Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369369Really? If so my opinion of SCA just went up a few notches. I thought they were basically anachronistic-detail-obsessed antiquarians.

Our problem today is that we have a bunch of contemporary representations of weapons, both in vocabulary and visual art, then we have modern terms applied after the fact (18th-20th century), and finally we have the remains of some of the weapons themselves. People are tempted to try to match vocabulary to types 1 to 1, when in fact you could have the same word referring to multiple things, the same thing referred to by multiple words, things evolving over time, etc.

Maybe I got the scholars?
They are really good, my boys.  they really understand the fluid development
of weapons and armors

If you really look into it, you´ll find that we know jack shit about much of the medieval stuff. The jury is still out of what a "Godendag" actually is, for example.

Quote from: Settembrini;369720If you really look into it, you´ll find that we know jack shit about much of the medieval stuff. The jury is still out of what a "Godendag" actually is, for example.

I enjoy it when people contradict what IS known through simple analysis.  We do have a certain amount of this equipment still in our possession.

I can't say about the Godendag, but possibly what Sett is referring to is, as I said, we lack contemporary words for the things that have survived. Or if the words exist, we don't know for sure how they match to the things.

And regarding the things, we may have no contemporary description, and no living tradition, of how they were used. So e.g. people make various attempts to reconstruct how a flail was swung, but we don't really know (AFAIK).

First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.

Better is Situational.

Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.

Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless. On the other hand, depending upon what sort of armor is being worn it may very well be that a broadsword (longsword, arming sword, oakshott type umpteen dozen...) is better. Or it may mean that a big fucking whackum mace is best.   On the other hand, if everyone else is lined up with a shield wall you might want a nice large bendy flail to flatten their skulls over that wall.

Better is Situational.

Personally? I'm all for giving weapons a fairly standardized damage for the most part (a la WHFRPG) and noting the differences in other sections of the rules.

Quote from: Spike;369736First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.

Better is Situational.

Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.

Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless. On the other hand, depending upon what sort of armor is being worn it may very well be that a broadsword (longsword, arming sword, oakshott type umpteen dozen...) is better. Or it may mean that a big fucking whackum mace is best.   On the other hand, if everyone else is lined up with a shield wall you might want a nice large bendy flail to flatten their skulls over that wall.

Better is Situational.

Personally? I'm all for giving weapons a fairly standardized damage for the most part (a la WHFRPG) and noting the differences in other sections of the rules.

You know, I did the opposite.  Not saying I am right.
I use protection as well as avoidance, and becasue of the high damage of any weapon, and really high damage of big ones, protection (your fifty pounds of steel) is far more useful in most pitched battles than avoiding a few blows.
I did it to deal with situational better.  My online game has 2 guys that use rapier-type weapons.  And they are finding that against heavily armored humanoids, they need to do a lot of chipping away...a lot...


I enjoy this sitea lot for this and use it regularly for modelling weapons.

Quote from: LordVreeg;369725I enjoy it when people contradict what IS known through simple analysis.  We do have a certain amount of this equipment still in our possession.

The discussion re: Godendag is about whether it was more of a halberd/bill or more of a pike, which has repercussion as to the tactics involved in the Battle of Kortrijk aka Courtray for example. EDIT: Just do a google picture search on Godendag to get a glimpse on the confusion.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369353Rapier = longsword...depends on what you mean by "longsword".

Sometimes, longsword refers to a primarily thrusting weapon with a blade like a narrow triangle, balanced near the hilt, as became more common in the middle ages as heavier armor became more common.  This is contrasted with the broadsword that has parallel sides and a bit of a point at the end, with more weight in the blade that was the norm in the dark ages, such as most viking swords.  This is how the terms are used most commonly in rpgs.  
 
But as you said, these are recent labels.  Designations varied both over time and region.  Most classifications come out of the Victorian obsession with systems of classification.

Quote from: Spike;369736First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.

Better is Situational.

Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.

Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless. On the other hand, depending upon what sort of armor is being worn it may very well be that a broadsword (longsword, arming sword, oakshott type umpteen dozen...) is better. Or it may mean that a big fucking whackum mace is best.   On the other hand, if everyone else is lined up with a shield wall you might want a nice large bendy flail to flatten their skulls over that wall.

Better is Situational.

Personally? I'm all for giving weapons a fairly standardized damage for the most part (a la WHFRPG) and noting the differences in other sections of the rules.

