Talk:Amtgard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

Contents 1 POV?= 2 Touch? 3 Merging Amtgard Documentary into this page 4 Afd

[edit] POV?=

"The weapons are similar to boffer weapons (albeit held to a much higher standard of safety and quality)"

Not "similar to", they *are* boffer weapons. And the claim that they are held to a "much higher standard" is meaningless when there is no universal standard for such gear. And a claim that they are held to a higher standard that is average for similar sized and organized groups would require a source if you ask me, because I sure wouldn't buy it.

I have nothing against Amtgard, but I just have to call bullshit on that sentence.

• Glenalth Sez: You're right, that is a weird sentence. It's probably because of most of the other games people see have boffers that are PVC+Pipe Insulation+Duct tape monstrosities. But since there are other games that use the same weapon standards and construction that statement should be changed.

[edit] Touch?

According to the Amtgard rules I just read, a glancing blow or a simple touch is not enough to cause damage...the blow must be a solid hit. Applejuicefool 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It may vary slightly from place to place, but in general, if it hit, it hit, there is no "light" (a hit not taken because it didn't hit hard enough). However, individual players sometimes tell someone they lightly tapped to "not take that", this is their own call.

Shots that hit only clothing (garb), that would not have hit the target had the clothing not been there, do not count however.

Glenalth sez: A shot that hits and stops or hits and deflects at an angle is a valid hit. Some groups do hit harder than others, however if someone isn't taking a "light" shot they are cheating.

• This varies a bit by particular group. I know that where I played, anything that was mostly garb, or where the weapon was basically parallel to an extremity and barely "nicked" someone and kept going without stopping or deflecting was generally discounted by both parties. However, in a technical sense, I'd agree with Glenalth. If a hit stops, or if a hit is deflected in a different direction, and it's not a "garb!" hit, then it should be taken. But there are folks on both sides of the issue. Some are rules-lawyers who argue that anything that even remotely touches must be taken. Some are realists who say that if it's just a nick and would have been stopped from breaking the skin by clothing, then it shouldn't be a legitimate hit. IE, legitimate hits are designed to be those where a "hit" in real life would have inflicted a moderate to serious wound, as opposed to "just a scratch" or a "close shave." But technically, according to the rules, a hit is a hit regardles of how hard it hits or where it hits (except head shots, or by concensus "naughty bits" shots). My 2c. Mgmirkin 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Glenalth sez: What do mean by "naughty bits" shots not counting? That's a valid area to get hit.

[edit] Merging Amtgard Documentary into this page

Hi,

I've proposed merging Amtgard Documentary into this page - it doesn't look as though there's enough content there to warrent it being its own page, since a lot of it's duplication. I may be wrong, though. --JennyRad 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Documentary section can be put into the section on this page titled "Amtgard on Film". Also, would like to see numbers for the organization as well as the structure and location.PeregrineV 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Glenalth sez - I have a couple resources to help with this, but they have their own problems.

http://www.amtgardrecords.com/stats.php is about as close to solid numbers as can be found, but many chapters don't use the service and some are way out of date.

http://www.amtgardatlas.com/ is a pretty good rundown of where the chapters are, but again it's a bit out of date.

• I believe that, if anything, the amtgard documentary can be merged into the main Amtgard entry as PeregrineV suggests. It will doubtless require some pruning of content, which can be tackled later.--Thorprime 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, that the documentary could easily be integrated with the overall Amtgard article, and groomed for proper and somewhat brief presentation. If there's an Amtgard on Film section, it could probably be subdivided into specific examples, if it hasn't already (haven't had a chance to peruse the whole article yet). Seems like a logical place to put it, since, well, that's what this is: Amtgard on Film. Also there just doesn't seem to be enough info in the documentary's page to really qualify as a separate entity. I mean how much can really be said about the film? I mean was it somethign of major impact within the community, or is the page really just a vanity page about the film? I'd lean toward paring it down and including it briefly in the main article. Mgmirkin 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's totally a vanity page about the film. I believe it's fair to say that the Amtgard community doesn't care about the film, and hasn't given any significant attention to it. Thorprime 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances should "Swordplay" be merged into the main Amtgard entry. The film was poorly done and not representative of the Amtgard game or community. Please remove the merge.

[edit] Afd

I removed the Afd notice because discussion was concerning the merge, not deletion. I was being bold, so if my action is out-of-line, then please revert my edit. Thanks. --HResearcher 09:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, its better to follow process... although the AFD itself should have been fully closed as it was never a valid AFD. Merging doesn't require an AFD, although if its likely to be contested, it should be discussed on the article talk page (ie here) - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)