Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I am not sure what historical analog (if any) the Basic Set was using for "Studded Leather Skirt". Being that it is listed as flexible I bet the authors had in mind something more similar to the AD&D fantasy armor description. I think it is ambiguous. So it is an open judgment call on what someone interprets that to be.

Opposites tend to be studied in the same discipline anyway. :)

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

What about the "feathers" worn by greek hoplites, for example? Some of those certianly look to be leather or cloth with decroate metal panels. That's what I usually think of. But I don't think of studded leather much anymore.

I always thought split DRs for armours is great. I don't know if I care for the finer weapons distinctions, but that's may just be my desire for convience over finer resolution. I don't work too hard to make an axe a more potent weapon, because I already find them to be particularly potent. A fine Axe does Sw+3 cut, and I think that fairly allows the axe do more damage than a broadsword of the same cost.

This revision of yours, Icelander, leaves a much better taste in my mouth than the last one, with the various armour divisors. Technically, I know they're there.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I certainly understand that and this is an entirely optional distinction for those who like finer resolution, compareable to MA's A Matter Of Inches.

Still, even with the split armour DRs, axes are not noticable better than swords. Instead, each weapon has a tactical role for which it is suited and no one weapon is better than others at everything.

That was the point (pun intended). ;)

This is much closer to something that could almost be put in a sidebar in the eagerly awaited CCoI.