[Ansteorra-rapier] AND

[Garnet Stevens]

Greetings,

If a rapped cloak is going to be tested against a
thrust or cut, then a chainmail gauntlet should be
tested against cuts since some believe that a cut
(push or draw) will still disable a hand with a
chainmail gauntlet on it.  It is more than obvious
that a thrust will take out a hand with a chainmail
covering, so that would not need to be tested.  I am
more than willing to supply my chainmail gauntlet my
real hand and even a live blade to see what would
happen.  I think I already know, but I may be wrong nd
am more than willing to test the theory.

I have been fighting with a chainmail gauntlet for to
many years to know that their is no threat to anyone
if the hand is deemed involnerable to cuts.  It is
fairly simple, if you grab a blade with a chainmail
covered hand you do it in the same safe way you would
following the rules of blade grabbing.  The only
difference is that a slice or cut does not take out
the hand.  You still are not allowed to twist or bend
the blade while holding it as in the regular blade
grabbing rules.  This is not rocket science.

Just as the question of throwing a cloak at a person
and it distracting the opponent for a moment to land a
proper kill shot, the chainmail gauntlet works the
same way.  If you miss your chance to kill the
opponent then you release the blade and continue
without loosing your hand.  For those afraid of the
advantage against a chainmail gauntlet, do what I do. 
Send a thrust to that hand.

Lord Sebastiana

P. S.  No I am not kidding  :)

--- James Crouchet <james at crouchet.com> wrote:

> Sean Hertzberg wrote:
> > Against a draw?  Sure.
> >
> > Against a thrust?  Hell no.
> >   
> 
> Because you don't think a real cloak would stop a
> thrust? I suggest we
> test that.
> 
> Of course, 1 or 2 wraps of those little hankies some
> people use wouldn't
> stop squat. But several wraps of good linen and
> wool? Again, I say we
> test it. Now we need a cadet with good health
> insurance...
> 
>  Christian Doré
> 
> > Avery
> >
> > On 10/12/07, James Crouchet <james at crouchet.com>
> wrote:
> >   
> >> I forgt ot add:
> >>
> >> You can thrust through your cloak with your
> weapon. It is ok if you let
> >> go of your cloak in the process.
> >>
> >> While we are talking about cloaks, what do you
> think of an "armor as
> >> worn" type rule allowing a cloak wrapped around
> the arm to be treated as
> >> armor?
> >>
> >> Doré, KRM
> >>
> >> James Crouchet wrote:
> >>     
> >>> I don't recall that discussion, but off the top
> of my head I would say:
> >>>
> >>>     * With a cloak you can whack someone's bade
> out of the way.
> >>>     * You cannot whack or pop the other fighter
> with your cloak.
> >>>     * Incidental/Accidental contact with the
> fighter is no a problem (so
> >>>       long as no incident results)
> >>>
> >>>     * You can pass your cloak in front of a
> fighter's face to briefly
> >>>       block their vision.
> >>>     * You cannot cover a fighter's eyes so as to
> blind them.
> >>>     * You may toss your cloak to the side,
> behind the other fighter or
> >>>       between you and him.
> >>>
> >>>     * You can toss your cloak onto the other
> fighter's weapon.
> >>>     * Incidental/Accidental contact with his arm
> is no a problem (so
> >>>       long as no incident results)
> >>>     * You cannot use your cloak as a projectile
> to hit the other
> >>>       fighter. (I agree this is a dumb
> restriction -- I like this tactic
> >>>       and have used it safely many times in the
> past.)
> >>>     * If your cloak becomes tangled about the
> other fighter or his
> >>>       weapon, hold should be called.
> >>>
> >>> I will dig into this further when I have some
> time but for now, follow
> >>> this and you should not have any problems.
> >>>
> >>> Doré
> >>>
> >>> Kevin Wilson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> Dore, please clarify the rule about throwing a
> cloak at an opponent (and if
> >>>> this has been changed/clarified in the most
> recent rule change, ignore
> >>>> this):
> >>>>
> >>>> What was stated (I believe as a change in the
> rules) in the marshal's
> >>>> meeting at Red Tape was that while a fighter
> can throw a cloak at an
> >>>> opponent, the thrown cloak cannot actually hit,
> strike, or land on the
> >>>> opponent.  But a cloak being wielded in the
> hand did not have the same
> >>>> restriction.  I'm not sure of the rule applied
> to this, I just remember you
> >>>> stating it and clarifying a question on it. But
> a number of fighters have
> >>>> asked for clarification.  This has caused a
> large amount of confusion in
> >>>> various fights, tournaments, and practices.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Corvin
> >>>> Stargate Rapier Marshal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Ansteorra-rapier mailing list
> >>>> Ansteorra-rapier at lists.ansteorra.org
> >>>>
>
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-rapier-ansteorra.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>         
> >>>
> >>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ansteorra-rapier mailing list
> >>> Ansteorra-rapier at lists.ansteorra.org
> >>>
>
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-rapier-ansteorra.org
> >>>
> >>>       
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ansteorra-rapier mailing list
> >> Ansteorra-rapier at lists.ansteorra.org
> >>
>
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-rapier-ansteorra.org
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra-rapier mailing list
> Ansteorra-rapier at lists.ansteorra.org
>
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-rapier-ansteorra.org
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html