Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Ed <equine@***********.COM>
Subject:	Two handed melee combat
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:52:36 -0600

Message no. 1 Thanks for all the help on the horses. Now I need some clarification on
two handed melee combat. I saw the rules in FOF I think it was and it
didnt help me much. I have someone wanting to use a katana and a smaller
sword but I am not sure how that works.

Any help would be umm..helpful.

Ed

- - - - - - - - - - - - Cut Here - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ed Mayhall "ZERO is my HERO!"
Dallas, Tx
The Hunger Page: http://www.the-hunger.com/index.html
Personal Page: http://www.terravirtua.com/ed/index.html
JADG Page: http://www.terravirtua.com/jadg/index.html
Message Boards: http://www.terravirtua.com/sqlboard/

From:	John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:25:58 -0500

Message no. 2 Ed wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the help on the horses. Now I need some clarification on
> two handed melee combat. I saw the rules in FOF I think it was and it
> didnt help me much. I have someone wanting to use a katana and a smaller
> sword but I am not sure how that works.
>
> Any help would be umm..helpful.

As I recall FoF (Fields of Fire is one of the many really nifty books
that I just don't own), a character may use two melee weapons provided
that one weapon has a lower reach than the other and they have a special
skill representing the two-weapons-at-once shtick (katana and wakizashi,
for instance). When the character attacks using both weapons, they
accept a +4 (I think) to the target number, but roll both the basic
melee weapons skill (Armed Combat under SR2, it's going to vary under
SR3) and the special skill. They can add in combat pool up to the rating
of the special skill.

A quick for instance:
Akegi the physad is a student of the Niten Ichi Ryu kendo school and is
possessed of 'Edged Weapons(Katana)':4(5) and the special skill 'Katana
and Wakizashi':3. Bubba the troll ganger makes the mistake of attacking
our man Akegi (apparently our none-too-bright trog, Bubba, didn't notice
the matched pair of swords at Akegi's hip). After drawing his daito
(matched katana and wakizashi), Akegi proceeds to attack Bubba with both
weapons.
Akegi's player rolls 4 (Edged Weapons, since only one weapon is a
katana) + 3 (the special skill) + 3 dice (the max number of combat pool
dice he can toss in) against a base target number of 8 (4+4 for the two
weapons).

Or, I think that's how it goes. Mebbe someone else could lend me a hand
here?

--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
"Oooooh! Big talk from Mr. Got-All-My-Limbs! 'Look at me! I've got arms
and legs! JERK!" --Sluggy Freelance
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
----------------------
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" No. 2 -- with a
bullet!
Sergeant-at-Arms and Greatest Swordsman of the Frinch Army

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:55:59 +1000

Message no. 3 > Ed wrote:
> > Thanks for all the help on the horses. Now I need some
> clarification on
> > two handed melee combat. I saw the rules in FOF I think it was and
> it
> > didnt help me much. I have someone wanting to use a katana and a
> smaller
> > sword but I am not sure how that works.
> >
> > Any help would be umm..helpful.
>
<snip>
> A quick for instance:
> Akegi the physad is a student of the Niten Ichi Ryu kendo school and
> is possessed of 'Edged Weapons(Katana)':4(5) and the special skill
> 'Katana and Wakizashi':3. Bubba the troll ganger makes the mistake of
> attacking our man Akegi (apparently our none-too-bright trog, Bubba,
> didn't notice the matched pair of swords at Akegi's hip). After
> drawing his daito (matched katana and wakizashi), Akegi proceeds to
> attack Bubba with both weapons.
> Akegi's player rolls 4 (Edged Weapons, since only one weapon is a
> katana) + 3 (the special skill) + 3 dice (the max number of combat
> pool dice he can toss in) against a base target number of 8 (4+4 for
> the two weapons).
>
> Or, I think that's how it goes. Mebbe someone else could lend me a
> hand here?
> John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros,
> shapeshifter-mage
>
Okay, first things first. John, that's Daisho - at least, that's the
only way I've ever seen it spelled. Daito may be a variant I guess, but
I've never seen that.

Next - you're not quite right about how it works. As I recall (and I do
have FoF), you do have to learn a special skill for your paired weapon
attack. There's nothing about a +4 to the target number (I think). There
MAY be something about a penalty to the target number if your special
skill is less than your general skill in the weapons you're using. I'm
not sure.

On the other hand, damage - you take the lowest damage level (if you're
using a katana and a knife, then you use damage level L) and add a
certain number (I can't remember how it's calculated) to the power of
your attack.
I
Someone check me on all that.

Now, I find that incredibly dull and boring and stupid. I don't see why
someone who can use a katana and survival knife combo shouldn't be able
to use a katana and shortsword combo (believe it or not, your average
shortsword isn't going to weigh much more than your average survival
knife - on the other hand, the balance may be different - neh...).
Especially when you're dealing with a game system that lets you use a
polearm with the same skill you attack with a knife. I also don't see
why someone using a knife and a sword would do less damage than someone
using just a sword. In fact, because that kind of attack is more
difficult to defend against, chances are that person with the two
weapons is going to hit more often and thus do more damage. I think a
general 'two weapon attack' skill would be good enough for these
purposes.

On the other hand, you could do what I do. I have a physad, Rabid (you
may have heard me mention him before). He's ambidextrous and he likes to
attack with a katana in one hand and an Ares Viper, a shuriken or a
survival knife in the other. The way I treat it is this - he gets no
bonuses for using his survival knife with his katana. He suffers no
penalties either. Damage is based on the katana. The skill used is edged
weapons. Because he's ambidextrous, he shouldn't have any trouble using
the two weapons together. It's purely an ATMOSPHERIC thing. He just does
it because it looks cool. If I ever run into a picky GM I just say,
'okay, he attacks with the katana and defends with the knife'.

Basically, I think that the Shadowrun 'two weapons in melee' rules are
the worst I've ever come across in any game system. No offense, guys,
but whoever came up with the concept needs a SKttR.

*Doc' accidentally impales himself while trying to practise his
'katana-and-polearm-wielded-with-his-toes' special skill.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:12:03 -0500

Message no. 4 Quoting John Pederson (pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU):
> As I recall FoF (Fields of Fire is one of the many really nifty books
> that I just don't own), a character may use two melee weapons provided
> that one weapon has a lower reach than the other and they have a special
> skill representing the two-weapons-at-once shtick (katana and wakizashi,
> for instance). When the character attacks using both weapons, they
> accept a +4 (I think) to the target number, but roll both the basic
> melee weapons skill (Armed Combat under SR2, it's going to vary under
> SR3) and the special skill. They can add in combat pool up to the rating
> of the special skill.
>

Almost. The FoF rules are:

* The weapons must either both be small (ie, knives), or one must
be smaller and lighter than the other. (I'm not sure this is realistic -
I THINK there was a fairly popular style (Florentine?) that involved the
use of two swords of equal length. Anyway, equal length batons should
definitely be allowed - Escrima's build around them).

* The character must have a special skill in that specific combination
of weapons. They must also have skill with both weapons involed - no defaulting
allowed. Of course, they might both be covered by the same skill (like, say,
Edged Weapons).

* The character rolls dice equal to the TOTAL of their skills with
the two weapons. So, Edged Weapons:Rapier + Edged Weapons:Dagger (or
possibly, for two knives, Edged Weapons:Knives * 2). They can't spend more
combat pool dice than they have points in the special skill.

* The Power of their attack is the average of the powers of the two
weapons. The Damage Code is the the same as that of the weapons, if the
two weapons have the same damage code (two knives), or one lower than the
higher of the two (a knife (L) and a sword (M) do Light damage together).

* The rules don't say specifically, but it's implied that you use
the reach of the longer weapon. This makes sense, IMHO, as the shorter
weapon will be used mostly for parrying and attacking when the enemy
closes.

So, compared to a sword alone, sword & dagger gets: about twice as
many skill dice, minus a few; a limitation on combat pool dice; lower
power; lower damage. There's no attack penalty, but I don't think it's
necessary to add one. It looks pretty balanced, and frankly, using two
weapons SHOULD have an advantage over using one, if you know what you're
doing. That said, if you DON'T know what you're doing, you can get in your
own way...if you want to add a penalty, I suggest making it something like
(some number)-Special Skill (the more practice they have using the weapons
together, the lower the penalty). Maybe 3-Skill...that'd give a +2 penalty
at the base skill of 1, which is probably about right.

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:30:00 -0500

Message no. 5 Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
> Okay, first things first. John, that's Daisho - at least, that's the
> only way I've ever seen it spelled. Daito may be a variant I guess, but
> I've never seen that.

I think I've only seen daito before, but I could be just mixing terms
(d'oh!). Never said I was a reference on the Japanese culture or
language:)

> Next - you're not quite right about how it works. As I recall (and I do
> have FoF), you do have to learn a special skill for your paired weapon
> attack. There's nothing about a +4 to the target number (I think). There
> MAY be something about a penalty to the target number if your special
> skill is less than your general skill in the weapons you're using. I'm
> not sure.

And *that* was why I wanted someone else to check that out for me:) My
memory tends to be decent, but it's hardly eidetic or infallible:)

> On the other hand, damage - you take the lowest damage level (if you're
> using a katana and a knife, then you use damage level L) and add a
> certain number (I can't remember how it's calculated) to the power of
> your attack.
> I
> Someone check me on all that.

Yeah, someone check him out so's I can nitpick:)

> Now, I find that incredibly dull and boring and stupid. I don't see why
> someone who can use a katana and survival knife combo shouldn't be able
> to use a katana and shortsword combo (believe it or not, your average
> shortsword isn't going to weigh much more than your average survival
> knife - on the other hand, the balance may be different - neh...).

*I* never claimed that the rules were good ones.

