Armoured Combat Draft notes:Armour Requirements: Difference between revisions

From SCA Lochac
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Update for v3.3.1==
==Changes to Chapter 7 - Armour Requirements==
;7.5.7 - Face guards
:
;Was
:In scenarios involving missile combat using arrows or bolts, all openings in the helm larger than 5mm across must be covered by well-secured screening.
;Now
:In scenarios involving missile combat using arrows or bolts, all openings in the face guard larger than 5mm across must be covered by well-secured screening.
;Functional change
:Does not require all openings in the helm to be less than 5mm - eg Vendel-style hemlets
;Reason
:Incorporates a ruling from December 2015 that mesh is required to protect delicate facial features what would not survive an unintended helm penetration such as eyes and teeth.
:As with all armour, the design is to prevent traumatic and unrecoverable injury, pain however is up to the tolerance level of the individual and what level they are willing to accept.
;Notes
:Not required - already covered by note about ruling from 2015
<hr>
;7.8.1 - Groin
;7.8.1 - Groin
:
:

Latest revision as of 00:54, 4 May 2024

Changes to Chapter 7 - Armour Requirements

7.5.7 - Face guards
Was
In scenarios involving missile combat using arrows or bolts, all openings in the helm larger than 5mm across must be covered by well-secured screening.
Now
In scenarios involving missile combat using arrows or bolts, all openings in the face guard larger than 5mm across must be covered by well-secured screening.
Functional change
Does not require all openings in the helm to be less than 5mm - eg Vendel-style hemlets
Reason
Incorporates a ruling from December 2015 that mesh is required to protect delicate facial features what would not survive an unintended helm penetration such as eyes and teeth.
As with all armour, the design is to prevent traumatic and unrecoverable injury, pain however is up to the tolerance level of the individual and what level they are willing to accept.
Notes
Not required - already covered by note about ruling from 2015

7.8.1 - Groin
Was
The groin must be protected to a standard equivalent to that provided by an athletic cup or pubic protector, secured by straps, or worn in a supporter or fighting garment designed to hold the protection in place.
Now
Testicles must be protected to a standard equivalent to that provided by an athletic cup, secured by straps, or worn in a supporter or fighting garment designed to hold the protection in place.
Functional change
Removes the requirement for groin protection for anyone who does not have testicles (regardless of gender)
Reason
Research by medical personnel has not found data to support the need for rigid groin protection for women, even for high contact sports or similar activities.
For notes
November 2023 - The requirement for people without testicles to wear groin protection was removed from Society armoured combat rules in October 2023. Research by medical personnel has not found data to support the need for rigid groin protection for those without testicles, even for high contact sports or similar activities. The wording reflects input from the DEIA community to accommodate variations. The potential for permanent life-changing injury due to testicular trauma is why groin protection is required.

7.9.3 - Body
Was
If breast protection is worn, separate floating breast cups are prohibited unless they are connected by an interconnecting rigid piece such as a heavy leather or metal breastplate.
Now
Removed
Functional change
Separate breast cups for chest protection are no longer prohibited
Reason
Not needed for safety issues. Originally intended to dissuade "fantasy" armor styles. Removes ambiguity raised for other acceptable armour styles such as lamellar, scale, small plate armor.
For notes section
November 2023 - The prohibition on separate breast cups for chest protection was removed from Society armoured combat rules in October 2023. The rule was not needed for safety issues, and was originally intended to dissuade "fantasy" armour styles. The rule also created some ambiguity around other acceptable armour styles such as lamellar, scale, or small plate armour.

7.11 - Hand
Was
A shield with a shield basket or equivalent. A shield alone is not sufficient, since it covers only the back of the hand, but not the wrist, fingers or thumb.
Now
A side-strapped shield with a shield basket or equivalent. A shield alone is not sufficient, since it covers only the back of the hand, but not the wrist, fingers or thumb.
Functional change
Only side-strapped shields with a shield basket can be hand protection.
Reason
Society rule change - Clarifies hand protection requirement with a shield. Removes ambiguity with center grip shields
For notes section
November 2023 - Society rules were clarified in October 2023 to specify that only side-strapped shields with shield baskets or equivalent can be used for hand protection. There was some ambiguity around centre-grip shields.