Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Ambidexterity & 2 Weapons vs. 1 Weapon

Posted by: Reijin May 31 2006, 04:29 PM

Sorry if this has been brought up already, I did a quick search, but didn't come up with anything.

Through char gen, I took ambidexterity to use while weilding two swords in mind. I figured that yes, if I hit I would most likely do less damage, but I would have a higher chance to hit with two completely different sets of rolls, even though my dice pool is split.

All in all, I roll 8 dice on each swing (without any negative modifiers mind you). The first two missions I was doing fine, tearing apart any lackey that I could get in melee range with. This last mission has me doubting the general effectiveness of my character build.

Early on in the session I got myself into a one on one fight with a character equal to mine (maybe even more, he drugged up before we fought). I wa using my two swords, he was using one. The battle quickly got into a stale mate, with the both of us simply parrying each other's attacks. It wasn't until I gave up attacking twice in a turn and just used one sword I was finally able to break one of the more boring fights I've dealt with.

Now, ambidexterity allows you to use one weapon in each hand without suffering a -2 penalty, but you still have to split your dice pool to use both weapons in a turn. However, to parry/block/dodge two attacks in a turn, you don't split your dice pool and only take a cumulative -1 penalty for every attack after the first. This to me seems to make defense extremely powerful, but I'm a little hesitant to bring it up because it might just seem like I'm trying to make my character more powerful than he should be.

I could have sworn in third edition you had to split your dice pool for evading attacks, it's been such a long time and my memory was never good. every time I try to bring it up, the GM and some of the other players tell me that it's unreasonable to split your dice pool for defense because you don't know how many attacks you'll have on you. But I thought that was the point, you could take the risk of spending a lot (or all) of your dice on the first attack, or you could play it a little safer and put some more aside.

Are my doubts completely unwarranted? I'm beginning to feel like buying point in ambidexterity is kind of a waste, if it's only good for clearing out mooks. I nearly built my whole character around melee with two weapons, though I suppose it wouldn't be a big change to drop one of them.

That kind of ran a bit too long. -_-; If anyone could provide some input, I would appreciate it greatly. I'm kinda at a crossroads but not sure which path to take. Either way, thanks for reading the long-winded rant.

Posted by: Aaron May 31 2006, 05:37 PM

QUOTE (Reijin)

Now, ambidexterity allows you to use one weapon in each hand without suffering a -2 penalty, but you still have to split your dice pool to use both weapons in a turn. However, to parry/block/dodge two attacks in a turn, you don't split your dice pool and only take a cumulative -1 penalty for every attack after the first. This to me seems to make defense extremely powerful, but I'm a little hesitant to bring it up because it might just seem like I'm trying to make my character more powerful than he should be.

Makes sense to me.

I participate in medieval combat as a hobby (SCA hit-'em-hard style, not a boffer LARP), and I've been using two swords fairly exclusively lately. I believe it. I find it a lot easier to sit in range of my opponent and defend myself, whereas an attack takes more effort.

Boring discussion of the theory of defence hidden in the spoiler to protect the disinterested.

[ Spoiler ]

Posted by: Teulisch May 31 2006, 05:41 PM

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13194
for the current ambidex debate.

two-weapon combat has a lot of problems. mostly that ANY penalty is going to be applied twice. ambidex removes a penalty for the offhand, which is usefull at times.

dont complain about dodging. you get advantage of it as well. its usualy not that good in the first place! the average person has reaction 3, which mean that attack number 5 they get no roll against. if your target has any dodge, unarmed, or other close combat skill, then hes probably got quite a few more dice than that. considering how dice roll, its likely that your target gets one hit on his defense against guns, and 2 against melee if hes got an apropriate skill. so you need to score 3 hits on average to do damage.

two-weapon combat has a specific use. with swords, this use is cutting through mooks who dont have a lot skill. with guns, its for shooting a lot of bullets into a bunch of mooks. it gets a lot of damage to multiple targets in a situation where you cant miss.

if you actualy fight someone with real skill, two-weapon will get you killed very fast. Consider a sword adept, with 20 dice in swords. plus a few other tricks, and a high reaction. he will dodge anything you do with a split pool, then kill you very swiftly.

Posted by: Butterblume May 31 2006, 06:25 PM

Legend tells that Miyamoto Musashi (famous early 17th Century Samurai, who is renowned for developing the two sword fighting style, among other things) defeated his reputedly most skilled adversary, Sasaki Kojiro, using a wooden training sword. (A as in one weapon)

Posted by: Reijin May 31 2006, 07:01 PM

Hmmm... I see your points. Thanks for the insightful posts into the topic. I guess I've been weaned off too many other table top RPGs that let you get away with crap like that. I hope I didn't come off as too snotty or anything, I was just genuinely curious to see whether I had been doing the right thing or not. Thank you!

Posted by: Shrike30 May 31 2006, 08:03 PM

Not at all.

Teulisch nailed it on the head: when you want your character to carve through hordes of unskilled opponents, those two swords of yours are going to shine. Against someone with some skills, though, you're going to want to focus on one weapon.

This doesn't mean the other weapon has to be *away*... just that you can't be making a bizarro-cool flip-out flurry-of-blades attack against someone who knows what he's doing. Melee combat is abstracted down to each roll really being a "combination of strikes, parries and whatever," so the use of "one" weapon (regardless of whether or not you're holding two weapons) really just means that, between your left and right hand, in a single pass, you get one good shot in, instead of the two that you can get fighting people who don't know what they're doing.

In other words, you can fight really cool guys with two weapons, you just have to be careful about it. Ruleswise, you're making a one-weapon attack... in game you're dancing back and forth a bit, blocking a few strikes with each of your weapons, and then taking a stab at that momentarily exposed bit of flesh with whichever weapon has the opportunity.

Posted by: X-Kalibur May 31 2006, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

A Bokkun (that wooden training sword) is quite thick and will still hurt like hell. Different fighting style too, but the point remains the same. You can focus better with one weapon than two.

Posted by: Butterblume May 31 2006, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (X-Kalibur)

QUOTE (Butterblume @ May 31 2006, 01:25 PM)

A Bokkun (that wooden training sword) is quite thick and will still hurt like hell. Different fighting style too, but the point remains the same. You can focus better with one weapon than two.

Unlike SR3, i never implied wooden weapons aren't deadly. Look at medieval quarterstaffs

Without rules for using a weapon twohanded, Shrike of course is right: hold two weapons, attack with one, when necessary.

Posted by: jklst14 May 31 2006, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Teulisch)

two-weapon combat has a specific use. with swords, this use is cutting through mooks who dont have a lot skill.

Actually, you don't need two weapons to do this since you can split your dice pool and attack multiple targets with just one weapon

QUOTE

SR4, p 148:

Characters may attack more than one opponent in melee with the same Complex Action, as long as those opponents are within one meter of each other. The attacker’s dice pool is split between each attack, and each attack is handled separately.

Posted by: Squinky May 31 2006, 11:12 PM

You've got a good point there, from a rules point of view, there is no reason be an ambidextrous melee fighter.

Come to think of it, is there even any place where it gives rules for splitting dice with melee weapons? I thought that was only mentioned for ranged weapons.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll May 31 2006, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (Squinky @ May 31 2006, 04:12 PM)

There is no mention of using 2 melee weapons anyplace in SR4 or splitting dice to do so, it's been derived from Ranged as you mentioned.

Melee already provides for attacking multiple opponents using full-dice poll + penalties so there is no splitting of dice even when attacking 4 opponents although the penalties make that pool smaller.

My argument is using Weapon + Hand = Regular Melee attack so replacing the Hand with another weapon would perhaps add the difference between the Hand DV and the Weapon DV?

My assertion:

If you Melee with a Sword (Sword + Hand) for 6DV, then replacing the Hand with another Sword (4DV Hand - 6DV Sword) would add the +2DV to your Melee attack making it 8DV (with 2 Swords) instead of 6DV (with one).

Given the rules for dice and melee, I dont' see how you could do more than adjust the DV of your melee attack with (2) weapons.

Posted by: Tarantula May 31 2006, 11:48 PM

I don't see why having a second sword would make connecting with one or the other any more damaging. Also, the hand would be doing stun, so would that make the average of 4stun (hand) and 6p(sword) 5stun and 5 p? (4S+6P)/2 = 5SP

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll May 31 2006, 11:50 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

I don't see why having a second sword would make connecting with one or the other any more damaging.

