Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Ask your rule questions here, players and officials will respond. Questions that turn into proposal discussions will be moved to the Proposal Discussion forum.
HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-16

OK I posted this topic on the unofficial area and it seems no one is doing anything over there any more... so here goes:

The rules for Black glaives make no sense to me.

Black Glaive (Black weapon)

Black glaives must be between 7’ to 10’ in length, with a maximum core
diameter of 1". The blade must be between 30" to 36" in length, 4" wide, and 2"
thick. At least 1/3 of the weapon’s total length must be blade, up to the
maximum blade size. The shaft of the glaive

must be padded with closed cell foam 24" from the bottom of the blade toward
the pommel. The pommel must be at least 3" in diameter. Black glaives may only
be swung with two hands. Black glaives may not have quillions.


So, if the blade can only be up to 36" long and the blade must cover at least 1/3 of the total weapon size... how can a glaive reach its 10' max?... Answer: Not possible, the largest you can make a max length blade is 9' max... not that this isn't long enough... but if that's the limit by a limiting rule we shouldn't say it can be 10'...right... or am I missing something?

Also I noted where it states what a one handed axe restrictions are saying a one handed axe MUST be no bigger than 3' in length... but it also states that a black axe may be used one handed to do white damage...So wouldn't that make it a one handed axe?

Also this irritates the F out of me:

Great Sword (Black weapon)
Great swords must have a handle at least 1' in length and a striking surface at least 36" in length. The blade must have easily distinguishable, squared-off “flats” and edges, and its thickness (edge) must not be more than 2/3 of its width (flat). The handle on a great sword may not exceed 28". A great sword may not have an overall length that exceeds 6½'. Great swords must be swung with two hands to administer black damage and will administer white damage if swung single-handedly. All great swords must have quillions.


Nowhere else in the rules (e.g. Black Axe, Black Glaive, Halberd, or even I white glaive) does it mention a maximum restriction on handle lenth... but for some reason we MUST limit this with greatswords... WHY? This makes no sense to me... is a greatsword with a 30" handle inherantly more dangerous than a black axe or halberd with the same length handle? WTF?!?!

Am I calculating these wrong in some way or is this another flaw:
White Glaive (White weapon)
White glaives must have an overall length of at least 5’ and less than 7’, with a maximum core diameter of 1”. The blade must be between 18” to 24” in length, 4” wide, and 2” thick. At least 1/3 of the weapon’s total length must be blade, up to the maximum blade size. The shaft of the glaive must be padded with closed cell foam 18” from the bottom of the blade toward the pommel. The pommel must be at least 3” in diameter. White glaives may only be swung with two hands. White glaives may not have quillions.


Tell me how you intend to make a 7' white glaive when the maximum length of your blade is two feet long and your blade must be at least 1/3 of the total length of the weapon...???

However... if you make your white glaive with a 24" and 18" of shaft that leaves you with 30" of handle... lets say you cover 1" with a pommel you now have a longer handle than is allowable by any greatsword... AND YOU'RE SWINGING WITH 18" of less padded shaft!!! How does this in any way make sense?

OK here's another fricken dumb-ass thing... I already posted the black axe SB rules but I am going to do it again along with the halberd rules just to show how ridiculous this is:

Battle-Axe (Black, Shield-destroying Weapon)
Battle-Axes must have an overall length of at least 3’. A battle-axe must have a blade that extends at least 9” from the core and a striking surface of at least 1’ in length. Battle-axes may have a blade on each side of the shaft. The shaft of a battle-axe must be well padded. Battle-axes must be swung with two hands to administer black damage and will administer white damage if swung single-handedly.
Halberd (Black, Shield-destroying Weapon)

Halberds must have an overall length between 6’ and 10’. The blade of a halberd must be at least 18" long, at least 2” thick, and extend at least 1’ from the shaft. The shaft of a halberd must be well padded. Halberds must be swung with two hands. See the section on Shields below for more information.


