Slicing vs Hacking with a Sword
 

This is inspired by this thread and the discussion of katana vs broadsword therein. I originally wrote this as a reply, then realized it should probably be a topic of its own.

The way I understand it, the curvature of the katana (and other weapons, like shamshirs and the like) makes it so that, almost regardless of the way you are wielding it, it is used for slicing, whereas straighter swords (like the European broadswords) are used more for hacking. Slicing is excellent at causing damage, but said damage is entirely cutting - if you fail to cut through the armor, the attack basically does nothing. Hacking, on the other hand, isn't quite as good at damaging soft tissue (although it does that quite well), but can "get through" (in terms of blunt trauma) armor much more readily. When one considers how resistant steel is to cutting, it seems clear - slicing is best against unarmored or lightly armored foes, while hacking is best against more heavily armored foes.

Assuming the above is true (and it certainly may not be), there needs to be a way to represent it in GURPS. Rumor has it that Low-Tech is going to have a new optional rule for cutting vs armor. Simply put, cutting damage that beats DR, but doesn't double it, fails to actually cut through and thus the damage transmitted is actually crushing. So, against DR 5, 4 damage does nothing, 7 damage does 2 crushing, and 12 damage does either 7 cutting or 5 crushing and 2 cutting. We'll have to wait on the books to know which, although I suspect it's the former and will be working based on this suspicion. We'll use this rule to build the slicing vs hacking dichotomy, and we'll be assuming that the rule is based on some middle ground between the two. The normal DR value (5 in the above case) will be called minDR, the DR value after which damage becomes cutting (10 above) will be called maxDR.

Slicing: Slicing is ideal for causing damage, but it is terrible at transmitting blunt trauma. When slicing, basic damage is increased by +2, or +1/die, whichever is higher. minDR becomes equal to one less than normal maxDR, while maxDR remains unchanged. Highly-curved weapons, like katanas and shamshirs, slice by default (although their stat lines do not include this additional damage). At the GM's option, a straight-edged weapon (like a European broadsword) can be used to slice. This is a Hard Technique, defaulting to Skill-3. Most Axe/Mace weapons may be incapable of slicing.

Hacking: Hacking is extremely good at transmitting blunt trauma through armor. minDR is reduced by 20% (reduce by at least 1), while maxDR is increased by 20% (increase by at least 2). Straight-edged swords and most Axe/Mace weapons hack by default. At the GM's option, a curved weapon (like a katana) can be used to hack. This is a Hard Technique, defaulting to Skill-3.

Example: We'll assume an ST 12 character using Two-Handed Sword. With a katana or bastard sword, he would normally do 1d+4 cut on a swing. Using the optional rule above, the katana (a slicing weapon) does 1d+6, while the bastard sword (a hacking weapon) still only does 1d+4. Against DR 5, however, the katana wielder must deal 10 damage to do 1 cr, or more than 10 to do some cutting. The wielder of the bastard sword, on the other hand, starts dealing crushing damage on a roll of 5 or higher - although he must breach DR 12 (impossible without an additional damage bonus from somewhere) before he starts doing cutting damage. Let's look at the breakdown of probabilities, converting the adds to dice.
As can be seen, hacking outperforms slicing against armor but (as seen by the basic damage), slicing outperforms hacking against unarmored foes. I also did some more probabilities, and in this case (2d+2 vs 2d), slicing outperforms hacking up through DR 3, after which point hacking is superior. An oddity is that slicing actually outperforms hacking more at DR 2 than at DR 1, as a result of hacking reducing DR 1 to minDR 0. As is also visible, investing in the Slice or Hack Technique can be quite beneficial, as one can Slice against lightly armored foes and Hack against those with heavier armor.

Math: The Slicing Technique gets +2 damage (or +1/die) for -4. It has a special drawback - reduced armor penetration - that gives it a +1. This gives a total of -3. For the Hacking Technique, I simply assumed that hacking with a slicing weapon would be about as difficult as slicing with a hacking weapon. This implies that the improved performance against armor for hacking is worth a -7 (as the damage reduction gives a +4).


Note that these rules are in no way play-tested, and may therefore be unbalanced. They are also in no real way reality-checked, meaning they may greatly overestimate the difference between slicing and hacking (although this may be perfectly appropriate for a cinematic campaign).

What does the hive-mind think?

EDIT: As an alternative option, if you don't want to use the min/maxDR system, then Hacking functions just like normal Cutting, while Slicing gives +1/die (or +2) to damage and reduces armor divisor by one step (generally meaning it becomes 0.5). This should give comparable results.

EDIT2: Based upon further evidence, this system should be considered Cinematic. At the GM's option, curved weapons can be considered as defaulting to Hacking, in which case Slice is simply a Technique any sword can use. If you wish to maintain ethnic badassery, state that Slice is at a lesser penalty (say, -2 instead of -3), or perhaps no penalty at all, when using a curved sword.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I like your edit better: slicing gets bonus damage but reduces armor divisor. Much simpler. Great ideas!

