mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (05/14/85)
A mace is, for me, easier to hit with than an axe because all that mass is distributed evenly around the haft, as opposed to having two massive blades that I have to keep alligned int he correct plane. Gravity wants to pull those blades straight down, but most shots won't be coming straight down. And as an aside, have you ever tried to carry an axe safely anywhere other than on your back? -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (05/15/85)
Blunt weapons are a lot easier to learn initially than edged ones. You might simulate this by giving them an initial bonus to hit which gradually wore off as you got higher level. --Lee Gold
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/16/85)
In article <5128@ukc.UUCP> ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nige Gale) writes: > >But what advantage(s) do blunt weapons have over axes of equivalent size? > The edge of an edged weapon has to hit in order to do much damage, while most blunt weapons (ie., mace) are symmetrical and hence can be wielded somewhat more sloppily without loss of effectiveness. This probably means that blunt weapons can be learned to greater proficiency more quickly than edged weapons (but in general won't do as much damage?). Do we have anyone out there in the SCA who would like to comment? Also, blunt weapons are probably cheaper to make, since they require less crafting and can be made from a lower grade of metal (don't need to hold an edge). Scott R. Turner ARPA: (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt SPUDNET: ...eye%srt@russet.spud
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/16/85)
Stand back. This is going to be messy. > >But what advantage(s) do blunt weapons have over axes of equivalent size? > >The edge of an edged weapon has to hit in order to do much damage, while >most blunt weapons (ie., mace) are symmetrical and hence can be wielded >somewhat more sloppily without loss of effectiveness. This probably means >that blunt weapons can be learned to greater proficiency more quickly than >edged weapons (but in general won't do as much damage?). Do we have anyone >out there in the SCA who would like to comment? > Scott R. Turner > ARPA: (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU > UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt > SPUDNET: ...eye%srt@russet.spud True, on an edged weapon, the edge hitting the opponent is all-important. This is based on the physical intrusion of the blade to do damage. Blunt weapons, on the other hand, impart kinetic energy to the target, which causes internal injuries, hemmoraging (sp?), and broken bones. The blunt weapon will generally take out the limb it hits, if it strikes with force, while the edged weapon will generally just impair one or two arcs of motion. Rule for the SCA: Pelvic shots with swords cripple; pelvic shots with maces kill. Blunt weapons are easier to make, are more durable in combat, easier to use, generally cheaper, available at lower technology, and due to the transfer of kinetic energy, are usually more effective against metal armor than swords. (Example: morning stars break armor; maces buckle it; swords just leave dings.) BUT swords do more damage faster to unarmored foes (longer cutting edge), hurt more, tend to cause much blood loss, take opponents out of combat faster, and if a sword strikes a non-vital spot, it will likely do more damage than a mace. In general: swords usually injure, while maces sometimes severely injure. Swords are harder to use, but they are favored by *fast* warriors, as opposed to *strong* warriors. Blunt weapons rely on their mass, and this makes them *SLOW*. And they typically have a shorter reach to avoid pulling the wielder off his/her feet due to long lever arms. In all, I'd take a sword any day. Axes are a compromise; they have a short cutting edge backed by a large head (mass). They're usually used to cut through armor, and they're pretty good at it. But they're still slower than swords. It is illustrative to look at Champions to explain these weapons. My inter- pretation is that edged weapons do less damage points, but have large stun multipliers (like whips), while maces do more damage, but little stun. You must include bleeding rules to this, to reflect the effects of edged weapons, but slow down the bleeding rate in the case of blunt weapons. As for axes, assign them some middle ground. It is very easy to get an axe wound to stop bleeding, in game terms. (Reality is another story.) --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Q1: "The world is round. The rest is up to us." Q2: "Reason is Peace; Fanaticism is Slavery; Tolerance is Strength."
