Musing on combat optional rules
Robert Brown
In <bjm10-03079...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>
>Okay, I'm working on HTMLizing the article I did for Pyramid #19 (which I
>will then ask to be posted on www.io.com in the appropriate directory and
>NOWHERE else, just so folks understand), and I got the "revision bug".
>Anyway, in addition to cleaning up the errata, I got to thinking.
>
>Y'see, I actually study rapier. In addition, I play SCA epee, which they
>like to call rapier, but it isn't. So at least some of that article came
>out of personal experience with the weapons in question, and experience
>with how modern fencing weapons handle.
>
[...]
The only problem I have with the combat rules is the hit penalties
for targeting parts of the body. They're appropriate for missile weapons,
nonsense for melee combat. It's _easier_ to poke or stab someone in the
arm than in the body, not harder.
Bryan J. Maloney
Okay, I'm working on HTMLizing the article I did for Pyramid #19 (which I
will then ask to be posted on www.io.com in the appropriate directory and
NOWHERE else, just so folks understand), and I got the "revision bug".
Anyway, in addition to cleaning up the errata, I got to thinking.
Y'see, I actually study rapier. In addition, I play SCA epee, which they
like to call rapier, but it isn't. So at least some of that article came
out of personal experience with the weapons in question, and experience
with how modern fencing weapons handle.
By the way, the epee is a "real sword", merely with the tip blunted. The
epee is the final form of the Western European duelling sword, and it was
invented around 1800ish, for duelling--fencing came later. The foil was a
training tool for the epee. Don't ask about sabres--they're just too
weird.
Anyway, one thing that kept bumping in the back of my mind regarding the
styles I designed was that the GURPS rules weren't quite up to reflecting
one important difference between the rapier and broadsword styles: Cut
emphasis vs. thrust emphasis. These really are two different abilities,
and equal facility with both takes more work than does greater facility
with one. It would be nice to be able to reflect this. Therefore, I
suggest the following rule, only to be used in campaigns where a great
deal of combat detail is desired:
Style emphasis.
Swinging and thrusting are two different approaches towards hitting
somebody with a melee weapon. While both overlap a great deal, there are
also real differences. Therefore, any melee weapon skill must be defined
as being either "swing emphatic" or "thrust emphatic". Any thrusts
executed with a swing emphatic skill are delivered at -2 to the skill.
Any swings executed with a thrust emphatic skill suffer a -2 penalty.
Note that the emphasis is for the SKILL not the maneuver. Thus, it is
possible for a Roman Legionnaire to learn shortsword (thrust emphatic) and
a Celt to learn shortsword (swing emphatic). This penalty may be removed
by taking a new Martial Arts Maneuver.
New Maneuver
Ecletic Use (Average*)
Pre-requisite: Individual Weapon Skill
Default: Individual Weapon Skill -2
May not be raised above default skill.
This "maneuver" reflects the possiblity that some people may have been
trained to more equally emphasize both swinging and thrusting. It is
suggested that the maximum number of levels available to a particular
character (0, 1, or 2) be determined at the time he or she learns a weapon
skill for the first time, reflecting the emphasis of his or her trainer.
To change this limit the character will have to find somebody who has a
higher limit. A charitable GM might allow training under somebody who
practices a different emphasis to be able to teach this as a "maneuver".
Note that GURPS Martial Arts, however, suggest that GURPS skills like
"Karate" be learned separately for each style, even if they overlap.
It's rough, but I think you get the idea.
rosalyn rice
In article <bjm10-03079...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Style emphasis.
>Swinging and thrusting are two different approaches towards hitting
>somebody with a melee weapon. While both overlap a great deal, there are
>also real differences. Therefore, any melee weapon skill must be defined
>as being either "swing emphatic" or "thrust emphatic". Any thrusts
>executed with a swing emphatic skill are delivered at -2 to the skill.
>Any swings executed with a thrust emphatic skill suffer a -2 penalty.
>Note that the emphasis is for the SKILL not the maneuver. Thus, it is
>possible for a Roman Legionnaire to learn shortsword (thrust emphatic) and
>a Celt to learn shortsword (swing emphatic). This penalty may be removed
>by taking a new Martial Arts Maneuver.
