").  I actually asked the weapons checker if he had ever fought before.

Thrush
berserk

No worries next Rag Thrush, I hear the head weapons checker has some experience fighting.

[Danoth the Tyrant]

The gauntlet idea is stupid....people like stellaria NEED steel gauntlets for fractured hand problems. There has never been a problem with steel gauntlets....seriously people....I cant even call this game a medieval reenactment sport anymore really. We cant even wear armor that was legit in those times. My little brothers spaulders with fully rolled edges failed by one armor checker for being too hard....i guess we should have bought the squishy kind of steel armor that knights used to wear. we eventually got them passed and luckily by Gods good graces of course noone died on the field that day due to these absurdly hard shoulder pieces.

[Danoth the Tyrant]

Sorry for shooting you so much during the res battle btw thrush :p

[Dragonwalker]

I'm still wondering what's so horrible about a 3" cross section. I mean, jeez. Really guys? It's a freaking 1/4 inch. On the flat. Unless you're beating someone with the flat of a weapon, you can still pull off a slot shot...oh wait. My bad. You're using a stick. Yes, you. You with the little...stick thing that's supposed to kill me.


Pick up a sword, dammit, and stop being a *****.

[Danoth the Tyrant]

QFT ^

[Squire Ducky McFeelgood]

I'll do my best to get the minutes (with full proposals) all typed up and posted tonight.

Warning:  This year's minutes are going to contain a full editorial write-up immediately after the official stuff, because it was PAINFULLY clear people speaking at war council had never been to one before and did not understand how the procedure works.

Worse yet, people had no interest in listening to reason, and needed to speak all 100 ways they were 'right' when everybody there was going to pass the amendment anyways.  Or alternatively, the same 3 people were debating an amendment that was clearly not going to get the 75% support necessary to pass.

COMMON SENSE (please?)

it may have been my first war council, and i now see why i never want to do it again, but also the need to make sure i will be there next year.


the move towards limiting the size depth requirement from 3 to 2.75 is to allow for new tech to be used. If you build a straight three layer blue sword on anything thinner than 1/2in core, it would have failed by the three inch rule. Also, with new foams and new techs being introduced from everywhere, it was determined that this was a good compromise.

Personally, i come from the school that as long as it passes all other check, including hit, screw the dimensions. Generally this means that things are now able to get down to 2.5 inches. I've been hit by plenty of these with out issue. I plan on next year proposing getting rid of that rule completely and getting it down to no depth dimensions.

[Soo Ma Tai]

Just a thought, so take it for what it's worth here. Bel has been using an online WC for several years now. It works great, communication is good. Many rules changes get shot down before they ever get out of discussion, and the ones that do go to vote have generally been edited so many times that the wording is good. Even a RWC rules change discussion forum could be very beneficial, so that all these changes could be discussed out on line before trying to do it in person, with time constraints, etc. If nothing else it would prolly smooth out the in person WC. Something y'all might think about.