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/17/85)
In article <1974@sdcrdcf.UUCP> barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) writes: >Blunt weapons are a lot easier to learn initially than edged ones. >You might simulate this by giving them an initial bonus to hit which gradually >wore off as you got higher level. Not necessarily true. Consider the expertise required to properly wield a set of nun-chuks. Along that line, I suspect an expertly wielded morningstar is probably one of the most devastating hand weapons around. Consider the damage that an expert can do with a set of nun-chuks. Now picture the free end converted to a 10 pound, spiked iron ball. True, you'd need a lot of strength and dexterity to wield it ... -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
hutch@sdcsvax.UUCP (Jim Hutchison) (05/18/85)
Subject: Re: Blunt Weapons Date: 15 May 85 21:49:02 GMT >In article <5128@ukc.UUCP> ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nige Gale) writes: >> >>But what advantage(s) do blunt weapons have over axes of equivalent size? >> > >The edge of an edged weapon has to hit in order to do much damage, while >most blunt weapons (ie., mace) are symmetrical and hence can be wielded >somewhat more sloppily without loss of effectiveness. Yes, this is true, but they also weigh more. This effects the ease with wich they can be manipulated. A swinging blade tends, atleast from the short time that I was able to handle one, to have a greater chance of having killing/disarming finesse. It is hard to get under armor with a mace. One can not stab through an arm whole with a mace/cudgle/club. Actually I have had more experience with the working end of an axe, he he he... :->, on wood that is. The war axes I have seen in museums are trimmed down versions, compared to wood axes, and are pretty light. > This probably means >that blunt weapons can be learned to greater proficiency more quickly than >edged weapons (but in general won't do as much damage?). > Do we have anyone >out there in the SCA who would like to comment? > >Also, blunt weapons are probably cheaper to make, since they require less >crafting and can be made from a lower grade of metal (don't need to hold >an edge). A matter of note, a blacksmith can make a mace. It takes a swordsmith to make a sword, and generally a high grade of metal for any edged weapon from axes to chinese rapiers to ranseurs. But what fun is an axe if you did not personally quench it in a muscular slave? :-) After all isn't that where they get there strength? :-) > > Scott R. Turner Just a moment while I get my axe... -- /* "When you are dying, a wombat is better than no company at all." Jim Hutchison UUCP: {dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!hutch ARPA: hutch@sdcsvax < Ofcourse these statements are only mine, not my employers. > */
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (05/18/85)
Some thoughts on weapons:
1. A club may be easier to wield than a sword because of
orientation. However, it has one large problem. It is
very easy to overswing with a club, as it is heavier than
a sword. If you've ever tried to fight club to sword you
will know what I mean. That overswing leaves the club
bearer in a very vunerable position--with an open side
and shoulder. It takes great control to avoid that situtation.
Maybe a plus for the swords next to-hit roll if the club
bearer misses?
2. A club is heavier than a sword, and requires more strength
to use properly--partly because of that overswing problem
above, and partly just because of the weight. A minus to-hit
for low-strength characters?
3. A club, if it hits, is more likely to knock the opponent off-balance
than a (sharp) sword (unless it is a really heavy sword).
Perhaps a minus to-hit on the sword-bearer next round?
--
Sue Brezden
Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
AT&T Information Systems
11900 North Pecos
Westminster, Co. 80234
(303)538-3829
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Honk if you love Shiva!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/18/85)
I'm trying to design a combat system.
One particularly important aspect is that there be no optimum weapon
("I use a baasterd sword because it gives the best plusses").
Now, for most things, there are different advantages:
rapier is fast, long, stab, slash, parry
greatsword has great momentum, length, hack, lunge, long cutting edge
greataxe has greater momentum, length
etc
But what advantage(s) do blunt weapons have over axes of equivalent size?
They will both do the same impact damage, and the axe has a better chance
of piercing the armour.
I thought possibly that a blunt weopon would find easier purchase, and so
be less likely to just be a glancing blow (or something). Failing that,
blunt weapons are silly if edged weapons are availlable.
-Nige Gale
(The tale of the inflatable rubber goat, and the paladin's downfall)barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (05/22/85)
This originally started out as Blunt Weaopns vs Edged Weapons, e.g. Mace vs Sword. Bringing in nunchaku and morningstar as typical (?) blunt weapons is only going to confuse things. Sounds good, let's confuse them some more. The proper comparison is nunchaku/morningstar vs something edged at the end of a chain. So far as I know there's never been a chained-knife, for the simple reason that the thing would be too damn hard to use. ALL chain weapons I've ever heard of have had simple or spiked weights at the end, nothing more comlciated. Incidentally, LANDS OF ADVENTURE ended up treated chain weapons as a sub-type of missile weaons rather than of melee weapons because of their difficulty, increased range, and other factors. I do agree that nunchaku are difficult things to use. I've had several friends who took them up, practiced regularly, stopped worked out with them for a few days, started again...and then woke up half an hour later with a bump on the skull. (This was with practice nunchaku of course. With fully weighted ones, they wouldn't have woken up.) --Lee Gold
