Locking mechanism on siege weapons

[Snudge]

Throughout the course of history, siege weapons have had some sort of locking mechanism or another.
We do not currently require them, should we?

[Sir Tyriel Firebrand]

I thought siege weapons were required to have a locking mechanism, or was that part of Lanham's overhaul proposal.

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

That was part of Tycho's overhaul proposal (though it was co-written by Lanham) which passed senate back in December 2006 and completely disappeared, never going through the EB.

The original text can be found on the old boards, and all we changed was that we removed trebs. If somebody wants to go find it and re-propose it, I will cosign all day long.

[smelton]

I will also cosign on that.

[Snudge]

I went and found the old proposal.


Proposal For Siege Weapons
Tue, Jan 31, 2006 1:47 AM


This is something I've been working on, could be used as a replacement for the current siege rules. Tell me what you think.
Siege Weapons

Siege weapons shall fall into one of three categories
1. Ballista, to be defined as a weapon consisting of a bow section and a stock section, akin to a giant crossbow. A ballista shall be powered by torsion, bow, or elastics. A ballista shall fire either a bolt or ball. A ballista shall have a stand or base that it must rest upon in order to be fired.
2. Catapult, to be defined as a weapon using an arm to accelerate a ball in an arcing fashion. Catapults shall consist of an upright section for the arm to come to rest against, and a base section for the arm to pivot from. A catapult shall be powered by elastics, bow or torsion. A catapult shall fire balls.
3. Cannon, to be defined as a tube using elastics to accelerate a cylindrical ball in a linear fashion. Cannon tubes shall be mounted on a solid base.

Sizes of siege weapons shall be as follows:
Ballista shall measure no less than 3 in height, width, or length.
Catapults shall measure no less than 2 in width, 3 in length, and 3 in height.
Cannon shall measure no less than 2 in width, 3 in length, and 2 in height.

All siege weapons shall be subject to the following rules.

1. Three players must man a siege weapon at all times while it is in use; two players to load the siege weapon and one to fire it. These players must have both hands free. It requires two players to lift a siege weapon, even if it is physically light enough to be moved by a single player.
2. Once a siege weapon has been fired, those manning it must count aloud 10 seconds before firing the siege weapon again; this count must be loud enough that it can be heard within 10' radius of the siege weapon.
3. Siege weapons may only fire one bolt or ball at a time.
4. Siege weapon bolts and balls inflict 'green' damage upon impact, even in the case of misfire. Green damage causes death to anyone who is struck directly by a green damage weapon, penetrating and destroying all armor and shields. In addition, green damage causes a mortal wound to any player who is within a 3' radius of the point of impact, also penetrating and destroying all armor and shields.
5. A single hit from any green weapon will destroy a siege weapon; additionally, siege weapons can be destroyed in the same manner as gates (see Fortifications).
6. Ballistae fire 'bolts' that are constructed under the same guidelines as javelins with foam fins (see Javelins in Chapter Three). Catapults and cannons fire 'balls' that are constructed under the same guidelines as spell balls (see Spell Balls in Chapter Six). Ballista bolts must have heads covered in dark green colored cloth. Catapult/cannon balls must be covered with dark green colored cloth.
7. All siege weapons shall be able to be cocked and loaded, then left in this ready state without additional assistance until fired.

[Lord Dubh]

Co-Signed

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

Co-sign, like I said I would.

I have one concern with the old proposal:

Are there any current ballistas that wouldn't fire properly with foam fins on their bolts? I noticed Legio doesn't have any fins, but I imagine they could add them (it doesn't have a size requirement for the fins).

[smelton]

Co-sign as well.

I don't think ballista bolts should be required to have fins.

[Lord Dubh]

Co-sign, like I said I would.

I have one concern with the old proposal:

Are there any current ballistas that wouldn't fire properly with foam fins on their bolts? I noticed Legio doesn't have any fins, but I imagine they could add them (it doesn't have a size requirement for the fins).

OOPS missed the fins part...why fins?? or rather fletching...

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

Co-sign, like I said I would.

I have one concern with the old proposal:

Are there any current ballistas that wouldn't fire properly with foam fins on their bolts? I noticed Legio doesn't have any fins, but I imagine they could add them (it doesn't have a size requirement for the fins).

OOPS missed the fins part...why fins?? or rather fletching...

The intent was to make sure nobody picked them up and used them as javelins. A green head might be easy to miss in the heat of a battle, but fins wouldn't be.

[Sir Aethilgar]

That was part of Tycho's overhaul proposal (though it was co-written by Lanham) which passed senate back in December 2006 and completely disappeared, never going through the EB.

The original text can be found on the old boards, and all we changed was that we removed trebs. If somebody wants to go find it and re-propose it, I will cosign all day long.

Since the text as written passed the Senate; need this be discussed there again or can we simply push it up to the EB to move it along?

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

That was part of Tycho's overhaul proposal (though it was co-written by Lanham) which passed senate back in December 2006 and completely disappeared, never going through the EB.

The original text can be found on the old boards, and all we changed was that we removed trebs. If somebody wants to go find it and re-propose it, I will cosign all day long.

Since the text as written passed the Senate; need this be discussed there again or can we simply push it up to the EB to move it along?

There is no official record of it. No copies, no notes in a binder or anything like that, so I don't think we can do it that way.

There are just the memories of so many senators who sat on the bleachers on a December morning voting on it.

[Sir Aethilgar]

There is no official record of it.

Ugh.

Well, mark me down as a supporter then.

[Snudge]

Unless there's a strenuous objection I'm going to re-propose this for Tycho tomorrow.
I'd do it today, but letting it sit for 24 hours isn't gonna hurt.
But seriously, anyone have any objections? At all?

[fingers630]

Just out of curiousity, aside from getting rid of Mordoms siege weapons, what is the reason a locking mechanism is required? Does it make the item safer or something?

[TitusV]

Our ballistas fire accurately without fletching. Thus we did not design the siege engine for it. Not sure if we would run into problems since we never tried firing a bolt with fletching.

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

Just out of curiousity, aside from getting rid of Mordoms siege weapons, what is the reason a locking mechanism is required? Does it make the item safer or something?

Yes, that is what we discussed. It means that once ready to fire, a person cannot accidentally hurt anybody else because they let go at the wrong time. We also agreed that, as others said here, that they are more in-line with a real=life device.

[Sir Caetrel]

Remove fins on the bolts, that is just silly. Add "feet" to the dimension specs as there is no unit of measurement listed.

Otherwise, 100% support.

[Sir Aethilgar]

Remove fins on the bolts, that is just silly. Add "feet" to the dimension specs as there is no unit of measurement listed.

Otherwise, 100% support.

Concur.

[President]

You could just have the NC do a study on the devices and if they determine that it is safer to have them have a locking mechanism they can make it mandatory as a safety issue. No need to change anything.

[Snudge]

True, but this also defines alot of things about siege weapons beyond just a locking mechanism

[Fiyero]

Well there is the whole thing of the slingapults going against the spirit of the game

[fingers630]

How so? They take just as long to load as the Exillium one, shoot about the same distance, require 10 seconds to "reload", and looked perfectly fine to me.

I can think of a lot of other things more against the spirit of the game.

[Inox]

Slingapults look nothing like anything even remotely resembling a siege weapon. There's no reason we can't make something that actually looks at least a little like a siege weapon.

Otherwise, why not just make someone wear bright green, sit them in a chair, and let them throw green beanbags. That's about how realistic the slingapults are.

[TitusV]

Why can't we add a compressed air option to cannons? The siege weapon still has to be checked. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are smart enough that could make a safe working design. I'm kind of indifferent on the make siege engines look real argument.