Except that some weapons naturally use both swing and thrust -
16th c. Greatsword combat manuals show both swinging and thrusting
strikes being used, most styles of knife fighting.
Also, some weapons can only be used to thrust and some weapons can
only be used to swing.
If you wanted to treat things a bit differently, you could come up
with something like the Parrying rules for Vikings (e.g. -1 to parry, +1
to block, to reflect the fact that Iron Age Scandinavia had crappy swords
and Vikings preferred to block blows with their shields, not their
swords).
A "thrusting" style of blade combat would give +1 to hit with
thrust, and -1 to hit with swing and vice-versa.
I guess that specifically cross-training (gaining a skill point) in a
different style of of weapon use would be enough to eliminate the penalty
for unfamiliarity.
Thomas Barnes
rosalyn rice
In article <4rf00t$m...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Robert Brown <rmb...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>The only problem I have with the combat rules is the hit penalties
>for targeting parts of the body. They're appropriate for missile weapons,
>nonsense for melee combat. It's _easier_ to poke or stab someone in the
>arm than in the body, not harder.
Yes and no. In heavy weapons combat, it's damned near impossible
to hit the target's shield arm. The weapon arm is a bit easier to hit,
but it's constantly in motion.
To be honest, the probabilities of hitting a given location of the
body depend on what weapons your opponent is using, what weapons you're
using, and what stance your opponent is in. For example, if your opponent
is fighting with mace and large shield, then he's got most of his body and
his shield arm covered, and his weapon arm will be pretty well protected
as well, but his shins, knees, and head are decent targets. In SCA combat,
one of things to do against such and opponent, if you have a sword and
shield, is to cripple his legs and then deal with him from a distance,
using the superior reach of the sword.
If you've got a spear, then it's easier to try to get inside his
shield and use the inside of the shield to guide the tip of your spear
into his chest or belly. Or, you could stand off and thrust to the face
before he can get into range.
A set of comprehensive "to hit" tables that cover all
possibilities would be hideously complex. ("Do I get +1 to normal
targeting modifiers to hit my opponent's far leg if he's in a refused
stance and carrying a buckler and bastard sword and I'm using a broadsword
and 32" round shield in a high-line style from an open stance?")
Thomas Barnes
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <4rf4eb$c...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
ror...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice) wrote:
> Except that some weapons naturally use both swing and thrust -
> 16th c. Greatsword combat manuals show both swinging and thrusting
Thus, practitioners of these styles have learned the "maneuver"--gosh, a
whole character point...
> Also, some weapons can only be used to thrust and some weapons can
> only be used to swing.
And skills for those weapons can't have the maneuver. Like you can't
learn "kicking" for the "boxing" skill...
Robert Brown
In <4rf54t$d...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ror...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice) writes:
>In article <4rf00t$m...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Robert Brown <rmb...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>>The only problem I have with the combat rules is the hit penalties
>>for targeting parts of the body. They're appropriate for missile weapons,
>>nonsense for melee combat. It's _easier_ to poke or stab someone in the
>>arm than in the body, not harder.
>
> Yes and no. In heavy weapons combat, it's damned near impossible
>to hit the target's shield arm. The weapon arm is a bit easier to hit,
>but it's constantly in motion.
> To be honest, the probabilities of hitting a given location of the
>body depend on what weapons your opponent is using, what weapons you're
>using, and what stance your opponent is in. For example, if your opponent
> If you've got a spear, then it's easier to try to get inside his
>shield and use the inside of the shield to guide the tip of your spear
>into his chest or belly. Or, you could stand off and thrust to the face
>before he can get into range.
>
> A set of comprehensive "to hit" tables that cover all
>possibilities would be hideously complex. ("Do I get +1 to normal
>targeting modifiers to hit my opponent's far leg if he's in a refused
>stance and carrying a buckler and bastard sword and I'm using a broadsword
>and 32" round shield in a high-line style from an open stance?")