By these rules tell me why the F you'd ever want to make a halberd when there is no maximum length for a battle axe and the foam restrictions are less BY FAR! A halberd may only be between 6 and 10' but a battle Axe has no restriction in max length. A battle Axes' blade need only be 9" from the core, only need to be a 1' blade and there's no thickness restrictions like the 2" thickness a halberd must be...

Oh yeah... and you are allowed to swing a 12' battle axe with a 1' blade with one hand, to do white damage, but you're not allowed to swing the halberd one handed!

Also note that black and white glaives have a 3" pommel requirement, not so with a halberd or battle axe...

So it seems to me that these rules are broken in a big way... isn't an Axe an Axe..? and a certain minimum requirement allows an axe to be used two handed to do black damage and break shields. Why do we need to specify the difference between a great Axe and a Halberd? Aren't they both Big-F-ing-Axes???

And if you're gonna restrict great sword handle lenth, then wouldn't it seem prudent to make all swinging weapons over... say 4' feet long... have the same restrictions... and if not... then NOT impose the said restrictions on a single weapon type with similar specifications that many others?

/end rant
Last edited by HRH Malkin on 2012-05-16, edited 2 times in total.

Ericson
Darkonian
Posts: 105
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ericson » 2012-05-16

HRH Malkin wrote:The handle on a great sword may not exceed 28".


Based on how sprained ankles I have gotten and seen from black swords, this does make sense. Longer handle means an increased force at the tip of the black sword, which is what the wielders use to hit people on the lower leg/knee. A solid strike from Owen of Elidor a few years back left me limping around for a week, even though I was wearing leather boots.

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2012-05-16

The glaive rules were made by myself, inox, and thrush. We wanted to make them more easier to wield and safer by making people have at least 1/3 of the weapon striking surface. As far as the 1/3 and max blade length goes, it was ruled that once the max was reached, that you could no longer add more blade.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-16

You miss the point... 9' Glaives have no restriction on max handle length... so you can have a 4' handle on a black axe, but greatswords are restricted...

Plus I could never imagine hitting anyone in the ankle with my greatsword handle... that my friend is a fluke... it would be like outlawing plate helms because one flew off someone's head once and clonked someone... really... seriously... how many serious injuries are likely happen because of an overly long GS handle...vs. say... shield bashes...?


You have to weigh the percentages... I just don't see handle length as being such and issue... and if it is then we should restrict ALL swinging weapons of a certain length... not just great swords.

And BTW: Owen never had a great sword, that thing he used was a glaive like instrument... and no longer adhears to these rules (and it was WAY more than "a few" years ago) but black glaives and battle axes have no such restrictions. Which is my point.
Last edited by HRH Malkin on 2012-05-16, edited 3 times in total.

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-16

FIne Will,

Then don't specify the max length to be something it can't actually be... it makes no sense (i.e. could be confusing to someone trying to make a 7' white glaive or 10' black glaive... just say 6 and 9' long, respectively...

Ericson
Darkonian
Posts: 105
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ericson » 2012-05-16

HRH Malkin wrote:You miss the point... 9' Glaives have no restriction on max handle length... so you can have a 4' handle on a black axe, but greatswords are restricted...

Plus I could never imagine hitting anyone in the ankle with my greatsword handle... that my friend is a fluke... it would be like outlawing plate helms because one flew off someone's head once and clonked someone... really... seriously... how many real injuries happen because of an overly long GS handle...vs. say... shield bashes...?

You have to weigh the percentages... I just don't see handle length as being such and issue... and if it is then we should restrict ALL swinging weapons of a certain length... not just great swords.

And BTW: Owen never had a great sword, that thing he used was a glaive like instrument... and no longer adhears to these rules (and it was WAY more than "a few" years ago) but black glaives and battle axes have no such restrictions. Which is my point.


