|
|
| Author |
Message |
Stuart
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:54 pm |
 |
|
I went to the trouble of taking elevated shots. Mosty at long distance.
Were you shooting to my left or my right ?
_________________
A Dane Axe beats two aces anytime. |
|
|
 |
Carl
Location: Just beyond the firelight
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:18 pm |
|
|
the infantry had closed making elevated shots useless and you fired a couple of aimed shots directly at them, when questioned about this you claimed "Fog of War"
i really do not wish to sully this thread with a shit fight so i will shut up now.
_________________
It is not enough to say I will not be evil. Evil must be fought wherever it is found |
|
|
|
Phil Berghan-Whyman
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:25 pm |
|
|
I wasn't involved in the combat archery at NAAMA and I am a moderator.
Stuart, I note that you are taking a break to consider your next reply. I consider this to be a good tactic for anyone feeling hot under the collar about a post or topic. Certainly you need to moderate the name calling and similar content in your posts.
Kerry and others - posts by you may or not not have been intentionally inflammatory. The posts can be read as inflammatory whatever your intention.
Carl - saying "I don't want to start a shit fight" is an invitation to a flame war. I suspect you are aware of this.
Everyone - I understand the difficulty involved in posting moderately when you feel unfairly accused of something. However, you need to suck it up and respond in a civil fashion. Disguising abuse or rudeness with brackets or backhanded remarks doesn't sort the situation out for anyone.
Get it together please. Nigel has a vested interest in the combat archery project and is emotive about that project, yet his posts aren't full of invective or slagging anyone off.
I'm not monitoring these posts 24-7. I don't have the time to do so (i'd rather spend time with my wife and infant daughter). Next time I log on, if this behavior has been repeated I will simply ban the offenders - no further warnings.
As far as resolving the issue of did x shoot arrows directly at y, the forum may not be the best venue for this issue - unless you can discuss it dispassionately. There is also the option of personal messaging or email for a less public discussion.
__________________________________________
Phil Berghan-Whyman
Site Admin |
|
|
|
Stuart
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:14 am |
|
|
Agreed, but I did not start the personal attacks that have sullied this thread.
The important thing is to progress the art and practice of battle field combat archery. With hindsight I am sure that everyone would do things differently. It would be a sad day if we all acted the same...
I have posted my comments with a few points to the way forward and I am pleased that Nigel T has done the same.
This is a new area of re-enactment that is too big for one individual or group to run. It needs a collective discussion and practical objective ideas.
Over to you...
_________________
A Dane Axe beats two aces anytime. |
|
|
|
Fungus
Location: Taranaki
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:54 am hello |
|
|
Nigel's the man
What he did for the Falcons at NAAMA was so cool that as a club we will be moving to have most if not all the Falcons involved in combat archery (if me and Kath can escape from the kichen)
We support Nigel 100% and as the Archery Captain he already is at the Falcons  
Oh Nigel I want a training plan to start on
What you say about archery in the Falcons goes
_________________
We dont play tiddly winks
Twizel shall fall |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:54 am |
|
|
| Chevalier wrote: | | Please can you tel us what marshall that was as we really need to identify the person with the speed blunts? Thanks! |
That was me. The person in question was spoken to and it's been sorted. Simply a matter of not reading the rules beforehand. I don't think we need to take any further action - there were plenty of other minor issues on the battlefield.
I think we can count this first experimental foray into Combat Archery at a mainstream level a raging success regardless of differences of opinion on the finer details.
Phil - thanks for spelling that out, much appreciated.
Nigel |
|
|
|
Grayson
Location: Croydon,Victoria Australia/ Wellington,NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:31 am |
|
|
Well said Phil.
Nigel could you please clarify the armour requirements for the archers doing heavy combat, is there any option of archers doing direct fire with out being shot at? or do they have to armour up?
_________________
Do not scorn a weak cub. He may become a brutal tiger |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:28 am |
|
|
| Grayson wrote: | | Nigel could you please clarify the armour requirements for the archers doing heavy combat, is there any option of archers doing direct fire with out being shot at? or do they have to armour up? |
OK. The heavy archery armour requirements are for those being shot at. The 30lbs restriction is for those doing the shooting.
The armour requirement is that you must have full-head and neck protection such that a 5mm diameter shaft cannot penetrate any part of your helmet and touch your head or neck, when coming from a flat or downwards angle. This will usually mean a full face helm with archery mesh over the eye holes and a sturdy gorget around the neck. Variations are fine as long as they server the purpose. If you have a normal nasal you can still do this if you've padded the back of your head and covered the front with a large piece of mesh such that the same penetration rule is upheld. It's actually not that difficult - we did it for Andy's helm and it worked really well. Both Quentin and myself have spectacled helms with avontails attached rigidly over an internal frame so that they act like a full-face plate helm anyway. There are lots of possible variations as long as you keep to the penetration rule. Remember to make any padded areas that aren't covered by steel thick enough that an arrow impact won't hurt you - i.e, your ears.
