Recent content by Tsukana

I was going for more "You're pinned to a damn wall by somone with a board shield, which probably restricts both your arm movement and the stableness of your stance, allowing little to no power in grappling."

Still, you could tie the weapon hand up, but how long can you?

Not to mention, even if you DO have a stable stance, what if he overpowers you during grappling anyway?

It's just an example of how "better" is, as I said, situational. I was assuming that both combatants were unarmored minus the shield/buckler.

And afterwards, one of them would become known as "corpselover".

If he's drawing something like, say, a dagger, you're only putting yourself in MORE danger by grappling him.

Especially if you're pinned to a wall.

I'm sorry, I couldn't help but imagine a man with a rapier pinned against a wall, flailing wildly, by a man with a board shield, who is laughing maniacally as he draws a short blade.

"Better" is situational!

And 1/4th on topic bull****!

That's 100% Bull****. A bull**** composite, if you will. A perfect blending of on topic and off topic.

Let no man say that I would not stoop to incredibly juvenile standards to get the point across.

I have six doctorates.

I get paid to tell people what they're thinking.

Obi Wan Kenobi was my mentor.

Damn I've got some hot credentials.

And honestly, who doesn't want to be Russel Crowe?

Since everyone appearantly hates what dictionary.com has to say about the word weapon, I'll just use my trusty Websters.

Any instrument used in fighting.

There. A cloak, used in a fight, is a weapon.

1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2.
anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim.

I also must say, a lot of people posting right now have a ... distorted? view on how dual wielding would have worked, were it used. If we disregard the dueling styles of the later centuries (as we must), that leaves only the flashy movie antics most people think of, and a second "style", if you will, that we have literally no information on, as it may not have existed.

I have seen literally no proof that dual wielding was used in M&B's time-frame, though I certainly do believe it was possible to have used it successfully, or somewhat so.

Stop posting if all you're doing is " lOl i r can haz legolaz" or "no cannot haz dewl weeld cuz wuld not wurk and iz dum". Stop posting if you're giving out-of-time-frame "evidence". I don't mean to be rude, though I am sippin' on my Hateraide. We have enough of that already in the 400 some pages of this thread.  What we do need, from those pro-dual-wielding, is evidence of it being successfully (or even unsuccessfully, though it'd do little to credit the "style") used in a battlefield setting.

And, Dear God, please read at least half of the thread before posting. Please? For me? Please with a cherry on top? I only ask so you know what has already been discussed 15,000 times, and don't just dredge up some old facet of the conversation that's already been trampled by the crowd.

Back to obscurity with me. /rant. run:sleep.exe

Having ALSO read the Book of Five Rings (and using it as a source earlier in the thread, advocating dual wielding,) I can say that, one, in that ambush he did NOT use two swords.

Two, that wiki article is crap. It's half truth at best.

Kaampper said:

try keeping 2 longswords mate   their basicly 2 handed weapons so, when your not hercules, believe me, that wont work xd

Click to expand...

Tested. Broken. Move on.

It's not REALLY a quesiton of stamina, or reflexes. or what have you.

It's more a question of practicality (training, risk of ranged weapons, multiple opponents, even the risk against a armed man with a shield.)

All very valid.

Edit: Afterthought- It's also a question of practicality insofar as the engine/scripting changes, if it would...I guess please enough people to justify the amount of work put into it.

ares007 said:

Tsukana said:

That doesn't change the fact that it's easily the most fail thing we could possibly be doing. Unfortunately it's also the ONLY thing we could possibly be doing.

Thus the 100 year old thread.

Click to expand...

actually, there are a number of things that could be improved. For example, making shields more fun to use would be one area of improvement... (my suggestion: accurately represent the physical size of the shield allowing people to strike around it much easier, but also also allow for simultaneous stirke/directional-block. But that is for another thread)

The reason this thread is still around? Simply because we are entertained by all the noobs and continue to feed them with arguments. In short, this thread is fun.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the "make-shield-into-weapon-model" thing. And, you're quite right, shields do need improved. Happy side effect of doing so would probably be a working dual wielding for the modders who want to do it. Everyone's happy.

That doesn't change the fact that it's easily the most fail thing we could possibly be doing. Unfortunately it's also the ONLY thing we could possibly be doing.

Thus the 100 year old thread.

With the suggested shield improvements, it woulden't be bad to do this. But since, as of now, shields are basically the mental projection of your will to be protected...:: Shrug ::

That style of modding in dual wielding has been around for ages. The reason we're still arguing about it ( though not really anymore) is because that is such a craptastic way to do it.

If (note, not when) The Great Dual-Wield Practicality Combat is preformed, I demand a series of well filmed, multi-angle videos, accompanied by a list of witnesses and their contact information.

Also, advertise and charge 1$ admission.