Afterblow in HEMA

A rambling monologue about the afterblow in fencing/HEMA, some problems and pondering on solutions.
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiatoria

[@Acetylsalicylsaeure2]

I read it somewhere else but I still like the idea a lot so Im showing it here aswell: Drop scoring attacks and hits all together. Give each combatant a number of points and each time they get hit, they lose points. Mathematically it comes out the same but the perspective is different. The incentive would be to defend successfully and keep your points while reckless and risky behaviour is punished. That rulesystem punishes received afterblows and risking doubles quite well i think, includes the right of way but only for the very last point. Ofc it can be modified by losing different amounts of points for different areas, afterblows, ect. to fine tune it but I think the basic approach gets closer to what most HEMA people want to achieve.

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

I'm not sure about that, in video games with hitpoints, a very common strategy is highly aggressive tactics that simply try to take down the opposition's hitpoints faster than yours.

[@sirbobulous]

@@cryoshakespeare4465 Have a fixed number of HP for the entire tournament! If you waste half of them on round 1 in hyper aggression you;re screwed for rounds 2, 3 and beyond?

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

With this we'd fight out a carefully thought out first point or two and then just defend the whole time. This ruleset causes passivity.

[@junichiroyamashita]

It seems to be the best proposal until now

[@GruntSquad92]

@@junichiroyamashita definitely don't have the hit points for the entire tournament. Otherwise people start to make deals with others, maybe even paying them to be aggressive so when your own fight comes, the other is already several hits down. Might not be an issue now, where all the people know each other, but that rule will bite you in the ass when HEMA gets bigger.

[@jaredlevin5156]

The flip to this (ie how you train) with afterblows is also worth observing. Full disclosure I do not trait HEMA, but currently train Muay Thai and trained in Kendo for about 6 years. One thing you recognize after transitioning out of a point scoring system is how players/athletes stop fighting once a perceived point is made (especially in scoring). While I understand what is being discussed in regards to competition, you do see a lot of HEMA sparring videos where once someone gets hit, both athletes stop to acknowledge the point. In weaponless fighting you see this when TKD or point karate fighters transition to Muay Thai or kickboxing as well. They will rush in for a single blow and then stop. But in a real fight (with or without weapons) you can't just stop, because (as stated by Matt) you never know how effective the technique really was. So I'd argue in sparring you would want to encourage people to go for after blows to train people out of the habit of stopping the moment a "point is scored", because your first hit may not incapacitate opponent or even hinder their follow up.

[@Riceball01]

In my experience with TKD when sparring in tournaments there is no pause after scoring, there isn't even any verbal acknowledgement of scoring either. What I've seen is that during each round the two competitors just go at it and if one (or both) scores a good hit the judges will signal to the scorekeeper whether it's a full or half point, or 2(?) for a head shot and the scorekeeper changes the score accordingly. But the ref doesn't stop the action, nor do the comptetitors, they just keep on going.

[@jaredlevin5156]

@@Riceball01 I can't speak to anyone else's experiences. To be clear though, I am referring to sparring AS OPPOSED TO competition. I have definitely had TKD guys come into our Muay Thai gym and in sparring they will land a punch or kick and then essentially retreat or posture without maintaining a proper defense, only to be confounded when their opponent follows up with a 3 piece combination. Of course this is a generalization and only my experience, though in my understanding this is a common occurrence (and the interesting thing is to see how point fighters transition this skill after much training ie Lyoto Machida/Kyoji Horiguchi in MMA or Raymond Daniels in Kickboxing. That said though, I was more relating an experience I'd had in Muay Thai (and in Kendo) to how I have seen some people spar in HEMA, where if a good hit is landed both or one athlete stops to acknowledge it, which is a habit that seems to develop in systems that award points for a hit and would lead to the action stopping in competition (ie in Kendo, HEMA, or point karate tournaments). Cheers

[@NoeLPZC]

The reason people stop sparring after a point in HEMA is because each blow you land on a person can _potentially_ disable them instantly. If you get cut on the arm it _might_ be superficial and do little to stop you carrying on the fight, but it might sever tendons/bones or send you into shock, incapacitating you on the spot. Since there's no really good way to estimate how incapacitating any particular hit can be we can't know whether or not an afterblow was even possible (e.g. if you landed a decent cut on someone's sword wrist they might have no hand/sword to hit you back with). Even light cuts can stop an opponent if hit in the right areas. So people spar with the assumption that receiving a proper hit (i.e. correct edge alignment and at least SOME force) will take you out of the fight. You could argue that people should fight with the assumption that ALL hits will be superficial, but that's no more realistic IMO. It's not even necessarily better for training, since you'll have to compromise your offense for a potentially unnecessary defense. When I spar I try to act in a way that's consistent with reality. If I take any cut to the hands I stop my cut immediately (can't hold a sword if my hands are messed up). If I take a substantial cut to the neck/head/forearms I stop my cut immediately (can't cut back if the nerve control from my head to hand/arm tendons is compromised). If I take a substantial cut to the front leg while stepping in I stop my cut immediately (I might not die immediately but my balance is compromised from that point). For every other hit I'll follow through with an afterblow then stop fighting. Launching a second attack from that point isn't fair since I could be pretty messed up.

[@legacyShredder1]

It..was.. bedtime. I could blame my self-control, but instead I choose to blame you.

[@gameaccount6254]

"the good fencer does everything right, and the bad fencer essentially behaves like they're happy to give their life away and just doubles, and if a person is willing to give up their life, willing to just go "aaah" and just stick their weapon out and ignore everything that's going on, it's very difficult to fight against that" And that, it seems to me, reflects the real life situation that historical swordfighting is following. Against a fanatic, or someone whose blood is up and just berserks in response to a strike, or even just against a strong idiot, there must be huge risks in any swordfighting even for the most expert fighter. As you suggest, presumably, there is no perfect solution short of fighting for real, and all that can be done is to find rules that encourage the particular goals we wish to see encouraged, and try to address the problems of gaming those rules as they come up. It's an interesting topic, though, in which you would seem to be in a great position to add value to the discussion, Matt, with your experience of modern hema swordfighting combined with your long interest in the historical sources. Presumably (as you mention at one point in your piece), this was an issue that was extensively discussed during the times when swordfighting was evolving from brawling and battle through formalised duelling towards the sport fencing that was really all that was left of it in the west by the C20th, and I for one would be very interested in hearing (or reading) a longer and more detailed discussion of the logic and history of that evolution, perhaps concluding with a speculation about where hema might go as it grows. Will it travel the route of sport fencing, perhaps driven by the same logic to the same conclusions, or find its own different route perhaps reflecting different goals? If you were to write a book on that topic, I'd buy it....

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

I'd buy that book too! I've been in sport saber fencing for over 20 years now and I can tell you the whole sport has lost its head when it comes to anything related to its origins yet they insist on maintaining a rule book that was published before the first world war when dueling was still around.

[@gameaccount6254]

@@esgrimaxativa5175 Matt discussed some of these issues in slightly more depth a couple of years ago, here: Some thoughts on Sport vs Martial Art - HEMA kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2HLoHaagtFgjbc There he confidently asserts: "we're not [going to go down the sport fencing route] - because we're hema".

