|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:33 am
A specific set of circumstances in what context? We're not discussing the rifle being used against a specific weapon, nor are we even discussing a specific rifle in particular, so I don't think we're using any particular circumstance or situation here. If we're talking about modern assault rifles/carbines, I'd largely agree with you. They're way more complex in design, and way less durable. They're also smaller. If we're talking about bolt actions or muskets, I'd have to disagree.
A bolt action is fairly simple in construction, all things considered. From a melee perspective, a bolt action is made of two parts. The barrel and the stock, and the stock often envelops a large part of the barrel. Take for example the M1 Garand. If you look at a picture of the weapon, the barrel is almost entirely housed within the stock, and only a few inches of exposed metal point out.
So, for the purposes of parrying, you actually only have a single part in many instances. And early bolt actions and muskets were fairly durable; it would probably take something like an overhand, two-handed strike to smash the rifle to pieces in a single blow. Sure, after extended melee use the weapon probably isn't going to fire properly, but seeing as how firearm use is banned anyways, that's not an issue in a tournament.
For maneuverability, it's not really that black and white. By holding the weapon with both hands, you have similar drawbacks and advantages as you would a quarter-staff. Namely, when holding a sword you're reliant on one point of articulation (the hand), when holding a staff-like weapon you're reliant on two. The thing with having two is that in certain situations - such as parrying - it can actually provide more mobility, because you can maneuver the weapon with one point of articulation or the other. It also gives you the ability to strike with either end of the weapon, allowing you to hit with the butt of the rifle or the bayonet. Trade offs in maneuverability, especially at different ranges of combat, are common to every weapon. A one handed sword has different advantages in parrying than a two handed does, and visa versa.
It also depends on where you grip the weapon. You don't have to block with the middle of the stock at all. If you choke your grip on the rifle, you can use it as a short spear, and your parrying would be similar to certain two handed swords where you parry with the last section of the rifle and the bayonet, rather than with the middle of the gun. A rifle is actually pretty balanced for parrying, because it isn't particularly heavy on one end or the other, unlike, say.. an axe, for example, where a majority of the weight is in the head.
Obviously, there's going to be situations where it's not going to be very effective as a melee weapon. But the same could be said about a sword, or an axe, or a mace, or a dagger, or whatever. Generally speaking, a bolt-action is about as useful melee weapon as any of these others, as far as I'm concerned. It wouldn't be a disadvantage in general at all. In specific situations? Sure, just like any other weapon. But as a baseline "this item isn't suited for melee combat"? I'd have to disagree; a bolt-action with a bayonet is a perfectly suitable melee weapon.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:50 am
I'd have to disagree. Though there are various levels of training, if were speaking in terms of amateurs then the rifle loses almost all efficiency as it is rather a pain in terms of grip unless you know what your doing. Then we get into specific training and use with weapons, and while rifle should get some level of respect I believe your overplaying it as it really is a poor cross between a short staff and a club... I'd have to say the only reason it makes such a good weapon is because it is put in situations where it is needed to be, and thus styles and what not have been developed for it. I'm sure if the most common item found on a battlefield was a glass bottle of coke, a specific style of fighting would arise for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:58 am
It's more like a cross between a quarterstaff and a spear, really, since that's what the bayonet is for, although the rifle butt is definitely usable for clubbing things.
And I'm not overplaying it - I never said it was a fantastic weapon, only that it's not a particularly disadvantageous melee weapon; that it's not so unsuited to melee combat that you're going to be at a disadvantage for choosing to use it over a more generic weapon.
A bolt action with a bayonet is about as a fair and effective weapon as the generic staff or sword would be. It has specific instances where it will be more useful and specific instances where it will be less useful, but that's neither here nor there. What I'm saying is that a character who chooses to pick up a rifle with a bayonet is not at any significant disadvantage in comparison to someone who chooses to pick up a generic quarterstaff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:09 pm
I can agree that and advantage or disadvantage is insignificant at least. If two people were equally skilled I believe the one holding the rifle would lose, but it's rare to find people who are at the exact same level with different weapons...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:18 pm
I think it would be up to the fighters in particular; while all weapons confer certain disadvantages and advantages to the user, it's really up to the person holding the weapon to put it to its fullest use.
Like I said, I just don't see a rifle with a bayonet being hugely disadvantaged for any particular reason. It has disadvantages in the same way every weapon does, but there's nothing that makes it a "bad" melee weapon.