> Basically, I think that the Shadowrun 'two weapons in melee' rules are
> the worst I've ever come across in any game system. No offense, guys,
> but whoever came up with the concept needs a SKttR.

While I'm not familiar with the acronym (and am not really much in the
frame of mind to figure it out), I have to agree that the rules they've
set up are probably the absolute worst -- I think, given time and a
little ambition, I could have come up with better. Several people have
done just that in the past (a little looking around in the archives will
turn up at least one thread from the past six months or year). The
biggest problem with the rules set up I think is that they assumed that
you could only pull off sword/knife combo's (as opposed to sword/short
sword and short sword/short sword pairings or even two long swords at
once [like paired katana]) and IIRC, the rules are worded in such a way
that one could attempt to use a polearm and a sword at the time (but I'm
not sure). They also assumed that one blocked with the large weapon and
struck with the smaller, which isn't necessarily true when dealing with
some styles. Fun stuff.

> *Doc' accidentally impales himself while trying to practise his
> 'katana-and-polearm-wielded-with-his-toes' special skill.*

Oh, that looks like stings. You want a band-aid?

--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
"Oooooh! Big talk from Mr. Got-All-My-Limbs! 'Look at me! I've got arms
and legs! JERK!" --Sluggy Freelance
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
----------------------
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" No. 2 -- with a
bullet!
Sergeant-at-Arms and Greatest Swordsman of the Frinch Army

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:34:50 +1000

Message no. 6 > Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
> > Okay, first things first. John, that's Daisho - at least, that's the
> > only way I've ever seen it spelled. Daito may be a variant I guess,
> but
> > I've never seen that.
>
> I think I've only seen daito before, but I could be just mixing terms
> (d'oh!). Never said I was a reference on the Japanese culture or
> language:)
>
Eh...who is? Btw, if there is someone out there who does know Japanese
well, can you check that? ARE daisho and daito the same thing? Oh, and
another question to do with that - from what I've seen, dai (as in
dai-katana or Daishi (yes, I am a fan of BattleTech)) means great - but
in the form of daisho (referring to paired katana and wakizashi) I would
guess dai means two. Is that correct? Is it another one of those one
word/two meanings things (such as shi meaning death and shi meaning
four)? So what DOES daisho translate as?

<snip>

> Yeah, someone check him out so's I can nitpick:)
>
Well, as Sean McCrohan pointed out (good boy, Sean! :) ), my memory of
the rules wasn't correct either, but anyway...

> > Now, I find that incredibly dull and boring and stupid. I don't see
> why
> > someone who can use a katana and survival knife combo shouldn't be
> able
> > to use a katana and shortsword combo (believe it or not, your
> average
> > shortsword isn't going to weigh much more than your average survival
> > knife - on the other hand, the balance may be different - neh...).
>
> *I* never claimed that the rules were good ones.
>
> > Basically, I think that the Shadowrun 'two weapons in melee' rules
> are
> > the worst I've ever come across in any game system. No offense,
> guys,
> > but whoever came up with the concept needs a SKttR.
>
> While I'm not familiar with the acronym (and am not really much in the
> frame of mind to figure it out),
>
The acronym stands for Swift Kick to the Rear. You could also make it
SKutR (pronounced scooter?), as in Swift Kick up the Rear. Hey I like
that. Stand by for a spate of SKutRings, ShadowRN! :)

> I have to agree that the rules they've set up are probably the
> absolute worst -- I think, given time and a little ambition, I could
> have come up with better. Several people have done just that in the
> past (a little looking around in the archives will turn up at least
> one thread from the past six months or year). The biggest problem with
> the rules set up I think is that they assumed that you could only pull
> off sword/knife combo's (as opposed to sword/short sword and short
> sword/short sword pairings or even two long swords at once [like
> paired katana]) and IIRC, the rules are worded in such a way that one
> could attempt to use a polearm and a sword at the time (but I'm not
> sure). They also assumed that one blocked with the large weapon and
> struck with the smaller, which isn't necessarily true when dealing
> with some styles. Fun stuff.
>
Okay, like anyone could use a polearm and a sword together (that's
probably why I impaled myself - see below...:) ) - except for a troll -
maybe. They really should have a 'hands required' for melee weapons. If
you want my take on it, I'd probably say that anything with a reach of 1
or less, or a whip, can be used with one hand. A weapon with a reach
greater than 1 must be used with two hands. Trolls may also use reach 2
weapons with one hand.

Now, back on topic...as far as I'm aware, most styles that use a short
weapon/long weapon combination use the shorter weapon as the blocking
weapon, not the longer weapon. Think fencing, for example. Often a
fencer would use a rapier (or sabre) and a main gauche or a parrying
dagger. Now a main gauche was a specially designed blocking weapon and a
parrying dagger was a sword-breaker. Obviously, almost all attacks were
made with the longer weapon and the shorter weapon was saved for
defense. Makes sense, really - using a smaller weapon for defense
prevents your opponent from getting inside your guard and lets you
reacts to his attacks more quickly (because most people can manoeuvre a
smaller weapon faster than a larger one).

The way I see it, I think whoever made the rule assumed that both
weapons would be used equally (or nearly equally) for attack and defense
(that's why the damage is slightly less than for your better weapon and
the power is averaged). Wrongo. I've never heard of ANY style that does
that - except escrima or a style that uses paired sai or nunchaku or the
like. Swords, never. Just ain't done. Of course, there are gaps in my
knowledge, so I'd be very interested to hear of any sword-fighting style
that does work in that fashion. Another problem with that is the styles
that utilised both weapons equally for attack and defense are, as I
mentioned above, styles like escrima and the like - where both weapons
are of equal length. No one uses a sword and a dagger equally for attack
and defense - it's simply too hard. Much easier, safer and smarter to
attack with your sword and keep your opponent away with your dagger.

Ah well...as of now I don't have any replacement game rules in mind -
just roleplaying ideas. So if you can't think of your own, better use
the official ones - even if they do suck.

> > *Doc' accidentally impales himself while trying to practise his
> > 'katana-and-polearm-wielded-with-his-toes' special skill.*
>
> Oh, that looks like stings. You want a band-aid?
> John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros,
> shapeshifter-mage
>
Could you?

*Doc' accidentally impales himself with his tweezers while trying to
remove his sword.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:25:57 EST

Message no. 7 In a message dated 11/16/1998 10:37:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:

> > but whoever came up with the concept needs a SKttR.
>
> While I'm not familiar with the acronym (and am not really much in the
> frame of mind to figure it out)

Swift Kick to the Rear

> > *Doc' accidentally impales himself while trying to practise his
> > 'katana-and-polearm-wielded-with-his-toes' special skill.*
>
> Oh, that looks like stings. You want a band-aid?

Band Aid??? It's just a flesh-wound, and he's a Doctor Jim!!!! Let 'im fix
hiz self... ;P

-K (who thought that no one still practiced Big-Toe styles of martial arts
except for his grandfather (MHRIP) ;)

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:55:35 +0100

Message no. 8 According to Ed, at 19:52 on 16 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Thanks for all the help on the horses. Now I need some clarification on
> two handed melee combat. I saw the rules in FOF I think it was and it
> didnt help me much. I have someone wanting to use a katana and a smaller
> sword but I am not sure how that works.

The way the rules in FoF work is this: You must have two one-handed
weapons, one smaller than the other (your katana and smaller sword would
work), and have the skills that will allow you to use both of them. For
example, for a katana and short sword this would be Edged Weapons, while
for a club + knife it would be Clubs and Edged Weapons.
Also, you must take a special skill for just those two weapons ("Katana
and Wakizashi" skill, for example, or "Club and Knife").
Then you roll a test using the dice for both weapons' skills, and may add
Combat Pool equal to your special skill.

For example, if you want to fight with a katana and a wakizashi, and have
Edged Weapons 4 skill and Katana and Wakizashi skill at 3, you roll 8 dice
(4 for the katana and 4 for the wakizashi) to attack, plus up to 3 Combat
Pool dice.
OTOH if you were using a club and a knife, and had Clubs 4, Knives 6, and
Club and Knife skill 5, you roll 10 dice (4+6) and up to 5 Combat Pool.

> Any help would be umm..helpful.

You could be unpleasantly surprised... :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
He likes to sleep. Sometimes he has good dreams.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:03:05 -0700

Message no. 9 For the mere cost of a Thaum, Sean McCrohan wrote:
/
/ Almost. The FoF rules are:
/
/ * The weapons must either both be small (ie, knives), or one must
/ be smaller and lighter than the other. (I'm not sure this is realistic -
/ I THINK there was a fairly popular style (Florentine?) that involved the
/ use of two swords of equal length. Anyway, equal length batons should
/ definitely be allowed - Escrima's build around them).

I simplify it and rule that one of the weapons cannot have a Reach
greater than 1.

/ * The character must have a special skill in that specific
/ combination of weapons. They must also have skill with both weapons
/ involed - no defaulting allowed. Of course, they might both be covered
/ by the same skill (like, say, Edged Weapons).

And at this point I diverge from the rules.

The character decides which weapon is his primary weapon and uses the
appropriate skill (a character weilding a knife and a katana who is
attacking primarily with the katana uses his sword/katana skill).

