Building Line Fighting Skills

I'm on the road, and don't have any fancy graphics, sorry.

In the past, I've approached the topic of how a small group/realm/team/unit can fight in a line fighting environment.  My previous post about it was largely centered on the small unit being a discrete entity (like during unit battles, etc).  Instead of answering the question "how do you line fight?", I gave alternative strategies to use against organized groups.  Instead of giving strategies for a small group to work off of others on their team that are maintaining the line, I focused on how the small group could succeed on their own against another group.

After some discussion and a tiny bit of fighting out in the West, I realize that I've missed part of this topic in previous posts.  So, instead of talking about how a group succeeds without line fighting, lets look at how to work with an established line, and how to teach people line fighting skills that will help them integrate with a larger team.

Leveraging Existing Skills

Groups that don't get much line fighting in at practice tend to do a lot of skirmish fighting.  While skirmishing doesn't work well when fighting against a line heads up, the fighting style that comes with it naturally blends into flanking and harassment tactics. When working with a larger team, then, it seems natural that a skirmishing group would avoid being part of the main line, and work on flanks.

The only real change required is in the group's priority.  In a pure skirmish, the goal to is to win small chunks until you can mop up in force.  On the flank, your goal is just to deliver people to the back of the enemy line while preventing the enemy from doing the same.  It isn't a huge change in tactics overall, but it means that the team needs to be looking for the opportunity--if not actively pursuing it.

I mentioned harassment, which is probably one of the lesser used skills in Belegarth.  One fighter distracting a handful of enemies without engaging directly in combat or getting bogged down can create advantages else where. Just when the enemy decides to give up pursing a harassing fighter, the fighter can move up and take a swing or two and back off.  Using just enough aggression and throwing a few shots here and there, that one fighter can keep the enemy's attention.  This strategy doesn't work quite as well during a large line fight, but works quite well in a battle with many teams (unit, realm, etc).

Why Line Fight?

So, if so many places do lots of skirmish fighting, why line fight at all?

The basic building block of line fights is really the pair.  In a one on one fight, even a single hit to the arm can be decisive.  Working in a pair, though, buys time to recover from such a hit. If we were to consider support weapons in the mix, we also see that the pair can cover multiple ranges in a mutually beneficial way.  If a spear was entirely on their own, they would often be rushed, but with a partner, they can overlap their threat ranges and build a more robust defense.

What if we had a pair of pairs, each with a spear and a sword/board fighter?  They gain the benefit of overlapping ranges on the spears.  If one of the pairs is rushed, the other pair can provide support.  If the enemy fields a spear, the two spears can work together to kill it while their shields prevent them from being overran easily.  As we expand that along the line, we start to see that the whole line is really just small groups of 2-3 people working together and supporting other groups of 2-3 people next to them.

The only real weakness here then becomes the flanks/rear of the line, or any space between the smaller groups of fighters that an enemy could move through with impunity.  That's why the flanking and shock trooper tactics are so important on offense and defense.

Besides the sort of "safety in numbers" mentality to forming a good line, the other primary reason is for spatial control.  In the relative chaos of a skirmish, it is very difficult to control a space, such as an objective.  Forming a well spaced line prevents the enemy from getting behind it without a fight, making it easier to control the space and enemy access to it.  Games like capture the flag or monarch battles can be won and lost by how well a team controls the field.

Teaching Line Fighting

If the pair is the building block of line fighting, it seems natural to me that doing drills to practice as a pair is a great way to start teaching line fighting.  I'm particularly a fan of 2v1 drills for this purpose, I've most likely mentioned it previously.  The goal of the pair is to kill their opponent without being hit.  This forces the pair to work off of each other's strengths/weaknesses to kill a target.  Meanwhile, their opponent gets practice fighting multiple targets.