An example of a potentially "bad" melee weapon would be a sledgehammer. You've got ten or fifteen pounds of weight all centered onto one end of the weapon, with absolutely zero counter-weight on the other end. If you swing and hit, you probably just won your fight without much of an issue. But your ability to riposte or to recover during or in the middle of a swing is practically zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:24 pm
I don't know, I think a sledge hammer could be great for someone who is good in hand to hand combat as well as strategical placing. Imaging swinging downwards, even if you miss, if you properly time letting go of it you could catch it on the bounce, or perhaps even strike down and let go of it to be picked up later.
Really to me a sledge hammer would work as an offensive shield...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:20 pm
Agreed on a sledgehammer being a pretty awful weapon. I think notmuch's hardware tools also fall under that category, but I give him major props for being inventive and unique, which, ultimately is also part of the tournament.
By the way, Vizzle, I meant specific circumstances as in the specific ruleset of this tournament and the array of weaponry brought to bear in it.
And while we are on the subject, I'm having trouble picturing a bowie knife as large as a claymore. Is it like a bowie-knife shaped buster sword? Or just a really damn long knife? Or... I don't even know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:36 pm
It'd just be a two handed sword with a broad blade that was only sharpened on one side, I imagine.
The issue with a sledgehammer is momentum. Once you swing, you're committed. You could probably get a specialty sledgehammer that had a smaller, five-pound head or something and that would probably be pretty useful as a weapon, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:51 pm
True... I'm just trying to think of methods to use the momentum to your advantage. At the same time, I've never really worked with, or fought against large hammers so at this point I could really only come up with basic theories...
Oh, but I don't think a wrench would be that bad of a weapon at all. If used correctly it could make for pretty decent disarms, and lets face it, it's still a pretty solid piece of metal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:26 pm
My opponent just showed up. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:39 pm
Ah yes, it is easier to beat an opponent who does not exist, but me telling you not to lose still applies ^.^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:38 pm
I'll have to make good use of weapon advantages and disadvantages to survive this fight.
I'll be here all night, but I'm probably going to lose anyway, by default, because I won't be able to post until Friday at the earliest after today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:50 pm
It is a tad unfortunate you didn't tell that to Vinny before brackets were made to secure a bye >.> Even so, what's the circumstances? Perhaps I can think of something, seeing the only female competitor go down in the first round over something so trivial is just to sad...v.v
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:38 pm
Sigil Warden Agreed on a sledgehammer being a pretty awful weapon. I think notmuch's hardware tools also fall under that category, but I give him major props for being inventive and unique, which, ultimately is also part of the tournament. A pickax might not be very good, but worst-case scenario of a horizontal missed swing, an elbow is pretty well places for a quick hit, or a shoulder charge. A claw hammer, I believe is a much better melee weapon then a sledgehammer, because even though most of its weight is at the head, the overall weight is so small that the user can pull it back up pretty quickly for another strike, with either the head or the claw. The five-foot prybar is really much more of a heavy metal quarterstaff or a simple spear in combat (if you're using the straight end), and I could see it being quite effective for a strong enough user. But the main reason that Thurgood fights with tools is that he has neither the resources nor the desire to own, make, and/or use any purpose-made melee weapon, believing that it's just a waste on him. Firearms on the other hand, he sees as definitely worth owning and maintaining. Unfortunately, he can't bring any of his firearms into the ring. Therefore, all Thurgood has is tools, resolute determination, his special gloves, his protective armbands, and his rage to face supernatural and quasi-supernatural opponents. So the cards are stacked heavily in favor of his opponent (at a ratio of 52 to 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:26 pm
I have an old sledge hammer. The block has a tendency to fly off the end of the handle when wielded, the same with the ax, but these are both garden tools and not designed weapons.
I hope I'm playing these shuriken right. The Fuuma Shuriken is realistically not something used in battle, it is more often seen in anime at really unrealistically larger sizes. It is supposed to be a boomerang type weapon if thrown properly. Forty centimeters sounds like a lot but the thing is really less than a foot and a half long. What I don't want to do is have a fantasy weapon that hits multiple targets, bounces off things, and then still returns. The Fuuma Shuriken is a bit more of a challenge to play, as I hadn't been able to find much reference material in the time I had.
I like the thought put into the variety of weapons and their advantages and disadvantages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