Swinging around 2 sharp things vs. 1 sharp thing makes there more of a chance to inflict some extra damage.

I just don't see there being no advantage to using 2 vs. 1.

Posted by: Tarantula May 31 2006, 11:58 PM

Well, by the RAW, you can't use 2 with melee.

Personally, using 2 requires a higher degree of skill as well as the fact that you're still only striking with one sword. You could allow them to split pool, and make 2 melee attacks against one target with 2 swords, which makes much more sense than arbitrarily raising the damage of one sword because you have one in your other hand as well.

Posted by: Glyph Jun 1 2006, 02:41 AM

You can split dice to attack multiple foes with only one weapon. Ambidexterity, however, lets you split those dice against a single opponent. Also, just as with guns, you can have a different type of weapon in each hand - say, a pistol for longer ranges and a knife for up close, or a stun baton and a sword to inflict either physical or stun damage. Plus, being able to use your off hand with no penalties can be an advantage as well. All in all, it's not a bad deal for 5 build points.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 06:57 AM

Glyph, please tell me the page where it says you can split the dice against a single opponent with melee combat.

Posted by: Reijin Jun 1 2006, 01:18 PM

QUOTE

SR4, p. 77

Ambidextrous
Cost: 5 BP

The character can use and handle objects equally well with both hands. The character does not suffer any modifiers for using an off -hand weapon (see p. 142). When using two weapons at once, however, the character must still split his dice pool.

Not sure if that is what you were looking for, but that is what the quality states.

Posted by: NightHaunter Jun 1 2006, 01:42 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Glyph, please tell me the page where it says you can split the dice against a single opponent with melee combat.

Why shouldn't you?
It makes sence to me that you should be able to.

Posted by: Edward Jun 1 2006, 01:54 PM

In ST3 the only dodge was combat pool, so you had to split it not only between defenses abut also improving your offence and soak.

In SR4 you get your full parry when using 2 weapons (I would say if you’re using 2 weapon foci you don’t get both bonuses)

In SR4 2 weapon fighting is for killing mooks, you will ever have the dice to hit a competent opponent while swinging 2 weapons.

Leave your character as it is just when you hit a competent enemy only make one attack at a time.

Teulisch that thread discusses ambidexterity with regard to using firearms. It is almost completely unrelated to this topic

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 1 2006, 05:48 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

So if I get Dual Spurs and Cyberweapons, I've violated RAW? I don't recall ever reading you can't use 2 melee weapons, it's just not stated you can or can't.

Higher degree of skill = larger dice pool, so you can acrue more penalties (or attack more opponets) than a less skilled opponent.

I still think a DV adjustment is the only soliution since dice-pool adjustments already exist for engaging multiple opponents in melee combat with only 1 melee weapon.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (Reijin)

Not sure if that is what you were looking for, but that is what the quality states.

Nope, al that does is say that if you're right-handed, and hold a sword in your left hand, you won't take the -2 die penalty anymore.

QUOTE (NightHaunter)

Why shouldn't you?
It makes sence to me that you should be able to.

Because, the point of having him look for it, is because it doesn't exist. Under the ranged combat modifiers table, there is a modifier called "Attacker using a second fiream" with penalty of "splits dice pool". Theres also a description of how you use 2 guns at once in the explanation of that penatly.

On the melee combat table, the only modifier having anything to do with your hands is "Character using off-hand weapon" with a modifier of "-2". This as I said, means you're right handed, and holding your sword with your left hand. The Ambidexterous quality removes that penalty.

The most similar penalty to it on the melee modifier table is the "Character attacking multiple targets" with the penalty of "splits dice pool". So, while you can attack as many people as you want in one complex action by splitting your pool with your one sword the other is merely ornamental. There isn't a way to make an attack with two weapons in melee by the RAW.

QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)

So if I get Dual Spurs and Cyberweapons, I've violated RAW? I don't recall ever reading you can't use 2 melee weapons, it's just not stated you can or can't.

No, you haven't, you just can't attack with more than one per complex action. So while both hands are equipped with spurs, you can only attack with one or the other per complex action. Attacking each mook once per claw, and splitting your pool to attack multiple mooks in range.

I think that you might as well have each individual weapon do its stated damage, as that makes the most sense, but since you're already house-ruling that you can attack with 2 weapons at once, feel free to house-rule it however you feel like.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 1 2006, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)

So if I get Dual Spurs and Cyberweapons, I've violated RAW? I don't recall ever reading you can't use 2 melee weapons, it's just not stated you can or can't.

Problem is per SR4, you can accomplish the same actions with 1 weapon. Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 weapons at once.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 08:35 PM

Just to clarify what you said...
Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 melee weapons at once.

Oh, unless you want a sword and a stunbaton, or a bat and a chain. Or want to be able to change how much damage you'll be doing in one swing (by say, using a knife instead of the sword). Oh, or having one do S and the other do P. So, lets refine it one more time...

Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 of the same melee weapons at once.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 1 2006, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Well there are reasons to have 2 melee weapons (same of different), but there are no rules for it in SR4, or if so I can't seem to find them.

You could ask, "Why can't you also attack with your off-hand? It's a weapon too!?"

I'd be inclined to agree too since fighting involves more than "just what's in your 1 hand", well a good fighter anyways.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 08:46 PM

No, there aren't rules for attacking with 2 melee weapons in SR4. But having a stunbaton in your left hand and a sword in your right lets you choose to attack with the stunbaton when you don't want to kill the person, and your sword when you do. Whys this good? Because sheathing your sword, then getting the stun baton would take 2 simple actions (one each) and then you wouldn't be able to attack until your next IP. With them both out from the get go, you can alternate between them with a small (-2) or no (with ambidextrous) penalty.

As far as fighting with more than whats in your hand, yeah, thats why the melee combat is considered to be "abstract" and more than just one punch or swing or kick. Theoretically, maybe they punched at you, you blocked with your free hand, grabbed their clothing to prevent them from moving their arm, and made a cut up into their armpit before they tore their arm free from pain. In the case of two weapons, maybe they swung their bat at you, you ducked, they swung backhandedly, you blocked with your primary weapon, swung with your left, which they blocked with their knife, and then you stabbed with your primary weapon and caught them in the neck.

Making logical arguements off the basis that a melee attack is one swing isn't going to help.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 1 2006, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Just to clarify what you said...
Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 melee weapons at once.
[...]
Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 of the same melee weapons at once.

I can think of two reasons:

-Style.

-take a close look at the disarming rule

Posted by: Reijin Jun 1 2006, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

QUOTE (Reijin)

Not sure if that is what you were looking for, but that is what the quality states.

Nope, al that does is say that if you're right-handed, and hold a sword in your left hand, you won't take the -2 die penalty anymore.

QUOTE (NightHaunter)

Why shouldn't you?
It makes sence to me that you should be able to.

Isn't that covered in the statement:

QUOTE

When using two weapons at once, however, the character must still split his dice pool.

Or am I mistaken? Is that just covering ranged weapons, and what would be the rules if I were to attack with a melee weapon and a range weapon in one pass, would I split the total of the lowest dice pool? Or would they be evaluated seperately while splitting agility?

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 08:55 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

QUOTE (Tarantula)

I can think of two reasons:

-Style.

-take a close look at the disarming rule

Refine it to say theres no mechanical advantage (one given by the rules) to wield two of the same weapon at once in sr4.

As far as the disarming rule? Point it out to me? A search through the PDF for disarm came up with disarming the distance safety on launched grenades, and disarming data bombs, but nothing about a disarming rule for melee combat.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (Reijin)

Isn't that covered in the statement:

QUOTE

When using two weapons at once, however, the character must still split his dice pool.

No, because that is listed under the ranged combat penalties. Obviously, ranged combat penalties don't apply to melee combat, and melee combat penalties don't apply to ranged combat.

You can't make a ranged & melee attack in one pass because a melee attack is a complex action. A ranged attack is a simple action, or possibly a complex if its a burst. Either way, since you can only take a complex OR 2 simple actions in a pass, you can't make it happen.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 1 2006, 09:14 PM

There are really no rules for two weapons in melee (yet, but there will be) .

I think Reijins approach to be the sensible one.

After all, it's like the ranged combat one, he didn't ask for more damage or dice.

QUOTE (tarantula)

As far as the disarming rule? Point it out to me?

Page 150, one of the options under called shot: 'Knock something out of the target’s grasp'. This is one of the really weird rules in SR4

.