A different approach is to use a "stand and deliver" drill.  Two teams of people (equal numbers preferable) line up and face each other.  Especially with newer fighters, basic sword and shield is the preferred equipment.  Instead of a wide open field, the area is either marked slightly wider than the line or has a herald on each end to act as an edge of the world.  I have also seen this done with a line in the middle which the fighters couldn't cross instead.  The basic idea is that there is no backstabbing or flanking.  As opponents die, the fighters shift on their line to aid their allies.  When teaching using this drill, the emphasis is on teaching fighters that they are fighting the three fighters opposite them (the one in front, and one on each side of them).

Either drill can be used to help develop skills for dealing with or supporting support weapons.  A pair with a spear in a 2v1 drill, for example, both trains the pair to work together and teaches their opponent how to defend against the spear/sword&board combo.  In a stand and deliver drill, both teams learn a valuable lesson on watching their flanks (or the friend's flank) for incoming spear stabs, while support weapons get a taste of fighting each other across a line fight.

Bridge Battles

If you aren't familiar with bridge battles: picture a bridge spanning a river.  Anyone that falls off the bridge or the banks of the river is dead.  It's the most basic of choke point battles to set up.

Okay, first off, bridge battles can be dangerous without going over safety with fighters.  Even then, higher density of fighters mixing with polearms will eventually cause accidents.  However, bridge battles are a way to force line fighting.  The narrow space prevents any flanking and causes even a small practice to be a line fight of one form or another.

If a realm is newer to line fighting or bridge battles, it's probably best to ease into it with limited weapons.  Glaives and other reds can be particularly dangerous even with a good bit of experience because it doesn't take much divergence in a swing to end up unintentionally hitting a different target in the head.  Starting out, I'd recommend sticking to just sword/board and emphasizing swing safety heavily.  Depending on the practice space and fighters, limiting shield bashing and kicking may be useful early on as well.

Safety disclaimers out of the way, consider what is required to win a bridge battle without any support weapons.  Fighters have to work together and maintain a fairly straight line.  If anyone gets too far ahead of their neighbor, the enemy might be able to pick them off without repercussions.  In order to gain any advantage, the fighters have to work together to draw out enemy swings so they can be countered or to block for a teammate while they swing at an opening.  Because the lines are so densely packed on a bridge, fighters get experience being attacked from several opponents and learn to block angles they may not have otherwise.

Changing the width of the bridge or adding additional bridges of various sizes can change the intensity of the fighting.  Foot bridges that are only wide enough for one or two people can add a bit of fun and strategy.  Wide bridges can help lessen the intensity if safety might be a concern.

The whole idea of doing the occasional bridge battle at practice is to get fighters a taste of line fighting that they wouldn't otherwise get.

Misc Thoughts

• It is hard to teach "head on a swivel," but it might be one of the most important skills to have.  Scanning the area for threats lets you and your team get a better chance of surviving.
• Line fighting requires matching the enemy threat.  If a great fighter moves off to the flank, your team needs to have someone (or a group) move to challenge that fighter.  The line spacing has to adjust to match large threats (like a mass of armored up fighters that look antsy to charge).
  
  
• Supporting your Support.  A spear isn't much good if it gets overran.
• As always, communicate.  And listen.  Alert your team to problems and do your best to respond if others need help.

The 2 v 3 Scenario

It's been a while, I know.  Such is life.  I just haven't been fighting enough to have things to rant and complain about lately.

A friend of mine asked a good question about how to win in a 2 vs 3 scenario as the pair.  He left it rather open ended, but I thought it was a pretty solid basis for a blog post.

I've talked about fighting while outnumbered a few times before, but what makes a 2 vs 3 interesting is that it is still a small enough fight that you won't have as many vision gaps or confusion on the larger team to work with.  Since my friend left it a bit open, lets look at a few different cases.

The Base Scenario

Lets consider for a bit the most basic encounter like this we might see.  All of the fighters are equipped with a large round shield, and a moderate length sword and no armor.  The skill level of all fighters shall be considered roughly equal.  Heck, lets even say they are all right-handed fighters (dirty lefties always trying to mess up examples).

From the pair's perspective, what are their options?

