FinalHavenLarp.com

Mike,

So if I can safetly be 5" from a person with my shield between the person and me, I can legaly wrap my weapon around and hit them in the back? I know I can do this safely, but I have been doing this forever. Less experienced folks will try to do this and end up hurting folks.
I'm just a little concerned some folks will push the limit on charging rule to gain a combat advantage.
I will agree the 2 ft rule is subjective and diffucult to hold in combat. I guess it should read that you need to keep a least an arm length away from a person (aka about 2 ft) in combat. This will prevent folks from trying to wrap around people when they are in front of them.
In my opinion, you hit a person with your shield or body, you are charging. If you can stand in front of a person and hit them in the back if they are standing up, they are charging.

Man, if I knew this was the rule, I would have closed in on folks and hit them in the back during the battle.

When I use a polearm I aim for legs a lot. Not the feet mind you, but their calves. Its a hard to defend place and since I have reach I don't have to worry about getting hit in the head as much. If I miss and hit you in the foot (anything below the ankle) I don't expect you to take it. It says in the rules that foot hits don't count.

However, I'm noticing that shield people are moving their shield down by bending forward to defend their calves. The best way I have seen to defend against that tactic is to raise your leg up behind your shield when you see the blow coming.

But without someone teaching you that you would never now to do that. I'm all for the weapon demos because I was an unsafe fighter when I started. Luckily somebody took the time to show me some basics before I developed bad habits.

I hate rule talk on forums it tends to lead to argument and hurt feelings. But I feel compelled.

First, I had people not only hitting me in the feet, but aiming for them. A couple of them smarted. I agree, feet/hands/groin/head just don't do it.

Second, I've never seen turtleing as an issue, but perhaps I just don't notice it enough or think of it as something that needs to be checked.

In jest I called a person on what I believed to be turtleing this last event. They pulled their shield over their head and began to swing for my feet. (Please note I really don't care how people fight [ask Chris Mr. Zombie jumping on top of me, that was AWESOME] most of the time as long as they are not being dangerous and I really didn't find this a danger to anyone.)

I in no way intended to be a prick by calling it, or to upset them. In fact I was mostly being snarky and calling it to be snarky because of said rules discussion at game on. I mean were they turtleing, technically but only for a few seconds, did I care, not really. The person is someone whom I hold dearly and care for A LOT and said person took it entirely the wrong way and left the play area as a result.

This was NOT my intention. I was then upset thinking I'd upset said person by being my normal smartypants self.

I suppose the gist of my long tale is this. It's a game. Sure if some tool is sitting there fighting while bent over with their shield over their head swinging for your feet to knees, they are being a tool. If someone executes a fast shield up/blow to the cafe then back to fighting stance, come on, that's NOT turtleing, it's you trying to find yet another loop hole in the rules to avoid taking damage. It's like the no head shots rule. If someone 20 foot away tosses a packet at you and it happens to hit you in the head with the force of a snow flake and it is VERY obvious they were not aiming for your head, why not take it? Was there really even a remote chance a packet like that hurt? I'm not saying to not ignore a good solid head hit or purposeful head shots, but a light inadvertent hit? Think about it this way, if you can go, "oh well I guess that was a head hit I don't have to take it. Maybe you should have.

Safety rules are NOT created for you to find ways to avoid taking hits. They are there to keep us safe. It saddens me to see that they have turned into ha, yes a head hit no damage. Oh sweet the shield went up for 1/2 a second, no damage. Oh that blow glanced off my shin and hit me in the foot, sweet no damage! I WIN!

I can't agree with you more Soco!!!

My problem with the 2 foot rule was that if 2 people with shields were fighting they'd never be able to legally hit each other if they are using their shields normally and short sword sized weapons.

My problem with the shield size has always been that it leads to people ankle biting and leading with their heads because in a 1 on 1 fight, as someone mentioned, you have about 1.5 sq ft of legal target 6" -1.5' off the ground. So unless you have a 4 ft+ weapon you're going to have to bend over or go to a sqautting\lunging position. Or it leads to people aiming at the shoulder. I'm a big guy and the part of my shoulder that is farthest from my face is about 6". Thus, I've always been a proponent of wrapping because it's actually the safest way to attack someone 1 on 1 that has a max legal shield as long as you aren't doing the bear hug wrap. Which should never happen.

I think we all have a general idea how to fight safe and agree with the suggestions that were given. We will followup with Demo's so everyone is truely on teh same page.


Does anyone have suggestions that are not "fight safer"

I heard 1 vote, mentioned twice for safer shield design"

I heard someon else mention smaller shields.

If you feel strongly about your idea please submit to email the rule, right it up, send links and pictures if nessissary, and then we can create a poll.

