[LT] [LTC2] [MA] Some questions about weapons and armor

[DanHoward]

Note that anatomical body parts are not the same as GURPS hit locations. GURPS just uses them as convenient terms to help distinguish various hit locations. The "chest" in Low-Tech includes the front AND back. The "groin" includes the entire pelvis in Basic Set and the "face" includes the back of the head. What Low-Tech calls the "thigh" is that part of the leg that is above the "knee" and below the "abdomen" and has a 2/6 chance of getting hit when the leg is targeted. It is not the same the anatomical thigh, which is essentially a flesh-covered femur that extends up into the area that Low-Tech calls the "abdomen" and down into the area that Low-Tech calls the "knee".

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Here it is on scale armour.

Hm. I'd have to see evidence that such fluting was actually effective. It doesn't seem likely that bending of a scale (as opposed to passing between scales, or damaging the armor so a scale comes out) is an important failure mode for scale armour anyway, and a simple vertical crease like that appears to be would make the scale stronger in one dimension, but probably weaker in another dimension, so not very useful even if bending the scale does matter.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Not that I'm aware of. Brigs cost more than steel cuirasses. If more protection was needed then the plates would simply have been made thicker. There are some brigs that were proofed against firearms.

I thought you were implying that it was, based on the rules and the way you didn't discount it along with jacks and scale. I can't think of any historical examples, anyway.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Hm. I'd have to see evidence that such fluting was actually effective. It doesn't seem likely that bending of a scale (as opposed to passing between scales, or damaging the armor so a scale comes out) is an important failure mode for scale armour anyway, and a simple vertical crease like that appears to be would make the scale stronger in one dimension, but probably weaker in another dimension, so not very useful even if bending the scale does matter.

The scales in these armours were under half a millimeter thick. If the scales aren't embossed or convex in shape, it takes very little impact to cause them to "dish" and flare out at the bottom. The ridges impart a noticeable reduction in their tendancy to distort when hit. The other way of reducing this tendancy was to have a lot more overlap and to use lacing on the top and bottom, but this increased weight significantly.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The ridges impart a noticeable reduction in their tendancy to distort when hit.

Anthony said: "I'd have to see evidence that such fluting was actually effective."

You re-asserted your position, but you did not provide evidence.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by safisher

You re-asserted your position, but you did not provide evidence.

He gave a particular failure mode where bending of scales does matter -- if I'm interpreting it correctly, impact would cause a scale to bend slightly, opening up a gap between it and the scale below it. That's evidence. If I were professionally designing medieval armor (using modern testing methods...) I'd want additional studies, as it could create new failure modes, but it's a plausible reason.

[GenInsJoe]

Thanks everyone for the quick replies!

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Then it wouldn't be a sword; it would be a polearm. Use the stats for something like a naginata.

I guess I was not clear in my question, I know that if you added a much longer handle to a sword you would get a polearm, such as the naginata. However, what I meant to ask was what I clarified below; adding an extended handle to a sword. Just enough to make the sword a 1-h/2-h, or a hand-and-a-half handle.

The estoc (English "tuck") is a longsword without a cutting edge. It is essentially a long spike with a handle and was designed for jamming between pieces of plate. I'm pretty sure that there are specific stats for it in either LT or MA. The jian is simply a broadsword or a longsword depending on its length.

But doesn't that mean that the estoc and jian lose their special qualities? Namely, the -2 for targeting chinks from estoc and the ability to be used for fencing for the jian.

Armour padding is too light to provide any additional DR. If you want plate over mail then use the armour layering rules in Low-Tech. Historically, it was a common combination. The Low-Tech Armor Loadouts book will be a big help for you.

I understand that; and I think I have predicted your answer to what I really wanted to know, so I will not pursue it further. I read the text a little more carefully about armor padding.

Low-Tech Armor Loadouts is definitely helpful, but damn you for making me spend more money. ;)

Armour needs to cover half of a body part to cause penalties. The abdomen is 1/3 the total area of the torso. If someone wanted to wear rigid armour on the abdomen - perhaps something like a WWF wrestling belt that makes it hard to bend at the waist - then I would consider penalties.

I understand the mechanical reasons for it, I was wondering what the logical reasoning for it was. If it is purely game balance and/or for simplicity and consistency, great. But I was curious to know if layering on the chest was actually as restricting as RAW says it should be? And whether it would be more restrictive than a really thick plate coreslet?

Abdomen armour covers the top of the thighs; the part that is left is smaller than the shin. Also note that the thigh is harder to hit (2/6) than the shin (3/6) so it also maintains game balance.

Some combinations are not practical and were never used historically. The rules can't give a list of every possible combination and tell you which are valid and which are not. The GM is entitled to rule that some things aren't allowed. Personally I would not allow a jack of plates or scale armour to be worn under any other armour.

You need TL4 technology with sliding rivets and neck "turns" to avoid penalties with neck armour. The Low-Tech Armor Loadouts book will be a big help for you.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/l.../lowtecharmor/

Great! Knew there was a reason. Thanks!

[GenInsJoe]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

1) I can see it offering a 2-H option, but I can't see why it would help with a defensive grip. I assume there are reasonable rules for what happens if a nominally 1-H weapon is wielded in two hands.

I mentioned Defensive Grip because AFAIK, that is the only section that deals with having 2 hands on a 1-h weapon. For a 1-h weapon, using 2 hands gives -2 to attack, but +1 damage. And the +1 parry from defensive grip. A longer handle would provide mitigation for the -2, at a increase in cost and weight of the weapon.

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by GenInsJoe

I mentioned Defensive Grip because AFAIK, that is the only section that deals with having 2 hands on a 1-h weapon. For a 1-h weapon, using 2 hands gives -2 to attack, but +1 damage. And the +1 parry from defensive grip. A longer handle would provide mitigation for the -2, at a increase in cost and weight of the weapon.

Re-reading the Defensive Grip rules in Martial Arts, it seems clear that a weapon that can be used either 1H or 2H -- which would logically include such as "lengthened grip sword" --- is required to use the rules in the paragraph for two-handed weapons, and to ignore the paragraph with rules for one-handed weapons using a Defensive Grip.

[GenInsJoe]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Re-reading the Defensive Grip rules in Martial Arts, it seems clear that a weapon that can be used either 1H or 2H -- which would logically include such as "lengthened grip sword" --- is required to use the rules in the paragraph for two-handed weapons, and to ignore the paragraph with rules for one-handed weapons using a Defensive Grip.

My thoughts exactly. Now how do I price/weigh a sword with an extended handle? Other than just using one of the ones that already has a long handle.