[Ansteorra-rapier] Opinions on mail gauntlet?

[Garnet Stevens]

Greetings,

Cathal.  I strongly agree with all you have written
her except one point.  The cloak should never cover
the head (if that is what you meant) for safety
reasons.  Anything else with the cloak is fine with
me.  Well, maybe small furry creatures to fling at
your opponent within the cloak may not be a good idea
either (unless thay are small and stuffed)....lol.

Sorry my Jester persona lashed out in foolish defense
of having fun!  ;oP

Lord Sebastiana

--- Cathal SilAlmhain <silalmhain at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wow that was quite an active two-three days of
> discussion.
> 
> First: I understand Dore's point about the rules as
> written.  I would ask that the mailed gauntlet rule
> not be removed, but be kept as is, and that
> continued
> discussion along the lines of what has happened on
> this list continue amongst those that set the rules
> so
> that the rules can continue to be expanded and
> contracted as necessary to accomodate both safety
> and
> enjoyable period-play.
> 
> (yes, I am an attorney, and I afraid it showed in
> that
> little--or not-so-little--sentence, sorry!)
> 
> which brings me to:
> 
> The changes I would like to see!
> 
> 1. The mailed glove (with palm-mail) should not be
> considered a "hand," but, rather, an "off-hand
> parrying device."  This was suggested, at least in
> passing, if not directly, by an earlier commentator.
> 
> A "hand-grab" of the weapon, once the weapon moves,
> will disable the hand, but, an "off-hand parrying
> devices temporary immobilization" of the weapon,
> once
> the weapon begins to move, is the same as the weapon
> sliding back and forth against any other off-hand
> parrying device: no damage.
> I understand that this is not the current meaning or
> interpretation of the rules, I just hope that we can
> work toward that end.
> 
> Addressing your question below, Dore:
> Two opponents "wrestling" or "struggling" for
> control
> of the blade will still result in a hold.  The only
> difference will be if the mailed glove grabs the
> opponent's weapon, the opponent's weapon can slide
> back and forth in the mailed hand without calling a
> valid blow or a hold.  But any safety issues can
> still
> be addressed appropriately.
> Now, any sliding back and forth in the hand may also
> involve some degree of twisting of the blade.  The
> more twisting, the greater the chance of danger to
> the
> blade, and to the combatants.  The rules can be
> specifically written to allow the marshall to call
> hold at any time that that marshall feels safety
> requires.
> I feel that this rules adjustment actually promotes
> both better period-play and greater safety.  If I
> grab
> an opponent's blade under the current rules I have
> to
> hold on for dear life: if that blade slips the
> slightest bit, I lose my advantage and my hand. 
> With
> the modified mailed-glove rule, as suggested in this
> thread of posts, I don't have to take firm grasp of
> my
> opponent's blade: in fact, I can just circle my
> fingers around the blade and keep it well
> restricted,
> without having to grapple for the blade at all.
> 
> Cloaks:
> Second thing I want to see, we should be able to
> hurl
> our cloaks wherever the heck we want to.  It's a
> piece
> of cloth.  Therefore, I think we should work toward
> an
> understanding of the rules wherein a cloak can be
> thrown on an opponent's weapon--or on an opponent's
> head, if we so choose.  
> Further, we should be able to entangle our
> opponent's
> weapon with our cloak (if we can).  Granted:
> entangling two weapons has potential hazards that
> rightly lead to a hold being called; so, too, with
> entangling a weapon in an opponent's clothing
> (primary
> amongst which in likelihood is tearing the
> opponent's
> armor, resulting armor armor failure).  However,
> there
> is no realistic harm (and by this I mean both degree
> of danger and likelihood of danger) in entangling
> your
> opponent's weapon with your cloak.  There are many
> on
> this list and elsewhere who ahve a far greater
> understanding of period texts and tactics than I,
> but
> isn't entanglement of your opponent's weapon a
> primary
> aim of cloak period-play?
> 
> I also agree with you on the reduced armor
> standards,
> but that is for another day.
> 
> Thanks everyone for this great discussion, and I
> look
> forward to seeing how it progresses.
> 
> Cathal SilAlmhain
> cadet to Don Charles le Cervoisier D'Alsace
>             (aka Don Zorcon)
> 
> 
> 
> --- James Crouchet <james at crouchet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Let me see if I can clear up a couple of things.
> > 
> > First a few more bits on the rules:
> > 
> >    1. "Armor as worn" does not negate hand damage
> on
> > a grab. There is no
> >       exception to that rule. So no, we cannot
> game
> > our way around it.
> >    2. The use of mail gauntlets is always
> optional.
> > You and your
> >       opponent must always agree on ALL weapons so
> > if you object to
> >       gauntlets, tell your opponent.
> > 
> > 
> > Second, It is my job to decide what our rapier
> rules
> > mean. That does not
> > mean I get to make them mean whatever I want them
> to
> > mean , nor does it
> > mean taking a poll and going with whatever people
> > think would be the
> > most fun. If it were up to me we would have
> reduced
> > armor standards,
> > buckler punches and no restrictions on mixing
> > blades. However, I know
> > that is not what the rules say and not what was
> > intended.
> > 
> > I have asked the Deputy Society Marshal for Rapier
> > (DSMR) for his
> > interpretation of this. I have also asked the
> other
> > KRMs for their
> > advice. I am interested in what the KRMs have to
> > say, but the real
> > question here is whether the DSMR believes that
> the
> > armored as worn
> > rules can override the hand damage rule on blade
> > grabbing. If not than I
> > do not have the option of changing this.
> > 
> > Finally, even if I have the ok from the DSMR, I am
> > not convinced there
> > is a safe and playable answer to my primary
> concern
> > with this rule: the
> > responses of the person who's blade is grabbed.
> > Unless we want to make
> > having your blade grabbed equal a fatal blow I
> must
> > consider:
> > What ways are fighters likely to react to having
> > their blades grabbed by
> > and uncuttable hand, and are any of those a
> problem?
> > If a fighter manages to grab his opponent's blade
> as
> > Robin suggests --
> > what then?
> > Are there any safe, effective, legal responses to
> > having your blade
> > grabbed by someone who's hand cannot be cut?
> > 
> > If you think this should change then please help
> me
> > address those questions.
> > 
> > Christian Doré, KRM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Northern Cadet wrote:
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/