Anything else?

I do advocate necking in combat it is fun, and probably safe for all, especially if you are a zombie.

head shot the reason you don't take them, is to give no one a reason to do them PERIOD. Shots don't count, so no one tries to do it. In fact they avoid it. That's it.

To go along with what Erik said, I think the current shield rules allow hem to be too big for safe fighting.. at least for someone not using the shield.

Seeing as how you cannot safely fight someone using a shield like you would in a real battle it puts all the advantage on the shield user.. especially if they have a max size shield.. all they have to do is hunch their shoulders a little and block your low swings (the usually only presentable area to attack).. and you get clobbered.

i don't want to see shields go away or become so small they are useless, but when you already castrate the ability of a fighter to fight against said shield, I believe there should be some drawback to the shield other than just increase in armor class (as that has no effect on most warriors anyway).

Aidan_Mcpryde wrote:To go along with what Erik said, I think the current shield rules allow hem to be too big for safe fighting.. at least for someone not using the shield.

Seeing as how you cannot safely fight someone using a shield like you would in a real battle it puts all the advantage on the shield user.. especially if they have a max size shield.. all they have to do is hunch their shoulders a little and block your low swings (the usually only presentable area to attack).. and you get clobbered.

i don't want to see shields go away or become so small they are useless, but when you already castrate the ability of a fighter to fight against said shield, I believe there should be some drawback to the shield other than just increase in armor class (as that has no effect on most warriors anyway).

There are drawbacks to fighting with a shield.

They are easier targets to hit, allowing any call the Surges to affect the shield user.
They encumber the user making stairs, tight locations and close quarters difficult to fight in (especially with the No Charging Rule).
They are fairly easy to destroy and somewhat hard to replace.

It seems to me that if everyone learns to use a shield safely in a LARP, within the context of said LARP's rules, there is no problem with shields. Creating standards for shield safety seems these second step in making shield fighting safer.

Making shield sizes smaller pretty much takes away the benefit of a shield, especially to larger players like myself.

Making shield sizes smaller pretty much takes away the benefit of a shield, especially to larger players like myself.

That's why you make the standard sizes smaller, but still base all sizes off of the wielder. That way, everything is in proportion.

The way shields are now is almost perfect. I'm not even suggesting to cut the size by any more than 10%. It's just right now, even using a longsword length weapon, legal targets switch to illegal targets almost instantaneously.

I think folks are forgetting all the wasys to easly counter shields with in the current rules. Why is it all of a sudden shields are a major problem?

I have to agree with folks that training is one of the key's. Some simple safety tips in a FAQ, a demo is great, and maybe a shield reduction if there is still a problem.

There are pro's and con's to all fighting styles.

One think I did notice is there where not many PC empath's. That surprised me! Get a couple more and shields are worthless. Also, disarming a person shield or no, typicaly kills them. I died so much to the tatic I lost count.

I have to say, use tatics and your skill's to get around combat issues. Shields are a great defense but offer many neagtives!! That is why not everyone has a shield. Only those who really want to use them carry them around.

Rember, NPC's don't typical fight with shields. This was a special case. So is this tuely a problem? Vince and I have been trianing for many years together and we where using our PC shields and weapons that would give us the biggest advantage. We are not the normal NPC you will be fighting. Take Vince and I out of the equation, is there a problem besides the some of the safety concerns mentioned already?

as long as there built to rules they should be fine, padded, no wider than shoulders, no taller than knees to shoulders, if they are built this way there should always be somewere to hit.

i fight with one 3+ foot sword, short enough to not be cumbersom, long enough to keep me out of NPC claw leangth, i usually get in a few good 2's before running away, not getting hit while i do it, i dont like shields, there big, heavy, damage magnets, and hard to just carry around with you, if there so sick, why dosnt everybody use them?

i have fought my brother when hes useing a shortsword and a shield, to my 1 sword, IF you know how to fight a shield, you can LAST LONGER, i loose all the time, but there are times to hit, example.

-never try to hit first, they will block while hitting you, let them try to strike you, THEY WILL expose there shoulder, giving you a spot to hit.

-were them down, shields tire the arm, fast, you dont have one so can move more, classic light infantry, heavy infantry deal.

-never fight face to face, i rarley get hit becuase of this, let the monster/person turn to attack sombody else, then hit them in the back, if there in a line and you cant get behind them, have an empath blow up the shield, there is no reason not to win.

I agree that it is not a big safety issue, but it is still an issue that should be addressed. There are enough PC's that use shields that this discussion poses merit.

If the (albeit small) issue is dealt with now, it won't be an issue again later. Essentially proactive damage control.

+1 on more padding on shields and weapon demos.