« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2012, 02:27:54 pm »
Winterfell Proposals:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GROUP A:
Winterfell Proposal A:
Current Rule:
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.
Proposed Change:
5.3.2 - Leather armor that is metal studded or scaled, or has metal brigandine plates or rings, based on leather less than 3/16" thick, can only be counted as armor if the studs/scales/plates/rings are no more than 3/4" apart. This can be easily tested by moving a penny around the surface of the armor. If at any time the penny is completely flat on the leather backing without touching any studs/scales/plates/rings, the armor fails.
Discussion: the current rule 5.3.2 is unenforceable.
1. The “2/3 of the leather is covered by metal” part is ambiguous. Does that mean that only 2/3 of the entire piece has to have metal, or that the entire piece must have 2/3 of its area covered by metal? Either way, it is unverifiable without doing math, measuring the entire area of the armor, measuring the area covered by the metal (or the size of the metal pieces and multiplying by their count) and subtracting to arrive at a number greater than or equal to 66.7% of the total armor area to be legal armor.
2. The “studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2" apart” is also ambiguous. Does this mean that there may not be any space without metal larger than ½”, or does it mean that each metal piece must be within ½” of another? Those are actually very different things, as becomes quickly apparent when attempting to check armor by the letter of the rule.
3. Taken together, they are also ambiguous because of the use of “or” rather than “and”. Essentially, there are two separate standards for composite (leather and metal) armor. Interpreting the current rule permissively, a case could logically and easily be made that the rule actually reads:
a. Studded, scaled, or brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if 2/3 of the leather is covered by metal.
b. Studded, scaled, or brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if the studs/rings/plates are no more than 1/2" apart.
Reading it as (a) allows players to simply rivet metal plates onto a leather vest with no attention paid to gaps in coverage. Reading it as (b) allows players to have any amount of metal on their leather, and as long as the metal bits are ½” apart, it’s armor.
Discussion: adoption of a simpler standard with no loopholes is cheap and easy, and only requires failing armor to make simple, inexpensive fixes to become legal.
1. The proposed change simplifies and clarifies the rule. It eliminates the “2/3 coverage” loophole, and codifies how to check composite armors for legality without requiring any math.
2. The total monetary cost to chapters for test equipment is one cent.
3. This requires a trade-off, where ease of checking requires us to relax the standards to ¾” from ½”, however, eliminating the “2/3 coverage” loophole and codifying what “½” apart” means, will actually result in more metal on composite armors, not less, even though the rule increases the acceptable distance between metal pieces by 50%.
4. This change continues the current standard of not requiring composite armor metal pieces to be 18 gauge, and so should not result in wholesale removal of many player’s armor, rather, they may simply have to spend some time adding rings or studs to bring it to the new specification.
Winterfell Proposal A1:
Current Rule:
5.1.2 - Armor protects only the area it covers: e.g., one hit from a blue weapon to an unarmored elbow results in the loss of that arm, even if the rest of the arm is armored.
Proposed Addition:
5.1.2.1 - Hits to areas that are both armored and unarmored must be taken to the unarmored area. Gaps in armor coverage of 3/4” or less shall be ignored.
Discussion of 5.1.2.1: Currently, players often ignore large gaps in their armor, choosing to call “armor” on any hit which impacts a piece of armor, even if it also impacts unarmored areas on the same hit.
1. This violates the Realism leg of our tripod. A strike from a bladed or spiked weapon to an unarmored area would inflict substantial injury. Stabs would likely simply slide along the armor until they slipped through a gap.
2. This is confusing on the field. Aiming for a gap should be a legitimate tactic, but the size of our weapons (for safety purposes) makes this more difficult already. Coupled with the problem of players ignoring hits to gaps if they also impact armor, there’s little point in trying it.
3. This allows players to bring loophole armor on the field, such as the ubiquitous “magic skirt”, which consists of several narrow straps of leather hanging down from a belt. Because no strike to the wearer’s thighs, hips or rear will ever NOT strike a strap, the “magic skirt” is an impenetrable bulwark, with no movement penalty and little encumbrance.
Winterfell Proposal A2:
Current Rule:
5.1.3 - Armor may not be concealed and must remain visible to other fighters. Players may wear a surcoat or tabard over armor so long as the armor is easily visible.
Proposed Addition:
5.1.3.1 - Items of garb that appear to be armor, at the discretion of either the events’ armor checker or garb checker, or any herald, may not be worn on the field.
Discussion of 5.1.3.1: Garb that looks like armor harshly violates the Playbility leg of our tripod.
1. Archers cannot know if a player with a leather helmet, mask, headband, mempo, hat, or anything else on their head or face is actually wearing a legal helmet. Many archers will simply move their targeting to an unprotected player rather than risk wasting an arrow on a “helmeted” opponent.
2. Spearmen, faced with a player wearing garb that looks like armor, will need to engage with a two-handed “double green” strike, which puts them in more danger from opponents, rather than a “single green” strike with far greater extension.
3. Blue weapon users do not know if they need to strike an opponent wearing garb that looks like armor once or twice per target area.
4. Players that prefer to not grapple armored opponents may avoid initiating a grapple with players appearing to have armor.