1) Keep it a line fight: stick together and try to whittle down the other team.
2) Divide and Conquer: split up and hope the larger team is slow to react or their third hesitates.
3) Pin and Split: have one fighter try to draw two of the other team into a 2 v 1 fight, so the other can get a 1 v 1.
4) ? Suicidal rush ?: most strategies I can think of are one of the above to one degree or another.

Case 1 isn't bad, but if the skill level is equal, it isn't going to be good either.  By keeping it a line fight, all advantage rests with the larger team.  The pair has to fight on the defensive, and the larger team is usually going to be free to send one fighter off to attack from an angle.  One thing to keep in mind though, is that by using better positioning (similar to a 1v2 fight), the pair can mitigate most of the offense of one of the triplets.  By shifting to the right a bit, the triplet on their left flank can't swing as easily at the pair.  In order to win the line fight, the pair has to move together really well to sort of approximate the same approach a single fighter would when outnumbered--changing directions when one of the triplets is out of position, without splitting up enough to get overran individually.

Think of how this might look with a 2 v 3 fight.  The goal of the pair is to get the triplets into this "Really Not Good" position that the two blues are in here.  They want the triplets to be in each others way and out of swinging range as much as possible.

Case 2 has some potential.  Start the fight off as a line fight, then split quickly in opposite directions.  The person in the middle of the three person team has to decide which direction to go in a hurry.  By going in opposite directions, each of the triplets end up having to show their backs to one of the pair.  When the third person chooses a direction, if the pair member doubles back from the opposite side, it could be a chance to kill one or two outright.

Case 3 isn't much different, but it is a more intentional attempt by the pair to choose which direction the third person goes.  One member throws swings and feints at two of the enemy while his partner shifts away a bit to draw the 1v1 fight.  The drawback here, compared to case 2, is that it doesn't force any confusion in the larger team.  There isn't as likely to be a moment where the 1v1 fighter can get free to backstab the two people his partner is fighting.

So it would seem that for our little base scenario, a divide and conquer approach might be the way to go.  It gives the pair a little more control over the fight and puts the triplets on the defensive for a second.  There is also a chance that sticking closer together can work, but it really depends on how well the two of them can move and act together to contain the triplets.

Support Weapon Scenarios

Now that we've looked at a simple scenario, lets see how support weapons might shift things.  Swapping one of our triplets to a polearm doesn't really change things too much.  The pair still is better off trying to divide and conquer if they can because facing a polearm head on isn't favorable for them at all in a line fight or as a pin for a pin/split.

However, if we give one of the pair a support weapon, things get a little more interesting.  If the two tried any strategy that required them to split up, the support weapon might be easily overran.  So, in this particular case, the pair should try to stick together and do their best to keep it a line fight.  By leveraging the extra reach of a polearm, the pair has a much larger advantage in the range game if they can keep the triplets from splitting up too much.  It actually reminds me of one of my favorite stories.

What if both sides had a polearm?  The triplet's polearm negates the range advantage the pair might have had.  If they try to split up, the pair's support is still in danger of being overran; OR the pair's sword & board fighter ends up taking on a polearm and friend while the third triplet fends off his support.  Even though the situation isn't favorable, it's still probably best for them to stick together and line fight as best they can.

What if all three of the triplets have a polearm?  Both of the pair?  Okay, I'm not actually going to go through every combination here.  I think we can kind of see the pattern already.  The real choice for the pair is all about how well they would survive individually if they would split up.

Skill/Armor Disparity

How might our little scenario change if we swap around some fighters and add in a more skilled fighter or one that is fully tanked out in armor?

As our support weapon example indicates, if we give advantages to the pair that can help them win a line fight, they might be better off sticking together.  Put a top-tier fighter in full armor on the pair, and they might as well stay close to each other.  However, a pin/split might also work, as the more skilled fighter will have an easier time both drawing the extra fighter and surviving/winning the 2v1; OR have a much higher chance of beating the single fighter if his buddy can pin two in place for a second.

General Thoughts

• As always when outnumbered, mobility is key.  The pair must keep moving, always attempting to get one of the triplets out of position. "Keeping it a line fight" probably requires the pair to back up, at the very least, but more likely requires them to strafe back and forth.
  