:} Yeah, you're right of course. But in general, the limbs are much
easier to hit than the body, not the other way around, regardless of style.
Even if the person has his sword arm cocked back for a Bellatrix snap,
he has to expose it to strike a blow. And it's even more obvious in
fencing and knife fighting, where almost all the wounds are going to be
to the arm or hand against a halfway competent opponent.
I figure that 2 tables--one for ranged combat, one for melee are
complicated enough, but hopefully not too complicated.... :}
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <4rjkjp$4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, rmb...@cyberramp.net
(Robert Brown) wrote:
> Even if the person has his sword arm cocked back for a Bellatrix snap,
What on earth is a "war woman's snap"? (Presuming that "bellator" means
"war man", of course).
Robert Brown
SCA jargon. You basically hold the sword behind your head, blade hanging
down between your shoulder blades before snapping it out towards your
opponent.
rosalyn rice
In article <4rjkjp$4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
> :} Yeah, you're right of course. But in general, the limbs are much
>easier to hit than the body, not the other way around, regardless of style.
>Even if the person has his sword arm cocked back for a Bellatrix snap,
>he has to expose it to strike a blow. And it's even more obvious in
>fencing and knife fighting, where almost all the wounds are going to be
>to the arm or hand against a halfway competent opponent.
Agreed, especially for swinging weapons (which generally have to go
through a limb or the head to hit the body).
Useless but neat factoid: A viable tactic in knife fighting is to
take a hit to the arm or thigh so that you can stab to the chest or gut.
The traditional wisdom for a knife fight is "The winner goes to the
hospital, the loser goes to the morgue."
This wisdom is not exactly new, George Silver (ca. 1600) said that
a knife fight was a form of mutual suicide (this before antibiotics and a
decent understanding of abdominal or chest surgery).
> > I figure that 2 tables--one for ranged combat, one for melee are
>complicated enough, but hopefully not too complicated.... :}
A simpler way to do it would be to require the use of hit
locations for melee combat. Ranged combat, wild swings, and things like
shrapnel use the current hit location chart, which roughly mirrors the
surface area of various parts of the body.
Thomas Barnes
Patrick Juola
In article <bjm10-05079...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>In article <4rjkjp$4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, rmb...@cyberramp.net
>(Robert Brown) wrote:
>
>
>"war man", of course).
Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix, one of the legendary SCAdian fighters and
"inventor" of the unblockable "Bellatrix rising snap."
Patrick
rosalyn rice
In article <bjm10-05079...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
>(Robert Brown) wrote:
>
>> Even if the person has his sword arm cocked back for a Bellatrix snap,
>
>What on earth is a "war woman's snap"? (Presuming that "bellator" means
>"war man", of course).
It's SCA heavy-weapons jock slang. Paul of Bellatrix was a
professional martial artist who joined the SCA in its early years. He
greatly refined SCA sword technique and by doing so blew most of the
other fighters (who were *not* professional martial artists) off of the
list field.
The "Bellatrix snap" was a way of concentrating the maximum
amount of force into a sword strike by using the body rather like a
whiplash. It's nearly impossible to explain in print, but if you've ever
seen an SCA heavy-weapons bout where one or both of the combattants used
a one-handed weapon, you've seen the Bellatrix snap.
(Doomed attempt to describe the technique: Stand in a slightly
crouched stance, with your feet about as far apart as your shoulders, so
that your feet form an "L" and your body is turned so that you have to
look directly along the shoulder of your weak arm to see your opponent -
rather
like the "sparring stance" or "cat stance" used by some martial arts.
Hold your sword in you dominant hand and lift the sword so that
your hand is parallel to the ground and the blade of the sword is just
outside of the shoulder of your dominant arm. (If you put the sword on
your shoulder and then let it slip off so that it's just off you
shoulder, and is parallel to the ground, you've got it right.)
The hilt of your sword should be partially or fully concealed for
your foe by your body.
The sword should be held loosely using only your thumb and the
first two fingers of your hand. The ring finger and pinkie "float",
barely touching the sword grip.