Whichever weapon is being used to attacked with gets a +1 Reach
modifier.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:22:32 -0500

Message no. 10 > -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]On
> Behalf Of Ratinac, Rand (NSW)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 00:35
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Two handed melee combat
>
>
> > Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
> > > Okay, first things first. John, that's Daisho - at least, that's the
> > > only way I've ever seen it spelled. Daito may be a variant I guess,
> > but
> > > I've never seen that.
> >
> > I think I've only seen daito before, but I could be just mixing terms
> > (d'oh!). Never said I was a reference on the Japanese culture or
> > language:)
> >
> Eh...who is? Btw, if there is someone out there who does know Japanese
> well, can you check that? ARE daisho and daito the same thing? Oh, and
> another question to do with that - from what I've seen, dai (as in
> dai-katana or Daishi (yes, I am a fan of BattleTech)) means great - but
> in the form of daisho (referring to paired katana and wakizashi) I would
> guess dai means two. Is that correct? Is it another one of those one
> word/two meanings things (such as shi meaning death and shi meaning
> four)? So what DOES daisho translate as?
>
> <snip>

Literally, it translates as Large and Small: referring to the Large (Katana)
and Small (Wakazashi) swords carried by a samurai to denote his or her
membership in that social class. Unless he/she was also actually a Bushi
(warrior) they were somewhat unlikely to know how to use either of the
weapons, and the use of both at once was historically a very rare technique.

(Information from the Legend of the Five Rings RPG and CCG, as well as some
other background reading (including parts of Go Rin No Sho (A Book of Five
Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi))

Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Homepage : http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~jhurley1

From:	Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:32:37 +0200

Message no. 11 David B said

>/ * The character must have a special skill in that specific
>/ combination of weapons. They must also have skill with both weapons
>/ involed - no defaulting allowed. Of course, they might both be
covered
>/ by the same skill (like, say, Edged Weapons).
>
>And at this point I diverge from the rules.
>
>The character decides which weapon is his primary weapon and uses the
>appropriate skill (a character weilding a knife and a katana who is
>attacking primarily with the katana uses his sword/katana skill).
>
>Whichever weapon is being used to attacked with gets a +1 Reach
>modifier.

Where does this diverge from standard melee combat rules?

BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Yo soy un disco quebrado
Yo tengo chicle en cerebro
sm:)e

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:50:00 -0700

Message no. 12 For the mere cost of a Thaum, Bruce wrote:
/
/ David B said
/
/ >/ * The character must have a special skill in that specific
/ >/ combination of weapons. They must also have skill with both weapons
/ >/ involed - no defaulting allowed. Of course, they might both be
/ covered
/ >/ by the same skill (like, say, Edged Weapons).
/ >
/ >And at this point I diverge from the rules.
/ >
/ >The character decides which weapon is his primary weapon and uses the
/ >appropriate skill (a character weilding a knife and a katana who is
/ >attacking primarily with the katana uses his sword/katana skill).
/ >
/ >Whichever weapon is being used to attacked with gets a +1 Reach
/ >modifier.
/
/ Where does this diverge from standard melee combat rules?

Per the FoF rules the character gets to add his two skills together
(knife + katana) and the damage from the two weapons is averaged. IMHO
FoF's two melee weapons rules are crocked.

Per the standard rules I suppose one could rule that a character
weilding two weapons can only use one or the other. However, no where
in the rules does it imply that using an additional weapon adds to the
Reach of the other weapon. AFAIK that's my own spin (or I picked it up
from someone else :), unless they changed it in SR3 and I missed it.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

From:	Ed <equine@***********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:04:48 -0600

Message no. 13 Ok it seems most of you do not like the rules given in FOF. I myself was
confused about them but now understand what they are saying. Is there
anyone out there who does two handed melee combat differently? I am up for
some suggestions. If not I will just use what the FOF gives no matter how
stupid it seems.

Ed

- - - - - - - - - - - - Cut Here - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ed Mayhall "ZERO is my HERO!"
Dallas, Tx
The Hunger Page: http://www.the-hunger.com/index.html
Personal Page: http://www.terravirtua.com/ed/index.html
JADG Page: http://www.terravirtua.com/jadg/index.html
Message Boards: http://www.terravirtua.com/sqlboard/

From:	Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:18:16 +0000

Message no. 14 and thus did Ratinac, Rand (NSW) speak on 17 Nov 98 at 15:34:

> (such as shi meaning death and shi meaning four)? So what DOES
> daisho translate as?

According to my sources Great-Small.

BTW, Daito wasn't mentioned anywhere

.

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:12:02 +0000

Message no. 15 > Eh...who is? Btw, if there is someone out there who does know Japanese
> well, can you check that? ARE daisho and daito the same thing? Oh, and
> another question to do with that - from what I've seen, dai (as in
> dai-katana or Daishi (yes, I am a fan of BattleTech)) means great - but
> in the form of daisho (referring to paired katana and wakizashi) I would
> guess dai means two. Is that correct? Is it another one of those one
> word/two meanings things (such as shi meaning death and shi meaning
> four)? So what DOES daisho translate as?
IIRC, it translates to 'big and small' - one large sword, one
smaller.

> > The biggest problem with
> > the rules set up I think is that they assumed that you could only pull
> > off sword/knife combo's (as opposed to sword/short sword and short
> > sword/short sword pairings or even two long swords at once [like
> > paired katana])

A few examples of things that does not work that I'd like to have
tried. First off, a troll mage wielding a whip (taser whip) and a
sword. Or a sword - poisoned dagger combination (when did the dagger
hit?).

One quick rule I considered was to say using two weapons halves the
multiple attack penalty (from +2 to +1) and every other attack is
with the secondary weapon. It goes well with a house rule that allows
multiple attacks as followup attacks on the same opponent.

The rule is flawed, though - weak melee opponents can get easily and
soundly trashed by someone just a little competent, perhaps too
easily trashed. Against skilled opponents it's not so smart to use,
though.

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:15:30 +1000

Message no. 16 > and thus did Ratinac, Rand (NSW) speak on 17 Nov 98 at 15:34:
>
> > (such as shi meaning death and shi meaning four)? So what DOES
> > daisho translate as?
>
> According to my sources Great-Small.
>
That would certainly make sense.

> BTW, Daito wasn't mentioned anywhere
> Martin Steffens
>
Can we say oops, John? :)

*Rabid flips Genesis the birdie. "Listen to me, boy. I'm a physad. I
KNOW my swords." :) *

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:30:31 -0500

Message no. 17 (Sorry to CC this personally, I can't tell if I'm able to
post to the list, though I can lurk just fine...)

"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU> writes:
> > Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
> > > Okay, first things first. John, that's Daisho - at least, that's the
> > > only way I've ever seen it spelled. Daito may be a variant I guess,
> > but
> > > I've never seen that.
> >
> > I think I've only seen daito before, but I could be just mixing terms
> > (d'oh!). Never said I was a reference on the Japanese culture or
> > language:)
> >
> Eh...who is? Btw, if there is someone out there who does know Japanese
> well, can you check that? ARE daisho and daito the same thing?

I seem to recall that a daito is a large, straight, two-handed
sword. Unfortunately, I cannot back this up with anything more than a
vague memory, though my dictionary agrees that "dai" traslates to big
and "tou" can translate as sword.

> Is it another one of those one
> word/two meanings things (such as shi meaning death and shi meaning
> four)?

That's a bit inaccurate. It's like saying "to" means a pair
(two), but also means in addition (too). Sounds the same, written
differently, different words... a homonym? The two shi characters in
question are different words.

> So what DOES daisho translate as?

As someone else stated, "big and small" sounds correct to me.

> The way I see it, I think whoever made the rule assumed that both
> weapons would be used equally (or nearly equally) for attack and defense
> (that's why the damage is slightly less than for your better weapon and
> the power is averaged). Wrongo. I've never heard of ANY style that does
> that - except escrima or a style that uses paired sai or nunchaku or the
> like.

Armed combat isn't something I'm particularly familiar with,
but what about being out-reached or out-massed? If I've got a sword
and a knife, and someone swings a polearm with me, I'm not about to
parry with the knife.

Mark

From:	John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:39:22 -0500

Message no. 18 Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
> > BTW, Daito wasn't mentioned anywhere
> > Martin Steffens
> >
> Can we say oops, John? :)

Wouldn't be the first time, but I think I figured out that the term
'daito'=='daitou'=='Great/Large sword'
:) I think. Maybe. I probably caught in a catalog or out on the net
somewhere. *shrug*
But, anyway:
"Oops."
:)

> *Rabid flips Genesis the birdie. "Listen to me, boy. I'm a physad. I
> KNOW my swords." :) *

:P
Genesis grins. "So, your parents never taught you not to play with sharp
objects? I bet you ran with scissors, too."
;)

--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
"Oooooh! Big talk from Mr. Got-All-My-Limbs! 'Look at me! I've got arms
and legs! JERK!" --Sluggy Freelance
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
----------------------
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" No. 2 -- with a
bullet!
Sergeant-at-Arms and Greatest Swordsman of the Frinch Army

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:55:01 +1000

Message no. 19 <Snipples(TM)>
> > The way I see it, I think whoever made the rule assumed that both
> > weapons would be used equally (or nearly equally) for attack and
> defense
> > (that's why the damage is slightly less than for your better weapon
> and
> > the power is averaged). Wrongo. I've never heard of ANY style that
> does
> > that - except escrima or a style that uses paired sai or nunchaku or
> the
> > like.
>
> Armed combat isn't something I'm particularly familiar with,
> but what about being out-reached or out-massed? If I've got a sword
> and a knife, and someone swings a polearm with me, I'm not about to
> parry with the knife.
> Mark
>
Different situation, Mark. Most sword styles (at least current ones and
"swashbuckling" fencing - and kenjutsu for that matter) assume that
you're going to be fighting someone with similar weaponry. Why? Because
when people actually studied fencing for use in combat and duels,
everyone carried a rapier (or a sabre or a smallsword), weapons that
were slightly different but usually used in similar fashion (smallswords
and (most) rapiers were purely thrusting weapons, sabres could be used
for slashing but weren't often, mainly because, as I understand it, if
you were using a sabre and you tried to slash a guy using a rapier, he'd
just run you through on your backswing). Because current styles
(competition fencing) only ever put you up against someone with an equal
weapon. Because all the samurai carried and used katanas, at least, if
they were facing another honourable foe. Styles that developed two
weapon techniques (except for martial arts such as escrima and the like)
never (or very rarely) had to deal with someone using a weapon huge
enough to cause that kind of problem. A wakizashi can easily parry a
katana (if you know what you're doing). Same goes for a main-gauche and
a sabre or rapier.

