Proposed changes to NAAMA Missile Combat Rules

[NigelT]

Hello everyone,

This thread superceeds the previous thread on the same topic - there has been enough discussion to warrant a whole new topic.

It has been 3 years since combat archery was introduced into the mainstream at Tatum NAAMA. Most of us have had a good chance to participate in one form or another in that time and form opinions about how things are going. Recent incidents have also brought this topic into the spotlight. For this reason I've instigated a complete review of the current NAAMA Missile Combat rules. The current rules can be found here:

http://www.gatheringdarkness.co.nz/forum/download.php?id=175


Thank you all for your feedback on various combat archery questions and threads lately. There have been some excellent suggestions. I've gathered feedback from people online, individually face-to-face and feedback gained from a meeting of 20 or so people at Eketahuna Hard Camp this past weekend.

I will amend the actual rules document shortly and post it here as the draft for an updated set of rules. Prior to that, I'd like to post an aggregated summary of the feedback I've received. This is a lengthy post, but it is quite important and will form the basis of the next version of the NAAMA Missile Combat Rules that you will be expected to abide by at most events. If you don't have your say you will have no recourse for comment later.


Having analyzed both of the recent combat archery accidents and talked it over with those involved and numerous others, it's been unanimously agreed that the existing safety standards are fine. While very unfortunate, in both cases the standards were not being adequately followed, allowing freak accidents to cause injury.


Again, there has been unanimous support for more vigilant enforcement of safety rules at events and better education on what those rules are.


Many people have commented that they do not fully understand what the safety standards are and would like clarification in an easy to read form. Once we have a consensus on the changes I'll rewrite the rules document completely and attempt to make it a lot simpler and easier to read. If necessary I will also produce a quick-reference card for those who can't be bothered reading the complete rules which will cover at least the basic safety requirements.


There has been an almost unanimous consensus that there needs to be a minimum level of knowledge and ability for any archer wishing to participate in combat archery. The actual level is less unanimous but most people favour a low minimum over a high minimum. The preferred solution is to either have an archer vouched for by a reputable person in the same way that melee combatants are now, or by having archery marshals put them through a quick safety check prior to battle in order to certify their safety knowledge, ability to follow instructions, and that they have enough skill to avoid landing arrows outside the field of play - accuracy is a bonus but is not required for participation.


There is unanimous support for increasing the minimum direct-fire range from 5 meters to 8 meters.


There has been considerable discussion on arrow specifications. Although there are one or two differing ideas, the consensus is to leave the specification as it is. Specifically:

* Arrows should be taped. There has been suggestion that untaped oiled shafts are stronger and don't break as often. This has been largely rejected in favour of always taping. While some UK groups can field experienced archers in very controlled scenarios with superior equipment, we do not yet have that luxury and the vast majority of people canvased would prefer to err on the side of safety. Filament tape does successfully contain the potentially dangerous fragments of broken shafts. Oiled shafts do still break.

* There is agreement that Flu-flu's should remain the only accepted fletching style specified by the rules. However, there seems to be reasonable backing for allowing speed-blunts at selected events provided the event organisers agree to operate an exclusion to this part of the rules and notify all participants of this exclusion. This will not constitute a material change to the rules, but it does indicate that there is interest in using speed-blunts from time to time in special situations.

* Archers are reminded that they should store and carry target arrows separately from blunts. Mixing them in the same quiver is dangerous, and will be especially compounded if they store speed-blunts with target arrows as there will be no difference in feather shape.

* Arrows will be visually checked by marshals prior to each battle to ensure that all arrows meet specifications.

* Archers are also reminded to check their arrows for damage prior to shooting them. Knowledge of how to do this will be assessed as part of the safety check.


The consensus also supports continuing to restrict bow poundage to 30lbs for direct fire situations and allowing any poundage for lobbed shots, providing the archers have passed a safety check.


There is support for providing a variation to the rules allowing mounted archers to use 40lb bows at 3/4 draw. This is because horse bows are not as readily available in 30lb versions and would exclude almost all mounted archery otherwise. Horse archers would therefore be required to demonstrate a far greater level of control and accuracy during their safety check than foot archers and may be subject to other restrictions. It is likely that these bows would be temporarily marked to indicate that they cannot be used by anyone other than those specifically certified to do so. There is still room for some discussion and clarification here.


There is support for providing some variation to the rules for different situations - for example, public displays, regular battles and combat archery training sessions involving armoured combatants. It's likely that this will not involve any change to armour, bow or arrow specifications, but may involve changes to how these scenarios are run. Currently the rules do not cover how battles should be conducted. This is likely to change. Further feedback is sought on this.


There has been some discussion around the use of safety glasses. At Eketahuna Hard Camp, I personally conducted direct-fire, minimum range, test shooting against two different cheap brands of safety glasses mounted onto a bag of chain maille to simulate a human head. While the arrow dislodged one of the pairs of glasses in the process, both sets of glasses took the full force of the arrow without even as much as a scratch. The shots were straight on - no testing was done for glancing blows. The consensus is that while safety glasses are an excellent idea and certainly offer improved protection, they cannot be replied upon as the only means of protection and archery-safe visors must still be worn in direct-fire situations.