[@ohshipman]

the problem is we actually have duel reports of the late 19th century that tell the contrary. Pardon me, i am not finding them now. The issue is that the fencer that berserks, most of the time, ends up having his arse handed to him if the experienced player has his chills during the encounter, so he gets out of it pratically unscathed. Funny thing though that in one of these duels, the "berserker" had a fencing class prior to the engagement where the teacher said he did not knew how to parry, but the guy simply said "it always works when I charge" or something like that. The problem was that this "berserker" had never been to an actual swordfight outside a classroom, and as a result, he was severely wounded on the throat without coming near his opponent. This duel happened with smallswords, that means the wound was most likely light compared to other kinds of swords. I do not know why so many people nowadays believe that fighting with gambesons and top notch protection gear tells us how an actual swordfight was better than most of the old fencers (if not all) tell us. That is why I encourage the use of light protection gear in my group, the risk of a heavy bruise speaks louder than bravado.

[@alexvogel610]

********************************************** "the good fencer does everything right, and the bad fencer essentially behaves like they're happy to give their life away and just doubles, and if a person is willing to give up their life, willing to just go "aaah" and just stick their weapon out and ignore everything that's going on, it's very difficult to fight against that" And that, it seems to me, reflects the real life situation that historical swordfighting is following. Against a fanatic, or someone whose blood is up and just berserks in response to a strike, or even just against a strong idiot, there must be huge risks in any swordfighting even for the most expert fighter. As you suggest, presumably, there is no perfect solution short of fighting for real, and all that can be done is to find rules that encourage the particular goals we wish to see encouraged, and try to address the problems of gaming those rules as they come up. ********************************************* This, I feel, is why something like a dedicated bayonet charge can be so unnerving and so effective. From the receiving end, there's a LOT of pointy steel coming at you, an apparent disregard for accepting casualties, and very little hope of successfully defending regardless of how good one might be in a one on one encounter

[@a-blivvy-yus]

@@eddard9442 The problem of doubles like this is exactly what you're explaining - it doesn't happen when the experienced fencer is on guard and expecting the attack. it's when they're making their own attack and the other guy goes "AHHHDOUBLE" and "wins" in a sense by making the legitimate attacker's legitimately-earned point go away.

[@justsomeguy3931]

I like the idea of the afterblow detracting points from the person hit. It has all the benefits you mentioned, and it also encourages people to keep fighting AFTER they are hit - rather than quit or succumb to pain. Emotional fitness is very important in martial arts. Doubles should be lots of pushups and -1 for both lolz

[@LordSoulSicarious]

Here's an interesting option from my club: King of the Hill. Doubles just mean you both get eliminated, no victory to either party. Now, this has difficulty scaling to a large tournament, but it does shine a light on a different concept, which is that a set "lives" system might work, where your bout versus one opponent can affect your position in subsequent bouts. For example, "Each fencer has 10 lives. Each bout is played to first hit. Shallow targets lose you one life, deep targets lose you two. You cannot regain lives in any way." You then get matchups drawn by lot (prioritising those with the least bouts fought) from surviving contestants until only one fencer is left standing.

[@knightforlorn6731]

This is one of the best videos I've seen for this topic. I like those rules.

[@DontKeeptheFaith]

Your efforts are well considered and noble, M.E. Training people to fight well, rather than to win fighting games, is raising the bar. Well done.

[@benway23]

Man, I have learned so much from you. Thank you so much for your work.

[@androniusmaximus3073]

Good vid. Been subscribed for awhile and I always enjoy your content.

[@Zunbil]

The "of course of" before ScholaGladiatora really threw me off. Thanks for keeping me on my toes Matt

[@TheReykjavik]

I have an idea that you may want to try. Instead of scoring points for hits, lose points for getting hit. Each combatant starts each bout with 10 hit points, and when one combatant gets down to zero, the bout is over. The player's hit points remaining are added to their score (one gets a zero, or perhaps negative points if they were already low and took a high value strike, and the other may have all their hp left, or none), and the other gets to keep however many they had left. Do a round robin type of tournament, and whoever has the most points wins. Or the top two go to a final match with a handicap to account for any point differential. There is a potential downside, which is that combatants may choose to go for safer, less dramatic strikes against legs and hands, but that comes down to the weighting of the points. There is risk in continuing a bout by chipping away one or two points at a time, and a different risk in going for more difficult targets for higher value, so if the point values are chosen correctly (and this may take iterative testing), combatants will have a meaningful choice to either end the bout quickly at high risk, or let it go on for lower risk now at a cost of further rounds within the bout. I think this system also reflects to a pretty good degree the real world behavior we would want. In a real fight to the death with a sword, I'm happy to cut at an attacker's hands and legs until they can no longer threaten me, but if the opportunity is there to end the fight without too much risk, I'll take it, and if my opponent is very skilled, it might be worth risking a leg wound to keep myself alive. This has some good effects for combatants who's goal is to win, the strategy of always doubling isn't good, you walk away from all your bouts with very few points if any. Risky attacks are similarly punished, you will walk away with more points than someone who always doubles, but if you are taking hits to the head and torso, you aren't going to be scoring the points that someone who defends themselves during and after their strikes does. It may feel bad for a combatant who defends themselves during their attacks to go up against someone who employs a strategy of always doubling, but those opponents will be more rare as it is a bad strategy, and when they are in the tournament, everyone has to deal with it. Against such an opponent, one skilled fighter may score 2 points, while a less skilled fighter may score 1 point, and others may score 0, but that margin is still meaningful, and those fighters will have much different results against less reckless opponents.

[@bernardputersznit64]

some excellent commentary and theorizing below - good work Matt

[@passingthetorch5831]

I'm late to this party, but you make some good points. First: it's very important to allow the rule sets to evolve as people find and exploit the weaknesses --- because, as you say, the rules will never be perfect. I love the idea of the afterblow and I love the idea of not fully weighting it. I love the idea of having different points for different areas of the body. I wonder if you could change the psychology a bit by not awarding points for hits, but by subtracting points for getting hit ... quite like the typical HP meter. This can make a psychological difference, but in a tournament, it can also be useful to give an award to the person who defended themselves most effectively, as well as the person who beat the most opponents. That would be: the person who had the highest average HP at the end of each bout ... or, with the current positive points for hits, the person with the fewest average hits against them.

