Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With any one or two handed (or footed!) close combat non-projectile weapon, and justify your pick with tactics and anything else.

Ex: sword, dagger, lance, mace.

I would choose a warhammer. No joke, regardless of the game we play.

It doesnt require as much skill as a bladed weapon, and every hit will do damage of some sort.
 

·
Powered by Squig Tea
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
One!
Ex: sword, dagger, lance, mace.
I presume you mean excluding, I understand lance being a no go but you have taken away my favorite toys :cry:

The thing is like tools each does a different job, so thats not an easy question.(Same applies to firearms.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
Actually, it does require a great deal of something, that something being muscle. Unless you are some sort of behemoth, while you pick it up and begin to throw it down, with a decent rapier I could have stabbed you several times in the chest and still had enough time to get out of the way before the hammer hits the ground and you have to start over. Warhammers require a great deal of training or natural skill to both have the right sort of muscle for the job, and to know how to exploit their momentum to make your job easier.

For me, it all depends on the situation. Against an unarmoured or 'strategically' armoured person, a Rapier is brilliant. Against a defensively armed person (shield and short sword), a spear is great. Against a spear, either no armour or very heavy armour with an axe, and break the thing.

However, in this situation, knowing absolutely nothing about what I'll face, the only real choice is some decent chainmail with strategic plates, and a decent longsword. Sure, it's not certain death against any specific foe, but it has the adaptability to be useful against any given configuration.
 

·
Powered by Squig Tea
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
seems like you know your onions Uberschveinen,
I would go with your allcomers choice but add a light mace as a back up weapon. (If you can't poke holes in bits of him break bits instead.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
I specifically went against backup weapons, as knowing my propensities I'd take more than any reaosnable human could ever hold. If I were to add to that for multiple weapons, I'd add a good shield, and a spear with a hook attachment, and then I'd be set.
 

·
Powered by Squig Tea
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
Nice choices both :) Trust me you learn very quickly how much to take when you are using/carrying it all day :wink: (I made this mistake once, spent half the day in agony then put my light shield down because I had had it, turned round and sombody else had had it away :x Not best chuffed it had taken ages to make at my Grandfathers forge.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Given the choice I'll take a shield and longsword as well. If I'm fighting as part of a unit, a shield/spear with a shortsword as backup is great. As to a warhammer, I love them personally, but then the term "warhammer" is pretty ambiguous.

When I talk about a warhammer, I'm not refering to what is more apropriately refered to as a maul, but rather a one handed hammer who's head is made specifically to pierce armor and break bone with a small pick on the opposite side. I'll move in and try to get my shield in their face ( a sort of shield "jab" similar to what you do in boxing), then bring the hammer in a wide arc from an unexpected angle while they are blinded or stunned.

One things that many people forget when they pick up a weapon is that they can still kick a man in the knee or use a push kick. I am also a huge fan of spiked gauntlets in case you end up withering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I realize that the warhammer requires strength, that rather goes without saying.

I also realize it requires some skill in handling the momentum, and trying to stay in synch with your opponent. Hence, as much.

I never said it was a weapon without any skill necessary whatsoever.

What I meant by warhammer , to clarify my ambiguous term, is this:
(what you are talking about Dakka.)

This could be a lighter, less cumbersome version. Uber is probably referring to a giant rock strapped to a big tree trunk type warhammer, which is very unwiedly.


However, a pair of one-handed warhammers such as this would be rather nice in my hands:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Hate to post three in a row, but i think i must.

I feel like an IDIOT for forgetting the best weapon, imo, by far. THE QUARTERSTAFF.

How could i have forgotten!
 

·
Links Manager
Joined
·
1,007 Posts
Though I agree that a rapier is a very effective and elegant weapon, I'd prefer to use a katana and a hachiwari as backup weapon. Both are Japanase weapons, which due to superior forging techniques are a lott lighter and beter balanced than most European weapons while still been able to do massive and precise damage.

These weapons also require a lott of skill, but the added agility and precision are very useful. Another advantage is that the katana allows for a range of different attacks being perfectly suited for both thrusting and slashing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
hephesto said:
Though I agree that a rapier is a very effective and elegant weapon, I'd prefer to use a katana and a hachiwari as backup weapon. Both are Japanase weapons, which due to superior forging techniques are a lott lighter and beter balanced than most European weapons while still been able to do massive and precise damage.

These weapons also require a lott of skill, but the added agility and precision are very useful. Another advantage is that the katana allows for a range of different attacks being perfectly suited for both thrusting and slashing.
Ouch, I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on Japanese vs European weapons. Firstly, saying Japanses vs European is bad right off the bat, sicne you are trying to compare a single country to a plethora of countries who have VERY different historical melee traditions. Certainly, the Japanese had superior techniques when compared to, say, Scotland, but weapons crafted in Germany and Spain were very superior in terms of quality, craftsmanship and the raw materials from which they were made as well.

Having had the honor of handling weapons crafted in the traditional manner from many areas, I can say with certainty that the Japanese weapons did what they were designed to do very well, but so did the prime examples of European weapons. Keep in mind that Japenese steel was of an inferior quality, which is why they employed the techniques they did to fashion their swords. Also keep in mind that a Katana has a wholly different mechanical use than most longswords. The Katana was crafted and balanced to maximize the cut while longswords evolved to have a "beaten edge" and a strong thrusting mechanic. To say that one is superior to the other is to ignore the purpose of each weapon and the defensive gear it was used against. Your assertion that katanas were a thrusting weapon as well as a cutting weapon is not wrong, but it was certainly not what the mechanics of the katana are primarily engineerd for. This is also true of weapon styles involving the katana, as they largely emphasize the perfect cut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
Depends on how much working room I've got really...
Close quarters, a nice sharp gladius and oval shield.
More room?
Norse-style broadsword and a center-gripped roundshield (weapon of choice for almost 20 years now) ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
You do realise, Hephesto, that the only reason the Japanese forging techniques were so elaborate is that their metal was both rare and crap? Folding decent European ore that long will actually weaken it, for reasons that can't be explained quickly. The Katana is an excellent weapon for its time, where ore was garbage and armour was cloth or leather, but against platemail and lighter blades, the Katana really isn't by any means the ultimate blade that any weapon combat nOOb will insist it is.

As for the Warhammer point (hah), I did assume you meant a real Warhammer, a weapon traditionally used by the Norse. However, most of my comments still stand for the glorified pickaxe, since it's hard as hell to exploit the momentum of it, and it is only useful against platemail knights without 'fast' weapons.

Since the point of the mace-like warhammers have been brought up, it'll be probably a few posts before somebody tells us all preciely why they're joke weapons, and I'm here to tell you they aren't. In the premilitarised combat style, that is, a bunch of men lacking military-style training and tactics just ran at each other and engaged in combat with whoever was in front of them, the warhammer was a very good weapon. They gave their wielder, presuming they could actually hold it, massive power and momentum. They would charge at an opponent while swinging the hammer sideways, disarming them or outright breaking their shield or weapon, hit them in the body, either killing them or knocking them to the ground, and if neccesary, follow up with an overhead smash that was fatal, regardless of any amount of protection. They were also useful if the wielder was attacked by multiple enemies (assuming not from behind, which, fortunately, was against the premilitarised culture of war), since the sheer power of the weapon forces the opponents to stay back, giving the hammerer breathing room. The only time they weren't useful is if one was caught off-guard, since they take a few seconds to start using right, or if one was surrounded at very close range, where one can't swing a hammer. Finally, in certain situations, and in the right shands, they were almost unstoppable. Situations in which a particularly fighty warrior held a warhammer in a position into which the enemy had to advance singly would enable the warrior to hold the position for as long as his strength could hold out. One particuarly notable example of this position is the Battle of Stamford Bridge, in which an unarmoured berserker with either a hammer or axe (the historians I talked to couldn't agree one way or the other) held off an entire english army for twenty-one hours. This is because the soldiers had no choice but to advance on the individual, and the sheer hitting power of a warhammer (or axe) knocked them into the river before they could attack with their own weapons. Real man's warhammers, single- or double-handed, were once ferocious weapons, and are a reminder of a time in whcih warfare was a lot less sociopathic.

I still wouldn't use one, though, and that's because at this time I can't swing one for more than half an hour. I made one out of the heaviest damn slab of wood I've ever seen (it broke drill bits), and even that's lighter than a stone or, incredibly expensive though it may be, a metal one.

Quarterstaves are crap war weapons. They're mildly useful for a traveller in case they are set upon by thieves in an open area since they also serve as a walking stick, but in a fight with an opponent armoured with more than cloth and wielding a better weapon than a crappy knife, they won't win. That's why, a long time ago, people figured out how to strap sharp rocks to the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
A few things, I agree wholeheartedly that the larger, more vicious version of the warhammer was a very useful weapon in teh right hands and is ahrdly what I'd call a joke weapon. Anyone who's been on the wrong end of a maul can attest to teh striking power a wepon like that has, even when giving "love taps." That said, the smaller version we were all refering to, it's momentum can be useful even against a faster opponent if you have some means to protect yourself or another, faster weapon to lead with. As a first strike weapon, It's certainly not ideal. As you pointed out, it was specifically designed with plate armored knights in mind and like all tools, the right one should be used for the right job.

I am glad you echoed my points about the katana Uber, I really get irked by the teeming tides of people who, by no fault of their own, think Japanese swordmaking techniques were some unparalleled feat that no European swordsmaker could even begin to comprehend, let alone employ. :roll: (No offense Hephesto, it's just a pet peeve of mine.)

Another thing I feel compelled to mention is that there is no weapon called a "quaterstaff". Quaterstaff is a technique used when wiedling a staff, not a type of staff itself, and refers to holding the last "quarter" of the staff. This is oppsed to the "half staff" which is as obvious as its name implies. From what study I've done on English staves, some accounts claim that, properly used, they could in fact kill a fully armored knight. I'm no expert on the matter, and so can only assume there are conflicting accounts of its usefulness.

edit- On a last note, there is a wealth of (mis) information written about every historical weapon that's ever been found. I am as likely as anyone to be misinformed. Let us keep in mind that anthropology and historical views are often construed in very different ways and terms by various "experts" and any of these men may form an opinion that many will take as gospel. I bring this up because I've seen arguments like these rage as loudly as any Religious or Political discussion, which often lead to banned members and hurt feelings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Katana. Ultimate bladed weapon. Perfect dance of balance and harmony on a razor's edge.
 

·
blahblahblahblah
Joined
·
6,663 Posts
I would choose either a Naginata (for attacking power and balance)


Or a Chinese sword (for again a good balance of speed, defense, and offense)


Or a Samurai sword (for an extreme balance of speed, defense, and offense, BUT it would require greater training to use)


Or a Chinese spear (for Defense and also cuz you look so damn cool)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
pathwinder14 said:
Katana. Ultimate bladed weapon. Perfect dance of balance and harmony on a razor's edge.
Seriously, they aren't that good. They were a good weapon for their time, and their time lasted longer than most, but there are just as many weapons across the world that were as good or better at doing their jobs, or did more, or even both. They are good at fighting unshielded opponents with larger weapons, or opponents without medium-heavy armour. In addition, it is in no way a defensive weapon, as if you block even a moderately heavy weapon wrong, you'll shatter the sword, and the two-handed style precludes the use of a shield. The 'balance and harmony' stuff is tosh, since that was reserved for the best of katana, jus as it is reserved for the very best of other weapons. The only thing it has that no other weapon has is the whole samurai Bushiido mystique, and philosophies do famously little to improve weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I totally agree with what you said abotu warhammers uber; I just felt what you said largely went without saying.

As for quarterstaffs, I personally think they are amazing. Useless, obviously, against any opponent with a shield of some sort.

However, I believe they are truely superior to many weapons due to it being HIGHLY maneuverable in any way possible, very capable of fighting weak spots in armor ( assuming its not a knight in full plate.)

I suppose this is why you said "crap WAR weapons" as in war, someone will surely somewhere have full armor. But think of todays world.

I wouldnt mind carrying a durable stick around to combat someone with a knife (or a sword, if that is likely.) But plate armor is outdated. We now use kevlar armor to stop projectile weapons, leaving areas such as the groin, thoat, and arm pits vulerable even to a quarterstaff.

A quick thrust to the enemy's throat and they are down, much simpler than trying to slice or thrust with any sword, regarless of its title.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top