Hm, after rereading the rules, i think RAW states, you can only call shots for ranged weapons, throwing weapons and unarmed melee attacks.
I don't think that makes sense.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 09:31 PM

No, you can Butter... Pg 147, "Characters using melee weapons may call shots; see the Called Shots, p. 149."

So you can only call shots with ranged weapons, or with armed melee attacks. Since throwing weapons aren't single-shot, semi-auto, or burst, which is what the called shot descriptor has. Nor are they a melee weapon.

As far as the disarm rules, ok, so having 2 weapons of the same and ambidexterous will allow you to virtually ignore getting disarmed once, since you can then just continue attacking with the other weapon.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 1 2006, 09:46 PM

I really wondered about that one.

Let me quote:

QUOTE (p. 135)

Call a Shot
A character may “call a shot” (aim for a vulnerable portion of a target) with this Free Action. See Called Shots, p. 149. This action must be immediately followed by a Take Aim, Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee Unarmed Attack.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 1 2006, 09:59 PM

I suppose that passage then allows unarmed melee attacks and thrown weapons to be used with a called shot as well then.

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Jun 1 2006, 11:54 PM

I would suspect it's either a fluke in typing or a misquote.

Honestly, how can you not make a called shot with any of the types of attacks?

pistol: aim for the head
fist: aim for the head(or rather, the nose)
sword: lunge at the head, chop that hand off skewer the chum (ouch)
axe: lob his bloody head off!
machine gun: sure, 20 bullets in the body hurt a lot, but I'll take 10 for the head when one pops it off too.
stun baton: crotch shot, baby.
two knives: One on each side of the neck, then throw them over your head with some jujitsu or whatever. Tenchu rip off right there.

SR is more about the sensibility than the rules (this isn't DnD, honestly). There's a reason they encourage you being creative. THey also mention that the roles aren't all defining - if a character does something well, you are perfectly entitled to say 'hell, that works for me!'

That's one of my favorite things about Shadowrun: you aren't ruled by the book. You can negotiate with it.

As per a reason to use two weapons over one with fighting someone skilled, the best theory I can figure is you're playing on the odds that they'll roll bad at a critical moment you roll well. Admittedly, that doesn't seem as effective as just one handing them and trying to beat the dice that way (but it is definitely useful for trying for some sort of one(two) hit kills when being sneaky).

(reason for edit: forgot my head).

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 2 2006, 01:58 AM

QUOTE (Cold-Dragon)

pistol: aim for the head
fist: aim for the head(or rather, the nose)
sword: lunge at the head, chop that hand off skewer the chum (ouch)
axe: lob his bloody head off!
machine gun: sure, 20 bullets in the body hurt a lot, but I'll take 10 for the head when one pops it off too.
stun baton: crotch shot, baby.
two knives: One on each side of the neck, then throw them over your head with some jujitsu or whatever. Tenchu rip off right there.

Just me being facetious

Fist a better target would be the throat, or the temple.
sword, might as well aim for stabbing the heart, more likely to hit that by going between a rib than going through their skull
axe: sure, if you're strong enough, or just get the arteries in the neck.
stun baton: somewhere along the spine would work better

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Jun 2 2006, 05:04 AM

Besides the obvious choice of locations to hit with weapons ( lol ) It goes to show called shots work quite well and definitely make sense in just about all those situations. I could see telling someone they can't call a shot if vulnerabilities are protected in some fashion (or else it just negates some or all the benefits).

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 2 2006, 07:10 PM

Having broken my hand punching someone in the temple, I can speak for a number of ways in which that is *not* the best target for a fist. A slight twist of the head, and you know what's in front of your hand instead of the temple? That big solid bony front of their skull.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 2 2006, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

Yeah, despite what they do in movies, punching someone in the mouth or skull is not a good idea, hehe.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 2 2006, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)

Yeah, despite what they do in movies, punching someone in the mouth or skull is not a good idea, hehe.

I was amused when my doc informed me I had what was called a "boxer's fracture." Apparently, little-finger-side metacarpal breaks are pretty common.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 2 2006, 08:28 PM

Yet another reason to get cyber hands man.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 2 2006, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Jun 2 2006, 11:22 AM)

Yeah, despite what they do in movies, punching someone in the mouth or skull is not a good idea, hehe.

I was amused when my doc informed me I had what was called a "boxer's fracture." Apparently, little-finger-side metacarpal breaks are pretty common.

Well no one has claimed boxers are smart...

Next time, shoot for the collar bone, it breaks much easier and ends the fight quicker.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 2 2006, 10:22 PM

I wasn't trying to cause permanent damage, I was trying to get the guy to back the fuck off and stop flailing at me. After my hand suddenly started hurting a lot, knocking him into a big solid object nearby worked about as well.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 2 2006, 10:28 PM

You guys are like ninjas.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 2 2006, 11:38 PM

*shrug* It was a dumb fight that got started because the guy didn't like something I was doing, and wasn't so hot with the impulse control. At that point, my hand hurt like hell, he was smacking at my head, and I was pissed off. Shouldering someone into a cabinet isn't graceful, but if it knocks the wind out of them long enough that you can leave before they get their shit back together, it's a good enough solution for me.

Spent 8 weeks with a wrist cast on. I was annoyed Stupid thing to get hurt doing.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 2 2006, 11:41 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume @ May 31 2006, 10:25 AM)

Its not a legend. He started using a Bamboo sword against all his opponents. He felt bad about killing so many men who would challenge him just to be the guy who defeated him. So he started taking challengers with a Bamboo training sword, also called a Daito. He defeated allot of men using that. And as far as I know he did use two swords, but it wasn't like he invented or even pioneered duel wielding. he was most famous for the Bamboo sword.

Small correction, he did defeat a master swordsman using a Bokken, a wooden oar that was carved to resemble a sword. His opponet used a No-dachi.

To be honest fighting with two swords is unwieldy and awkward. It takes a lot of training for someone to be on par with a single sword fighter. Like the man said, we only have one brain.

Tell you what though, firearm trumps sword everytime.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 3 2006, 12:07 AM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

All the more reason to break something.

Personally, if it comes to blows, I like to win.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 3 2006, 12:14 AM

QUOTE (Shadow)

Tell you what though, firearm trumps sword everytime.

I have to disagree. I've run and played in a live-action game that used firearms and melee weapons, and I'd rather have a short sword than a gun in a pinch. It comes down to this: it takes two moments to shoot someone (aim-shoot), but only one to cut them (strike). Time and time again, I saw people "cut" down before they could finish aiming, all things being equal. Thrown weapons were also faster than guns.

Of course, if you've got a bunch of people that can cover multiple angles, then firearms become more useful, but one-on-one, unless the environment and situation is ideal for the gun-wielder, it's going to be the guy with the pig-sticker.

In Shadowrun, I'd say this would be bst represented by a melee fighter with multiple IPs, and plenty of dodge or gymnastics. Use the first IP getting close while performing full defense, and then cut them open in the second or third IP.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 3 2006, 01:34 AM

You can't really compare LARPing with real life though.....or can you?

I can tell you that I would prefer a gun over a sword or knife, especially a good old shotgun.

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Jun 3 2006, 01:44 AM

True, a shotgun will pretty much 'solve' everything, but only if the barrel is pointing at it, you have ammo, and you get the shot off. Someone going melee on your butt just has to get past the barrell length to be safe from the blast, or push it aside to reach you. From there it's a matter of wrestling with the shotgun and them to get it back at face range, or else you got to 'run away' to set your sights again.

range trumps melee at ranged

melee trumps range at melee

shotgun trumps close up near melee if you get a good shot, otherwise it's a liability if you miss (now if you got the automatic shotgun, that may be a different story, but then I may as well throw spears at you).

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Jun 3 2006, 04:14 AM

QUOTE (Cold-Dragon)

range trumps melee at ranged

melee trumps range at melee

Yeah. The idea if you have to fight someone with a firearm, is to get close enough so if you get the chance you can disarm of take them out before they can shoot you. This applies to both SR and real-life.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 3 2006, 05:43 AM

QUOTE (Cold-Dragon)

range trumps melee at ranged
melee trumps range at melee

Not entirely. At range, the melee guy has a chance to get some cover and concealment (the coveted C&C), and then arrange for it to become melee. C&C is hard to come by and even harder to use in melee.

So yes: on an open plain, at range, the gun guy has the advantage. Inside an average office building, probably it's the melee guy. In your average street, I'd say it's close, maybe leaning toward the melee guy if he can find some of that sweet, sweet C&C.

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Jun 3 2006, 06:11 AM

...because the melee guy has to run up to do melee, gun still trumps melee in range, because it's no longer range that which the melee is being used.

Close, but not quite. If you were to say you could dodge bullets, then chuck your battleaxe into their gut or remove their hand, that'd be melee trumping the gun.

But I'm being technical and getting amusement out of this.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 3 2006, 06:27 AM

Aaron: To be clear, you're talking only about SR(4), and not what'd happen IRL?

Posted by: Shadow Jun 3 2006, 07:44 AM

QUOTE (Aaron)

QUOTE (Shadow @ Jun 2 2006, 06:41 PM)

Tell you what though, firearm trumps sword everytime.

You were playing with morons then.

Guns are it, this is why they replaced melee weapons. Seriously I am sure a super skilled swordsman could manage stab a novice gun men if he had surprise. But that is pretty much the rule anyways, you have surprise, and you choose the battle ground you will probably win. Unless you are more than five feet away and they have a gun, then you die.

Now you need to pick the right tool for the right job, no clearing rooms with a 24" shotgun. Really though, I suggest you think about how guns work versus swords. And don't use the argument "if I can get in close" because you never will, not ever. You will be shot 100 yards away from the target.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 3 2006, 08:01 AM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

I was amused when my doc informed me I had what was called a "boxer's fracture." Apparently, little-finger-side metacarpal breaks are pretty common.

Well, for one, if you are punching, you want to only hit with the knuckles of your pointer and middle finger, why? Because the bones in your hand behind them are much less likely to break than your ring or pinky finger. Also, temple is a very specific target, if you hit the big bony front of their skull, guess what? You missed.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 3 2006, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Cold-Dragon)

Close, but not quite. If you were to say you could dodge bullets, then chuck your battleaxe into their gut or remove their hand, that'd be melee trumping the gun.

You don't have to dodge bullets, just get out of their way. In real life, it's actually pretty hard to hit a running target, never mind one who's found some cover and concealment.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 3 2006, 01:36 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

Aaron: To be clear, you're talking only about SR(4), and not what'd happen IRL?

Nope, I'm talking about real life. Yes, I really am talking about real life. Except the part where I specifically stated the concept for a Shadowrun (4) character.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 3 2006, 01:51 PM

Okay. So you advocate knives and swords for CQB instead of MP5s and M4s? Have you considered contacting the Naval Special Warfare Development Group on this?

Posted by: Aaron Jun 3 2006, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (Shadow)

Guns are it, this is why they replaced melee weapons. Seriously I am sure a super skilled swordsman could manage stab a novice gun men if he had surprise. But that is pretty much the rule anyways, you have surprise, and you choose the battle ground you will probably win. Unless you are more than five feet away and they have a gun, then you die.

Actually, point-blank shots against an uncooperative target are a lot harder than you'd think. My hand-to-hand instructor during Basic Training (and later, coincidentally, both my Kendo master and one of my martial arts instructors) had words to say that refuted the superiority of the firearm with varying degrees of contempt. As he said, if having a gun made you so superior, why would the Army waste so much time training its soldiers to fight hand-to-hand?

Guns are not "it," as you say. Guns merely take a lot less training to use. This creates the illusion of superiority, because "meat-head with gun" is more dangerous than "meat-head with sword." If they'd replaced melee weapons, soldiers wouldn't have bayonet-capable knives, and they certainly wouldn't stow them in combat-ready sheathes.

QUOTE

Now you need to pick the right tool for the right job, no clearing rooms with a 24" shotgun. Really though, I suggest you think about how guns work versus swords. And don't use the argument "if I can get in close" because you never will, not ever. You will be shot 100 yards away from the target.

Um ... I did think about how guns work versus swords. Guns take two actions to use, and swords take one. I also said that if you're on a plain with no cover or concealment, then the gun is superior (you are reading my posts, aren't you, and not just glancing at them?). But that changes a lot if you're in any kind of environment where there is cover or concealment.

The next bit is encapsulated for those who are bored with this conversation.

[ Spoiler ]

All of this cuts to the heart of the argument, which no one has made yet, but really should have been brought up some time ago. Weapons do not fight one another. People fight one another. There's no such thing as a superior weapon. I've been tossed like a rag doll bringing a sword against an unarmed man, and I've shot myself in the face with an airsoft against a man who'd been kneeling in front of me moments earlier. The tools are really inconsequential.

But if you're a meat-head, and you're fighting a meat-head, then yeah, go with the gun.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 3 2006, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

Okay. So you advocate knives and swords for CQB instead of MP5s and M4s? Have you considered contacting the Naval Special Warfare Development Group on this?

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 3 2006, 02:11 PM

Well, you seem to be saying their using firearms is stupid and bound to get them killed against knife-wielding opponents, especially in such confined spaces as they often face in maritime operations, so maybe you should clue them in. I'm sure they'll appreciate you telling them they've wasted decades on such silly toys as the MP5 when they could've been carrying katanas.

Posted by: Teulisch Jun 3 2006, 02:33 PM

you want to use the right weapon for the job. this includes such things as range, reach, and such. at long range, you want to have a rifle, maybe a heavy weapon. at medium range, your better off with pistols and shotguns. at short range... now the swords come into play.

If i have an enemy at range, i may want to shoot him. a silencer is good if i need to keep quiet. If i have an enemy in close, i need a weapon to use, and fight him with what skill i have. A shock glove and unarmed combat is a good way to drop somebody.

If the swordsman gets suprise at sword range, hes gonna win. if a pistol and sword fight at pistol range, smart money is on the pistol (if he knows how to use one). at longer ranges? bet on the sniper.

If you have 3 swordmen, and i have 3 gunmen, with pistol, assault rifle, and sniper rifle, i think the guy with the pistol will die before i can kill all the swordsmen. lets hope he has docwagon.

to claim a sword is better than a gun is silly. but to claim that the adept swordmaster is better than the gunbunny street sam? he could be. tactics and luck are a significant part of combat in SR

Posted by: Squinky Jun 3 2006, 04:16 PM

Aaron==Ninja Mofo.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 4 2006, 12:05 AM

QUOTE

Actually, point-blank shots against an uncooperative target are a lot harder than you'd think.

No it's not. It's called CQB. Using pistols and SMG's two Delta snipers held off thousands of Somalis armed with machete’s and AK's. Ask them if they wasted there time on training.

QUOTE

My hand-to-hand instructor during Basic Training (and later, coincidentally, both my Kendo master and one of my martial arts instructors) had words to say that refuted the superiority of the firearm with varying degrees of contempt. As he said, if having a gun made you so superior, why would the Army waste so much time training its soldiers to fight hand-to-hand?

Whoopy do. Because the Army try's to prepare you for all situations, not just the most common. There will be times when you run out of ammo, or are forced into such close quarters (a trench) that you will need some skill in defense. IIRC correctly my hand to hand consisted of 3 hours and was a joke. I was told by my DI to never let anyone get close, that’s why you have a rifle.

No offense but your "Kendo Master" has the same attitude that most people with guns have. "I know/Have Kendo/Gun I am unstoppable. It's an attitude that will get you killed no matter what weapon you use.

QUOTE

Um ... I did think about how guns work versus swords. Guns take two actions to use, and swords take one. I also said that if you're on a plain with no cover or concealment, then the gun is superior (you are reading my posts, aren't you, and not just glancing at them?). But that changes a lot if you're in any kind of environment where there is cover or concealment.

The number of actions have nothing to do with it. You have to get into range to use your sword/knife. If your in range great, it's getting into range that will kill you. Concealment is negligible, since you just shoot through it. Cover is great if you can find it, but unless you are shooting back how do you propose to leave cover and not get shot?

QUOTE

While that has some merit, it is mostly crap. The tools DO matter. Never bring a knife to a gun fight. I am not sure what Military you served in, but I can't see how you could have served in any and think the way you do.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 12:27 AM

QUOTE (Shadow)

No offense but your "Kempo Master" has the same attitude that most people with guns have. "I know/Have Kempo/Gun I am unstoppable. It's an attitude that will get you killed no matter what weapon you use.

Just a FYI thing, kempo/kenpo is a style of unarmed martial arts, kendo is a style of fighting with a sword. If you're going to be referencing what someone said, you could at least reference it correctly without trying to correct something you have no knowledge in.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 4 2006, 12:30 AM

Thanks for the heads up, I saw Kempo where he said Kendo. It doesn't change the relevance of what I said, but I agree, you should always quote directly.

QUOTE

you could at least reference it correctly without trying to correct something you have no knowledge in.

I am not trying to 'correct' him in how Kendo works, or its effectivness against other Kendo users. Kendo itself is less about sword fighting than it is about striking your opponent. Were not debating the merrits of Kendo here. We are debating his bold statement that a sword is better than a gun in close combat, based on his experience in larping.

LARPING.

People like Austere Emancipator, Raygun, and others have served in the freeking military and actually have been in Close Combat. So maybe the whole

QUOTE (Tarantula)

correct something you have no knowledge in.

comment should be saved for the guy advocating swords over Firearms based on his vast LARPING experience.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 12:38 AM

QUOTE (Shadow)

No it's not. It's called CQB. Using pistols and SMG's two Delta snipers held off thousands of Somalis armed with machete’s and AK's. Ask them if they wasted there time on training.

And how skilled were the somalis compared to the delta snipers? What ranges were they engaging in? Sure, charging across an open field with a machete toward two highly trained professionals with smgs you're very likely to get wasted unless they suffer from some sort of mechanical failure. If you're going to be making real life comparions, the only relevant ones would be when both combatants are aproximately equally skilled with their weapon of choice.

QUOTE (Shadow)

No offense but your "Kendo Master" has the same attitude that most people with guns have. "I know/Have Kendo/Gun I am unstoppable. It's an attitude that will get you killed no matter what weapon you use.

Yes, it is. Learn to adapt. Adaptation is how you survive, relying on the same trick to work always will lead to it failing.

QUOTE (Shadow)

Not always, you could throw your knife. Pretty useless in real life, but in shadowrun, it works pretty well, especially if you have a lot of strength. Regardless, as he said, if you're distanced, the gun will usually win. If you're close up, the knife/sword will usually win. There are exceptions to every rule.

QUOTE (Shadow)

Sure, but never bring a gun to a knife fight. If its pitch black, and all you have to identify where your opponant is is by sound and feel, I'd much rather have a knife, so I could stab where I believe he is, or seeing him shoot randomly, attack where the muzzleflash was. Theres plenty of situations where knife trumps gun, or gun trumps knife. The only question is, which situation are you in, and do you have the skills and tools you need to survive?

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 12:40 AM

QUOTE (Shadow)

I merely assumed you had only heard of kempo, and were attempting to correct him in what style his instructor had taught. Obviously you have no knowledge of this beyond what he tells you, and that is what my arguement was aiming at. You said you simply misread the style, so feel free to ignore my comment about correcting outside of your area of knowledge.

QUOTE (Shadow)

People like Austere Emancipator, Raygun, and others have served in the freeking military and actually have been in Close Combat. So maybe the whole

QUOTE (Tarantula)

correct something you have no knowledge in.

comment should be saved for the guy advocating swords over Firearms based on his vast LARPING experience.

One last thing... Sure, they have, so they can discuss it as they have the experiece. As far as I can tell you haven't been in those close combat situations, and therefore you still are speaking outside of your knowledge even moreso than the guy with the LARP experience.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 4 2006, 01:01 AM

Even as absurd as this arguement is (Blades vs. Guns) I can't stand by and let LARPING get mentioned as combat experience....I just can't...

LARPING isn't combat experience, no way.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 01:04 AM

No, it isn't, but its definately at least more practical than no experience with anything.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 4 2006, 01:24 AM

Linking LARPING with combat knowledge is like linking masturbation to knowing how to please a woman. Swinging around foam weaponry in a playing field is in no way similair to real combat.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 01:32 AM

If you're a woman squinky, then your analogy is more apt. Simply because you'd know how to please yourself, so thus you'd have a better idea of how other women might want to be pleased. Larping gives you a better understanding for the level of skill used in a real combat, simply by having the experince of trying to hit someone while being (relatively) unskilled yourself.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 4 2006, 05:50 AM

QUOTE (Shadow)

We are debating his bold statement that a sword is better than a gun in close combat, based on his experience in larping.

LARPING.

Yeah, LARPing. Well, performing a series of test fights with a couple different boffers vs. a few different Airsoft guns (which, incidentally, sting like a motherf*cker at close range) under various circumstances. We weren't really using any ruleset more complicated than "if I hit you you're injured or dead." I'm not sure whether there's a better word than "LARPing" for that, but if you'd like to call it something else, knock yourself out.

I've been in what one would call "real combat" before, but never where I had to kill anyone (thankfully), and never one with the aforementioned sword versus gun situation. If my little test case wasn't sufficiently accurate, then I'll happily compare data with someone who has run multiple tests with more realistic equipment (but I'd prefer not to participate, thanks).

In answer to the remainder of Shadow's post, I direct your attention to my previous posts. I hate duplicating my own efforts; it's annoyingly inefficient.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 4 2006, 07:12 AM

I am just going to shake my head and walk away now. I pray you are never in combat, I really do.

Posted by: crechebaby Jun 4 2006, 07:28 AM

This is seriously the stupidest argument I've ever.. even HEARD of. Seriously. However, being a woman, I did get a great laugh out of Squinky's last comment ;)

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 08:05 AM

I have not, in fact, ever been in life or death combat. I did get some unarmed and club training in the military because I was trained as an MP (in the Finnish DF), but it was for peace time operations only. Against any armed opponents we'd have our assault rifles, and we were taught to always trust 180 rounds of 7.62x39mm over our hands.

If I remember correctly, Raygun has not been in the military, but has way, way more experience in everything gun-related than I do.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

And how skilled were the somalis compared to the delta snipers? What ranges were they engaging in?

They were crap, and, AFAIK, they were engaging them somewhere between 5 and 30 meters -- this was downtown Mogadishu, after all, and the helo came down on or right next to a lot of shanties. Shughart and Gordon were armed with an M14 and a CAR-15, respectively, and at least Shughart also fired personal weapons from the helo crew. The most common weapon for the somalis in those crowds was probably the AK-47 and copies.

If someone believes the two could have done the same had they been 1337 ninjas with katanas instead, I fear for their mental health.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

If you're going to be making real life comparions, the only relevant ones would be when both combatants are aproximately equally skilled with their weapon of choice.

Such examples are quite rare, because it's usually just the fatally stupid and completely insane that decide to engage firearms with knives and swords.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Theres plenty of situations where knife trumps gun, or gun trumps knife. The only question is, which situation are you in, and do you have the skills and tools you need to survive?

I'm pretty sure the average shadowrunner is more often in situations where there is at least some visibility and he starts off more than 5 meters from the enemy than in situations where he's completely blind and the enemy is already hugging him. Or maybe that just goes for those shadowrunners who appreciate living.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

No, it isn't, but its definately at least more practical than no experience with anything.

With anything? I guess it may be better than never having been anywhere near anything even indirectly combat-related. Or it may just as well breed ignorance because LARP combat is governed by an utterly different set of laws from actual combat.

Not that I believe for a second you can beat an airsoft gun with a foam sword in most LARPing scenarios. Zero recoil, RoFs beyond 800rpm, magazine capacities generally well above 50 and extremely light, easily maneuverable weapons lead to lots of fake-dead motherfuckers.

QUOTE (Aaron)

[...] I'll happily compare data with someone who has run multiple tests with more realistic equipment (but I'd prefer not to participate, thanks).

Again, I'm sure DEVGRU will appreciate that. They run such tests non-stop, and have done so for decades. Same goes for most special operations forces around the world, and lately all well-funded military and police forces. Amazingly, every single one of them has reached the same conclusion: that guns trump swords. Enough so that, while they do also get taught some unarmed and knife fighting techniques, there is absolutely no question about which is the #1 killing tool.

QUOTE (Shadow)

I pray you are never in combat, I really do.

Why do you hate Darwin?

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 08:16 AM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

If someone believes the two could have done the same had they been 1337 ninjas with katanas instead, I fear for their mental health.

1337 ninjas would've just hidden and not had to kill anyone! DUH!

Also, the example that was mentioned said "held off thousands of Somalis armed with machete’s and AK's". Really, its more of a gun vs gun fight. I originally interperated it as the somalis had machetes mostly, with a few aks, and the delta force guys were able to hold them off by using guns, showing guns trumps swords. Not guns vs guns with a few machetes thrown in. If the case is delta force guys vs somalis with aks, all it shows is training pays off.

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

Not that I believe for a second you can beat an airsoft gun with a foam sword in most LARPing scenarios. Zero recoil, RoFs beyond 800rpm, magazine capacities generally well above 50 and extremely light, easily maneuverable weapons lead to lots of fake-dead motherfuckers.

I can, simply because the guy using the airsoft gun is just as untrained, and might just jump back and scream when you charge at him, rather than drawing and fireing in a manner similar to a trained professional. Maybe he hits the trigger guard instead of the trigger with his finger. Left the safety on. (Do they even have safetys?) Left his clip empty. Was out of CO2. Guns are much more complex than a sword, and have more chance to malfunction.... not to say that its the case in anything remotely resembling a large number of cases, but the less trained the person is using it, the more likely user error will occur.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 08:28 AM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

If the case is delta force guys vs somalis with aks, all it shows is training pays off.

Since no somali could get within machete range of Shughart and Gordon before getting killed, it was assault rifles vs. assault rifles. I'm sure there were hundreds or thousands of somalis that would have wanted to get closer, but even they weren't that stupid. They just waited for the hundreds or thousands of AK-carrying guys to get lucky.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

So what you're saying is, as long as both combatants are fucking morons, the guy with the sword wins? I can buy that. That has no bearing on the majority of RL or SR combat, however.

QUOTE (Tarantula)

1337 ninjas would've just hidden and not had to kill anyone! DUH!

And in doing so would have abandoned the only reason they were there. Pfeh. Ninjas are pussies.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 4 2006, 08:39 AM

I dunno, I'd say quite a lot of people are fucking morons and walk around with a knife of gun with them with the "I can use this and be ok" idea behind it. When a situation comes up, who knows who'll win, simply cause they're both fucking morons.

As far as SR combat goes, you're right, but trolls bows shooting through tanks isn't very good either, but it happens. Sword guys can beat rifles sometimes too, it happens.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 08:51 AM

The clinically retarded who are holding a weapon for the first time usually stay the hell away from combat. Or else they get killed in short order while those who know what the fuck they're doing continue fighting. Either way, they make no real impact in the serious fighting that goes on around the world between groups of people with firearms.

Even the idiots you saw jumping around in the streets with AKs in the footage of "war" in Liberia are bright enough to kill equally sucky people with machetes.

Melee can be effective in SR, way more so than IRL (like I implied in my very first message in this thread), but that doesn't really have anything do with the relative stupidity of all the characters in the game. It's got more to do with the same sort of silly rules that allow for anti-vehicular bows, like you said.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 4 2006, 12:52 PM

QUOTE (Shadow)

QUOTE (Butterblume @ May 31 2006, 10:25 AM)

Slight nitpick 1: Daito translates very roughly as "longsword" and is generally synomous with katana.

Slight nitpick 2: A bamboo sword is called a Shinai. It is commonly used in Kendo and other competetive martial arts today due to the fact that they are safer than traditional hardwood swords.

Slight nitpick 3: Shinai were not commonly used when musashi was fighting. Instead more dangerous but more realistic curved hardwood swords were used for practice. These swords were all called bokken which translates very roughly as "wooden blade." Bokken does not simply refer to a sword carved from an oar.

Slight nitpick 4: Musashi chose to use an oar for his weapon against Kojiro Sasaki simply because of the reach advantage it provided. The oar was longer than Sasaki's nodachi. Sasaki did die from his wounds. It is quite easy to beat someone to death with a wooden sword.

QUOTE

Since no somali could get within machete range of Shughart and Gordon before getting killed, it was assault rifles vs. assault rifles. I'm sure there were hundreds or thousands of somalis that would have wanted to get closer, but even they weren't that stupid. They just waited for the hundreds or thousands of AK-carrying guys to get lucky.

Just because they didn't try a massed suicide charge dosn't mean that a suicide charge doesn't work. Zulus armed with spears have used the tactic to kick British ass.

The thing about suicide charges though is that they are suicidal. The entire point is to throw as many bodies at the enemy as is possible so that they would be able to kill them fast enough. Some will get to melee range and those that do can cause significant damage. Once the initial defenders are taken down and the fire abates the rest f the group would be able to charge in practically unhindered. Of course, most of the original waves wil be slaughtered.

Suicide charges can work in a one-vs-one situation, as well. It is quite possible for a kniveman to charge a gunman and cause fatal injuries before succumbing to gunshot wounds himself.

But suicide charges are usually a waste of lives. They are only to be used sparingly, as the Zulu's found out the hard way.

Guns and knives, in general, are used from completely different postures. On the streets, guns are most often as standoff weapons. They can be used to respond to attacks, to maintain distance, and to maintain control over an enemy. Knives, on the other hand, are weapons of assasins. They work best when the enemy is unaware; you shake a friend's hand with your right and gut him with your left or you sneak up and stab them in the back.

The big difference is that you need less manuvering and less deception to effectivly use a gun in most cases but a knife can cause potentially more damage. if you ever have a chance to use it simply due to the side of the cavity you can potentially carve out.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 01:54 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

Zulus armed with spears have used the tactic to kick British ass.

The Brits did not all have several select-fire small arms in arms reach, nor would they have been well enough trained to effectively engaged several fast-moving targets with cover had they had such weapons.

Sure, if a thousand somalis had decided to charge the 2 Deltas at the same time, that would no doubt have worked. The amount of courage required to do that would have pretty much negated the advantage in discipline of TFR, though. In fact, the amount of courage that kind of suicide charge takes crosses the border into stupidity in my book. The Spraying Bullets Wildly Around Corners probably allowed them to overtake Shughart, Gordon and Durant with less casualties.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

On the streets [...]

I take it this refers to "street level" streets? In which case it's largely true. When very poorly trained and undisciplined combatants engage each other with firearms, it's mostly suppressive fire. With disciplined and trained combatants, however... Well, US soldiers on the streets of Iraq are rather more commonly "assassinated" with firearms than knives.

In very specific and constricting sets of circumstances, I admit that knives can be more effective killing tools. I'm only saying these scenarios make up a small minority of all the lethal combat that takes place between humans.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

[...] a knife can cause potentially more damage. if you ever have a chance to use it simply due to the side of the cavity you can potentially carve out.

So you're only comparing knives to handguns with FMJs when you cannot get off a well aimed shot? Anyway, given an opponent that doesn't fight back, anyone with basic weapon handling skills can score a kill within a second with any serious weapon, while if the opponent does fight back doing a comparison like this becomes kinda hard.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 4 2006, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Shadow)

I pray you [Aaron] are never in combat, I really do.

Why do you hate Darwin?

No, no, it's okay. I pray that, too.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 4 2006, 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

[...] a knife can cause potentially more damage. if you ever have a chance to use it simply due to the side of the cavity you can potentially carve out.

So you're only comparing knives to handguns with FMJs when you cannot get off a well aimed shot?

No, I'm simply making an observation based on maximum potential wound size per attack against an unarmored enemy in general.

QUOTE

Of course, which is entirely my point. Using a blade effectivly against an armed enemy requires a great deal of manuvering that is not necessary if you use a gun instead.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 07:09 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

No, I'm simply making an observation based on maximum potential wound size per attack against an unarmored enemy in general.

I'd love to see the knife which, with a single attack, causes more lethal tissue damage to a human than 9 pellets of 00 buck at 1200fps or, say, a .308 Win 165gr HP at 2700fps. A Daiklave, perhaps?

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

Of course, which is entirely my point. Using a blade effectivly against an armed enemy requires a great deal of manuvering that is not necessary if you use a gun instead.

Okay. I guess I'm being a bit aggressive about this because I'd like it to be made absolutely clear that, as a rule, in combat, whether it be in apartment or office buildings, forests, beaches, fields, streets, or hills, guns trump swords.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 4 2006, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

No, I'm simply making an observation based on maximum potential wound size per attack against an unarmored enemy in general.

I'd love to see the knife which, with a single attack, causes more lethal tissue damage to a human than 9 pellets of 00 buck at 1200fps or, say, a .308 Win 165gr HP at 2700fps. A Daiklave, perhaps?

If you measure lethality by the volume of a permeant wound cavity with preference given to depth than a gladuis or practically any other wide blade of sufficient length. Of course, 9 pellets of buckshot has some advantage because they create 9 separate cavities that may or may not overlap.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 07:48 PM

I'm pretty sure nobody's ever made an edged weapon that will create a wound cavity in tissue which can challenge some .308 HP loads in volume. Or can you fit an NFL spec football inside a wound caused by a gladius? You can beat most combat small arms in depth of penetration with any a blade that's more than 2 feet long (though you'll need a greatsword to match heavier solid bullets), but it makes little difference when you're going to get complete penetration of the target human body with most attacks.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 4 2006, 07:53 PM

Guys, we can solve this quickly and easily. I'll go get an old broomstick and duct tape foam on it, one of you get a squirt gun. Just make sure you yell "Burst fire!" when you attack.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 4 2006, 08:32 PM

For really close quarters I would prefer a knife.

Regarding the gun (pistol): I have seen people miss a 2m² target at 10 meters for 40 tries in a row, and that was under ideal, aka no-stress, situations. Of course, they weren't trained.
Neither was I, but I might have been just talented .

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 4 2006, 08:36 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

Regarding the gun (pistol): I have seen people miss a 2m² target at 10 meters for 40 tries in a row, and that was under ideal, aka no-stress, situations. Of course, they weren't trained.

Did someone tell them what the small protrusions on the top of the gun were for? Were they legally blind?

The first time my MP platoon handled our (at least) 30-year-old, heavily beaten up Hi-Powers, there was only one guy who managed to miss the 60cm diameter round targets at 25 meters more than once out of 10 rounds, and he was the dumbest motherfucker I've ever known.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 4 2006, 08:54 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Butterblume)

Regarding the gun (pistol): I have seen people miss a 2m² target at 10 meters for 40 tries in a row, and that was under ideal, aka no-stress, situations. Of course, they weren't trained.

Did someone tell them what the small protrusions on the top of the gun were for? Were they legally blind?

They probably moved the gun down when pulling the trigger (that seems to be the most likely explanation).
I am not sure if they hit later in basic military training

. But then, only officers and medical personnel carried pistols in our unit

.

Everytime someone mentions finnish military, i think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Posted by: -X- Jun 4 2006, 10:31 PM

A small pistol can be used almost as if it was a jabbing knife in close quarters, only you don't need to commit to the attack to use it. Cybernetic triggers make this even more true.

As long as ammo (and jamming) isn't a huge issue ranged weapons rule. In a fight between a moderately trained kendo enthusiast and someone wielding a rifle or weapon of equal or greater barrel length while inside, I'd go ahead and bet on the guy with the sword. But even still I'd be a little nervous about losing my money, and the distinct possibility that the two would kill each other.

Posted by: DrowVampyre Jun 5 2006, 06:05 AM

I'm no expert, but I've gotta say that there are very, very few situations when a knife or sword beats a gun. If you don't believe me, ask the samurai (very skilled swordsmen) who got cut down by Oda Nobunaga's musket wielding troops (far less trained with their slow rate of fire, inaccurate guns). Or, for a more modern example, the Japanese officers in World War II that led banzai charges armed with katana and more often than not got cut to ribbons by the opposing American soldiers.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 5 2006, 10:15 PM

In response to the "it takes one action to cut a guy, two actions to shoot him" comment made earlier:

A lot of places that provide firearm instruction will teach stress firing techniques. One of the things that gets taught is point shooting; the sights on the gun aren't used, and often times the gun isn't even brought up to eye level, because the intention of the drill is to get the shooter familiar enough with the weapon he's using that they're able to engage targets at the kind of close ranges we're talking about (within a couple of meters) as quickly as possible. Weapon familiarity and hand-eye coordination let you know within a small enough arc where your weapon is pointed that, once the gun is in hand and pointed in the right direction (just like you have to have a blade in hand and pointed in the right direction before you cut someone), you start shooting, and at the kind of ranges point shooting is meant to be used at, you should be on target.

If anyone's having trouble visualizing this, a decent example in film can be found in Collateral, when Vincent (Tom Cruise) finds himself being held at gunpoint by a thief in an alley. After knocking the gun out of line with his face (a cool-looking move, but not what we're watching this bit for), he's got a very limited amount of time to handle the situation, as the thief is still armed and has an accomplice (who is also carrying a gun, although it's not drawn). Vincent draws his sidearm, rotates it to the horizontal without raising it above his lower ribs, and fires twice into his target's torso, then turns to engage the accomplice. "Aiming" in the classic sense (lifting the gun to eye level, extending the weapon at arm's length, and aligning the sights) never happened, and was unnecessary at that range.

Are there situations where I'd rather have a knife than a gun? Sure, I can think of a couple. However, the likelihood of my encountering one of them is so small, even compared to the relatively low chance of my encountering a situation where I need a gun, that it seems almost silly to devote more than a small percentage of your training time towards those situations.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 6 2006, 12:04 AM

QUOTE (Tarantula @ Jun 3 2006, 12:01 AM)

Speaking as the guy who broke his hand, uh... no shit. I learned the difference between "upper knuckles hitting temple" and "lower knuckles hitting solid bone next to temple." It's a few degrees of head twist.

I get the impression that missing happens relatively often if they name the type of fracture after people who punch each other for a living. Since I was a teenager with no real training in how to punch people (and I didn't have wonderful advisors like you on the Internet to tell me how to do it right, either), I tend to look at breaking my hand on someone's head as being a learning experience that I'd like to try and save others from experiencing, if I get the chance.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 6 2006, 09:11 AM

In that case, if you don't know what the hell you're doing, yeah, aiming for a dime sized target thats surrounded by dense bone isn't exactly the best idea. Better ones would be the throat, side of the jaw, nose, solar plexus or groin. Mostly soft targets, called so because you don't have to hit them as hard to cause damage.

Regardless, when you have a glove on over your hand, you're really only able to hit the side of their head, with maybe a little more pressure on the temple from where your knuckles compressed the foam a bit more. Mostly, its called a boxers fracture because even when you know what you're doing, you'll mess up eventually, so when your living is punching, you're gonna screw up and break a little bone every now and then.

Posted by: Akimbo Jun 9 2006, 12:02 AM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

The part of that that should be in emphasis is that it was a wooden sword, not that he used one. Miyamoto Musashi killed many adversaries with two weapons. He got as far as he did with two, not one. He was skilled enough with a sword that he could handle two. Two weapon fighting is tough. Almost impossible to do effectively. But there are some who overcome that obstacle and become good two weapon fighters.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 9 2006, 05:12 AM

QUOTE (Akimbo)

That's odd. In Musashi's A Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho), he writes in the Book of Water that two swords should only be used when there are many enemies. He mentions using "two swords" a few times in books other than the Book of Water, but he doesn't mean literally using two swords, rather that you are using all of your resources (e.g. focus, perception, terrain, etc.) to fight; if he'd meant it literally, it would have been in the Book of Water with the rest of the weapon techniques. Against a single skilled opponent, he himself always used a single sword, even though he is generally held to be the inventor of the two-sword school of fencing (Nito Ryu).

Posted by: Akimbo Jun 9 2006, 12:20 PM

I stand corrected. I admit that I can make a mistake too. However, you don't have to be sarcastic and downright rude about it.

I used to take kendo, and after the class, our instructor gave us the option to hang out and learn some other sword techniques. We actually did cover some of the Nito Ryu techniques. It was in fact with two swords. Not easy to do, but it sure was a lot of fun.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 9 2006, 09:33 PM

QUOTE (Akimbo @ Jun 9 2006, 07:20 AM)

I stand corrected. I admit that I can make a mistake too. However, you don't have to be sarcastic and downright rude about it.

Please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to come off as rude or sarcastic. I forgot to note that I was going from memory, and I could have been wrong, myself. I also failed to take into account that tone is difficult to convey in text, an uncharacteristically newbie mistake.

Again, I apologize.

Posted by: Nim Jun 9 2006, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

Are there situations where I'd rather have a knife than a gun? Sure, I can think of a couple. However, the likelihood of my encountering one of them is so small, even compared to the relatively low chance of my encountering a situation where I need a gun, that it seems almost silly to devote more than a small percentage of your training time towards those situations.

...and most of them involve trying to prepare food or open packages

Seriously, though. Advantages of a knife over a gun? Er. Less collateral damage; in close quarters you're less likely to hit a friend with a knife than a gun. If you're already in arm's reach of the enemy before you've got the weapon deployed, you might be better off with a knife, as it's easier to grapple for an opponent's gun than their knife...but that pre-supposes that they've closed with you before you could use the gun, which naturally stacks the deck. And even at that point, some training in gun retention probably evens the odds again.

Knives are cheap and reliable. They have no moving parts. Even a small knife, one you could carry every day and never think twice about, is a handy thing to have (in a fight or out of one). Accidents while handling or cleaning your knife are rarely fatal. But you know, there's a reason guns are the primary weapon of the era...they're the best thing going.

As far as I'm concerned, the main reason (in the real world) to train with a knife is that if you AREN'T someone who carries a gun, you're far more likely to be able to come up with a knife after 30 seconds of frantic searching in a random location of your choice than you are a pistol. Of course, by that logic, you might be better off learning single-stick.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 9 2006, 10:48 PM

I'm not sure how much easier it is to grapple for someone's gun than it is to grapple for their knife... while the knife is going to cut you if you grab it, the leading end of the gun can put a hole in your hand. You've also got to immobilize their hands in such a way that the gun can't be twisted to point at you, whereas with a knife all you really have to do is keep it away from your body.

The utility of knives is undeniable, whereas a handgun has a pretty limited application. They've got the added bonus of being legal to have in a number of places that handguns aren't (in WA, I can't carry in a bar, meaning I have to plan in advance if I want to go out... also places like schools, federal buildings, post offices...). Even so, I'm not sure I would find it worthwhile to devote a large chunk of time and money towards training with a backup weapon that could be going towards the primary weapon instead.

Posted by: Nim Jun 9 2006, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

I'm told that if a semi-automatic pistol is fired with an object pressed against the muzzle (like someone's hand), the mechanism won't cycle properly and the slide will need to be manually pulled back to clear it. I'm dubious about taking advantage of that as a deliberate technique, however....

On the other hand, IF you get your hand(s) onto someone else's pistol without them shooting you, you've got better leverage than they do for controlling the weapon...in part because you're in a position to apply the strength of most of your arm solely agaisnt the strength of their wrist. Also, the arrangement of the trigger guard on most pistols is such that in the process of twisting it out of their grip, you also break their trigger finger.

All of that, however, assumes the person with the pistol hasn't trained in defending against this sort of situation. In a way, it's less of a weakness in the pistol as a weapon and more of an oversight in the way many casual users are trained.

Disclaimer: I have never and have no intention of ever trying this on a live weapon. I /have/ done it in training against a Glock-replica Airsoft, so I know it's possible to do it without being shot in the unlikely event that you manage to be close enough. I really can't emphasize enough that I'm only saying it's POSSIBLE to take a pistol away from someone in close combat, and that it's a situation many people who use pistols aren't well-trained to handle. I'm not claiming it's a good idea....

Posted by: Nim Jun 9 2006, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

Even so, I'm not sure I would find it worthwhile to devote a large chunk of time and money towards training with a backup weapon that could be going towards the primary weapon instead.

Whoops, missed this part. Yeah, that's why I limited my point about knives being easier weapons to scrounge up from the environment to people who don't habitually carry a firearm. Train with the most effective weapon you're likely to have available. If you carry a pistol as part of your daily routine, it's clear which weapon that is going to be

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 9 2006, 11:32 PM

If you move the slide on a handgun back from the full-closed position, it will take the gun out of battery. In a number of firearms, this either engages a safety or seperates parts of the mechanism from others in such a way that the gun is unlikely to fire if you try. Jamming your hand against the front of the gun is one way to try and do this.

It's possible to try and prevent this. It's possible to get "impact devices" that essentially consist of a guard with a hole cut in it, in-line with the barrel, attached to the frame so that a blow to them will not move the slide (they'll also sometimes have striking tips build into them, so that you can jab someone hard with the front of the gun, and hold it against them, without risking taking it out of battery). The layout of some other handguns (like the Beretta M9) has enough barrel protruding from the front of the slide that a blow to the front of the gun might not be able to displace the slide. But, yeah... if you take a gun out of battery, it's not likely to fire. Trying to do so deliberately is kind of risky, though.

I'm missing out on something in the mechanics/kinetics of the takeaway you're describing. Why does someone grabbing a gun have better leverage than the person holding the gun initially?

Posted by: Nim Jun 10 2006, 02:43 AM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

...Trying to do so deliberately is kind of risky, though.

I'm missing out on something in the mechanics/kinetics of the takeaway you're describing. Why does someone grabbing a gun have better leverage than the person holding the gun initially?

" kind of risky" sounds like an understatement

As far as the takeaway goes...augh. It's been two years since I did this. I went looking to see if my old teacher had a video clip of this one up, but he doesn't appear to. I don't know that I'm going to be able to give a satisfactory explanation, but I'll give it a try. My experience of being on the receiving end was that I couldn't hang on to the thing (even in opposition to someone weaker than me) without pulling it back in against my body, laid across my lower torso - which, at least according to THIS teacher, is where it should have been in the first place in this sort of situation. I suspect opinions differ on that; it feels like it's probably a religious issue.

Anyway. For one of them, there was mechanical advantage - the length of the barrel as a lever arm, in a direction where the grip didn't provide the same (because the motion was more of a rotation around an axis parallel to the grip). There were also 'the wrist doesn't bend that way' issues. I'm sorry this is so vague - I just can't remember the details of the motion well enough to describe them right verbally.

Posted by: Akimbo Jun 10 2006, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (Aaron)

QUOTE (Akimbo @ Jun 9 2006, 07:20 AM)

I stand corrected. I admit that I can make a mistake too. However, you don't have to be sarcastic and downright rude about it.

I accept your apology and agree to disagree. I would like to apologize for coming off as rude myself. I also would like to thank you for being mature about this. That's something folks can't seem to do online. I apologize once again.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 12 2006, 05:43 PM

OK, I can see that... basically, you're twisting the gun in a direction that the wrist doesn't go. This does raise the question of why the guy holding the gun can't do the same thing, though.

Keeping the gun pulled into your body is good for close range "point shooting" encounters... exactly what we're talking about here. Isometric stance is useful for a lot of things, but there's situations where it's inappropriate.

Posted by: ornot Jun 12 2006, 05:53 PM

I'm no expert, but I think it's a physics issue. The barrel of the gun acts as a lever, with the fulcrum being the handgrip, allowing the person doing the disarming to exert more force than the holder.

Still, you'd have to be pretty good/confident/lucky, else big-man-with-a-gun will shoot you while you are trying to wrest the gun from his grasp.

Posted by: Nim Jun 12 2006, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

OK, I can see that... basically, you're twisting the gun in a direction that the wrist doesn't go. This does raise the question of why the guy holding the gun can't do the same thing, though.

Part of it, I think, is that the attacker has the advantage of foreknowledge. You know precisely how the gun will be held, because the grip only accomodates one hand position. So you can practice several different techniques against that one scenario. As the person who's holding the gun, you have no reliable guess as to how someone will decide to grab it. You either need to react on the fly, prepare a host of counters for all of the possible attacks, or (and I think this is the winner) practice ONE technique that works against as many of them as possible...namely, pull the gun into a sheltered position and retreat, avoiding the grab in the first place. Oh, and then shoot them

It follows that grappling for someone else's gun is going to be most effective either with surprise, or in situations where they CAN'T retreat.

And actually, as a vague attempt at being on-topic...how do the SR4 rules handle trying to take someone's weapon away? I don't remember noticing rules for it on a quick read-through, but I could have overlooked it; I don't have my book handy at the moment.

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 12 2006, 05:56 PM

You can do a called shot to shoot something out of someones hand, and you can do called shots with firearms, unarmed, and armed melee attacks. Basically, you can do it at -4 dice.

Posted by: Nim Jun 12 2006, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (ornot)

Still, you'd have to be pretty good/confident/lucky, else big-man-with-a-gun will shoot you while you are trying to wrest the gun from his grasp.

You skipped 'desperate'

IMHO, this is the sort of thing you only try if you're closer to the shooter than you are to cover (or you're not alone, and you're buying an opening for a companion to escape / take cover), and you've already decided you're probably going to get shot. At that point, you might as well be shot while taking your best try, rather than being shot standing still.

Posted by: Nim Jun 12 2006, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Tarantula)

You can do a called shot to shoot something out of someones hand, and you can do called shots with firearms, unarmed, and armed melee attacks. Basically, you can do it at -4 dice.

Whoops! Now that you mention it, I do remember that. I was distracted by the other Called Shot options.

"Oh, you wanted to shoot him somewhere that would HURT? Why didn't you say so?"