Oh no, I got that point. I only wanted to point out that handle lengths are a good idea. I'm not talking about hitting someone with the handle. I am talking about the force generated by a longer handle. I'm not an engineer so I do not know the equations, but by moving the fulcrum of a lever towards the force generator, the speed of the opposite end increases. With like our foam weapons, that speed equates to much greater force, so much so that I've actually sprained my shin from a black sword hit. I couldn't walk up stairs for 3 days.

As far as it being a fluke.... I've been to say, 40 total events and have had some sort of black weapon injury to my lower extremities about 5 times.

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-16

As far as it being a fluke.... I've been to say, 40 total events and have had some sort of black weapon injury to my lower extremities about 5 times.


So your legs are injured by black weapons once in every 8 events...? LOL methinks you exagerate the issue... if not, you are obviously doing something wrong... I have fought for almost two decades... and never once had a black weapon's handle seriously injure my legs, let alone get hit in the ankle with a greatsword handle... are you a kangaroo, mayhaps?

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2012-05-16

He is saying the force you can generate with a larger handle Malkin, not the handle it self. I have a hard time believing that is the reason for your problems though. I agree with you though Malkin, perhaps some of the math was not thought through all the way. Its something that can be fixed with a small change.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

Ericson
Darkonian
Posts: 105
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ericson » 2012-05-17

Ericson wrote:I'm not talking about hitting someone with the handle.


First off, try reading my posts before you respond Malkin. As I already said, the handle is not the physical force hitting me. It is the lever action created by a longer handle which allows for greater force to be applied at the tip. The same lever concept that makes the tips of windmills travel at over 150 mph is the same lever concept being used with any 2 handed weapon. If this is confusing, you can try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Law_of_the_lever

The only thing I could do to prevent such injuries is buy plate shin guards. It isn't my footwear, I've worn those boots for 8 years and never had a problem until I went to Darkon, got hit on the ankle/shin by a black sword, and limped off the field.

User avatar
fingers630
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 1613
Joined: 2012-01-11
Location: In his Anti Magic Pants

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by fingers630 » 2012-05-17

But to answer your question, yes, he is a Kangaroo.
Justicar Lucius Alexander Crum
Archmage of Elidor and Lord of the Realm
Queen of the Silly People

______________________________________________________________________
"I'll grapple with greasy fingers... Just sayin'..."-Thrush

User avatar
Sir Gwydion
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 115
Joined: 2012-01-16

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Sir Gwydion » 2012-05-17

HRH Malkin wrote:
The rules for Black glaives make no sense to me.
...
/end rant


I agree. I made that point before the proposal was sent to senate, but was met with the kind of resistance you get when you try to tell someone that their baby needs a bath or a lesson in manners. Senators and EB voted it in though...
Sir Gwydion, Baron of Gladesedge
Sometime mistaken for Avlis, Ranger of the Woods of Elidor (also of Gladesedge)

User avatar
Amazing_Iltztafein
Darkonian
Posts: 548
Joined: 2012-01-06

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Amazing_Iltztafein » 2012-05-17

HRH Malkin wrote:OK I posted this topic on the unofficial area and it seems no one is doing anything over there any more... so here goes:

The rules for Black glaives make no sense to me.

Black Glaive (Black weapon)

Black glaives must be between 7’ to 10’ in length, with a maximum core
diameter of 1". The blade must be between 30" to 36" in length, 4" wide, and 2"
thick. At least 1/3 of the weapon’s total length must be blade, up to the
maximum blade size. The shaft of the glaive

must be padded with closed cell foam 24" from the bottom of the blade toward
the pommel. The pommel must be at least 3" in diameter. Black glaives may only
be swung with two hands. Black glaives may not have quillions.


So, if the blade can only be up to 36" long and the blade must cover at least 1/3 of the total weapon size... how can a glaive reach its 10' max?... Answer: Not possible, the largest you can make a max length blade is 9' max... not that this isn't long enough... but if that's the limit by a limiting rule we shouldn't say it can be 10'...right... or am I missing something?

"At least 1/3 of the weapon’s total length must be blade, up to the
maximum blade size."