[@jurajlach7901]

Hi Matt, nice video. This is a topic that always will be discussed. We have different approach in Czech-Slovak HEMA league. There is no after-blow rule, but the rule of Vor(rule of who has the right of attack). The rule works that if you are threatening your opponent with point and you start first with your attack the opponent should react to your blade and not ignore it for a double hit. It is about who started the attack and who should have been defending against incoming blade. When both opponents start at the same time and hit each other than it is a double as both attacks were not done correctly as they got hit. The rule Vor doesn't apply when you cut for a leg but open your head for attacks. The point either gets the fencer who hits first or if double hit than the points go to both fencers. (this was introduced because fencers got suicidal tendencies to hit first to the leg and let them be whacked on head, with VOR they got point and opponent nothing so that had to be changed)

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

Fantastic video!! This video has been extremely insightful. I am teaching my younger kids to read the reactions of their opponent when fencing and provoke him or her with false attacks to see if the other is the type of fencer who is just going hit you at more or less the same time you launch an attack or if they have a tendency to parry or try to beat your blade. They then react accordingly. In the first case, countertime attack must be used followed by a fast riposte and in the second case we use a feint attack but with a quick recovery and possibly a cover parry to avoid a potential afterblow. You might want to add that all the rule sets you mentioned, imply that there is stop in the fight after one or both hit. Continous fighting is perhaps closer to reality but hard to recreate without it turning into Filipino wekaf style stick fight. There is another newer variant of this called engagement rules for padded stickfighting and I'd love to try these for historical saber fencing. Some of the restrictions they have such as two handed butt strikes etc or no thrusts are due to their gear. The real cool pàrt is the actual format which is a continuous series of mini fights that can be considered over with a solid killing blow or not. Here's a link: www.fwma.net/docs/Padded_Stick_Program_Rules_May2009.pdf

[@punchosaurus7015]

at the club I train at we've been playing with a rule set similar to racket sports. First you skirmish and the first person to land a clean hit get attackers privilege. Than in the next round the attacker can land up to 5 clean hits before it stops. If the defender hits the attacker the round ends if it was clean he gets to attack next if it was a double they skirmish again. The idea is you need two consecutive clean hits to put one point on paper. Its not perfect but its fun.

[@Hostility1812]

Sounds like a good time.

[@williamkilmer6299]

One thing that I found interesting was the one chance bout. I did this at Lord Baltimore's challenge in Maryland, U.S. in July. Trivial hits basically ignored, though recorded for tie breaking purposes. The first immediately lethal or disabling hit [in the assessment of the judges] ends the bout. Doubles and afterblows that would have been lethal or disabling for both combatants scored as a loss for both. There was a time limit. Ninety seconds. If time was reached with no lethal or disabling hits, the bout ended. I don't remember the scoring convention for this, but since it never happened... It really should have happened if people were fighting as if defending their lives, but as you note, the endorphin rush from making a hit is compelling. Forcing out of bounds was treated as a lethal or disabling hit. This was for single sidesword and single rapier. For sword and buckler and rapier and dagger a more conventional five point bout system was used. I really hope more events will experiment with some version of this for some of their tournaments. I think it has something to teach. I understand that some one chance tournaments have gone to eliminating a fencer on their first loss. Very quickly decreases the field, but somewhat off putting as one goes to a tournament in part to fence people one does not normally meet. I rather like the idea of doing a one chance on a round robin basis so that everyone would meet everyone and there would be no "finals" unless there was a tie score for first or second. Opinions?

[@nbogota5293]

I have never competed in HEMA but after practising Kendo for a year I saw a similar problem in trying to teach a act of combat under sport conditions. It appears the rules you outlined are pragmatic and properly blend the two conditions . I like your quote from the the past, "There would be none of this" Referring to trading a cut for a cut.

[@maverickzawislak3068]

Thanks for your talk on this important topic, lots of good ideas and things to consider here. The HEMA club I'm apart of has an interesting scoring method practitioners might find interesting. In short, its a negative scoring system where points are accumulated on fighters when they get hit. Fights are to 10 points. Head shorts are worth 10, body is 5, hands and feet are 2 (you get the idea). If the refs cannot distinguish between who hit first then both fighters didn't defend properly and deserve the hit anyway. Essentially nothing stops the fights until someone gets 10. We use longsword/dagger/grappling and have hosted three regional tournaments under this rule set with good results so far.

[@rix3333]

0:27 Hey Matt! those of us who are involved with fencing are not so numerous, I think and still are watching your videos so don't change anything! Keep going like that!

[@ericcadwell5193]

That may very seriously explain the idea of a duel. "I don't care if I get hit or die. As long as I get to kill them. And, if I don't, I hope to leave a scar they'll never forget, and from hell's heart, I stab at thee.". It's just as much a social commentary as it is a martial observation. The absolute best outcome is when the HEMA practitioners fight it out in a safe space, and then agree between each other which person came out ahead - only deferring to a judge or other third party when they can't agree.

[@Crypt4l]

In your club for Longsword training we try to keep the rules more streamline and simple. We have no afterblows and a slight right of way rule to deal with doubles. We also work a lot on actively encourage people to hit without getting hit. We treat every hit as lethal since you might survive a wound in the duel, but you probably don't survive the battle wounded. On experienced fighters against fresh ones: It's really annoying to fence against fresh fighters since they usually react to you closing the distance with attacking. Seems to be a natural reaction. It's still the job of the experienced attacker to abort their attack to not get hit. If they attack into a immediate attack from the other side and get hit they didn't do "everything right".

[@TheUltimateWriterNZ]

Love the new intro

[@Yeknodathon]

Cool discussion, I enjoyed listening to the points. Liked the changing light too! Interesting references to psychology and so that other HEMA topic, "mindset". Or, rather, patience and judgement. I think, sometimes, we celebrate and reward the strike over whether a fencer would have survived? But modelling that would be a thing-and-a-half and lead to some stand-offish encounters? Protecting points over a several bouts may influence risk taking and farming the after blow or even the double (if a fencer is leading in points, well they may double all the way to the end and still win?)

[@tonberrytoby]

Sometimes I wonder how a tournament simulating to the death fights would turn out. So everybody who receives a (clean) hit gets thrown out. With the overall winner being the only one who never got hit. Or the lighter version, where the person who got hit the least wins in a non bracket pairing. Then I remember that it would turn out like Olympic judo, and be decided by penalties given for excessively defensive fighting style.

[@guest3507]

Also, in larger tournaments, a team could "sacrifice" their weaker fencers to damage the most serious competition as much as possible and give their team's best fencer an advantage. If they get matched against other fencers they go suicidal, if they get matched against each other, one of them throws the fight completely.

[@JSheepherder]

A suggestion: build your system around the notion of negative score (getting hit loses you points), disengaging to the ring edge after landing your hit, and allowing the first struck individual to also recoup a portion of lost points by also retreating and accepting a "first blood," scenario... Or they can pursue and make it a double.

[@benstoyles1297]

I like your fightcamp rules. I had a whole comment written out suggesting basically the same thing (but the offender loses all their points) and then you went and said it lol. I also like your head and chest modifier too

in my experience there is another factor to classify doubles. especially with dagger. not all hits are equal, and very often getting a hit in the hand if it allows you to get in a killing blow might be an acceotable tradeoff. sure you cannot do this forever, since all wounds will make you less effective in the long run, but i think you get my point

[@proxygod2092]

I like that after blow rule. Will use it, thx.