Now if you're thinking about using a two-weapon style in Shadowrun and
going up against someone armed with a polearm, the rules don't deal with
the situation in a realistic fashion. In reality, though, you don't
parry. You dodge the swing (which, unless he's a troll, is going to be
very cumbersome and awkward) and you get inside his guard. Or, if he's
using a spear-type weapon instead of a halberd-type weapon (which means
he's trying to impale you rather than hack you into little-bitty
pieces), you don't attack him or parry the weapon - you ATTACK the
weapon - or again, you try to get past his guard. Realistically, you'd
never get into a polearm / sword fight, unless you're facing a pack of
polearm-wielders. Either he slaughters you before you get close, or you
get inside his guard and force him to drop his polearm and pull his own
sword. A group of polearms can keep you back, on the other hand.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that your example is the exception
rather than the rule. If you fight a barehanded opponent or someone with
similar weaponry, you use the long weapon to attack (because it has a
better reach) and the short weapon to parry (because it can react to
attacks faster). If you're fighting someone with bigger, nastier, longer
weaponry - you adapt. Parrying a polearm or combat axe with a knife
isn't smart - but it isn't much smarter to parry with a sword.

Let me put it this way - if you parry a sword with a knife or a sword,
you're doing okay. If you parry an axe with a knife or a sword, you're
just going to get your weapon broken - or your arm hacked off. No
'thrust, parry, riposte' with axes or polearms. No offense, but those
are not subtle weapons.

*Doc' disarms his axe-wielding troll opponent with his magical tweezers
and then forces him into submission by yanking on his nostril hairs.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:56:35 +1000

Message no. 20 > Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
> > > BTW, Daito wasn't mentioned anywhere
> > > Martin Steffens
> > >
> > Can we say oops, John? :)
>
> Wouldn't be the first time, but I think I figured out that the term
> 'daito'=='daitou'=='Great/Large sword'
> :) I think. Maybe. I probably caught in a catalog or out on the net
> somewhere. *shrug*
> But, anyway:
> "Oops."
> :)
>
> > *Rabid flips Genesis the birdie. "Listen to me, boy. I'm a physad. I
> > KNOW my swords." :) *
>
> :P
> Genesis grins. "So, your parents never taught you not to play with
> sharp
> objects? I bet you ran with scissors, too."
> ;)
> John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros,
> shapeshifter-mage
>
*Rabid displays his numerous scars. "What, you think I got these from
FIGHTING someone? Nope - every single one from falling over while
running with scissors.*

Doc'

.silly Sauer

From:	Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:23:20 +0000

Message no. 21 and thus did Ratinac, Rand (NSW) speak on 18 Nov 98 at 9:15:

> > BTW, Daito wasn't mentioned anywhere
> > Martin Steffens
> >
> Can we say oops, John? :)
>
> *Rabid flips Genesis the birdie. "Listen to me, boy. I'm a physad. I
> KNOW my swords." :) *

Hey dude, I didn't say it didn't exist, I just never heard of it and
neither had the books I checked. I fully expected someone to pop up
who knew it was a sword of sorts.. :)

Now be nice and say you're sorry :P

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:39:41 +1000

Message no. 22 > and thus did Ratinac, Rand (NSW) speak on 18 Nov 98 at 9:15:
>
> > > BTW, Daito wasn't mentioned anywhere
> > > Martin Steffens
> > >
> > Can we say oops, John? :)
> >
> > *Rabid flips Genesis the birdie. "Listen to me, boy. I'm a physad. I
> > KNOW my swords." :) *
>
> Hey dude, I didn't say it didn't exist, I just never heard of it and
> neither had the books I checked. I fully expected someone to pop up
> who knew it was a sword of sorts.. :)
>
> Now be nice and say you're sorry :P
> Martin Steffens
> chimerae@***.ie
>
But I'm NOT sorry. :)

Don't worry, Martin. I'm not normally so abrasive - this was just a bit
of an IC thing carrying over from a PBeM. Y'see, I'm nice - but RABID is
abrasive at times. :)

And anyway, check out John's response...the smartass. :)

*Doc' delivers a SKutR to little Johnny Pederson.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:34:52 -0500

Message no. 23 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 09:55 AM 11/18/98 +1000, Doc' wrote:
>A wakizashi can easily parry a
>katana (if you know what you're doing).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying a _bad_ thing if you're
wielding a Japanese blade? Something about the nicks and dents from
parrying ruining that "legendary razor edge".

(Not speaking from any practical experience here, just have a vague
recolection of hearing the above piece of info over and over and over
again whenever people start discussing katanas in RPGs.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNlIyRaPbvUVI86rNAQFGKgQAil9YRB8DsLb580HGPYqsMpIAcDRFhZhX
XeLRlEuK/EdG+d4jz7E76TioRSIf4iYHWfo3ZrHoI2sJEBzkbjignDCSVNbpdCGF
V/OEvUaVQHdgScFIaKs5f45J6kXAX/HBrPL96FsmHQUkwGIeQebRgyACy99YcANd
2gV9LsiOi9Y=
=PdKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:44:32 -0500

Message no. 24 > -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]On
> Behalf Of Paul Gettle
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 21:35
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Two handed melee combat

> At 09:55 AM 11/18/98 +1000, Doc' wrote:
> >A wakizashi can easily parry a
> >katana (if you know what you're doing).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying a _bad_ thing if you're
> wielding a Japanese blade? Something about the nicks and dents from
> parrying ruining that "legendary razor edge".
>
> (Not speaking from any practical experience here, just have a vague
> recolection of hearing the above piece of info over and over and over
> again whenever people start discussing katanas in RPGs.)

http://www.thehaca.com/ has a good bit on swords and stuff in their essays
section, including an essay on parrying, the myth of the katana, and the
rest.

Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Homepage : http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~jhurley1

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:14:06 -0600

Message no. 25 On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:34:52 -0500 Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>At 09:55 AM 11/18/98 +1000, Doc' wrote:
>>A wakizashi can easily parry a
>>katana (if you know what you're doing).

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying a _bad_ thing if you're
>wielding a Japanese blade? Something about the nicks and dents from
>parrying ruining that "legendary razor edge".
>
>(Not speaking from any practical experience here, just have a vague
>recolection of hearing the above piece of info over and over and over
>again whenever people start discussing katanas in RPGs.)

Well, I know in Kendo (Kenjitsu is the Martial Art, Kendo is the Sport),
you are taught not to parry all that much; mainly you are supposed to
avoid. I don't know if the same is true for Kenjitsu.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:55:55 +1000

Message no. 26 Paul Gettle writes:
> At 09:55 AM 11/18/98 +1000, Doc' wrote:
> >A wakizashi can easily parry a
> >katana (if you know what you're doing).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying a _bad_ thing if you're
> wielding a Japanese blade? Something about the nicks and dents from
> parrying ruining that "legendary razor edge".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you parry with the sharp edge. I
think about all that would achieve would be one or the other blade being cut
in half.

I always believed you parried with the flat of the blade, if you could.
Certainly, if you consistently parried with the edge, you'd get nicks, but
that's why you sharpen the things.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:37:17 -0600

Message no. 27 On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:55:55 +1000 Robert Watkins
<robert.watkins@******.COM> writes:
>Paul Gettle writes:
>> At 09:55 AM 11/18/98 +1000, Doc' wrote:
>> >A wakizashi can easily parry a
>> >katana (if you know what you're doing).

>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying a _bad_ thing if you're
>> wielding a Japanese blade? Something about the nicks and dents from
>> parrying ruining that "legendary razor edge".

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you parry with the sharp
edge. I
>think about all that would achieve would be one or the other blade being
cut
>in half.
>
>I always believed you parried with the flat of the blade, if you could.
>Certainly, if you consistently parried with the edge, you'd get nicks,
but
>that's why you sharpen the things.

As long as we have a theme going:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying with the flat of the blade a
_bad_ thing since that is generally weaker than the edge. IOW, if you
parry with the flat of the blade, the attacking weapon has to go through
a lot less sword than if you parry with the edge. AFAIK, you parry with
the edge but angled and with a deflecting motion so it is a straight-on
strike.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:13:09 -0500

Message no. 28 Quoting Robert Watkins (robert.watkins@******.COM):
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you parry with the sharp edge. I
> think about all that would achieve would be one or the other blade being cut
> in half.

I don't think the sword has been forged that could actually cut THROUGH
the blade of another sword in combat. Remember that even if (IF!) the blade
was designed to cut through metal in that way, you would be striking it against
a poorly-braced target. There's a big difference between cutting something
that's afixed to a solid object and one that's being waved around in the air.

> I always believed you parried with the flat of the blade, if you could.
> Certainly, if you consistently parried with the edge, you'd get nicks, but
> that's why you sharpen the things.

