Towering main-gauche

[platimus]

Makes no sense to me why holding a main-gauche would make me 1 point clumsier. Your argument that the 1-point of clumsiness "restores balance" makes no sense to me either. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[larsdangly]

I am not arguing from a point of 'realism' as I don't think that's a very good road to go down when you are trying to fine tune game stats. But it is true that fencing with a left handed dagger is a lot tricker than you might think, and most people who do it fence worse with a dagger than they do without. I often fence rapier vs. rapier+main gauche in my historical fencing club, and pretty rarely feel like I'm at any kind of disadvantage.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I am not arguing from a point of 'realism' as I don't think that's a very good road to go down when you are trying to fine tune game stats. But it is true that fencing with a left handed dagger is a lot tricker than you might think, and most people who do it fence worse with a dagger than they do without. I often fence rapier vs. rapier+main gauche in my historical fencing club, and pretty rarely feel like I'm at any kind of disadvantage.

Is there a "Modern Fencing Club"? LOL

How do you feel when you fence rapier+main-gauche vs. rapier? That would seem to be more relevant to this discussion. Then again, I've heard 'realism' isn't a very good road to go down.

[larsdangly]

Modern fencing = 'sport fencing' = Olympic fencing. Historical fencing is based on manuals written between ca. 1300 and 1800 and includes things like longsword, rapier, and military saber (much heavier than a sport saber).

When you fence rapier vs. rapier+main gauche you have a modest disadvantage that you are exposed to the 'trap' of having your attack bound by the secondary weapon, and a modest tactical advantage of reach because you fence with your dominant shoulder rotated forward whereas your opponent generally fences with hips and shoulders closer to 'squared', and the often significant advantage that most of your foes probably haven't mastered the complex task they are attempting. Like everything else, the winner will be the person who is more skillful and does a better job using little advantages and avoiding little disadvantages.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I am not arguing from a point of 'realism' as I don't think that's a very good road to go down when you are trying to fine tune game stats.

Gee, sure seems like you are arguing from a point of 'realism'. I will never ever never apply a general -1 DX to all things that use DX just because someone is holding a main-gauche. I'm sorry that my decision bothers you so. Please try to get over it.

[larsdangly]

I was literally answering a direct question from you. Seriously, I don't care what DX penalties other people use for various things.

[raniE]

You don't need a DX minus to balance the main-gauche against a small shield though. Yes, the main-gauche can make an extra attack at -4DX, but on the other hand it only works against one-handed weapons, in both the new Melee (pg 13) and In The Labyrinth/Advanced Melee (pg 111). The small shield on the other hand can be used to protect against any attacks from the front, including missiles and two-handed weapons. This is why I also like the Melee rules where the main-gauche does less HTH damage than the dagger over the ITL rules where dagger and main-gauche are the same in HTH. Combined, these rules mean you can use a main-gauche to replace both the small shield and the dagger, but it won't be as good at defense or offense as having both a small shield and a dagger.

[larsdangly]

I suppose one could marshal arguments for any of the rules that can be found in the published books (0, -1 or -2 DX penalty). The confounding thing is that two different versions appear in the new rules, and one of those versions appears to be presented with a typo in all tables where the Main Gauche appears! We're all human, and so forth, but it seems like we should be able to get a clear ruling on something as simple as this...

[Axly Suregrip]

If you look at the old Adv Melee and old Melee, it said this about Main Gauches (emphasis added): "On any turn the fighter uses it only as a shield, it stops one hit from any non-missile attack, and adjusts his DX by -1." I don't know why this was removed from the new editions but seems to be a good rule. I will go with this for myself. They should put this back in.

(BTW, the only difference between old Melee and old Adv Melee in the above quote is old Melee says "DX by -2" instead of -1.)

On a different note: in the same section both old editions say this about striking with both weapons, "BOTH attacks are at DX -4." The new ITL on page 111 says that only the main gauche is at -4 DX. It also says so with the Two Weapons talent that only the second weapon. So, this is worth noting the change. The new rule is an improvement.

[hcobb]

So there are six options:

1: Character carrying a main-gauche in (or wearing cestus on) the off hand and doing nothing with it: No DX penalty.

2: Character with say Cestus and Ax/Mace talents using Cestus to parry one hit per attack: Mace swing is at -1 DX, Cestus punch is at -4 DX.

3: Character with Cestus talents and a cestus on each hand: Parry one hit per attack and punch twice at -3 DX each.

4: Fencer with Rapier and Main-Gauche: Attack at normal DX for Rapier and -4 DX for MG, parry nothing.

5: Fencer with Rapier and Main-Gauche: Attack at normal DX for Rapier and parry two hits with the MG.

6: Fencer with Rapier and Main-Gauche: Double defend: melee attacks against the fencer's front hexes are at 5/(DX-1) and 4 hits are subtracted from each hit.

Fencer with Cestus talent wielding Rapier and cestus: As options 4, 5 & 6 above for Rapier and Main-Gauche.

Are there any other possibilities?