[@mikefule330]

Excellent video, thank you. I drifted away from sport fencing (mainly foil, with a bit of epée) partly because the rules were so "unrealistic" and largely because of the way they were applied selectively at the clubs I went to, depending on each fencer's preferred style and technique. Parries had become meaningless brief contacts of the blade ("I found his blade...") and attacks became any forward movement with a glint in the eye, even if the sword arm was bent back ready to flick. I've also spent far too much time trying to design the perfect RPG dice-based combat system! My Big Point is that there is no one alive who has fought to the death with and against a range of mediaeval arms and armour. However much we study treatises and practise techniques, it would be completely different if every fight meant that one of the two combatants would either die horribly or suffer life-changing injuries. With no such consequences to fear, fencing or HEMA can only ever be a game, with any set of rules leading to people fighting to score points rather than to avoid death or maiming. The nearest thing I can see to introducing "serious consequences" is the "one hit epée tournament". In a HEMA tournament, if each round was "knock out" but taking any hit meant you were "dead" regardless of whether it was a "stop hit" or an "afterblow" then people who wanted to progress in the tournament would have to hit their opponent without being hit at all. Something like a 3 step rule or 5 second rule to limit the time after the initial hit would have to be a sensible compromise.

[@davewilson13]

Really great, and I’m not a HEMA person, thank you!

[@kargaist]

We made a sabre tournament a few years ago where 3 double-hits (or afterblows) where counted as a loss for both fighters. The fights where mostly clean and pleasant to watch, but you need fighters who are agreeing on fighting in a clean and artfull manner.

[@sheahon1179]

It sounds like you’ve developed good ways to deal with the after blow, as far as the good of the sport different rules for different weapons sounds really useful.

[@ColinCox_Sjovargen]

My thought on doubles is to treat them as if they were mutually “afterblow” to each other. IE if an afterblow results in -2 points, then a mutual head strike (4 points) results in 2 scored by each side, but head-for-arm trades favor the swordsman finding the deeper target. There remains the issue of target interpostition, but judges being empowered to call out and award points as if the true target had been hit can help with that. (IE: I know I’m about to trade head for head, but I put my left arm in the way to reduce the value of the opponent’s strike.)

[@soonersmith4179]

Adopt the hit indicating equipment from sport fencing but wireless link it to shock collars. The fencers each wear a shock collar around an ankle, if you’re hit you get a safe but painful zap! This will condition your brain to associate getting hit by swords with pain; reinforcing good habits. Sounds extreme but it would be very effective. Electric shock therapy works.

[@brotherandythesage]

Matt brings up some great points and at 16:00 he talks about sport vs combat. While serious injury and even death can occur in many sports, like American football or MMA, they are rather rare. Certainly much rarer than in combat. Most people play sports, even HEMA and MMA, with the idea that whatever they do they aren't going to be seriously hurt or killed since their opponent isn't trying to "really" harm them. However in combat that's the point. A soldier doesn't actually have to be killed or wounded to be ineffective. All you have to do is make them afraid that they will be and they hold back. Numerous studies have shown that one well aimed shot does more to harm the enemy than countless wild shooting. However even US Special Ops utilize "suppressing fire" as their most common tactic in a firefight. So how do you train someone for combat? How to you get someone in a sport to play like their life actually depends upon it? I think getting away from one on one sparring and dueling and move over to armored skirmishing where you have to be ready to face any type of armor, weapon, and unit types would go along way to making it more "real."

[@nathanlevesque7812]

The key, I believe, is seen in fighting game design. Simply put: it's better to incentivize the behavior you want, than to penalize the behavior you don't want (buff vs nerf). So there could be three scoring brackets: strike without being struck, afterblown, and double. Within each bracket there could be different amounts of points depending on where the strike is made. So there would be no penalties this way, just greater incentives for better exchanges.

[@mysticmarbles]

In our club we have a system similar to right of way for sorting out doubles. Whoever initiates the attack has the vor and if the other person chooses to ignore it and attack then they made a mistake. So the person with the vor scores minus a point for the afterblow. In the event of a true double where no one is a fault we simply award no point, however three true doubles in a match is a loss for both fighters. If it's not really a double (a tempo later) then it's just treated as an afterblow (subtracting a point).

[@ClockworkAnomaly]

I have an idea!! So, instead of giving points for afterblow, allow it to negate the points of the attacker. This encourages the afterblow without encouraging hit trading. Also makes it imperative to scoring that you hit unopposed.

[@velkewemaster]

In my hema club we are experimenting with a non-scoring system. Basicaly the competitors have a fixed numbrer of lives and every hit count as a lost live regardless of the moment of the hit. The encounter ends when at least one looses all his lives and in the next stage the winers fight each other only with the amount of lives they manage to protect in the first stage. This force the fighters to protect themselves, not just for the first fight but for the next one.

[@100dfrost]

There will always be "rule experts". or if you wish "game lawyers". It seems that no matter what rule to improve gameplay you initiate they will find a way to capitalize on it to the detriment of everybody's gameplay. As you have stated you rules must constantly evolve. Have fun, and don't let those others spoil your sport. Good video.

[@euansmith3699]

I don't do any HEMA type stuff (though I used to do Viking-ish Battle Reenactment back in 1980s); however, that was an interesting video just for its insights in to the effects of setting rules on the way that people play games.

[@Anathmatician]

Good video! As you point out, while the right of way rules in olympic fencing are intended to encourage fencers to hit without being hit, the effect is frequently the opposite; right of way actively encourages double hitting in a wide variety of contexts. Personally, I would like to see it replaced by a “tier” scoring system similar to the one you describe for HEMA, with (something like) 3 points for hitting without the opponent hitting you within 2 seconds, 1 point for hitting FIRST if the opponent hits within two seconds and zero for hitting second. As we have electric judging in olympic fencing, the question of doubles is less of an issue; I would keep the current interval of hits within a 25th of a second (or less at some weapons? I would have to check) counting as double with neither fencer scoring on a double. This system would not be perfect, but as you (correctly) point out, there probably isn’t a perfect set of rules, and it would be simple, comprehensible, and generally encourage the principle of hitting without being hit. I think you are also correct when you say that it is difficult to avoid being hit by people who are willing to die to do so, but I would agree with some of the other commenters who mentioned that this too is a reality of combat and warfare. Some opponents will attack in a blind rage, attack into attacks out of ignorance of the probable consequences, or be willing to sacrifice their own lives to take yours. All round, that was great and I agree 100% on the difficulties inherent in trying to come up with a set of rules that cannot be exploited.

[@twirlipofthemists3201]

Full credit for first blow, quarter credit for all afterblows (from either combatant) for a second or two after the first. This enables the "loser" to win, if the first blow is minor and the afterblow(s) are more significant. There, a perfect system for ya.

[@holyknightthatpwns]

I have a different idea for tournament fighting, but it requires you to not use a bracket. It could be even more complicated than this, but for starters I won't care about strike location: You fight in 5 round bouts. Every situation in which someone is hit counts as a round (regardless of if it is an afterblow, double, or clean), and once you've had 5 rounds the bout ends. If you hit cleanly (no afterblow), you get 3 points. If you hit and then get hit by an afterblow, you get 2 points. If you double, both of you get 1 point. The max points per bout is 15. If you double every hit you get 5. If you only afterblow you get 0 while your opponent gets 10. A tournament would be several bouts against different opponents (like in a round robin), and whoever has the most total points across all their bouts wins. You'd need a tiebreaking method, and you could have an issue where someone intentionally doubles in order to give their opponent less points and let a third party win, but no one will win on their own with doubles or afterblows.