Generally, (in my understanding...most of my limited weapons training
is with baton, and lacking edges, it just doesn't matter where you parry
with those) you parry WITH the flat, AGAINST the flat. There's a big difference
between a parry and a block. A block tries to stop the attack cold by putting
something (a shield, for instance) in front of it, force against force. A
parry is usually an attempt to REDIRECT the attack, usually pushing it
perpendicular to the direction of the attack (at the start, maybe leading into
a circular path). At least as I've been taught, a parry is accompanied by
moving your fool self out of the way of the attack precisely enough for it to
just barely miss (but no more, ideally) - you don't want to rely on a dodge
alone, or a parry alone, but together, they're good. And you don't want to
dodge too FAR, because it'll take too long (giving them time for a second
attack) and leave you off-balance. That applies to unarmed combat as much as
it does armed combat.
On the other hand...remember that blades are designed to resist
force against the edge or against the point (or both), not against the flat.
If you BLOCK with the flat of the blade (as opposed to parry), the blade
could be bent. This is when it's important to have a blade with some
flexibility in it...you need something that'll accept a little bending and
still return to true. (As a side note, they're also not always designed to
resist force PULLING on the blade parallel to the blade itself, as opposed
to pushing on it as a thrust would. So, if you thrust deeply and the blade
gets stuck, best be careful pulling it out again. It'd suck to pull the hilt
off of the blade :) )
Anyway, this is another reason why it's NOT always best to have the
sharpest sword around. Or other weapons, for that matter...when plate armor
became popular, the typical war axe was FAR to dull to ever chop wood with.
It was basically a crushing weapon with a heavy, narrow head. Against hard
armor (high Impact, in SR terms) crushing and puncturing work much better
than cutting. It's easier to pierce in a VERY small area or deform in a
somewhat larger one than it is to cut THROUGH the armor along a long edge.
That's why, even with those great katanas, the primary weapons of WAR in
Japan were spears (yari and naginata) and bows. It's certainly POSSIBLE to
kill someone in armor using a sharp sword, it's just not the most effective
way to do it. Ineffective things are reserved for duels and other one-on-one
combat, rather than field battles where somebody else might come along
and kill you while you're trying to get in a good blow :)
(And, of course, against an UNARMORED or LIGHTLY ARMORED opponent,
edges beat out crushing weapons, at least in my opinion. That's when the
cutting edge really comes into play.)

But then, what do I know? I read a fair bit about this stuff, but I've
never actually gone out and whacked on someone wearing armor. Er, outside of
a few practices with the SCA and, no offense, that doesn't count. SO, take
it all with a grain of salt.
Wow. I can be as long winded and off-topic as Adam, when someone
gets me going.... :)

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:12:06 -0800

Message no. 29 > I don't think the sword has been forged that could actually cut
>THROUGH
>the blade of another sword in combat. Remember that even if (IF!) the blade
>was designed to cut through metal in that way, you would be striking it
>against
>a poorly-braced target. There's a big difference between cutting something
>that's afixed to a solid object and one that's being waved around in the air.

Barring obvious examples such as iron weapons vs. bronze weapons, this did
often happen. Medieval metallurgy was more art than science. Blacksmiths
did the equivalent of hot forging weapons, but there was plenty of ocassion
to create defects in the weapon. That was why the smith did matter; in
Japan, there were certain families prized for their skill in creating
swords (such as Muramasa). And a smith that knew his business could create
a better tempered blade than an average smith.

Just read medieval literature and you will find battle descriptions wherein
the blade often breaks ...

> Generally, (in my understanding...most of my limited weapons training
>is with baton, and lacking edges, it just doesn't matter where you parry
>with those) you parry WITH the flat, AGAINST the flat. There's a big
>difference

In Kendo you parry with the flat against the edge, in such a way as to use
the momentum imparted by their strike to add to your counterstrike. Body
movement is integral to kendo, so that all such parries come with the
appropriate footwork.

>attack) and leave you off-balance. That applies to unarmed combat as much as
>it does armed combat.

I use hard style blocks if I want to damage the limb they are striking me
with, or if want to counterstrike. Otherwise, I tend to use soft blocks to
channel the blow into an appropriate throw or counter. Then again Hapkido
is inherently circular in nature, Taekwondo less so.

> On the other hand...remember that blades are designed to resist
>force against the edge or against the point (or both), not against the flat.
>If you BLOCK with the flat of the blade (as opposed to parry), the blade
>could be bent. This is when it's important to have a blade with some
>flexibility in it...you need something that'll accept a little bending and
>still return to true. (As a side note, they're also not always designed to
>resist force PULLING on the blade parallel to the blade itself, as opposed

As long as the elastic limit is not exceeded, the blade will return to
true. Good weapons have springiness, as you note.

Forging a sword via either hot or cold process generally aligns the grains
of the metals with the shape of the weapon, which improves structural
properties. In particular, wrought alloys have better tensile strength than
cast alloys (thus, there wouldn't be a difference in the Young's modulus
between axial compression and tension). Tempering the blade by quenching
produces martensite structures (a supersaturated solution of carbon and
iron) in the metal, which are extremely hard and strong but more brittle.
If the blade is tempered, i.e. reheated to a lower temperature, heat
soaked, then allowed to cool slowly then some of this martensite is
converted to ferrite and cementite which reduces the strength but restores
ductility. The proper combination of tempering and quenching (and the times
involved) will change the stress-strain curve of the metal, giving
different properties of strength and ductility.

> Wow. I can be as long winded and off-topic as Adam, when someone
>gets me going.... :)

Well, I guess that's because any discussion that involves the real world I
tend to see Physics as being applicable. I'm very quiet on the Linux list.

> --Sean

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:39:02 -0500

Message no. 30 Quoting Adam Getchell (acgetchell@*******.EDU):
> Barring obvious examples such as iron weapons vs. bronze weapons, this did
> often happen. Medieval metallurgy was more art than science. Blacksmiths
> did the equivalent of hot forging weapons, but there was plenty of ocassion
> to create defects in the weapon. That was why the smith did matter; in
> Japan, there were certain families prized for their skill in creating
> swords (such as Muramasa). And a smith that knew his business could create
> a better tempered blade than an average smith.
>
> Just read medieval literature and you will find battle descriptions wherein
> the blade often breaks ...

You'll also find descriptions of people cutting through millstones
(Norse), throwing several spears in succession and leaping from one to the
next in midair to get to the enemy (Celtic), and defeating much larger
forces with 1000-1 casualty ratios (Agincourt). I think we can safely
dismiss many of these as exagerations, though as with Agincourt, there's
truth at the root (Sure, the English won, but all battle reports are
propaganda. If you think they really won as decisively as, say, Shakespeare
would have us believe, I've got this great bridge....)
Anyway. Back to the points. Having a blade break (that is, shatter
or snap) is different from having it SEVERED (that is, chopped into two
separate pieces). The first is easy, especially if you strike it against
something hard and unyielding (the edge of a metal-rimmed shield, somebody's
heavy helmet, a rock, a tree...I pick these examples because they're reasonably
stationary, compared to something held at the end of an extended arm), and
especially if the blade is defective or very rigid (and thus prone to snap
rather than bend). The second (which is what I was responding to) is a LOT
less likely. You'd need to be using a very sharp, very hard, very heavy
weapon against a much softer one braced in a fairly stable position (or with
a lot of inertia behind it).

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	Mike Elkins <Mike_Elkins@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:31:48 -0500

Message no. 31 >Just read medieval literature and you will find battle descriptions
wherein
>the blade often breaks ...

Yes, but that is due to the blade shattering, not being cut through. The
rest of your post I agree with completely.

Double-Domed Mike

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:35:44 -0800

Message no. 32 > Anyway. Back to the points. Having a blade break (that is, shatter
>or snap) is different from having it SEVERED (that is, chopped into two
>separate pieces). The first is easy, especially if you strike it against
>something hard and unyielding (the edge of a metal-rimmed shield, somebody's
>heavy helmet, a rock, a tree...I pick these examples because they're
>reasonably
>stationary, compared to something held at the end of an extended arm), and
>especially if the blade is defective or very rigid (and thus prone to snap
>rather than bend). The second (which is what I was responding to) is a LOT
>less likely. You'd need to be using a very sharp, very hard, very heavy
>weapon against a much softer one braced in a fairly stable position (or with
>a lot of inertia behind it).

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of what I was saying, which was:

Medieval metallurgy allowed for the possibility of incorrectly tempered
blades and/or weaker structural materials, which have correspondingly lower
strengths and can be broken more easily. The range of variation between
metallurgical techniques is such that weapons such as "Damascus steel"
would routinely be able to have higher strengths than blades forged
elsewhere.

Perhaps your distinction between severing a blade or breaking it makes
sense to you, but there really is no engineering distinction. Materials
break or fail due to shear stress. Shear stress can be caused through axial
tension or compression, torque, bending, and flexure.

Regardless of whether a sword is brought down onto the edge of a metal
rimmed shield or dynamically collides with another weapon during battle,
what matters is the amount of internal stresses generated by flexure. It
does not require a hard, unyielding surface to generate large internal
shear stresses. Your criterion for braced or unyielding surfaces with lots
of inertia is incorrect. The necessary forces can be generated dynamically,
in battle, by clashing blades, twisting the sword and falling, etc.

Pedantically: anytime you have tension, compression, torsion, bending
moment, flexure, or cumulative cyclic stress exceed the strength of
material (use whatever failure theory you want to predict this) you will
have failure.
Dynamic forces can and often do exceed static forces.

> --Sean
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:34:47 +1000

Message no. 33 > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying a _bad_ thing if you're
> >> wielding a Japanese blade? Something about the nicks and dents from
> >> parrying ruining that "legendary razor edge".
>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you parry with the sharp
> edge. I
> >think about all that would achieve would be one or the other blade
> being
> cut
> >in half.
> >
> >I always believed you parried with the flat of the blade, if you
> could.
> >Certainly, if you consistently parried with the edge, you'd get
> nicks,
> but
> >that's why you sharpen the things.
>
> As long as we have a theme going:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't parrying with the flat of the blade
> a bad_ thing since that is generally weaker than the edge. IOW, if
> you parry with the flat of the blade, the attacking weapon has to go
> through a lot less sword than if you parry with the edge. AFAIK, you
> parry with the edge but angled and with a deflecting motion so it is a
> straight-on strike.
> D. Ghost
>
I'd have to agree with the Ghostman here, guys. What Robert and Paul
were talking about is a BLOCK. What D. Ghost is talking about is a parry
- which is what I was talking about.

