|
Author |
Message |
Black Jack
Location: West Auckland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:52 am |
|
|
Inigo . Crossbow? I thought they had been banned by the Pope!!
Fair point about swapping weapons though, I hadn't thought of that situation. I guess the thing to do is to work on a different anchor point to get a full 28" draw. It could be a bit of a hindrance to people coming across from other archery disciplines. Not only would they have to buy another bow, they would have to learn a quite different way of shooting.
Not impossible, obviously, but they would have to be keen![/quote] |
|
|
|
Inigo
Location: Auckland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:19 am |
|
|
Black Jack wrote: | Crossbow? I thought they had been banned by the Pope!! |
Only for shooting Christians. Norsemen are fair game. _________________ A book may be able to teach you something of fighting, but it can't cover your back when the shield wall breaks up! |
|
|
|
griff
Location: Auckland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:11 pm |
|
|
feel free to shoot any christian norsemen to |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:37 am |
|
|
BlackJack - Inigo said exactly what I was going to say. That's exactly the reason we've done a blanket rule. The same reasoning applies to why we aren't allowing some people to use longer arrows.
Another way of thinking about this is that if you're not drawing to the full 28 inches that makes you safer and less likely to injure someone. If someone 7 foot tall picked up a bow and drew it to 36 inches it could increase the effective draw weight to 40 or 50 lbs!
What we've learnt so far:
This last weekend a couple of dozen people converged at Tatum Park to finish building the fort. Those there on Saturday afternoon put down their tools for an hour and fired arrows and bolts back and forth across the fort walls. No only was it quite easy to get accurate shots, a reasonable range was easily achievable with a 30lb bow. By the end of this session, most people were getting pretty accurate even over 20 to 30 meters. Some of the crossbows being used were only 15 to 20lbs draw and they were still achieving kills over this distance with fairly flat trajectory.
So, unless you're planning to shoot the eye out of a newt at 100 paces, I think you'll find that even if you can't do a full 28" draw you'll still be just as effective as everyone else. I can draw to 28" but I found that most of the time I was lobbing shots (in order to get over the walls) and was only 3/4 drawing anyway to avoid overshoot.
So for all those short and long armed archers out there, don't fret you'll have just as much fun as everyone else.
Nigel |
|
|
|
Kath
Location: Naki
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:42 am |
|
|
It demonstrated also that volley fire is pretty darn safe....
The play we had was THE most fun, made the hard work worthwhile.....
|
|
|
|
Inigo
Location: Auckland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:49 am |
|
|
Kath wrote: | It demonstrated also that volley fire is pretty darn safe.... |
In the same way that driving without a seatbelt and not having an accident proves that driving is quite safe. Driving has lots of very simple rules about who gives way to who and how fast you're allowed to drive and there are licenses to make sure that only people who know the rules drive.
That's why cars never have accidents and people are never hurt in cars.
I'd like to ask a simple question about combat archery:
How many eye injuries will we put up with before eye protection is compulsory? _________________ A book may be able to teach you something of fighting, but it can't cover your back when the shield wall breaks up! |
|
|
|
Fungus
Location: Taranaki
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:24 am Volly fire |
|
|
Point taken
Oh sorry bad pun but Inigo does make valled point _________________ We dont play tiddly winks
Twizel shall fall |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:41 am |
|
|
Hi Inigo,
We have made eye protection compulsory for the heavy archery. For the light archery we'll be briefing everyone involved and making sure they know to cover their eyes and heads when a volley is announced and NOT look up into it. We'll have a practise to ensure everyones on the same page. In this case volleys will only be launched in announced waves, there should be nobody on the field who is taken by surprise.
From the various accounts I've heard from people who've done volley fire overseas it is fairly safe provided people know what's happening. To an extent there is inate risk which cannot ever be fully mitigated, but we accept this or we don't play.
Nigel |
|
|
|
Kath
Location: Naki
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:47 am |
|
|
I find that quite attacking......
quote 'How many eye injuries will we put up with before eye protection is compulsory?'
