Shields
- Thread starter PoeticMisfit
- Start date
jpariury
Duke
I suspect the intent to avoid people making pinwheels that essentially give you a greater-than-26" diameter, or some variant thereof. If voids do not count against total surface area, I can build shields that give greater than 531sqin of coverage, but only use 531sqin of material.Gilwing said:
Basically, don't do this, unless the stretched silhouette is no greater than 26" diam:
Another way they could have gone about it would be to say that all voids must have no sharp corners and be at least 2.5" in diameter, I suppose. Haven't really tried to test-abuse it because it simply isn't allowed under the current rules.
Ezri
Knight
I don't think you guys are actually disagreeing here. Coffin shields and "bean" shields are still solid shapes with calculatable surface area. Doing things like decorative notches or cut outs is more what we're referring to. Cutting some neat designs that remove material does not allow you to use a bigger shield with the idea that "well, there's a space here, here and here..."
Mirificatio
Newbie
I think the word you're looking for here is "convex". The shield's surface area will be calculated as that of a convex shape, and concavities will simply be smoothed over for the purpose of the calculation.
Speaking of which, some concavities could be a good idea for reducing overall weight. Reaching a true 531 in^2 area isn't necessarily more optimal than expanding the shield's extremities to map out a 531 in^2 virtual silhouette. The gaps in a strongly convex silhouette reduce the visual blind spot usually provided by a shield, which could be a good thing. The trouble would come from just how much weaker a shield would be with "missing" bits.
Speaking of which, some concavities could be a good idea for reducing overall weight. Reaching a true 531 in^2 area isn't necessarily more optimal than expanding the shield's extremities to map out a 531 in^2 virtual silhouette. The gaps in a strongly convex silhouette reduce the visual blind spot usually provided by a shield, which could be a good thing. The trouble would come from just how much weaker a shield would be with "missing" bits.
jpariury
Duke
There we go. Thanks for that.Mirificatio said:
Sorry, I'll get right on that.Ezri said:
Re: the rest of your reply, I don't understand. Can you make a crappy MSPaint picture to demonstrate?Like I said, maybe that's the goal, but I see potential issues, which is probably why we have the wacky wording we do.Gilwing said:
There's also an argument to be made that even simple corners create additional coverage that wouldn't otherwise exist, as in the case of this shield design:
The notch corners will give you additional coverage. While the individual bits may not seem like much, consider: a 26" diam circle is the hard, clear line of distinction between legal and not. A 27" diam circle ("1 inch! C'mon, it's not much!") give an extra 8.25"x5" (41"sq) area of coverage. By the same token, absent the "convex silhouette" rule, the plank shield offers more area of coverage than it's raw dimensions. And I think someone would be hard-pressed to argue that it was clearly designed to abuse the max area rules... it's a series of planks.
obcidian_bandit
Count
Hold on now, the rule is pretty clear here. A kidney shaped shield is perfectly legal, so long as the recess is included in the area.
Two (non-paint, existing examples):
In this case, the shield has a notch taken out of it (it's a spear hole) and the 'recess' counts as though the space were filled by shield.
Next (and I think that this is the controversial one):
This shield is shaped like a comma, and the concavity on the bottom left from the end of the convex curve to the point on the bottom is still counted towards the area of the shield (and it was when the shield was built).
The rules don't state "Cavities don't count if they're really big," the rule is that cavities count towards the whole of the shield. If you stretch a string around it, use the area enclosed by the string. There's not exceptions written into the rules, and there shouldn't be. This is really more straight forward then is being discussed, regardless of how you/your buddy/some other guy interpreted it after reading what is written.
~Matt, WCV
Marshal type
Two (non-paint, existing examples):
In this case, the shield has a notch taken out of it (it's a spear hole) and the 'recess' counts as though the space were filled by shield.
Next (and I think that this is the controversial one):
This shield is shaped like a comma, and the concavity on the bottom left from the end of the convex curve to the point on the bottom is still counted towards the area of the shield (and it was when the shield was built).
The rules don't state "Cavities don't count if they're really big," the rule is that cavities count towards the whole of the shield. If you stretch a string around it, use the area enclosed by the string. There's not exceptions written into the rules, and there shouldn't be. This is really more straight forward then is being discussed, regardless of how you/your buddy/some other guy interpreted it after reading what is written.
~Matt, WCV
Marshal type
markusdark
Knight
I think that when calculating the area of a shield, that only common geometric shapes may be used for the calculation of the area (rhomboid, circle, triangle, etc.). Any 'recesses' in them are not counted.
In the case of the slotted wood above, it should be counted as one large square and not a bunch of mini squares for the tops and bottoms.
In the case of the kidney shield above, you'd take the area of half a circle for the top and of a triangle for the bottom - a triangle that has the 'missing' area on the left.
In the case of the slotted wood above, it should be counted as one large square and not a bunch of mini squares for the tops and bottoms.
In the case of the kidney shield above, you'd take the area of half a circle for the top and of a triangle for the bottom - a triangle that has the 'missing' area on the left.
jpariury said:There's also an argument to be made that even simple corners create additional coverage that wouldn't otherwise exist, as in the case of this shield design:
The notch corners will give you additional coverage. While the individual bits may not seem like much, consider: a 26" diam circle is the hard, clear line of distinction between legal and not. A 27" diam circle ("1 inch! C'mon, it's not much!") give an extra 8.25"x5" (41"sq) area of coverage. By the same token, absent the "convex silhouette" rule, the plank shield offers more area of coverage than it's raw dimensions. And I think someone would be hard-pressed to argue that it was clearly designed to abuse the max area rules... it's a series of planks.
I would take the SA of each rectangle and then add them up. That is the total SA of the shield, not the total covered SA.
You could argue that when I point my shield towards my victim that it covers more SA, which is completly correct. It coveres more SA of my body, but the shields SA never changes.
Mirificatio
Newbie
Okay, everyone go find an old copy of AutoCAD LT in a bargain bin, draw your shield as best as you can manage, use the tangential line OSnap tool (Oh, snap!) to make the external silhouette concave, and use the area tool to find the area. Add measurements for max length and area to the drawing, print it out, and present it to your marshal upon weapon/shield check-in. See? That was so simple! :lol:
Alavatar
Baron
Gwendara said:
I would love to see someone make a complex mathematical model of the shape of their shield (or half of the shield and mirror it along the x-axis or create a second model that represents the other half) and integrate the function(s) for their area.
I would consider that to be one of the nerdiest things I have ever seen.
Just nerd math powers.Mirificatio
Newbie
You mean do it manually, right? That's just crazy-talk!Alavatar said:
obcidian_bandit
Count
I'd do it with a monte carlo simulation in C, that'd be way easier then trying to write a program to determine equations for the lines then integrating.
But I just don't care that much.
But I just don't care that much.