Parries (AFAIK) really came to be in the 'swashbuckling' era. Basically,
you aren't meeting an attack force-for-force. It's like an internal
martial art technique. You shunt the blow aside, deflecting it, not
stopping it - and if you're good enough, you can, as in a martial art
like Aikijutsu, use the attacker's force against him (for example, he
throws a huge shot at you, you partially dodge, partially deflect the
blow, and he's going to be BADLY off-balance - something you can take
advantage of). What Paul and Robert were thinking of is the cinematic
(or Middle Ages) school of 'parry' - which, as I mentioned before,
involves blocking the blow and stopping it dead.

Yes, it's a bad idea to block a blow with a wakizashi or a katana or,
for that matter, any sword-type weapon - often, the sword won't have
enough mass behind it to completely stop the blow, and even if it does,
you're going to damage your blade. On the other hand, a parry tends to
have little or no ill-effects to your weapon - IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. A
good parry with a wakizashi or any weapon that possesses an edge and a
flat involves meeting the other person's weapon flat to flat (so you
don't have to worry about his edge damaging your edge) and shunting it
aside, forcefully if necessary, delicately if possible.

That brings me back to the point I was talking about yesterday. Yes,
it's a bad idea to parry or block a polearm with a knife, unless you're
VERY good. But it's also a bad idea to block it with a sword too. A
parry is a better tactic, but still isn't good. The best tactic against
someone with a polearm or a big, heavy axe is a dodge - or, if you can't
dodge, you parry, using either the flat to flat technique (so the force
of his attack isn't directed against your weapon, which would tend to
break it), or you parry the haft of his weapon (which doesn't HAVE an
edge). Then you move inside his guard and force him to drop the weapon.

Hmmm...that's another place where Shadowrun melee combat falls down. I
think, at the very least, there should be certain options you can use,
rather than just attack, counterattack and full defense. Like, if I'm
fighting a troll with a polearm (reach 3!!!), I'm not going to meet him
strength for strength. I'm going to try to get inside his guard. You
should have an option to do that - maybe instead of an attack, an
opposed <melee skill> test, modified as per weapon reach (it's generally
harder to slip past the guard of a guy wielding a polearm when you've
only got a sword or a knife). If you succeed, your net successes turn
his weapon reach advantage (not his natural reach) into a penalty on a
one for one basic. So if he's a troll (reach 1) with a polearm (reach 2)
and you get one net success of your Slip Manoeuvre (boxing term for
moving inside someone's guard, I believe), one point of his weapon reach
turns into a penalty - so his polearm effectively becomes reach 0
because the bonus reach point is negated by the penalty reach point. If
you get two net successes, the troll has a net penalty of -1. He still
has his natural reach of 1, but both of the reach points of his weapon
are penalties. If you get three or more, he still only has a net penalty
of one, because you can't negate his natural reach bonus (think about
that - if you get close enough to slip past his arms, he's still got
ELBOWS! He can still grab you with his bare hands if he likes). These
penalties are offset if he draws a smaller weapon. On the other hand, if
you're using a sword (reach 1) and he's using a sword (reach 1) (or any
other weapons of equal reach) and you use this manoeuvre and you manage
to turn his weapon reach bonus into a penalty, you suffer the same
penalty. That's a good time to pull your knife out and stab him in the
guts.

Anyway, that should all explain why you don't BLOCK with an edged
weapon. And let me know what you think of the new manoeuvres for melee
combat idea - in particular the one I just aired above.

*Doc' suffers a mental breakdown trying to be smartassed about his own
brilliance...heh heh heh...*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:55:37 +1000

Message no. 34 > > I don't think the sword has been forged that could actually
> cut
> >THROUGH
> >the blade of another sword in combat. Remember that even if (IF!) the
> blade
> >was designed to cut through metal in that way, you would be striking
> it
> >against
> >a poorly-braced target. There's a big difference between cutting
> something
> >that's afixed to a solid object and one that's being waved around in
> the air.
>
<Adam Getchell>
> Barring obvious examples such as iron weapons vs. bronze weapons, this
> did often happen. Medieval metallurgy was more art than science.
> Blacksmiths did the equivalent of hot forging weapons, but there was
> plenty of ocassion to create defects in the weapon. That was why the
> smith did matter; in Japan, there were certain families prized for
> their skill in creating swords (such as Muramasa). And a smith that
> knew his business could create a better tempered blade than an average
> smith.
>
> Just read medieval literature and you will find battle descriptions
> wherein the blade often breaks ...
>
Errr, Adam...Sean was talking about literally cutting through a sword
(which someone else brought up), not breaking it. There's a big
difference between slicing through metal and snapping it. As far as
breakages go, you're sure as hell right, though.

> > Generally, (in my understanding...most of my limited weapons
> training
> >is with baton, and lacking edges, it just doesn't matter where you
> parry
> >with those) you parry WITH the flat, AGAINST the flat. There's a big
> >difference
>
<Adam 'gain>
> In Kendo you parry with the flat against the edge, in such a way as to
> use
> the momentum imparted by their strike to add to your counterstrike.
> Body
> movement is integral to kendo, so that all such parries come with the
> appropriate footwork.
>
Problem with this, Adam, is that Kendo is a sword art, not exactly a
combat skill. And as far as I'm aware, in Kendo you don't use metal
swords that have a problem with damaging edges (the standard weapons are
bamboo, are they not? Or possibly wooden bokken?). And I doubt that
you're stopping the attack dead - otherwise you wouldn't have any
momentum to make a counterstrike, would you? So you're not taking the
full force of the attack against your weapon in a way that would damage
it (well, not enough to make a difference in a short fight). Sounds more
like you're deflecting their weapon and at the same time 'bouncing' your
own sword off to make a harder counterattack. I mean, that's the big
issue that Sean and I were addressing - stopping a weapon dead
(blocking) as opposed to deflecting it (parrying).

<Big SNIPed(TM) the rest>

*Doc' parries the troll's axe with his head in order to impart more
force to his headbutt counterstrike, but, oddly enough, loses the fight
at that particular instant.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:06:02 -0500

Message no. 35 Quoting Adam Getchell (acgetchell@*******.EDU):
> Perhaps your distinction between severing a blade or breaking it makes
> sense to you, but there really is no engineering distinction. Materials
> break or fail due to shear stress. Shear stress can be caused through axial
> tension or compression, torque, bending, and flexure.

Two things:

First: I disagree. The difference between cutting something in half
and shattering or breaking it is considerable. Though both are examples of
material failure, they result from different applications of force. A
sudden, hard impact might shatter something with a crystaline structure;
cutting through something implies it was in one piece until the cutting
instrument exited the other side - a constant application of force over
some (possibly short) time period. It "makes sense to me" because it
just plain makes sense :) In better engineering terms: Different materials,
such as different tempers of steel, resist the different types of force
you listed (tension, compression, torque, etc) to different degrees, making
the nature of the force applied non-trivial to the entire consideration. The
end results may be the same, but the process is different.

Second: I don't know you, Adam, so I hope you won't take this
personally - I'm not trying to insult you, because I don't insult people
I don't know anything about. There's no point to it :) But...the vocabulary
you use in these discussions is fairly technical. It suggests that you have
a good command of the concepts involved. In fact, you sometimes seem to throw
in a couple extra bits of jargon just for the hell of it. However, you're
speaking to an audience that, while intelligent, is largely NOT trained in
the disciplines whose language you're using. There's a great deal of skill
involved in communicating complex technical ideas in lay language, and if
you're interested in talking about these things to interested, intelligent
NON-EXPERTS, you might want to take the time to take a few technical
communication classes. You have to speak to your audience.
Or more bluntly: Given low motivation to decipher jargon we're only
partially familiar with, some people will assume you're right. Others will
decide they don't know if you're right, don't care enough to figure it out,
and skip to the next message. More of this list falls in the second category
than the first. I'm personally interested in the things you have to say
(chances are, you DO know what you're talking about), but not enough so to
try to remember all of my material science and dynamics to figure out what
you said. If you're going to be pedantic (and we all are, on occasion), be
informative, don't just dazzle us with jargon.

<<We now return you to your regularly scheduled ShadowRN thread-
digression, already in progress>>

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:10:15 +1300

Message no. 36 > I mean, that's the bigissue that Sean and I were addressing - stopping a
>>weapon dead(blocking) as opposed to deflecting it (parrying).
>

I was under the impression that all parrying was in fact deflecting. Even
if using a shield it is a bad idea to just block a blow (good way to get a
split shield) rather you angled (or set) the shield in such away that the
angle deflected the blow. Which after all is the point of all parrying.

Justin

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:22:37 +1000

Message no. 37 > > I mean, that's the bigissue that Sean and I were addressing -
> stopping a
> >>weapon dead(blocking) as opposed to deflecting it (parrying).
>
> I was under the impression that all parrying was in fact deflecting.
> Even if using a shield it is a bad idea to just block a blow (good way
> to get a split shield) rather you angled (or set) the shield in such
> away that the angle deflected the blow. Which after all is the point
> of all parrying.
> Justin
>
Yes - but that's not what Robert and Paul (out of ignorance or just poor
wording?) were suggesting. That's all.

Plus, I like getting wordy about swords. :)

*Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment into
its...hilt?*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:42:54 +1300

Message no. 38 >
>*Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment into
>its...hilt?*
>

*... and then gets to practice his finger re-attachment skills.*

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:43:31 +1000

Message no. 39 > >*Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment into
> >its...hilt?*
> >
>
>
> *... and then gets to practice his finger re-attachment skills.*
>
Hey, you think that's bad, try having SEX with the damned thing!
Errr...on seconds thoughts...

