From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #86 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Tuesday, 3 October 1995 Volume 02 : Number 086 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPerrin@aol.com Chopping and Poking ancalagon@spiff.demon.co.uk stabing and slashing nam@grendal.rain.com (Nichol Hacking and Poking Malcolm Cohen From: Malcolm Cohen > I suggest you reconsider your mechanics. In a lunge, the weight of the body is > behind the blow. This is not possible when swinging, where all you can get on > your side is angular momentum (and the "mechanical advantage" is against you). Aaah, but there is a trade off in the mechanical energy once the length of the swinging weapon crosses a critical line. The beauty of the thrust is that of course, your entire mass being focused throught a tiny point. A lot of energy (especially for me, as I'm 225 lbs). But if an tip heavy weapon (a two handed bording axe for example) is swung, the angular momentum becomes fearsome. The axe head is probably (off the top of my head) travelling at least 10 times as fast as your body can lunge forwards, counteracting the lack of mass. Increase the length of the weopon's shaft and the momentum gets proportionately faster. > From: martin <102541.3423@compuserve.com> > Good point about the two handed slashing weapon, they should do a lot of damage. > I always thought it was odd that a spear should do massive amounts more damage > simply becasue its mounted on a longer pole. The head is the same and if > anything the weight would slow down the thrust. I agree, if it is only used as an impailing weapon. > Therefore, I play that pikes do 2hspear damage, their advantage is in reach, not > power. I find it unfair to think that a Greataxe should do the same as a pike, > all that weight of moving metal should be very nasty. At the same time, > slashing weapons in my game use the melee table, while impaling weapons use the > missile table for location. So, though slashing weapons do lots more damage on > normal hits, they tend to hit limbs rather than the immediately fatal locations. I always thought that a pike had a slashing AND thrusting head to it? If this is the case then the slightly less weighty head of the pike doesn't really matter, because the extra 3-5 foot in length will give it much more energy when swung. > From: Sandy Petersen > Also note that in the American Civil War, a complex fencing > technique was taught using the bayonet. HOWEVER, when soldiers > actually came together in hand-to-hand combat, they almost > invariably clubbed their muskets and swung them. This actually > proved more effective than bayonets. For one thing, when someone's > swinging a 12-pound 4-foot staff of iron and hardwood at you, > there's really no way to parry. Also there is a good reach advantage in swinging your musket, as you can hold onto the end of the barrel. The poor soldier trying to thrust must keep his leading hand on the barrel to support the weight of the musket. This means that his reach is limited to the length of his leading arm (full extent of a thrust) plus half the length of the gun. This also means that your body is still in a vulnerable position (fairly square on), unlike fencing with a one hunded weapon where your body is further away and side on. > If your opponent is carrying a shield, the thrusting blade > is seriously impaired, too. I've watched plenty of SCA combats > (Steve many many more of course), and I note that these guys > generally slash with their blades rather than thrusting. I don't > think it's because they're a pack of idiots. In my SCA experience a guy with a thrusting tip on his sword can both thrust and slash. This will give him a far broader range of attacks. The reason I don't use a thrusting tip is that because it is a bulky blob on the end of your sword, it tends to become trapped and caught on your opponents shield/weapons. So I just learn to fight with slashes only. Coming back to pikes, I always use a pike in a SCA battlefield fight. Most kills in SCA battles tend to be from thrusts from 9' spears. The typical battle has two lines of shieldmen facing each other with a couple of ranks of spearmen behind them. The poor frontline shieldmen have a horrendous death rate because they cannot get into range to attack the opponent spearmen. So they have to just stand there and take the punnishment. Classic examples of thrust kills can be seen with fully plate armoured warriors being taken completely off their feet by a hit to the head/chest. I prefer pikes because of the angular momentum you can get behind its head. A 90 degree swing is all that's allowed, but even so you can still drive your opponent into the ground even when he parries with his shield (with a vertical downward chop - the only usable blow when in a battle line). Of course I would never use such a clumsy weapon when not in a battle situation. It is designed for power, not speed and finesse. Pete Nash (Ancalagon@spiff.demon.co.uk) ------------------------------ From: nam@grendal.rain.com (Nicholas Marcelja) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 21:24:10 PST Subject: Hacking and Poking :> a heck of a lot of its effect. It's much harder to get a good strong :> thrust going than a heavy-handed hacking blow. This is why there :> were very few thrusting blades during the middle ages. : :Curiously, I'm sure I've read somewhere that medieval knights used their :broadswords as Big Metal Spikes when confronted with heavy armour. Apparently :because the blades were liable to break when used to slash at hard targets. : Depending on what time period the weapons are made for hacking or poking. Early periods used more spears because the armor could be penetrated. Chain armor can have spearhead thrust thru it. The design of the weopons changes as more plate was used. A long thin blade would snap on plate or be deflected. The lance tip is very solid point. Edges on blades became more chisel like. Just some rambling thoughts. Nicholas Marcelja pacifier.com!grendal!nam nam@grendal.rain.com Genie : N.Marcelja marcelja@sharpwa.com Compuserve : 76056,753 ------------------------------ From: Malcolm Cohen Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 13:27:46 MET DST Subject: RE: Chopping and Poking Bryan Maloney wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Malcolm Cohen wrote: > > > I suggest you reconsider your mechanics. In a lunge, the weight of the body is > > behind the blow. This is not possible when swinging, where all you can get on > > your side is angular momentum (and the "mechanical advantage" is against you). > > I suggest you do something besides modern fencing. The lunge didn't even I suggest that you have completely