Light combat armour is just regular NAAMA armour.
Archers can straight shoot at heavies without needing heavy armour provided they are not themselves targeted as heavies.
Let me make this point very clear, because I don't want to have to spell it out again. Under no circumstance should a battle mix light and heavy classes on the same side. Under controlled circumstances it is possible to have one side as light and one side as heavy, but that is the extent of mixing. We did not do this in any battles at NAAMA. Unless explicitly instructed otherwise by a marshal, always assume that every combatant is light, no matter what armour they are wearing, and always shoot at them as a light combatant (announced volley fire only).
What we were doing at NAAMA, and it's easier to do that mixing light and heavy by a long way, was to have unarmoured archers shooting from off-field doing announced volley fire at light combatants. This was safe because they were never a target and they were not doing direct fire at anyone.
Does that answer the question?
Cheers,
Nigel
PS: If anyone asks me about mixing light and heavy again I'm going to scream very loudly and upset my workmates... don't make me do it! |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:30 am |
|
|
Oh one last thing that I may not have been clear on - unarmoured archers can shoot directly at heavies provided they are not a target, and provided that heavies and lights are not mixed on the side that's taking fire.
So in short, as long as you're not mixing light and heavy on any side, you can treat them as the armour class they are - light or heavy, and shoot at them appropriately. If you have a row of heavies and one light amongst them then you cannot run the battle as heavy combat, it must be run as light.
Nigel |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:33 am |
|
|
If a battle includes heavy combat archery you will be made abundantly aware of this by the marshal, there will be no doubt. Unless you have been made completely aware of this for a battle, always expect light combat.
OK, I'll stop talking now. |
|
|
|
Grayson
Location: Croydon,Victoria Australia/ Wellington,NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:33 am |
|
|
Nigel Said
| Quote: | | Archers can straight shoot at heavies without needing heavy armour provided they are not themselves targeted as heavies. |
This answered my question.
Cheers Nigel
_________________
Do not scorn a weak cub. He may become a brutal tiger |
|
|
|
Angel
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:59 am |
|
|
| Grayson wrote: |
Is there any option of archers doing direct fire with out being shot at? or do they have to armour up? |
There's the Agincourt Run - where a massed line of heavy armoured infantry advance under direct fire from as many archers as have the required poundage bows and appropriate blunts. No armour is required for the archers in this kind of scanario, as there is no return fire, and the archers are not on the actual field of combat.
If you are on the field of combat in a heavy scenario then you are a target for direct fire and must be armoured appropriately.
If the archers are a target then it's either a light scenario, so light archery (volleys only) applies to everyone, or a heavy scenario and so the heavy requirements apply to everyone on the field (including the marshals)
_________________
Recognise anyone? Flame Warriors |
|
|
|
Stuart
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:15 pm |
|
|
For once I find myself agreeing with Angel. The Agincourt run is not a bad idea. I do think we should let the french side use crossbows in the interests of a little more firepower.
_________________
A Dane Axe beats two aces anytime. |
|
|
|
shoelessgirl
Location: Te Whanganui-a-Tara
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:41 pm |
|
|
Joining the topic rather late I thought I'd add my two cents:
* I would be happy for speed blunts to be used in light and heavy combat - obviously they would be checked before use.
* I think Kath's idea of using a horn to announce volley fire in light combat is a good one.
* I also like the ideas several people have brought forward about marking the bows as being suitable for the various forms of combat.
* I can't really comment on the armour standards as I wasn't there, but from the sounds of it, they sound good! No injuries is always a plus in my books.
* I don't think direct fire with light armour is a good idea - just too dangerous.
* I think every archer on the field should have a captain's blessing, just like other forms of combat. If people are not part of a club perhaps some of the more experienced archers could judge their competence?
* I seem to be alone here, but I really don't like the idea of arrows being collected and refired. While realistic, they are the individual's property and who's going to be accountable for arrow breakage? Also it's more likely when scrounging that arrows won't be checked for safety before they are fired.
* I really like the idea of practicing volley fire as a team before combat starts. Perhaps we could have warm up sessions?
* Bring on heavy combat! |
|
|
|
NigelT
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:06 pm |
|
|
| shoelessgirl wrote: | | I seem to be alone here, but I really don't like the idea of arrows being collected and refired. While realistic, they are the individual's property and who's going to be accountable for arrow breakage? Also it's more likely when scrounging that arrows won't be checked for safety before they are fired. |
Nope you're not alone. That was the requirement (at least in theory) at NAAMA. We were telling people that arrows were dead once fired until the end of the battle. Unfortunately there were a few breaches of that one. On the whole everyone was very good about making sure they only shot their own arrows or got permission to use someone elses.
Yay, lots of great comments.
Nigel |
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use