Print

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

[Magnus]

I would argue that those are clearly constructed as armor, wouldn't you?

[Dreadge]

But the wording's gotta be better.

Please help us out by providing your suggested improvements, then!

Also I have given up on the "mask" issue because it is a) too ambiguous, and b) too provocative.

Hive, I would argue that kidney belts ARE clearly constructed to be armor, because the main piece of the leather is not itself the strap; rather the straps are attached to it.

Similarly, boots with greaves attached are not the same as boots--they are boots with greaves attached. The greaves would still need to be clearly distinguishable as armor, because if these are just thick boots that look like boots, then they really shouldn't count as armor. Does that make sense?

I think with the removal of the mask issue I back this change 100%

[Magnus]

Also, while we have for years been operating on the principle that we may not wear things that look like armor but aren't, I don't believe that is in the rules either. We should change that.

[Dreadge]

Just curious Magnus, and it will have little to no effect on me doing this, but what about boots that have obvious armor (steel plating) on the outside of them?  Just a characterization piece, would be nice to have them count as armor, if not I will probably use a thinner gauge.

This is legal But I can wear metal knees? WTF!?!

[Magnus]

That is a separate issue, which I too would like to see addressed. But it is beyond the scope of this thread.

[Dreadge]

That is a separate issue, which I too would like to see addressed. But it is beyond the scope of this thread.

Sorry That just took me aback. I'll Go start a new thread.

[Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight]

Thought so Magnus, just wanted clarification.

With that I would like to suggest:


5.1.3.1 - Only items specifically constructed as armor may be counted as armor. Belts, straps, pouches, scabbards, quivers, boots, etc. (this is not an exhaustive list) will not be considered armor, with the exception of boots and belts items with addition  of obvious armor.

It is not perfect someone can clean that up but I think thats what you are shooting for with the kidney belt/boots/boots+greaves that you are talking about.

[hivemind]

Please help us out by providing your suggested improvements, then!

If I had them, I would have. I got nothin'.

[hivemind]

Maybe the right answer is just:

5.1.3.1 - Only items specifically constructed as armor may be counted as armor. Straps, pouches, scabbards, quivers, tankards, etc. (this is not an exhaustive list) will not be considered armor.

[Ravus]

Thought so Magnus, just wanted clarification.

With that I would like to suggest:


5.1.3.1 - Only items specifically constructed as armor may be counted as armor. Belts, straps, pouches, scabbards, quivers, boots, etc. (this is not an exhaustive list) will not be considered armor, with the exception of boots and belts items with addition  of obvious armor.

It is not perfect someone can clean that up but I think thats what you are shooting for with the kidney belt/boots/boots+greaves that you are talking about.

Me being picky: I don't like the phrase "specifically constructed as armor. It allows the claim that "when I made this [regular, 1" wide ] belt, I clearly intended for it o be armor. See all the little studs on it?". I contend that armor should be built to be "representative of realistic armor (i.e. either in the style of actual armor, or in the style of a garment that could provide real-world protection).

Also, I don't think that last bit about exceptions is inherently necessary (at least not in this rule). Were I you, i'd push for aspecific, separate rule to augment this one. One that explicitly allows items like "kidney belts and armored boots" (contingent upon this rule passing of course.), in order to streamline the language a little.

That said, If i were to modify that rule proposal, I'd say:

"Only Items specifically constructed to represent actual [or protective, or realistic, or feasible] armor may be counted as armor. Items such as belts, straps, quivers, pouches [this is not an exhaustive list] are never armor


(separate rule) Rule x.x.x. does not preclude Items such as Kidney belts, or specifically armored footwear.


Edit: mostly what hivemind said

[hivemind]

5.1.3.1 - Only items resembling armor may be counted as armor. It is not permitted to count items as armor that have other obvious uses. Straps, pouches, scabbards, quivers, tankards, etc. (this is not an exhaustive list) will not be considered armor.


I would interpret this as making the Legions' undead masks illegal as armor. I would not interpret this as making more elaborate masks clearly built into a helmet illegal, nor would I interpret this as making mempos illegal.

