Re: we need to argue more...

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

not true, rapiers came into use as the 'gentlemans' weapon in the
15-1600s or so, but even during that time, the broad sword, mace, etc...
continued to see HEAVY military use, though even then, great swords
and such were over shadowed by more usable weapons, such as the mace.

Also 'loosing a hand' I think not.  While a great sword can generate
a ferocious amount of energy in a swing, it doesn't take a whole
lot of force to push it to the side while moving yourself in the
opoosite direction.

Also rapiers are not the thin foils people think of, rapiers are heavy
bladed swords, esspecially a different version of the rapier called
the "estoc" which is basically a 3' or so stilleto(heavy triangular
blade).  Rapiers could and did stand up to military use.

Furthermore, the sabre, the heaviest of the fencing blades, is over
a thousand years old in its use.  The Cossaks, Tartars, and other
easter europeans were great fans of it, and it was the primary melee
weapon of the Golden Horde.  Just for note, the golden horde was one
of the remnants of Ghengis Khan's empire that pushed its borders 
all the way to vienna or so.  In NUMEROUS battles, the lightly armed
sabre wielding horseman UTTERLY destroyed the heavy cavalry of the
Europeans.

So to say that Fencing weapons have never encountered 'whupass' knights
is pretty incorrect.

Wright
> 
> The only real problem I have with fencing weapons is the *ominous music
> plays* ...realism.  The fact that historically fencing weapons were
> created in the rennaissance as a new school of fighting...not technique.
> These fencers did not go up against whupass knights in plate mail weilding
> heavy cleaving/cutting weapons.  Anyone that put their parrying dagger in
> front of a great sword would have their hand removed in short order.
> We're trying to mix weapons from two different time periods...without
> substantiated evidence that they had been invented in a logical manner.  
> 
> Joel
> v
> 
> 
> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:
> 
> > > I had Rob's warrior in my game last week. No single attack did more
> > > than 40 points. Maybe he was rolling poorly. Admittedly that electric
> > > shock thing does give you an advantage.
> > 
> > I guess he got rid of the flame sword.  *shrug* my bad. =)
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 	With a 2 marines I whipped Elsinor, Mogradin, and severa other
> > > > 	folks in a game.  Neither of those two have the magical boosting
> > > > 	that claude does.
> > > 
> > > With 3 rate 20 priests (of Ra) I put down two adventurers in one round
> > > last week. Roll 4d6-vs-WIL twice please. Anyone can take anyone given
> > > the right circumstances. *shrug* Marines, being more versatile, can
> > > handle more "circumstances".
> > 
> > *nod* very very true.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I generally picture warriors as falling into one of two categories:
> > > 
> > > God of War as layed out in the Piers Anothony novels (knowledgeable
> > > in all forms of combats and all weapons. Brilliant tactician and
> > > master strategist. Its a realy unfortunate that some military skills
> > > got move to "Auger" (military construction jumps to mind, though a
> > > case could be made for that not being a real warrior skill, I'd still
> > > leave it under warrior).
> > 
> > *nod* Again, I agree. and I prefer this view as well.
> > 
> > 
> > re: following stuff.  Exactly.
> > 
> > > Marines are also classic killers. Pirates, brawlers and other scum.
> > > I would expect them to be almost as good with a sword and probably
> > > a little handier with their fists (than warriors). Perhaps better
> > > with a sword if you count those lightweight girly type swords.
> > >
> > > As it stands, marines don't really have anything special to differentiate
> > > them from warriors with wierd tastes in fighting. For instance:
> > 
> > I'd love to see something to differentiate them more, but with the
> > present troika, that is gonna be fairly difficult to do without some
> > pretty hefty shifts in what currently is.
> > 
> > I agree, Augers were a bad idea.  The general skill pool was much better.
> > That way you could explain peasents who just have a few skills, instead
> > of making them be the incredibly deep thinkers that Augers are supposed
> > to be(but aren't), or killers(warriors or marines).
> > 
> > > Now its my personal belief that Augers were a bad idea. The thief/spy
> > > background was vastly superior and left a general pool of skills that
> > > anyone could get at the same base cost (made since for my non-backgrounded
> > > NPCs), but we have Augers so lets deal with it. Augers have lots of skills.
> > > 
> > > Of course if we are using the Troika, marines wouldn't really need their
> > > own weapons or stuff they would just pay double for weapon skills (realm
> > > of the warrior) and any other non-magical skill (realm of Augers). This
> > > would give them the extra versatility that they would need to balance
> > > them out. They aren't as good at any type of fighting as warriors, but
> > > they do have a lot of other skills that make them useful. A compromise
> > > niche which is what everything is that falls between points.
> > 
> > *nod* I agree and like this much better as well.
> > 
> > re: getting noone to agree.  *nod* Status Quo here we go.
> > 
> > Wright
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > There... thats my contribution to the spew. Your up against some 
> > > fundamental system changes that no one is likely to approve and you
> > > probably won't even be able to get enough GMs together to decide to
> > > try it out to see if it _SHOULD_ be approved. 
> > > 
> > > 						-Steve
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>