Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:
Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Hugh Knight » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:48 pm

Roger Norling wrote:Well both your and Tobler's clips show attacks that doesn't really go for the head which can cause confusion for the viewer. Agreed that tutorials are a bit different in purpose, but nevertheless.
No, we only show the not aiming for the head thing in the first version which is meant to recreate the way Christian shows it on the DVD. In the actual correct interpretation we show in the second part of the video, the attacker *is* aiming for the defender's head--he just slips back so it misses.
And I disagree slightly. True, there is no reason to stop it, but there might be reason to fool your opponent into thinking you will try to. Your clip showed a feint although done a bit differently. Tobler seem to advocate making a feint into a very weak bind, but I might be wrong here. Anyhow, his translation seems to leave that possibility open.

But, maybe you omitted that part in your current interpretation? Sorry for being a bit short and perhaps a bit confused here. I am in the middle of a dinner party and need to get back to our guests... :)
If you watch the video, the defender does pretend to start to bind, just as the text calls for. That's to fool the attacker into thinking he's just going to bind so that the defender doesn't do something else. Then he slips back so that the attacker's blow misses him, swinging wildly past him. When the attacker is helpless because his over-done blow has carried his axe too far out to the side, the defender simply steps in to attack the now-helpless attacker. This is exactly what the text says to do.

And no, we left *nothing* out of the video clip, it matches the text *exactly* and in its entirety.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Roger N » Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:59 am

EDIT: I missed your response above, so this was a reply to the one before that.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough. I agree that there is a problem with Tobler's interpretation, but in my perspective it has more to do with footwork and keeping proper distance. Neither his or your clip really show attacks to the head. That is the problem of "display" I referred to and probably has to do with technical details like trying not to step out of frame and perhaps a bit of fear of injuring each other.

Your student's last attack aims about 40cm in front of the defender's face, making it very safe and easy to simply step back. A full on, fast attack aimed at the head at short distance is not quite as easy to step out of, especially in armour on less than ideal surfaces, and might therefore be more safely done by briefly and lightly "binding" and letting the axe pass by. It is not a bind as such though, but rather letting the opponent's axe slip by over your weapon.

I really don't see the attacker changing his mind and attacking the axe in Tobler's version. I interpret it as the execution having a missing link; a passing step backwards instead of forwards, just as you have chosen to do in your interpretation.

Of course we are not supposed to make things up and that remark is actually a bit insulting to whomever it is aimed at. But, the English translation we are looking at isn't exactly clear in order of events, is it?

“Item: If binds to you such that both hammers stand above and strikes with brute force (lit. “peasant’s strike”), then sense this and pretend as if you intend to parry and let his blow pass before you so that you have the hook at the neck or a free stroke to the head, shoulder or arm.”

It all comes down to how you interpret the "feint" Even briefly touching and shoving the opponent's weapon with slight guidance to the side can be interpreted as letting his blow pass before oneself. It is done against other peasant strikes with heavy polearms (and swords) in other manuscripts, so the idea isn't that far fetched. Distance is crucial, I think, both the starting distance when initiating the attack, and maintaining distance for the defender.

Finally, I am not saying you are wrong and Tobler right, but there are reasons to carefully consider both your interpretations. Also both your and Tobler's clips have flaws that may be important when considering these. I would like to see a full speed and force strike aimed at the head and the defender stepping out of it, in armour, on grass or sand, with both interpretations of weapon handling... :)

And one final question, do you have the original text? I am browsing through the manuscript, but it is slow work and I am very busy with other things right now.
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Roger N » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:42 am

Hugh Knight wrote:
Roger Norling wrote:Well both your and Tobler's clips show attacks that doesn't really go for the head which can cause confusion for the viewer. Agreed that tutorials are a bit different in purpose, but nevertheless.
No, we only show the not aiming for the head thing in the first version which is meant to recreate the way Christian shows it on the DVD. In the actual correct interpretation we show in the second part of the video, the attacker *is* aiming for the defender's head--he just slips back so it misses.
Actually no. The attacker strikes about 40cm in front of where the defender's head was at the start of the attack. Yes, the defender steps back, but there really is no need to step at all in the clip. At most, only his left hand is in danger.

Look at 00:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTqwLBwem0U#t=0m38s

Looking at your recreation of Tobler's interpretation, the defender is in actual danger of being hit in the face with the axe head.

BUT I am not out to criticize the clip. However, with different distance management and aim the interpretation may be affected.

We're really only disagreeing of a very small difference here. The way I see it, your basic interpretation but with a slight bind, moving under hengen and using the extra momentum created for a schnappen-like strike doesn't go against the text. But, I really do need to find the original text... It's dangerous basing your opinions on other's translations :)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Hugh Knight » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:58 am

Roger Norling wrote:EDIT: I missed your response above, so this was a reply to the one before that.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough. I agree that there is a problem with Tobler's interpretation, but in my perspective it has more to do with footwork and keeping proper distance. Neither his or your clip really show attacks to the head. That is the problem of "display" I referred to and probably has to do with technical details like trying not to step out of frame and perhaps a bit of fear of injuring each other.

Your student's last attack aims about 40cm in front of the defender's face, making it very safe and easy to simply step back. A full on, fast attack aimed at the head at short distance is not quite as easy to step out of, especially in armour on less than ideal surfaces, and might therefore be more safely done by briefly and lightly "binding" and letting the axe pass by. It is not a bind as such though, but rather letting the opponent's axe slip by over your weapon.
I'm sorry, but you're quite mistaken. First, Christian's error is one of misunderstanding: His defender does not slip back to let the blow pass. He mistakenly believes the attacker changes his strike in the middle of the blow to strike into the defender's axe. This is extremely difficult to do with this kind of strike, and is not supported by the text.

Second, my student aims directly at the defender's head in the second part of the video, it only seems that he aims in front of him because the defender does a good job of slipping back.

Third, it is easy to slip back to avoid a shot. I have more than 20 years of armored experience, and it is a technique I have used many times. It may be harder against someone who does a very subtle blow, but then, that's why the author specifies a peasant's strike. The huge cocking and swinging motion of such a blow makes it relatively easy to see what he's doing and to prepare for it. In effect, he is striking in the time of the foot, body and hand, a false time, while you are slipping back in the time of the foot. Done correctly, you actually have the advantage.

Fourth, you do *not* want to bind with the attacker's axe. The whole point is to let it whiz on by so that he turns away from you because of the force of his blow. That gives you the time to step in and hit him before he can recover to defend himself. That's the whole point of a "peasant's strike;" Le Jeu talks about this when it teaches us how to strike correctly (in paragraph 22) when it tells us to be careful not to sing past the enemy if we miss. If the defender binds, even lightly, then he help the attacker to stop his blow, which means the attacker can recover more quickly. If you bind so lightly that you do not slow him down, then why did you bind in the first place?
I really don't see the attacker changing his mind and attacking the axe in Tobler's version. I interpret it as the execution having a missing link; a passing step backwards instead of forwards, just as you have chosen to do in your interpretation.
Quite correct.
Of course we are not supposed to make things up and that remark is actually a bit insulting to whomever it is aimed at. But, the English translation we are looking at isn't exactly clear in order of events, is it?
I'm not sure what you mean about the insult comment (who insulted whom?), but no, we're not supposed to make things up. And I believe the order of things in the text is actually quite clear. The only point that requires insight is the actual step back by the defender (which we get by understanding what the author means by a peasant's strike), everything else is quite clear.
“Item: If binds to you such that both hammers stand above and strikes with brute force (lit. “peasant’s strike”), then sense this and pretend as if you intend to parry and let his blow pass before you so that you have the hook at the neck or a free stroke to the head, shoulder or arm.”

It all comes down to how you interpret the "feint" Even briefly touching and shoving the opponent's weapon with slight guidance to the side can be interpreted as letting his blow pass before oneself. It is done against other peasant strikes with heavy polearms (and swords) in other manuscripts, so the idea isn't that far fetched. Distance is crucial, I think, both the starting distance when initiating the attack, and maintaining distance for the defender.
I don't see how that can be open to interpretation. The way Christian shows it, you strike into the strike, so you are not guiding it past. To guide it past you, you'd have to hit the axe on the inside, and I see nothing at all to support that notion.

