When will spears and other polearms get their due in fantasy gaming?

8th edition warhammer fantasy

When people start playing games featuring spears and poleaxes

Danke, mi amigo.

See Fantasy Craft.

...

what makes spears a good weapon? cheap, effective force multiplier, used to easily defend against better-equipped foes with more training

what makes a weapon a prestige weapon? expensive and requires a life of luxury to train, used to press the attack or in duels where individual initiative is more valued

as long as fantasy is an individual power fantasy, and as a genre it's born from borderline /pol/ tier fanfiction and predicated on a delta from reality that one man actually CAN be worth a legion, spears are not going to get respect, because the spear is the weapon of 2,000pp of magical items dropping to a 10-copper pike.

Not enough magic polearms/spears.

When you have enough player characters to run formations instead of individual combatants.

We go around with halberds. One-handed sword are for pussied.

...

I choose flank with halbred infantry.

4E greatspears were amazing.

>spears.
>not pikes

Come at me bro.

When you start playing a more simulationist system like GURPS or BRP

Go big or go home.

>used to press the attack or in duels where individual initiative is more valued
Ah, another moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's discussing. Typical.

>go home
Way ahead of you.

well I'm not holding my breath, but I have some pikes that will probably never see a game

when designers, players and masters feel like it
Swords, axes, maces and hammers just feel cooler for me, y'know? Stepping down to spear in the name of realism doesn't feel like tha thing for me.

...

When the idiots who made the damage dies for weapons in 5e swap their stats with the longsword stats.

He said, condescendingly, while providing nothing of substance himself.

>landsknecht are elite super soldiers

why is this a meme? they were just flamboyant.

Go ahead, find me a major dueling tradition that uses spears. The closest are some Indian variants which include a closing round with javelins.

This is core to the reasons duels exist; as formalized non-war combat, fighting with sidearms is a way to maintain clear boundaries and adjucate disputes without moving to full musters, whether it's the European tradition of (sometimes overgrown) daggers and pistols,the Japanese tradition of an entirely obsolete badge of office specifically to distinguish from proper war kit, the Plains Indian tradition of sending their best warriors into skirmishes with nonlethal weapons, or anything in between.

>Go ahead, find me a major dueling tradition that uses spears.
Almost every Medieval and Renaissance treatise on weapons brings up spears as a major dueling weapon.

>Purple Rhino Knights
>Do not actually ride purple rhinos

Feels like a missed opportunity.

Don't get caught up in his ignorant bullshit. This thread will just explode with him spreading blatant misinfo and you having to do his research for him just stop his retarded lies.

why are spears so aesthetic?

Beauty is power. The ancient Greeks knew this.

...

Because they represent the penis

>that stale copypasta based on some moron's extremely half-assed knowledge of ancient Roman military history
lol DEUS VULT you cucks I'm practicing roman infantry tactics for my next alt-right protest!

I was waiting for this post. It's fucking garbage.

Medieval manuscripts are a mountain of bullshit fanfiction. Do you seriously believe that ki is a weapon, Dragon Ball-tier fuckery? Because there's plenty serious consideration of that in Japanese contemporaries.

Ok, it seems there is some confusion on this subject. all together now:

>Spears are for formations
>Swords are for individuals

As most fantasy favors individual combat over formation vs. formation swords tend to be comparatively over-represented.

>ki is a weapon, Dragon Ball-tier fuckery
It would be very funny to see European treatises with this sort of crap. Can you post them?

Wrong.

>
Unless it literally says "focus your ki into an energy ball and launch it at your opponent" then it is probably not going to be all that wrong. Where a modern training manual may tell you to remain in control and focus your breathing a medieval japanese one will tell you to focus your ki.

Reach is nearly everything. Unless your sword happens to be a montante (which found excellent use as a frontline weapon) a polearm is superior.

sure. lemme find one that seriously considers the spear a dueling weapon, something which is basically unheard of in historically attested duels as opposed to nonlethal combat sports, and i'll post it for you as an example of "i heard of someone using it so i'm gonna pad pages and add checklist points".

>that seriously considers the spear a dueling weapon
user..

>When will spears and other polearms get their due in fantasy gaming?
When people actually start giving a shit about them. The spear is the weapon of the grognard history nerd who thinks he's enlightened for his preference in sticks he whacks random shit with.

Hey, spears are popular in wargames (except D&D)

The worst ki fuckery comes from relatively modern misunderstandings of complex semi-philosophical techniques to control breathing and transfer of energy in striking. People saw the metaphor they were using as the reality of what they were doing.