[@pompadour_gagarin1723]

If I remember correctly, Manciolino was giving points as such: two for a leg, three for the head (so by opposition one in any other case?), one tempo (or one step) is allowed for the defender to strike back "for the honor" but it only gives one point. So the afterblow is short in timing and didn't totally compensate getting hit by a good strike to a more difficult or damaging target. Of course that still lets the possibility of taking the lead and trying to game the rest by giving afterblows all the time but it was still sorta clean, concise and an elegant rule as is. I remember something about some germanic countries ruling blows according to their height. Maybe an afterblow to the head entirely nullifies a strike to the belly, but not in the opposite scenario? I think that you're idea of afterblows substracting points to the attacker is a very clever idea, not because it's more sensible mathematically speaking (and it shouldn't be, there must be a way to make it more or less the same as giving points for it). Mostly because psychologically, the effect of having your points being reduced (instead of the opponent simply getting points as well) should entice a fencer more to prevent his/her opponent a successful retaliation ("I won't let him/her ruin my strike!" mentality). I think exploiting what is basically the "spoiled child" psyche is an interesting way to motivate people to act "as they should" martially. A corollary to this is maybe to also reward successful doubled attacks that aren't defended and "avenged" - eh how come the attacker doesn't get his own afterblow as well?

[@hschan5976]

Just an idea that might be worth experimenting: Do not award points for delivering the afterblow but create a separate score specifically for receiving afterblow hits. The points should accumulate throughout the tournament and Fencers who have more afterblow points against them get ranked lower when they come out of eliminations pools, if and only if there are multiple fencers with same number of wins.

[@randyhavard6084]

We're in the same position with fencing and HEMA that we used to be in with martial arts back in the 80s and early 90s. The only way to know for sure what works the best is to do it for real like they did with MMA which arguably can never happen with actual weapons. There would need to be years of work on training and competition with deadly combat to get back to the point they were in the days and these sword fighting treatise

[@coreyc9741]

It would be unworkable for official competitions I think, but it would be interesting to see a probability-weighted scoring system to simulate the inherent uncertainty of combat (does the armor hold? Is an artery missed by an inch? Etc) Example: a head hit: 70% chance for 4 points, 20% chance for 3 points, 10% chance for 2 points. Leg hit: 60% chance for 3 points, 20% chance for 2, 10% chance for 1. Etc etc etc. Like RISK sorta. It'd be a huge pain to calculate, but it has the advantage of encouraging people to protect their more vital bits while reminding them that a leg hit can't simply be ignored because, hey, it MIGHT be a 3 pointer for the enemy.

[@SmigGames]

Would a more realistic and (arguably) exciting ruleset work by treating anyone hit as an immidiate loss, whether it's on the first hit or an afterblow? It would be a nightmare to set up as an event since fights could end very quickly and you might not even get a winner at the end, but I think it would put participants in a psychology much closer to a real fight.

[@garethbarry3825]

I suggested something very similar even though I hadn't read your comment. My slight difference is that I would have a scoring system with a very limited 'tank' of 'life points' relative to the number points awarded for a blow. You are right about the logistical problems, as was pointed out to me. My suggestion is to run two 'streams' of the tournament concurrently; the 'sudden death' version as well as a more traditional version. Having a knockout of competition, each of which is very quick, 'sudden death' match, would be very tough psychologically.

[@kargaist]

I have participated in a tournament where all participants had to do 3 bouts with this ruleset. Those who won 2 or more, advanced in the next round where they began to use a point system. The problem is that a competition like a tournament wants to determine the best fencer of that day. And if you use the suggested ruleset for the whole tournament including the finals theres a good chance that the winner is someone who just got lucky. As even the best fencers get hit sometimes. You could just have everyone do a fixed number of bouts and then score them according to their survive/death ratio. However this way you lose the thrill of people advancing in the rounds of the tournament and the exiting finals. However I've seen tournaments with point based scorig where a "perfect hit" (clean hit to head or thrust to the torso, engaging disengaging while covering the enemies blade) can win the fight instantly if all three judges agree that it was a flawless and save attack.

[@tomdutoit5591]

This idea reminds me of the fencing portion of the modern pentathlon using the épée (and I believe the old school way they handled the epee in the Olympics in general). The competition is a round-robin, meaning each competitor will face all the other competitors once, of course. Each match lasts up to one minute; the first fencer to score a hit wins instantly. Double hits are not counted. If neither scores within one minute, they both lose the match.

[@yogiHalim]

In video games, there are game mechanics in which you recover health if you do timely counter attacks. Which is awesome.

[@Railstarfish]

Another reason I had heard of for the afterblow was it encouraged a swordsman to keep fighting after receiving a hit - so that in a real fight they don't freeze or hesitate if wounded, and instead continue to fight through the injury.

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

Yes, have a look at machete fights from the dominican republic. Very few times does one hit settle them.

[@clementlefebvre9835]

Good & interesting points :) I desagree on one, about the asymetrical double : even though it must be frustrating for the "good fencer", i think it can mimic a real life encounter : the duel between a soldier/professionnal fencer vs a random but really angry dude. For exemple, a soldier campagning rampaged a farm and killed the farmers family, then a surviving member of said family ask for a duel for reparation. Maybe that person is an inexperienced fencer, maybe not and maybe they want revenge at all cost, maybe dying could even be a relief. So in my mind, if you are really that so called "good fencer", you should have way more than just a technical edge, you should also have sense for analysing people and situations, and be able to adapt your fighting style and become way more defensive agaisnt that type of person.

[@johnzaitzev1115]

So this will probably get me talked down to by other larger or better off groups or clubs but here goes. My friends and I have been sparring for years now with a large number of different weapons, but only in the past 2 years or so have we been able to buy properly made training swords because we have very little money to put twords gear. Thus for the most part the only safety equipment we use are semi padded gloves, that's it. So, having only the barest of equipment we learned pretty quick to that it wasn't about points, it was about not getting hit. I get it's dangerous and not a proper answer for larger clubs, but it works all the same. We usually go in bouts of roughly 2-3 rounds, each round consisting of 3 engagements where the first person to land a solid blow wins the engagement, best 2 of three wins the round. It's simple, brutal, and usually only lasts about 20 maybe 30 min on the long side but it works. We don't suicide in, and we always have to keep our guard up. Real fights don't care about points, they care about stopping the other guy without dying in the process

[@johnzaitzev1115]

As a side note before it's brought up, we don't intentionally aim for the head or face, just as a general rule

[@mikefule330]

@@johnzaitzev1115 So that's a partial solution. If the blows really hurt, people fight to avoid being hit. However, blows to the head were fundamental to real fighting, so, for a perfectly sound practical reason, your rules encourage (in fact demand) a style of play that is unrealistic. Sounds great fun, though.

[@NoeLPZC]

The guy who teaches my club used to train in a similar way when he was starting out. He ended up getting all his fingers broken, and now he can't hold a pencil without being in pain. Moral of the story, get some decent hand protection _before_ you irreparably injure each other (and I'd highly recommend throat/face too. A fencing mask is cheaper than a nose job). Bruises and welts are temporary, broken phalanges aren't.