8-)

*Doc' runs away before GridSec can find him.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:47:54 +1000

Message no. 40 Doc Rand writes:
> > I was under the impression that all parrying was in fact deflecting.
> > Even if using a shield it is a bad idea to just block a blow (good way
> > to get a split shield) rather you angled (or set) the shield in such
> > away that the angle deflected the blow. Which after all is the point
> > of all parrying.
> > Justin
> >
> Yes - but that's not what Robert and Paul (out of ignorance or just poor
> wording?) were suggesting. That's all.

Ahem.

I never suggested that a parry was a block (though a block is a type of
parry).

All I said was that if you parry with the EDGE of your sword, against the
edge of the other sword, you have a serious risk of the edges cutting each
other. I never said you'll cut through it, but that's how nicks and so on
are formed. Get enough nicks on the blade, and you WILL have it severed on a
bad deflection.

As I said, I was under the impression that all parrys were done on the flat
if possible, simply because if you use the edge, you get nicks. I also said
that nicks were common (implying that you don't always parry on the edge,
because you can't), and that was why you sharpen the things.

> Plus, I like getting wordy about swords. :)

I noticed... oh, and I'll correct some of your terminology. :)

A block is when you stop the opponents blow, or cause it to bounce, etc. The
classic one is when you've got an overhand blow coming in and you put out
your blade horizontally to stop it (mind you, I'd rather dodge and stab,
seeing as how they've left themselves right open)

A parry is when you try to deflect the blow. This is a lot easier than
blocking it, for lots of reasons. A parry is a move of it's own, and
hopefully you put the other person off balance.

There's another term for when you parry the blow, deflecting your opponent's
blade, leaving them open, and counterattacking as part of the same movement.
I forget what it is though, but it's not a simple parry. A parry is purely
defensive.

> *Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment into
> its...hilt?*

Could be worse...

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:59:28 +1000

Message no. 41 > Doc Rand writes:
> > Yes - but that's not what Robert and Paul (out of ignorance or just
> poor
> > wording?) were suggesting. That's all.
>
> Ahem.
>
> I never suggested that a parry was a block (though a block is a type
> of parry).
>
> All I said was that if you parry with the EDGE of your sword, against
> the edge of the other sword, you have a serious risk of the edges
> cutting each other. I never said you'll cut through it, but that's how
> nicks and so on are formed. Get enough nicks on the blade, and you
> WILL have it severed on a bad deflection.
>
That's why you DON'T parry with the edge. Anyway, I think we'd better
put that one down to poor communcation.

> As I said, I was under the impression that all parrys were done on the
> flat if possible, simply because if you use the edge, you get nicks. I
> also said that nicks were common (implying that you don't always parry
> on the edge, because you can't), and that was why you sharpen the
> things.
>
Sorry, missed that. And isn't the theory about multiple-folded swords
(katanas and wakizashis) that as one layer of metal is worn away, the
one beneath is exposed - and that one's even sharper than the original -
and so on and so forth? Anyone else know anything about that?

> > Plus, I like getting wordy about swords. :)
>
> I noticed... oh, and I'll correct some of your terminology. :)
>
> A block is when you stop the opponents blow, or cause it to bounce,
> etc. The classic one is when you've got an overhand blow coming in and
> you put out your blade horizontally to stop it (mind you, I'd rather
> dodge and stab, seeing as how they've left themselves right open)
>
Errr...okay, that's what I was saying, although I did miss the 'cause it
to bounce' bit. And what I was also saying is that if the guy's doing
that overhead shot with an axe or other large weapon, you're stupid to
try to block it with a sword or knife. Would you agree with that?

> A parry is when you try to deflect the blow. This is a lot easier than
> blocking it, for lots of reasons. A parry is a move of it's own, and
> hopefully you put the other person off balance.
>
Yes - but usually a parry involves a partial dodge, as I said - mostly
because if you're being delicate enough to just deflect the blow, you
often won't deflect it enough for it to miss entirely unless YOU move as
well.

> There's another term for when you parry the blow, deflecting your
> opponent's blade, leaving them open, and counterattacking as part of
> the same movement. I forget what it is though, but it's not a simple
> parry. A parry is purely defensive.
>
That's a riposte. And I didn't bring that up - Adam did when speaking of
Kendo. Another miscommunication there, I guess. I never intended to
imply that the actual counterattack is part of the parry.

> > *Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment into
> > its...hilt?*
>
> Could be worse...
> robert.watkins@******.com
>
See my reply to Justin with regards to that. :)

*Doc' takes his katana out for dinner and a movie.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:08:38 +1000

Message no. 42 Doc' Rand writes:
> Sorry, missed that. And isn't the theory about multiple-folded swords
> (katanas and wakizashis) that as one layer of metal is worn away, the
> one beneath is exposed - and that one's even sharper than the original -
> and so on and so forth? Anyone else know anything about that?

Yep, that's the theory. But in practise, if you have a nick, you've still
got to smooth it out with a whetstone. The difference is that, with a folded
blade sword (there are others beside the Japanese ones), you use the
whetstone to remove a layer around the nick, and smooth the metal down, and
put an edge on it (the fold underneath will be shaped correctly, but won't
be sharp).

With a non-folded blade, you smooth it down, and put an edge on it. The
layering of the folded blade makes this a damn sight easier. But the
advantage of the folded blade is in it's strength, not ease of maintainence.
:)

>> > *Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment into
>> > its...hilt?*
>>
>> Could be worse...
>> robert.watkins@******.com
>>
>See my reply to Justin with regards to that. :)

>*Doc' takes his katana out for dinner and a movie.*

Bah. Justin did a quick one-liner. I wrote a whole post. :)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:19:16 +1000

Message no. 43 > Doc' Rand writes:
> > Sorry, missed that. And isn't the theory about multiple-folded
> swords
> > (katanas and wakizashis) that as one layer of metal is worn away,
> the
> > one beneath is exposed - and that one's even sharper than the
> original -
> > and so on and so forth? Anyone else know anything about that?
>
> Yep, that's the theory. But in practise, if you have a nick, you've
> still got to smooth it out with a whetstone. The difference is that,
> with a folded blade sword (there are others beside the Japanese ones),
> you use the whetstone to remove a layer around the nick, and smooth
> the metal down, and put an edge on it (the fold underneath will be
> shaped correctly, but won't be sharp).
>
> With a non-folded blade, you smooth it down, and put an edge on it.
> The layering of the folded blade makes this a damn sight easier. But
> the advantage of the folded blade is in it's strength, not ease of
> maintainence. :)
>
Well, I know some swords, but I don't know them all - and I've never had
cause to sharpen my own katana - and as it's just a replica anyway, I
suspect it doesn't possess a folded blade. What other swords are
constructed in the same manner? I would assume the better Korean swords
and maybe Chinese ones, but that's just a guess.

> >> > *Doc' fondles his katana while whispering words of endearment
> into
> >> > its...hilt?*
> >>
> >> Could be worse...
> >> robert.watkins@******.com
> >>
> >See my reply to Justin with regards to that. :)
>
> >*Doc' takes his katana out for dinner and a movie.*
>
> Bah. Justin did a quick one-liner. I wrote a whole post. :)
> robert.watkins@******.com
>
Yeah, but he got in first, so he got the best one - although this next
one is fairly good too. :)

*Doc' is rushed to hospital for emergency surgery after slow-dancing
with his katana.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:48:45 -0600

Message no. 44 On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:55:37 +1000 "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)"
<RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU> writes:
<SNIP>
><Adam 'gain>
>> In Kendo you parry with the flat against the edge, in such a way as to
use
>> the momentum imparted by their strike to add to your counterstrike.
Body
>> movement is integral to kendo, so that all such parries come with the
>> appropriate footwork.

Uhm, Adam. In the, albeit little, Kendo I was taught, the only parrying
was holding the Shinai (Bamboo Sword) verticly and moving it side-to-side
to deflect the attack. Perhaps this is only for the basic exercises?

>Problem with this, Adam, is that Kendo is a sword art, not exactly a
>combat skill.

Well, Kendo is the sport, and Kenjitsu is the "Martial Art". Judo is the
sport, and Jujitsu is the "Martial Art". Does that mean that if I only
know Judo, I'd be helpless in a fight?

>And as far as I'm aware, in Kendo you don't use metal
>swords that have a problem with damaging edges (the standard weapons are
>bamboo, are they not? Or possibly wooden bokken?).

In most cases, you use bamboo swords (shinais) for Kendo. Sometimes
advanced students use solid wooden swords (I thought they were called
bodkins). Also, sometimes for demonstartions/forms, advanced practioners
will use real swords.

>And I doubt that
>you're stopping the attack dead - otherwise you wouldn't have any
>momentum to make a counterstrike, would you? So you're not taking the
>full force of the attack against your weapon in a way that would damage
>it (well, not enough to make a difference in a short fight). Sounds more
>like you're deflecting their weapon and at the same time 'bouncing' your
>own sword off to make a harder counterattack. I mean, that's the big
>issue that Sean and I were addressing - stopping a weapon dead
>(blocking) as opposed to deflecting it (parrying).
<SNIP>

Yup.

Please note that my Kendo "knowledge" ;) comes from an hour of training
at a Cha-Yon Ryu reunion seminar last weekend. (I really enjoyed the
story about the female student who when practicing the basic exercise
would shout rather emphaticly, "MEN! MEN! MEN!")