• Typical line fighting teamwork techniques are important to keep in mind.  Feinting towards the middle fighter might move their defenses over so your partner can take a swing at them.  Faking for a swing might draw out a counter that allows your partner to snipe an arm.
  
• By getting even a single leg hit, the pair can turn the fight into a 2v2.
  
• Teams of fighters fight differently than individuals.  The larger group may not swing as often per person as the smaller group.  When outnumbering, they often look for counter swing opportunities .  Feints may be particularly effective at drawing them out.
  
• Targets of Opportunity: if the triplets mess up, punish them for it.  Regardless of the plan, killing one outright because they have a poor guard or turned incorrectly might happen.  Be on the lookout.
  
• Communicate!  Even simple words like "split" or "shift right" can help a ton.
  

Aggression

Every once in a while I hear someone say "I need to be more aggressive when I fight."  After the most recent occurrence, I realized that I had never really compiled my thoughts on being aggressive in fighting, both in a duel and on the line.  A few posts might suggest specific aggressive maneuvers or tactics, but don't really address aggression directly.  Shock trooper tactics, in particular, are generally aggressive in nature, especially on the offense.  The aim of this post, then, is to look at how aggression works as a general concept rather than what tactics might be aggressive.

Aggression in duels

When fighting a single opponent, most people only consider direct offensive swings as "aggressive".  While that is generally the case, one will also find that positioning and footwork can be aggressive. Moving towards an opponent's weakness is aggressive, even without swinging a sword. This will also be true in a line fight, but varied in scope. 

What separates offense and aggression is that offense is applying pressure to the opponent with attacks, regardless of relative position--from a weak position, equal footing, or from a place of advantage.  Aggression, however, is moving towards a place of advantage over the opponent (often with offense included). This forces an opponent to either fight from a disadvantage or react to get out of that disadvantage.

One thing to consider is actually the transition from a more passive or defensive posture into an aggressive attack.  You might hear the term "explosive" used to describe fighters that sort of switch on to being aggressive quickly.  By switching gears into a highly aggressive movement as quickly as possible, it makes it extremely difficult for an opponent to react.  If, instead, one were to just start the fight by running directly at the opponent, they have time to prepare.  However, by pacing one's self and waiting for the correct time to act, a quick burst of aggressive fighting might catch them flat-footed.

An example of this might be starting the fight defensively, while circling backwards and towards your sword side.  This causes your opponent to constantly turn towards their shield side (assuming the same handedness).  After a few moments of this circling, quickly switching directions and being aggressive will likely find their sword arm exposed as they are still trying to turn away from it.  In this way, we see that aggression isn't always going to be a constant way to fight, but something that turns out to be essential at the right time.

With regard to footwork, the aggressive step is diagonally towards your opponent's sword side, as they have much less passive protection.  Against two sword fighters, the more aggressive step is diagonally towards the opponent's lead leg side, for much the same reason--though it also serves to reduce their offense from their offhand weapon.

Aggression in line fighting

Much like a one on one, aggression in terms of line fighting is about moving towards the enemy's weakness.  The difference is that the weakness here is often a gap in the enemy line, or another weak point, that might lead one into their backfield (which is the true weak spot).  Also like our dueling considerations, aggression doesn't have to start at the beginning of the battle by running headlong into the enemy.

Many of the sort of shock trooper actions that I have discussed previously are best when executed at the correct time in the fight.  For example, gaps don't often form in the enemy line until part(s) of the line are nearly engaged in the fight during the tail end of the maneuver phase of a battle.  A shock trooper, looking to run a gap, has to wait and observe the enemy line and try to predict where and when that gap might be.  Once the gap is formed, the shock trooper will assess the enemies nearby and try to time their attack to catch one of them unaware.  This often involves noticing vision gaps at the area around the physical gap in the enemy line.