To swing the sword at your foe's head (a blow that will land
someplace between the temple and the ear), start by slighly pivoting off
your hind foot, then turn your leg, then your hip, then your shoulder, and
then uncoil your arm starting with your upper arm, then your elbow, then
your forearm. As you uncoil your arm, you turn your wrist over so it is
facing upwards, and the sword is naturally swinging in an arc away from
your body.
When your arm is completely extended and your sword is naturally
arcing so that it is in line with your arm, you snap your wrist and clench
your fingers to add a final "snap" to your blow.
Then recover your sword by immediately yanking back your arm so
that your hand passes directly over your forehead. The momentum of the
sword to carry it over your head, and back to the "cocked" position just
off of your shoulder.
A common way to describe the motion of the body is to imagine
that you're throwing a baseball (but with different arm movements).
A common way to describe the motion of the arm is to imagine that
you have a bowl of soup in your hand and you want to move it so that it
passes directly under your foe's nose, but you clench your hand just
before it passes in front of your opponent's ear.
Are you confused? Good.)
Thomas Barnes
Robert Brown
In <4rk8rn$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ror...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice) writes:
>In article <4rjkjp$4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>
>take a hit to the arm or thigh so that you can stab to the chest or gut.
>The traditional wisdom for a knife fight is "The winner goes to the
>hospital, the loser goes to the morgue."
> This wisdom is not exactly new, George Silver (ca. 1600) said that
>a knife fight was a form of mutual suicide (this before antibiotics and a
>decent understanding of abdominal or chest surgery).
>
:} The only even moderately sane way to win a knife fight, in my
cowardly opinion (well, aside from bringing a gun....) is to stay on the
defensive and slash the other guy's hand or wrist every time he makes a
move at you. Wait for blood loss to incapacitate him.
>> > I figure that 2 tables--one for ranged combat, one for melee are
>>complicated enough, but hopefully not too complicated.... :}
>
> A simpler way to do it would be to require the use of hit
>locations for melee combat. Ranged combat, wild swings, and things like
>shrapnel use the current hit location chart, which roughly mirrors the
>surface area of various parts of the body.
>
> Thomas Barnes
>
I thought about something like that, or requiring the character to aim/defend/
concentrate on the round before an aimed attack, but I do like being able
to place shots and wanted at all costs to avoid adding extra steps to combat.
It's intimidating enough to new players as it is...especially refugees from
other game systems who get offended at the notion that a sword thrust
through the body can incapacitate even a good fighter.... :}
Sue and Sean
Thus spake pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix, one of the legendary SCAdian fighters and
>"inventor" of the unblockable "Bellatrix rising snap."
Which is why all SCA combats are won by the first to throw one of
those "unblockable" swings.
Kinda like the "Picard Maneuver," against which there is no defense.
--
Susan and Sean (order optional) An honest politician is
S & S Enterprises one who stays bought.
sa...@netcom.com
silv...@chaos.connect-bbs.com
RM> "In a knife fight, one man will be hurt very badly. The other will die."
RM>:} The only even moderately sane way to win a knife fight, in my
RM>cowardly opinion (well, aside from bringing a gun....) is to stay on the
RM>defensive and slash the other guy's hand or wrist every time he makes a
RM>move at you. Wait for blood loss to incapacitate him.
Personally, I prefer the sheet metal chest guard an knife
throwing skill as the easy way to shorten the fight to your advantage.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-CONNECTions BBS-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
telnet://connect-bbs.com
http://amber.connect-bbs.com
dialin: 316.682.7346
rosalyn rice
In article <sandsDu...@netcom.com>, Sue and Sean <sa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Thus spake pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>>Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix, one of the legendary SCAdian fighters and
>>"inventor" of the unblockable "Bellatrix rising snap."
It's blockable.
>Which is why all SCA combats are won by the first to throw one of
>those "unblockable" swings.
"One-shot" kills in SCA fighting are very rare and usually happen
when you have woefully unmatched combattants. Two extremely skilled
fighters can hack away at each other for 5-10 minutes before one of them
gets a decent hit in. (More typically an SCA bout lasts 30 seconds to two
minutes depending on how much time the fighters spend moving for position.)
