General > Rules rules rules
Rules Change Proposal Draft: Weapon Dimension Requirements
Magnus:
The recent discussion started by David of Serenity prompted me to start this topic, on something I've been thinking about for a while.
Summary: I intend to propose, either personally or through a representative of my group, that the rules governing the minimum dimensions of weapons in Dagorhir at the national-event level be simplified.
Purpose: This change will afford greater flexibility in building weapons, and simplify the weapons check process as well.
Here are the rules governing weapon dimensions, as they were written when I started in summer 2001:
Quote from: July 2001 MoA>>>>4.1.4.Two and one-half inch rule—No surface on a striking edge (sword tip, arrow head, spear head, javelin head, etc.) whether designed for stabbing or not, shall pass more than 0.5 inch through a 2.5 inch hole; swords with a semicircular tip, with a minimum 1.5 inch radius are exempt from this rule.
...
4.1.8.2. All bladed weapons must conform to one of the following:
4.1.8.2.1.Minimum dimensions of 1.25 inch by 3 inches along its entire striking surface.
4.1.8.2.2.Weigh greater than twelve ounces.
<<<<
And here are the current rules, as adopted ten years later:
Quote from: August 2011 MoA>>>>
4.1.5 - Two- and & a half-inch rule: Projectile weapon tips (arrows, javelins and rocks) and melee weapon tips designed for stabbing (green sword points, spear tips, etc.) shall not easily pass more than 0.5 inch through a 2.5 inch-diameter hole. This measurement shall be conducted by lowering a testing template onto the tip of the weapon perpendicular to the edge or shaft of the weapon. The intent is to test the thrusting tip of the weapon, not to search for weapon head corners which can be manipulated to pass through the template.
4.1.6 - Two-inch rule: Weapon tips NOT designed for thrusting (non-stabbing sword points, flail haft tip, etc.) shall not easily pass more than 0.5 inch through a 2 inch diameter hole. This measurement shall be conducted by lowering the testing template onto the tip of the weapon perpendicular to the edge or shaft of the weapon. The intent is to test the tip of the weapon, not to search for sword and axe head corners that can pass through the template.
...
4.1.11.2 - All red and blue weapons except for flails must conform to the following:
4.1.11.2.1 - Minimum dimensions of 1.25 inch by 2.75 inches.
4.1.11.2.2 - Minimum dimensions for single edged bladed weapons are 1.25 by 2.5 inches
4.1.11.2.3 - Blue weapons must weigh a minimum of 12 ounces.
4.1.11.2.4 - Red weapons must weigh a minimum of 24 ounces
4.1.11.2.5 - Balance above the top of the handle (i.e., blade heavier than handle).
<<<<(incidentally, the 2011 rule as written makes it look as though flails do not need to weigh at least 12 ounces)
This is my proposal:
Quote from: Proposed MoA>>>>
4.1.5 - Two- and & a half-inch rule: No part of a weapon's striking surface, whether the tip, the edge, the face or any other part, may pass easily more than 0.5" through a 2.5" diameter hole when tested in the direction of the strike.
4.1.6 - Two-inch rule: No non-striking component of a weapon, such as a crossguard, a non-striking tip, or a pommel, may pass easily more than 0.5" through a 2" diameter hole when tested perpendicular to the striking surface or shaft of the weapon.
...
4.1.11.2 - All swung weapons must conform to the following:
4.1.11.2.1 - Blue weapons must weigh at least 12 ounces.
4.1.11.2.2 - Red weapons must weigh at least 24 ounces
4.1.11.2.3 - Swung weapons must balance above the unpadded handle section.
<<<<
Here are the reasons why I believe this change would improve the game, in the safety-playability-realism format:
Safety
Weapons must be tested by physically hitting a weapons checker at minimal, average, and high-end force levels. No weapon which does not pass this test, regardless of construction or dimensions, will be allowed on the field. This means that a 2 5/8" wide sword built on a 3/8" fiberglass core (i.e. 3 layers of foam on either side with one on the flats) will probably still pass, while a 3 1/8" wide sword built on a 1 1/2" PVC core (i.e. 2 layers of foam on either side with one on the flats) will still fail. No new unsafe weapons will be allowed onto the field, because they must still pass the hit test.
Additionally, a wider (say 1.5") foam striking surface will, in many cases, hit HARDER than a narrowed tapered-edge sword. While a real sword slices deeper with a sharper edge, the properties of foam are very different from those of steel. A tapered form sword edge compresses more easily, and thus will NOT in and of itself result in harder hits. The only way it will result in harder hits is if it is made to compress TOO quickly and does not sufficiently absorb the impact of the core. In this case, of course, it will fail weapons check.
Playability
This change would have the following immediately apparent effects:
1. Weapons checkers would not need to check the width and thickness of weapons. This will speed up weapons check and allow for more fighting.
2. Weapons builders would not be focused on dimensions when constructing weapons, ensuring that, in the above example, a sword that is safe at 2 5/8" wide would not need to be modified purely to fill the dimension requirements, and also that a new member would not assume that because his weapon is over 3" thick it must be safe.
3. The rules are simpler, making them easier for new Dagorhir participants to understand, and easier for veterans to explain.
In addition, I believe it could have the following effect:
4. Swords and axes can be constructed with lower-profile blades, resulting in better balance and improved handling.
Realism
Following from point 4 above, I contend that swords and axes with improved handling will become more popular, as they will have advantages over clubs and flails. No clubs or flails will become illegal as a result of rules changes, nor will they become worse, except as relative to swords and axes. Given the dominance of both axes and swords in historical and fantasy combat, as compared to the greatly increased popularity of flails and clubs in foam combat, it seems obvious that swords and axes are not as effective in foam combat as they are in historical or fantasy combat.
Proceeding from this premise, doing away with the restrictions on bladed weapons (which technically also apply to clubs, except clubs have to be 2.5" thick in EVERY direction, whereas swords would only need to be 2.5" thick in ONE) would, as I asserted earlier, cause the number of unrealistic weapons to decline, returning Dagorhir to the sword- and axe-dominated environment as envisioned in 1977 at its creation and, more importantly, as represented in pretty much every fantasy movie and historical illustration ever.
Furthermore, the swords and axes constructed free of the current dimension requirements would LOOK more realistic, and perhaps as a result they would FEEL more realistic (in a subjective, emotional sense, not necessarily in terms of their handling). This will make the game as a whole look better, and, I believe, help attract new fighters and cross-over fighters to Dagorhir. It will make more accurate characterizations possible, since fighters will be able to construct weapons that more closely match the "real" versions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I have stated my case, please discuss the above argument and see how we can improve upon the proposed revisions.
Malpan:
Quote from: Magnus on March 07, 2012, 01:53:46 pm>>>> Quote from: Proposed MoA>>>>4.1.6 - Two-inch rule: No non-handle component of a weapon, such as a crossguard, a non-striking tip, or a pommel, may pass easily through a 2.5" diameter hole when tested perpendicular to the striking suface or shaft of the weapon.<<<<<<<<
What does "non-handle" do?
Magnus:
I was trying to figure out a way to say as concisely as possible that any part of the weapon that is not the unpadded portion, i.e. the handle, should fit through a 2" hole.
Would you suggest that I remove that specification?
Malpan:
I would. The handle won't be able to go into the template unless the pommel or tip fails. But I'm not going to be on RWC, so take that for what it is.
Magnus:
I'm worried about projections on the handle, though I realize the rule as I wrote it doesn't cover that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page