I've got two questions/thoughts I've been kicking around. Maybe you guys can help me 'resolve' them.

(1) The first relates to the difference between an arming sword and a cut and thrust sword, or potentially differences within arming swords. I'm thinking about the contrast between say a generic Norman sword (1000-1100's) and knigtly one handed swords from the 1400's (or even a little earlier). The later swords are generally much pointier than the typical Norman age sword. They are definitely designed for both stabbing and cuting, but I'm not sure whether to classify them as cut and thrust swords or just arming swords with lower thrust ATNs...or perhaps cut and thrust swords with lower thrust ATNs but the higher thrust damage.

(2) Regarding thrusting swords, I've read in several places, and it seem logical, that thrusting swords developed to try and combat plate armors. That is, the intent was to thrusting at arm pits, visor slits or other areas not covered by plate, or to insert the blade between two pieces of plate. In theory then, thrusting swords (C&T?) should have some advantage over cutting swords (arming swords) vs plate. Under the present rules, thrusting swords don't really get any advantave over cutting swords vs. plate. In fact, you would do better to use the cutting sword because you can increase the damage by one point by spending one CP.

Anythoughts on a mechanic to simulate the potential advantage of a thrusting sword (this came up briefly in one or two other threads). Obviously halfswording when fighting on foot would be one. I was thinking more about one handed fighting. I had thought of giving the thrust aspect a +1 vs plate (except for halfswording), or allowing the fighter to pay a 2-3 CP cost to 'target' only those areas covered by mail gussets. The second option would give a +2 bonus in a sense because the AV would be reduced to 4 for mail.

off to work..NT

Hmmm.

I took all of this into account when I put together the TROS rules initially. Tests and historical records don't show that the thrust was more deadly against armors like chain or plate, but it was outlawed in tournaments because thrusts are (a) inherently more deadly and (b) more prone to accidents.

I'm not sure that TROS granularity really covers the chance of a thrust accidentally slipping between a visor or plates on a suit, and if it did, it would be in the "roll 1d6" stage.

My thoughts, at least.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Tests and historical records don't show that the thrust was more deadly against armors like chain or plate Jake

Yes, you're correct. Let me clarify.

The Rapier is a crappy battlefield weapon. Why? Isn't it the king of all thrusters?

Bastard Swords and Estocs are both can openers, yes. This is done in both cases by half-swording, and only by doing that. This bears out in all the historical material of fully-armored guys trying to kill each other with these swords.

That's not to say that a pointier sword isn't better for armored opponents that a parrallel-edged one, because it is, but that's a technique issue. Pointier swords make better use of anti-armor technique, at the expense of cutting ability. Cuts are not especially effective against plate armor, and really only act as bludgeoners against chain.

One-handed thrusting, however, doesn't penatrate chain nor plate (if it did, the rapier would be "the man," but Italian nobles wore thin chain under their garmets to protect themselves against daggers and rapiers--both one-handed thrusters. No reason for the discomfort if it didn't work, which we know it did).

In a re-write I might give the bastard sword and Estoc the current half-sword numbers and a +/-1 mod on the d6 roll when half-swording, and I'd lessen the damage or atn with a longsword when or other not-so-rigid, not-so-pointy sword.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Yes, you're correct. Let me clarify.

That's not to say that a pointier sword isn't better for armored opponents that a parrallel-edged one, because it is, but that's a technique issue. Pointier swords make better use of anti-armor technique, at the expense of cutting ability. Cuts are not especially effective against plate armor, and really only act as bludgeoners against chain.

One-handed thrusting, however, doesn't penatrate chain nor plate (if it did, the rapier would be "the man," but Italian nobles wore thin chain under their garmets to protect themselves against daggers and rapiers--both one-handed thrusters. No reason for the discomfort if it didn't work, which we know it did)

murazor wrote:
Armour protects against cuts and thrusts. Fair enough. But if you successfully cut or stab me with sufficient force to defeat my armour (i.e: Final result >1) do I not bleed? From a realism perspective, how should I interpret a Level 3 Chest Cross-cut wound against someone wearing plate or chain? Appearantly the sword sliced through the armour, but that doesn't seem very plausible.
Perhaps we'll just have to look the other way for the sake of simplicity/playability. Or...?

Jake Norwood wrote:
In a re-write I might give the bastard sword and Estoc the current half-sword numbers and a +/-1 mod on the d6 roll when half-swording, and I'd lessen the damage or atn with a longsword when or other not-so-rigid, not-so-pointy sword.

Jake