Thomas Barnes
Bradley Smith
In article <4rkli6$6...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Robert Brown <rmb...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>In <4rk8rn$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ror...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu
>(rosalyn rice) writes:
>> Useless but neat factoid: A viable tactic in knife fighting is to
>>take a hit to the arm or thigh so that you can stab to the chest or gut.
>>The traditional wisdom for a knife fight is "The winner goes to the
>>hospital, the loser goes to the morgue."
In Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, Book Two (The Great Hunt), the
voice of martial wisdom, Lan, keeps yammering on about "Sheathing the
Sword." What that boils down to is accepting a wounding hit to deliver a
fatal one. The full title of the idea is "Sheathing the Sword in the
Flesh." I think.
>> This wisdom is not exactly new, George Silver (ca. 1600) said that
>>a knife fight was a form of mutual suicide (this before antibiotics and a
>>decent understanding of abdominal or chest surgery).
Ah, but it's so *macho!* ;-)
> "In a knife fight, one man will be hurt very badly. The other will die."
>:} The only even moderately sane way to win a knife fight, in my
>cowardly opinion (well, aside from bringing a gun....) is to stay on the
>defensive and slash the other guy's hand or wrist every time he makes a
>move at you. Wait for blood loss to incapacitate him.
If you can, wrap a jacket or something around a forearm before
trying to puree someone. That way, the hits you take while parrying will
either get hung up or have some of the force absorbed by the impromptu
armor. Not like I would know this from experience, as I, for one, fully
intend to bring a submachine gun to a knife fight... ;-)
Brad
--
************************************************************************
*The Few....The Proud....The Puppybrothers! Bradley N. Smith *
* Look for a recruiter near you! har...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu *
************************************************************************
Robert Brown
In <tcpnntpd.16.7.6.11.19...@chaos.connect-bbs.com>, <silv...@chaos.connect-bbs.com> writes:
>RM> "In a knife fight, one man will be hurt very badly. The other will die."
>RM>:} The only even moderately sane way to win a knife fight, in my
>RM>cowardly opinion (well, aside from bringing a gun....) is to stay on the
>RM>defensive and slash the other guy's hand or wrist every time he makes a
>RM>move at you. Wait for blood loss to incapacitate him.
>
> Personally, I prefer the sheet metal chest guard an knife
>throwing skill as the easy way to shorten the fight to your advantage.
Different styles, I guess. The way I learned it, the first rule of knife
fighting was to not throw your weapon away....
Patrick Juola
In article <sandsDu...@netcom.com> sa...@netcom.com (Sue and Sean) writes:
>Thus spake pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>>Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix, one of the legendary SCAdian fighters and
>>"inventor" of the unblockable "Bellatrix rising snap."
>
>those "unblockable" swings.
>
Something like that. It helps that only Duke Sir Paul knows how to
throw those snaps and the rest of us usually end up looking foolish
as someone parries them.
Hey, I just report the legends, I don't make them.
Patrick
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <4rk6c3$l...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, rmb...@cyberramp.net
(Robert Brown) wrote:
> SCA jargon. You basically hold the sword behind your head, blade hanging
> down between your shoulder blades before snapping it out towards your
> opponent.
Gosh, I'd call that "let's take forever with the blow and get killed",
myself. Try it with the hilt in front of your shoulder and the tip of the
blade no further back than your ear or shoulder. MUCH faster and easier
to recover. This is described by Signore Morozzo in his "Opera Nova"
(16th century). You do have to have sturdy wrists for it.
Of course, they consider using a sword to parry as an "advanced technique"
in the SCA, too...
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <4rkaaq$r...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
ror...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice) wrote:
> (Doomed attempt to describe the technique: Stand in a slightly
Okay, that sounds better than another description. I'd call that a cut
a-la Signore Morozzo, myself, since Morozzo described a similar technique
in his 16th century "Opera Nova".