[@a-blivvy-yus]

When I've fought with afterblow rules, they've usually been: 1. Afterblow means you replay the point. 2. Only counts if the initial attack hit a lower-value target. 3. Doesn't count if the attack was made using the injured limb. This results in a series of effects that feel logical. If you target a person's sword arm, they can't get an afterblow unless they have a 2-handed weapon *AND* they let go with the injured hand before landing the afterblow. If you hit their leg, they have to counter with a strike to your body or head so it's a more valuable hit. If you hit their head, they can't get an afterblow. As for your system, where you lose points on afterblows but have trouble with doubles, why not count *BOTH* hits as successful hit minus afterblow penalty? So both fighters get the points for their hit, but lose points for taking one. This way, the unskilled suicide stabber can be pushed into landing a weaker blow and still losing the trade against a more skilled fighter.

[@GeFlixes]

On the subject of Afterblow rulesets: Maybe treat head/chest afterblows as reducing attack blow points to zero, outer extremity hits reducing by -2. That means you hitting someone in the arm while being stabbed in the heart in afterblow is really bad, while center-of-mass hits that result in a nick to your arm still impact negatively. Getting hit center-of-mass should always reduce your amount of points you can receive in that round to 0, as you're very likely would be pushing daisies.

[@Uhlbelk]

I think the problem with subtracting points with the afterblow is better, but still encourages reckless kamakazi attacks. If you are attacking and always come out even or ahead, than you will just keep attacking. I think you should combine full point afterblow with points only being applied to the attacker. So they attack a leg, and get hit in the head, they lose points, but the other person doesn't gain points. It incentivizes attacking to get points, but also incentivizes defense by keeping your points.

[@michaelwoodbury1788]

Do reverse scoring as mentioned in on of the oldest comments. Give each fighter 5 hit points, if you get hit you lose a point. Rounds are 5 minutes. Every minute each fighter loses a point. Keep a running total of hit points. Person with the most hp at the end wins. 5 hit points/5 rounds may be too much, may need to run 3 or 4 minute rounds with 3 or 4 hit points. This way there is less benefit for delay, at least in the early rounds where landing hits while defending well gives the biggest bang for the buck.

[@BlademastersAcademyHEMA]

Agree with all points though my approach is slightly different. I used to have a similar setup like Schola with the afterblow etc., but since then I stopped scoring afterblow as I realised it always have a bigger incentive for the attack than defence regardless of the setup used (if only first person scores a hit, then you ignore the opponent's attack take a whack in the head trying to tap him first before he does, with fully weighted afterblow its a simple calculation of giving leg for the head style of thinking, in both scenarios you are actually more effective by simply ignoring parries and going for a hit instead). In my revised Survivability rules both double and afterblow scores 0 while clean hits score 3/5 which with limited number of exchanges creates environment in which it is not worth to go kamikaze style just to score the point as you will most likely score 0 in such exchange so it forces people to prepare a setup in which you need to enter the distance make a cut/thrust/slice and recover preferably with parrying the afterblow (which gives a +1 bonus - don't punish people for bad things, reward good ones instead). Having said that judges still have some points that they can assign at their discretion for survivability advantage in the certain afterblow scenarios (quality based) but the fight and the tournament progression is based on clean hits only. I believe this works really nicely and it encourages people to think carefully about every exchange which creates a much more realistic fighting environment. Also i believe that (ironically) having more martial focus on a fight makes it safer as people are behaving more reasonably than in a more sport focused tournament where everyone just jump into each other taking full blows to the head or impaling themselves on opponent's points ;)

[@BH-rx3ue]

i almost got my first antique swords the other day. it was a set of 3 swords in an auction. i think it was a 1821light cav with a post 1845 blade, a 1908 cav and some random middle eastern sword. I was sadly outbid. I blame you!

[@inscrutablemungus4143]

Tournaments aren't representative of an "actual duel" and never will be, but IMO that's completely fine as long as the rules encourage good behavior. For instance, of the three modern fencing disciplines, I think foil encourages the best behavior of the three weapons simply because the onus is on the retreating/defensive fencer to deal with their opponent's attacks before they launch one of their own. There are some quirks with marching/absence of blade attacks in the modern game, but overall I've found that foil is the easiest weapon to branch out from just because of the fact that it encourages good behavior. Is this how an actual duel will go? No, obviously not. A real life-or-death opponent is not going to obey ROW, but the rules instill correct behavior (defend first, then attack once you've dealt with the immediate threat). As a somewhat experienced foil fencer (I'm currently a 'B' by USFA ratings), I've got to say that ROW is not all that hard to switch off. I've had no trouble at all switching to Epee and I've even done decently with HEMA smallsword and rapier (essentially Epee rules but with a massive lockout/afterblow window). A tournament bout will never be the real thing (and it shouldn't be), but it is possible to construct a training exercise that enables the right set of techniques that carry over to a 'real duel'. That should be the focus of combat sports, not simulating an actual life or death duel.

[@tehanureaver4299]

-1 points for doubles (don't care about asymmetry, must deal with buffalos), 1 point for a blow that was punished by an afterblow, 0 points for an afterblow delivered, 3 points for a clean hit, the first one to get 9 points wins, if one or both fencers get to -3 points, the fight is stopped.

[@Manweor]

I feel the subjet is also linked to stopping the action at every hit, especially in systems where you have multiple judges. Try to get to close quarters in a system when a hit at the arm stops the action and there are 4 judges that can stop the action even if only one of them thinks there was a hit. It is a difficult matter and, honestly, I think we should stop trying to find a single ruleset, but sit together and decides some rule guidelines that we all feel are necessary for safety, decide weapon categories and just let every tournament use its own variations (maybe to be registered and approved by a committee) and still all get the results together in a common scoring (regional, national, or otherwise). An option I see is also to institute a sort of gambeson league, where a wide number of strikes are ignored or low-value. In contrast to "shirt fencing" in which every hit stops the action (and maybe even ends a fight).

[@b19931228]

Weighted score area and after blow are both fine on itself, but combine them you need to tweak them a bit. Take combatcon ruleset for example, any after blow is 1 point. Meaning whether you hit them in the head or the toe, afterblow is one point and one point only. Where as the highest scoring hit would be up to 5 points (controlled thrust, although controlled thrust itself mean that there's no afterblow). So there are bound to be some people going for high point area (eg. head, torso) and complete disregard the after blow because it's just one point deduction. So I can go for a full force max speed leg hit, knowing full well I can get hit by a after blow anywhere else, potentially my head or body. But I still came out winning, because leg hit scores 2 where as afterblow only scores 1.

[@wilsoncalhoun]

Taser swords? Taser swords.

[@johnzaitzev1115]

Taser swords

[@LamgiMari]

Better than taserface.

[@marcaononymous]

Teaser swords yesss

[@Will-Woll]

*Truely a perfect comment*

[@100RAmen]

Taser swords!