5. In all of these cases, garb that looks like armor is conferring a game advantage to a player wearing it. They are gaining a benefit or armor, while paying none of the associated costs (encumbrance, discomfort, movement restriction) of armor.
6. The proposed addition is a logical reciprocal to rule 5.1.3. If a player may not conceal his armor, then a player appearing to have armor, but not, presents the same problems.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GROUP B:
Winterfell Proposal B:
Current Rule:
5.3 - Leather Armor:
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.
Proposed Change:
5.3 - Leather Armor:
5.3.1 - Leather armor should be constructed primarily of thick, stiff leather (vegetable tanned leather, latigo leather, or rawhide). Thinner leather, such as leather from a jacket, is not thick enough by itself, but multiple layers may be layered together or overlapped and become armor.
5.3.2 - Studded, scaled, or brigandine armor can only be counted as armor if most of the leather is covered by metal studs, rings, scales, or plates. Studded armor need not be constructed of thick leather.
5.3.3 - Leather armor, including water formed leather, should never be considered rigid armor, unless it had been chemically hardened, for example with wax, resin, baking, or epoxy.
Discussion: the current rules do not reflect what is actually happening at events.
1. At most events, leather armor check consists of a checker running their hands around your armor, looking for dangerous protrusions. If none are found, the armor is passed.
2. No attempts are made to measure thickness of leather, coverage of brigandine plates or studs, non-armored gaps, or anything else. Measuring these standards would require a lot of interpretation, since the current rules are ambiguous at best, and a good bit of math, which most people do not want to do at armor check.
3. Equipment for accurately testing leather armor (outside calipers) is an expense, and must be maintained (batteries). Many chapters maintain little, or no, organizational equipment, and collect no dues or fees that could be used to finance such a purchase.
4. Adopting this change will codify what happens now: if it looks like armor made of leather, it counts as armor.
Discussion: loosening the standards for leather armor will result in better-looking players on the field.
1. Eliminating the numerical thickness specifications, the 2/3 coverage rule, and the ½” gaps rule opens up many new sources for players to purchase commercially-made leather armor. This will help players with less money shop for the best deal they can find.
2. Allowing more vendors to compete for the business of Dagorhir players will result in better quality and lower prices.
3. Players with access to less expensive leather armor sources may be less inclined to attempt to make their own, the results of which are often less-than-lovely.
4. Lighter, thinner leathers are cheaper to buy, and do not require heavy-duty hardware to work with. The do-it-yourselfers of Dagorhir will realize significant savings if they are able to make armor from more readily-available leather weights.
5. Lighter, thinner leathers are easier to work with. They are easier to cut, easier to mold, and easier to form. This will result in better-looking armor on the field.
Winterfell proposal B1:
Current Rule:
5.1.2 - Armor protects only the area it covers: e.g., one hit from a blue weapon to an unarmored elbow results in the loss of that arm, even if the rest of the arm is armored.
Proposed Addition:
5.1.2.1 - Hits to areas that are both armored and unarmored may be taken to the armor if the wearer believes the armor would have protected that area.
Discussion of 5.1.2.1: Currently, players often choose to call “armor” on any hit which impacts a piece of armor, even if it also impacts unarmored areas on the same hit.
1. This supports the Playbility leg of our tripod. Any injury from a bladed weapon to an armored area, even one with gaps in coverage, could be imagined to be largely mitigated.
2. This would reduce confusion on the field. Players attempting to strike any largely armored area would need to do so with attacks that penetrate armor, such as a “double green”, or two blows from a blue weapon. There would be fewer questions and complaints about gaps in armor.
3. This allows players to bring popular and generally accepted armor on the field with no question as to its legality, such as the ubiquitous “magic skirt”, which consists of several narrow straps of leather hanging down from a belt.
Winterfell Proposal B2:
Current Rule:
5.1.3 - Armor may not be concealed and must remain visible to other fighters. Players may wear a surcoat or tabard over armor so long as the armor is easily visible.
Proposed Addition:
5.1.3.1 - Items of garb that appear to be armor, at the discretion of either the events’ armor checker or garb checker, or any herald, may not be worn on the field.
Discussion of 5.1.3.1: Garb that looks like armor harshly violates the Playbility leg of our tripod.
1. Archers cannot know if a player with a leather helmet, mask, headband, mempo, hat, or anything else on their head or face is actually wearing a legal helmet. Many archers will simply move their targeting to an unprotected player rather than risk wasting an arrow on a “helmeted” opponent.
2. Spearmen, faced with a player wearing garb that looks like armor, will need to engage with a two-handed “double green” strike, which puts them in more danger from opponents, rather than a “single green” strike with far greater extension.
3. Blue weapon users do not know if they need to strike an opponent wearing garb that looks like armor once or twice per target area.
4. Players that prefer to not grapple armored opponents may avoid initiating a grapple with players appearing to have armor.
5. In all of these cases, garb that looks like armor is conferring a game advantage to a player wearing it. They are gaining a benefit or armor, while paying none of the associated costs (encumbrance, discomfort, movement restriction) of armor.
6. The proposed addition is a logical reciprocal to rule 5.1.3. If a player may not conceal his armor, then a player appearing to have armor, but not, presents the same problems.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Group A or Group B should be adopted in their entirety as a group, or not at all. Taking them piecemeal will cause more problems, with the exception of A2 and B2, which are identical.