> To swing the sword at your foe's head (a blow that will land
> someplace between the temple and the ear), start by slighly pivoting off
> your hind foot, then turn your leg, then your hip, then your shoulder, and
The body pivot is not as good an idea as beginning with the arm snap and
then stepping into your opponent as your blade descends, timing things to
that blade strikes exactly as your stepping foot comes down. You can also
do this on a short lunge. Blade FIRST, body SECOND. All the sword
Masters of the 13th and later centuries taught this.
> Then recover your sword by immediately yanking back your arm so
> that your hand passes directly over your forehead. The momentum of the
> sword to carry it over your head, and back to the "cocked" position just
> off of your shoulder.
Or you could ward in tierza, with the hilt near and forward of your
hip--but that takes more wrist strength than what you describe (George
Silver's "High Ward", according to his 1599 manuscript). Silver also
advocated leading with the sword, not the body.
> A common way to describe the motion of the body is to imagine
> that you're throwing a baseball (but with different arm movements).
Which my Maestro will tell me can get you killed if your opponent is smart
enough to thrust on you. Sword first, body second. Make sure that your
sword is a threat before your body even twitches.
> A common way to describe the motion of the arm is to imagine that
> you have a bowl of soup in your hand and you want to move it so that it
> passes directly under your foe's nose, but you clench your hand just
> before it passes in front of your opponent's ear.
Good description of the hand snap.
Another poster called it "unblockable". Perhaps, but I wouldn't use a
block to defend against it. I'd void and, being left-handed, would thrust
into his ribs with a punta riversa, or if I felt particularly fancy, I'd
do an intaglo or even passata soto on the guy.
Lord Jamie FitzGeorge
In article <4rmns4$4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, Robert Brown
<rmb...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
> Different styles, I guess. The way I learned it, the first rule
> of knife fighting was to not throw your weapon away....
Ah, but that assumes you only have ONE...
Peter V. Dell'Orto
>>In <4rk8rn$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ror...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu
>>(rosalyn rice) writes:
>
>>> Useless but neat factoid: A viable tactic in knife fighting is to
>>>take a hit to the arm or thigh so that you can stab to the chest or gut.
>>>The traditional wisdom for a knife fight is "The winner goes to the
>>>hospital, the loser goes to the morgue."
My martial arts instructor (with some real-life knife fighting experience thanks to
the Marines) has drilled it into our heads that the brain will regard a deep arm cut
and a deep torso cut the same way-as an excuse to go into shock. Assuming he is
correct, I believe you better take the hit the same time you kill the guy, then start
crawling towards the nearest first aid kit.
> If you can, wrap a jacket or something around a forearm before
>trying to puree someone. That way, the hits you take while parrying will
>either get hung up or have some of the force absorbed by the impromptu
>armor. Not like I would know this from experience, as I, for one, fully
>intend to bring a submachine gun to a knife fight... ;-)
Ah yes. Overkill. I define a "fight" as a special type of combat were you can get
hurt in the process. I like to avoid "fights". *Combat*, on the other hand, is
okay, so long as you have the knife and I have the SMG...
Peter V. Dell'Orto
dell...@cris.com
"Something's wrong 'cause my mind is fading,
And everywhere I look there's a dead end waiting"
Jim O'Neil
In article <4rjkjp$4...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, rmb...@cyberramp.net
(Robert Brown) wrote:
> :} Yeah, you're right of course. But in general, the limbs are much
> easier to hit than the body, not the other way around, regardless of style.
> Even if the person has his sword arm cocked back for a Bellatrix snap,
> he has to expose it to strike a blow. And it's even more obvious in
> fencing and knife fighting, where almost all the wounds are going to be
> to the arm or hand against a halfway competent opponent.
>
This is true in Olympic Fencing, but less so in 16th Century Fencing with
a real 3.5 pound rapier ... it is a bit slower and is fought with both
hands in use ...the off-hand either has a weapon, a shield or is used to
parry the opponents blade [cuts are prefferable to skewering]... the
original use of the cape was to protect the hand/arm ...later the other
movements & tricks came along. Head and body hits are fairly common ...
say a third of all hits.
"Dis-arming" your oponent means taking both arms, so he can't fight ...
it's not that hard to do and avoids a "killing" that may have ugly
consequences.
Jim O'Neil