[@Kwiskaseden]

Have you heard of the "Convention des Joueurs d'Epée" ? It's a French HEMA ruleset. To score a point you need to hit your opponent and then take 2 steps back (or in another direction) without being hit (evasion or parry) by a possible afterblow. If you're hit by the afterblow, you score nothing, nor the opponent. So you need to hit and be safe.

[@daaaah_whoosh]

I liked the rulesets used at the Steel City Open this year. Both rulesets (for saber and longsword) had it that afterblows or doubles didn't count for anything. You also could only get 1 point per pass (strikes to the arms/legs were worth as much as strikes to the head/chest). To me, some combination of these two rules meant that you fenced as though your life and your livelihood depended on it. It wasn't possible to trade a leg hit for a head hit, so you always wanted to be the first to strike and to get out safely. Plus, the limit on the number of passes helped I think. Saber was first to three points, and longsword ended after three passes. The latter was especially punishing and meant that you really had to be careful on each pass. For me at least, all of this made me a lot more careful about how I approached the fight.

[@scholagladiatoria]

It sounds like these rules may be quite similar to what we've been using at FightCamp for the last few years.

[@daaaah_whoosh]

@@scholagladiatoria yeah, if the fightcamp site is up-to-date it seems like both rulesets have the limit on the number of exchanges. Which I think I like more than the scoring system because if you're fencing against a clock then you're incentivized to care less about your own safety. I do still prefer a binary scoring system (1 or 0 points) to the more complex one FightCamp has, though. Especially in the case of afterblows; the way I see it, just because a strike lands second doesn't mean it wasn't initiated first, so if fighter A is in the middle of a strike and fighter B thrusts to his chest with no regard for safety, fighter B shouldn't be getting two points.

[@Konstantin357]

Just some thoughts about possible point calculations. If there is a double second person gets some percentage of points of first hit off. Lets say head - 100%, body - 50%, legs - 30%. Or maybe even 125% for head or something like that. Other idea is if there is double both fighters lose points no matter what. It can be more of psychological trick but it can work to build mindset "if you get hit you are losing" even if there is some competitive advantage to initiate double hit.

[@MacDorsai]

Hollywood has touched on this at times. I can think of two occasions, once in the Firefly series and once in their follow on movie, Serenity. The protagonist, Captain Malcom Reynolds, allows himself to be thrust in the side so that he can immobilize his opponent's blade and bring him in close enough to hit him.

[@LionofCaliban]

One of these days, I would love to have a sabre class or two, rapier, run by you. Oh well, wish me luck, there's a few things on the backburner.

[@beverleybrownlie5148]

Here's my rules critique as you will Head cut or thrust 6 points Body cut or thrust 4 points Appendage cut or thrust 2 points All blows to score must be landed with authority If you land an afterblow to the head it cancels any points scored on the hit by the opponent If you land afterblow to the body it takes 3 points from your opponents scored hit but never to minus numbers If you land afterblow to an appendage subtract 2 points from your opponents scored hit but never to minus numbers Doubles resolutions as follows Headshot against headshot, no points scored Headshot against bodyshot, no points scored Headshot against appendage, headshot scores 2 points Bodyshot against appendage, bodyshot scores 1 point and most of all ladies and gents keep it classy

[@suaamigamisteriosa]

While watching this, I had some thoughts about how scoring might work, and also some other features, beyond scoring, that might provide incentive to participants. First, the most wildly difficult and expensive option: physically handicap a participant that receives the afterblow, for example, if person A hits person B on the head, but person B hits person A on the shoulder, person A wins the round, but has to face their next opponent with their arm physically bound in a sling. braces, weights, eyepatches, glove inserts, and more could all be used for hits on various parts of the body to restrict movement or fully immobilize appropriate parts of the body (this is somewhat borrowed from the suits in Ender's Game, that become stiff, preventing movement of the wearer, when hit my enemy fire). Now, more realistic: Scale up the detrimental reductions. You used an example of 5 points for a head hit, with a 2 point reduction for an after blow. Why should it be such a limited reduction? Why not make it 50 points for a head hit, and a 47 point reduction for the after blow? To continue this logic, think of a football (soccer) season tournament, where the teams get 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. transfer that to a HEMA tournament, and weight the blows by severity if it were a real life injury. If you get 50 points for a victory with no after blow, why wouldn't only 3 or 5 or even 10 for a victory that debilitates you for the rest of your military career be reasonable? This makes landing killing blows essential, and avoiding afterblows 'almost' essential. At the end of the round robin tournament, the overall victor will undoubtedly be the person who is (overall) the best at both delivering killing blows while at the same time avoiding significant injury themselves.

[@carloscaro9121]

Regarding deducting points: it's a zero-sum game; every point my opponent makes is one more I must score in order to win. Reducing their score by two is exactly the same thing as giving me two points.

[@CoffeeSnep]

I nominate Matt Easton as President of The World. Using Context, he will make the world perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

[@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929]

I personally think after blows should take points away from the person getting blowed. Yes, that was supposed to sound dirty.

[@bsongy1]

We've discovered a slightly different solution: points are scored against the recipient and after blows are permitted. In this rule set, points are bad; the person with the fewest points advances to the next round or wins

[@reaperwithnoname]

I think baseball and cricket could be good inspiration here. Perhaps there should be different rules for each round. For example, afterblows might work this way for the first two exchanges, but work differently in the next two, and then a third way. It could even be randomized. Or, if we really want to get interesting, there could be a few standardized rules, but the combatants themselves aren't told which one is being used until after the exchange ends. Thus, the only consistent path to victory is proper swordplay.

[@orangeiceice12]

I enjoy the afterblow

[@Altonahk]

In the case of doubles simply subtract 2 from both scores. If 1 fencer is totally at fault for the double change it so that the one at fault loses three points and the other only loses one point.

[@1jimmarch]

If you get hit upside the head hard enough in fencing class, do you get a HEMAtoma?

[@GiveMeBackMyUsernameYouTube]

I'd use a hitpoint system. You don't get points for landing blows, but you do reduce your opponent's hitpoints by a set amount depending on the part of the body struck. Lets say you have a total of 5 hitpoints to begin with. A blow to the head deducts 3 hitpoints, the torso 2 hitpoints and the limbs 1. After reducing your opponent to 0 hitpoints, you gain a "match point" which is what actually counts as your score. Perhaps you gain 2 match points if you managed to not be hit at all yourself. I think this would encourage people to take their own "life" into consideration more and not attack so recklessly.

[@vorrnth8734]

To take a hit in order to give a hit might make sense in armoured combat. At least as long you are able to bring the armour between yourself and the opponents weapon.

[@harjutapa]

One option: every fight in a tournament is decided by 3 sets: 1 with no afterblows allowed, 1 with afterblows allowed as the -2 modifier, and 1 with the "normal" afterblow rules (or some other trio of rule sets). That way, fighters who train heavily towards one of the three will still (theoretically) lose to one who is decent with all three rulesets. It would mean more fights, better trained refs (or three sets of refs, heh), and would be somewhat clumsy... but it'd minimize the minmaxer mindset.

