youtube.com
>player is sneaking up on guard
>gets right behind him without the person noticing
>I stab him in the back
you can't do that back attacks never existed
>okay I stab him in the throat
much better
whats your excuse for continuing to allow back attacks in your games now that /ourguy/ has debunked them?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
twitter.com
No one cares about you making a Lindybeige hate thread.
So what was his involvement with Time Commanders?
So the best way to deal with a monster is just to turn your back to them and covering your neck so that you're invincible?
>So the best way to deal with a monster is just to turn your back to them and covering your neck so that you're invincible?
Yeah, if you're a Titan.
I mean, to be fair, that's true; literally stabbing someone in the back isn't particularly effective unless you do it like seven or eight times. Single, stealthy kills from behind is shoving your knife in the side of their trachea peeling it out.
Hell, actually watching the video Lindy is talking about stabbing a person in the back right as they turn & run from massed combat.
The closest equivalent would be the AoO you get in D&D when someone moves out of a threatened square, which the game even agrees on as when you fully commit to using a Withdraw action, you don't get it, not a sneak attack.
So congrats OP, you're retarded for reading a title and not actually watching even the first 2 minutes of the video.
You know perfectly well that's false.
What excuse? I've never for a single moment pretended to run a historical fiction game.
Boy howdy I'm glad this friendless autist looking faggot has rewrote the timeline so that all those people stabbed in the back are perfectly fine
Also stop posting this shit
At best that makes the video's title false advertising/clickbait. Much like his "cavalry is a stupid idea" video. What he meant to say is "actually sitting on top of a horse (as opposed to chariot-drawn cavalry which for some fucking reason isn't cavalry even though he'd realize that it's cavalry if he'd stop hating everything related to France for just five seconds and realize what the word "cheval" means, pro-tip: it doesn't mean "sitting on top of") is a stupid idea as long as we limit ourselves to early horses, and then it only remains a stupid idea until we start breeding horses to become big and strong enough to carry at least one fully grown man in heavy armor and start creating saddles and/or stirrups that protect the rider from falling off his horse during impact, after which cavalry becomes such a great idea that we won't fully abandon it until the first world war which revolutionized pretty much every aspect of warfare". Or, if we want to go back to the old Lindybeige formula: "a few points about (ancient) cavalry". But why bother being honest when you can rack in those sweet youtube shekels?
Also, is it me or does his beard look a lot scruffier and more unkempt than usual? Like you can see his descent into madness. I wouldn't be surprised if he's arrested by French border control for planning a "post-Brexit farewell gift" within a few months.
It's worth noting he's using a weird term; he totally means disengaging attacks, and he's absolutely right about them. Running away from a melee fight where both opponents are on foot is, almost invariably, a safe bet.
...
Ceasar lives to this day.
>Running away from a melee fight where both opponents are on foot is, almost invariably, a safe bet.
It's safer than ACTUALLY being backstabbed (ie. you don't see it coming and you get a knife to a presumably vulnerable part of the back). However, I wouldn't say it's a safe bet per se. Especially when unarmored you can still get a pretty nasty cut to the back. Perhaps not one that outright drops you, but one that could be lethal over time.
Still, when you're outmatched (or outnumbered with hordes of angry men popping up behind your current opponent) running away is indeed the best option. In combat scenarios the fact that you're wearing at the very least very thick cloth helps mitigate the risks.
To be fair, nigga got stabbed so often even a group of the most incompetent stabbers in the world would've killed him.
I watch Lindy, in this video you can see that he does not know what to say, other than "Rouge should not have backstab, because backstabs don't happen n' shit". All RPG games have withdraw option, and that is holding your shield/weapon out to prevent them from attacking you by posing a treath. His favourite Runquest does this the best, as you can try to attack the dude running if you want to (does not give you minuses, well guess nothing is perfect is it). All in all video is shit, he has no inspiration and just wanted some quick bucks for no fuss. Go sleep Lindy you are boring when you are drug depraved.
If you watch the video you realise this isn't actually what he's saying.
Also in general I think things like opportunity attacks more exist as a game balance thing, letting you lock down positioning rather than it being nigh on impossible to ever exert control over a grid in tactical combat.
If you ever want to be entertained and educated about random stuff by people who actually know shit:
Search on youtube for 'response to Lindybeige'.
>Running away from a melee fight where both opponents are on foot is, almost invariably, a safe bet.
Most casualties occur after one side breaks and runs. Of course, cavalry riding you down is a big part of this.
>Most casualties occur after one side breaks and runs
Battle_of_Muret.jpg
This is tge same moron who thinks the bipod its self us what makes machine guns "more lethal". Like you get vadtly better fps and force out of a gun as it stands on a bipod/tripod....
Friendly reminder that Ladybulge is historically inaccurate himself and therefore must be exiled to the moon.
Being more accurate pretty directly makes them more lethal though, in practical terms. Sure, it doesn't affect each individual bullet, but the greater control and lessened recoil means you can send more bullets where they're needed more effectively.
>Playing a historically inaccurate character
Could be fun. Reminds me of the description of a conquistador helmet in Team Fortress 2.
>authentic conquistador's helmet, excavated from the actual grave of a sixteenth century French cosplayer.
I sort of agree with him on the subject of back attacks in combat as a result of fleeing. I recall that at Visby, the huge majority of wounds found on the corpses were on the head, and from the front. Most of the guys were killed either in battle, or were executed while helpless. When you chase people down, they probably usually try to face you at the last second to beg for mercy or defend themselves, actual backstab wounds are pretty rare.
But assassination, taking down sentries, etc, those are different entirely, and he doesn't really cover those. Stabbing people in the back obviously works if you sneak up on them, there were whole manuals about how to do it properly in WWII for commandos. Germans started carrying their rifles differently to protect their backs from knives for just that reason. Supposedly this worked so well that they had to start attacking the jugular instead of the back, which was harder.
You're a tard. The video's subject matter is about attacking someone's rear in a fight where both combatants are already aware of each other. Not sneaking up on someone and backstabbing them. Your example has no bearing on anything the bearded douchenozzle is rambling about.
...
