Page 1 of 1

Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-14
by Kobalos
To simplify matters, I'll leave the geeky number stuff in the original post. Please refer to it for the reasoning behind the following proposal. Note that the change from chainmail as Armor Rating 2 to Armor Class 3 will automatically happen, as the new AC system goes into effect on Jan 1, 2013.

Rationale: Revise the Chainmail (AC2) specifications to accomodate Aspect Ratio (an indicator of weave strength), and add rules for riveted mail (which is inherently stronger, thus we should allow bigger rings).

Current Rule:
Armor Rating 2
Chain mail must be made with links no larger than 1/2" rings of 12-gauge steel or bronze; 3/8" rings of 14gauge steel or bronze; or 1/4" rings of 16-gauge steel or bronze. Chain mail made of sturdy links that fails to meet the requirement of AR2 will be AR3, e.g. shark mail would fall into this category.


Proposed Rule:
Armor Class 3
Chainmail armor is constructed of interwoven metal rings, and the ratio of the diameter of those rings to the width of the wire used, known as aspect ratio, determines its strength. The maximum ring sizes for standard European 4-in-1 chainmail armor, both butted and riveted, are given below. Chainmail armor made of sturdy links that fails to meet the requirements of AC3, e.g. shark mail or butcher's mail, will count as AC2.

Butted Mail must have an aspect ratio of 4.8 or less, as follows:
12g rings must be no larger than 1/2" (0.5") or 12.7mm
14g rings must be no larger than 3/8" (0.375") or 9.8mm
16g rings must be no larger than 5/16" (0.312") or 7.8mm
18g rings must be no larger than 3/16" (0.188") or 5.8mm

Riveted mail must have an aspect ratio of 7.5 or less, as follows:
12g rings must be no larger than 3/4" (0.75") or 19.8mm
14g rings must be no larger than 9/16" (0.562") or 15.2mm
16g rings must be no larger than 7/16" (0.438") or 12.2mm
18g rings must be no larger than 5/16" (0.312") or 9.1mm

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-14
by Volney
Of note, is the inclusion of aluminum intended and or should it be? Only reason is the changes do not mention metal type.

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-15
by Lord Valfryn
If the armor section states only 18ga steel bronze or what-have-you, aluminum is forbidden, then we shouldn't have to repeat it, right?

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-15
by mardux zulammar
Problem with omitting it from each armor description is that certain metals are allowed for certain armor types but not for others.

On that note, anyone who shows up with aluminum armor should be smacked with it repeatedly until it bends out of shape. Then fail the armor for safety reasons. Just my opinion.

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-15
by LordTyrantCort
Unless explicitly permitted in the specific armor type description, metal armor must be constructed of bronze or steel; and it must be at least 18-gauge and no thinner than .045”. All aluminum armor is forbidden.

At no point in any of the armor descriptions is aluminum allowed, so beatings with the armor should never happen

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-18
by Kobalos
Warlordcort wrote:Unless explicitly permitted in the specific armor type description, metal armor must be constructed of bronze or steel; and it must be at least 18-gauge and no thinner than .045”. All aluminum armor is forbidden.


Exactly. The point of having the overall rule is so we don't have to repeat stuff. Which brings me to...

mardux zulammar wrote:Problem with omitting it from each armor description is that certain metals are allowed for certain armor types but not for others.


Plate mail is the only armor that can be something other than steel or bronze; it can also be brass. To make this exception more obvious, I'd be in favor of changing all other rigid armor material references to say "metal" instead of "steel or bronze", but that would be a separate proposal.

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-18
by Prince Andrick
Cosign

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-21
by Kobalos
Bump. I need another cosigner so I can take this to Senate...

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-21
by Lord Cailen Sendor
I will cosign if I can (as incoming magistrate) as I am not yet that position I now cosign lol

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-22
by Kobalos
That works.

I think the main reason Tim never cosigned during his tour was to appear as impartial as possible, but it's not a requirement in the rules or bylaws. The Magistrate never votes except to break ties anyway, that's impartial enough for me.

Oh, and let us know how you want us to submit proposals. Is a Google Docs (now Google Drive) version and paper copies for Senators okay?

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-22
by Lord Cailen Sendor
yes that form of submittal will be fine - I may need to get up to speed a lil on using those forms but should not be a problem - thank you

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-22
by Lord Valfryn
I can cosign, if that helps.

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-29
by Isawa Ryuu
I’ll co-sign. This needs to be put up as most of the online bought armor is not legal chainmail but should be since much of the armor on the field currently is based on specs found in museums. This makes them more historically accurate and functional. Our rules should not force players to make chainmail that might not even be historically accurate.

IMO this needs to be passed and put into play ASAP. I can’t even find armor within our spec anywhere online. This includes chainmail that is $600 to $800. This might be the most important proposal currently.

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-29
by Sir Caetrel
After spending some time reasearching chainmail tonight, I support this 100%. Good common sense!

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-31
by Sir Caetrel

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2012-12-31
by Kobalos
Good point--I didn't think of welded mail in my proposal. I guess it boils down to what we think is more important, strength or period-appropriateness. If you vote for strength, it should count as riveted. If you want more historical accuracy, it should count as butted (since it uses modern bonding methods on butted rings).

Personally, I would count it as butted. That would also balance the weight vs. protection issue, since welded weighs essentially the same as butted, whereas riveted rings weigh more than a same-size butted ring. I'll see what comments come in, but for now I plan on editing the butted mail specs to "butted or welded".

Re: Proposal: New AC3 (AR2) Chainmail Specs

Posted: 2013-01-29
by Kobalos
I see this passed, even though I wasn't there. Thanks, guys!