Jump to content



Photo

Sickle Swords and Khopesh


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 Bore

Bore

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:13 PM

(I just can't seem to get quotes to work properly on this board  :wacko: )

 

You've just said that you can show me a "real-life power weapon" a "flexible khopesh" and a "khopesh that can counter a flexible khopesh".

 

So where is your proof? Or is that the extent of your argument? False claims and the in-ability to either see or concede the point? These are fantasy things that only exist within our minds and on paper; they do not exist in real-life, no matter how close to real-life items they are described.

 

EDIT: I wanted to address the portion of your post where you're claiming that material does not affect the weapon itself.

 

That is inherently false. It wouldn't matter how same-shaped a weapon was if one was aluminum and the other was a high-carbon steel or some kind of fantasy super-material; aluminum does not have the weight and does not hold an edge.

 

These swords are made of super-materials, making them again, inherently different than the real-life weapons they're designed after.


Edited by Bore, 13 February 2014 - 03:19 PM.


#22 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 878 posts

Posted 14 February 2014 - 08:53 AM

 

That is inherently false. It wouldn't matter how same-shaped a weapon was if one was aluminum and the other was a high-carbon steel or some kind of fantasy super-material; aluminum does not have the weight and does not hold an edge.

 

These swords are made of super-materials, making them again, inherently different than the real-life weapons they're designed after.

 

Well, one, Miyamoto Musashi would like a word with you.  You're confusing the quality of a blade and it's function. Musashi demonstrated the folly of this by using the same techniques that work with a Katana also work with a wooden bokken in combat to the death.  The bokken is obviously inferior to the katana as a weapon, but the shape of it means that the techniques to use one are identical (or nearly so, depending on sword school).

 

In the case of the khopesh, the same holds true.  No matter what the blade is made from, it's still shaped the same way.  This means that the function of each part is unchanged.  These are inherent to the blade's shape, not the materials it's made from.  The rules for sickle swords and disarming have nothing to do with the material it's made from, and everything to do with the shape of the blade.

 

Remember, in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war, and no one is going to be carrying a weapon in a galaxy full of sanity devouring horror that they can't use to the utmost if they can put the least planning into it.

 

 

 

You've just said that you can show me a "real-life power weapon" a "flexible khopesh" and a "khopesh that can counter a flexible khopesh".

 

No.  Not sure if you just failed to read what I wrote or are tying to create a straw man.  I specifically excluded the power weapon.  However, because the writer includes an explanation of what traits that the power weapon versions possess that warrant things like 'Flexible' and 'Concussive' I can show you examples of khopesh in real life that would have those rules, for the same reasons.
 


Edited by BaronIveagh, 14 February 2014 - 08:56 AM.


#23 Bore

Bore

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 14 February 2014 - 11:43 AM

 

 

That is inherently false. It wouldn't matter how same-shaped a weapon was if one was aluminum and the other was a high-carbon steel or some kind of fantasy super-material; aluminum does not have the weight and does not hold an edge.

 

These swords are made of super-materials, making them again, inherently different than the real-life weapons they're designed after.

 

Well, one, Miyamoto Musashi would like a word with you.  You're confusing the quality of a blade and it's function. Musashi demonstrated the folly of this by using the same techniques that work with a Katana also work with a wooden bokken in combat to the death.  The bokken is obviously inferior to the katana as a weapon, but the shape of it means that the techniques to use one are identical (or nearly so, depending on sword school).

 

In the case of the khopesh, the same holds true.  No matter what the blade is made from, it's still shaped the same way.  This means that the function of each part is unchanged.  These are inherent to the blade's shape, not the materials it's made from.  The rules for sickle swords and disarming have nothing to do with the material it's made from, and everything to do with the shape of the blade.

 

Remember, in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war, and no one is going to be carrying a weapon in a galaxy full of sanity devouring horror that they can't use to the utmost if they can put the least planning into it.

 

 

 

You've just said that you can show me a "real-life power weapon" a "flexible khopesh" and a "khopesh that can counter a flexible khopesh".

 

No.  Not sure if you just failed to read what I wrote or are tying to create a straw man.  I specifically excluded the power weapon.  However, because the writer includes an explanation of what traits that the power weapon versions possess that warrant things like 'Flexible' and 'Concussive' I can show you examples of khopesh in real life that would have those rules, for the same reasons.
 

 

Yes I misread your exception of the power-weapon, sorry about that.

Apologies aside:

(starting with your point about Miyamoto); that is actually false. Not in the way you'd think though. See, while the techniques he employed were the same, he could not affect a killing slash with a Bokken. That is straight-up how you kill people with a Katana; his employment of the technique with the wooden sword failed ultimately because they cannot be effective in the same manner.

 

You'll note here that you simply cannot sharpen wood effectively enough; the material is not designed for that; ergo, the construction material is wrong for the techniques employed with the weapon. You could use it as a club though. Maybe if the tip is pointy enough, you could stab a guy too, but you're not going to be maiming limbs any time soon with a Bokken.

 

And, like the Khopesh, you're not going to cut through much if you've got an aluminum one. So while one part of it may be unaffected, that does not mean the entire thing is unaffected - much like my original point; these future-fantasy weapons are not the same as their real-life counter-parts.

 

As for your examples; show me.



#24 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 878 posts

Posted 14 February 2014 - 10:45 PM


(starting with your point about Miyamoto); that is actually false. Not in the way you'd think though. See, while the techniques he employed were the same, he could not affect a killing slash with a Bokken. That is straight-up how you kill people with a Katana; his employment of the technique with the wooden sword failed ultimately because they cannot be effective in the same manner.

 

I wouldn't call it a failure, as it did in fact work.  His first slash tripped Kojiro, and the second slash shattered Kojiro's ribs and punctured his lung, killing him.  While it didn't cut him per se, the fact that it still crippled his limb and then dealt a deathblow suggests that you''re incorrect.

 

 

And, like the Khopesh, you're not going to cut through much if you've got an aluminum one. So while one part of it may be unaffected, that does not mean the entire thing is unaffected - much like my original point; these future-fantasy weapons are not the same as their real-life counter-parts.
 

 

True, it won't hold an edge.  But the same strokes, motions, and defenses that work best with the aluminum one will still work best with the one made of carbon steel or super unoibtanium or whatever.  Using the disarming hook to try and disarm an opponent is going to be the same regardless of the blade's composition.

 

Or are you suggesting that two identical blades of differing degrees of craftsmanship are not used in the same manner?

 

 

 


As for your examples; show me.

 

 

Flexible:

kopesh.jpg

 

Both of these swords were recovered from Tuts tomb.  The second one though I draw your attention to.  This sword is very thin and light for it's size, but has a series of reenforcing bands running through it to provide additional strength.  Also note the shape of the grip, which not only gives iit a slightly more powerful cut, but also makes it very easy to rotate or reverse grip.  Combined with the shape of the blade, this sword would quite easily slip around someone's attempt to parry it.

 

Remember that the Castir is specifically stated to not actually be flexible, but due to being difficult to parry is given this trait.

 

 

Concussive:

khopesh1.jpg

 

 

Technically all these, but but the second from top is the best example.  These examples of the khopesh are designed to give maximum impact from a stroke.  The very well developed hooks make it much easier to catch and hold weapons that would otherwise slide past a parry.  The Pollux blade only gains concussive when swung two handed, due to the weight and shape of the blade, rather than having any of the fancy energy fields or explosions described in the Concussive rule entry.


Edited by BaronIveagh, 14 February 2014 - 10:46 PM.


#25 BrotharTearer

BrotharTearer

    Member

  • Members
  • 489 posts

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:52 PM

I hope you realise that it's not the writer who draws the weapons. There's going to be discrepancy between mechanics and an artist's interpretation. As you seem be focusing foremost on the pictures, and wanting (I figure) the stats to represent that, I think you're doing it wrong.



#26 Bore

Bore

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 18 February 2014 - 03:44 PM

 


(starting with your point about Miyamoto); that is actually false. Not in the way you'd think though. See, while the techniques he employed were the same, he could not affect a killing slash with a Bokken. That is straight-up how you kill people with a Katana; his employment of the technique with the wooden sword failed ultimately because they cannot be effective in the same manner.

 

I wouldn't call it a failure, as it did in fact work.  His first slash tripped Kojiro, and the second slash shattered Kojiro's ribs and punctured his lung, killing him.  While it didn't cut him per se, the fact that it still crippled his limb and then dealt a deathblow suggests that you''re incorrect.

 

 

And, like the Khopesh, you're not going to cut through much if you've got an aluminum one. So while one part of it may be unaffected, that does not mean the entire thing is unaffected - much like my original point; these future-fantasy weapons are not the same as their real-life counter-parts.
 

 

True, it won't hold an edge.  But the same strokes, motions, and defenses that work best with the aluminum one will still work best with the one made of carbon steel or super unoibtanium or whatever.  Using the disarming hook to try and disarm an opponent is going to be the same regardless of the blade's composition.

 

Or are you suggesting that two identical blades of differing degrees of craftsmanship are not used in the same manner?

So to the first part of your response; his first slash tripped his opponent. Tripped. That is not a success.

His second attack shattered ribs. Shattered. Again, that is not a cut in any sense of the word; clubs shatter things. Blades are meant to cut things. That sounds like his techniques were not put to their maximum effect - two attacks that should both be deathblows were required. That is called a failure.