And of course distance is crucial--that's a central tenet of the KdF.
Finally, I am not saying you are wrong and Tobler right, but there are reasons to carefully consider both your interpretations. Also both your and Tobler's clips have flaws that may be important when considering these. I would like to see a full speed and force strike aimed at the head and the defender stepping out of it, in armour, on grass or sand, with both interpretations of weapon handling... :)
I'm sorry, but I have examined our video carefully and there are no flaws in it. The only flaw you have specified is that you believe the attacker is not actually aiming for the defender's head, and that's simply not so. As for slipping back, this is a simple Nachreisen, it's nothing new or outre.
And one final question, do you have the original text? I am browsing through the manuscript, but it is slow work and I am very busy with other things right now.
"Item pint er dir am daß paid hamer obenn stennd und slecht pewrlemß so enpfind und thue als wild du versetzenn und lass sein chlag fur genn so hastu daß hennkeln pey dem nackenn oder frey sleg zu su dem chopf zu der achsel zu dem arm"
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Hugh Knight » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:08 am

Roger Norling wrote:Actually no. The attacker strikes about 40cm in front of where the defender's head was at the start of the attack. Yes, the defender steps back, but there really is no need to step at all in the clip. At most, only his left hand is in danger.

Look at 00:38
I'm sorry, but I just looked again, and I see the attack correctly aimed, but whizzing on past because the defender slipped back. In fact, during filming, the defender joked about how Chris was trying just a bit too hard to hit him for real for an unarmored demonstration.
We're really only disagreeing of a very small difference here. The way I see it, your basic interpretation but with a slight bind, moving under hengen and using the extra momentum created for a schnappen-like strike doesn't go against the text. But, I really do need to find the original text... It's dangerous basing your opinions on other's translations :)
I believe it does go against the text. The text says to *pretend* to bind, not to make a soft bind, or whatever you're talking about. The whole idea is to let the blow pass in front of you unhindered! If you bind, however lightly, you make it easier for the attacker to recover. It adds an unnecessary level of complexity and prevents the most important part of the technique--the overdone strike.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Roger N » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:35 am

I haven't spoken to Tobler about this, so perhaps you are right that he is interpreting things wrong. Has he explicitly said that the attacker changes his strike? If so, then I certainly agree with you.

I am sorry, but your student really isn't aiming for his opponent's head. Take a closer look and you will see that he isn't even near striking where the defendant's head was at the start of the attack. Like I said, about 40cm short of target. Just put the cursor on top of the defendant's head and let the clip run. The defendant doesn't even have to step back. The attacker might THINK he is aiming for the head, but he poses no real threat. The defender only moves his head back about 25cm and his hips about 5cm while the attacker advances about a full meter with a passing step and yet the attacker misses. Something is wrong here...and it is certainly not "a good job of slipping back". In my eyes it is quite obvious and your recreation of Tobler's clip is in fact more threatening due to the short distance and aim.

Another factor that might be important is that your recreation of Tobler's clip starts at about 30cm shorter distance than your "full speed" interpretation where your student slips away. If he had started at the same distance he would certainly have had to have taken a much wider step and move his hips more than 5cm back or move off line.

However, I would chalk up that to technical side effects from limitations of the recording set and not part of your actual interpretation. I am also at this stage willing to give Tobler the same benefit of a doubt.

True, it is easy to slip away under certain circumstances, but again, it all comes down to footwork and distance management. At close distance however, it is much more difficult and this is the crucial part. With enough distance initially you can certainly step back and let it slip by. At shorter distance you may need to work with a slight bit of cover to guide it above and away from you. Sure he loses a tiny bit of momentum, but you are safer and in a better position to attack than your opponent who has lost all of his threat, since the force is redirected and you have stolen a lot of momentum and time for a more powerful strike. His weapon is dead and yours is alive. He is exposed and you are not.

The text really IS open to such an interpretation. Pretending to bind and then letting it slip by can be done in more than one way, depending on how you define the bind.

Still, I am not refuting your interpretation. You may very well be correct in the end. I'll have to take a look at the source. Thanks for providing that! :)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Hugh Knight » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:00 pm

Roger Norling wrote:I haven't spoken to Tobler about this, so perhaps you are right that he is interpreting things wrong. Has he explicitly said that the attacker changes his strike? If so, then I certainly agree with you.