Other aggressive tactics, like line strafing (down the front of the line), don't require specific timing to start.  When strafing a line, the aggressive fighter merely picks a target, usually based on vision gaps noticed, and makes a run for it between the two lines. The weak point being sought in this specific example is vision gaps, the first target simply being the first weak point noticed.  As they move down the line, new vision gaps crop up and they can keep moving down seeking to deliver swings from each vision gap they find. If any of the vision gaps disappear (the shock trooper gets noticed), they simply block and keep moving down the line looking for the next vision gap.

Another case of aggression can be seen when looking at fighting while outnumbered.  A single skilled fighter often moves towards the flanks of whatever group they are fighting against.  Obviously, the flanks are a weak point of the line, and the single fighter gains advantage there.  Therefore, moving towards the flanks here is aggressive and it forces the enemy to change their position (rotating to move their flanks).

Most people will generally consider aggression from only the standpoint of a sword and board fighter.  However, aggression can also be used when using a support weapon.  Not all of their aggression is direct from attacks, but from positioning their weapon along a line that will be able to exploit opening or force an opponent to cover them instead of their usual guard.  Pointing a spear tip towards someone's sword side hip, for example, forces them to either lower their guard to block, back away, or risk the hit.  Note that this aggression needs to be within the effective range of the weapon, and is amplified by attacking the target directly along this line.  As I've covered many times when talking about glaive fighting, creating "presence" on the line is done by spreading attacks around to several targets.  Ideally, engaging each of these targets in their weakest point (an exposed leg, sword side hip, or shield side if it is low) will further amplify the effect.

Confidence, Threat, and Perception

One thing that I believe several fighters have issue with when trying to be aggressive is actually confidence in what they are doing.  Being aggressive while presenting a more timid appearance and/or hesitating doesn't have the same effect as a determined appearance.  It may be that one is unsure if their plan will be successful, and this impacts how they appear to the enemy. To alleviate this problem, one has to commit to their action fully, without worrying too much about the outcome.  

Threat is roughly how the enemy perceives one's effective range.  This effective range is amplified by things like longer weapons or previous encounters of one running, rushing, or otherwise being aggressive. Someone that never does more than walk forward and never runs gaps will have a much lower perceived threat than someone that is constantly strafing lines and breaking gaps.  This threat range increases the effects of aggressive maneuvers.

For example, several folks out there recognize my shenanigans when strafing lines or pushing gaps.  This causes people to call out when I am approaching gaps or maneuvering down a line much faster and more often than when someone doesn't engage in the fight that way on a normal basis.  While my personal success ends up being lower due to the call, my actual impact on the team via aggression is amplified.  I force their line to move against me, or deal with me running around in their backfield.  (Though, I do sometimes miss the days when no one realized what I was about to do...)

Misc

Much of being an aggressive fighter is actually just being an observant fighter that is willing to take some risks.

Observing a weakness in the enemy doesn't mean much if you don't "just go for it".

Aggression is one of the tools used to manipulate the enemy into the position of your choice. That includes a line of enemies.

Aggressiveness does not have to be recklessness.

Aggressive defense is a thing (see Outnumbered).

Cardio.

"For Clarification"

After working through a bit of a roundup of new rules, I thought I would take a look at one of the larger changes more in depth.  The changes to the way archers will have some impact on the game, if nothing else due to our ingrained habits needing tweaked.  For your ease, the relevant new rules:

3.13.6. An archer who attacks with an arrow or bolt may call a combat hit for clarification when the shot clearly and unambiguously hit a target area.

3.13.6.1. For a shot to be clear and unambiguous, the archer must have an unobstructed view of the entire flight of the arrow or bolt including post hit deflection.

3.13.9. When in doubt, the target makes the hit determination for missile weapons.

Several archers out there are worried about 3.13.9, thinking that it lets anyone just ignore arrows.  However, this is in line with all of our other weapons as far as someone deciding to cheat on the field.  It does seem like this rule might be prime for a bit of rewording, specifically when "who" is in doubt.

With that in mind, here is my interpretation of how a few common archer/target interactions might work out with these rules. These are strictly based on my personal interpretation of the rules above, and are intended to start some discussion on how fighter etiquette might change a bit due to these rules.

