Full Version: What's a monosword?
I know what monomolecular wire is. Does a monosword have monomolecular wire along an edge? And if it does, why is it less effective than a normal, mundane katana?
From what I can see in the book, Katana and monosword are the same (except for Avail and price). They are both Reach:1 DMG:((STR/2)+3)P AP:-1
And, yes, a monosword is a sword with a superfine monofilament wire attached to its edges.
And, yes, a monosword is a sword with a superfine monofilament wire attached to its edges.
and the reason a Katana is as good as a monosword is beacause Katanas have a history of being the cool weapon of choice; its tradition. Because I'm pretty sure that monoswords should be better tahn katana... but then again, it is a widely known fact that katana can cut throug ANYTHING!
The question that rise from such fact is: what happen when 2katana strikes one-other? *pzitt*the universe cant stand such logical imposibilities and such destroy both blades
The question that rise from such fact is: what happen when 2katana strikes one-other? *pzitt*the universe cant stand such logical imposibilities and such destroy both blades
bah, that's got nothing on the buttered bread tied butter side up to a cat and dropped paradox.
obviously, both katanas are chopped in half in that scenario.
obviously, both katanas are chopped in half in that scenario.
The wielders then commit seppuku with their shattered swords.
*nod**nod*
the perpetual mouvement set-up, with the cat and peanut butter, of course. I bow before your wisdom
the perpetual mouvement set-up, with the cat and peanut butter, of course. I bow before your wisdom
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| The wielders then commit seppuku with their shattered swords. |
shattered? shattered?!
don't be ridiculous. as they were cut with a katana, they will naturally be cut, not shattered. the cut will be extremely clean, with not even a slight burr, let alone the jagged edges you would get from shattering it.
And if manga has anything to do with reality, you can decapitate someone with even a 2" stub of a blade.
Perhaps they will exchange swords first so at least the _sword_ gets to kill the right guy...
But yeah, a Katana is little more than a high quality longsword.
But yeah, a Katana is little more than a high quality longsword.
I would also like to point out that against an armored opponent, the katana is actualy inferior to the European longsword because the same process which makes the blade strong also makes it brittle. Not to mention the fact that the katana is only one edged, and that the hilt may as well not even be there. Frankly, I don't see where the western idea of the katana as the uber-sword came from- the weapon's only purpose is to eviscerate unarmored opponents, and beyond that role is actualy very much inferior to Western blades.
Katanas look cool. Plus, like everything else Asian, it has that "mystical Fu Manchu" factor. Because Americans are stupid.
It's like putting a cowboy movie in Japan - it makes people say ooooh and aaaah, and oogle the shiny pistol and get an Indian friend (who's really Native American or similar) and call him Tonto.
it's silly social fads that live long. But there is a twisted logic behind the katana I think.
If you can truly strike fast enough/hard enough, you could cut through many things. as long as you keep the power and don't tilt the blade, it'd keep going, etc, etc. The European sword wasn't designed with that in mind, it's just very good at stabbing, but you can hack a person up to a point if they aren't well armored.
that's just a theory, however.
it's silly social fads that live long. But there is a twisted logic behind the katana I think.
If you can truly strike fast enough/hard enough, you could cut through many things. as long as you keep the power and don't tilt the blade, it'd keep going, etc, etc. The European sword wasn't designed with that in mind, it's just very good at stabbing, but you can hack a person up to a point if they aren't well armored.
that's just a theory, however.
Given, but as a huge buff of ancient weaponry, I felt the need to point out easily the most annoying fallacy about swords that the western world accepts.
Well, first off: If by European sword, we're talking about the traditional Longsword/Broadsword, then they aren't just good at stabbing. They can be used for both stabbing and slashing rather effectively.
Second: The japanese sword is not "brittle". I think you were meaning to say that it is not made to be flexible like a lot of western swords are. A katana is a very stiff blade, but it is not brittle. Most likely, if you bent the blade it would resist bending, but once bent, would stay bent.