I am sorry, but your student really isn't aiming for his opponent's head. Take a closer look and you will see that he isn't even near striking where the defendant's head was at the start of the attack. Like I said, about 40cm short of target. Just put the cursor on top of the defendant's head and let the clip run. The defendant doesn't even have to step back. The attacker might THINK he is aiming for the head, but he poses no real threat. The defender only moves his head back about 25cm and his hips about 5cm while the attacker advances about a full meter with a passing step and yet the attacker misses. Something is wrong here...and it is certainly not "a good job of slipping back". In my eyes it is quite obvious and your recreation of Tobler's clip is in fact more threatening due to the short distance and aim.

The text really IS open to such an interpretation. Pretending to bind and the letting it slip by can be done in more than one way, depending on how you define the bind.

Still, I am not refuting your interpretation. You may very well be correct in the end. I'll have to take a look at the source. Thanks for providing that! :)
I shan't argue any more about whether Chris was really trying to hit Joseph or not. We see it differently, but, ultimately, that's not important. What's important is the idea of the play--the mechanics of it, if you will, and the video certainly makes that clear.

As for Christian's statement, here are some direct quotes from him taken directly from the comments section of the first video we did:
"Further, you're misreading Chris' action. He attacks, then he sees that Rob's about to jack him, so he parries the counterattacking blow."

"The attacker *changes* his priorities to defend against a sure counterattack. The defender draws the attacker's fire, then denies the bind to attack inside the line."

"When watched carefully, it's clear the attacker is targeting the defender's left side - his axe then crosses the centerline as he sees the threat of the counterattack."

As you can see, he misses the point entirely. The last quote is particularly telling since the defender *wasn't* counterattacking, he was merely binding. The text certainly doesn't say anything at all about the defender making a counterattack (until after the blow passes by him, of course--this is before that).
True, it is easy to slip away under certain circumstances, but again, it all comes down to footwork and distance management. At close distance however, it is much more difficult and this is the crucial part. With enough distance initially you can certainly step back and let it slip by. At shorter distance you may need to work with a slight bit of cover to guide it above and away from you. Sure he loses a tiny bit of momentum, but you are safer and in a better position to attack than your opponent who has lost all of his threat, since the force is redirected and you have stolen a lot of momentum and time for a more powerful strike. His weapon is dead and yours is alive. He is exposed and you are not.
In order to provide the cover of which you write, the defender would have to make his displacement over to his left side in order to keep the axe from hitting him. If he did that, then nothing would make the attacker's axe go by in front of the defender as the text explicitly says. If the axe is already past you (that is, it's on your right side), then you don't need to defend against it at all. Do you see?
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Roger N » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:26 pm

This is pretty interesting in so many ways. I am simply looking at the clips and reading the translation and even with that, the interpretation of what I see and what Tobler intends are quite different. It says a little about the difficulty with interpreting what we study... :)

However, this sentence sort of makes sense, with some modifications: "The defender draws the attacker's fire, then denies the bind to attack inside the line." It is what you advise as well, isn't it? Without the defender attacking properly, that is. However, it is not so much a case of "drawing fire" as it is a question of making the attacker expect resistance from a strong bind or versetzen.

The cover I am trying to describe is something we have practiced and involves moving off line to the left while making a very weak bind moving from "vom tag" to "hengen" and continuing with a schnappen strike, using longsword terminology. Much like what is seen in the peasant staff clips earlier. Done correctly it looks like you are moving to strike an oberhau from the right to the head or for a bind. It may involve a brief, weak bind or not, but the bind in itself is not really relevant. Moving safely is.

I am still going through the text. There are a few words that are new to me... :)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Hugh Knight » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:44 pm

Roger Norling wrote:This is pretty interesting in so many ways. I am simply looking at the clips and reading the translation and even with that, the interpretation of what I see and what Tobler intends are quite different. It says a little about the difficulty with interpreting what we study... :)

However, this sentence sort of makes sense, with some modifications: "The defender draws the attacker's fire, then denies the bind to attack inside the line." It is what you advise as well, isn't it? Without the defender attacking properly, that is. However, it is not so much a case of "drawing fire" as it is a question of making the attacker expect resistance from a strong bind or versetzen.

