Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules
- Nicholas J. Corkigian wrote:
> Huh. I'm a little surprised by this. It sounds like it was a consciousAgreed, but OTOH the back of the head is somewhat more vulnerable to
> effort to not include that area in the original SCA rules rather than a
> simple oversight. I would've thought that area of the legs is a much more
> likely target than say the back of the head.
anything that does get to it, with potentially worse consequences in the
most extreme cases.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5400 (20100826) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.