Can I just tell you that in my online game, I am being somewhat taken to task for 2 characters being frustrated their rapier's aren't pentrating medium armors well.  
Too bad I made the rules to mimic reality.  silly me.

There is a lot of shifting around the word 'better' and also trying to place it into context.  To try and answer your question allow me yo make the following assumptions:

1) You are comparting like for like weaponry of similar design (weight, length etc.), so rapier vs rapier, pole-axe vs pole-axe, etc.
2) Both combatants wear comparible armour, leather jerkin vs lether jerkin, chainmail vs chainmail etc.
3) Both compatants are equally skilled with the weapon and other combat techniques

You are asking should someone have a 'better' weapon, on balance would the person with the better weapon do more damage, more likely to hit, or 'what' compared to the other combatant with the 'inferior' weapon.  I believe it depends on the weapon, to overly simplify:

'Hacking' swords or axes have the weight in the blade to better cut into the opposition and defeat armour.  Note this does not mean the weapon is heavy, there a many examples or war axes which have very small heads as they were designed to be fast and break collar bones.  For hacking weapons a 'better' weapon would do more damage in my opinion.

a 'cut and thrust' one-handed weapon (and some 2-handed) had the balance nearer the hilt to allow the blade to be controlled and constantly in motion.  I would say a 'better' blade would have greater chance to hit.

A 'stabbing' weapon (I would not be keen to put spears in this area, asthey slice terribly well, ask any boar hunter who has used one), I would say is more likely to do damage OR less likely to break/become trapped in the victim.

I have a theory, possibly w/o merit, still firmly believe in it, though: the concept of "damage done" is utterly not how combattants ever thought about the matter.

Quote from: LordVreeg;370245Can I just tell you that in my online game, I am being somewhat taken to task for 2 characters being frustrated their rapier's aren't pentrating medium armors well.  
Too bad I made the rules to mimic reality.  silly me.

I like that.  Have they parried any heavier weapons with their flimsy little blades yet?


I am sure we agree on the particulars (you said something before about being opposite...):  a rapier is a fine, and deadly, weapon to wear about town where speed and skill(?) are important and armor is almost non-existant.  Plus: Its fashionable.

Which is why they were so very popular after firearms made heavy armor less attractive, even on the battlefields (though to my understanding the cuiriassers at waterloo were virtually immune to musket fire. Though not so much to cannon...)... less armor means slim, fast blades are more universally applicable.

Quote from: Spike;370468I like that.  Have they parried any heavier weapons with their flimsy little blades yet?


I am sure we agree on the particulars (you said something before about being opposite...):  a rapier is a fine, and deadly, weapon to wear about town where speed and skill(?) are important and armor is almost non-existant.  Plus: Its fashionable.

Which is why they were so very popular after firearms made heavy armor less attractive, even on the battlefields (though to my understanding the cuiriassers at waterloo were virtually immune to musket fire. Though not so much to cannon...)... less armor means slim, fast blades are more universally applicable.

few people use the parry maneuver in the system...more should try, based on the attrition rate.  I'll describe what is happenning mechanically.

Rapiers are very fast in our setting, and are made for exactly what you describe.  They have a base speed of three+roll (less with a higher coordination), and are much faster than most other weapons, but they do only (13-26)/d6 damage (normally plus a point or 2 for strength after the divider.
The last set of gnollics they were fighting have Ring Mail and silk, which makes them pretty easy to hit, but they have moderate protection ((32-d10)/(2d6*.5)), which gives a max prot of 32, an average of 8, and a minimum of 4.
So while the rapiers are attacking faster and often getting 3-4 hits for every 2-3 hits of other weaps,  the damage of the rapiers barely get through.

Dear lord! If that's how you resolve DAMAGE no wonder no one wants to try parrying!!!

As a gamer it took many years for me to learn that all out offensives have their place in games...and that place IS NOT 'every attack'.  

Running RQ I've seen that my players must occasionally be promted to worry about defense or I'll steam roller them quickly.  After a year or so of playing they seem to have gotten the idea.

Quote from: Spike;370485Dear lord! If that's how you resolve DAMAGE no wonder no one wants to try parrying!!!

As a gamer it took many years for me to learn that all out offensives have their place in games...and that place IS NOT 'every attack'.  

Running RQ I've seen that my players must occasionally be promted to worry about defense or I'll steam roller them quickly.  After a year or so of playing they seem to have gotten the idea.

Arr, the parry mechanic is pretty simple.  anyway...

Our system is low HP, high damage potential...someone pokes you with a sword and you aren't armor, you can die pretty easily