1. A few of us had some fun ensuring we all knew 'the rules'. We've been around for a while.... I think 10+ years at this game qualifies me to look at a situation and make a call as to whether I'm endangering other people or myself. I wore my sunglasses just in case. Like I do when I mountain bike...just in case. Like I wear my seatbelt (always)
2. The use of volley fire and flu flus demonstrated that you can see the trajectory as they are launced....and hear them coming. (Its great watching the flight path)
3. No one got hurt. We stopped when the light started to drop
4. No one is yet to get hurt (as far as I am aware)
5. We've discussed at length what saftey measure will be taken at NAAMA. (And I see Nigel just posted and I agree with his comment) so I'll shut up now. |
|
|
|
Inigo
Location: Auckland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:49 am |
|
|
Cool. So that'd make the threshold about 3 eyes? maybe 4?
1 would just be a fluke after all and we wouldn't want to change things after just one fluke shot _________________ A book may be able to teach you something of fighting, but it can't cover your back when the shield wall breaks up! |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:52 am |
|
|
I've made a slight revision to the missile combat rules. The one attached here should be considered the final version applicable to NAAMA 2007.
The revision is around javelin use. After some discussion and testing last weekend we've decided to excempt javelins from the 5 meter minimum rule and the requirement to be lobbed. We are doing this to help fill the gap between 5m and spear range. A well padded javelin when thrown sensibly is reasonably safe to use with normal NAAMA armour - however javelins should be well padded to qualify for this exemption. A solid rubber blunted javelin without additional soft padding should not be used in this way and will have the same rules applied as for arrows.
With luck people will see this as an invaluable and versatile weapon and will make themselves a few.
Nigel
NOTE: Document moved to 'Reference' forum. Click here
Last edited by NigelT on Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:44 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
Inigo
Location: Auckland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:53 am |
|
|
Kath wrote: | I find that quite attacking...... |
Kath, the attack is only intended to be against our own complacency and not against you (or anyone) personally. _________________ A book may be able to teach you something of fighting, but it can't cover your back when the shield wall breaks up! |
|
|
|
Carl
Location: Just beyond the firelight
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:21 pm |
|
|
Inigo wrote: |
How many eye injuries will we put up with before eye protection is compulsory? |
I am on Two from sword fighting and hopefully not counting. _________________ It is not enough to say I will not be evil. Evil must be fought wherever it is found |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm |
|
|
Inigo wrote: | Kath, the attack is only intended to be against our own complacency and not against you (or anyone) personally. |
Inigo,
What you have to appreciate here are the rather significant differences between steel fighting in New Zealand and the SCA. The SCA has been beating each other senseless for years and have learned what armour is required to avoid injury while doing it. Because they've been doing it for years everyone has the required armour and eye protection, it's a basic requirement.
Steel fighting has not until now had a burning need for more eye protection than they have had, save one or two injuries from swords and spears over the years.
We've deliberately introduced two grade of missile combat because there is no way we're going to get every combatant in New Zealand to upgrade their armour in one go and if we didn't try to include the majority of combatants it would remain a margin activity practices on the spare paddock while everyone else played on the main field. We've drawn heavily from the SCA rules as you will see from reading ours, and in some areas have gone one step further (such as using flu-flus instead of speed-blunts), but we've also drawn heavily on other groups that use volley fire in reenactment with a very good track record.
In short we haven't just pulled these rules out of our arses, we've tried wherever possible to make use of the years of experience that already exist out there. Above all our focus is on safety.
I personally hope to see more and more people upgrading their gear so that they can do heavy missile combat, because I think it's going to be a lot more fun as I'm sure you'll agree. But I also realise this won't happen overnight - it will take a few years and it will take involvement.
Nigel |
|
|
|
Black Jack
Location: West Auckland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:54 pm |
|
|
Nigel & Inigo... I'm cool with the 30lb bow weight thing. Think I'll experiment with longer draws anyway. I've heard they keep your legs warmer as well. |
|
|
|
|