Weapon Surface Diameter

[Michael Hynes]

I have noticed weapons were the 5/8” pipe foam has had a section removed so that it tightly fits a small fiberglass core. In the past I would fail these weapons because they did not meet the 2” diameter requirements that I feel are implied in the rulebook and I feel that the weapons are not as safe. I know that this was not addressed specifically in the rulebook because nobody was doing this back then but I wanted to know if the thinking on this has changed. The 2” thrusting tip rule is there to make sure a weapon is larger than an eye socket and I’ve always thought that the narrow weapons hurt more since they hit with the same amount of force but on a smaller surface area.

So my questions are:
1 - Is it legal to modify the pipe foam to get a striking surface smaller then a 2” diameter?
2 - Is it legal to do this if the thrusting tip is still 2” diameter as well as the pipe foam just below it?
3 - If it is legal or not legal is this stated anywhere?

In the other forum it was suggested that this is up to the local chapter or the specific marshal since they are the ones who validate that a weapon is safe. However with people using the same weapons in multiple chapters and with weapon diameter being something that is easy to measure a yes/no answer for this group would be nice.

Thanks,
Michael Hynes

 

[Polare]

So my questions are:
1 - Is it legal to modify the pipe foam to get a striking surface smaller then a 2” diameter?
2 - Is it legal to do this if the thrusting tip is still 2” diameter as well as the pipe foam just below it?
3 - If it is legal or not legal is this stated anywhere?

As per the guidelines in the rulebook, Alliance weapons must have a thrusting tip at least 2" diameter. It is possible to make a weapon with a blade less than 2" diameter (for instance, 1/2" fiberglass core, plus 5/8" foam on either side of the core, gives a 1 3/4" wide blade not counting tape/cover/etc.) which has a legal thrusting tip of 2" across. If you make a weapon with these specifications, it will not be rejected on the basis of its measurements (but may still be rejected on the basis of its safety or lack thereof). Some chapters might have additional measurement requirements; that is up to the specific chapter.

In the other forum it was suggested that this is up to the local chapter or the specific marshal since they are the ones who validate that a weapon is safe. However with people using the same weapons in multiple chapters and with weapon diameter being something that is easy to measure a yes/no answer for this group would be nice.

Weapons, being one of the more variable things in the Alliance system, will always be on a "local marshal must pass or fail" basis. Following the Alliance specifications means that you have met the *minimum* requirements as to making a weapon, but it is far from an automatic pass even if it has met those specifications. If you want to increase the likelihood that your weapon will pass in other chapters, it would be worth consulting those chapters before making your weapon, and/or going above and beyond the minimum requirements in the rulebook. No weapon can ever get a "yes/no" in all chapters up front, since even the most solidly constructed weapon changes and breaks down over time with use. It would be irresponsible of chapters to give a 'yes/no' without having seen and evaluated a weapon, although chapters can give input on what is *likely* to pass their inspection.

Some chapters may provide weapon construction guidelines (in terms of variant cores, etc.) on their website or if you contact their Rules staff.

-Bryan Gregory
ARC member

 

[Michael Hynes]

I only meant 'yes/no' on the diameter requirement. I in no way meant to say that an unsafe weapon would get a pass just because it had the correct measurements.

Thank you for the response.

Michael Hynes

 

[Polare]

I only meant 'yes/no' on the diameter requirement. I in no way meant to say that an unsafe weapon would get a pass just because it had the correct measurements.

Thank you for the response.

Michael Hynes

Aha, understood - sorry about the misunderstanding. Then yes, the measurement requirements in the book (including the *lack* of a measurement requirement on blade diameter) are the minimum necessary requirements for a marshal to consider passing it.