 

See, anyone with a club can bludgeon a man to death; the reality is that his technique had nothing to do with how clubs destroy a human body - via blunt-force trauma. That he could use a particular sword-fighting technique and not be totally ineffective though only speaks for the technique's particular range of weapon-adaptability.

 

I mean, consider if his technique had been that of a medival knight and his weapon was a longsword; he had better hope that his opponent was not wearing armour, because otherwise he would not have a hope of victory.

 

Basically, while some techniques may make use of some aspects of a weapon, they are designed for a specific weapon made of specific materials. That's how these techniques develop.



#27 Drachdhar

Drachdhar

    Member

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 11:33 AM

Blunt blades can cut almost as well as a sharp sword. Ever seen the effect of a katana vs a blunt bastard sword on a rolled bamboo mat - same result. And for medieval warfare, cutting was pretty damn useless since chainmail would basically negate any cutting effect a sword might have. Stabbing ftw. Slashes would more often result in bruises and broken bones, which of course also hurt like hell.

 

//Incidentally why I find movies of medieval times where everyone slash each other to death while wearing chainmail to be so funny. The technique used at those times were not slashing moves when aimed at armored bits since that would not result in killing blows, stabs on the other hand. And slashes at exposed flesh.

 

I find this topic to be getting more interesting - more history!! ;)



#28 Bore

Bore

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:20 AM

Blunt blades can cut almost as well as a sharp sword. Ever seen the effect of a katana vs a blunt bastard sword on a rolled bamboo mat - same result. And for medieval warfare, cutting was pretty damn useless since chainmail would basically negate any cutting effect a sword might have. Stabbing ftw. Slashes would more often result in bruises and broken bones, which of course also hurt like hell.

 

//Incidentally why I find movies of medieval times where everyone slash each other to death while wearing chainmail to be so funny. The technique used at those times were not slashing moves when aimed at armored bits since that would not result in killing blows, stabs on the other hand. And slashes at exposed flesh.

 

I find this topic to be getting more interesting - more history!! ;)

There is a difference between a blunted blade and a club carved from a boat-ore in the shape of a katana; do you think that said wooden sword would cut through the same bamboo mat? I would bet on the answer being 'no'.

 

But another sample of technique requiring a specific weapon would be a draw-cut. using your example, a sharp sword can be used to effect a draw-cut, where a blunt blade would require percussive force.

 

As for medieval movies having slashes being portrayed as the typical death-blow attack, well, it's actually more of a hacking-style motion and that's because most of those swords didn't have very sharp points either. That and those are movies; where a movie portrays two hours, it shows events typically of several days, weeks, months, or years.

 

And like a real fight, it would more likely be several chops depending on how heavily armoured your target was; a layer of chainmail over quilt for instance can leave limbs broken and links weakened, meaning that the second strike would chop through the remaining protection and dig into flesh and bone.

 

Meanwhile, is a more Roman-era style of movie - those swords were really sharp and their armour was only leather. That said, the metal those swords were made of would quickly dull against hard-surfaced armour like splint or plate, and because of their size, they just don't have the weight to bludgeon their way though. And layers of chainmail would prevent the hope of attacking weak points with stabs because the blade itself is too broad.

 

This brings about more specialized blades, like a rondel dagger, able to punch in through joints and the like; they're great if your opponent is in heavy armour because the dagger is smaller and faster to use, and its greatest benefit is for punching at the weak spots. But against a warrior in leather with something like a Gladius, and you see the advantages removed; the dagger is not quicker than the short blade of the Gladius, it isn't longer, and the "advantage" of punching through weak points in heavy armour doesn't exist because the opponent is not wearing heavy armour.

 

This brings about full-circle my point of this being a game; in real life, all of these weapons had their advantages and disadvantages, their uses and their eras; meanwhile in this game we've got weapons pointedly described as being similar to a real-world item being relevant against things that they should not be relevant against. For instance, most of the effectiveness of various power-weapons comes from the power-field, but ignoring that and focusing on primitive weapons modified with the Mono ability (or similar for blunt weapons), you'll note that these weapons retain a certain effectiveness despite being used for wildly different things in real-life.

 

An instance of this would be a "mono-sword" and a "mono-axe"; the axe is statistically better at punching through armour because of how the armour mechanics work in this game; it's not because the axe has a better penetration value, but because it does more damage. See, in this game, the description, no matter how close it is to a real-world item, can be clearly and demonstrably shown within the game as being a work of fiction. Sure, some things will hold a high degree of verisimilitude, like with swords typically being balanced and axes and clubs typically being unbalanced, you've also got your works of fantasy, like the above situation with the mono-weapons.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS