Hi, Rupert. :-)
I have not played DQ for years properly; the most recent time was with my eight year old daughter about three months ago. It was great fun but very time consuming.
It always is when you have to teach it to new people, even when they're 20+, never mind a child as young as eight. :-)
So, as a non-DQ playing member of the group feel free to tell me to get lost if you feel that what I have to say is not relevant to game play.Like David said, this is a friendly group and we don't do that. If somebody for some reason did decide to be such an idiot, you have my assurance that I would flame them to a cinder. Good contributions like yours are always welcome. :-)
I have no time to play DQ but I am trained in Medieval Martial Arts, this includes unarmed, small sword, longsword, pole arms and lance.
Well, we can always use somebody with actual hands-on experience to give us advice, so you just got elected, I think. :-)
A cut from a quarterstaff is relatively easy to deflect whilst a thrust is much more difficult. A blow from an oblique 'cut' has a good chance of giving a glancing blow whereas a good thrust from a quarterstaff will crack ribs and puncture lungs.
Well, there *is* a reason why slashing in ice hockey sends you to cool off for a couple of minutes but stabbing gets you suspended for the rest of the game and also for the next one, and it's precisely this. I'll add that I've done it once in school well over a dozen years ago, and it certainly leaves an impression on the other guy. A bigger fellow picked a fight with me on the ice, came to me and started cross checking and hurling abuse, and I wasn't about to take it lying down so I just thrut him in the chest with the stick. Not hard enough to really injure, but hard enough to hurt. I only had to do it once, and he never bothered me again. Ever. He was so upset he just took his gear and went home immediately. It's funny how bullies who are used to baiting others and pushing them all the time just absolutely piss their pants when they finally realize that all the times their victim told them not to push too hard it wasn't just empty talk, but that they really meant it. I don't *start* trouble, but I have no compunctions whatsoever about really hurting people, up to and including crippling them for the rest of their lives if *they* start trouble with me, and at least on that occasion the fellow got the message. Of course, I got a stern talking to, but fortunately no more than that because the teacher saw who started it and how.
A friend of mine was run into with a pole-axe whilst wearing 3mm steel armour (during a re-enactment) which very nearly penetrated the armour.
He was lucky not to have been skewered. 3 mm of steel can sound like a lot, and often it is, but the mechanics of how a thrust with a sharp spike acts on the armor are really sobering once you see the math and the calculations. I have, and I'm running on an assumption here, but he probably got hit with a point that widened really soon after the shap end and rather wide, or otherwise they might have needed a doctor.
Probably the most important factors in the use of offensive and defensive battlefield weapons were how cheap they were to produce (swords being hellishly expensive even today),
This would be the main reason, it doesn't take nearly as much steel or smithing skill to forge spearheads or an axe blade that can be mounted on a stick than it takes to forge a sword.
and how far they allowed your opponent to come. It is probable that the main reason why a dismounted man-at-arms was so vulnerable to being cut to pieces once knocked off his horse was that they were then resorting to using their secondary weapon, the sword.
That too, but the economics were the main reason, I understood. Of course, the only difference between a war axe and a pole axe is how long a pole you stick the blade on...
Re:Blocking (with pole arms). Blocking is a very alien notion to a martial artist, at least a western one. You would never put your weapon in the path of a cut, but the side of your weapon to deflect the blow whilst simultaneously presenting an attack of your own. Some weapons, the very big double handed swords, where specifically designed to cut through pike hafts, but these were very impractical once the melee developed.
Which is why I said that actual blocking would not be the way it is done. Deflection parry works much better for a number of reasons, one of which is that your weapon is not as likely to break, one is the balance issue you mentioned (later) and yet another one that you just guide the other guy's energy someplace else instead of using your own to absorb it all, so you won't tire as fast.
Some people were also asking about the lance, whether it was mounted or footman's weapon. A footman's lance would be the pike, and the note on the lance (both in the original DQ 2E and in the CWT) says that the weapon is usable by mounted figures only. Leaves very little to interpretation, it's a horseman's lance.
Edi -------------------- redroop1964 wrote:
Dear All A this is my first message to this group; hello one and all.I have not played DQ for years properly; the most recent time was with my eight year old daughter about three months ago. It was great fun but very time consuming.So, as a non-DQ playing member of the group feel free to tell me to get lost if you feel that what I have to say is not relevant to game play.I have no time to play DQ but I am trained in Medieval Martial Arts, this includes unarmed, small sword, longsword, pole arms and lance.I do not have a horse and so will probably not ever use a lance in either training or bouts, but the rest I have various degrees of familiarity with.Re: Pole arms. Most pole arm training is very similar. For example the quarterstaff and pole-axe both have the same 'cuts', 'blocks' and 'guards'. It is just that the pole-axe was designed for use against an armoured opponent. The billhook was very similar but with the additional benefit of the hook obviously, which was used to unbalance and trip, remove items of armour etc. The most important 'cut' for all these weapons was the thrust, especially for the quarterstaff. A cut from a quarterstaff is relatively easy to deflect whilst a thrust is much more difficult. A blow from an oblique 'cut' has a good chance of giving a glancing blow whereas a good thrust from a quarterstaff will crack ribs and puncture lungs. A friend of mine was run into with a pole-axe whilst wearing 3mm steel armour (during a re-enactment) which very nearly penetrated the armour. Probably the most important factors in the use of offensive and defensive battlefield weapons were how cheap they were to produce (swords being hellishly expensive even today), and how far they allowed your opponent to come. It is probable that the main reason why a dismounted man-at-arms was so vulnerable to being cut to pieces once knocked off his horse was that they were then resorting to using their secondary weapon, the sword. Re:Blocking (with pole arms). Blocking is a very alien notion to a martial artist, at least a western one. You would never put your weapon in the path of a cut, but the side of your weapon to deflect the blow whilst simultaneously presenting an attack of your own. Some weapons, the very big double handed swords, where specifically designed to cut through pike hafts, but these were very impractical once the melee developed.Re: The pike. The effectiveness of the pike lies in the training and cohesion of the unit armed with this weapon. These units were used as heavy infantry, although were often lightly armoured. They did indeed defend well against cavalry, but then so did all pole arm wielding foot units. Units of pike were also devastating when used against infantry. Unless you can break the line of pikes there is not much you can do to break the unit. There are a number of historical battles (I am sorry I can't remember which - will have to go back to my books) in which poorly trained pike units where wiped of the face of the battlefield because once the wall of pikes if broken the weapon is practically useless. As the use of small arms developed so the pike got longer, reaching its longest length in order to defend itself from contemporary cavalry armed with light side arms, the pike kept the cavalry at the weapons maximum effective range! Whilst the pikeman was standing with lead bouncing off him the musqueteers where taking pot shots. I'd rather be an infantry man any day of the week.I will only go so far as to make one suggestion as to how these observations might be incorporated into rules but would be willing to ask others in my martial arms group and other groups for their opinions as to how to codify this if you all felt it might be worthwhile. My suggestion is to restrict the pike and lance to battlefield situations because their use outside massed combat renders their wielders practically undefended.Regards Rupert