[MR] Vel's Post

[Velsthe1 at aol.com]

>...however the standards do not require the helm to
>withstand pentration by other normal "hazards"
>including armor parts...

Armor, specifically elbow and knee cops, are supposed to be constructed as not to have any sharp or pointy edges. It is also the basis that anything consructed for use on the field, should it be narrowed than the slots in a standard grill, should not be able to penetrate more than 1/2 inch. That this injury did occur proves that something was not kosher.

>...you should support eye protection, or prohibiting
>woods battles, or fighting on a field that has still 
>grass or weeds that will penetrate a helm when the 
>helm is forced down onto the turf under pressure. You 
>are yourself cupable for the next eye injury from these
>sources if you do not oppose these unsafe acts. 

Again, we are back to the point of situational awareness. But I think the line is being clouded between an 'unsafe act' and 'unsafe/questionable conditions'. If there were an obvious unacceptable defect in the terrain, or even a questionable one, then I would most certainly bring it to their attention. I'd expect that anyone else would do the same. 

>How do you mean replaced regularly...

At many of the larger wars, it has been noticed that a number of arrows are damaged after large battles where they may be stepped on quite easily (and accidentally). Some people have to replace/repair few, some or many arrows after these battles. This isn't a universal issue, but it does hold for a good portion of the CA populace. If you've never had an arrow damaged, consider yourself lucky.

>You fail to consider labor and time invested, Vels. 

>>able to be mounted on replacement shafts with little 
>>more effort and almost no additional cost. 

No I didn't. 

>Seems to me archers are certainly targets for other 
>archers...
<and>
>Other archers and spears are my primary targets of 
>choice...

Apologies, misread the archery rules in the Kingdom Marshall's Handbook. 

>If you mean you can not "punish" the archer by wacking 
>him or her, take out your frustration with a blow to 
>the archer, or get a satisfying crunch,  you are  
>correct, but this makes me question how you fight 
>heavy and whether you are abiding by the rules of the 
>list in heavy combat. 

Individual Archers, in their primary tactical role of skirmishers are supposed to be a frustrating factor. Only when Archers field and fire en masse are the considered tactically as 'artillery'. I do abide by the rules of the list, and control my emotional responses to such situations. Usually, I would simply call kill/complete the touch and move on. 
Light CA get their 'fun factor' out of shooting at others (Archers and Infantry). The 'fun factor' in melee combat comes from the test of marshal skill against your opponent. In non-contact/low contact engagements between melee and artilery, the melee fighter is robbed of a good portion of the 'possible fun'. 

Of all the things that light CA don't have to contend with, a little more being expected should be no problem.

>>>>Something to bear in mind though: Many times when 
>>you are taking aim at heavies on the other side of 
>>the field, they're your friends. It's one thing when 
>>you think about it as an 'Us and Them' issue, quite 
>>another when you think about it as your friends. If 
>>you don't think enough of your friends that their 
>>safety is less important than your convenience, then I
>>wouldn't say they are friends. 
>
>I certainly agree with this!  Nice to find some point 
>of agreement M'Lord! RG
>
>Rupert, the Persistent

Oustanding. Though, why is there still contention?

Vels