misread my post. (You cut out the erroneous mechanics claim I was disputing). I do not do "modern fencing". [...] > Alternatively, I could step aside, step into his over-extended arm and Sure, if the thrust is dodged and the lunger has committed their body to the blow, it is slightly discommoding. (Though natural selection should quickly eliminate the early committer!). > I've studied sport fighting styles and street fighting styles of Asian I never impugned anyone's credentials as a fighter. Just their physics. [...] > Why were axes ever used in combat if thrusting is the end-all and be-all? Strangely enough, I never said anything about thrusting being a massively superior fighting technique. I might have thought it was a viable one though (you seem to disagree with that idea even). And as someone else quite rightly pointed out, once angular momementum becomes significant enough (e.g. with a halberd or axe) swinging will have more impact. (With a big enough swing, MUCH more impact). Personally, I do not see what the problem is with the current RQ mechanics for "impale". They are not particularly realistic, but then neither are lots of the other rules. Indeed, with the weapon loss applied impaling weapons do not usually have a big advantage. A particularly unrealistic rule that - lots of impaling weapons get stuck in wounds but not chopping/slashing weapons at all. Hardly corresponding to reality that one; but limiting the sticky effect to impaling weapons does balance them fairly nicely. Cheers, - -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU_at_03__paris__tep@internet.total.fr Date: Tue, 03 Oct 95 17:20:45 MET Subject: Achemists Guild One of my players, who is alchemist, whishes to develop an alchemist guild. He created already two shops in two cities, and he would like to extend such trade. He hired a merchant to serve for transport by caravan and to sell his products in various market places, against a fee for that work. Is there any GM who faced such request from a player.? Any house rules on how guilds grow and develop themselves? The RQ rules on economics in Glorantha are not very precise, and as this occurs in paralel with my normal campaign, I do not want to stay hours working on that matter ! ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 14:30:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Cut 'n' Thrust >I'm sure I've read somewhere that medieval knights used their >broadswords as Big Metal Spikes when confronted with heavy armour Not according to the paintings and etchings. Of course, once plate armor became common, swords went out, and maces or other icky things became more popular. Malcolm Cohen > I suggest you reconsider your mechanics. In a lunge, the weight of >the body is behind the blow. This is not possible when swinging, >where all you can get on your side is angular momentum (and the >"mechanical advantage" is against you). Liam McC. >Well, actually, you *can* use your weight when cutting with a Katana >(and presumably other cutting weapons). Not only can you put some weight behind a slash, but Malcolm misses one big advantage of a slashing weapon, which is its high velocity. It's really hard to get much speed behind a thrust -- the fastest the blade will move is the speed of your arm muscles; possibly slightly accelerated if you use body leverage (as in a lunge) to twist 'n' poke. But with a reasonably long slashing weapon, you get so much leverage that the thrusting blades are out of the running. Consider: how do we chop wood? Hammer nails? Wouldn't we be better off thrusting down at the wood, because then we could get our weight behind it? The question is absurd, because the blade's speed and leverage is far more important. Why could two-handed swords hammer through plate armor? Not because they weighed so much -- they didn't necessarily weigh that much more than a regular sword The difference was that the zweihander is much longer, so the tip is moving with enormous speed when it contacts the foe. Presto -- no foe. Bryan John Maloney >I still have one thing to say, if the RQ rules represent the truth, >why do swords have edges at all? >Why did the gladius have edges, if the thrust was so perfect? In the case of the Gladius, it was because a thin flat blade takes out your foe a lot faster than a thin round puncture. This is also common knowledge to knife fighters. Also because a wider blade makes the sword stronger. And, of course, on occasion the Roman soldiers did hack at their foes. David Cake >Purely thrusting swords have been found on Bronze Age sites, >according to Oakeshott and Burton, two great authorities on the >Sword. Thus, the "power" of a thrust from an impaling weapon should >have long ago been discovered. It was, but of course in a mass-combat situation, if you have a bunch of guys thrusting, the guys armed with spears will beat the guys armed with rapiers hands-down. Spear has a longer reach, you can support your co-warriors, and it's harder to beat aside when going in for an attack. That said, I agree with Dave's general point here, which is that thrusting is not the be-all and end-all. It's clear from reading old books written during the age of duello that a cutting weapon quite often produced a very nasty wound, but rarely killed at once. A rapier, when properly used, would kill the opponent on the spot. On the other hand, in most fights, delivering a "very nasty wound" probably wins the fight, even if it's not an instant kill. >Why did the rapier have to wait for gunpowder to shoulder aside >heavy armor before it became popular (and it NEVER became popular as >a military weapon, by the way)? Well, the rapier was shitty vs, armor, of course. Also, the rapier at one time was pretty damn popular. Most musketeers of the early 17th century carried them as a sidearm (hence "The Three Musketeers" preferred weapon), though armor was still seen in action. But a mass unit of guys all using the rapier as their main arm does seem kind of ridiculous. David Cake re: blades getting stuck in people >To continue this charming aside, I have heard that some weapons, >particularly some military bayonets, have 'trenches' down the side >of the blade, in order to help overcome this problem. I know that most of the so-called "blood gutters" were actually forged to decrease blade weight. No doubt some were made with the idea of overcoming the "getting stuck" situation. However, I have read that weapons with these gutters actually got stuck even more, and even worse, than weapons without same. So anyone who ordered slots down the side of his army's bayonets got what he deserved. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #86 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html