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Fair enough. If one still wants to use the min/maxDR that is apparently in Low-Tech, then that is what should be used for hacking, while slicing uses normal DR rules (but reduces the armor divisor). For example, when hacking, DR 5 is minDR 5, maxDR 10 (the 10% reduction and addition could be ignored for simplicity). When slicing, DR 5 is simply DR 10, with no min/max DR considerations.

Thanks! There are some issues at the extremes, like very weak people getting a comparatively huge damage bonus from slicing, but it seems workable. I'm concerned about realism, however. I think it works, but it would be nice to hear from somebody with a stronger background than me in this kind of thing. I believe the bonus damage and reduced armor divisor cancel out from a balance perspective, although hearing more on that would certainly be helpful!

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

A Slicing weapon like the Katana and Scimitar is lethal as hell on unarmed targets, or ones that do not use metal armor. A quick stroke can gut a man in one slice, whereas a broad sword would only cut some and give heavy bludgeoning damage.

But slicing swords most often require high skill to use them effectively.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

From the studies I've read, there is no practical difference between a "hacking" cut and a slicing cut.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I don't think so Tim.

Really? Source?

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I would like to read those...

A slicing cut drags the curved edge over a part, and therefore gives the weapon longer touching time then one that hits with part of its blade.
So slicing weapons therefor cuts normally deeper as it utilizes more of the blade on one spot.
There have been sword tests on this, a broadsword could lob of the same thickness of the test dummies, but needed more brute force behind the swing then the katana did with much less force behind it.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

This only works if there's enough force to also push the cutting blade deeper into the tissue. You know, like if you were using it like a slicing blade.

Source?

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Slicing weapons are quite lethal. They are great for executions; a skilled swordsman can make a scimatar swift and merciful or slow and painful depending on the will of the shiek who ordered it(Al-queda go in for slow and painful of course; that's just their way).

They are also good for war. Europeans during the Great Mutiny were terrified of the local cavalry swords. Not terrified enough to interfere with their duties in most cases, but terrifying enough to make said duties scarier. For one thing, Asian horsemen at that time were usually better then Europeans, and put more work into it. Their swords were properly sharpened for instance.

Kukris are slicing weapons, but they are designed to put a lot of weight on the first incision; the blade's arrangement concentrates about 130 pounds of Gurkha concentrated at a single point which explains some of the terrible wounds these could inflict.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

You can just swing with a curved sword like any other blade, but it would not have the same effect.
Curved swords need more motion behind them in the swing; you have to learn how to bend the wrist of the hand as you strike, in tune with the whole body.
A straight bladed sword need no such thing, though one can try to use the same maneuvers, but as its straight, it will not get the same cutting power, and a straight cut will be more effective in the end for it.

Nice vid, though it does only prove that one can slice through meat with a bastard sword (also easier to do with meat that have its fluid removed that helps to stop some of the effect from a power blow like that). But it aint the same as gutting, then the straight sword would get the best effect by using the tip of its blade, and not the edge.

And my name aint Tim ;-)

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

The first cut in that video looks almost exactly like the classic high to low katana cut. I'm not an expert, but I really don't see the difference.

First, that's a long sword, not a bastard sword.

Second, if it can cut through bone it can almost certainly disembowel you.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20Don%27t%20Think%20So%2C%20Tim


EDIT: Here are some more test cuts against various materials using different weapons.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I had worked up, but lost, a Draw Cut technique. If I remember correctly, it was something like a Rapid Strike that did thr cut damage, and had limitations that brought the penalty down.

I never tested it in play, but it fit my understanding of a draw cut. Potential for more damage against an unarmored target, reduced effectiveness versus armor, and blade must be kept in contact for longer.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

<--Leaves light discussion and not derail the thread in some kind of favor sword war thingy>
(Yes I know the meaning of using Tim, but I find it somewhat insulting - hence me saying it with a smilie - hell my username is my name ;-) )

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

See? This is the reason I was concerned about the realism.

The way I understand it, slicing combines movement of the cutting surface back (or forward, or both) with downward movement. The visual example is that of cutting bread. If you simply push down on it with the knife, you'll get some cutting but also a lot of compression (smashing the bread). Depending on the sharpness of the knife, you might not actually get any cutting until you've reached the point where the bread can't compress any further, at which point you'll rip through. If, on the other hand, you move the knife back (and possibly forth, depending on distance), you'll get an easy, clean cut with minimal compression. Another example is that you can press a steak knife against your arm without anything beyond compression. Move a little, however, and you'll get a nice deep cut.

In order to mimic the slicing with a straight-edged sword, you need to pull back as the weapon connects. It's more difficult to pull this off than a straight swing, hence the penalty. Pulling back is also going to rob your strike of some of its momentum, and you are essentially striking at an angle, hence the poor armor divisor. Now, allegedly, curved swords like katanas and shamshirs are built in such a way that a straight swing will actually mimic the slicing effect. This is because the curvature of the blade essentially takes the place of needing to pull back - you hit at an angle, and that causes the striking surface to change as you continue the swing (just like if you pulled back). Of course, by pushing forward a bit it should be possible to hit straight on, rather than at an angle, with even a curved sword - hence the Hack Technique.


EDIT: I should also note that discussions of how slicing and hacking (and the weapons designed for such) differ are very much on topic for this thread.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I dunno, I guess I have doubts about your ability to really predict whether you'll get a direct compressive stroke or some sort of draw mixed with compression on a moving target. The way you swing with either a curved or straight blade seems, to me, to give you a little of both types of hit (draw v. squish) with either style of weapon.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

There are rules for draw cuts in Martial Arts, you know.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Where? I was looking and they're not in the index as such.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Good point. It seems to me that a weapon/technique that automatically favors one of the two, however, is going to have more of that character, even on a moving target, than the other. That is, a Hack weapon/technique is going to be more like a Hack, a Slice weapon/technique more like a Slice, regardless of if the target is moving. I could be grossly mistaken, however.

Page reference? The only things I can find are mentioning that a draw cut can be a Defensive Attack (mentioned on MA66, Techniques That Aren't) or can be part of All-Out Attack (Double) (MA97, under All-Out Attack). Either way, it seems to be referring to placing the blade on a target and then pulling back, rather than combining the act of pulling back with a proper swing.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Um. In some alternate universe that I must of read them in? Oops.

I may have been thinking of the mention in regards to defensive attacks. Realistically though this does create a difference between Kenjitsu (a defensive attack is typically a draw cut) and various European longsword styles (a defensive attack isn't typically a draw cut).

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I could have sworn I saw something on them too, but unfortunately "cut" is too short for the search filter, which gives me a lot of threads on fast draw.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

This thread might be what you're thinking of; I'm going through it now. The trick was to search with them as just one word.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

One of these days I'm going to have to mention to Casper how often I see that video of his posted on forums. Nice guy, fun to train with. Too bad he lives a couple hours north of me so I don't get to talk with him as often as I'd like.

After I get up I'll have to dig through my storage bins. They should have the URLs on the printouts. Unfortunately, a good chunk of them will be in the members only section of the ARMA website.

Actually, this is not true. In order for this to happen you have to purposely stop the motion of the blade, then pull while applying pressure. A normal swing will have just as flat of an impact with a curved blade as with a straight blade.

Here is one of the articles in question that goes into the mathmatics of sword impacts. Sword Impacts and Motions

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

You're maybe thinking of something like this one or this one?

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA...d_impacts3.htm

Specifically addresses draw cuts and curved blades. Great find, Sjard!

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

For what it's worth, Miyamoto Mushashi says that slicing and hacking are inferior to cutting. But he's also not a fan of thrusting either. People who underestimate the effectiveness that a straight edged sword has at cutting through flesh should watch test cutting done with swords. If you can, you should test cut.

I don't think the curved sword is much better than the straight sword, unless the curvature is on the inside of the blade, in a fashion similar to the falx, Kopi or similar weapons.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Agreed. The type of damage against flesh is slightly different but the end result is the same. There is definitely no difference between the damage delivered by a straight blade and a curved blade. both are equally capable of both cutting and hacking. FWIW it doesn't matter what sort of sword you have or the type of cut you deliver you have little chance of cutting through any kind of armour - even padded cloth. Low Tech has introduced an Edge Protection rule to reflect this.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

just an ignorant gaijin here, (who doesn't have English as his mother tongue). What do you mean by cutting here? I mean, let's see if I've got it: Slicing is dragging the edge over the target, while chopping is making the edge impact the target. It doens't seem to leave any otion for "cutting"...

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

In light of the excellent article linked by sjard, I'm going to mark my system with a Cinematic stamp. It's up to GMs if slicing is automatic for curved swords, or if both curved and straight swords are by default hacking and can be used with the Slice Technique.

As an aside, part 2 of that article includes a justification for the improved swing damage Weapon Masters enjoy. As is noted, the point at which an impact does the maximum amount of damage can be calculated (based on, amongst other things, the target's mass). Weapon Masters are simply able to accurately estimate this point from just seeing their opponent, and with sufficient skill (DX+1 or DX+2) can strike very close to it.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Curious. Will Edge Protection apply to axes and halberds as well as swords? Intuitively, I would guess that axes would punch through armor better than swords, and the basic rules reflect that somewhat, since axes do slightly better damage than swords.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Gatting hit with a fancy European sword, or getting hit with a fancy Arabic sword, or getting hit with a fancy japanese sword; it all ultimately boils down to math:

Acceleration modified by how long the blade is
mass of the blade itself, modified by where that weight is
how sharp the blade is for it's ability to focus that force to a small area. Modified by the first two factors

Mathematically there will be essentially no difference between straight vs curved, but huge differences in the rest of those factors.

As for drawing a cut, since it does not increase the total energy the damage should stay the same, but the SEVERITY of that damage may change- having a 1cm deep cut across 10cm of your body may be much more lethal then having a 10cm deep cut over 1cm of your body, however that assumes uniform resistance over the body, a 1cm deep potential cut across the ribs or forehead may just be a minor annoyance and lurid scar, whereas a 10cm potential cut to those places may be instant death. On the plus side a drawn blow may be more difficult to parry or dodge because it is covering a much larger area. I believe I would allow this technique to be used by any balanced cutting weapon wielder:

Draw cut Hard technique; default -5
User MUST target the vitals (add the regular penalty for targeting vitals to the difficulty of this roll), if successful the target parry/dodges at -2, and the final damage modifier is considered (.5)impaling rather then cutting.

Since the damage is applied to the vitals either way that is the difference between a *3 damage multiplier (*2 for vitals, *1.5 for cutting) and a *4 multiplier (*2 for vitals *2 for impaling) on damage, which would make this an effective weapon for either instantly dispatching unarmored foes, or for whittling down very healthy unarmored foes.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Axes and halberds have a higher base damage and this is what helps compromise armour. The edge protection rule will still deliver damage to the victim, but as crushing, not cutting.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

... huh? Draw cut is not going to target the Vitals - they're in a bit too deep for that. It also needs to work on limbs, which a "only targets Vitals" technique cannot do. I'm having difficulty imagining it somehow being more difficult to Dodge or Parry. Also, a draw cut (as generally advertised) is essentially the opposite of an impaling attack - it is more cutting than Cutting.

Finally, your damage profiles look like some sort of house rule. The damage multiplier for Vitals replaces the normal multiplier. Also, it is x3 for piercing and impaling, x2 for tight beam burning. Cutting cannot target the Vitals at all.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Then, would I be correct in assuming that Low Tech will increase the damage for those weapons? In the Basic Set, they do a bit more damage than swords: sw+2 vs. sw+1 for axe vs. broadsword and sw+3 vs. sw+3 for greataxe vs. two-handed sword. It ain't much. That said, I've always been partial to axe and shield. They complement each other so well.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Well, colour me disappointed. I thought this was a comparison of hacking and the Star Wars universe equivalent, slicing. :(

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

It definitely needs to work on limbs. My understanding of the real attraction of the draw cut in longsword fighting is that you can parry, reposition your blade by using your opponents blade as a fulcrum or by repositioning, and then deliver a draw cut to an area like the arms or the face. It's a valuable technique because it allows you to deliver an attack off of a defense without compromising your own defenses much. The downside is that it isn't likely to inflict a serious wound. It's the sort of thing that hurts your opponent, makes him bleed, but probably isn't going to take him out of the fight on its own.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

A fendente cut is a draw cut and is taught as a basic downward blow from the Fiore school of training. I doubt it counts as a Hard maneuver or even as a separate maneuver at all--it part of learning to use the sword as a weapon, period. We were taught it about 30 minutes after having picked up the waster.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I also agree that draw cutting shouldn't be a special technique, because both slicing and hacking are basic parts of using a sword to cut with. Some schools prefer one or the other, but others (like Fiore's system of fighting) don't mention the distinction.

In GURPS, I think we can assume that a skilled character uses whichever is appropriate at the time. A weak draw cut from the bind to an exposed area would be a Defensive Attack for example.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Humm, I definitely did not put enough thought into that technique, completely disregard it.

My justification for targeting vitals, while wrong, was opperating on: you can't just cut across the ribs, it's got to be somewhere with soft bits, be it the belly, arm, neck, or groin so take the target the vitals penalty and you can aim for the stomache/muscle in arm/etc. But it was wrong- there must be a better way to model this.

However my statement about the math of it remains; damage should not increase, just the wounding modifier/armor absorption- Perhaps a drawn cut could be a combat option for balanced cutting weapons that: quadruples foes DR (grants DR 2 to unarmored foes), doubles wounding penalty (so you can be reduced as far as -8), reduces damage required to cripple a limb/induce shock to 3/4

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Yeah I think damage has been increased by +1. An unbalanced weapon should do more damage than a balanced weapon of the same weight.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

I was so sure this was a thread about cyberpunk computer-system intrusion.

Re: Slicing vs Hacking
 

Edited the title to help with that.