Second: The japanese sword is not "brittle". I think you were meaning to say that it is not made to be flexible like a lot of western swords are. A katana is a very stiff blade, but it is not brittle. Most likely, if you bent the blade it would resist bending, but once bent, would stay bent.
| QUOTE (Ed_209a @ Dec 29 2005, 06:27 AM) |
| But yeah, a Katana is little more than a high quality longsword. |
Urghs. No, not at all. A Katana is meant to cause injury by cutting. A broadsword, as nearly all large European edged weapons, causes injury mainly by momentum. (Hope I did get the english terms right.) It is a fact that the capabilities of Asian weapons and martial arts are often over-exaggerated in western popular culture. The training of a medieval knight wasn't all that different to that of a samurai. Even the unarmed combat techniques where very similar. But a samurai would have had a hard time cutting through infantry plate mail, while a knight would have crushed a samurai armor like paper with his broadsword.
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
| Second: The japanese sword is not "brittle". I think you were meaning to say that it is not made to be flexible like a lot of western swords are. A katana is a very stiff blade, but it is not brittle. Most likely, if you bent the blade it would resist bending, but once bent, would stay bent. |
Err, you're right, brittle was altogether the wrong word. I was not trying to imply that a katana would shatter if you hit it hard enough
.My point was that while the blade is more durable, it is also more likely to snap or warp to the point of uselessness under duress than the more malliable European counterparts (which still carried a stabbing point even if the blade dulled). While the katana may *seem* more durable, the individual blade probably saw less practical use than, say, a comperable French or Spanish blade.
The European blade could be picked up and used more readily by the average soldier if need be due to it's flexibility as well as it's other intrinsic characteristics.
Cutting with a japanese sword is very much dependant on technique, and unlike the european blade (to a reasonable degree), poor technique could by itself cause one of the warps you mention.
Cutting with a japanese sword is very much dependant on technique, and unlike the european blade (to a reasonable degree), poor technique could by itself cause one of the warps you mention.
Stupid katanophiles. *shakes his fist* Too bad they didn't fix that little fanboyism game stat for SR4.
It's all about the 80's baby. 
I've always added half again as much impact armor versus katanas to nerf them a bit.
| QUOTE |
| it is a widely known fact that katana can cut throug ANYTHING! |
but only if weilded correctly. Botch, and no karma to save, wave good bye to that "traditional" weapon.
with a broadsword, it's power comes through whether or not it penetrates the armor. You can smack a gu in plate on the arm and not draw blood, but his arm is likely going to be broken. A lot of that is because of the momentum, where the katana is more of a cutter than a cleaver.
Also, I think katanas are considered two-handed weapons in shadowrun, whereas the monosword is one-handed, whatever difference that might make.
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) |
| You can smack a gu in plate on the arm and not draw blood, but his arm is likely going to be broken. |
Relatively speaking, considering also the fighting techniques employed with High/Late Medieval Western European swords and katanas against armored opponents, the former might be more likely to cause significant blunt trauma through armor, but I do not think it would have been a likely occurrence even then for a one-handed sword to have caused broken bones through a decent suit of full plate armor. It could have happened, but it would've been far from likely.
I would also like to point out that medieval European swordmanship by no means relied on hacking and using "momentum" to crush through an opponent. Against lightly armored or unarmored opponents, you would have seen a lot of cuts not all that dissimilar from what people were doing in Japan at the time. You would be an idiot to simply hack at an unarmored opponent with a sword which has some sort of sharp edge when a slash creates wounds far more severe.
| QUOTE (Tziluthi) |
| Also, I think katanas are considered two-handed weapons in shadowrun, whereas the monosword is one-handed, whatever difference that might make. |
That was true in SR3, at least, where it actually made a big difference: when allowed, wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands gave you +1 Power. Oddly enough, just about everyone ignored it and basically house ruled it so that katanas really did have a straight +1 Power bonus over normal swords and were 1-handed weapons.
