I played around with ways to re-post them, but there are just too many in too many different formats to be worth taking up more space. You do not have to sign up for the forum and you can't post feedback there: if you have comments you'd like your monarch to think about or want to discuss, post them here!
Post edited by: Talisin, at: 2008/07/29 19:46Tal
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Rolgrim
User
Posts: 3
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/06 02:48Talisin wrote: post them here!
specifically in the Dragonspine proposed rules changes that says...
Proposed changes Change to 1" minimum width of surface on all striking surfaces.
and the stated reasoning behind this...
Reason for change The striking edges of flat blade weapons currently have no width requirement, allowing for very small contact areas on a hit.
as a crafter of flatblades, I have done a little experimentation with strike surface width. My tinkering with flatblades involves standard camp pad and various hacs style reblade kit constructions, no tape on the over the foam, legal cloth cover.
lets suppose we are comparing otherwise similar flatblades, one with a square non profiled construction |__|, and one with profiled sides resulting in a narrower strike surface_/ or even/.
the concern is that the profiled sword will deliver the same force in a much smaller surface area.
I have found that with a profiled blade, the thinner strike surface will compress easier at contact than the square non profiled flatblade. it will reach a point when the compression has reached the thicker cross section of the blade. some thing like a / sword will squish to look like _/ on impact, and take very little force to do so. so the actual portion of the blade that delivers the force of the strike is much wider than the uncompressed measure of the "strike surface"
I am concerned that this rule modification will unintentionally limit crafters ability to produce good looking safe swords.
I feel like I am not being as clear as if I can talk to someone face to face. maybe fitz or ceowulf will hope on and comment on this, or correct anything I miss stated.
I feel that you can build a safe flatblade that is profiled all the way down to an edge /. I hope that the flexibility and creativity of our crafters isn't stifled by well intentioned but mistaken rules change proposal.
Bangor wrote:What are the minimum dimensions for a flatblade? Is the 1.5 inches of striking surface judged on a plane, or on the shape utilized (i.e. cylinder, triangular prism, rectangular prism, etc..)?
Brennon EH wrote:Answer: A flatblade must be at least 2.25 inches across a single axis and must have at least 1.5 inches of foam between the outermost edge of one axis and the closest surface of the core on the same axis (Strike-Legal pg 6, Equipment Construction pg 9). In practical terms this means there is no 'height' requirements on the blade. You may have a single molecule thick flatblade, assuming it doesn't leave markes, bruises, or injure people. This is intentional to allow for tapered edges on flatblades. All non-striking surfaces still require a padding as appropriate for the weapon type, of course (pages 6-7).
this standard seems adequate to me, how do you IM proper folks feel about it?
Rolgrim, Rivers End
Post edited by: Rolgrim, at: 2008/07/06 02:50
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
cio cio
User
Posts: 236
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/06 16:28I'm not IM proper but I agree with you.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
FitzCaliston
User
Posts: 169
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/06 18:13I agree with Rolgrim, so long as there is sufficient foam between the core and the profiled edge.
It's really a matter of a case by case bases, that's what weapon checks and the position of champion are for. Like Brennon's post above says, so long as the weapon does not leave marks, bruises, or injure people.... adding such legislation only stifles the creativity and "potential" look of our game.
I say "potential" because not everyone will embrace the use or construction of flatbaldes. We have seen a marked increase at our park of sexy blates though and I believe it has helped the image of our park to passersby. I've talked with 5 walkups this week alone (between FP and normal day) that have each made comments about the difference between the noodle swords and the flatblades on our field.
PS, we will bring our sexy profiled flatblades to clan.
Fitz
Post edited by: FitzCaliston, at: 2008/07/06 18:15
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Talisin
Admin
Posts: 529
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/07 16:09cio cio wrote: I'm not IM proper but I agree with you.
Stuff like this, I feel that everyone should give their feedback regardless. Ya'll are stuck with the rules as well. Tal
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Rolgrim
User
Posts: 3
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/07 16:37Rolgrim wrote: how do you IM proper folks feel about it?
Talisin wrote: cio cio wrote: I'm not IM proper but I agree with you.
Stuff like this, I feel that everyone should give their feedback regardless. Ya'll are stuck with the rules as well.
I'm sure his comment was just responding to my own statement. what I intended to say was, I have talked to some of the DW folks about it, how do you IM core people feel about it? But the statement unnecessarily limits who would respond anyhow, sorry about that
Rolgrim, Rivers End
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Talisin
Admin
Posts: 529
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/07 18:14Meh, no worries. Just wanted to be sure peeps realize feedback from everyone is welcome... even you. Tal
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brennen MacGregor
User
Posts: 141
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/08 15:31FitzCaliston wrote: We have seen a marked increase at our park of sexy blates though and I believe it has helped the image of our park to passersby.
There is no sexy without pics. I demand pics of sexy flatblades.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
My main concern about those blades (I did check them out at Salt Wars, and I very much want the CoM to see yours, as they are very pretty indeed) is the eye-socket question.
Most flatblades still are pretty difficult to fit into eye socket, and that is one reason they are still viewed as safe.
Collapsing foam on the edges to provide a more padded impact surface - the __/ effect from squishing / on impact I'm satisfied with, esp after playing with the ones I saw.
While the pressure against the eye on the tips of those is not *great*, it is there and it is direct across a fairly small area. And that is where my primary concern lies (and really always has for weapon *safety*) in those types of weapons.
I look forward to showing those to the assembled circle and getting their input on them, as well as inspecting them again in person myself. They do look sexy, and I don't want to judge against out of hand.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Rolgrim
User
Posts: 3
Re:CoM - Rule Change Proposals - 2008/07/22 06:38Mozz, thank you for the kind words on our flatblades. Ceowulf, Fitz and myself all contributed to the development that resulted in the weapons that you saw at Salt Wars.
I will be one of the the few in RE not able to attend Clan this year, due to a prior commitment.
I Ceowulf and Fitz will be there and should have their flatblades with them, if there is permitting space on the bus holding 40 DW folks going to clan
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Home 