The cover I am trying to describe is something we have practiced and involves moving off line to the left while making a very weak bind moving from "vom tag" to "hengen" and continuing with a schnappen strike, using longsword terminology. Much like what is seen in the peasant staff clips earlier. Done correctly it looks like you are moving to strike an oberhau from the right to the head or for a bind. It may involve a bind or not, but the bind in itself is not really relevant. Moving safely is.

I am still going through the text. There are a few words that are new to me... :)
When Christian talks about "drawing fire," what he means is that the attacker starts by attacking at the defender's head (with a wild swing, remember, not something that's easy to control) and then, when he realizes the defender is actually going to displace the attack, the attacker changes the attack to strike the defender's axe. So the attacker is supposed to literally change gears in the midst of a powerful swing in order to bind with the block the defender is trying to do. That just makes no sense. Folks who use these kinds of overdone strikes do so in the expectation they'll simply blow through any defense (and they're sometimes right!). They don't suddenly give up the attack that *might* do harm for a bind that certainly *can't* do any harm. Someone might *try* to do that if the defender was making an attack (e.g., an Absetzen), but the text specifically denies that.

As for your interpretation, with respect, I really think you're missing the most basic point of this play. I understand the cover you're talking about perfectly well--I've practiced it. I wish you could come to our classes because this is so easy to demonstrate in person. The root point here is the peasant's strike: it's intended to be a wild swing that whizzes past the defender, allowing the defender to step in and strike. Displacing this attack, however carefully, ruins the effect. Moreover, if the master wanted that kind of compound defense I feel sure he would have discussed it. I really think that it's best to err on the side of simplicity here given the points the author chose to mention.

I took a look at the text, but other than disagreeing with Christian about the translation of Versetzen (which is a minor difference of intent, not a fundamental question about what the word means), I found nothing to bother me. However vehemently and fundamentally I may disagree with Christian's interpretations, his translations are generally excellent--far better than mine. I still try to check them, of course, since anyone can make a mistake, but I rarely find anything substantive. If you find anything important I hope you'll mention it.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Discussion on Toblers DVD on pollax

Post by Roger N » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:02 pm

Short reply this time, since it is time for lunch... :)

Here is my translation:

"Item pint er dir am daß paid hamer obenn stennd und slecht pewrlemß so enpfind und thue als wild du versetzenn und lass sein chlag fur genn so hastu daß hennkeln pey dem nackenn oder frey sleg zu su dem chopf zu der achsel zu dem arm"

"Item: Binds he together with both your hammers held high and strikes as a peasant, so feel/sense and act as if you wish to displace and let his strike pass through, so you have your handle by the neck or a free (unobstructed) strike at the head, the shoulder or the arm."


and Tobler's:

"Item: If binds to you such that both hammers stand above and strikes with brute force (lit. “peasant’s strike”), then sense this and pretend as if you intend to parry and let his blow pass before you so that you have the hook at the neck or a free stroke to the head, shoulder or arm.”

Minor differences, but "pretend as if" I would rather translate as "act as if" which gives a slight shift in meaning. Also, I have gotten rid of "pass before you", since it is not said, but possibly implied in the text. Instead it reads "pass through" (which can be interpreted as "pass through a fake bind").

Possibly, "hennkeln" could refer to the back end of the pollax, implying winding the back end forwards to wrench the opponent down by the neck. Perhaps "hennkeln" is used specifically for the hook, but the meaning may be wider. I think I will have to take a closer look at the other sequences surrounding this one... :)

The key question here is the first part where a bind is mentioned in relation to a peasant strike. It looks as if the bind comes first and the strike second, but perhaps it means "if someone strikes forcefully at you and binds strongly, then recognize this, fool him into thinking you intend to bind strongly aswell, but instead let his weapon slip by you, from a weak bind. "act as if you wish to displace and let his strike pass through"

However, it might also mean "if someone intends to strike forcefully and expects to bind, then feint a versetzen, let it slip by untouched and counter-attack." The bind-part is a bit ambiguous to me.
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Techniques”