imb@iclbra.UUCP (Ian Brown) (05/23/85)
> > But what advantage(s) do blunt weapons have over axes of equivalent size? > They will both do the same impact damage, and the axe has a better chance > of piercing the armour. > I thought possibly that a blunt weopon would find easier purchase, and so > be less likely to just be a glancing blow (or something). Failing that, > blunt weapons are silly if edged weapons are availlable. > > -Nige Gale > (The tale of the inflatable rubber goat, and the paladin's downfall) Have you ever tried opening a tin can with knife. The main reasons for bunt weapons was 1: easy to manufacture 2: they could do serious damage to someone (even in full plate armour) this damage is caused by arour its self being crushed or dented. By the way a two handed (or bastard sword) is no real edge to speak of anyway. - I. M. Brown
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/24/85)
The preceding article to this was the winner of all those who posted answers to my original question "What is the point of a blunt weapon?" I had only intended to include the relevant bit, but I sent it by mistake and rn won't let me cancell it. My thanks to all the others who troubled to make suggestions. Another good answer was that the equivalent weight axe must be wielded in one plane, so that the force of the blow is directly behind the cutting edge. The flat of the blade would not do so much damage, as (a) it is slowed by more wind resistance (not much), and (b) the force of the blow is spread over a wider area. But cheapness has to take the prize - a blunt weapon can be made of anything (lead, for example) -Nige Gale
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (05/24/85)
In article <2005@sdcrdcf.UUCP> barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) writes: >This originally started out as Blunt Weaopns vs Edged Weapons, e.g. >Mace vs Sword. Bringing in nunchaku and morningstar as typical (?) >blunt weapons is only going to confuse things. Sounds good, let's confuse >them some more. > >The proper comparison is nunchaku/morningstar vs something edged at the >end of a chain. So far as I know there's never been a chained-knife, for >the simple reason that the thing would be too damn hard to use. ALL >chain weapons I've ever heard of have had simple or spiked weights at >the end, nothing more comlciated. > >--Lee Gold Well, at the risk of adding further confusion... There is an option to the manriki-gusari (japanese spiked ball on end of 20-40 ft chain, club on other end) which has a sort of flat, bladed half-moon shaped thing instead of the spiked ball. Nasty horrid thing. However, for REALLY nasty horrid things, there is a weapon developed in China many years back, at the behest of a particularly odious emperor, which consisted of a sort of brass dome, with a chain in the centre, internally wound, somewhat a variation on a yo-yo crossed with a frisbee. The outer rim of this thing was smooth, so it could be thrown. The user could snap the chain, causing a set of jagged, razor-sharp teeth to spring out of the rim, making it into the "edged frisbee" that everyone likes to fantasize about. However, the really gruesome part is that this thing was designed to be landed on someone's head, at which point, an internal spring dropped a reinforced sack thing down, making a sort of "hood" which the victim couldn't get off because of the sharp pointy things at the rim. Once it dropped, the wielder could give a sharp tug, and the sharp nasty teeth turned inwards, quickly decapitating the victim, and returning the head to the wielder, who could then take it back to the Emperor. This charming device is called the "flying guillotine" in western parlance. There's a really messy kung-fu film about it. "Masters of the Flying Guillotine" Hutch (Now you know why the wide-brim, conical hat became really popular!)
gts@wjh12.UUCP (G. T. Samson) (05/25/85)
> The proper comparison is nunchaku/morningstar vs something edged at the > end of a chain. So far as I know there's never been a chained-knife, for > the simple reason that the thing would be too damn hard to use. ALL > chain weapons I've ever heard of have had simple or spiked weights at > the end, nothing more comlciated. > > --Lee Gold How about the manrikigusari? It's basically a weighted chain, but a nastier version of it can have a barbed, bladed hook on one end, designed to be thrown into an opponent's weapon or weapon arm. (The above information came from a friend of mine somewhat into Oriental weaponry and may not be totally accurate.) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: G. T. Samson Title: The Evil MicroWizard Quote: "No matter where you go...there you are." -- B. Banzai Other_Quote: "You speak treason!" "Fluently!" -- The Doctor ARPA: gts@wjh12 [preferred] OR samson%h-sc4@harvard USMail: Lowell N-43, Harvard U., Cambridge, MA 02138
dccarr@ihuxb.UUCP (d.c. carr) (05/30/85)
> > The proper comparison is nunchaku/morningstar vs something edged at the > > end of a chain. So far as I know there's never been a chained-knife, for > > the simple reason that the thing would be too damn hard to use. ALL > > chain weapons I've ever heard of have had simple or spiked weights at > > the end, nothing more comlciated. > > > > --Lee Gold > > How about the manrikigusari? It's basically a weighted chain, but a nastier > version of it can have a barbed, bladed hook on one end, designed to be thrown > into an opponent's weapon or weapon arm. > > (The above information came from a friend of mine somewhat into Oriental > weaponry and may not be totally accurate.) > The manrikigusari is a short chain (~3') with small weights on each end. I've never heard of anyone putting blades on that particular weapon. However, the Chinese martial arts included a nasty beast called a whip-spear. This was either a chain or several 4" metal segments linked together with a spear or knife blade on the end. -- Dave Carr