That was written to mean that it has to be 1/3 of the size of the weapon, but if it can't be, it has to be maximum blade size (36").

Great Sword (Black weapon)
Great swords must have a handle at least 1' in length and a striking surface at least 36" in length. The blade must have easily distinguishable, squared-off “flats” and edges, and its thickness (edge) must not be more than 2/3 of its width (flat). The handle on a great sword may not exceed 28". A great sword may not have an overall length that exceeds 6½'. Great swords must be swung with two hands to administer black damage and will administer white damage if swung single-handedly. All great swords must have quillions.


Nowhere else in the rules (e.g. Black Axe, Black Glaive, Halberd, or even I white glaive) does it mention a maximum restriction on handle lenth... but for some reason we MUST limit this with greatswords... WHY? This makes no sense to me... is a greatsword with a 30" handle inherantly more dangerous than a black axe or halberd with the same length handle? *?!?!

I agree with this, especially considering white swords have the EXACT SAME limit (28"). Why would the two have the same limit? That makes absolutely no sense.

By these rules tell me why the F you'd ever want to make a halberd when there is no maximum length for a battle axe and the foam restrictions are less BY FAR! A halberd may only be between 6 and 10' but a battle Axe has no restriction in max length. A battle Axes' blade need only be 9" from the core, only need to be a 1' blade and there's no thickness restrictions like the 2" thickness a halberd must be...

Perhaps something for the NC to look at? Who decided that halberds had to stop at 10'? Was that senate or was it a safe limit given by the NC? Either way, maybe the we should find what a reasonable safe limit is and add that to the rule book, because right now it just doesn't make any sense as you've said.

Also note that black and white glaives have a 3" pommel requirement, not so with a halberd or battle axe...

I think that might be because they are more often used for thrusting.

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-18

As I already said, the handle is not the physical force hitting me. It is the lever action created by a longer handle which allows for greater force to be applied at the tip.


Ok so by that logic a 4' handle on a 5' weapon would generate more force than a 3' handle...

If you are getting injured by the tip of black weapons (and not being hit by the handle), your issue has to do with the handle length but only marginally... Your real issue is with overall weapon length vs. the padding of the weapon. Unless, of course, you just have weak joints and are being buckled by the swing force... if that's the case...it's still not about handle lenth, but about overall length and mass. You are far more likely to be buckled by an 8' glaive than a 6' greasword regardless of handle length. My suggestion: do some weight training/physical therapy with the muscles that support your joints, stretch before you fight, and wear knee & ankle braces... it's a tough sport and people swing hard...

A 7' Glaive with a 28" handle, swung at the same speed will generate more force at the tip than a 6' great sword with the same handle length... it would have to be swung harder, sure, but it can be swung harder (based upon the higher mass of the weapon). To put into context, I can't throw a ping pong ball hard and fast enough to do any real damage to someone beyond a welt, if that (even Randy Johnson wouldn't do too much damage... but I still wouldn't wanna get hit with a RJ ping pong fast ball:), give me a golf ball and I can do much more damage, give me a rock the same size and I can do even more, a lead weight the same size might be too heavy to do more damage than the rock... I don't know, but you see my point. It's about mass more than handle size. I know you'll argue leverage... but the lever can be taken out of the equation given baseball bat swings.

Lessinging the handle size won't prevent baseball bat swings. In fact lengthing the handle size will... longer handles means more control... more control on weapons is ALWAYS a good thing. People who use minimum length greatsword handles have very little control over their weapons but still generate a ton of force...(I know some yahoo will probably post and say how wonderfully they control a minimum length hanlde on their GS... I will prempt that argument by calling BS and challenge them to show me on the field.)

I use a long handle and precision shots... do I generate a lot of force... sure.. you want to see me with a 8' Halberd swinging for the fences? I highly doubt it... adding a couple more inches to my greasword handle is NEVER going to equate to the amount of force I could possibly throw out swinging a black glaive at my maximum capacity... even with a smaller hanlde on the glaive.

