Grrl Power #217 – Dabbler, second best at swording
I feel bad putting up a page with only 4 panels. Normally with action pages like this I try and make them doubles, but the way the second half of this page played out, it was better to cut this page here and make the next one a double.
I don’t know anything about swordfighting or fencing, but I suspect the “you’re holding the sword too tight” right before the teacher knocks the sword out of the student’s hand trope is one of those chronically misinformed Hollywood things that everyone does because that’s the only thing that everyone writing screenplays knows about swordfighting, and they learned it from other movies they’ve watched. Heavenly told Dabbler her grip was wrong for the same reason you tell the guy pointing a gun at you that his safety is on. It’s to get them to shift their focus for a split second, which if you’re good enough you take advantage of. I’ve never seen the “your safety’s on” go wrong in a show or movie. I would really like to see someone try that, only instead of looking down at their gun, the gunman just shoots them in the arm. “Guess it wasn’t” Actually I’ll probably stick that in the comic at some point since the thought amuses me, but that page is likely a long way off.
Dabbler’s not an amateur with a sword. On my 5 point scale she’s a 2 which means she’s actually really very good at it, but Heavenly Sword is a 4. Not only good enough to fight and beat Dabbler, but also deflect the Arcane Bolts Dabbler keeps popping off at her at the same time. Normally it’s probably quite difficult to disarm Dabbler with her greater than human strength and extra hands, but on top of her skill advantage, Heavenly can reconfigure the shape of her force blade, and making the top all squiggly gave her the edge she needed.
As always I will be at A-kon this year (June 6-8 in Dallas) and, I’ll be doing a panel on Friday. Humor-Based Webcomics 1: Humor in Story. Be sure to stop by!
In case you missed it, my fifth Gynostar Guest strip is up! The current arc starts here.
<– If you enjoy the comic, consider supporting it!
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Dabbler’s sword looks awesome, but it’s the reason she suffers at swordsmanship.
Any sword more than half your body weight may as well be a hammer, that’s the only way you can use it.
Unless you’ve trained in the secret arts of the Krozairs of Zy, in which case you can make that thing dance like it was an aluminum rapier.
(An award of one internet to whoever first identifies that cryptic reference.)
Dray Prescott. Been a long time since I saw any of his stuff.
It’s rather a pity, he died before finishing the last couple of books in the series. :(
or trained with a renshai
I would of thought being a technologically enhanced magic being could of been a way around that.
Do you know about guy who’s got sword longer than himself?
https://z.mhcdn.net/store/manga/176/109.0/compressed/uberserk-v014-c003-p070.jpg
Really hope that only one side of that sword is sharp: weight alone would slice him in half
Actually both sides are fairly dull, it relies on sheer mass to get any penetration And at least that guy’s backstory justifies the giant sword (he learned to use swords as a kid with adult-sized swords because there weren’t any smaller ones around). He didn’t even start the manga with a sword that big, he started with something like a real life claymore and trained up so slowly that it creeps up on the audience without quite realizing how ridiculous it was.
Also, the history for that sword he’s using is hilarious. A mastersmith was specially commissioned to make something to slay a dragon so he toiled and toiled over that thing, trying to make the balance work on something so ungodly huge and when he was done he had something that could theoretically cut through dragonscale. Then it turned out nobody going to fight the dragon could wield something that heavy and it sat in a storeroom for decades.
The history of the sword is that a King ask to make a sword capable of slaying a dragon. Several blacksmith just make fancy sword with jewelry a other stuff. The blacksmith of the sword took serious the request and made that huge ass sword.
The worst part is that Gatsu (swordman) lost an arm and wield it with just 1 arm and a prostetic arm with a magnet stone in the hand.
It isn’t longer. Hung at the shoulder by the coil hanging near handle, it doesn’t touch the ground.
Ups, replied to a wrong person…
And no, the sword is not sharp. Not in the common sense of sharpness. These swords were made to crush opponents, not slice them.
Like that would stop Guts. I don’t think his body understands the concept of death.
Just finished the 25 episodes of the anime. Guts/Gatsu has no ability to acknowledge defeat much less death.
C’mon, now, it’s a DEMON sword. Of course it doesn’t weigh more than half her body weight. It’s made out of magic metal that only weighs what a feather weighs. Ever.
actually demons would use heavy metal thats demon magic enhanced, demons are also generally larger or enhanced to use their larger weapons like that, elves and the like did use lighter metals like mithril and such which lacked weight but made up for it in sharpness
Okay let’s not pretend we know the finer points of demons and elves in the universe.
Actually the idea that demons weigh down their equipment comes across in lots of stories in games and books, apparently the darker the blade the more souls were sacrificed in the forging or tempering too…
Quenching the blade in human flesh is not unknown. Apparently it is the perfect medium for this. Slain prisoners etc have been the main source when this has been done in the past.
That, and in a one-on-one fight against a comparable opponent, the smaller, shorter blade has the advantage. She wasn’t kidding when she said she wasn’t as good at it as she thought.
Superman has Kryptonite, Wonder Woman has Having her Power Bands Bound Together, Venom, Scream and the other Symbiotes have Sonic Vibrations and Fire, Storm has Closed-In Spaces, Two-Face has Being Separated from His Coin in Mid-Toss……….And Dabbler has Swordplay….Correction, Halo and Swordplay.
Correction: WW has being bound in general (she is all into B&D afterall, always has been)
That first bit about shorter sword having the edge? Only matters if you can get close enough to use it well. A three foot sword would be at an express disadvantage versus a six foot one.
Using it well is kind of the whole point of swords.
Which is exactly why, against a comparable opponent, a longer blade has an advantage
No, they don’t. A smaller and shorter blade versus a longer and bigger one is going to win because the larger one will reach the opponent faster than the smaller one will. This is called reach.
The guy wielding the shorter sword CAN win but it’s an uphill struggle for him. He’s have to get through the further reach of his opponent and start working his way in from there. And unlike a spear (which IS a weapon to bring against a swordsman), his opponent isn’t crippled once you get past the tip as one of the whole point of swords is being dangerous all the way from the tip to the hilt.
If shorter blades could win against longer blades, nobody would have used or made longer blades.
common misconception – just because you’re past the tip of a spear doesn’t mean it’s no longer dangerous.
A good spearman never forgets that a spear is a staff with some sharp metal on one end.
that and some spears/halbeards have bits or a weight on the other end (to help balance it and also use as a mace)
True but, my intended point was that a sharp edge allows you more offensive capability within tip-range than a blunt staff.
If I have two light daggers (or short swords maybe), I can use both to block a swing of a heavy sword. If I’m not weighed down by armor, I can now duck and step sideways. While you try to re-position your huge unwieldy sword I make several quick stabs at chinks in your armor. It’s unlikely that I will have any effect on my first try, but as long as I keep doing this, I will land a hit eventually.
The advantage of smaller blades is against heavier and slower opponents.
Huge swords are for cracking the armor of someone who can’t move fast enough to dodge.
depending on the type of sword you are attempting to block. blocking would break your arm or disarm you (blocking a claymore with 2 light blades would most likey shatter your wrist at best and depending on how good the wielder is with the claymore if you dodge by the time you recover and start avvancing to attack they would be mostly ready to swing again). however a sword and shield combo would most likely see the 2 light swords and no armor plan person killed as when you advance after a swing you would receive a face full of shield then a gut full of sword.
there is a reason why most pre-gun armies didn’t compose of mostly guys with leather armor and two daggers
1. Your drastically over-estimating the supposed ‘clumsiness’ of longer blades. They have a might more recovery time (against a light blade like a dagger it amounts to an extra ‘beat’) but from ready/active stance they come out pretty much the same as lighter blades. With an occasional adjustment.
2. Never said anything about armor. So that matters little.
3. To close in on a person you either need to step in more often than they step out, which means more focus put onto your footwork and less into blademanship, or bind their weapon. And the selection of ways to bind a blade is fairly limited.
4. Parrying a heavy blade with a lighter one (and this becomes doubly true when parrying a two-handed strike one-handed) there is a chance that just the force of the blow, without any extra effort, will force, or beat, your blade out of guard line.
Its a very uphill battle to close reach, and despite what most people think its almost preferable to do so with an OPEN/FREE HAND as opposed to two weapons.
That’s just, ugh, its just so wrong.
Sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but as someone who practices HEMA these Hollywood/video game misconceptions get very annoying.
A european longsword, which is a hand-and-a-half sword, weighs around 4 pounds. A scottish highland claymore weighs 5 or 6. Even a zweihander only weighs, at most, 7 pounds. You don’t need to take my word for it, look it up. They are not unwieldy, or cumbersome, and because the point of balance is a few inches beyond the hilt you should never get overbalanced by a strike.
You’re not going to ‘block’ with a dagger, for reasons that have been stated. You might deflect or parry, which is far harder with a dagger than a longer blade, but even if you manage it you most likely would not be able to close the gap before the second strike. I say most likely, because I have seen some people manage it, but there is a reason people in real life did not take two daggers as a main weapon into combat.
Watch this video. It’s a bit outdated in the technique, and is only showing a small part of longsword combat, but it is well made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc
…….
I humbly request Dave B make an intermission comic of Dabbler watching that very video, with a comically humbled look on her face, saying “Huh……..So that’s how I’m supposed to wield this thing *looks at Reaver*……This when I actually did the calculations to determine which side the rooster egg would fall on all over again. *siiigh.*
Other people have pointed out the flaws here, but I have to as well. I really hope you’re choosing to evade instead of block. If you don’t take damage blocking the sword with your daggers, then you’re being knocked off balance. Part of the danger of weapons is the vibrations caused from metal against metal and it can cause some shock damage alone. Let’s not forget the daggers would be getting damaged. Despite what movies and video games have shown, you never block full on. There’s always a bit of deflection and parry or else the weapons would be scrap.
Also, if you’re opponent is wielding a cutlass (my preferred sword), then they can hit you in the face with the hand guard. And in the hands of the well trained, the recovery time does shrink. Not entirely, but a great deal of it does go away. Daggers are last ditch weapons for a reason.
depends on how you define longer blades- the true monster, (zweihanders, claymores, etc..) were made for infantry use, not dueling. Good for getting a man off a horse.. not so good for close combat.
most of the traditional ‘dueling’ swords were one handed, and fairly light. some of them did get longer as the technology improved, but that was so you could use them while on a horse (sabers, katanas.. )
unless your opponent is in heavy armor, you don’t need that much mass to put them down. Slit throats work just fine. So why slow yourself down with a damn flamberge?
Tell that to the Roman Empire. Their chosen sword was the short sword. And it beat armies carrying every type of larger sword. Allowing them to establish the largest empire the ancient world had ever seen. And continued to beat armies with larger swords for hundreds of years. And during all that time the basic design remained unchanged.
Shaka Zulu found the same thing with spears. Everybody thought that longer was better. Keep the enemy away from you, and you can poke them before they can poke you. But, used in massed ranks, taking advantage of shields, large weapons just get in the way. The shields provide cover from thrown or longer weapons, when closing. Not that either the Zulus or Romans would passively hide behind shields (unless in the Roman tortoise formation), they too would throw spears or javelins. Romans would also use long spears, until in close quarters, then switch to the short sword.
At that point, all the fighting is at close quarters. You can’t swing large weapons (quarterstaff style if talking spears), when you have allies on either side. So the only way to use the longer weapon is to keep backing up. And both Roman and Zulu tactics were designed to entrap enemy armies, to prevent such mobility.
Another alternative is to assume skirmish formation, to allow swinging of large swords, or poking at a range. Trouble is the the enemy’s front line can concentrate three times as many troops to each one that you present to them.
Yorp, you are massively misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that shorter blades do not have their place. They certainly did, especially if you are in a shield-wall situation. I am not going to go into your historic overview beyond that an army’s capabilities did not rely on the designs of their swords.
My point regarding that is that if shorter weapon had an advantage over a longer weapon, why would anybody bother with a longer weapon? Why would anyone equip themselves with a weapon they put themselves at a disadvantage?
The answer is that they didn’t and that is precisely why people preferred longer weapons. Not just longer swords, but spears. Even civilian weapons later on became longer (and thinner) because of this.
Not misunderstanding, rather pointing out that it is not an absolute. Longer weapons did have their place, indeed. But shorter weapons had their advantages too. And even when longer rapiers were introduced, there were also shorter weapons developed to fit the other uses.
Basically a big weapon needs space and/or manoeuvrability to use effectively. Any situation which lacks those can rob the long weapon user of their advantage. Dungeons and Dragons mechanics and Hollywood filming do not emphasise that point accurately. The former because the game mechanics are biased and lack balanced realism. The latter because mobile fights, with good visibility, tent to make better scenes.
A short weapon user will be pushing to get close to the enemy. The long one will be trying to keep their distance. Provided they have comparable skill, they will be able to parry or evade for some time, before one or the other will land a telling blow. So the longer weapon will not automatically mean the first hit. As soon as it comes within range of the opponent’s weapon it can be countered.
There is little a long weapon wielder can do to disadvantage a short one, that is not also available to his opponent, other than keeping his distance. It gives an advantage, yes, but not an overwhelming one. Whereas if a short weapon user can deny their enemy space, or manoeuvrability, then he can render their weapon much less effective, and possibly stop it being used at all. Which is far harder to try in reverse.
Other than shield wall fighting, there is the very common situation of the press of battle, so it can happen in any battle, not just in those where one army has tactics built for it. But even in smaller scale actions, space can be lost. For instance in any building. Or a garden. Or in forests. Or a crowded marketplace. Or alleyway.
In addition, someone trying to keep their distance, even in more open terrain, has one significant disadvantage and that is footing. Unless the fight is taking place on a well manicured lawn, or paved square, the larger weapon user will need to be constantly backing up or moving sideways. Either of which requires checking his footing, or risking tripping.
On a large battlefield this is even worse, because of fallen bodies, pools of blood and guts, and other dropped items, that can block a route which was free a moment before. The harder their opponent presses them, the mroe rapidly they need to back up, the greater their risk of tripping. An uncontrolled fall can easily expose the victim to a killing or disabling blow, at little risk to their enemy.
And if the larger weapon wielder refuses to give ground, then the shorter weapon user can press into close quarters fighting and has a deadly advantage.
Not that I am trying to argue that a short sword user will always win versus a longer sword. But it is certainly not a one-sided fight. The one situation where larger weapons will tend to have the advantage over shorter is in formal duelling on carefully chosen open ground, with good footing. That is as much why such weapons became popular, as any other. Although. ‘big sword looks cooler’ has a significant part to play too.
This is…well thought out, but not actually entirely correct.
The reality is that longer blades will USUALLY win over shorter blades. Barring unusual circumstances, such as a shield wall, or tight quarters, a shorter blade is usually a very bad thing to bring to a fight–this is why swords were invented, as opposed to daggers. The reasons for this are many–longer blades give the wielders more time to respond, they allow attacks on enemies who are closing in, etc, etc, etc. They also usually allow a wielder to apply more force to their attacks while still keeping them tightly controlled and not leaving an opening, as a longer blade is much easier to balance than a shorter one (no, I don’t know why this would be so).
While a shorter blade DOES have significant advantages over a longer blade in very close quarters, there is a reason why only the Romans and the Zulus made successful use of short blades for an extended period of time. Short blades are, in essence, infantry-killers. Longer blades are much more flexible, and can be used for a greater variety of roles. If your enemy primarily relies upon infantry, short blades work great. If not…well, let’s just say that the preferred weapon for heavy infantry would never have become the pike.
It should also be noted that there are a large number of fighting styles that use two blades, but only a very, very few (if any) that use two blades of the same size. Most of these styles use one long and one short, precisely so that, should a shorter blade get inside the reach of the longer, one still has options. Those who used only one blade generally did so for one of three reasons: either they had a shield in the other hand, their weapon or fighting style required two hands, or, just as frequently, they were trained in a one-handed fighting style, which almost inevitably required them to fight from the side, so as to minimize the exposure of one’s internal organs. This last style is probably what Yorp was thinking of when he was talking about the backing up, dodging, and so on, but even then, his summation was not quite accurate, as he forgot that everything he mentioned applies to both combatants, with one exception: the longer blade still gets the first attack.
Incidentally, in my experience, a spear, which is even longer than a two-handed sword, will beat a sword or even two swords nine times out of ten…provided there is ANY space to maneuver.
Fair arguments. Our only differences being down to opinions on degree of effectiveness, rather than being polar disagreements. Given our respective lack of practical ancient battlefield experience,* that is probably as close as we can get.
* Whilst acknowledging the significant fencing experience of various commentators.
One aspect which has failed to crop up at all though, which does have a significant bearing, is cost. Swords have always been very expensive. With large swords, requiring more metal, being that much more expensive than short swords. As such, whether you are were an individual looking to equip yourself, or an army’s quartermaster, you would have to factor cost into the equation.
As has been pointed out by others, the very biggest swords are the domain of infantrymen who are expecting to fight horsemen (or chop the horse’s legs out from under them). Let us assume, for argument’s sake that these weapons are three times the price of a short sword. Likewise a finely crafted rapier will be significantly more costly than a utilitarian short sword. I am guessing at having a similar price differential.
Whereas spears are common and so cheap as to be a negligible cost by comparison. The choice of whether to carry one is utility and the sheer weight. If you are a footman, carrying around one large, cumbersome weapon is manageable. Carrying two becomes cumbersome and tiring. If you look at medieval and ancient army rosters you will usually find that spear or other pole-arm users typically only carried medium or smaller secondary weapons (if any).
So for every one man you can equip with a flamberge, you can have two with short sword and spear. Or other similar combinations, depending on regional preferences. Obviously there would be other equipment, armour, salaries and supplies involved. So it is more complex than that alone. Narrowing the gap. But, you certainly would be able to field more of the latter infantrymen than the former, for a given budget.
Then look at the battlefield merit of the two forces. The spear and shortsword force would have the greater reach. Plus they would have the close quarters fighting capability. So would be more effective at either range, and have greater numbers.
A rapier and spear force would eliminate the encumbrance issue, so is a viable option. But one where the rapier does not benefit greatly. Its only advantage is reach, and a spear beats it. So the short sword force will have equal reach, and greater numbers. Plus, if they can press into close quarters, their secondary weapons will be the more effective.
Contrast that to a compromise force, trying to find the middle ground. Equip them with long swords (let us say between one and a half to two times the cost of a short sword), plus spear (or pike/halberd etc). That narrows the cost per soldier, and so allowing a bigger force than the flamberge or rapier troops. But still falling short of the short sword unit’s numbers.
So they would have identical reach, both having spears. But, once in close quarters, the short sword force again has an advantage over the longsword one. Plus they will be (very slightly) less fatigued through having moderately lighter weapons. A small consideration, but if they have already been fatigued through fighting with heavy spears, or polearms, even a marginal difference can help.
Plus, of course, the short sword force is the more numerous. And has the advantage that they can fight in much closer ranks, than longsword or flamberge fighters. Obviously armies have other elements too, such as cavalry and archers, but those will be available on both sides so it is fair to compare the sword infantry versus each other. Especially as many armies will be infantry heavy, so it is fairly common to see them going head to head.
Throw shields into the equation and you get the devastating effectiveness of shield walls, as mentioned previously. None of the larger swords can be used as effectively in a shield wall, as a short sword. Yet still being the cheapest option, whilst allowing the larger force.
No, you took a argument meant for someone’s specific statement (in a one-on-one fight a shorter weapon beats a longer one) and took it as an absolute statement.
Of course shorter weapons were useful and even have military use. My point is that they aren’t any armies I know of whose troops used a pair of daggers as their primary weapon.
Even fighters I know who have used shorter swords, medieval archers, meant it as a secondary weapon when their primary is no longer viable (and they often had bucklers). Hell, swords were a secondary weapon even for knights (their primary weapon was the lance which was kind of the whole point of them being on a horse). Your Romans and Zulu had spears as their primary, their swords were secondary.
Your multi-paragraph history lesson is really unnecessary, excessive and I don’t have the patience to read.
Reach at the expense of speed and maneuverability? What if our greatsword wielder was engaging his/her opponent in a corridor, or such, and didn’t already have him/her pinned? Besides, wasn’t it common practice for greatsword wielders to choke up on their blades when they had to fight a formidable opponent on foot with a one-handed weapon? There had to have been a reason for that….
I thought Wonder Woman’s weakness was being bound by her own Lasso. (admittedly the only times I’ve seens her wrists bound has usually BEEN with her lasso so I might’ve misinterpreted).
I think someone duct taped her at some point, so it’s supposedly a weakness of the strength granted her by the Gods, if she doesn’t have enough leverage to move she has no strength.
Silly special weakness of the week nominations go to:
Wonder woman – duct tape
Halo – mittens
Yorp – chocolate
Interesting point: I don’t think mittens would have stopped Halo from winning her fight against Shadowboxer.
Indeed. Sydney is doing well to practice with Orb-fu, there may be times when she has no alternative. Except tongue-fu.
I believe her original weakness was ‘bound by the hands of a man’ – it didn’t matter what she was bound with, just who did it.
Of course, like many superheros that’s evolved over time – Her early stories are a bit odd, to say the least. (Her creator was a male submissive B&D fanatic…)
I would think that would apply to more than just her creator.
In the real world, two handed swords averaged 8 to 10 pounds. Swords heavier than that were never used in combat.
It would be interesting to know how much heavier Dabbler’s sword is. She has considerably more strength than a human, and she has four arms for leverage, but she’s not that much bigger than a human and she still has to keep her balance with only two legs.
Even that, afaik, is too heavy. The very heaviest ones iirc would have been about 8 lbs.
My “workout” hand and a half was ~30 pounds, and I got to the point I could almost twirl it like a baton. Well if I could twirl a baton. Then again there has been some discussion that I’m not quite human after I survived getting hit by a pickup truck at 60 MPH (the second time). The first time I was hit by a truck it was only doing about 30 MPH and I totalled it. I went completely across the intersection but all I had was a big bruise and a few scrapes.The 60 MPH impact I had a leg that was broken in 4 places (tibia, fibula and 2 places on the femur) a bit of road rash and the front of my lower leg blown apart from the overpressure wave of the bumper hitting the back of my calf. I totalled that truck when I crushed the roof when I bounced off the hood and bumper.
( o )_( o )
Have you considered working as a stunt man since then? I’m at least half way serious, you might be good at it and you might personally profit from the stunt training as well.
Try to enter the book of records it would be hilarious see people trying to beat your mark.
Achilles you should take the kryptonite (or whatever your version is) out of your pocket and get back to fighting villains.
Nope that’s still too heavy, examples weighing that much are purely ceremonial in nature.
DaveB has explained she’s much stronger than a normal human being. Having four arms would also help.
Your point isn’t necessarily invalid since there will always be a limit to how far you can push physics, but the question of how well a sword like could be wielded comes up given the possibility of a physically/physiologically ideal wielder.
> Any sword more than half your body weight may as well be a hammer,
> that’s the only way you can use it.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
But from the look of her sword, I can make some judjements, that may help you reconsider.
Hammer is an interesting weapon, but only when you can hit the opponent by it’s head. Anything less, and the effect dissipate rapidly.
The sword, however, and the sword that big, can be used in a number of ways. Including hammering (crushing) opponent at a great deal of it’s length, piercing (spear-like), blocking attacks (given opponent have sufficiently long(-range) weapon that you need to block, rather than largely ignore due to otreach of yours).
While your statement about mass proportion do have ground, this doen’t end there, but extends to the sword balance and your ability to take advantage of it. Depends, how far the center of mass is placed from the hilt, the sword may be better suited for offensive or defensive tactics. If Dave would have thought about it beforehand, Dabbler’s four hands give her unique advantage to use a sword with partially dull blade.*
From The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords article: Curator of arms for the Hungarian Military History Museum in Budapest, László Töl, describes a very fine specimen of another 16th century German two-handed great sword of 53.4 inches length, which this author also had the privilege of examining, as weighing only a little over 8 pounds. Again, the piece’s size and weight betrayed a functional and well-balanced weapon. László Töl adds: “The full length of the sword is 1808 mm, the full length of the blade is 1355 mm, the edge of the blade is 936 mm long, the length of the hilt is 306 mm, and the diameter of the cross-guard is 502 mm. The width of the blade is 46 mm, and its thickness is 7.5 mm. The ‘neck’ of the blade is 8.6 mm thick and 32 mm wide. The centre of gravity is 616 mm from the pommel. The sword weighs 3650g. The blade’s cross-section is rhomboid in shape.”
* The image linked is from the same article.
Hammer to the kneecaps is a tried and tested way of ruining somebody’s day. And I would not be keen on being hit on any limb with one. With or without armour.
she did say she wasnt very good with a blade…
And then Sydney wakes up in the storage room thinking “Gee, it was all just a dream. I better get back to restocking the comic books.”
The End.
*snort*
Awww.
Mind you, I would still fancy her, even if she could only fly in her dreams.
So… dream of a flashback?
It worked for Dallas, why not here?
Man, I never realised that was all just a dream, and that Texas school book repository seemed so realistic! Nice to find out it had a happy ending. But probably frustrates the hell out of the conspiracy theorist nuts.
Damn, they should just recruit Heavenly Sword.
That may be Heavenly Sword’s angle for being a part of this little ambush…….Either acting on her own or to serve as a mole for whoever she might work for…
Indeed!!!
Referring to the part about “the safety is on” trope, the webcomic Kiwiblitz did a bit where it backfired.
https://www.kiwiblitz.com/comic/page-348/
Dammit I don’t have time for another good comic
It never updates, so you’re fine once you get past the backlog.
Not true. The creator has started updating Kiwi Blitz again. She stopped because she got a job in Japan as an English teacher, but she’s found enough time lately to start up again. I don’t know how quickly or regularly she updates, but she updates.
Kiwi Blitz updates weekly now on Fridays with chapter covers additional on Mondays.
Ah, I didn’t know it was back to regular updates. I just knew real life had gotten in the way. I suppose mentioning I knew that would have made my post sound less bitchy and more good natured like I intended.
Also, she is no longer doing it all herself, she has someone else doing the penciling/inking, she just writes and colours
Dude. Comic Rocket.
You get to know when updates are up, and it keeps track of your bookmarks for new comics you are reading.
I think one of several things might happen:
She still blocks this attack using any of her other skils (maybe teleport a veri solid metal wall in the ways).
That Dabbler is just a hardlight illusion and the real one is sneaking up on HS.
She can control the sword remotely (a bit like thors hammer) and she intentionally “lost” it this way so she can hit HS from an unexpected direction. Propably with the Flat side to not kill her.
Somebody else might help her.
If I remmeber right Dabbler is the second strongest next to Maxima.
I’m thinking Sydney helps. Everyone else seems occupied, but Sydney’s sitting over their fuming about her two measly ‘kills’.
I’m thinking Sydney grabs one of the two orbs she doesn’t know about yet. I bet they depend on others’ powers; a good one for this situation might be “all energy weapons off.”
you mean like a debuff spell? would not surprice me >.> considering she have yet to use them while someone else was using a ability at/nearby her tho that would make her a bit to overpowered
I’m thinking “BADGERS!”
I’m thinking “mushrooms, mushrooms, maaagiiic muushroooms….”
Or Heavenly could dismiss her energy sheath and take out Dabbler in a non-lethal fashion. Dabbler doesn’t have to win this, and Heavenly doesn’t have to be a murderer to be a villain.
It would add an interesting angle to her character, but I doubt this one, mostly because she can’t afford it when she doesn’t have a good bead on Dabbler’s level of toughness.
HS suggested that his teammates are dumb for not landing on someone when they begin the fight… I think that if she isn’t a murderer she has the streak.
I’m thinking X will likely intervene in some way
Mmm, well remembered. He probably is lurking somewhere in sight of her. Not that he should intervene unless she looks to be in inescapable danger. He would blow his cover, and reveal the existence of ArcDARK, by implication. But acceptable loss, if it means saving her life.
If X does reveal hirself (their gender is still not been disclosed :P), then it does not mean the existence of ArcDARK has been revealed, just that a previously unknown Super has shown up
If Ari couldn’t hand-wave the existence of ArcDark away, she needs to hand in her PR Badge
Conceded. I had been working on the basis that as this is an Arc-SWAT do any observer,* would have been able to account for all the members of Arc-SWAT. Anybody extra thereby belonging to something else.
But, I gave the idea a poke or two and decided it was leaky.
* We have to assume that the villains are not totally incompetent and actually have the restaurant under observation.
And thus perished Xuriel.
She was a great addition while she lasted, but we needed to kill off someone important to make the comic more serious.
Nah. DaveB isn’t Joss Whedon.
He is working on it.
George R.R. Martin is much better at killing off main characters. When I first started reading the Game of Thrones series the abrupt killing of Eddard Stark caused me to stop completely for years. It was like a bad troll: here’s a noble man admire him as he tries to deal with all the corruption around him see his conscience torture him as he lies to save his family… DEAD! I seem to remember throwing the book across the room (or maybe I just wanted to I don’t mistreat books).
now go read something hardcore, Like Mary Gentle (or CS Friedman. or..)
(at the end of one of her series.. and I wont say which.. he he.. the heroes lost in the last chapter, and could only stand around holding hands as the villain blew up the planet.)
I always grin when someone bawls over how hardcore Martin is. It’s like listening to someone complain that the bbq mc nuggets are too spicy.
:D
You missed the point. I wasn’t crying over a dead hero I was PISSED about being trolled. BTW I loved Mary Gentle’s “Grunts” (Orc Marines!) and her humor. In fact I like a good story from the villain’s point of view now and again. Sometimes the villain is the only one that seems normal. In the real world Paladins would be fragged by their own men in a week.
aha read her other, non humor books?
those are the ones I meant
im not sure ‘inverting tropes’ counts as trolling; its one of the things that keeps books fresh.
Well that’s how it felt. Not saying he was trolling. I liked the Elric series which was pretty dark. Especially the sword Stormbringer which liked feeding on the souls of people cared about most. Might be a bit before your time though. I tend to read similar stuff in batches sort of like ice cream flavors. Have you read any of the Nightside series by Simon Green?
I’m so glad I’m not the only person that loved Grunts. Everyone I’ve talked to that read it thinks it’s too damn dark and I find that disappointing. Especially since I hated Lord of the Rings and appreciated the pokes and jabs they took at it.
You might like the parody “Bored of the Rings” also in the series “Apropos of Nothing” there is a parody where the “One Ring” causes all women and girls to use him like a sex-toy.
I think I’ve see that hentai… or was it a porno?
Well it might sound like one but poor Apropos didn’t really enjoy it. Eternal priapism may sound fun but it wasn’t for him. Although the story was darkly humorous.
I made it into the third Game of thrones book. Haven’t picked one up since, probably won’t. There were so few characters I could feel anything resembling friendliness to, and so many that if I in the real world found them in a roadside ditch bleeding out (Characters, NOT actors) the most friendly thing I might do would be spit.
I’m in a similar place, but in my case it’s because the first book made promises about where the series was going – rooting for the Stark family to be able to survive and return to their home – and by book 3 that’s just impossible for too many reasons and…well, that lie destroys my confidence in Martin’s other implied assertions about what the series is about. It disincentivizes me to invest emotion in the plot threads he’s presenting.
GoT in a nutshell:
https://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/432014193149.jpg
I like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaD8rouJn0&list=PL86F4D497FD3CACCE
Warning spoilers for seasons 1-3
why we need sa more serius comic?
Pretty common for an untrained person to pick up a sword and wield it like a bat/axe/mace. Dabbler also appears to suffer from “shiny-want” when it comes to sword choice. Broadswords were made for armor crushing – against an un armored opponent, she would have been much better off fighting with speed.
I suspect Soul Reaver is more for monster killing than facing a skilled opponent. Something to take down things who are measured in yards of height and tons of mass. She was showing off and is paying the price.
Playing by the other girl’s rules is not how you win. Now Dabbler is going to to have to think fast to pull off living through this fight.
Always for to explain that to a new student -“if your opponent is a boxer, for the love of god don’t box with them. Kick out their knees. Never let them bring the fight to home turf.”
Fun. Always fun. Stupid autocorrect and me for not proof reading.
Actually did that to a boxer. He was half-drunk (I was a bit more than that =P) And I took offense to him grabbing my girlfriend’s butt. He put his hands up and started moving his feet, My boot catching him in the daddybags and I think I said something like “this isn’t a ring dumbass”
My guess is Illusion Doppleganger Dodge.
As someone that has some sword training under his belt, I’ll echo earlier posts and say that the style of sword Dabbler has (big giant western style sword, at least that’s what I think it is, there isn’t a panel that has the full sword) is meant to be “wielded like a warhammer”. They’re not finesse weapons, they’re “put all your strength behind it and hope it connects” weapons. On the other hand, HS’s kendo sword or kumdo juk-do (don’t know what she’s trained, Japanese Kendo and Korean Kumdo are pretty similar, though Kumdo tends to be more aggressive, using a bunch of little hits to make an opening, where kendo tends to be defensive and waits for the perfect strike. Generally, anyway, you can totally have a defensive kumdo person and a aggressive kendo person.). you have to use a lot more finesse. Mostly because its supposed to be practice for katanas, and despite what pop culture says, katanas actually kinda suck. Sure, the suckers can cleave through meat and bone like nothing, and can actually puncture armor if it’s sharp, but only if there’s no resistance. If your grip is too tight or too loose, if your arms are too tight (my biggest problem), if your arms aren’t fully extended (ie: don’t swing it like a baseball bat) if your slice isn’t a clean straight slice, you run the risk of having the blade snap while in the target, or worse, just freaking shattering when hitting the target.
Of course, this is some crazy demon sword so maybe it’s meant to be wielded like a katana. :p
Dabbler has ‘ridiculous oversized sword’ style. Most commonly seen in anime. While western sword styles haven’t survived as well as eastern styles, they were reasonably sophisticated.
Yup, that “big giant western style sword” is anime through-and-through
I don’t think there is such thing as an actual sword that is designed to be wielded anything like a warhammer or battle axe, Western or Eastern, to the level of ‘swing with all your might and hope it connects.’ Falchions, falcatas, and falxes are the only Western swords that I can think of that come anywhere near such as design concept. The Reaver resembles a Scottish Highland Claymore or similar greatsword that I’m pretty sure was balanced to place the weight more at the hilt and less at the tip like it’s smaller, more finesse-based cousins.
Well the old really big swords were used to crush armor. The iron they used back then was pretty crappy. The more iron in your sword the less likely it will snap off. Now steel is a whole different ballgame and is probably where all the myths about magic swords started.
The Egyptian Khopesh fits this description. It fits all criteria for just being a sword just fine but because it is used almost like an axe and because of it’s suspected design influence I’ve seen it categorised as an axe instead of a sword many times.
The word “CLAYMORE” comes to mind. You either wield that one like a hammer, or you break your arms, both of them. Yes, even the world’s strongest man needs to 2-hand a claymore and wield it like a hammer, or he risks breaking his hand.
I’d have to ask what swords you trained with. The only time that western swords are wielded like a warhammer is generally for the mordhau technique: – literally using the guard as a pick or hammer as it is swung by the blade.
Two-handed western styles generally involve quite a lot of finesse, since the angles, grips and distances could change considerably. They were used to thrust at joints and gaps, or aid in locking rather than “put all your strength behind and hope it connects”-type attacks.
If you wanted to use a weapon like a warhammer, you would generally use a warhammer.
you only use swords with some “skill” if both compatans are fully armored (think full plate) but agenst unarmored people like HS you dont need it, sure the “staff/pole” grip would have helped her alot but one have to remember that she dont have any gloves on her so griping a blade like that will cut up her own hand, also ad the fact that her sword is a four handed one meaning the speed and power is dubeled from the normal 2 handed/claymore, and i think it is time to stop, it is a comic if we tries to put real world rules in it then we have to use it on every comic hence forth.
In other words you practiced some Japanese sword-fighting and think that will immediately qualify you to be ignorant about western styles.
The “swing and hope it connects” is an old Victorian legend kept alive by antiquarians and ignorant foil-fencers. Swords were modified in their design so they could fight a man in full harness (plate armor) but these worked just fine against unarmored combat (unless you mean the giant pig-sticker). Even then we have fighting treatises that show that to defeat armor you half-sword (at least that’s one), used the tip to puncture the gaps in the armor. You can hit and cut at plate all you want you’ll just blunt your weapon while the opponent attacks you.
We have plenty of documents giving advice and noting the use of such weapons in unarmored civilian duels. Not to mention that a knight (or even just a well-educated and more wealthier commoner) would bring his sword on him when he’s not in battle but can still be expected to be attacked (ie, anywhere not well-secured such as when going around town or traveling).
@Mike Stone There’s a guy on Youtube who raises a lot of the same points about swords as you do – might want to check him out (his account is Lindybeige): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9pgQfOXRsp4UKrI8q0zjXQ
I predict that nobody will need to step in to save Dabbler, nor will Dabbler pull off some special move to save herself. I’m betting that Heavenly Sword stops the thrust. She’s not there to kill people. If we are lucky she will explain what she -is- there for.
Or it may be “Ok. I win. Even so, I’m not stupid enough to kill a police officer. Thanks for the fight.”
Be funny if she just carves HS onto Dabblers top :P
More likely, a keyhole.
THAT!
which top? The Bustier and jeans get-up is an illusion remember?
Page 203 She literally says “What an idiot. He didn’t even land on anyone when he jumped in there.”
I think HS is here for blood. (And she is gonna feel disappointed).
Saying that doesn’t make her ‘there for blood’, just commenting on how they missed a perfect opportunity for a pre-emptive first strike (if you have the element of surprise, use it to take out one or more of your opponents, not mouth off and get taken out so easily, if either of them had actually landed on Anvil, there is a good chance she would have been out of the fight before being able to ‘charge up’)
As far as anyone can tell (DaveB hasn’t said yet), Anvil’s kinetic energy absorption is passive/always on. Landing on her would charge her up.
I like the comic, but I will actually be quite annoyed if Sydney snipes this one. Dabbler’s supposed to be good enough to fight Maxima to a standstill. She definitely underestimated her opponent here and is paying for it, but she has so many tricks and I’d like to see her actually demonstrate her super-genius level intellect and get herself out of this one. Watching the inexperienced protagonist intervening like that all throughout this fight would frankly strike me as pretty lame even if she is the comic’s main character.
Though one admits that it could be fun if Sydney TRIED to snipe and wound up just making things worse.
Yea, and I could see a tentacle attack going that way too.
Squiggly top is +5 to disarm. Everybody knows that.
Looks like Dabbler made the mistake of trying to take on Heavenly sword in her own element. Might be a costly one.
As for the trope. I think it sounds more like the “You’re shoe lace is untied,” one.
One way I can see Dabbler retaking this fight is telekinesis on the sword.
“Good job disarming me. I don’t have to actually be holding it.”
Except Heavenly has already shown she’s proficient at countering mid air objects.
not if she’s doing it similar to DnD’s “Sword of Dancing” it think it was called… it could fight totally independently of the user, and the higher level the blade, the longer/better it would auto-fight, and if i remember correctly the user could actually draw another weapon to double-team the opponent, though it’s been a really long time since i played so i may be remembering wrongly, but…
OR… she pulls an Indiana Jones, and pulls a gun out…
I think Dab would be better with two 2-handed swords, one on each side.
Or, better yet, 4 1-handed blades of various lengths and styles
Ooh, and some silver samurai armor! And maybe two extra arms!
Is that a Spiral reference? Hah, I can’t believe people are trying to connect it to Grievous when she predates him by 20 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_%28comics%29
I only saw her once in the comics, but was amused by her wonky fighting style in Marvel vs Capcom.
3 swords+ one free hand for magic/shield
longsword (two handed but light), shield or buckler, and Railgun. ;)
What is this Munchkin you accuse me of being? ;)
Ever heard of General Grievous?
Wasn’t he a four-armed alien cyborg, who had a tendency to get limbs chopped off due to fighting higher skilled weapon wielders than himself? How is that relevant? ;-)
myeh, multi single handed weapons and spells.
its worked for mariliths and hindu gods for millennia.
Before they brought Grevos in his short lived Star Wars live action movie scenes, and before the Clone Wars CGI series. General Grevos was in the animated Star Wars series. He was best in there as he managed to take out all but one of a Jedi squad by himself. No droid troops, no trickery, just pure skill. Compared to that the other two make him pretty weak.
As a sword fighter (SCA heavy fighter) Holding your sword to tight can be a problem and fighting it like its a warhammer can def be a problem. Specially if you think about how well trained Heavenly Sword can adjust her sword on the fly to take advantage of something she sees. Hell some of the guys I fight make me look fat and slow and thats without super powers.
I think Dabbler theatrically lengthened the “drawing her sword” process so as to conceal how fast she can really send it away and bring it back. If HS knew that speed, or even just remembered what dabbler did with her railgun at the press conference, then should know that disarming Dabbler was not a winning move. Since HS went for the disarm anyway, Dabbler actually has the advantage here. Further, if Dabbler makes that realization at this point (and with her intellect why not?) then she can take advantage. Or Dabbler set up this along with several other “traps/stratagems” that we haven’t seen during the fight because, this is the “trap/stratagem” which is actually relevant to the story.
So far the plan is working. Why was Dabbler willing to use and loose soul reaver?
What can her sword do?
I am going to stick with her having been outclassed, myself. Not that it precludes her making a comeback. But I would not be confident enough, in my assessment, that I would put money on it. You could well be calling it right. Mind you, if it is a cunning ploy, she is doing a good acting job.
DaveB said that not all Arc-ites are going to be standing at the end of this fight, whether that means fatalities or simply hospitalization remains to be seen, as to which Arc-ite it will be as well
Not exactly surprised by this, Dabbler has openly admitted to not being as good at using a sword as she likes to think she is.
That wooden looking sword must be strong and springy to withstand those attacks… and also magicy and sparkely! :D
No no. This is the other Halo’s comments. Not that you are the first to have mistaken one Halo, for the other.
The shinai has some kind of energy field around it.
I’m casting my vote for “sticky air” since it is, according to Mathias: “Officially bullcrap.”
Seems like a good way to beat a very skilled opponent ^_^
With 4 hands, Dabbler should be the perfect sowrdfighter. Just like the Shivas in ‘Ravine’.
(that’s a Comic with excellent Dragon Art btw.)
Dabbler is a walking Swiss army knife. She isn’t as good as a specialist (like Heavenly Sword is) at her specialty (sword play) but Dabbler can do a hundred things she can’t. Dabbler needs to “hit her where she ain’t”, as in do something she can’t deal with.
Make it a gun fight. Only idiots and theme stuck peeps bring swords to gun fights. Oh, I’ll grant heavenly sword could perhaps cut one or two bullets out of the air, but give her a quad wielding opponent firing 4 rounds simultaneously. Only luck will let one sword block all 4 shots. Make the bullets trains or ‘sticky air’ or whatever to keep things decidedly non-lethal.
DaveB, I noticed a comment on your Deviant Art page, that showed at least one person has thought that a Gravatar is necessary to make a comment here. Which probably means that there are many more, who simply would have backed off, for the same reason. But not gone to the lengths of tracking down an alternative way of being heard.
The line “Get a Gravatar” appears next to the box where we fill in our name, in order to make a Comment. I would suggest modifying the text to read “Get a Gravatar (Optional)”.
Whilst making suggestions, it strikes me that it would not hurt to make the Patreon option a bit more accessible. Not everyone will think to look for it underneath the author’s notes section. Not that I am suggesting getting rid of that.
But adding an extra icon, next to the tip jar, would allow it to be found a lot easier, for those who miss the other location. Or, if not wanting to clutter up the main screen any more, it could be linked from within the tip jar screen. Along with some suitable text, to draw attention to the extra option.
Without the extra icon it is entirely possible for someone looking to donate simply never to spot the Patreon option. And, once they find the Tip Jar, they may well stop looking. Especially as you have a comment in there that recurring donations are currently not working. So you may very well be inadvertently loosing potential patrons.
I call shenanigans: Magic Missile never misses!
Uh oh. And we have already seen her parrying a knife, thrown by someone with the maximum human martial arts skill. The only possible conclusion is that Heavenly Sword is actually epic level and has developed the epic feat “Heavenly Parry”. Dabbler is in serious trouble!
There are ways to block it. “Shield”, another first level spell will stop it cold.
You could also use “Dispel Magic” or if you had a ready action cast a Counterspell Magic Missile.
I’m wondering about the whole one-on-one bit. This is supposed to be a team. They are supposed to help each other. When one of them engages an enemy, another one should be aiming for the enemy’s back. And when Dabbler gets in trouble, it’s time for someone else to intervene. To paraphrase a favorite aphorism of mine, no matter how skillful a swordfighter is, a bullet in her leg will seriously cramp her style.
You are absolutely right. That is the first thing that is taught to any team. On their very first day of training as a unit…
… which would be tomorrow.
Actually, tomorrow is Sydney’s first day of training, not the team’s. The team appears to have been training together for some time. (Probably not more than a month, but long enough they all know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.) That’s why Sydney was told to raise her shield and sit still: It keeps her out of the way.
I agree with the teamwork comment, but on the other hand you don’t always have that luxury. In this engagement ArcSwat are seriously outnumbered, and may not be able to disengage from their own attackers. That stated, they have been helping each other as possible: Math’s attack on HS, Peggy’s shot, etc. They’ll help when they can, but no one (aside from Sydney) is just standing around.
Yea, I was saying that kinda tongue-in-cheek. There obviously has been some training going on. Such as Harem’s Lightstorm. Likewise the armoury run had the feeling of familiarity about it. But only kinda, in that it is still early days. A super team is a group of very mis-matched individuals, and will take a while for them to get to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
Plus this is a very chaotic situation, where they are outnumbered, and have been caught flat footed, so are having to react to the enemy’s initiatives. Currently everybody (except the rookie) is engaged, except a few specialists, who have managed to distance themselves and find cover. In order to team up, first they have to free themselves from their current skirmishes. And the enemy are replacing those who fall faster than they can do that.
Oops, started to reply to your first paragraph, and forgot to go back and read your second, before posting. I see we ended up going to pretty much the same place.
Yeah, a bullet in the leg is cause for one *serious* cramp…
A regular muscle cramp, you can just walk it off, but a bullet kind of hinders that quick remedy.
Anyone got a guess on which body part Dabbler will lose this time?
Her tail? Succubi are very proud of those. It would be utterly devastating for her to loose that.
She’s already lost it (I think); her tail in “Wereworld” is clearly an replacement (this depends on the events there taking place before here).
Has Dabbler ever had a tail in this comic?
I never really noticed until after reading through wereworld, where I realized that I hadn’t ever noticed Dabbler’s tail before.
It is detachable. Quite a sore point for her. It was impolitic of me to jest about it.
Well, if Dabbler’s tail is in her pants & her pants are minimum security, she’s already vulnerable to losing it.
It wasn’t that many comic strips ago that Dabbler was explaining she keeps losing body parts form getting into sword duels with people better than her. Clearly she never learns. What do you think this time, an ear maybe?
This is what I like. Forget the boring chaff villain fights with no stakes, this is a real fight. Keep pages like this coming!
discovered you guys a few hours ago tonight, spent several hours reading through the entire archive, the time flow is a bit wonky but I like it.
going to bed now; expect to have your universe in my dreams.
also, in dabbler’s bio, the word should be spelled “perceives”.
Welcome to the fun universe. And keep living the dream.
Personally I’m hoping for orb number 6.
I’m trained in everything from shiv to greatsword, and “your grip is too tight” applies up through rapier/katana.
Most real-world knife/sword fighting is boring as hell to watch.. foil fighting is one of the few sports where the competitors pay to enter, but the spectators get in for free. It comes down to physics and geometry: a blade moving at X feet per second gets where it’s going a lot faster in a forward-backward stabbing motion than in a big sweeping arc.
Most of the action in a competition foil fight occurs in an area about the size of a grapefruit, with each competitor trying to nudge the other’s blade far enough out of the way to zap a thrust that will land. You want a relatively loose grip so you can change the orientation of the blade as fast as possible.
Katana is a slicing style, but you save energy by making the strokes efficiently. You have to start each stroke in a position your opponent can see, and making the stroke puts you into a position where you can’t recover quickly. The rule of thumb is, “the one who strikes second wins”. A good kendo-ka knows how to judge an opponent’s attack from the position of the blade, and will move her own blade into a position that offers a block and counterattack. The better the kendo-ka, the less motion she needs to see in order to counter. That makes kedo bouts chess games, and why the greatest katana-fight of all time involved two guys standing almost motionless for fifteen minutes, then turning around and walking away from each other.
Broadswoard and greatsword are different for mechanical reasons. They’re meant for opponents who are armored. The ridges and curves on armor are designed to deflect stabbing attacks, but a sweeping arc from a big, heavy chunk of metal will dent the metal. The point of the game is to crush the opponent with his own protective shell. If you can actually cut through the metal, you leave two jagged edges pressing into the opponent’s skin.. that’s why knights wore padding and chain underneath their armor. It was to protect them from their own outer layer.
Nobody moves fast in armor, and broad/greatsword fighting is more like blacksmithing with extreme prejudice than a knife fight. The blade often weighs as much as the person wielding it, so the fighter moves almost as much as the sword. You dance with the sword rather than swinging it. The blade is also your first line of defense, because you very much want to catch the incoming force on something that isn’t fixed in place above your vital organs. It could be a more theatrically entertaining form than most other blade styles, but in practice it looks more like WWF meets caber tossing.
It’s a standard convention in all visual media to use fighting techniques that would last about three seconds in a real fight, but which are big and flashy. Anyone who knows enough about bladework to ponder the fridge logic also knows that an accurate fight would last about two panels and leave readers asking, “wtf just happened?”
No, the blade will definitely NOT weight as much as the person holding it. Iron density is 7.874 g·cm−3. Knight can’t weight less that 60kg WITHOUT ARMOR. 60kg / 7.874 g·cm^3 = 7620cm^3 … let’s say sword is 1cm thick (I think it’s less) and 10cm wide (ditto), still, 768cm long. 7m sword, seriously?
Not only sword so heavy is stupid, it’s OBVIOUS they can’t be so heavy. The reason the knight need to move when moving the sword is that the sword is moved over greater distance that the knight.
(Note: Density of steel is around the density of iron.)
“Half your body weight” was meant as a bit of an exaggeration.
I had originally put height instead, but I didn’t want to end up arguing about leverage.
My point is still valid, big swords are hard to use with finesse.
Heh. Calling a 10lb sword half your body weight came across as a bit more than exaggeration. :-)
Generally a western sword will be a little lighter than a katana-style sword of similar length die to the taper. Western swords were broader, to encompass both edges, katana are thicker, but cross sectional area isn’t too different. The japanese swordsmiths were able to counter their generally worse materials with repeated folding, evening out the flaws, so strengths, and therefore length/weight ratios were roughly similar.
The idea that western swordsmanship involved battering armour with huge, heavy blades until something gave was a little odd coming from someone who seemed to be claiming that they had actually trained in it.
A knight’s blade was usually about 48 in long, 2 in wide, and an average of 3/8 in thick. This comes out to about 120 cm long, 5cm wide, and a bit less than 1 cm thick. Such blades were usually NOT made of steel, sadly, as the West did not unravel the secret of producing steel consistently until about the 1560s (if not later), but they WERE very well-worked mixtures of cast iron and wrought iron, which combined the properties of both into something very like steel. There is no question that the katana, which WAS made of steel, was superior in manufacturing quality to any European sword made at the time, which is a large part of why katana styles have survived to this day, while the European styles of swordsmanship often have not.
Actually, the katana was folded so many times because their steel was so LOUSY. The katana was still a lousy weapon against iron or steel armored opponents (which they didn’t have in their area, because of their lousy steel).
The katana was an amazing weapon… considering the crap they had to work with. It was a triumph of design, making the most possible with what you had. It still stunk compared to a good Damascus steel weapon, which was available in Europe MUCH earlier than you claim – the Vikings had decent steel weapons (crucible steel, most likely – at the bottom end of MODERN steel standards, as best we can tell) in the 1100s, for instance (though they lost them again after the 1200s), and some other groups did not long after.
Who’s going to be wearing what level of armor? That determines which styles of combat are viable… the person most prepared for the armor conditions wins. If both opponents are properly prepared for the armor level, then which style of combat would win against which is essentially a meta-game – rock-paper-scissors, to a point. No one style is “best” for all situations.
Steel alone is not what made a perfect sword. It was how keen an edge it could hold, the flexibility in certain situations, versus the strength in others. The katana perfected this, for the needs of their era and their environment. Their various techniques, including the folding, allowed the different properties of metal to be exploited in different ways for each part of the sword, as was best suited. The folding was not a compromise, it created far superior blades than could be made any other way.
As for metal armour, it was not due to European’s having a superior concept. Heavy metal armour was badly suited for use in very hot countries. As shown by how badly it harmed the Crusaders. They fell to heatstroke in vast numbers. Not to mention that they needed to have heavy horses to carry the armoured knights. Which created huge logistical problems. More often than not they lost more knights, on the road to the Holy Land, to heatstroke, starvation and disease, than they did on the battlefield.
The lacquered armour that samurai wore was a far better armour for the conditions. Had an armoured European army ever made it to Japan, I think they would have had their butts handed to them on a plate. Especially as the samurai were perfectly happy using bows as well. So just like the Mongols versus the European knights, in the same era, could have used mounted archers (armoured ones at that) to give superior mobility against the slow heavily armoured knights. Who would all be suffering heatstroke and exhaustion.
That’s quite simply bollocks. The steel they had was lousy – it had many imperfections. The folding process spread these imperfections out, preventing any large areas of weakness, and it is unnecessary to make a good sword with perfect steel.
The amazing keen edge of the katana was indeed a superior technique… made almost unnecessary by better steel. The shape of the blade likewise – superior, yes, but only because their lousy steel required it and prevented the use of heavy metal armor.
Absolutely correct! It was because they had superior steel (and much more of it). The concept is simple, it was just impossible in Japan.
For the conditions… of having insufficient steel of insufficient quality, yes. Lacquered armour is a ridiculous joke compared to metal plate armor, at least in terms of protection.
The heatstroke argument is essentially the only argument you have. It’s a good one… in the Holy Lands, or other VERY hot places. In less extreme situations, it’s not nearly as bad as you think. I’ve seen field operations by armored men in the American south in summer time, and it’s not nearly as bad as so many people believe. Plate armor was popular throughout Europe, even the much hotter areas in the south, where it was not a serious problem.
The mobility argument is not entirely untrue, but it would only apply at a strategic level – properly armored defenders of a fortification could almost ignore the katana, as the blade would literally shatter against it – a simple spear would be FAR better. The mobility point is also moot on offense against stationary targets (even in the Holy Lands, the Europeans did take cities well, for instance).
The argument about mounted archers again underestimates the power of metal plate armor – even the mighty English longbow, with a pull strength unmatched at the time, seldom punctured it with a direct hit – the main benefit of the archers would be in killing the horses.
The Mongols are the perfect example of the mobility argument writ large, where their entire force was highly mobile, enabling them to overwhelm with numbers, and ALSO showing the weakness of archers against metal armor. Their invasions into Europe were largely against fragmented groups, glorified city-states, further enhancing their numerical advantage… even so, when well-equipped European groups stood against them, they had to use indirect tactics to win, as they quite simply couldn’t win head to head.
Even the crossbow didn’t really reduce the popularity of metal plate armour. Even the advent of CANNONS didn’t, though it resulted in the lighter “half-plate” for greater mobility (there’s your mobility point, by the way – even for mobility, the large, most-bang-for-the-buck pieces are still EASILY worth it). It took the fielding of men with bandoliers of pistols to finally end the use of metal plate armor, as these pistoliers could finally beat armored men in close combat. THAT is what beats it, and nothing else. That’s what actual history shows, very, very thoroughly.
In short, in a head-to-head conflict, having a group of metal-armored fighting men at your center against unarmored ones would give you an ENORMOUS advantage in all but the most extreme heat conditions and against all known close combat weapons short of firearms.
Regarding the katana steel issue. Please refer to the article linked below. Note that this organisation was set up for research of and education in ferrous metallurgy. Ie these are specialists in exactly what we are talking about. Who have no particular reason to be biassed.
Katana Sword Steel
Their opening line: “The katana, a sword used by samurai in feudal Japan is considered by many to be the pinnacle of sword quality.” Then go on to give their justification in stating that. Hopefully that should satisfy you, that I was not talking bollocks.
Nothing said in that article conflicts with the statement that the metal the Japanese had to work with was lousy for making swords. It had a lot of impurities that had to be pounded out. They did a lot of pounding.
All I am concerned with is what they ended up with. If they had lousy materials to start with, it just goes to show what a thousand years worth of research and development can do, to turn it into a perfect weapon.
Note that I stipulate that it is perfect for its purpose. Chopping people up. They are not designed to penetrate metal armour, because no army equipped with such ever made it to that region. So we can only speculate. But it is entirely possible that mounted samurai archers would have proven effective, even if the katana was not specialised versus metal armour.
And, as stated previously, I feel confident that heatstroke would severely compromise any metal armoured force (in the pre-gunpowder era, when these arguments would have been relevant).
And let us not forget that Agincourt, a battle composed of English and Welsh longbowmen, versus French Knights, saw victory by the bowmen. Despite being significantly outnumbered.
Who presumably from some Amish community, who swore off the use of modern transport, air conditioning and any present-day medicines or techniques to treat heatstroke? Who were brought up on a mediaeval diet and were only supplied with such supplies, on a campaign lasting several years? If not, I fail to see the relevance.
Sorry, I got a bit snarky there. But it is just to point out that, although you were making passionate counter-arguments, you rather over-stated your case by presenting that as if it were strong supporting evidence. Modern experience is vastly different to historical conditions.
Here it is my turn to put a passionate case. In the 13th Century the Mongol hordes approached Europe, and threatened to capture the vast and rich pasture lands of Poland and Hungary. Vital farmland that could feed the Mongul armies and supply fodder to their horses. All of Europe was terrified at the prospect, and doomsday cults started to flourish. The Pope decreed that all effort must be made to repel this invasion. As such knights from holy orders, throughout Europe, were sent to aid the alliance formed against the Mongols.
Actually, they were supported by the elite knights of Europe. Yes, Hungary and Poland were suffering problems at that time, but they were hardly insignificant. They fielded significant forces, which were allied in a common cause. However the rest of your statement just goes to show the advantage of a mobile force, versus slow armoured knights. The Mongols were able to consistently outmaneuver the European forces. Whereas the Monguls could split themselves into smaller groups and re-form into a cohesive group, on demand. Further, the Europeans were easily blocked when they tried to join forces themselves. This is an important part of the strategy of war, so should not be used as an excuse for the knights.
The following link provides an overview of the war. And, if you search for the battle of Legnica, you will see a battle where the knights and the mounted archers were numerically fairly evenly matched. So we have a very clear cut balanced example of heavily armoured, and armed, European forces versus Mongol horse archers.
The knights lost.
Not just the battle, the war too. The only reason that the Mongols did not ride through the rest of Europe, is that they got word that the Khan had died, so their leaders returned to contest the succession.
Perhaps you are trained in how to use these weapons, but you cannot have been trained well…and clearly, your training did NOT include using an actual great-sword.
A functional great-sword weighed no more than eight pounds, total, complete with the counter-weight located in the hilt. It is designed to be able to be used for stabbing, as well as for cutting, and was highly efficient in both roles. It had to be–the armor it was designed to defeat was built to be proof against bullets. A sword weighing as much as a person, on the other hand, would have had to be literally the size of Cloud’s sword in Final Fantasy…or larger. Humans, it would seem, are surprisingly dense, and a quantity of iron that comes a similar weight is surprisingly voluminous.
Also, swords were not made to be able to slash in an effort to dent and eventually wear down armor. Knights usually used hammers, axes, and polearms for that purpose, as they worked a great deal better. Instead, swords operated by concentrating their much lower weight into a very small area, not so much punching through the armor, as sheering through it. Unfortunately, when facing the better armors, there was not much chance of this, as the main areas were protected by as much as half an inch of tempered steel. Thus, swords became weapons to be used primarily against the joints, which explains why greatswords were used, or against precise weak points that simple physics dictated HAD to be present. This latter use led to the development of the rapier, from which modern fencing is born, while the former mostly vanished with time.
One should not, moreover, think of these swords as slow A simple glance at the logic behind penetrating armor reveals that, without the great weight of a hammer or an axe (both of which WERE slow…relatively speaking), the sword would have to be not just fast, but almost lightning fast. Ironically, this is something that Hollywood has likely gotten right about sword play–the big sweeping strikes would have been very fast, and exchanged very quickly. The combatants would have used these strikes to attempt to throw their opponent off-balance, effectively rendering them less able to deflect the back swing, which would be targeted against a joint of some description–generally a knee, although an elbow would be just as good. If a solid hit could be landed against the joint, the sword would effectively destroy the complex armor that protected that joint, effectively rendering it immobile, and thus seriously weakening an opponent’s ability to fight. Once a sufficient number of joints had been destroyed, the final rush would be used to simply knock the opponent off their feet, rendering them pretty much completely helpless for the rest of the fight….provided you weren’t stupid enough to get within kicking distance afterwards, as that could let the other guy knock you off your feet. That said, however, one should never think of people who spend a significant portion of each day fighting in a hundred pounds of armor as being either slow, or weak. These knights were able to exchange rapid blows for quite some time, moving around just as much as any pair of modern professional boxers in the ring today.
Even the rapier, from which modern fencing is descended, is designed around the realities created by such impenetrable suits of armor: rapiers are designed to be used with a great economy of motion, using the thrust of the blade to penetrate a knight’s armor at its natural weak points by focusing an enormous amount of power behind the sword’s tip. A well-placed rapier thrust, unlike a two-handed sword, could easily kill an opponent, but the reason this was possible was because of the greater accuracy of a thrust, and the greater penetrating power the rapier made possible (it should be noted that, if a person tried this, than, even if they were successful, they’d pretty much destroyed the sword). Rapiers do not move noticeably faster, at the tip, than do the larger and heavier swords. The difference lies in the fact that a rapier can change its angle of attack much, much faster than a larger blade, as the center of focus for rapier-work is located very near the tip of the blade, as contrasted to a longsword or a great-sword, where the focus is actually fairly near the hilt, if not the elbows or even the shoulder.
Japanese fencing styles, unlike those developed for Europe, are based heavily around being able to use the slash as the finishing move (although the katana was also a highly efficient stabbing weapon), which European heavy armor made…impractical, to say the least. Although a match between a rapier and a katana are pretty evenly balanced, thanks to the circumstances surrounding the evolution of each style, the match between a medieval knight and a samurai would, unfortunately, have been substantially more one-sided. Had Dabbler worn the armor that goes with her style of sword, Heavenly Sword would have been in a LOT more trouble. However, as things stand…unarmored knight loses to unarmored samurai three times out of four, at the very least.
All of the above!
Additionally, an armored knight’s suit of gothic plate was integrated into the weapon styles they used – there’s a /reason/ their toes, knees, elbows, knuckles, and – in some cases – even wrists had points, stabbing surfaces, and cutting extensions. Vambraces were reinforced to act as parrying surfaces. Additional armor plates were welded near joints to ruin certain angles of attack.
To separate a blade style and the armor worn while using it is folly. It’s one of the reasons I roll my eyes when the inevetable ‘which style is better’ argument comes out and is waved around – the best style is the one that someone knows to use, without assumptions.
Actually, rapiers were very much a civilian weapon, never intended for use against armour. There did exist weapons that were effectively a metal spike with a guard and pommel to be used against armour, but these generally predated and were used rather differently from rapiers. Rapiers were not used on the battlefield in general because they lacked immediate lethality: a deep thrust might kill someone from infection eventually, but a cut was more likely to stop them fighting fast. It was also generally ineffective against armour.
Usually the intention in attacking the joints of armour is not to damage the armour, but because it is a point of weakness. The flexibility required there meant that the wearer’s joint could be damaged by either force or penetration.
Getting knocked down in armour wasn’t an automatic loss. What metal armour really restricts is endurance: a downed warrior could get up without assistance.
Longswords were used in unarmoured duels. Without the advantage of their superior armour (due to Japan’s lack of decent ore) a knight would likely have an even chance against a samurai. While a katana gives better slashing cuts, a longsword cut would still be effective against an unarmoured opponent, and would have the advantage of reach and versatility.
There is also a philosophical difference between the styles. In general, a western swordfighter wanted to walk away from the fight. This meant to defeat them you could either disarm and capture or disable them; a kill wasn’t always necessary. A samurai on the other hand generally was expected to kill their opponent, even if their own life was lost in the process.
Whether rapiers were used in battle depended on the combatants, and the style of fighting. Milanese forces were routinely issued a combat rapier (it had another name, but I forget what it was) for use in battle, along with a wooden shield. By all accounts, they were highly effective, even when facing armored enemies. The English, too, routinely used rapiers on the battlefield, although since they used it primarily as a cavalry weapon, you could make a strong argument that it’s not the same thing. The confusion arises from the fact that battlefield rapiers had a number of key differences over the civilian models: battlefield versions were about 1/8 inch thicker, 1/4 inch wider, had a better balance for slashing in addition to stabbing, and were generally about four to six inches longer. Today, they are generally given a different name, but the style of use is thought to be the same, as is the name given to them by the vast majority of the population of the time.
The Spanish and the Venetians, by contrast, did NOT use rapiers in combat: the Spanish preferred to use pikes, as their overwhelming strength on the battlefield lay in their heavy tercios, whereas the Venetians’ strength at the time lay in their navy, which environment is not really suitable for rapiers. It is telling, I think, that of the five major Rennaissance powers, I have just covered four….
All of that said, however…yes, the rapier DID lack immediate lethality. However, what a lot of people miss is the fact that, whether they die immediately or not, somebody who has just gotten a hole through the kidneys is going to start slowing down almost immediately, and there are a surprisingly large number of areas in the body that, if not immediately lethal, are pretty much immediately incapacitating. Run a steel sword through a person’s knee, and you may not have killed him, but you’ve sure slowed him down. Again, this is an instance of the weapon and its tactics being dictated by the circumstances imposed by heavy armor–it was almost impossible to get a clean kill on a heavily armored foe ANYWAY, so why bother? Stab him a few times in the knees, wrists, and elbows, sever a few tendons, and they’re out of the fight. When you think about it: the Rennaissance was the the acme of heavy steel plate, so any weapon that achieved widespread use would HAVE to be able to deal with a knight in full armor. Otherwise, why use it? And if a knight is just knocked down, that’s okay, too, because if you knock him down, you’ve got a precious few seconds to stab him through the eye, and that’s the end of the fight, period, because he’s dead. And that’s really why you wanted to knock a fully armored foe down, when you get down to it–not because he was automatically pinned by his own armor (although some were), but because when they got knocked down, they had essentially forty pounds of metal coming down on top of them. You can’t take that kind of impact and not get stunned, and even if you can, getting up again is NOT easy. Admittedly, these were very strong men, who trained extensively in every aspect of combat, but this was a reality that the Japanese never had to face: a knight who lost his footing was out of commission for several minutes, and on a battlefield, in melee combat, being out of commission for several minutes means that you’re dead.
This relates to my earlier statement about damaging armor at the joints, as opposed to just sheering through the joints: by the 1500s, full Gothic plate had taken care to heavily reinforce the joints in any suit of armor, PRECISELY because weapons like a rapier or a two-handed sword could do so MUCH damage to a person’s joints. For understandable reasons, most knights wanted armor that could protect them in this environment, so most of the good suits of armor had multiple layers of protection around the joints, which layers were carefully made so as to allow the maximum possible mobility. A clean hit from a two-handed sword COULD still sheer through the joint, if you were lucky, but it wasn’t as easy anymore, so most infantry swapped over to polearms, which had both the mass, and the leverage to punch through those joints. Swords, by this point, were coming out as a distinctly sub-par weapon for handling armor, and they had been even as early as the battle of Crecy, but they still had their advantages, and one of the primary advantages they had was SPEED. Swords could evade almost any defense by other weapons, and, if you could get a clean hit in, might do serious damage. Even if not, however, damaging the reticulated joints would work, given time, as it didn’t take too many hits to damage the joint to badly to be moved, provided you could hit it just right.
And as a note: yes, longswords (and rapiers) were used when unarmored, as well as in regular battle. However, while an unarmored samurai would have only a small advantage over a knight if they fought around 1000 AD (and that advantage would primarily come from having a better sword), if they fought around 1300 or 1400 AD, the samurai’s advantage would have become significant, as the shifting of armor technology meant that Europe had, out of sheer necessity, largely abandoned the longsword as a practical weapon of war. By the time the Europeans and the Spanish met, the advantage in unarmored combat was entirely to the Japanese, unless the European was a skilled swordsman with a rapier. Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch sailors and visitors, no matter how good they were with a sword, were advised to be EXTREMELY careful of the samurai, as their weapons styles had been evolving for over a thousand years, and were extremely sophisticated.
We can only speculate on how Japanese lifestyle, culture, and, most especially, martial arts would have changed had the Japanese discovered the secret to heavy armor when the Europeans did, but those speculations would, I think, be very interesting indeed.
My historical reading and research suggests that the two handed sword was fielded against pike and spear using troop formations, and against infantry. I’ve seen no mention of them being used against armored knights on horseback.
*thinks to self* He researched that point?
*tiptoes off quietly* Hopefully he won’t notice that I did not.
In panel one we are slamming the forte of our two-hander into the foible of HS’s blade. HS’s wrist is also at a terrible angle and should snap.
The real question raised by this comic is what the hell is HS’s wrist made of?
I think Dabbler’s swing was already aimed quite low, so HS wouldn’t have to take the full impact to block it, she only has to hit hard enough to redirect the attack, and I think her energy blade has some property that can give it extra inertia when needed.
But I agree, HS’s form in that panel is sloppy at best, the impact would probably break a normal person’s wrist anyway.
Always figured, because of her extensive knowledge and skill, HS was leading the fight and Dabbles was responding to her, not the other way around as you implied
HS is basically toying with Dabbles, you can tell that by the facial expressions
(I know it’s probably been said, but – )
As a fair – but not fantastic – swordsman myself, in more medieval styles than fencing, it is true that too tight a grip is /bad/. Your wrist cannot absorb shock, your bladework gets sloppy and hard to control…
… and there’s this thing. Swords are essentially sharp levers, after all, and a tight grip means you’re taking all of the force your opponent can apply directly to your wrists and forearms. A loose grip and correct stance shifts that so the force is applied to and from your hips and shoulders, which are much, much more resilient. Swing a claymore with a tight grip, and you’re going to lose that weapon simply because of the strain you’re putting on your forearms; parry with a tight grip and you’re liable to break something.
“Dabbler’s not as good at sword fighting as she thinks, she has the bionic hand and eye to prove it.” How did you get out?…WHY AM I CHAINED UP! “Payback, I am as good with stuff as I think”
this is the point when sydney circumvents dabbler’s “nobody-but-me-can-use-my-weapons” thingy by grabbing the sword with the lighthook, which, by definition, is not a person, but is composed of solidified energy, and blocks HS. Hs counters by attacking the lighthook itself, which, being made of light, allows the energy sword to pass through it, but breaks the kendo sword beneath, off-balancing HS and toppling her over, aaaaannnnddd cuffs.
A small art criticism here about Heavenly Sword… her forehead. Her hairline vs. eye placement. As depicted, she apparently has a 1 inch forehead. The headband doesn’t change width and follows her eyebrows a bit. That leaves her with a very small distance from eyes to hairline. If it weren’t for the rotating cast of characters at the top of the page, it may not stand out as much. I always look there to see the new pics of the team and then read the comic, and noticed this.
In panel 3 it goes so far as her hair comes from her eyebrows behind the headband.
I think the key for Dabbler to win is “never fight against your opponent’s strength.” In other words, since Heavenly is so good at fencing, change the game.
You could go with the Indiana Jones solution to sword wielders (otherwise know as “never bring a knife to a gun fight.”) Still, that one’s been done, and very well at that.
Other thoughts: An energy blade is made of, well, energy. Ground it or drain it and she’s back to wielding a stick. She’s still very good at wielding, but it’s still just a stick.
Was thinking: the speech in the last panel may not have come from Heaven, she does not seem to be the kind to be premature in her speech so would not, imo, say “Gotcha!” before she actually tagged Dabbles
So either it is Sydney saying that, and next page we see Heaven bound by the MolestOrb (BDSM style binding, not just simply wrapped by the MOrb), or Heaven will say next page “Just testing you, please pretend to be dead so the one/s who hired me think everything is going their way, we can arrange a meeting for a debriefing later. Gotta go, can’t let that guy win against Jabby!”
INdeed…what is HS supposed to do if Achilles grapples her? Like…pry him off?
Achilles is a stunt-man, not a soldier. He has martial arts 0. Heavenly has martial arts 4. Even if he managed to lay a finger on her in the first place, she could peel him off, and stuff him in a trashcan, without breaking stride.