There has been discussion around standardising some aspects of how combat archery is conducted and including this in the rules to ensure every archer is expecting the same thing when they come together on the battlefield. This includes the following:

* Standardising the commands used to control archery units. These would be: 'Knock... draw... loose' to fire and 'range closed' to stand the archers down for any reason. I am keen for feedback on this. This is also a good opportunity to standardise on other useful commands while we have the chance.

* Better communication between marshals and combatants is required. This includes ensuring combatants can hear all commands issued and where this is not possible, the use of flags. Flags should be red and yellow (not green as this poses a problem for colourblind people). A yellow flag indicates to all combatants that archers are loosing. A red flag indicates that archers should stand down. Some further discussion on this is needed.


In terms of javelins - there is support for developing a standard specification for their construction, however, this will be a work in progress and therefore not included in the missile combat rules at this time.


Feedback from our trebuchet siege engineers has indicated that some siege engines cannot be rendered safe for combat no matter what ammunition is used and that any siege combat specification will also need to be a work in progress. Therefore siege will also be excluded from the rules at this time.

On a side note about siege - an experienced member of the SCA told me that the most effective siege weapons they tend to use against foot combatants are ballista, mangonel, and similar types of engine, dialed back enough to be safe. These engines can be rapidly reloaded, accurately aimed and adjusted for safety. So if more people are interested in building some of these for use in combat, I would be happy to support their efforts in any way I can. Exclusion from the rules does not preclude the use of such engines, but they must be used with permission of event organisers and full agreement with participants.


There are a number of minor changes that I'd like to make to the rules, but will not mention here to avoid clutter. If you want to know more, take a look at the superceeded thread by the same name and see the changes document attached there. Most of these minor changes will likely be made still.


Following a reasonable period of feedback to the above suggestions I will draft a new set of Missile Combat Rules and present them here for ratification.


There is quite a lot of information here to digest, so this thread is likely to get quite busy. For this reason please keep your posts to the point and state which points you are responding to. Avoid getting argumentative or off-topic. If you want to get into a hot back and forth debate about something, start a new thread instead of posting here. I will be moderating this thread quite hard to ensure it remains a useful and constructive conversation. If you wish to provide your feedback to me privately please do so.

Also if anyone has any issue with me undertaking this review in the first place please message me privately and we can discuss your concerns.


Cheers,
Nigel

[English Warbowman]

In regards to horse archery/bows. I would suspect that estimating a 3/4 draw on horse back would be quite difficult. A better solution would be to have a shorter arrow. I have a 40lb at 32" horse bow. If I had arrows at 26" the draw weight would be reduced to a much safer level without having to try to estimate my draw length.

[NigelT]

[Stuart]

Nop. That does not work on horseback. Keep the longer arrows, but just use a longer string. That gives a natural draw, but keeps the power down.

[pmel018]

Don't change the command from "loose" to "fire" It just isn't the correct term on so many levels.
Phil

[English Warbowman]

Having a longer string is a good idea Stuart. In the end I think it comes down to the skill level of the archer. The obvious solution is to have a 30lb bow. They are readily available and recommended as the most suitable draw weight by the great horse archer Lajos Kassai.

[gt1cm2]

[Stuart]

I wish it was that simple... I have one of Kassai`s bows @ 30 lbs and it does not range as well as my 30 lb longbow.
I believe the shorter limb gives a different "throw" with blunts.
We found this out while practicing with the Romans in Auckland.

[gt1cm2]

Stuart, I'm not talking about how the bow reacts, I'm talking about the availability of horse bows to buy in comparison to other bows.

[Frosty]

not wanting to start an argument here

the horse bows are somewhat expensive in their own right and also slightly harder to get ones hands on, for any poundage. availability wise you can get them.

i support keiths idea of the shorter arrows. the reason being that a longer string on most horse bows will damage them. shooting an arrow that is shorter should be just as easy as shooting an arrow of full length. again coming down to the skill of the archer.

if you are trained to draw till the head is level with your bow you shan't have a problem adjusting. if however you always draw to the same position then it would require some practise which (speaking only for myself) should be undertaken with the same gusto as to which we apply ourselves on the feild. after all training is in the name of saftey!

[Stuart]

How will a longer string on a Hungarian recurve damage it ?
I have been long stringing recurves for 30 years. Never had a problem with any of them.

[??Questions??]

juss though i would throw this in here:

we at the sacred sword have, for all the 6 years I've been there, used spark plug cover thingys as arrow heads, in our combat archery (i never understood why some people use heads designd to kill or knock out birds...) squidgy head equals squidgy hit =D. when using bows around 30 pounds and safety goggles for those who want to be safe (or don't know how to look down) we have had no problems. although you need to cheek the head for dirt there are little in the way of "draw backs".

our rules are:

Don't aim for the head,
Keep goggles on at all times,
half draw if anyone gets close.

last but not least, remember to KISS (keep it simple stupid) when you have lots of people and a few marshals.


also frosty, when on horseback as some people are when using a "horse bow" it can be quite difficult to Aim let alone use a far shorter arrow. I could defiantly see shattering arrows if people use short ones. although its been a wile since I shot a bow of horse back i do ride and it an't That easy =]

hope this helped in some way or another


??Questions??

[NigelT]

Thank you everyone for all your feedback. I'll leave this thread open for a few more weeks and then I'll close it off and write everything up and present a new set of rules for further discussion and ratification.

So if you have anything more to add, now's your chance.

Cheers,
Nigel