[@TheKahiron]

I know it may be controversial, and far from advisable for some fencers, but I tend to find that sparring with reduced or no protection produces far better fencing habits as it instills a greater sense of respect for the sword/feder, and effectively forces you to not make suicidal attacks. Something like no strikes to the head (unless masks are used), reduced striking force, and no force behind thrusts tend to work quite fine between moderately experienced fencers. Of course this won't stop people gaming the system, but seems a way to avoid personally falling into such mannerisms. Somewhat analogous, one might say, to how some advocate sparring with sharps, though not nearly as extreme, and so more approachable.

[@Rikki-Tikki-Tavi]

Priority is an out of date rule. I'd like to see a full one second from the time of a touch to a counter or double hit. Like epee, but with enough time to allow a riposte touch or riposte parry.

[@krotenschemel8558]

Handicaps! If you get, you get a weight hung on your arm. Doubles score, but both combatans get weights. Weights get increasingly heavier.

[@BrutusTheOwl]

Perhaps for limbs if you get hit you lose points and use/only allowed limited use of that area of your body in the next round. Or you could just go the route of enforcing the spirit of the rule over the letter of the rule. It is less empirical that way, but it allows penalizing those trying to utilize a cheap strategy like the one you mentioned, as a pattern of behavior or attempt at a certain behavior more than once, can be easily recognized. Or you can make the loss of point from being hit more than the points you gain from hitting in each area.

[@tarquiniussuperbus21]

Or you use the original Epee rules where you fight to one point and the winner is the fencer who doesn't get hit. So if you get a double or an afterblow both lose.

[@boogiefan6786]

"Take a hit to give a hit." I would love to see you talk about this in the context of armor as well. How was taking a hit to give a hit seen in terms of armored combat. Further was there any treatise where that was strategically promoted. I realized not getting hit is always preferable, but I am thinking in the CONTEXT of say Spanish conquistadors or perhaps a peasant rebellion. Essentially when you have the equipment advantage and theirs in numbers. Thanks for the video.

[@entropyembrace]

What do you think about this idea? If a fencer is hit they score no points. So doubles are worth no points. Afterblows are worth no points, but the fencer who made the original attack also scores no points because they couldn't defend themselves after dealing the blow. The idea is to make fencers more concerned about their personal "safety" than rule sets in which it's possible to score points when receiving an "injury."

[@kanucks9]

That allows fencers to decide to strike, rather than parry, against anything that they think is a low percentage defense. What you're really looking for, is to maximise parrying

[@entropyembrace]

@@kanucks9 You're right. I didn't think about it from the perspective of the person defending.

[@mtgAzim]

Hey Matt, if at some point in the future, there was some kind of neural implant that could actually induce pain and sensation artificially, would you want to use it? If you could feel a dim shadow of what it was like to fight with sharp weapons, but not be injured, would you put subject yourself to that? And what about your opponent? If you wacked Pedro in the leg, and he recoiled in pain because he just got a taste of what its like to have his leg lopped off, how would you feel about that?

[@garrick3727]

Applying some logic to this. The goal is to make it so neither combatant is incentivized to act recklessly. The attacker should be concerned about hitting and not getting hit back. The defender should be concerned with not getting hit, and not with trading bows. Let's assume the solution involves assigning points to the attacker and the defender (where zero still counts as a number of points). If you give the attacker more points than the defender then the attacker is always going to be incentivized to attack first and be less concerned about defense. If you give the defender more points than the attacker then the defender will be encouraged to be hit to get a hit. Therefore, the only solution is to give both parties the same number of points. Since there is no point to giving equal points greater than zero, you might as well give bother parties zero. This means that the Double and the Afterblow are equivalent. You still have the issue of the less experienced person being reckless, but I do not see the score advantage in that.

[@schwertschwinger]

Make a lot Systems with different rules. Should work...

[@JimGiant]

It's working so far.

[@aretemaat9348]

Better yet: don't tell the participants which rule set is being used for scoring.

[@blakewinter1657]

Everclear, of course, wrote an entire song about this: 'So much for the afterblow.'

[@ghostlygardener5644]

This might sound a little crazy. But I think we should reward the one hitting the double. If we want to encourage the attacker to attack in a smart manner, I think making it so playing defensively is the favored way might be better (rather than attacking willy nilly, knowing you're coming out on top as long as you hit a higher scoring target) So my proposed afterblow rule would be that the attacker gets 0 points and the one landing the after blow gets 1 point for the exchange. I think something like this would encourage one to attack carefully.

[@ghostlygardener5644]

This might get tricky with doubles and how you define then. Personally I see the afterblow as a failed defense followed by a counter attack and a double as disregarding defense. But that can be very hard to determine sometimes

[@Ranziel1]

One prominent fencer made a bet a few years ago that he can double in every exchange if he aims to do it. Pretty sure nobody tries to challenge him on that and for good reason. He still takes bets, I think. It's impossible to protect yourself against somebody who perfected doubling.

[@ghostlygardener5644]

@@Ranziel1 We are talking afterblows and not doubles though, which I would argue are not the same thing and therefore should not be ruled in the same way either.

[@bo_392]

i like this system because it highlights how sword-fighting without armor is just a bad idea (if you plan on living).

[@esgrimaxativa5175]

@@Ranziel1 what weapons? maybe he hasn't found the right opponent yet.

[@MisterKisk]

Perhaps reward defense more instead of hits? It would work as positive reinforcement. So if you successfully hit your opponent, you get 1 point. If you then defend the afterblow, you get an additional 4 points, and if you don't defend, the opponent gets 1 point. Likewise if you defend successfully, get 4 points, and if you successfully make a counter attack, an additional 1 point.

[@thelonerider5644]

I've only been doing this since last winter but I still don't like getting hit. Can't see that changing soon. Swords are awesome but not pleasant to be struck with lol.

[@Theduckwebcomics]

I was thinking the the best way to do it would be more emphasis and rewards given to defence rather than just attack. Negative points for an aftwrblow sort of address that... But only partly.

[@armorfrogentertainment]

I'd be curious what would happen with a "lives" system tournament. Everyone starts with 7 lives. Your lives carry on from match to match.

[@NilAthelion]

I was reading through the comments because I had a very similar thought. One concern, I suppose, is that in a non-tournament setting, this does very little, or worse, if you have the advantage in lives (7 lives to 6 lives) or something, then you have incentive to trade every single time. Another concern is that in a tournament setting, it exacerbates the problems with pairings in an elimination-style tournament. If I am a good fencer and my first opponent is an equally good fencer, I may barely get out of there with a life remaining. In my next match, I get paired with a mediocre fighter who happened to be paired with someone who had no experience, and thus the mediocre fighter has 7 lives to my one. A round-robin points based tournament is better about this, assuming that "lives remaining in victory" is what is used to tally the scores, and could work quite well, but that runs into the resource problems of round-robin tournaments. If things are for a monetary prize or something else that is infinitely divisible, you could have the prize be adjusted by lives remaining after each match in an elimination tournament. I.e., after each match, the winner's remaining lives are counted, and then their lives are refreshed for the next match, and so forth until they are eliminated. At the end, everyone's excess lives are tallied up, and the prize is distributed proportionately. I feel like... there's a good ruleset somewhere there, but I can't figure it out on my own.