Fencer

Post Reply
User avatar
Morningwarrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:44 pm

Fencer

Post by Morningwarrior » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:00 am

Hp:15
Damge:8
Range:1
Speed:3
Actions:2
Armor:0
Pierce armor:0
Sight:5
Melee dodge:45%
Cost:3
+50%damage vs melee foot and melee light.
Glory to doritos,remember.

User avatar
LordOfAles
Posts: 3661
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:27 pm
Location: Montenegro

Re: Fencer

Post by LordOfAles » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:44 pm

Fencers weren't used on battlefield, they were dueling other fencers. Frankly, i don't think a fencing blade could deal more than 5 damage.
The Crusade never ends...

User avatar
Morningwarrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:44 pm

Re: Fencer

Post by Morningwarrior » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:48 pm

Hmmmm, maybe 6 damage,is best.
Glory to doritos,remember.

User avatar
Gral.Sturnn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Fencer

Post by Gral.Sturnn » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:57 am

well to be fair a thrust is more dangerous than a cut
~Gral.Sturnn

User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Fencer

Post by Endru1241 » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:13 am

Thrust is more dangerous only against armored enemy.
It's not though on lightly armored or unarmored - in these cases bladed weapons were used in great effectiveness (a slight slash can make enemy bleed to death, all while not risking breaking Your weapon). In many areas, where armor was hard to come by (either by lack of proper materials or climate which didn't exactly make wearing it comfortable - e.g. desert, thundra) most warriors used some sort of sabers or axes.

User avatar
Gral.Sturnn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Fencer

Post by Gral.Sturnn » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:17 am

Indeed cuts are more deadly on unarmored oponents but it is not against armored (like mentioned above) but that doesent mean thrusts arent any less deadly on unarmored opponents either, I would say they are even deadlier as they have an easier time going through the body
~Gral.Sturnn

User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Fencer

Post by Endru1241 » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:52 am

Well. Thrusting weapon - spear was used in the whole world (it was deadly), but it was poor man's weapon.
Sword - classical knight side arm was designed to slash and thrust.
In middle east desert (too hot for good armor) warriors used scmitars (kind of a sabre), in the norther europe (too cold for good armor) - axes, most steppe people (armor too heavy, horseman looses mobility) used sabres as cavalry weapon, japanese knights used katana (iron was too pricey - most people in army were unarmored or lightly armored).
It's only few examples, but in the whole history blades of various kinds were dominant on battlefields, where most army was lightly armored at most.
While thrusting weapons became used more, when armor began to be better and cheaper in europe.

All in all - fencing blade could never be used successfully on battlefield, and even if we assume rapier as a fencer main weapon - it's not very effective war weapon (too delicate, easy to break on armor).

User avatar
Gral.Sturnn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Fencer

Post by Gral.Sturnn » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:24 pm

correct, but the mongols did have heavy armored warriors on horseback, also samurais used spears more than katanas, katanas are just glorified sidearms
~Gral.Sturnn

User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Fencer

Post by Endru1241 » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:21 pm

Gloried the same as european sword.
To be truthful - Japanese used various sabers (Dao) up to high middle age, later more prevalent became Yari - a little more universal weapon. With them they probably used slashing swipe vs poor infantry and thrusts against more armored people. And most mongol forces were light cavalry with sabers - only smaller part were heavier armored and using lances.

Sabre or axe swing doesn't require so much power as thrust, they are also harder to dodge and thus more accurate in melee (I know, that they are also easier to block in the same time, but unarmored opponent hardly had anything to block weapon with).
I know most of the time thrusting weapon were used side by side with slashing ones (and commonly were the same weapon, only used differently).
I just disagree about thrust being superior. It's pure physics - swing damages more tissue, severs more veins, can damage more organs by blunt force of the impact. Thrust have much, much lower area of strike. They penetrate the flesh, they penetrate the armor much better. But unless accurately stroken in vital organs they did less damage to the body.
"Thrust is more dangerous than a cut" may be used in case of knifes, as they do not have properties do do a proper swing cut.

User avatar
Gral.Sturnn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Fencer

Post by Gral.Sturnn » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:48 pm

well your points are true but a thrust takes more time to heal an it is harder to treat
~Gral.Sturnn

Post Reply

Return to “Unit - infantry”