The meaning of the sentence involves all of the words in it, not just whatever "keywords" you choose to cherry-pick from it to support your point. You're overlooking the use of ambiguating words like "most", which implies that not all Reach 2 weapons and Polearms are two-handed, and "includes", which implies that other things besides Reach 2 weapons and Polearms are two-handed, and the explicit statement that the GM can add anything else he wants to the list of two-handed weapons (that the GM can do anything he wants is always implied, so I think the fact that they made it explicit here is meaningful).

Your interpretation of that sentence as saying that Reach 2 weapons and Polearms and only Reach 2 weapons and Polearms are two-handed is not supportable by the wording. What that sentence actually says is, "The GM can declare anything he wants to be two-handed, but we'd suggest he start by looking at the Polearms and Reach 2 weapons." IMAO, the katana, which is explicitly described by canon text as being two-handed, is another pretty solid candidate, especially since that, by happy coincidence, agrees with normal real-world usage of the weapon.

As I said, I'm nice... I allow use of katanas one-handed with no penalty beyond loss of the two-handed Power bonus. It'd be entirely supportable by canon to enforce the full penalties for using a two-handed weapon one-handed, though.

It is a Canon description, not a Canon game mechanic.

So you do. I still need to finish that…

~J

No, the Daikatana is the creation of John Carmack's D&D game. It just happened that Romero later used it in a game (in said game, Romero caused the destruction of the gameworld because he aided a demon in gaining omnipotence in return for what the demon promised would be information leading to the Daikatana).

Edit: and yes, no-dachi are real. The Daikatana was the mystical "ultimate sword" of this particular D&D game, though, and as such is not a no-dachi, at least no more than the Rod of Seven Parts is a rod or the Hand of Vecna is a hand (they are, but they're also rather a lot more). Incidentally, as far as I can tell Daikatana literally means "large katana".

And I doubt that there has never been a time in history when a bushi tried to compensate for underendowment elsewhere by using a no-dachi in personal combat. I also doubt it worked very well, but people do all sorts of silly things.

~J

I suspect that you'd be rather fatally surprised if you were to go into a duel against someone wielding a no-dachi expecting it to not work very well in single combat. Functionally, there's very little difference between a no-dachi and a claymore and a zweihander... and the Germans wrote entire books about using zweihanders in personal combat.

Well he could, but Rous has actually played the game. Since Arethusa is intent on rewriting the rules and going on about how horrible they are, one would expect him to have some first hand knowledge of them.

I would think it terribly frustrating to debate the meaning of the rules with someone only to find out the person had never actually played the game, or at least such a little amount to be virtually none.

I am not saying he (Arethusa) can't know about the game. But come on, to propose that you are qualified to re-write the rules and you have only played the game once? Be real.

Anyways, I am sure you will come back with some whity retort like shut up.

The crap thing? Either, really. Generally the more accepted way is 'wakizashi,' at least in terms of how common it is. But since there's no universal method to romajization, it can be either. And I'm not sure offhand what the kanji is, or I'd give it to you.

Arethustra:
I'd blame the popularization of the nodachi as an anti-personnel weapon not so much on video games or anime so much as Akira Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai', due to Toshiro Mifune's character using one in that in his efforts to be a 'real' samurai - which, it should be noted, he most certainly was not.

You get an idea, but I've found Arethusa to rely a little too much on those rough ideas. He's got the kind of personality that speaks too confidently when unequipped for a discussion. That annoys people.

??

Er, that didn't work. http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/fg=r/inli...%cf%c6%ba%b9?TR has a picture of them.

~J

yea, but my aunt would never let him in the kitchen because he couldn't chop anything without cutting himself (and he tended to juggle the steak knives, but thats a different story ).

Actually (and check my math) I believe that's 18 dice on attack, 22 on defense before combat pool. You get half your improved ability dice on the offhand, too.

Damn, somebody better tell the SEALs they're wasting time learning the knife.

-Siege

heh, i see the grin but i want to comment that i see a knife as usefull but anything big (like say a sword or similar) is just silly to bring onto the modern battlefield. even more so to the urban one where concealability and flexibility is what you want and big items have a bad habbit of being very low on either...

This is pretty much what I was saying.

The person I responded to said something about how Uber Katana's were and I was just trying to shed some light.

From my reading (and I could be wrong) the curve of the blade was 'left in' because the original sword was made to be used from horse back. And they found when striking down from the mount, the shock of impact was less, and they were more likely able to retrieve their blade, if it was curved.

If you look at most Calvary weapon (saber' come to mind) they are curved.

Yes Katana's are excellent swords. Is each and every one imbibed with the spirit of a 100 slain samurai and capable of cutting through metal. No. Not even one. And no matter how much anime says otherwise, it never was that way. Ever.

Of course, the swordsman's big problem in that scene wasn't that he had a sword and Indy had a gun. At that range, the gun has no significant advantage. The swordsman's problem was that he was wasting time showing off instead of just killing Indy. If he'd simply thrown a blow to the head, it would've been all over before Indy got his gun clear of the holster.

I was just guessing on the revolver. Do to poor editing he actualy uses two different guns. One is a 1911 (I think) in the scene in Nepal. The rest of the movie he uses a revolver.

I don't know if they ever made .45cal revolvers, but I recall them hinting that was what it was.

Actually, according to the website it was a Browning.

-Siege

I realize that question wasn't directed at me, but I've seen that number a few times. It takes a great skill to do something like that, obviously. I suppose it could be done.

Sword, katana, take your pick. I personally, like the claymore. Or a lance, but I guess that's fallen out of use in 2060...

Edit: Hmm...dikoted steel lance on a drone horse...with heavy security armor...

WHAT!?!?!

*jumps out window*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!