I'd have no problem with this.

[Janwin]

As an archer, I don't have a problem with armored face masks.  I see no major difference between them and a full-faced helm, and given my choices I'd really rather take a different target than your face.  I know out weapons are tested to be safe even with face and head shots, but it still bites to get hit there.  I also like the aesthetics they add on the field. 

I agree with Janwin's point that I would not care for non-armor face masks since when I see one I assume that it is armor.

Likewise, given a choice, I'd rather shoot for anything aside from the face.  Sometimes, that's all that's available.

And to be fair, my point there was kind of taken wrong, Kyrax.  I actually have nothing against armored OR unarmored face masks.  I think they add to the characterization aspect of the game, and are great.

I dislike that there can be BOTH (as was pointed out, I think by Kade, earlier, there is no rule that specifies you can't make a face mask out of light weight leather).  Since lightweight or heavyweight, they look pretty identical from afar.

I view it the same as wearing something that looks like armor but isn't armor.  Aluminum mail at a distance looks like normal mail, but it's not "armor" and confers no advantages.  A lightweight mask looks the same as a heavyweight mask at a distance, but it's not "armor" and confers no advantages.  In both situations, you can't tell one from the other easily.

Whether masks became "they must be made of armor-grade materials" or "they don't count as armor" matters little to me.  People will still wear them.  I view this case from a purely playability standpoint.  One or the other, so there is no confusion.  Just as we try to eliminate confusion pertaining to body armor.

[Kyrax the Hobbled]

I understood those to be your points Janwin, explicitly said or unsaid, and I agree.

[Jack Stewart III]

5.1.3.1 - Only items resembling armor may be counted as armor. It is not permitted to count items as armor that have other obvious uses. Straps, pouches, scabbards, quivers, tankards, etc. (this is not an exhaustive list) will not be considered armor.

Taking a page from what has already been said...

5.1.1 Armor is defined as equipment made of leather and/ or metal-alloys, attached to the body in an integral way, that serves no other obvious function but to protect its user.
5.1.1.1 All types of armor provide the same level of protection.
(Moved from 5.1.1 to 5.1.1.1)

[Arthol]

I'm seldom moved to post, Ive been playing now lord knows least 16 years On topic of  masks, just because you wear it on your head it doesn't make it a helmet.  The rules are set to encourage people to wear them and make us all look good. A mask not attached to a helmet isn't a helmet and if its not a helmet and its made from Armour grade materials its Armour thus arrows and javelins go right through it. Don't get me I love masks that enhance characterization, but if you really wanted it for protections you know orcs wear helmets too. The rules state no none period grills not hey its ok to wear your none period grill without a helmet. It really didn't strike me till a few months ago i had guy call mask... not helmet and his mask was smaller then my javelin head,It was like fighting Zorro. In the end if we are going to give something helmet status it should at least cover some percentage of your head. New rules and reclarification of existing rules only comes in the wake  of lake of common sense.

If we are going to open the period Armour can of worms we should allow Greek linothorax its come full circle with Kevlar you know.If something doesn't pass as Armour that wasn't primarily built  AS Armour its garb and great garb enhances the game for everyone. However it comes with warning if you  try count it as Armour you should be asked to remove the item or yourself from the field since you knowingly cheating. Confusion on battle field.. its a battle not a video game I don't need to know everyone's stats before I engage them. You learn as you go just like you learn a players moves it is thus you should learn there gear, If you honestly feel confused politely  ask the hey is so said it looks great but is it Armour. Coming from one the few groups in game with Historical background being told you cant wear something that not only period and looks great is just silly. Been wear wearing my  gear for more years them some fighters have been alive and never had anyone confused about my pteruges

[Kade]

Helmet is mentioned six times in our rules, and not once is it defined as a traditional helm. It is used in conjunction with other language such as "Dagorhir-legal head armor such as a helmet or coif." Coif is clearly legal head armor, much the same as a helm, or in our case here a mask. Provided it is made of legal materials, it is considered "Dagorhir-legal head armor?"