Yeah, it is unfortunate the amount of katana love that gets seen. But we will live with it.
Vs modern armor? I am not sure if the katana would fare as badly as I don't know as much about it.
What I do know is that longswords are crazy deadly and there are a great many techniques and uses put to them. Lots of short half hand stabs and such.
Also, full plate was a truly nightmarish thing to be up against. It did not slow a person down that much (you can turn a cartwheel in it with a little training) and it made you virtually immune to all small arms. Heck even bows and crossbows wouldn't penetrate it as it got more advanced. Even the early musket rounds were being stopped by the full plate of the period.
Full plate armor in games is seriously underestimated because to give it the correct stats would be horrible from a game balance perspective.
Of course, this is shadowrun, which guns can punch through armor like paper anyways, so yeah.
Vs modern armor? I am not sure if the katana would fare as badly as I don't know as much about it.
What I do know is that longswords are crazy deadly and there are a great many techniques and uses put to them. Lots of short half hand stabs and such.
Also, full plate was a truly nightmarish thing to be up against. It did not slow a person down that much (you can turn a cartwheel in it with a little training) and it made you virtually immune to all small arms. Heck even bows and crossbows wouldn't penetrate it as it got more advanced. Even the early musket rounds were being stopped by the full plate of the period.
Full plate armor in games is seriously underestimated because to give it the correct stats would be horrible from a game balance perspective.
Of course, this is shadowrun, which guns can punch through armor like paper anyways, so yeah.
Katana: This Legendary, two-handed sword of the samurai-- chop up your enemy with style...
Monofilament sword: This well balanced broadsword features superfine monofilament wire attached to it's edges.
I'm guessing the power difference comes from one bieng two handed and the other not.
Monofilament sword: This well balanced broadsword features superfine monofilament wire attached to it's edges.
I'm guessing the power difference comes from one bieng two handed and the other not.
I've always imagined monoswords to be somewhat like a hacksaw on a handle, a sturdy pole that holds out a monowire where a sword edge would be. I don't think thats how its described in the book.
No it is a normal sword, but the edge has monofilament wire bonded to it.
Amongst making it exceedingly sharp, it also means you do not have to sharpen it.
You know, for those shadowrunners that don't like taking care of their gear. For instance, the dead ones.
Amongst making it exceedingly sharp, it also means you do not have to sharpen it.
You know, for those shadowrunners that don't like taking care of their gear. For instance, the dead ones.
A question arise tho:
What about sheating?
Wouldnt the blade just cut throught the sheat?
What about sheating?
Wouldnt the blade just cut throught the sheat?
Or is it one of those 'ruthenium' thing?
I imagine it has a tailor made sheath.
Remind me to have one of my characters lose theirs sometime.
And I just found out that Ruthenium is a transitional metal. Looks pretty normal. Did not show any propensity to suddenly change colors or anything.
Remind me to have one of my characters lose theirs sometime.
And I just found out that Ruthenium is a transitional metal. Looks pretty normal. Did not show any propensity to suddenly change colors or anything.
| QUOTE (Tarko) |
| A question arise tho: What about sheating? Wouldnt the blade just cut throught the sheat? |
Even IF the monowire on the edge made it that absurdly sharp, if you consider the geometry of the situation for a moment, there is no reason why the edge has to be in contact with the sheath. Think of the cross-section of the blade as a triangle (roughly). The blade is held in place by the three sides. The edge is irrelevant. Even an infinitely sharp edge won't do anything (other than cut a zero-depth groove down the inside edge of the sheath) as long as it is snugly bound on all three sides.
Yea, I can easily picture a shadowrunner with their un-sheated sword because he cant find proper replacement for the lost one.
Unless you can buy those from stuffer-shack, wich I doubt.
