[Ansteorra] Proposed Complete Participants Handbook

[Jean Paul de Sens]

Eadric has indeed delineated all of the intents of the melee rules as
regards to fired/thrown weapons.  I apologize that they were not written
clearly enough, and I'll spend some of my time this weekend updating them to
make it more clear.  The amount of text that Eadric had to write below shows
that they are not clear enough by far.

Thanks to everyone who's spent time checking on these difficult tasks.

Sieur Jean Paul de Sens.
Earl Marshal.

On Dec 14, 2007 1:17 PM, Eadric Anstapa <eadric at scabrewer.com> wrote:

> I think there is some clarity needed there.  But it doesn't say you can
> not engage someone unless the are 12 ft away.  It just says that you
> have to be within 12 ft of a unit member to be a member of that unit.
>
> So if you and I are standing 15 ft behind a shield wall (often happens)
> then we are not part of that shield wall unit.  If we are also standing
> 15 ft apart (often happens) then we are together not a unit  but are
> instead individuals and must seek individual engagement.
>
> On individual engagement it says "If both fighters can see each other,
> they have engagement.
> If only one fighter can see the other, it is the responsibilty of the
> combatant
> attempting to get engagement to get acknowledgment from the other
> fighter before
> striking."
>
> So the way it is worded it prohibits indirect fire siege or archery.
> You couldn't fire over a wall into a castle where you know troops are
> massed because they can not see you and you can not see them and you
> can't get acknowledgement.
>
> Notice that it says "_can _see each other"  and not _do_ see each
> other.  There is a difference.
>
> As I currently understand it.  If I am 50 feet directly in front of a
> spearmen and I _do_ see him, then he _can_ see me even if he is
> unattentive distracted and does not.  Therefore we are engaged and I
> dont have to get acknowledgement from him that he knows I am there.  I
> can shoot away.
>
> However if a guy is 50 ft in front of me and has his back turned and we
> were not engaged prior to him turning his back then I can't shoot him in
> the back.  I have to first get engagement and acknowledgement.  If he is
> part of a unit then all I have to do is engage his unit.  So if one of
> his buddies is within 12 ft of him and his buddy can se me then I am
> engaged with the unit.  His buddies should be screaming "Watch out for
> that archer!"    But if he is more that 12 ft from anyone else then he
> is an individual and I have to seek individual-to-individual engagement
> I dunno how exactly I would get that engagement that without shooting at
> least near him to get his attention.  I guess I could jump up and down
> and scream "Yoo Hoo, I am over here and gunna shoot you!"  Once he
> turned around to see who the fool was I could shoot him.
>
> Some kingdoms say if you can see the front of a persons torso or you can
> see their face then you can shoot them.  I think thats probably an OK
> rule as long as there are provisions for indirect fire and as long as it
> is clear that turning a back on someone does not break the engagement
>
> It is my current understanding that the intent for our rules is that you
> can not turn you back on folks to avoid engagement and if you are
> engaged then turning your back doesn't break engagement.  To break
> engagement they have to get outside your opponents effective weapons
> range.  So for archers and siege engineers that should means they need
> to get lets say roughly 80 yards or so away from you to assume that they
> have safely disengaged.
>
> I have spoken with our Earl Marshal and expressed by concerns.  He was
> attentive and helpful and has told me he will be working on some changes
> to make it all a bit more clear.
>
> Regards,
>
> -EA
>
>
> Mike Wyvill wrote:
> > Having briefly read sections of the Proposed Complete Participants
> Handbook (specifically the sections mentioning Combat Archery) I must pose
> the following question:
> >
> > Is it the intent of the Kingdom to restrict Combat Archers to an range
> from between the length of a bolt or arrow (usually more more than 28") and
> 9 feet in order to engage opponents in a melee? That I cannot engage a foe
> unless I place myself within range of a glaive? Section 1.III.A would
> certainly seem to indicate that very thing. That would mean that as a Combat
> Archer I would not be able to engage anyone while in the towers at
> Bordermarch or if I was on the Curtain Wall by the Sally Port. I could not
> engage a unit assembling behind the front line in a melee as I did to House
> Rhoadd at the bridge fight this year at BAM or engage the defenders of the
> castle at Gothic when they stepped back from the walls. Any unit that cannot
> strike me is same from my arrows?
> >
> > Also there are several mentions of 'Non contact archers' in the Appendix
> relating to Combat Archery. My understanding is there are no non-contact
> archers in the Society.
> >
> > YIS
> > Engenulf de Vienville
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ansteorra mailing list
> > Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>



-- 
"Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs. The adjective
 hasn't been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight
place."