A "zorro" mask is not what this thread is about. The 2/3rds rule should be covering that, and it sounds like the guy was allowed on the field wearing something that should not have been passed by an armor checker. Thats the checkers fault there.

This thread is also not about your pteruges (leather flaps hanging on your belt), or Linothorax, or period armor really. Though i think Linothorax and like cloth armors should be legal, thats another thread.

This thread is still about whether a leather helm, formed to look like a head/face, whether accurately or inaccurately should count as armor or garb. Currently by all the rules on the book it passes as armor if the materials are armor grade and it covers more than 2/3rds of the head.

In a game with elves, dwarves, orcs, and every other assorted half breed princes in exile that demented undersexed teenagers can come up with, the rules should not and do not care whether said armor was period or not because unlike the SCA our definition of "period" doesn't really have a definition due to the inclusion of fantasy realms. All we know for sure is that gunpowder is out. So any definition of "period" is more or less worthless.

"Realism", what some people are mistaking for "Period", is what we should be focusing on, not whether someones mask looked like or was based off of a helm that someone actually used in history. Realism is more concerned with whether the helm or mask would protect your head.

[Magnus]

I sort of agree with Arthol's point, that we shouldn't allow "helms" that aren't actually helms. Were I to change the rules right now, I'd change them to stipulate that any head protection must include full coverage for the cranium (i.e. the top of the head), with minimal (≤1/2") gaps.

But as the rules are written right now:

5.1.7 - Head and neck armor and helmets protect from yellow and white weapon hits to the head and neck.

Notice how it says "head...armor and helmets"? This implies that something can be "head armor" without necessarily being a helmet. So much though it might dismay me, I think the rules allow for masks to count as armor.

That being said, it is BS that Arthol's getting his shots blown off by people wearing armor that doesn't completely cover the target area, which is why it might be good to stipulate that a hit to an area that is not completely armored should count as a hit to the unarmored portion, which someone else proposed iirc.

Anyway, I think the question of what "head armor" really is is a good one. It doesn't affect me, per se, since I don't use missile weapons (or wear much armor, if any, these days) but I am interested in the principle of the matter, namely, how far we are prepared to go in accepting the changed definition of "armor" in Dagorhir from a reproduction of historical/literary/film representations of armor to a type of leather accessory that serves only to grant one extra hit.

If we lower the bar for armor far enough, or allow our definition to be flexible enough, then, as some people have (jokingly) proposed, it might be better to just abandon the notion of "armor" altogether, if there is no longer any real relationship between Dagorhir armor and actual armor.

[Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight]

It has not been proposed just bandied about.

[Kade]

Again we are back to requiring armor to be protective.

That is the rule that needs to be proposed here.

Leather armor should be hardened by X degree, or not easily deformable by hand to qualify as armor. Final determinations to be decided by armor checkers on the field.

This would eliminate 90% of the cheese armor on the field, as well as any masks that are just layered thin /garment leather. It doesn't say you can't wear something, just that you can't call armor on it if it doesn't meet these restrictions. Some of the masks and armor out there now would become garb, some would not depending on how they were constructed.

[Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight]

I don't see the issue with this. The people that would have issue with this Hivemind thinks outnumber sane people in this game.

[Dreadge]

My only issue is I build all my armor out of 15oz leather witch is heavier then the current rules call for about .22" thick. I have No way of hardening this leather because I live in an apartment and I don't have anything big enough to boil that much leather. I'm already exceeding the rules, and not being cheese. So proposing to require me to re work all my armor frustrates me a little bit. I am in no way skirting any rules or making floppy crap armor I spend a lot of time doing what I do. I agree that we need to update the armor rules, But at the same time thick non-boiled leather is an easily accessible armor type for players with limited means like myself, and other like myself shouldn't be expected to drop another 300+ dollars on leather that we have already built. Thats just my 2 cents.

Would I quit the game if that happened? Hell no, but I'd still be pretty pissed off.

[hivemind]

A "zorro" mask is not what this thread is about. The 2/3rds rule should be covering that, and it sounds like the guy was allowed on the field wearing something that should not have been passed by an armor checker. Thats the checkers fault there.

