Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2016, 06:36 AM   #51
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
...

Often when we're gaming we look for "How much flesh is cleaved?" But even looking back at that video with that sword, the guy thrusted a Thr+1 weapon with what's probably average or near average ST into steal armor and went through an inch. No, he didn't run the guy through, but an inch on a point like that is quite a bit! He probably did an all out attack to get that depth, and if you look at something between DR6 and DR9 for plate, that's probably accurate for damage where most would be absorbed and maybe 1 or 2 points of damage CAN get through (Not on average).
Leaving aside questions about the quality of armour being used*, don't forget that under the plate there was also an arming garment.

If you want to get an idea of how good they were against piecing take a look at this. It's about crossbows that fire with far more energy than swords get thrust but you get the idea.

And of course it was a combined effect, a point that's had its penetration reduced to an inch through plate is a lot easier to withstand than a point without the intervening plate. And of course there's not really many places on the body where an inch of penetration is going to be much of a problem in the short term.


*sorry which video are you referring to, I seem to have missed it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
Things break down more when you are forced to classify things so rigidly into damage types. Take a mace for example. How do you quantify such a thing? Some with nobby spike, some with "Fins"... morningstars... they have +n damage, but they can only be cut, crush or impaling. Real life isn't so rigid.
Yep that's certainly true, in reality a lot of things are going to be on a sliding scale of various GURPS damage types.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
Also, GURPS doesn't track things like bone bruising from strikes or skeletal durability. People sometimes focus on bleeding as an external phenomena too. They don't realize contusions can be as bad as lascerations! Bleeding inside your body is still bleeding! Blood vessels aren't the most sturdy parts of our evolution. Cracked bones and such can be debilitating!
I certainly consider bleeding from CR damage (and blunt trauma through armour come to that) at my table, In fact internal bleeding can be worse at low TL's because it will sometimes need surgery.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
Not to mention something rarely said is even if an attack doesn't get through armor, not every attack need be the killing blow. You get hit with a sword at full power and that will SUUUUCK. Not all of that is even more than jarring, but jarring injury is all it takes on a battlefield to leave you messed up. How many football players get concussions?

Thing is swords just don't transmit that much force, (certainly nothing like what footballers withstand in tackles)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
Most the videos I watched on this subject seem to show the blunt trauma and the features I don't think GURPS models well is what will do you in versus literal slicing through flesh.

Personally from every weapon I saw, it seems the best thing to use against someone coming at you in steel sheets is a warbow. Arrows seem to regularly piece plate armor quite a bit more effectively than I thought they would. I'd also like to mention, impaling attacks seem to get trapped in the armor quite a bit.
Not sure about arrows regularly piecing plate, what have you been looking at?



Quote:
Originally Posted by GodBeastX View Post
I guess at the end of the day, there's a point to make. If armor was useless they wouldn't wear it, and if weapons were useless against it, people with armor would win every time.
In abstract these are both true. However a couple of points:

1). armour was not ubiquitous or when present always full coverage i.e your opponent may not be armoured, or bits of him might not be armoured, so hit those bits. A halberd blade will easily mess up someone's unarmoured leg, and it won't matter much if they have a breastplate on.


2) not all tactics against armoured target involved trying to penetrate past their full armour (see the earlier examples of this in the thread)


3). Reality is not ever completely cut and dried, given enough heavy blows from a halberd I'm sure plate will eventually fail. It's just even taking that into account in a combat situation the difference between compete invulnerability and effective protection from such blows is pretty moot. Which is also why I'm fine with the occasional point of damage getting past in favourable circumstances. i.e an absolute position is rarely a correct one.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 07-14-2016 at 07:41 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 07:54 AM   #52
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Swords and plate

[QUOTE=Tomsdad;2020775]
Quote:
Don't get me wrong I don't think the writer is wrong, certainly in regards to the wider point about drilled Swiss halberdiers defeating armoured knights, just overstating the point regarding slashing through armour.
I've given you firm evidence. You've rejected it. Please understand that, on the face of it, that it is a controversial and conjectural statement in Low-Tech that cutting weapons were not capable of penetrating armor. It is overly broad. The topic comes up repeatedly here because it's a poor rule which does not square with GURPS use of DR or historical evidence of use.

You said:
"Such weapons were not well known armour piercing weapons because of their cutting blades."

Evidence clearly suggests otherwise.

You said:
"all the evidence points to the fact"

When actually, _all_ the evidence does not. In fact, I've presented a strong counter-example.

Quote:
What I think we have is halbards of all slashing weapon are most likely to effect armour (but still not very likely) in GURPS terms a factor of their very high damage bonus (+5), and slashing apart or defeating armour doesn't necessarily mean in GURPS terms penetrating its full DR.
What we have is firm historical evidence of not only slashing weapons used against armor, but an example in a battle of halberds defeating plate armor, and that refutes the highly speculative and overly broad statement that edged weapons simply did not penetrate armor. Understand, it is not my claim alone, it is the claim of other scholars.

Quote:
No I'd like some actually proof of your assertion that such weapons regularly cut through plate,
I never made that claim. I have simply said that where Low-Tech says "Realistically, it’s extremely difficult for a blade edge to cut through any sort of armor" is an overly broad statement that does not square with historical uses on the battlefield and in medieval manuals.

Quote:
again that is not the same as saying did halberds or other pole arms that included amongst other things a heavy cutting blade get used against armoured opponents. The latter is not in doubt
You've moved the goalposts. You asked for evidence that Low-Tech was wrong. I provided such. Now you have said that was not the issue at hand. It clearly was.

Quote:
Remember this thread is not concerned with the rules for targeting chinks, it's not talking about blunt trauma (directly), it's not talking about hooking, nor armed grappling, it's specifically talking about cutting through armour.
And specifically, I've given you that. Even a primary source quote. Even illustrations of men fighting in armor in with pole axes. This is not an empty argument from assertion that cutting edges cannot cut through any armor, as Howard exaggerated (as he did about, wrongly about the quality of iron armor in the middles ages, and as he did about the quality of bronze swords). This is an argument about historical use. You can remain skeptical, if you wish, but denying the text says what is does simply makes you look incapable of objectively assessing the evidence you claim you want.

Quote:
Now you linked to whole lot of manuals, but can you link to one where it recommends using a blade to cut through anything but the weakest bits of a foe's plate?
Actually, all I have to do is show that armor and cutting weapons trained against each other. If it was so extremely rare for these weapons to be effective, then the why did they do that? Were they foolish? Did they, the practicing martial artists of the day, know what was effective and what wasn't? Were whole units of Swiss halberdiers, successful in combat, simply stupid, as you would have us believe? It boggles the mind.

You must understand how strongly this refutes the "Realistically, it’s extremely difficult for a blade edge to cut through any sort of armor" when this is not just ANY SORT of armor being cut, but knights on the battlefield in plate. And you keep saying plate, when I'm saying ANY SORT of armor. It's a bogus line, like the others I've pointed out.

Quote:
just a request that you support your specific assertion about blades cutting through plate
It's been given. You keep repeating this. You aren't "simply requesting" you are being presented with incontrovertible evidence of exactly what you requested, and simply rejecting it out of hand. Your argument is with the phd dissertation, and the historical evidence, not me.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 08:21 AM   #53
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

You know what I was going to do my usual point by point reply, but actually I'm just repeating myself so why bother. Besides everything can be summed up in one point as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
...
Actually, all I have to do is show that armor and cutting weapons trained against each other. If it was so extremely rare for these weapons to be effective, then the why did they do that? Were they foolish? ...
No, that is not correct because for the umpteenth time there were many other ways to defeat a man in armour with such a weapons that do not rely on chopping through it. Those manuals you refer to demonstrate them, they are in fact famous for doing so!

But it seems that you cannot or will not make that distinction (and your posts have consistently failed to, or ignored it) instead relying in the rather dodgy logical construction that because armoured men fought (and trained to fight) against each other with halberds therefore halberds regularly cut though plate.

It is rather indicative of your argument, and there is no point in continuing this conversation.

But no comment on the halberd vs. the car bonnet?


EDIT OK for self control issue reasons :-) I will answer one more point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
I've given you firm evidence. You've rejected it. Please understand that, on the face of it, that it is a controversial and conjectural statement in Low-Tech that cutting weapons were not capable of penetrating armor. It is overly broad. The topic comes up repeatedly here because it's a poor rule which does not square with GURPS use of DR or historical evidence of use.
.
Actually no it's not that controversial a statement (certainly isn't made so by anything posted here) moreover pretty much all the actual serious experimentation backs it up.

In fact a lot of the non-serious experimentation back it up as well!

Which is why your man with his halberd going at full tilt struggled to cut through a car bonnet!

Last edited by Tomsdad; 07-14-2016 at 08:39 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 08:29 AM   #54
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
Oh yes, the obligatory YouTube video as proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxWnnE3PzrE

Hehe.
He used either the spear point or the back beak again everything tougher than a wooden shaft. And the wooden shaft appeared to primarily have broken, not been cut (the board he hit with the throw was similarly broken, as the blunt side of the blade struck it), which makes me think it isn't the kind of heavy hardwood pole that a spear shaft would be made of.
__________________
RyanW
Height: 5.93 light-nanoseconds
Weight: 13.9 yoctoEarths
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 08:42 AM   #55
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
regularly cut though plate.

It is rather indicative of your argument, and there is no point in continuing this conversation.
For this, which is an outright lie and misstatement of what I have argued, you go to the permanent ignore list.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 08:54 AM   #56
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burnsville, MN
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
He used either the spear point or the back beak again everything tougher than a wooden shaft. And the wooden shaft appeared to primarily have broken, not been cut (the board he hit with the throw was similarly broken, as the blunt side of the blade struck it), which makes me think it isn't the kind of heavy hardwood pole that a spear shaft would be made of.
Note that Shawn frequently - and in this case, I think - links to these mocking them as authoritative, not asserting them. "I sawz it on the YouTube!" being not exactly the rigorous standard he's used to as a PhD in history.

I took this as linked almost entirely tongue in cheek, but I could be mistaken.
__________________
The Deadly Spring "...probably the most infamous Pyramid article of all time."-Jeffro's Car Wars Blog
Gaming Ballistic: Home of Gaming Ballistic, LLC and my blog.
DouglasCole is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 08:57 AM   #57
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post

No, that is not correct because for the umpteenth time there were many other ways to defeat a man in armour with such a weapons that do not rely on chopping through it. Those manuals you refer to demonstrate them, they are in fact famous for doing so!
I think the issue for the context of the thread (which is after all simulation in a game) is that this distinction doesn't matter. In what way would the rules change? You can't simply stop with armor is "impenetrable" because clearly people in armor could be fought with these weapons successfully, and that has to be modelled too. I suppose you could make the edge protection and chinks in armor rules even more complicated, but they're already pushing if not over the limits of tolerable complexity for most games.
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 09:01 AM   #58
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
For this, which is an outright lie and misstatement of what I have argued, you go to the permanent ignore list.
I don't really care if you read or reply or not, but I'll respond to the accusation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
I see this come up a lot, but Edge Protection is a spectacularly bad rule. It's too complex and it punishes well known armor-piercing weapons like axes and polearms.....
One assumes that weren't well know for only occasionally doing it in rare and favourable instances?

(and if you argue crushing damage though armour, edge protection explicitly allows for that)
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 09:07 AM   #59
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by malloyd View Post
I think the issue for the context of the thread (which is after all simulation in a game) is that this distinction doesn't matter. In what way would the rules change? You can't simply stop with armor is "impenetrable" because clearly people in armor could be fought with these weapons successfully, and that has to be modelled too. I suppose you could make the edge protection and chinks in armor rules even more complicated, but they're already pushing if not over the limits of tolerable complexity for most games.
That's my point the actual context of the thread is just about blades physically cutting through armour and on into the target. That's it, that's all upping DR vs cutting impacts on.

All those other historical tactics that the distinction is about are completely unaffected by such a change, In fact if anything they are encouraged. Upping DR doesn't actually complicate anything (1d+3 vs. DR8 is no more complicated than 1d+3 vs. DR4)

So yes people in armour could of course be fought, just just they were fought in ways that didn't rely in directly penetrating their full DR (as per all the things mentioned already). Ways that already exist in the system.

What ironic is that those fight manuals mentioned in the point about the distinction above are famous for illustrating those very tactics.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 07-14-2016 at 09:11 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2016, 09:18 AM   #60
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Swords and plate

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
which makes me think it isn't the kind of heavy hardwood pole that a spear shaft would be made of.
Weapon shafts weren't just made from hardwood, they were made from slow-growth saplings or coppiced branches so that the heartwood and sapwood were both employed and the growth rings were completely contained within the shaft. These poles are much stronger and generally more resilient than modern poles, which tend to be carved from much larger chunks of wood taken from plantation timber grown as quickly as possible.
__________________
Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting.

Last edited by DanHoward; 07-14-2016 at 09:27 AM.
DanHoward is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
armor, hema

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.