Example 1:
An archer fires an arrow and it hits their target with good deflection near the seam of two target zones, such as right near the hip. The archer thinks it might be a body shot, but the target takes leg.  Under the old rules, the archer could just call the target dead.  Under the new rule, the archer wouldn't be able to make a call for clarification, because the target zone wasn't hit clearly and unambiguously, meaning it was the target's call to take the hit correctly.

Example 2:

An archer fires an arrow which hits low on a target wearing baggy pants (hakama).  The arrow stops, but the target doesn't take a hit.  Under the old rules, the archer could call leg, if they wanted.  Under the new rules, because the baggy pants prevent seeing if the target zone was hit clearly and unambiguously, the archer doesn't get to make a call for clarification.  This leaves it to the target to decide if it was garb or leg.

Example 3:

An archer fires an arrow at an unaware target that is in full armor.  It very clearly hits in the middle of their back and deflects.  Under both the new and old rules, the archer can call a combat hit.  Even if the target didn't feel the hit, they should take it.

Conclusions:

Just from working through those three short scenarios, it appears to me that both of the first two rules are highlight what the best archers out there do already.  3.13.6 says that archers need to be certain that their arrow hit a specific target area, without question, in order to call a combat hit.  3.13.6.1 says that an archer has to be able to see the whole flight and deflection in order to even be able to ascertain whether a shot hit clear and unambiguously.

Most of our experienced archers already call their shots this way.  They only bother calling a hit when they are certain it is a good hit, or if a target requests clarification (ie, giving them the deer in headlights look).  In essence, these adjustments to the rules actually force newer archers to adopt best practices of our seasoned vets, while giving targets a chance to disagree with bad calls.

"But Torry, what about when people just ignore my arrows/calls and don't take hits?"  Well, this is exactly what other fighters deal with on occasion.  Heralds/Marshals still have the authority to call hits, and are still the people you should take problems to.  If it happens to be someone you know fairly well, just ask them about the hits and discuss it.

At the end of the day, this sort of change to the rules requires archer and targets to both make some adjustments in how we do things.  People that aren't archers need to read the rules for arrows and understand how to properly take hits from them.  Simple things like arrows passing through weapons often leaves people confused already, so it will take time for them to adapt to not relying on archer calls for simple hits.  Archers will have to grow accustomed to only calling shots that they are sure exactly where they think they did.

Personally, I'm hopeful for how these changes impact the game.  As a herald, I definitely have spent way too much time managing incorrect archer calls and bad hit taking from arrows.

New Season, New Rules

Long time, no post.  It's been a busy time for me away from fighting.  If things happen to calm down a bit, I'll get back to writing more regularly.  I realize this post is a little sloppy, my apologies, I'll try to clean it up soon*.  I just wanted to get this started and out there for folks that hadn't had a chance to read the new rules.

Update 2/2/17: added change regarding having one leg hacked and the other pierced.  Also added "Unclear" section.

Update 2/14/17: added head then body to unclear

Update 2/17/17: added Shields lying on the ground can't be broken

Background:

The War Council of Belegarth has recently passed a vote to accept a new, updated version of the Book of War.  This version was crafted by a rules committee, which was appointed by War Council, through a long process of analyzing the old rules for issues and reconciling differences between interpretations from various realms.  It isn't "perfect", but it does give us, the Belegarth community, a solid footing to look at our rules and make changes as needed down the line.  Lots of rules have changed to reflect clarifications or compromises between different interpretations.

I had originally intended to compile a list of changes and break each of them down here.  It quickly became apparent that was beyond the scope of a quick blog post.  Instead, I would like to point your attention to a few items that are definite changes to how the game is played (vs. my local realm of Numenor).  I only highlight below a few of the things I noticed on a couple of quick reads, so this is in no way comprehensive.  If you want to check it out and see for yourself, GO READ THE RULES: http://www.belegarth.com/getting-started/rules/

These are just a quick overview, not exact wordings of the new rules.  Significant changes are those that might have an impact on how the game is played or on current equipment passing weapons check.  Minor changes are those that, while different from the previous version, shouldn't change much of how the game is typically played. Clarifications are things that either were implied through various old rules interactions or were played a specific way that never made it into the rules. Unclear is anything I notice that is either still ambiguous from the old rules, or where I noticed some sort of conflict between rules.

Significant Changes:

• No leg running.  From what I have seen, this is likely to be updated in the next round of voting later this year.  This is a carryover from the old rules that no one seems to remember enforcing.
• Archers can call hits for clarification if they have an clear, unobstructed view of the whole arrow flight.  The target gets to make hit determinations if it is unclear, for all missile weapons.  This will take some adjustment and discussion on how these rules actually work out in combat.  From what I have seen, "archers" are usually playing to these rules most of the time anyway.  "Guys with bows", not always. It does bring archers more in line with everyone else as far as hit taking goes.
• Incidental and courtesy padding have specific, and different, definitions now.  Incidental has to be somewhere between a striking surface and what generally has passed a semi-okay non-striking surface in the past.  Flails, glaives, and other weapons with haft padding need be looked at to conform with the new rules.  For incidental padding, 6" for one-handed, and 12" for two-handed is required for swung weapons.  It will take some time for the community/craftsmen to figure out what exactly passes for incidental padding.
• "Two-handed" is defined as both hands firmly gripping the weapon at the point of impact.  Allows you to pool-cue double, but only if you grab with the sliding hand at the end.  Same applies to the two-handed "ax swing" for swung weapons.

Minor Changes:

• Half-draw for arrows has a little different wording.  It now means "half the force of a full-draw".  Not a big change, but it is a good thing for archers to be aware of.
• Draw stops on arrows have stricter requirements than before. Most of the our archers were already conforming to standards close to the new rules.
• Sufficient force is defined a little differently
• Heavy hits for shield breaking hits is better defined (and is specifically "heavy")
• Communication for "light", "graze", "garb", "armor" is now required, as well as truthfully reporting any damage/armor condition when asked.
• No intentionally hitting a combatant with non-striking surface (like flail haft to hit with ball). 
• No feinting head strikes from non-head legal weapons or shields.
• Weapons "contested" in a grapple take limbs if they are grabbed by the blade.
• The rules for shield bashing/checking were cleaned up.  They also added shield bumping (pushing without trying to knock them over) and bracing (static bracing against someone moving into you).  Basically, don't try to knock people over from behind, and target their center of mass if you are trying to knock them over from a different quadrant.
• Crossguards are now actually in the rules (templated like a pommel).
• If you have a pierced and hacked leg (both will be down), hits to the hacked leg don't do damage. The wording of rule 3.7.2.4.5. is a little goofy, but this seems to be the intent of the second part. (Added here 2/2/17)
• Shields lying on the ground can't be broken. (Added here 2/17/17)

Clarifications:

• "Magic Switching" your weapon when your arm is killed is specifically legal.
• "Shot In Motion" is now official, including "Late" being defined in the rules.
• Shield kicking requires one foot on the ground.
• Grappling has been cleaned up and better defined.
• Grabbing a weapon handle/haft padding is NOT a grapple.
• Grabbing your own striking surface (half-swording) is legal.
• A hit to a disabled arm when you are wearing body armor counts as hitting the body armor.
• Armor definitions got better.
• Handles have to be continuous except on double ended weapons.

Unclear:

• Arrows hitting a hand on a weapon has two rules in conflict.  Hand on weapon counts as part of the weapon, so the arrow should go through.  However, the rules for the hand target area specifically say hits to the hand count as hits to the arm.  Traditionally, the interpretation was that arrows go through hand on weapon.  
• A swing that hits both head (illegal target area) and body doesn't specify if the target should take the body hit, or discount it due to the illegal hit.  Strict reading would indicate this is still a valid body hit, as long as it is sufficient force.  Common way to play is based on if the head shot was significant enough, to ignore the body shot. (Added 2/14/17)