Considering the duelling shield was a real thing and that duels are in no way representative of a "real" fight I'm not shre what your point is. So maybe the sword was a popular weapon in fights were there rules about what weapons you could use - doesn't mean it is more effective than a spear.

>Find a way to make an several year old bit of amusing shit talking about current /pol/itics

I think you need to calm down user.

It would be very hard to become an accomplished duelist, considering the death rate.

jaredkirby.com/rare-fencing-books/historic-treatises-and-manuals/
There are plenty of books and sections dedicated to polarm dueling.

Most duelling fatalities were angry untrained idiots stabbing each other dozens of time. Most fencing is learning how to stay alive so a modicum of training should make it relatively easy to at least survive a duel, even if you lose.

Yeah, you'll just be maimed for life.

>montante
It's called a longsword. Insisting on foreign terminology for no reason is the first sign of incompetence.

The second sign is ignoring how swords remained the primary sidearm and main weapon for millennia is the other. Yes reach is everything, mainly a sword being a better weapon for close combat than a spear is.

Reach is everything XXXXDDD, okay so why do infighters beat outfighters regularly?

that's exactly my point, though. swords were chosen for single combat because they were ineffective war weapons except for cavalry sabers for cleaning up routed formations -> a swordfight is a fight authorities can "let go" as unlikely to boil over into general unrest, and a sword is a weapon people can wear as a just-in-case sidearm without being outwardly armed for war -> also peasants aren't allowed to carry anytime but war -> our cultural examples of people going mano-a-mano are nobles using swords and the odd mace as an improvised weapon or blood taboo -> when we make a game about playing a ~hero~ who 1v1s he gets a sword because that's our traditional 1v1 weapon for cultural elites who are allowed to have lethal weapons outside of times of war.

should spears be a superior melee weapon from a raw dice perspective? sure. but it's as lost a battle as the clusterfuck that is fantasy rpg armor.

A longsword in common parlance is a far shorter weapon than a montante. A montante is a specific weapon whereas if we're all honest longsword means whatever the fuck you want as it is not a specific weapon.

And you're right. A sword is a sidearm, but not because it's good but rather because it's portable and decent.

This is 100% truth

Ah I see. Yeah that's a totally reasonable point.
It has lead to some unfortunate assumption in popular culture but eh fuck the uneducated they can think what they want.

Halberds are cool tho.
Dismounting an enemy horseman with the hook of your halberd then impaling his chest with the spear part must be satisfying af

There are many kinds of duel. The duelling shield comes form judicial duels, and may have been an attempt to level the playing field by introducing gear neither participant is likely to be familiar with (I guess god would find it too much work to bother if he had to overcome a skill advantage to give victory to the righteous side).

Some duels would be quite formal affairs, with quite official rules for various things. This too changes things, such as introducing very long rapiers when the rules ensure a context where such could be useful, but doesn't ban them. Others aren't even official duels, having no spoken rule sat all, but are nevertheless bound by ironclad rules and traditions: academicroom.com/article/honor-masculinity-and-ritual-knife-fighting-nineteenth-century-greece

And many duels would fall in the span from street fight by agreement (compare with some modern day sports hooligans agreeing to meet this or there to fight, far away from the arenas and the police presence there) to thinly veiled ambushes and assassinations. A more formal affair could easily degrade into such as well, as both participants have their own entourage of young roosters along to spectate. Blood runs hot, insults fly, things escalate.

The goal of the duel will also vary considerably, even within these groups, as will the structures meant to get us to that goal. A duel can be fought to first blood, submission, or to death. In a judicial duel the looser may be facing execution if he survives. There may be seconds in place to stop a duel when it has reached its intended goal, who may fulfil this task or pile in themselves, or there may be nothing but the fighters themselves to decide when to stop.

Thus a duel can be anything from a somewhat safe contest with live weapons, to a very serious fight where no quarter can be expected, and even running away may no longer be an option. The question becomes, which form of duelling are we talking about?

>also peasants aren't allowed to carry anytime but war
Hi Japan how life? The rest are doing fine without your silliness.

I find it amusing that people assume only the rich had swords whereas in places like Medieval England at times it was a requirement for large parts of the male population to own them and they became so cheap nearly every man who was paid for his work (which was most) could afford one easily.

>nobles using swords and the odd mace as an improvised weapon or blood taboo
You mean 'clerics don't spill blood' meme?

I find it amusing that people like you completely ignore historical-temporal context and make sweeping generalizations about over a millennia of human history where circumstances varied wildly and technology/society changed rapidly.

And even in places like Germany where arming swords and longswords were banned for peasants, they got around the rules by using curved blades and calling them knives (messers).