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:20:01 -0800

Message no. 45 >Problem with this, Adam, is that Kendo is a sword art, not exactly a
>combat skill. And as far as I'm aware, in Kendo you don't use metal

Serious practicioners of Kendo train with live blades, and do not let the
sporting elements interfere. The yellow string down one edge of the shinai
denotes the back of the blade; valid cuts employ the opposite side.

>bamboo, are they not? Or possibly wooden bokken?). And I doubt that
>you're stopping the attack dead - otherwise you wouldn't have any
>momentum to make a counterstrike, would you? So you're not taking the

That depends upon the technique, which is a bit hard to explain.

High level "shomen" attacks to the head or neck are deflected; however,
lower level attacks are often stopped completely. It depends upon the kata.

I tend to mix kendo and aiki-ken liberally, though.

>Doc'

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

From:	John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:21:12 -0500

Message no. 46 D. Ghost wrote:
> >Problem with this, Adam, is that Kendo is a sword art, not exactly a
> >combat skill.
>
> Well, Kendo is the sport, and Kenjitsu is the "Martial Art". Judo is the
> sport, and Jujitsu is the "Martial Art". Does that mean that if I only
> know Judo, I'd be helpless in a fight?

No, but the -jutsu forms tend to be more combat-oriented and 'practical'
while the -do forms often have a more spiritual point to them (see
Miyamoto Musashi) -- usually stressing spiritual wholeness/enlightenment
through the practice of the art. do=way, jutsu=art. It should be noted,
however, the modern kendo *is* largely a sport and that you can get away
with some things with a shinai that wouldn't work with a real sword (or
bokken).

> >And as far as I'm aware, in Kendo you don't use metal
> >swords that have a problem with damaging edges (the standard weapons are
> >bamboo, are they not? Or possibly wooden bokken?).
>
> In most cases, you use bamboo swords (shinais) for Kendo. Sometimes
> advanced students use solid wooden swords (I thought they were called
> bodkins). Also, sometimes for demonstartions/forms, advanced practioners
> will use real swords.

AFAIK (given that my kendo/kenjutsu/iaido/jutsu/etc/et al experience is
almost *totally* nonexistant and comes from snippets from webpages here
and there), shinai are used most often for sparring, which is usually
done in bugo (the 'armor' kendoka use to protect the valid scoring areas
from actual injury). Bokken (or bokuto, depending mostly on the quality
of the 'sword' in question, I think) are used in kata. I wouldn't be
surprised if they went through lots of kata with shinai as well, though,
since the actual fencing is done with them. Also occasionally used are
suburiken/suburito which are similar to bokken in that they're wooden,
but they're designed to *feel* like swords, while bokken are shaped like
swords. Suburiken allow students a better feel for the way the kata
would be performed with a live blade, since neither bokken nor shinai
are accurate models for the weight of a real sword.

Disclaimer: As my previous posts on this thread have probably
sufficiently demonstrated, I am not exactly knowledgeable on matters of
swordsmanship, in any style:) What little knowledge I do have comes from
reading webpages and watching too much television and should be taken as
such until verified by someone who really does know what he/she is
talking about. All IMHO, YMMV, etc, etc.

*Canthros quickly pulls his neck out the way before someone can knock
his head off of it*

--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
"Oooooh! Big talk from Mr. Got-All-My-Limbs! 'Look at me! I've got arms
and legs! JERK!" --Sluggy Freelance
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
----------------------
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" No. 2 -- with a
bullet!
Sergeant-at-Arms and Greatest Swordsman of the Frinch Army

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:32:38 +1000

Message no. 47 > >Problem with this, Adam, is that Kendo is a sword art, not exactly a
> >combat skill. And as far as I'm aware, in Kendo you don't use metal
>
<Adam>
> Serious practicioners of Kendo train with live blades, and do not let
> the sporting elements interfere. The yellow string down one edge of
> the shinai denotes the back of the blade; valid cuts employ the
> opposite side.
>
That's neat, but it still means you don't have to deal with the concerns
of damaging your blade, doesn't it?

> >bamboo, are they not? Or possibly wooden bokken?). And I doubt that
> >you're stopping the attack dead - otherwise you wouldn't have any
> >momentum to make a counterstrike, would you? So you're not taking the
>
> That depends upon the technique, which is a bit hard to explain.
>
> High level "shomen" attacks to the head or neck are deflected;
> however, lower level attacks are often stopped completely. It depends
> upon the kata.
>
Again, no blade to damage, so blocking/parrying concerns have no effect
there. At a guess, the old 'kenjutsu' school of combat fighting would
have treated things a little differently in order to protect their
blades. Does anyone know any true practicioners of kenjutsu? I'm not
trying to belittle either you or kendo, Adam, but it's the same as
karate (to pick an example out of my hat) used in actual combat and
karate as taught for 'point' competition (where you pull your blows -
sorry, I don't know the actual term for this). Things are treated
differently, because for one you have rules and for the other you're out
to stop and/or kill someone.

> I tend to mix kendo and aiki-ken liberally, though.
>
Aiki-ken? What's that? A swordfighting technique based on aikido/jutsu?
(That's a guess based on my admittedly limited understanding of the
Japanese language.)

*Doc' is getting tired of thinking of smartass comments for today...*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:46:27 -0800

Message no. 48 > First: I disagree. The difference between cutting something in half
>and shattering or breaking it is considerable. Though both are examples of
>material failure, they result from different applications of force. A
>sudden, hard impact might shatter something with a crystaline structure;
>cutting through something implies it was in one piece until the cutting
>instrument exited the other side - a constant application of force over
>some (possibly short) time period. It "makes sense to me" because it

You're free to disagree. However, both cases you mention above are
essentially the same. Failure by shear stress. A hard impact causing
shatter versus a continuous deformation of material or "cut" simply depends
on how ductile or brittle the material is. If you were to do a force
analysis it would be the same.

There is far greater distinction between fatigue failure and shear stress
failure, regardless of which criterion you use (Maximum Normal Stress,
Maximum Shear Stress, von Mises, etc).

Anyways, in engineering terms, if it breaks it breaks.

>just plain makes sense :) In better engineering terms: Different materials,
>such as different tempers of steel, resist the different types of force
>you listed (tension, compression, torque, etc) to different degrees, making
>the nature of the force applied non-trivial to the entire consideration. The
>end results may be the same, but the process is different.

It may be true, but Young's modulus does not much vary between alloys. All
carbon steels have a Young's modulus ~ 210 Gigapascals. Tempering may push
things up on the stress-strain curve, but it does not alter the shape of
the curve. And in general, for steels E does not vary between tension and
compression, so your remarks are incorrect.

> Second: I don't know you, Adam, so I hope you won't take this
>personally - I'm not trying to insult you, because I don't insult people

Two points:

First, I'm not sure why you are making personal recommendations to me via
the mailing list. Private e-mail would seem to be more appropriate. Your
remarks are suggestive of censure, which I don't think many take kindly to.
I may disagree with people on a factual basis, but I personally don't think
its appropriate to remark about personal observations.

Second, I've written a fair number of published technical papers geared
towards a non-technical audience. If something I've said is unclear I'm
happy to clarify it, but I don't think many of the concepts I discuss here
are beyond anyone on the list. Someone disinterested in technicalities
already knows to ignore things I've written, I think. In that light, your
comments seem condescending, but I will take it on good faith that you did
not mean it as such.

> --Sean
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:39:35 +1000

Message no. 49 <Snipples(TM)>
> >Problem with this, Adam, is that Kendo is a sword art, not exactly a
> >combat skill.
>
> Well, Kendo is the sport, and Kenjitsu is the "Martial Art". Judo is
> the sport, and Jujitsu is the "Martial Art". Does that mean that if I
> only know Judo, I'd be helpless in a fight?
(D.Ghost)

Yes.

Or, more precisely, you wouldn't be as well off as someone who'd learnt
jujutsu (or jujitsu, whichever you want to call it) because when you
learn a combat style you have to learn how to deal with dirty tricks,
strange styles, uncooperative opponents and the like. In a sport a lot
of these concerns aren't there. I mean, you have rules which prevents
dirty tricks and if you're a judoka (I think that's the right term - a
practitioner of judo) you're going to face other judoka - you're
extremely unlike to come up against a karateka, for example.

And to look at the best example of the differences between an art/sport
martial art and a combat martial art, take aikido and aikijutsu. In
aikido, you do a lot of circular motion throws and you don't have to put
much force into it, because YOUR OPPONENT IS SUPPOSED TO FLOW WITH THE
THROWS. When you throw the other guy, he rolls with it and does a
breakfall, then gets up again. You think that's really gonna happen in
real life? Aikijutsu teaches you throws where the other guy is resisting
you - that's real life.

<Additional Snipples(TM)>

*Told you I was tired of doing them.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	"Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Two handed melee combat
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:53:26 +0200

Message no. 50 On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:46:27 -0800, Adam Getchell wrote:

>First, I'm not sure why you are making personal recommendations to me via
>the mailing list. Private e-mail would seem to be more appropriate. Your
>remarks are suggestive of censure, which I don't think many take kindly to.
>I may disagree with people on a factual basis, but I personally don't think
>its appropriate to remark about personal observations.

Ummm... don't worry, I don't think anybody will assume that you are
going to be censored... and why not post these remarks publicly? I
don't think it was meant as a kick against your ego, rather I guess
most of us should think about these hints... we all do have areas where
we know much more than others.

>Second, I've written a fair number of published technical papers geared
>towards a non-technical audience. If something I've said is unclear I'm
>happy to clarify it, but I don't think many of the concepts I discuss here
>are beyond anyone on the list. Someone disinterested in technicalities

Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't understand anything of all this
shearing, taring, curves, Es etc. etc.

>already knows to ignore things I've written, I think. In that light, your
>comments seem condescending, but I will take it on good faith that you did
>not mean it as such.

I guess that comment was not meant condescending.

--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer