What's new in Deluxe?

[RosenMcStern]

I'm not saying it can't be done... just that sensible users wouldn't want to risk it unless they were significantly more skilled than the sword wielder.

So we are always back to the same concept: it takes a very skilled defender (or at least a defender who is much more skilled than his opponent) to parry with a dagger, while almost anyone can block with a shield.

This is why I suggested to make parries opposed rolls and blocks unopposed (i.e. roll and apply the table).

 

[AKAramis]

Some daggers were specifically designed as parrying weapons, though.

The development of 'parrying' daggers occurs only in combat styles which are defending against thrusting weapons... where a small deflection can easily guide the weapon's point off line. A parrying dagger is extremely difficult to use against slashing weapons where its small size becomes a liability.

Pete: your overlooking one other element with parrying daggers: a functional short sword (like many 16th C "daggers") can effectively parry a slash, but the additions so common to parrying daggers (curved quillions, etc.) provide no benefit in deflecting slashing weapons.

Parries of slashing weapons can be done with a short blade... but such parries are redirections of the swing and these are easier with longer blades.

And I don't know about you, but when fencing, I find most of my attacks involve taking (and keeping) the opponent's long blade out of line with my short blade, in order to create the opening for my own long blade. While that technically isn't parrying, it is one of the primary uses of the main gauche.

 

[gran_orco]

Are the grappling rules different? Are rules like in Elric? Has the RuneQuest Deluxe a different grapple table?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete: your overlooking one other element with parrying daggers: a functional short sword (like many 16th C "daggers") can effectively parry a slash, but the additions so common to parrying daggers (curved quillions, etc.) provide no benefit in deflecting slashing weapons.

Was that sentence supporting my view on why parrying 'daggers' evolved? I'm a bit confused what exactly you are saying here, so forgive me if I've misunderstood your point!

Historically from the perspective of the fighting manuals which have survived, we see sword and dagger combat only really begin in the late 15th century. It is introduced by the Italians, who at that time were advocating using the point of the sword over its edge, since 'thrusting is a faster attack, and always penetrates the body' (not much armour around at that period).

The first example of S&D I've seen is in Achille Marozzo's manual of 1568. The opening stances of the illustrations in the manuscript show the left (dagger) arm and shoulder of the fencer leading, with the sword shoulder behind and its hilt held low. This places the points of both weapons at about the same place. However, from this stance you cannot easily swing the blade in a slashing attack, it is a thrusting opening only.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Marozzo/p035.jpg

Salvator Fabris' manual of 1606 shows the transition of fighting has gone completely to the thrust, since the stances of the fencers has warped to a weird leaning forwards position. The stance is so awkward I cannot personally duplicate it in any form, and an effective slashing blow is near impossible to throw from such a position. The illustrations of Fabris have never lent me any confidence that the dagger was much use, despite the fact that the awkward stance narrows down the target region to a much smaller area!

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Fabris/book1/04012102.jpg

Based on this, it can be extrapolated that sword and dagger was not a preferred weapon combination until the era of the thrusting weapon was on the ascent.

Parries of slashing weapons can be done with a short blade... but such parries are redirections of the swing and these are easier with longer blades.

Which was what I was trying to clarify. The longer the blade, the easier the parry.

And I don't know about you, but when fencing, I find most of my attacks involve taking (and keeping) the opponent's long blade out of line with my short blade, in order to create the opening for my own long blade. While that technically isn't parrying, it is one of the primary uses of the main gauche.

My preference when I fence (which is secondary to my heavy fighting I must admit) is vice versa. I place the emphasis on self preservation, by using my longer blade to parry over the opportunity to impale my opponent.

Although I have tried using the dagger for primary defence, I find I cannot protect myself consistently using it that way. I normally use the dagger as a closing attack if I have cleared the opponent's longer weapon with my own. Or I use the dagger to bind my opponent's longer weapon if I have voided a poor attack by footwork, or have used my longer blade to safely redirect the attack to the control of my dagger.

For me Capo Ferro (yet another Italian who advocated thrusting) had it right in his manual of 1610 with his revolutionary new stance having the rapier arm and shoulder forwards and keeping the dagger back for opportunities. Although Capo Ferro was not big on slashing, having your sword arm leading still allows this type of attack, but leaves the dagger in a weaker position where primary parries are more difficult.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001089.jpg

However, even his illustrations show how easy it is to void the parrying dagger with a quick redirection of the wrist...

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001091.jpg

But one of the final illustrations demonstrates my personal method of winning a fight if I have to use an off-hand dagger...

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001129.jpg

Cheers!

 

[AKAramis]

Was that sentence supporting my view on why parrying 'daggers' evolved? I'm a bit confused what exactly you are saying here, so forgive me if I've misunderstood your point!

Pointing out that it is a special circumstance, and that the specialized daggers are of no added benefit against slashing weapons.

My style is derived (ironically) from a hybrid of Giacomo diGrassi and (!) Miyamoto Musashi, these two being the ones I've read and been instructed in, with a strong dose of Spanish Circle thrown in on occasion, and some influences from Capo Ferro and Marozzo from those I fence with.

I've also done some Scottish style cut & thrust, with a local recrudescence guild, and have done SCA Heavy and Rapier, but not SCA Cut and Thrust. The Diamond of Defense is the same in all, it's just when and why one moves from it that differs by attacker type.

But I have also had the chance to work with a fencing-"safe" shamsheer-rebate. The owner has made great use of slashing (as have I... a tip-slash to the face is scary even with a mask) techniques with both straight and curved blade, and it is quite possible to use even a shorter (12") fencing dagger to redirect these blows WITH so called aggressive parries.

The problem is that, especially in diGrassi, the parry and the attack and the repost are all intertwined. As the Tattershall guys say, "Lazy Man's Fencing." Pick up and divert to make an opening, and then exploit same with whichever weapon is available to do so.

Any way, I've seen exquisite fencers flow smothly from refused (long blade's shoulder back) to advanced and back, with the flow of the fight. I've occasionally done so myself.

Quite honestly, if one preemptively says, "I'm going to parry with the short blade him if he attacks me," then he should probably be allowed to riposte with the long if he succeeds. If not, a parry with a long and short blade should probably result in a short blade riposte.

In any case, (pun intended) with paired weapons, the one being used to parry is not always the one used to riposte, and one can parry a slashing blade with a short blade, if one knows how and uses the correct techniques.

 

[soltakss]

Well, that just about says it all.

For most of us, who are not skilled/trained in the art of fencing, the RQ Rules seem fine, not too complicated, easy to use and probably realistic.

To those who are skilled/trained in fencing and have dtudied the art, the RQ Rules are simplistic and don't reflect what real fencing is about.

This is the case in almost every are that is covered/modelled by rules such as RQ. Experts always think the rules are too simple for their area of expertise and non-experts generally think that the rules are probably about right.

Personally, I don't really want to research 16th Century Italian Fencing Manuals in order to enhance my RQ enjoyment.

 

[soltakss]

Fencing in the nude.

How realistic is that?

 

[RosenMcStern]

The last three pictures are from a Renaissance manual. Showing one's knowledge of human anatomy was a must for an artist at that times. So the scene is definitely not realistic, but the artist "could not resist the temptation" of emulating Leonardo and Michelangelo :wink:

 

[gamesmeister]

The last three pictures are from a Renaissance manual. Showing one's knowledge of human anatomy was a must for an artist at that times. So the scene is definitely not realistic, but the artist "could not resist the temptation" of emulating Leonardo and Michelangelo :wink:

I didn't know the Ninja Turtles were so big in 16th century Italy

 

[TRose]

Fencing in the nude.

How realistic is that?

Well charging a Roman legion in the nude not too bright either but it was done by the Gauls more then once. Perhaps they have some magical woad.

 

[Mugen]

i never understood why ANY version of RQ allowed skills to advance above 100%.

Think about this : would you see any problem on rolling 1d20+30 over difficulty in d20 ?

This is atually not very different than having a skill of 150% in RuneQuest.

 

[TRose]

For me having a skill at 100% means under normal conditions you will succeeded For example some one with 100% skill in Rifle can hit a target at 300 meters 100% of the time. People over 100% are those who can hit a target at 800 meters or while the target is dodging, hiding in cover .etc

 

[RosenMcStern]

But one of the final illustrations demonstrates my personal method of winning a fight if I have to use an off-hand dagger...

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001129.jpg

Funny enough, there is a widely used Italian idiomatic expression that must have been derived from these fighting techniques. It reads "ai ferri corti", literally "at the short blades", and means that a contrast has reached the point where the opponents cannot retreat and they must find a winner, possibly in the hard way. This suggests that Italian fencers did think that once they were close enough to use the short blade, the fight was going to become bloody, and its end was near.

It appears that your favourite method was commonly used, in fact

 

[gran_orco]

Are the grappling rules different? Are rules like in Elric? Has the RuneQuest Deluxe a different grapple table?

Has anybody seen my question? *Snif*

 

[Loz]

Are the grappling rules different? Are rules like in Elric? Has the RuneQuest Deluxe a different grapple table?

Has anybody seen my question? *Snif*

It should have the new table. Haven't seen Deluxe yet myself, but I've certainly done one.