From: kevin%cairo.dnet@isi.COM (Non sum qualis eram)
Subject: Re: Why call blows light?
Organization: The Internet
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:13:12 GMT

Jonathan Blackbow claiming to be 'nobody in particular' wrote: 

> I think that if any blow were regarded as effective, we'd see a lot less
> problem with blow acknowledgement and thus there would be no question of
> whether or not a blow should have been effective *due to what it *felt* like.*

This can easily lead to 'weapons' which are quite far from being any
simulation of medieval weapons; with the existing mass-, great-, and pole-
weapons rules, some of this has already crept in.

However.

In the case of swords, however, a sword with a lighter balance, and, to
a point, total weight, can move much faster than a heavier one. And, 
depending on technique, which can rarely be noticed outside the body
of the thrower, it may or may not have any effective impact.

Do we want to change to fencing rules? That is the logical extension of
your current suggestion.

> In Atlantia, it is being considered that perhaps the face thrust should be
> dropped because there is too much conflict with blow acknowledgement.  if 
> light could not be called, there would be no such.

> In Atlantia, they are considering that if they do keep face thrusts, then they
> will have to upgrade the armor standards for helmets.  this would cost massive
> bucks which we don't need to spend, if the 'no-light' rule could be put into
> effect.

Good gentle, could you expand on that? In the few kingdoms I've visited, I've
seen no problem with blow acknowledgement with either face thrusts or strike -
the only exceptions being whether the simulated basline helm is open/closed 
face (or what-you-wear rules).

What I consider dangerous, however, is wearing a helm which can't safely
deter a face-thrust. Thrusts, snaps, etc., to the front of the helm will
move that helm; leaving the security of that protection to 'against the
rules' is far more dangerous than _I_ would be willing to bear.

> I know that removing light blows would make for a faster combat, but it would
> also make for a far SAFER combat.  and that's what we're all after, right?

Ah. Now I see where we differ. 

No,'safer' combat is not what we're aiming for, overall. Some of us are
trying to understand the mechanics of medieval combat (leverage, delivery,
powerthrough, etc.); others do it for 'Le sport'; others do it merely
because it's fun; others do it, plainly, for the one for whom they fight;
and other reasons. The definitions of the lists have been used (relatively)
safely from the early days [ok, just after] ; protection has been scaled 
so as to minimize critical--life-threatening--injuries, while maintaining
as much as practical the simulation of medieval combat. Not the simulation
of the somewhat later duel/duello; other arenas exist for that approach,
just as other groups provide an outlet for musketry, cannons, and the like.

Keradwc
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Keradwc an Cai     |   just another nobody    |  In the Mists of the West |
 |--------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|
 | Kevin Connery      | Quality must be designed |   Speaking FROM, not FOR: |
 |                    | into software; it cannot |   Integrated Systems, Inc |
 | kconnery@isi.com   | be patched on afterwards |           Santa Clara, CA |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ruth.Woodring@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Ruth Woodring)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet