Ambidexterity, two weapon fighting Options

[FrostyNSO]

Just a note on stage weapon use:

Most stage weapons are made a little bit thicker to withstand the rigors of stage combat like edge-on-edge blocks (yikes) and the like. Of course this increases the weight of the blade.

That might be why some express difficulty in using one in their off-hand.

I have handled broadswords that were superbly balanced and not very heavy at all. Most 'real' broadswords will have a distil taper (and sometimes a fuller) which further reduces the weight of the blade.

[JaronK]

The weapons I was using were of proper weight... if anything they were a bit lighter, for easier swinging (they're intended to be used by actors, not knights!). Remember, a broadsword was basically an overglorified club, not a slightly larger rapier.

JaronK

[FrostyNSO]

Like how heavy are we talking? The ones I held were about 3 to 3.5 lbs...actually they weren't really broadswords but something inbetween a broad and longsword.

[JaronK]

Hard to say exactly. These things were about, I dunno, 3.5 feet long, give or take (it's been a while and I'm working from memory) and weighed enough that while at first they felt light, after a few hours of drilling with them we were glad to be able to use two hands with them, and when making quick manuevers one hand just didn't have enough grip or strength to make them stay graceful, as it were. Plus, many of the moves relied on raw power to get things done.

JaronK

[Bölverk]

[Austere Emancipa...]

Someone linked this here some time back, really nifty.

Yes, you get a lot of 50" rapiers. That's very, very different from broadswords, long swords, etc. They're far lighter, and they're not supposed to be used for chopping, certainly not through armor anyway.

And yes, you get some 50" hand-and-a-half, bastard and longswords as well, though not nearly as many as rapiers. Those are seriously not meant to be wielded offhand by Average Joe, though.

[KarmaInferno]

Maybe I'm just clueless here, but...

SCA fighting, for all it's complexity and skill, is a combat simulation, not actual lethal-force kill-the-other-guy-dead kind of combat.

It scores kills based on arbitrary rules and guidelines that don't always mesh with what really happens in a live steel swordfight. (Like the aforementioned sword blade grab)

So... wouldn't SCA fighting be not so good to be using as an example, for figuring lethal fighting styles in Shadowrun?

Kinda like figuring out ballistics information of a weapon off playing Counterstrike...


-karma

[JaronK]

More like trying to figure modern warfare tactics by playing paintball, really.

JaronK

[mfb]

to a point. the interconnect between actual stabbery and SCA fighting is a lot closer, however, simply because SCA fighting uses the same engine as real fighting--that is, learning how to swing a padded club of the appropriate weight is closely analogous to swinging a sword. after all, how do you think soldiers and whatnot trained, back in the day? you think they spent all day hacking off each others' limbs with real weapons, just for training, or do you think maybe they picked up sticks that matched the weight of their swords?

at the same time, there's no substitute for honest-to-god combat, for putting the finishing touches on your training. that's one of the main advantages a real knight would have over an SCA fighter, in a real fight--the knight, if he's seen a battle or two, knows what to expect when he sticks his sword in someone. he knows where to stab, so that his weapon doesn't get tangled in his opponent's ribcage, and how to work his blade out if it does get stuck in a bone. in a sparring match, i'd put even odds on the SCA fighter; in a real throwdown, i'm gonna go with the guy who's been in more real fights.

[FrostyNSO]

actually, Jaron, there is something worthwhile in that. A lot of what we use now for training are sims, cartriges that fire small paint pellets. They'll go through bushes and everything. The only downside is that you still can't shoot through concealment like doors, thin walls, car doors.

Paintball is ok, but you can't learn the difference between cover and concealment which admittedly is a highly important thing tactically.

[JaronK]

Well, you can definitely learn some real warfare tactics playing paintball, too. I mean, you're really out there, you're really shooting, etc. However, certain variables are different (no real fear, bullets don't fly as far, the people are different, the emotional quality is different, etc.) which means that sometimes you can develop tactics that work great in paintball but not in real life.

JaronK

[mfb]

heh, the same thing happens with MILES (suped-up laser tag). at one point in an engagement, i laid down flat on my back and laid down suppressive fire. i was being fired on by ten different guys, but none of them could hit me because they couldn't get a direct bead on my sensors.

[FrostyNSO]

Yeah, and the lasers diffuse over a larger area at long range, so we'd be fools not to mention the consistant hits at 300 yards with iron sights =)

[mfb]

i shall insist to my dying day that the accuracy of my MILES is due to my own extreme proficiency. and just ignore the fact that i fired 50 rounds from a 30-round clip !!

[Kagetenshi]

Skillz.

Hey, if you ever find yourself in a movie, you'll be well-trained.

~J

[Rory Blackhand]

KarmaInferno, you are a bit off the mark. First I am not using the SCA to base rules off of. I provided links to at least three different places where two long swords were used in real fighting in history. I simply pointed out that I have personally used two long swords in battle and have seen anyone that tries to use long sword short sword get bested pretty easily. From my personal experience two long swords are much deadlier than long sword, short sword. Second, just because somebody does not make a kill in training does not mean they would be unable to defeat someone who has fought and killed. That would blow away the concept behind spending three months in boot camp training our troops to hunt for Al Qaeda, who may have had years of real combat experience, but die just as easily when matched against our Rangers and Marines who have never killed anyone or even been under fire before. The evidence just does not support your assumption.

True enough there are no blade grabs and other fancy one in a zillion fight maneuvers, but the difference between a real fight and an SCA fight is as very minimal. It offers the same realism or more as live firing on the rifle range to train for combat, using paint balls, or MARS gear would for close order battle. I don't have to get burned to know fire is hot.

There are no modern swordsmen on earth better prepared to fight a real battle than those trained in the SCA. Training with wooden swords is exactly what the ancients did to prepare for fighting and that is what we do. It is a mute point to argue what would happen if we had to face ancient soldiers. I feel supremely confident myself that I could have been an asset in any army from any period if I could have had access to the same training methods, same nutrition, same exercise, etc.. as I have now. Without all of that I doubt I would be anything special, in fact I would be dead several times over, I was hit so hard in the mid section with a spear thrust I wanted to puke, from 15 feet away I had an archer nail me in the right side in an unarmored location as I raised me sword up to swing on anther man, it is not pleasant to be drilled in the rib cage with a marshmallow sized hard rubber arrow tip from that close. I would have been gutted by the spear, lost a lung by an arrow, or killed by any one of thousands of sword hits i have suffered, simply put, I would not have lived thru it.

They say less than half the soldiers in WWII even fired their weapons. It was probably the same way back then. Life was not one endless combat after another. You were probably not on the front rank every time either. All I really care about is making a point that two equal length one handed weapons can be used in Shadowrun. There is no mystery to it and the rule is really dumb if you have to pick from that limited listing in Canon.

[Rory Blackhand]

And to back JarodK's assumptions. My arms were dead tired too the first time I used two swords in practice. You get used to anything. A shield weighs ten times more though and your arm will feel like lead if you try using a tower shield all day.

I am a stronger than average person with great endurance. I could see having a strength minimum for wielding each type of weapon and they would of course add if you were going to use them both in combat. That system would not add much extra math. Where it would get complicated to me would be using two whips as the rules allow. Maybe that would fall under minimum dexterity instead.

[Austere Emancipa...]

I already went through the reasons why I would bet on the guy who's been trained to fight with real weapons in real combat over the guy who's been trained to do SCA fighting. They're pretty solid, and it doesn't seem any of them have been refuted.

The MILES-comparison is very fitting IMO. A person who's never been through any military training and only done a lot of MILES matches is not what I'd call the Perfect Soldier. I would personally believe someone who's done a lot less MILES and a lot more general military training over him in matters concerning the optimal amount of riflemen/automatic riflemen/grenadiers/dedicated marksmen in an infantry squad.

But then I'd allow Swords as off-hand weapons anyway. Meh.

[FrostyNSO]

I don't understand how the long-short combination is so inferior to a long-long combination. You are sacrificing a little distance for that much more speed. Before you give me the "I'm just as fast with a long sword as a short sword" routine, I understand that maybe you are, but the point is that in order to deflect a blow, or deliver a strike for that matter, your blade must be in the right place at the right time. This is a function of skill, blade length has little to no bearing on this.

Now I have practiced mostly japanese swordsmanship against many other forms of japanese and asian weaponry, including chinese weaponry which is in many ways similar to european medieval weaponry. Maybe that you've seen people using long-short combinations get bested is simply that they were not as skilled as their opponent who happens to use a long-long combo. If you are as good as you say you are, could this not be a valid argument?

We are going to have to just agree to disagree on this matter. In my experience, there is no difference in striking or deflecting with a long or short blade. Blades are not weapons, they are tools, and it is only the skill of the user that makes them weapons.

BTW, I would just say use whatever you want in your offhand. I once thought about making a Troll with a Musashi fix that used two chainsaws =)

[Rory Blackhand]

To prepare a soldier to kill, the stimulus in practice should be an enemy soldier in the soldiers sights. The target behavior should be to accurately fire their weapons at another human being. There should be immediate feedback when they hit a target, and there should be rewards for performing these specific functions, or punishment for failing to do so. This is impossible for modern ranged combat, but not for SCA style fighting. SCA combat is like a flight simulator in that you can hit with full force using a wooden weapon of the same weight as a steel sword and see an instant effect on the target and how the human body took the force of the blow. The reward and mental motivation to give it your all also being winning and advancing in tournaments. The punishment from making a mistake in this sort of realistic training is often times severe pain even on rare occasion broken limbs. This pain when you make a mistake instantly reinforces the need to correct and adjust your fighting technique. I can't think of any greater motivator than pain avoidance in practice.

Here is an article about a reporter who had never fired a gun before, but played arcade games pretty good. He was able to knock holes in a target pretty well even on his very first time. This is high tech training that would have been impossible to achieve in Napoleonic times for instance.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/reso...d_clean_fun.cfm

[QUOTE]I already went through the reasons why I would bet on the guy who's been trained to fight with real weapons in real combat over the guy who's been trained to do SCA fighting. They're pretty solid, and it doesn't seem any of them have been refuted.[QUOTE]

Austere Emancipator, what exactly have you previously covered? I missed anything "solid" in your argument. The schools teaching Italian style swordmanship have major flaws. They use lightweight swords that would be useless in a battle. Nor am I aware of any that tech grappling and fancy sword catching techniques as you claim. Certainly not against an opponent weilding a claymore, a bow, a spear, a pole arm, or a tower shield like the SCA fighters rountinely face. Those training techniques are for one way of fighting only and have very little to do with real fighting in armored combat let alone vs a variety of weapon forms. If I am wrong maybe you could please link to a school that does. There were also vocal critics even in their own day and age who scoffed at the uselessness of those schools as it pertained to the battefield. Alot of real fighters looked down on these fencers as powdered dandies. You make it sound as if every duel they fought ended in a death, which is very far from the truth. There were very strict rules in any event thru any fighting sport. These tournaments were not for killing, they had strict rules and regulations to prevent accidents. They of course were not as concerned for safety back then as we are now, so the use of wooden weapons is quite appropriate for battle simulation.

I guarantee that SCA combat is a close to real as it gets, if we used real steel there would be numerous deaths and maimings in every event or we would have to change the full speed rules and get rid of thrusting altogether. And "clubbering down" as you suggest is not realistic at all. A plate armored man is quite safe from a wooden weapon. Clubbing someone down would take hours and invlove grappling and techniques not realistic for actual combat. If you would prefer an Italian fencer to defend your friends and family in a real fight I feel sorry for them if they have to face SCA trained warriors.

You also mention matching someone who has been trained SCA style vs other styles. I have already explained that I have fought many men trained in alot of techniqes, none have been able to beat me using weapons that are historicly correct in weight. I have been beaten when I took the armor off and sparred with flimsy cane and bamboo swords. These were no more realistic than Star Wars fantasy light sabers to me, though and of no value to real life whatsoever except as a rest from the real hard exertion of heavy combat.

[QUOTE]Because I don't know exactly what does count as a kill in SCA fighting, I cannot give you any details on how one's approach to combat would have to change when going from padded clubs with rules to sharp & pointy things with no rules.[/QUOTE]

In fact from your own words, you do not have a clue how SCA fighting works yet are quick to pass judgment over me even though I have experienced a variety of combat systems myself and have stated so. Did you view any of the video links I provided? You erroneously think there would have to be a change of some sort to add realism to SCA fighting. And you falsely believe that our swords are padded. They are not padded. They are built to length and weight that is historically accurate. In the SCA you have to wear armor because we do not accept these tippy tappy little shots. Pulling your punches will only develop bad form. You can ask any martial arts instructor to verify this. Any school that allows hitting will demand head gear or disallow shots to the head and throat. There is a semi full contact form of stick fighting in the philippines though that I believe you enter at your own risk, but the swords are still very light wood. Not much more than getting an old fashioned cane whipping from your grandma.

[QUOTE]If someone learns sword fighting from the manuals, I no longer call him a pure SCA fighter. At that point, his (theoretical) performance in a real fight with real weapons can largely be attributed to his understanding of those historically accurate, real-world viable tactics.[QUOTE]

If you are talking about western style martial arts very little "manuals" have survived. Learning to read and write was not seen as a proper skill for a man of war until mass printing became available in later centuries. I read somewhere that less than 100 exist from pre 1600. Which coincides with the age of firearms around 1650, that brought an end to the need for the expense and encumberance of wearing armor. Consequently, these so called real fighting schools you speak of are mostly based on unarmored dueling techniques, which have no bearing on reality considering the fact that heavy armor existed at the time these schools were in vogue and also the development of kevlar in the 1960s wich once again made armor a valuable investment for the battlefield soldier.

This applies to the Shadowrun environment where armor is a factor and where SCA fighting techniques would most definitely win the day over any fencing or light weapon styles taught today. Maybe mono technology based weapons should be deadlier?

Other than that, I have answered many of your questions already. Wrestling is not allowed, but even if it were, what are you going to drop to have an open hand to grab me with? Your sword or your shield? I am blasting you in the hand if you reach for me and with my weapons I doubt you have a limb left if you do. Grabbing my blade is just as dumb. I have a basket hilt on my sword that gives me immense leverage for pulling, pushing, punching, and blocking with. You are going to grab a tapered end of my razor sharp sword and I will just draw it quickly back removing a few of your fingers. If you think you are going to trap it like Steven Seagal does in the movies you need to think again. Every technique that is realistic is allowed. You can do shield bashes, entangle weapons with your own, slash, thrust, bash, you name it. No location is illegal except below the knee for safety. So, even though you think these little maneuvers could "easily" change the outcome of a fight, the fact remains that they wouldn't and there is no evidence I have seen to support that they would. Maybe you could give me a link or a video clip from one of these training schools you are referring to as I have done? I would like to examine them for my own. Not just for argument sake, I am always looking for something to improve my own fighting and I would like to see if I have missed something over the last 25 years or so.

[QUOTE]You guys have gloves/gauntlets that protect the palm, right? Really silly rule.[QUOTE]

If you knew anything about gauntlets you would realize that the back of the hand is armored, not the inside. Not so silly if you are thinking realistic.

Canton of Hukka (Helsinki area, Finland)
Canton of Humalasalo (Hameenlina, Valkeakoski, Tampere, Finland)
Canton of Kaarnemaa (Oulu, Finland)
Incipient Canton of Miehonlinna (Kouvola, Valkeala, Kuusankoski, Finland)
Canton of Poukka (Kotka, Finland)
Canton of Unikankare (Turku, Finland)

These are SCA groups in Finland. Why don't you go try it out? You say you know half the members of your Canton. Give it a good few hours of fighting and see how hard it is to kill a veteran warrior. Not sure how many people you have over there or how good they are without the competition we have here? But it would be worth a try just to see how it is.

Just for your own reference. There are several type of sword fighting:

There is Performance Combat, where the fights are mostly choreographed in tightly controlled acting scenes using historically accurate weapons and armor.

There is Re-Creational Combat, where actual battles are reproduced with varying degrees of success. Weapon use is mostly limited to blunted weapons and alot of hitting shields and each other's weapons.

There is Martial-Sport Combat, where it is full speed, full contact, with a bare minimum set of rules for safety. This is where the SCA falls. Some people say it is not a martial art. In the sense that there is no one art form being used, I agree. To the point that a martial art's purpose is to train it's practicioners for real combat, then I absolutely disagree. This sport produces quality athletes and realistic simulation in heavy warfare techniques.

Markland Medieval and Renaissance society, The Empire of Chivalry and Steel, Medieval Battling Club, Historical Armed Combat Association, and a few others use padded weapons and various rules for scaring hits and off limit target areas. Maybe you are mistaking the Society For Creative Anachronism for one of these? Totaly different, but still under the heading of martial-sport fighting.

There is Live-Action Fantasy Gaming, where padded foam weapons and fantasy roleplaying and character generation is the focus of the group.

There are Traditional Martial Arts, where very little emphasis is placed on armored combat or full speed striking against resisting opponents. An exception is Kendo and fencing. Neither school accurately depict real combat though, except for in lightly armored or unarmored fighting venues.

For overall versatility, experience in defending against archers, spearmen, pikemen, swordsmen, shield walls, and all manner of warfare there simply is no better training ground than the SCA. The lack of fear of death is there. The lack of the kill is there. But the realism in practical use is. This is where I have learned to fight two weapon and I know it works.

[FrostyNSO]

I am curious, why are there no blows below the knee? It seems that people can get injured just as easily above the knee anyways.

I'm not trying to nit-pick here, but I wondered. They have excavated a lot of old warrior tombs (particularly scandinavian and danish "viking" tombs) and discovered that a great many wounds were in fact in the head and below the knees (coincidentally the areas not as well protected by a shield which was the bread and butter of viking fighting art). Why would the SCA not allow these low strikes?

[Rory Blackhand]

sorry for the double post

[Rory Blackhand]

Frosty, the long long is superior in my opinion and from what I have witnessed in the field. Blade length has everything to do with it. The fact that a long weapon is usable at any range with full effect makes two attacking weapons at long range better than one. It makes simple sense that if 2 fighters facing each other are dual wielding swords the fighter with two long blades will be able to use twice the offense at long range, an equal or better offense at medium range, and an equal offense at short range. And many develop footwork and a fighting retreat style to take advantage of this. Yes you can outrun someone if you are sprinting forward and they are backing up. But with room to fight, it is not that hard to keep yourself at range while threatening your opponent's advance. Most opponents are not suicidal enough to just rush in without using caution. If they do they die pretty quickly technique and all. All the striking skill in the world will not save you if you leave yourself open to be killed before you strike the first blow, and with a shorter weapon that is just as likely to be what happens to you as you close in.

As far as parrying goes. it is a two way street. To parry with a long blade is easier. So it takes less skill? If I have 40" of blade surface extending from my hand I do not need to move it very far to block a slashing attack aimed at going over the tip of my blade to attack my head. A short sword wielding fighter with a blade surface of 16" has to move his blade more than twice as far to block incoming slashes. I would rather trust to a larger surface area to act as a passive always on defense than to my own reaction and timing. No matter how fast you are there is always someone faster and speed as nothing to do with generating killing power. The larger surface area of a long blade will parry 10 times more attacks that can't be reacted to in time for than a short blade would. In fact a 40" blade held out in front of the body with the tip up will just about eliminate the threat of a slash to the upper body coming from an angle of attack parallel to the ground. A good stance will compensate for a lack of focus in this situation. Your short blade will leave you at the mercy of feints where my long blade will not.

The speed advantage of your smaller blade is not a significant factor. Cutting ability will be though. If you use a small and light blade the best you may be able to do against an armored opponent is thrust. That will limit the angle of attack and versatility of the blade. If you use a blade heavy enough that can make a slashing kill as well it will have to be heavier and you will be right back to square one with no speed advantage at all, only a length deficit. That said I have used a shorter blade! I will use a shorter blade for bridge battles or portal assault. What happens in a full on press is that you will be compacted into a tangled, chaotic, mass of weaponry and flailing limbs. If you are a shieldman on the front rank you will have a row of spear and polearms fighting over your shoulder. The enemy will in turn be stabbing and chopping at you with their own polearms as well. When you hit their line, shield on shield, there is alot of pushing, shouting, and confusion. The space overhead will be quite a mass of weapons. This is the only instance I ever bring a short weapon to battle. A mace with the heavy tip, an axe you can grab the opponent's shield with and drag it downward to expose him for one of your own spearmen and the short sword to thread it's way thru the maze and find some targets. It takes more than just to be able to touch the enemy with a weapon, you have to find enough open space between you and him to generate kinetic energy in your weapon. For this limited purpose I always use a much heavier blade. Consider the meat cleaver to the table knife. Both are the same length but the cleaver has the weight to cut thru armor and bones. Same principle with swords.

When I say I have seen opponents using short-long combos bested by long-long it is not that the opponents were inferior. That would be a valid point if I had only witnessed let's say maybe 10 - 20 of these matches. In fact I have never seen a long sword short sword fighter win. Some use shorter weapons, but one use weapons half the length of the long blade. What happened to me once is that I entered a tournament where the rules stated you would fight with a weapon combination pulled out of a hat to represent a gladiatorial event. I drew buckler and short sword. I have fought with both weapons, so it was not a question of being able to use them, but with that little surface area as passive defense I felt damn near naked. My opponent who I had beaten on the last nine meetings drew long sword and normal sized shield. I lasted as long as I could to massive cheering from the crowd for my aggression, but he eventually picked me apart and killed me. In fact the little sword I was given snapped in half from me trying to ward off one of his powerful blows. I imagine that is what would happen in a real fight with a an opponent trying to use a light blade.

So you say the sword is a tool. True it is. There are different tools for every job. You wouldn't use a finishing hammer to bust out a concrete driveway. Why use an inferior weapon in battle when you are trying to kill someone and your life depends on it?

[Person 404]

[BitBasher]