The fear of long handles isn't about genrating force, it's about being hit by an unpadded part of the weapon. Shouldn't that fear be greater for an 8' pole arm with a 3.5' handle vs. a 6' greatsword with a 28" handle? Apparenetly not.

My take on this is that two handed... there really is no is no issue of being hit by the handle. People generally make the handle length to suit holding it with two hands. One handed, though... there is that possibility. I wouldn't mind a rule that leaves handle length to taste and states when swinging a weapon with a handle longer than X" the wielder must choke up on the handle to at least Y" length (i.e. the one handed length... and this "one handed length" must be marked on the handle for said use... something like that.

Or to make it really easy... just say any weapon with a handle over 28", or an overall weapon length of more than 6.5'... may NOT be swung one handed... there, done... now it's your choice of weather you add a couple more inches for more control. Personally I don't know if I'd sacrifice the one handed blow to get more control, but that would be the trade off.

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-18

"At least 1/3 of the weapon’s total length must be blade, up to the
maximum blade size."

That was written to mean that it has to be 1/3 of the size of the weapon, but if it can't be, it has to be maximum blade size (36").


That's not what the rules states...the word "MUST"... negates any possibility of "if it can't be". So there may not be any glaives over 9' long... to put it another way:

By the rules, all glaives MUST be at, or under, 9' in length.

User avatar
Ogre Solaris
Darkonian
Posts: 142
Joined: 2012-01-10

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ogre Solaris » 2012-05-18

Your real issue is with overall weapon length vs. the padding of the weapon.

Padding really doesn't come into play much here actually. The problem is not the weapon coring out on someone, it's that the force with which it is swung causes injury regardless of padding.

The leverage argument is flawed in that this is not a "lever". The black sword is swung with both hands (as is the glaive). A lever would be where the upper hand is stationary and attached and the lower hand does the work which is not the case. I think the actual physics involved are what is called "moment of inertia" which is too complicated for me to figure out, especially without any actual measurements. It would be easier to just take a black sword and test this out. Mine has about a 16 inch handle, if someone has a 28 inch handle we can have someone swing both and see which imparts more force. Since you're changing the point where force is applied with the larger handle, you are definitely increasing the force, but if you want empirical evidence, test it. You don't even need a sword, just use a stick and change where you grip it (just don't hit someone with it).
- Ogre Solaris, cleric of Kindred. CB
Kindred Brewmaster
Worshipper of Helios, God of the Sun
http://www.darkon.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ogre_Solaris

Ericson
Darkonian
Posts: 105
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ericson » 2012-05-18

HRH Malkin wrote:Ok so by that logic a 4' handle on a 5' weapon would generate more force than a 3' handle...


Simple answer.... no. That configuration would create a greater mechanical advantage for the user, meaning they could potentially lift more than usual. But the speed would be decreased because the 4 foot long part would have to move 4 times further than the 1 foot part. It's like a mountain bike. First gear creates more torque, but less speed. Putting your bike into 5th gear produces less torque and more speed. If you are completely stopped and put your bike into 5th gear, it is very had to peddle because there is no torque.

HRH Malkin wrote: Unless, of course, you just have weak joints and are being buckled by the swing force...


Uh no. That's all I am going to say, as people who actually know me are well aware of occupation (until 31 January) during these injuries and would completely disagree with you. I've done many more physically intensive things than Darkon and never had an issue until I started getting hit 2.5 inches above the bottom of my feet.

HRH Malkin wrote:A 7' Glaive with a 28" handle, swung at the same speed will generate more force at the tip than a 6' great sword with the same handle length... it would have to be swung harder, sure, but it can be swung harder (based upon the higher mass of the weapon). To put into context, I can't throw a ping pong ball hard and fast enough to do any real damage to someone beyond a welt, if that (even Randy Johnson wouldn't do too much damage... but I still wouldn't wanna get hit with a RJ ping pong fast ball:), give me a golf ball and I can do much more damage, give me a rock the same size and I can do even more, a lead weight the same size might be too heavy to do more damage than the rock... I don't know, but you see my point. It's about mass more than handle size. I know you'll argue leverage... but the lever can be taken out of the equation given baseball bat swings.


Assuming the exact same mass, wind resistance, and swing speed, yes they will. However we both know this is not the case, as glaive's have larger striking surfaces than a black sword. This weight may seem negligable, but because of the type of lever (read above for speed versus torque), the lack of torque in a 2-handed sword motion makes for a larger percentage decrease of speed than black sword. Your throwing analogy is describing the sweet spot for weight versus force. I don't know what the sweet spot is for a sword swing, however I am sure it can be calculated by someone with the math experience.

A baseball bat swing is still a lever. Your body is the fulcrum. With any lever, the speed at two points spaced apart are different. So while your arms are moving at say, 20 MPH, the tip of the bat is moving at say, 80 MPH. And if someone has an accelerometer or a slow-motion camera, I would love to prove this to you.

HRH Malkin wrote:My take on this is that two handed... there really is no is no issue of being hit by the handle. People generally make the handle length to suit holding it with two hands. One handed, though... there is that possibility. I wouldn't mind a rule that leaves handle length to taste and states when swinging a weapon with a handle longer than X" the wielder must choke up on the handle to at least Y" length (i.e. the one handed length... and this "one handed length" must be marked on the handle for said use... something like that.


Nobody ever said there was an issue of being hit by the handle. That was your miscomprehension of what I originally wrote.

User avatar
Amazing_Iltztafein
Darkonian
Posts: 548
Joined: 2012-01-06

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Amazing_Iltztafein » 2012-05-18

HRH Malkin wrote:
"At least 1/3 of the weapon’s total length must be blade, up to the
maximum blade size."

That was written to mean that it has to be 1/3 of the size of the weapon, but if it can't be, it has to be maximum blade size (36").


That's not what the rules states...the word "MUST"... negates any possibility of "if it can't be". So there may not be any glaives over 9' long... to put it another way:

By the rules, all glaives MUST be at, or under, 9' in length.

Things can be read different ways. Luckily, the old forums still exist and any President who has to rule on what that really says can go back and look at exactly what the authors meant by it at the time. They discussed it in great length and tried to write it in the best way possible. We all know you can never be sure two people will read it the same way, though, and they knew that, too.
The Amazing Iltztafein of House Dubh - CB
Let me show you a magic trick...
I'll make your money... DISAPPEAR!

User avatar
Inox
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-09

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Inox » 2012-05-18

As someone who helped with this language, I can say that Iltzafein's interpretation is correct.

It stays at 1/3 of the weapon's length until the maximum blade size is reached at 36" (at a 108"/9' glaive). So, between 9' & 10', the blade still only has to be 36".

This is 100% what was intended when we wrote it. If you want to try a rewrite to make it clearer in some way, go ahead.
Prince Inox Elsonáge Thensiur
Swordslinger of No Quarter!
Warriors' Guild, OE, CCx8, CM(Warrior Mage)
Beast of BABALON

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-05-19

but because of the type of lever (read above for speed versus torque)...
I'm not an engineer so I do not know the equations...

So...speed versus torque...levers...windmills, Bike gears, sticks, fulcrums, accelerometers ... blah blah blah...

A baseball bat swing is still a lever...20 MPH, the tip of the bat is moving at say, 80 MPH. And if someone has an accelerometer or a slow-motion camera, I would love to prove this to you.


This quote doesn't support your hypothesis... yes it's still a lever but has nothing to do with handle length, since you need very little handle to swing like this... So if your argument is handle length = better lever and better lever = more force generated, then baseball bat swings should have far less force behind them... yet if they did, wouldn't baseball players use bats with a levers in the middle... like you are suggesting? They actually do choke up on the bat at times... but that's for control... not force.

...never had an issue until I started getting hit 2.5 inches above the bottom of my feet.


