We did that dagger vs. a sword test at Southern Knights this last weekend.

The Combattants
Jake is the top ranked fencer at ARMA and one of their senior instructors. ARMA is arguably the most important European Martial Arts school in the world. Certainly the largest. He is trained in unarmed combat, knife fighting, longsword, and other period weapons. I believe he also has considerable experience in traditional "Eastern" martial arts.

My background is 20 years of stick fighting and street fighting in New Orleans, my home, where I have learned a few of the esoteric arts of "slum fu". No formal training, though I have been trying to learn WMA on my own for about 2 years.

Just to keep this in perspective, I outweigh Jake by about 100 lbs, and that aint muscle. I'm like the encumbered fat guy in the TROS manual, not very fast on my feet. I'm also ten years older. As for training and experience, I probably have an edge on Jake in terms of pure volume of sparring experience, but he has me by a factor of fifty on training and understanding of the fencing masters, and in correct form. He also has a much wider repetoire of moves to work with.

The Bet
Since we were pressed for time, and Jake was feeling magnanamous, we didn't actually do the $50 bet. The way things turned out thats a good thing since we probably would have been arguing about the outcome...

The Gear
I was using a 'viking' sword about 36" long, with the exact correct balance and weight of a real weapon. Jake had a formidable 20" rondel dagger which would be considered a short sword in many game systems. We both wore helmets and gauntlets at first, but discarded our helmets after a few rounds. My shield was a large buckler, the size of a targe, about 20" in diameter.

The Contest
We started with just sword versus dagger for a few rounds, with no shield. Jake was hanging back and I tend to be real aggressive so I decided to just rush him, which is sort of the opposite of what we were supposed to be doing. Works out similarly though. The first four or five engagements ended in a double-kill, i.e. we both struck each other simultaneously.

Then after I'd studied Jake's technique a little and decided to play it a bit more patiently I was able to kill him outright several times.

After discussing this, we tried the shield, (I was using a large center-grip buckler about the size of a targe). It then became much harder for him to attack. We got I think one or two more double-kills again early on, and then I was able to pretty much get him. After that we put aside the daggers and tried some longsword versus sword-and-shield sparring.

At no time during any of the bouts we did was Jake able to strike me before I struck him. On two occasions Jake dropped his weapon, I think after parrying my sword. I think I dropped mine once too, but that might have been later when we were sparring.

Conclusion
Jake pointed out that he was able to get a lot of double kills (i.e. mutual death) against the sword alone, and considered this a partial success. I think the fact that he couldn't get any first-hits proves the point however. Yes, you can get a double-strike especially against a single sword, because once the sword is committed to an attack it's harder to use it to defend with. Only by making this kind of sacrifice attack could the blow be landed however. In a realistic system like TROS this would not be an ideal outcome unless you (the knife fighter) were wearing heavy armor.

Additionally, I'm much slower on my feet than Jake, who moves like a mongoose, and he's also taller and has excellent reach. Jake tried every trick in the book, feiting constantly, stomping, using false starts, and even once kicking his slipper at my face. Nothing worked. Against a larger shield I think it would have been impossible to even get a sacrifice strike in. With equally skilled opponents of equal physical condition, I also think it would be harder.

On the other hand, I think Jake is easily fast enough to take an inexperienced fighter in this manner, especially by using unarmed fighting techniques. I was definately also using every trick in my own book to keep him at bay.

Ultimately, all things being equal, I stick to my assertion that it is nigh impossible to get the first strike in with a dagger against a sword, and much more so against a sword and shield. A "sacrifice" attack may be the only option.

I think the whole exorcise underlines the critical importance of reach in hand-weapon combat, something routinely underestimated by RPG systems.

Against a much less skilled opponent however, it would be quite viable. (It's too bad we didn't have more time, next time I'd like to see this tried with a few more different opponents, it's a useful exorcise because it's a situation anyone doing WMA could find themselves in ... it ain't hard to drop a sword)

Jeanry Chandler

Man, I wish I could actually learn this stuff from knowledgeable practitioners.

I wonder if you could answer this question for me: how do you think the addition of a second dagger would effect the result?
Could a thrown dagger be enough of a threat to force the swordsman to react (parry, block, move) in such a way as to create an opening for the knife fighter to close the gap withough being hit?

Hi.

For the record, I have frequently beaten longswords with a dagger or with no weapon, which was why I took the challenge so readily. I also knew that fighting against a buckler (20" is bigger than a buckler in my book...) that I was in for a hard fight. We did about 13 or 15 bouts all together, and Jeanry's right that we would dissagree about what the results meant. I mean, if we got 5 simultaneous hits with a buckler in the way, what would have happened without one...

This is what I see, in TROS terms.

The higher TN of the dagger and lower DTN of the buckler make it nigh-impossible to get in cleanly first. I'm faster than Jeanry on my feet, but he's got a quick, quick arm. SO I've got a higher Reflex, but not a lot higher measuring by the speed of Jeanry's arm. I think that a longer-range weapon should gain some bonus dice (though not many) in a red-red context of reflexes, or that the allready existing penalty to the shorter weapon in attack should carry into the red-red reflex roll.

Either way, it's not too far off from the rules as they stand.

Jake

Jake's record might have been better if he didnt wear slippers when fighting ~~

Very interesting "report", btw. I suspect that double kill isnt really seen as a partial victory in a sharp situation, though (unless you believe in Valhalla of course) ;)

[MKF]Kapten wrote: Jake's record might have been better if he didnt wear slippers when fighting ~~

Very interesting "report", btw. I suspect that double kill isnt really seen as a partial victory in a sharp situation, though (unless you believe in Valhalla of course) ;)

Jake Norwood wrote: Hi.

For the record, I have frequently beaten longswords with a dagger or with no weapon, which was why I took the challenge so readily. I also knew that fighting against a buckler (20" is bigger than a buckler in my book...) that I was in for a hard fight. We did about 13 or 15 bouts all together, and Jeanry's right that we would dissagree about what the results meant. I mean, if we got 5 simultaneous hits with a buckler in the way, what would have happened without one...

This is what I see, in TROS terms.

The higher TN of the dagger and lower DTN of the buckler make it nigh-impossible to get in cleanly first.

I'm faster than Jeanry on my feet, but he's got a quick, quick arm.

SO I've got a higher Reflex, but not a lot higher measuring by the speed of Jeanry's arm. I think that a longer-range weapon should gain some bonus dice (though not many) in a red-red context of reflexes, or that the allready existing penalty to the shorter weapon in attack should carry into the red-red reflex roll.

Either way, it's not too far off from the rules as they stand.

Nice to hear that other people also mix and match weapons!

From my bouts of sword against dagger, the swordsman is vulnerable, especially if he does not appreciate what a danger the dagger is. Distance is the real issue here: if the swordsman attacks, the dagger wielder is ideally looking to void and strike. Often times the swordsman will pull the shot when he realises he is going to miss, and that is the second opening to go for ("Travelling after" is the phrase used in German sword texts). The third option is block the sword using the dagger stretched along the forearm, but one cannot actually take a full strength blow in this manner. Instead, by closing and limiting the swordsman's options, one can force him to cut where you want him to, and then close and grapple.

Of course, there are lots of dirty tricks we can't actually use in friendly sparring, but nobody needs to know of those!

James

Jake Norwood wrote:
(...)
All swordsmen wear slippers...
Jake

[MKF]Kapten wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote:
(...)
All swordsmen wear slippers...
Jake

What? Like birckenstock slippers?

Funny, I had just been looking for whether anyone had suggested that the reach penalty apply to red-red situations before. Makes a lot of sense to me, and was going to be my suggestion to the GM in that game. (Particularly relevant because I'm looking at playing the standarbearer - longspear or pike with a flag on it - in a Black Company game starting up.)

So for what it's worth, I third the motion to apply reach penalties to contests of Reflex. Possibly also (in some form) to the cost of buying initiative, if you're already at your desired reach but don't happen to have the initiative...

- Eric

Harlequin wrote: Funny, I had just been looking for whether anyone had suggested that the reach penalty apply to red-red situations before. Makes a lot of sense to me, and was going to be my suggestion to the GM in that game. (Particularly relevant because I'm looking at playing the standarbearer - longspear or pike with a flag on it - in a Black Company game starting up.)

So for what it's worth, I third the motion to apply reach penalties to contests of Reflex. Possibly also (in some form) to the cost of buying initiative, if you're already at your desired reach but don't happen to have the initiative...

- Eric

Thanks, Ralph. Parallel question, then:

How does this apply to the process of buying initiative?

Arming sword attacks and is parried (and the dagger doesn't get dropped - grin). Certainly the daggerman holds the initiative and is going to respond - but is the reach going to help if the arming sword decides to reprise his strike before the riposte can land?

I'm honestly not sure; I can see it in my head, but don't have enough relevant experience to judge the timing.

Any opinions?

I think that in this case, though not ordinarily reflected (much) in the rules, the slower motion of the larger weapon will offset its reach, leaving it no more or less easy to preemptively reprise the attack than it would be if the reaches were better matched to one another. George Silver, "the longer weapon does not cross the body in the proper time" and all that. So I would probably say that the reach penalty does not apply either way, to the process of buying initiative. That'd be my vote, anyway.

- Eric