Unless you can buy those from stuffer-shack, wich I doubt.
if you look at it, the regular swords get a nice advantage really, one handed, same damage as a katana just not the -1 ap...
all in all the argument for other swords doing more damage is correct, and the argument for katana's going through armour better, are all found there in the comparisions.
two handed weapon and it's only advantage is -1ap over a 1handed sword.
and there'll probably be rules upcoming about useing a 1handed weapon two handed and getting more strength behind it, and again a sword will outpower the katana save for the ap.
all in all the argument for other swords doing more damage is correct, and the argument for katana's going through armour better, are all found there in the comparisions.
two handed weapon and it's only advantage is -1ap over a 1handed sword.
and there'll probably be rules upcoming about useing a 1handed weapon two handed and getting more strength behind it, and again a sword will outpower the katana save for the ap.
it's a sword that needs to be fixed every now and then.
really dangerous in the right hands though.
really dangerous in the right hands though.
| QUOTE (Liper) |
| and there'll probably be rules upcoming about useing a 1handed weapon two handed and getting more strength behind it, and again a sword will outpower the katana save for the ap. |
that, and rules for dual-wielding swords combat
You guys also forgot to mention the fact that since it is a standard sword (with bonded monowire) it goes by the -4 for concealment rather than the katana's -6.
Yea but, you cant do that cool move with a sword, only with a katana.
Wich move?
The one where you are on your motocyle and holdong your katana with one hand and let it do 'sparkles' (lack of proper english term) on the ground beside you as you roll toward your ennemy.
As for the -6, just buy yourself a long coat and your in business.
*looking up the rules*
Scrap that, it only gives a 2pt of concealment...wich I find stupid, it should be more, maybe not 6 but more than 2 at least.
Wich move?
The one where you are on your motocyle and holdong your katana with one hand and let it do 'sparkles' (lack of proper english term) on the ground beside you as you roll toward your ennemy.
As for the -6, just buy yourself a long coat and your in business.
*looking up the rules*
Scrap that, it only gives a 2pt of concealment...wich I find stupid, it should be more, maybe not 6 but more than 2 at least.
Why can't you do the ground-scraping thing with a monosword? And would that endlessly chip and dull your katana?
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Why can't you do the ground-scraping thing with a monosword? And would that endlessly chip and dull your katana? |
In theory, the monowire would cut the ground. You could drag the flat of the blade if it was long enough.
And yes, it would chip your sword, unless it was made of some uber modern ultra-steel that never chipped or dulled.
Or was Dikoted.
| QUOTE (TheHappyAnarchist @ Dec 29 2005, 07:00 PM) |
| Also, full plate was a truly nightmarish thing to be up against. It did not slow a person down that much (you can turn a cartwheel in it with a little training) and it made you virtually immune to all small arms. Heck even bows and crossbows wouldn't penetrate it as it got more advanced. Even the early musket rounds were being stopped by the full plate of the period. |
Where did you get that information about plate armor? Did you ever wear one? If so, your experience was quite different from mine. Possibly you agree to a little test: You, wearing the authentic plate armor of your choice, give me three free strikes with an authentic medieval melee weapon. After these three strikes it's your turn on me, without any armor. I am pretty sure that I wouldn't even need two strikes.
And what you wrote about crossbow bolts not penetrating plate...where did you get that from?
While I'd agree plate armor was nightmarish to go up against -- I mean, people wore it, so it had to work some of the time -- I don't think it automatically turned people into the completely unstoppable but wholly unencumbered engines of destruction that was the picture just painted for us.
Anything that required a hoist to get people onto thier mounts can't of been that light...
There is an important difference between real medieval cavalry armor, real medieval infantry armor and LARP armor.
Besides, people stopped wearing plate, because it didn't work anymore.
Besides, people stopped wearing plate, because it didn't work anymore.
| QUOTE (Liper) |
| Anything that required a hoist to get people onto thier mounts can't of been that light... |
That is so utterly wrong and I cant still belive ppl still belive that..
Full plate where not that heavy, its some moron during the late 1800's that thought up the über heavy armour thingie, with no basis on reality.
That's still a lot of steel.
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO @ Dec 30 2005, 03:41 AM) |
| That's still a lot of steel. |
15-30 kg distributed all over your body quite evently is not that much really, tho it will make you a bit encumbered, lowering the time you can move around at near full capacity, but if you train dayly for years at an end in it, its little problem in the long run.. (tho overheating is a problem since you have a ton of padding under the metal wich is to help with blunt trauma and offer extra protection vs things that do manage to get past the metal, and make the steel more comfortable to wear.. ) same thing with having 2-4 kilos of steel in your hand and waiving that around for hours at end, at first you cant do more than 4-5 swings and your wrist hurts, but after a few weeks its no real problem doing alot more..
| QUOTE (Nkari) |
| 15-30 kg distributed all over your body quite evently is not that much really [...] |
There is no way in hell you can get a full suit of plate armor in 15kg. If it's extremely light and not quite complete (for example, no plates inside the upper arm or behind most joints) you just might get it in 22.5kg, but more likely you're looking at 24-28kg with padding. Transitional era armor with both mail and plate could have weighed significantly more, into the 35-40kg range or beyond.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Why can't you do the ground-scraping thing with a monosword? And would that endlessly chip and dull your katana? |
It was a joke, and it's a seriously bad idea to do that with any kind of sword.
| QUOTE (BetaFlame) |
| In theory, the monowire would cut the ground. |
Not in this situation it wouldn't. Just because it's extremely sharp doesn't mean it'll effortlessly cut through asphalt. The monowire itself would immediately get torn apart if the bike were moving at any serious speed, though.
| QUOTE (Oracle) |
| Possibly you agree to a little test: You, wearing the authentic plate armor of your choice, give me three free strikes with an authentic medieval melee weapon. |
That's a silly test. Stiletto through the visor or under the faulds as the first strike, and that's it. That hasn't got anything to do with what is likely to happen in combat. The fact is, an average swing at a full suit of armor in decent condition with a one-handed medieval sword will never penetrate -- you are forced to find gaps in the armor or thrust the sword hard into weaker spots.
| QUOTE (Oracle) |
| And what you wrote about crossbow bolts not penetrating plate...where did you get that from? |
It is known to have been capable of stopping the earliest forms of firearms, which could still create more as much or more energy per area than a crossbow. There are several era sources describing "proof" armor which is often mentioned to have stopped crossbows even at point blank range. But, in all fairness, it varies wildly based on the type of plate armor, the actual spot hit, the kind of crossbow, the kind of bolt and head on the bolt, the range, the angle of incidence, etc. etc. I would never feel safe inside an average early 15th century suit of plate armor against heavy crossbows.
| QUOTE (Nkari) |
| Full plate where not that heavy, its some moron during the late 1800's that thought up the über heavy armour thingie, with no basis on reality. |
Those kinds of estimates for the weight and lack of mobility afforded by plate armor is probably based on the heavier jousting and parade suits that often survived into those times, as well as later plate cuirasses and other bits which were specifically designed to defeat firearms and thus were extremely heavy (but were rarely worn as full suits). I completely agree that such a suit as worn by an early 15th century elite cavalryman into war should have allowed him to mount his horse without any help.
| QUOTE (Nkari) |
| same thing with having 2-4 kilos of steel in your hand [...] |
Some one-handed melee weapons might weigh 2kg, but 4kgs would be stupid. For comparison, most one-handed swords of the time would have weighed somewhere around 2.5-3.5lbs(1.1-1.6kg), says Ewart Oakeshott.
Oh, you and your "facts" and "reason."
I would never use a sword against someone armored like this. Possibly I would have tried it with a 'Rabenschnabel'. I do not know the english term. It's a heavy warhammer with a sharp spike on one side.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.