Wow! That's a pretty specific spot... LOL This quote implies that this happens a lot, or at least more than once... So you get hit 2.5" above the bottom of your feet, in a way that injures you a lot then? I suggest finding armor to cover that spot...

Padding really doesn't come into play much here actually. The problem is not the weapon coring out on someone, it's that the force with which it is swung causes injury regardless of padding...
...so much so that I've actually sprained my shin from a black sword hit. I couldn't walk up stairs for 3 days.


Come on man, seriously? Padding has nothing to do with it? So you mean to tell me something continually hits your foot/ankle/shin area hard enough do real damage to it, where you can't walk right for up to a week, but you weren't cored? So how are you getting injured then? Blunt force trauma of the foam? Ankle shattering foam! Is this the point where you tell me about a tornado and a piece of straw? LOL BTW: You must have very low shins if they are only 2.5" above the bottom of your feet... or was that sprained shin a a different injury than the repeated shots 2.5" from the bottom of your foot?

As far as it being a fluke.... I've been to say, 40 total events and have had some sort of black weapon injury to my lower extremities about 5 times.


So one thing I was currious about... in the 40 events you've been to, where you say you've been injured 5 times (by Black weapons alone)... Might I infer that you have probably sustained other injuries as well...? Or are black weapons the sole bane of your 40 event existence in Darkon? I mean what's your overall injury rate (adding black weapon strikes along with everything else)?

shroom2021
Darkonian
Posts: 162
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Somewhere in southern Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by shroom2021 » 2012-05-19

"So if your argument is handle length = better lever and better lever = more force generated, then baseball bat swings should have far less force behind them... yet if they did, wouldn't baseball players use bats with a levers in the middle... like you are suggesting? They actually do choke up on the bat at times... but that's for control... not force."

Actually that does prove his point. What he is trying to point out is that much like a baseball bat a two handed sword is a Third-class lever. If you split the distances between the handle, fulcrum, and tip and look at the way they interact with each other you with find that the shorter the distance between the handle and fulcrum, the more a third-class lever will impart speed and reduce force. The greate the distance between these points the more force is imparted. This is why there are swords with longer handles than others, to impart more force. QED a longer handle on a sword will impart more force upon impact with the unfortunate target.

Also, I don't think we as a club should ever get into the habit of mocking someone for an injury. We all understand that injuries happen, and if you are injured on the field you should ask to have the weapon checked immediately to prevent anyone else from sustaining injuries. That being said, even foam weapons can injure people from time to time. I personally do not use a two handed sword because the first time I got my hands on one I split someones knee open (again, truely sorry ). I have also been sent to the hospital from a pretty vicious blow to the head from a weapon that to my knowledge passed a follow up inspection following the incident. Just because we wrap our weapons in foam does not make them 100% safe. This is why we are not allowed to swing at each others heads.

"Blunt force trauma of the foam? Ankle shattering foam! Is this the point where you tell me about a tornado and a piece of straw? "

Yes, mocking anothers injury is very constructive.

Ericson
Darkonian
Posts: 105
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ericson » 2012-05-19

HRH Malkin wrote:So...speed versus torque...levers...windmills, Bike gears, sticks, fulcrums, accelerometers ... blah blah blah...


I'm sorry, are the facts bothering you? Your attempt at sarcasm only reinforces the fact that just because you are a veteran player or have a position or title within the game does not mean you have an ounce of common sense or respect. I haven't mocked you until now, all you have done is mocked me. It's not the DUMB anymore, these are the official forums. I hope new players who read these forums do not realize who you are or that HRH means something.

This quote doesn't support your hypothesis... yes it's still a lever but has nothing to do with handle length, since you need very little handle to swing like this... So if your argument is handle length = better lever and better lever = more force generated, then baseball bat swings should have far less force behind them... yet if they did, wouldn't baseball players use bats with a levers in the middle... like you are suggesting? They actually do choke up on the bat at times... but that's for control... not force.


My arugment, for the 20th time, is that having a handle length is good idea because of the physics of a sword swing. That's what I've said from the beginning.

Wow! That's a pretty specific spot... LOL This quote implies that this happens a lot, or at least more than once... So you get hit 2.5" above the bottom of your feet, in a way that injures you a lot then? I suggest finding armor to cover that spot...


Why would I put armor on a non-legal hit zone?

Come on man, seriously? Padding has nothing to do with it? So you mean to tell me something continually hits your foot/ankle/shin area hard enough do real damage to it, where you can't walk right for up to a week, but you weren't cored? So how are you getting injured then? Blunt force trauma of the foam? Ankle shattering foam! Is this the point where you tell me about a tornado and a piece of straw? LOL BTW: You must have very low shins if they are only 2.5" above the bottom of your feet... or was that sprained shin a a different injury than the repeated shots 2.5" from the bottom of your foot?


If that's your opinion, then give me a black sword and I'll hit you in the face. It's padded so it's safe, right? Caeldorn's face would disagree with you, as I specifically remember him being hit in the eye with a spear and it being black and blue for 2 weeks. But it was padded!! If you don't man up and let me hit you in the face with a black sword, then you have proven yourself wrong. I'll be at the next event in the Elidor camp. Either that or you can apologize for being a complete ass. Either will do.

So one thing I was currious about... in the 40 events you've been to, where you say you've been injured 5 times (by Black weapons alone)... Might I infer that you have probably sustained other injuries as well...? Or are black weapons the sole bane of your 40 event existence in Darkon? I mean what's your overall injury rate (adding black weapon strikes along with everything else)?


Actual injuries? None, outside those sprained lower extremities. I've been sore, but nothing that prevented me from doing my normal duties.

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2012-05-19

I fell like someone is gettin a lil big in the britches. If anything, you need to learn to block a bit better, or stay away from black weapons.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

Ericson
Darkonian
Posts: 105
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Elidor

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Ericson » 2012-05-19

Sir Tyriel Firebrand wrote:I fell like someone is gettin a lil big in the britches.


Thank you for showing everything that is wrong with this club in one single sentence.

User avatar
Lord Cailen Sendor
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Tarimsdadt conducting interviews for new members of the Royal Court
Contact:

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Lord Cailen Sendor » 2012-05-20

Wow! That's a pretty specific spot... LOL This quote implies that this happens a lot, or at least more than once... So you get hit 2.5" above the bottom of your feet, in a way that injures you a lot then? I suggest finding armor to cover that spot...

Why would I put armor on a non-legal hit zone?


--- anything I think will be hit and hit often I take the time to armor

--- armor does not always mean steel / over 1/2 the players wear some form of armor on thier hands in the way of gloves to protect thier hands in most cases it is not "armor" by the game rules but it serves as armor to prevent injuries

--- actually when the foot is off the ground it is an allowed hit zone

" Limbs:   Each  leg,  from  above  the  ankle  and  below  the  waist   (including   the   buttocks),   and   each   arm,   from   above   the   wrist   and   below   the   shoulder,   will   count   as   separate   independent   hit   zone.     Please   note   that   if you do not have a weapon in your hand, a hit to the hand is legal. Likewise, if your foot is off the ground, a hit to that foot is legal."
++ Respect those above your station and train others under you to surpass your achievements - while you treat others with the respect you expect to receive in return! ++

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Glaives and Axe rules make no sense

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2012-05-20

Ericson wrote:
Sir Tyriel Firebrand wrote:I fell like someone is gettin a lil big in the britches.


Thank you for showing everything that is wrong with this club in one single sentence.


And what is that? That you went to the "Let me hit you in the face argument."? The reason I say that is because you sound pretty heated and started insulting someone who has been using a greatsword for YEARS, that he wouldn't know how it works. He never came out and insulted you, he just has a different opinion, which we all usually do on these forums. You raised that bar, and I just informed you of it. If you don't like it, sorry about your luck.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests