jpariury
Duke
Flipping these around for a moment -
1- Charging is defined as approaching so close that your opponent must fall back in order to strike you with the striking surface of their weapon. - Under this definition, charging is based on your opponent's weapon, not yours, and therefore training you is not a feasible means of determining whether or not you should be permitted to wield a specific class of weapon. (If I'm within charge range while wielding a dagger, I'm in charge range while wielding a pike)
2- Charging is defined as approaching so close that your opponent is within their arm's reach of you - This is determined by my opponent's arms, not the weapon I wield, and is not a measure of my ability to use a given weapon.
3- Charging is defined as approaching so close that your opponent is within your arm's reach of you - This is determined by the length of my arm, and again, not the weapon I wield.
**ADDED
4- Charging is defined as physically contacting an opponent in combat - Again, has nothing to do with your weapon.
That being said, the rules for weapon design don't require you to build it with any particular weight or balance. You can make a carbon-fibre double-core, ripstop tape, two-handed blunt with a 1"x2"x4" protrusion, or a two-handed blunt using a PVC core with CPVC inner core, HVAC tape, and a body pillow on one end, and they're both "two handed blunts". Your ability to use one will differ from your ability to use the other. The style is entirely different. If safety training were required, it would only be to know what is a safe hit, and what is charging. Parsing them out further is unnecessary micromanaging.
The rambling bit
A large part of the appeal of the game is that anyone can just show up and play. The weapons you require should be of such design that you anticipate no frequent major injuries will be caused during the course of play, and make it clear that causing such is grounds for dismissal.
Should Alliance players be required to pass some form of safety training? Only if you want to turn it into a sport rather than a game, want to accept legal liability for what constitutes "proper training", and/or you believe that using the weapons is intrinsically dangerous. I don't believe that typical Alliance weapons, Mark5s, or Iron Liege weapons are inherently dangerous. They do not require safety training any more than paintball guns, airsoft replicas, NERF guns, or those collapsible light sabers do (less, actually, in most of those cases).
When I see it happen, it happens because someone thinks that they can just rush in and knock people over, which is illegal and likely with any weapon. I tend to see it when someone gets a cool effect (such as Spellstrike) or big damage call, neither of which is dependent on the weapon.
Do their opponents' arms suddenly grow shorter? I've seen three interpretations for charging, none of which are affected by the type of weapon wielded by the one doing the charging:Dave said:
1- Charging is defined as approaching so close that your opponent must fall back in order to strike you with the striking surface of their weapon. - Under this definition, charging is based on your opponent's weapon, not yours, and therefore training you is not a feasible means of determining whether or not you should be permitted to wield a specific class of weapon. (If I'm within charge range while wielding a dagger, I'm in charge range while wielding a pike)
2- Charging is defined as approaching so close that your opponent is within their arm's reach of you - This is determined by my opponent's arms, not the weapon I wield, and is not a measure of my ability to use a given weapon.
3- Charging is defined as approaching so close that your opponent is within your arm's reach of you - This is determined by the length of my arm, and again, not the weapon I wield.
**ADDED
4- Charging is defined as physically contacting an opponent in combat - Again, has nothing to do with your weapon.
The amount of impact you are allowed to deliver remains the same. Heavier weapons require more energy to swing than light ones do, and require some amount of greater padding, so I'm not seeing "easier".
That being said, the rules for weapon design don't require you to build it with any particular weight or balance. You can make a carbon-fibre double-core, ripstop tape, two-handed blunt with a 1"x2"x4" protrusion, or a two-handed blunt using a PVC core with CPVC inner core, HVAC tape, and a body pillow on one end, and they're both "two handed blunts". Your ability to use one will differ from your ability to use the other. The style is entirely different. If safety training were required, it would only be to know what is a safe hit, and what is charging. Parsing them out further is unnecessary micromanaging.
The rambling bit
A large part of the appeal of the game is that anyone can just show up and play. The weapons you require should be of such design that you anticipate no frequent major injuries will be caused during the course of play, and make it clear that causing such is grounds for dismissal.
Should Alliance players be required to pass some form of safety training? Only if you want to turn it into a sport rather than a game, want to accept legal liability for what constitutes "proper training", and/or you believe that using the weapons is intrinsically dangerous. I don't believe that typical Alliance weapons, Mark5s, or Iron Liege weapons are inherently dangerous. They do not require safety training any more than paintball guns, airsoft replicas, NERF guns, or those collapsible light sabers do (less, actually, in most of those cases).
How on earth are you more in danger of charging? Why are you more likely to move close enough to punch your opponent if you're wielding a two-hander? If someone moves up on you in an effort to get inside your swing range that they're in danger of getting punched, they're charging, not you. Again, the weapon they get rated for has nothing to do with it.Dave said:
They and you apparently need to be taken out back and whipped for stupidity.
When I see it happen, it happens because someone thinks that they can just rush in and knock people over, which is illegal and likely with any weapon. I tend to see it when someone gets a cool effect (such as Spellstrike) or big damage call, neither of which is dependent on the weapon.