Negative, not sure where you're getting that. Armor covers what it covers.

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.

[Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight]

2/3rds rule has been gone for years.

[Kade]

Ehh 2/3rds was probably from another game or something. Whatever, long as it was armor grade then, and the jav hit it...its legal. If the jav head was larger than the armor...again thats another issue all together and falls under that armor covers what it covers rule that apparently someone needed specified.

And hardening leather in an apartment is very easy. Even if you don't have an oven and a sink, which is the easiest way to harden leather, you can opt for chemical hardening which involves six dollars, a trip to walmart, a pair of rubber gloves, and a ventilated area. Hardened leather is not hard to do if you know how.

[Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight]

used to be in this game, then it... disappeared.

[Arrakis]

A "zorro" mask is not what this thread is about. The 2/3rds rule should be covering that, and it sounds like the guy was allowed on the field wearing something that should not have been passed by an armor checker. Thats the checkers fault there.

Negative, not sure where you're getting that. Armor covers what it covers.

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.

Kade: That rule still exists in B, but not in Dag for some time.

[Kade]

Well that explains it.

[Bro'gar]

I have seen players that wear a mask, that isn't armor grade, as garb and they like it a lot
particularly because archers tend to think it is armor and don't shoot at them.

So imo, its a steep slope trying to prevent players from wearing masks because either they are not good enough to be "realistic armor" or you say they are not allowed to wear garb that "resembles armor". So basically it would be entirely illegal.

Granted it was a failing on the herald's part for allowing him to wear faux-armor, but still.
We shouldn't try and tell people you can't get on the field unless you are a history major.

Armor protects you from ONE POINT, and doesn't provide protections against reds or projectiles(except head)
so.. would you propose to make the armor standards higher and make the armor value more realistic as well?

I don't see any point saying "metal only armor" and "armor has 10 points"
Just sounds asinine to me. Why not just leave it as is, you have armor and it barely protects you from the blow.
Deterring enough damage that you have "my arm isn't completely disabled" instead of "my arm will never be injured because of this!"

[Ilyas ibn Yahya]

...

Granted it was a failing on the herald's part for allowing him to wear pho-armor, but still.

...

Noodles are never armor grade.

[Magnus]

Vietnamese culture is sorely underrepresented here, though.

[Ilyas ibn Yahya]

Perhaps we should give a combat advantage to noodles so we would have more people willing to play Vietnamese personae? Of course people may try to cheese the rule and play Italians.

[Bro'gar]

ok ok, fixed it.
I still think its harder to understand "faux" than "pho"

He was wearing a rigid plastic mask. It probably shouldn't have been let on the field anyways,
but neither should everyone's sneakers.. dang B. fighters.

(no offense, you guys just have terrible shoes. lol)

[Kade]

<--- technically belongs to a B realm.


<--- uses Vibrams toe shoes


Mind Blown --->

[Arrakis]

ok ok, fixed it.
I still think its harder to understand "faux" than "pho"

He was wearing a rigid plastic mask. It probably shouldn't have been let on the field anyways,
but neither should everyone's sneakers.. dang B. fighters.

(no offense, you guys just have terrible shoes. lol)

Earth-toned sneakers and tennis shoes are acceptable footwear in Dagorhir.

Don't get it twisted.

[Dudley S. Grimes]

Acceptable doesn't mean awesome.

Acceptable doesn't mean that something doesn't look horrible.

[Tooka the Gangly Goblin]

One of these is acceptable, one of them is horrible.

[Syre Jari Kafghan the Dark Knight]

No both of them are horrible. One of them is acceptable.

[Dudley S. Grimes]

^

I can tell my life is spiraling ever downward when I sharing the views of Jari.

[Dreadge]

Watch out Dudley next thing you know you'll be taking RP seriously.

[Arrakis]

I never said they weren't horrible.

But he implied they should not be on the field because they are illegal, which is untrue.

Quit getting it twisted, didn't I just say something about that?

[Dudley S. Grimes]

Maybe your making base assumptions and the sneakers on the field shouldn't have been on it.

