PDA

View Full Version : Compound attacks



gbm
-29th February 2004, 22:18
I was reading the rules, and came across this phrase.
"2. The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the arm is straightened in the presentation of the first feint, with the point threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent during the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche."
Now, a simple attack is an attack completed in one action, so it only has to be straightening, but a compound attack has to STRAIGHTEN the arm in the first action, or it is incorrect (and thus does not have right of way). Earlier today (me, bitter, no never!) I found myself stop hitting my opponent and getting it given out of time. He was coming forward, with his arm bent at an angle, trying to draw an attack, having started to extend it previously, but having stopped extending. By stopping, therefore (assuming my stop hits were really in time and not just in time in my imagination), then, he is not doing a simple attack, since it is not completed in one action. He is not doing a compound attack, since the arm is not straight in the presentation of the first feint. He is not doing point-in-line since his arm is not straight in the high line. Thus I am entitled to attempt an attack or point-in-line against him?
Somebody tell me I'm wrong, I'm sure I am (well not really :-) ). Or more probably I'm just interpreting the rules the way I want to see them.

Oh wait I've just found another paragraph...
"4. Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8)."
Ok, that seems to make it obvious. So why was the referee insistent that it was a continuous attack?

(belligerence level: |---------<>-| warning: high)

devalleassoc
-29th February 2004, 22:24
I'll have to agree with you there. As a matter of fact, I scored quite a few hits myself today, in that fashion. My opponents arm was still bent in preparation, and I attacked before it was straightened, so it was my hit. (Perhaps your official needs either new glasses, or needs to re-read the rules!):sam:

Winwaloe
-1st March 2004, 12:36
As anyone knows it's "the convention" of course!!!!!

gbm
-1st March 2004, 15:17
It wasn't a 'proper' ref, it was a fencer reffing (which is fairly typical), but it was a fencer I generally think quite highly of, so I am quite strongly considering the possibility that my attacks were genuinely out of time, but I suspect he has merely been misinformed.

randomsabreur
-1st March 2004, 16:25
It could be that you are reacting too slowly, as you are only in time if the arm has not started straightening.

To risk reopening an old (and potentially very smelly) can of worms, I would have thought that the arm was not required to be straight for a feint, merely straightening, potentially another slight nuance that does not translate well.

I stick by one of my earlier comments, why do we keep discussing linguistic nuances in a set of rules that has been translated from the original. There are many ways of translating most phrases, languages do not translate exactly into eachother, otherwise web translations like babelfish would be more widely used!

Pointy stick
-1st March 2004, 19:01
I agree that part of the problem comes from the translation, and the imprecise use of words like 'straightening' and 'bent'. In the excerpts quoted earlier in this thread, a lawyer could interpret each word two ways.

But here's a thought - and shoot me down if I'm wrong...

A compound attack requires at least a derobement and a final movement. So a one two is a feint of disengagement, wait for the parry, avoid it, with a new disengagement, then hit.

But if I feint, then you attack me as I'm avoiding your parry, then you aren't attempting to parry... so what am I avoiding? I'm avoiding something I have wrongly anticipated. If so, then a common sense (as opposed to legalistic) interpretation might be that I was doing an elaborate and irrelevant preparation to my final attack, rather than a genuine compound attack.

On the other hand, who hasn't tried to find the blade, failed, and thrown the tip out desperately? I know I have. To my mind, this would be a counter attack into a properly established compound attack.

So, if I'm right (and I'm asking if I am, t declaring that I am!) then you can only make a compound attack IF your opponent makes an attempt to find your blade. If you make an unnecessary attempt to avoid a non existent parry, then is that a form of breaking time?

(One of my faults has always been trying to press on with compound attacks when I have conspicuously failed to draw my opponent's blade.)

gbm
-1st March 2004, 21:50
I think that's exactly what the rules actually say. (well near enough anyway).

oddball
-4th March 2004, 11:47
Do mine eyes decive me, someone who actuall read the rules??

Well, rules are interesting on occasion..

gbm
-4th March 2004, 16:57
Well, I can't fence to save my life (well I'm rubbish anyway), so I do the next best thing (I'm sure somebody can think of something better to do though).

oddball
-5th March 2004, 19:27
Armoury, I'm envious of those who can do it.

gbm
-5th March 2004, 21:42
(I now polish up my Armourer's Guild Apprentice Armourer badge, and check over the two foils I fixed and an epee I rewired early) ;)

Australian
-7th March 2004, 09:28
Originally posted by Pointy stick
A compound attack requires at least a derobement and a final movement. So a one two is a feint of disengagement, wait for the parry, avoid it, with a new disengagement, then hit.

But if I feint, then you attack me as I'm avoiding your parry, then you aren't attempting to parry... so what am I avoiding? I'm avoiding something I have wrongly anticipated. If so, then a common sense (as opposed to legalistic) interpretation might be that I was doing an elaborate and irrelevant preparation to my final attack, rather than a genuine compound attack.

On the other hand, who hasn't tried to find the blade, failed, and thrown the tip out desperately? I know I have. To my mind, this would be a counter attack into a properly established compound attack.

So, if I'm right (and I'm asking if I am, t declaring that I am!) then you can only make a compound attack IF your opponent makes an attempt to find your blade. If you make an unnecessary attempt to avoid a non existent parry, then is that a form of breaking time?

(One of my faults has always been trying to press on with compound attacks when I have conspicuously failed to draw my opponent's blade.)

but you try and separate that when they are actually fencing...