The world may never know.

Unless he has some pictures.

Let's get drunk Sunday.

[Arrakis]

Maybe your making base assumptions and the sneakers on the field shouldn't have been on it.

The world may never know.

Unless he has some pictures.

Let's get drunk Sunday.

Sunday?

I'm drunk right now.  Mai Tias, Hurricanes, and (Dr. Cocktail formula) Zombies. 

Mmmmmmm.

Holla bout some recipes on fb and I'll hook you up.

[Magnus]

You know you're drunk when you start misspelling "mai tai."

In other news--let's keep this on topic!

[Bro'gar]

Sorry Magnus, I wanted to clarify this.
I had thought "tennis shoes" were a no go unless they at least looked like leather (i.e. earth tone brown).
But from reading the rules this is what I got.

"minimum Dagorhir requirements"
1.3.3 – Non-obtrusive footwear (moccasins, earth-tone shoes, boots, sandals, etc.). Bare feet are acceptable if allowed by the event rules.

"forbidden garments"
1.4.1 - Forbidden garments include but are not limited to: blue jeans, white shoes, camouflage patterns such as military fatigues, visible T-shirts or other obviously modern clothing, and modern hats.

Does this mean if you can have gray or even blue, orange, or green tennis shoes as long as it isn't a neon color?


Personally I think tennis shoes at all break the mundane rule.
Which is why I bought a heavy a** pair of boots, so my whole garb didn't get thrown off.

Here are some of the shoes I saw:



Bear in mind this isn't a "dag" event, its just what I was referring to above.
But apparently this is legal in Dag as well? The white shoes, obviously not, but the gray pair on the bottom left?
Or the guy in the second one that has black shoes with yellow trim and white socks?

[Rafiq's Slightly Used Camels]

All black, all grey, all brown tennis shoes are no big deal.
No visible white socks unless your garb matches. (ie you have a lot of white on)

Heavy ass boots are really bad to fight in and most of the time look no more period than all black tennis shoes.

[Magnus]

This looks like a great topic for a new thread! Thanks, Brogar!

[Atalan]

ok ok, fixed it.
I still think its harder to understand "faux" than "pho"

Because the first is the word you mean and the second is a type of noodle that has nothing to do with what you mean?

[Magnus]

Okay, mini-resurrection here.

DBob just posted some pics of his new Orc kit, with totally rad armor. Here's one of them:



Is that mask he's wearing armor? Is it even made out of leather? In my opinion, even if it is made out of sufficiently thick leather, it shouldn't count as armor--if he's roleplaying as a human wearing an orc mask, I could see it, but if he's roleplaying as an orc, then it's not armor, it's just his skin. Should Dagorhir rules allow for orc skin to be arrowproof? What if I got a totally awesome new 14th century knight kit and made a human mask out of 12oz leather to wear with it? Would that be allowed to count as armor too, or do Dagorhir rules only grant orcs and other monsters arrow-proof faces?

[Timmourne Darkwater - Lord Marshall - Rangers of Ithilien]

Okay, mini-resurrection here.

DBob just posted some pics of his new Orc kit, with totally rad armor. Here's one of them:



Is that mask he's wearing armor? Is it even made out of leather? In my opinion, even if it is made out of sufficiently thick leather, it shouldn't count as armor--if he's roleplaying as a human wearing an orc mask, I could see it, but if he's roleplaying as an orc, then it's not armor, it's just his skin. Should Dagorhir rules allow for orc skin to be arrowproof? What if I got a totally awesome new 14th century knight kit and made a human mask out of 12oz leather to wear with it? Would that be allowed to count as armor too, or do Dagorhir rules only grant orcs and other monsters arrow-proof faces?

yes, it is leather, yes, it is armor.  if you got a human mask made, it would most likely resemble many of the historical examples of face plates made to look like people.





Three quick and dirty examples.

If the item is built and intended as armor, by rules, it is armor.  Orc skin is not arrow proof, but he took the time to get a helmet made of armor, so this particular orc's head is arrowproof

[Tooka the Gangly Goblin]