>swords were chosen for single combat because they were ineffective war weapons except for cavalry sabers for cleaning up routed formations ->
Nonsense. Plenty of people all over the world have been really keen on bringing swords to war ever sine they first started making the damn things. It's often not the only weapon you bring, but whatever else you bring, odds are that if you can, you will also bring a sword.

>a swordfight is a fight authorities can "let go" as unlikely to boil over into general unrest
Authorities were often very much opposed to any non-judicial duelling no matter what weapons were used. It disturbed the peace, and killed suitable soldiers in a way that said authorities gained nothing from. Tournaments were likewise thought ill of at times, until the authorities themselves got hooked on participating.

> also peasants aren't allowed to carry anytime but war
So the laws everywhere from the bronze age until pretty much today have been the same? Rubbish. Here in Sweden for example peasants were free to own swords, it was at times even encouraged. Though in the turmoil of the early 15th century there was ban on being armed (any weapon) at public court, but that applied to everyone including noblemen.

>or blood taboo
Such illusions wouldn't be held by anyone familiar with the use of maces and the like. Just an unarmed fight can get bloody enough. Grab a mace and you may need to scrub the ceiling clean afterwards.

Even there it's basically an Edo period (+unification years) thing. Before that there's not even any clear distinction of who's a farmer and who is, for example, samurai.

Enjoying my vacation in Friedrich Barbarossa's lands.
avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/peace.asp

When I'm done here, perhaps I'll visit ancien regime France.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nobility#Privileges

Aye and I gave an example showing it was not a universal rule as many assume it is, especially in Medieval times which are commonly the target of this misconception.

See Messer was a thing and featured in treatises

>spears were never used for duels!!!11
FUCK
OFF

>A longsword in common parlance is a far shorter weapon than a montante. A montante is a specific weapon whereas if we're all honest longsword means whatever the fuck you want as it is not a specific weapon.

"Historical (15th to 16th century) terms for this type of sword included Spanish espadón, montante, or mandoble, Italian spadone or spada longa (lunga), Portuguese montante and Middle French passot."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

"A montante is, strictly speaking, a twohanded sword of specifically Iberian origin, somewhat smaller and lighter than the stereotypical German Zweihaender of the XVIth century. It has
straight or slightly downturned quillons, and sometimes side rings, with or without a secondary
guard, and lends itself easily to the use of what the German school calls “half-sword” techniques in which the blade is gripped with the left hand."
oakeshott.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Figueiredo_Montante_Translation_Myers_and_Hick_v2.pdf

"According to the current definition from the Real Academia de la Lengua Española dictionary a montante is, in the meaning that interests us, a «large sword with wide quillions which must be wielded in both hands, which only has since been used by masters-at-arms to separate fencers showing excessive enthusiasm» (our translation). More succinctly, the Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa includes an archaic meaning for montante as a «large sword of old which was wielded in both hands»."
hroarr.com/an-overview-of-the-iberian-montante/

It's just another two-handed sword. I'm so sorry.

>And you're right. A sword is a sidearm, but not because it's good but rather because it's portable and decent.
"Let's see, what weapon do I want to lug around in a combat situation? The optimal spear or the non-optimal sword. My life is gonna depend on this choice. Hmmmm.... I take the sword, despite it clearly being the inferior weapon!"

But that's what the other guy did, we were making fun of him and user was giving an example.

>they got around the rules by using curved blades and calling them knives
Wasn't it because messers had one edge and therefore weren't considered 'real swords'? I'm not a specialist on the topic obviously.

Ah the messer thing is apparently a bit of a myth - I was told it was actually a trick used by the knifemakers guild to undercut the swordsmith guild. German guild politics are amusing and terrifying.

congratulations, you are arguing against my assertion that swords are a sidearm for nobles 1v1in by pointing out that peasants 1v1ed with something different and more plausibly tool-like

That amount of pikes isn't going to do jack shit to anybody.

>took the time to strap 4 (four) shields onto his body
>couldn't be assed to put on a fucking helmet

If you must choose between a cuirass and a helmet, take the helmet.

>
"A montante is, strictly speaking, a twohanded sword of specifically Iberian origin, somewhat smaller and lighter than the stereotypical German Zweihaender of the XVIth century. It has
straight or slightly downturned quillons, and sometimes side rings, with or without a secondary guard
I'm kinda seeing my point proven here

No, they didn't. The legal wrangling about the messer wasn't about any ban on carrying, it was about manufacturing monopolies. The Germanic towns usually had a very developed guild system, and with that plenty of rule son who could make what. In this case, the cutlers had a monopoly on making swords, so the knife makers made big "knives".

Keep the judicial situation in mind here. If you're a peasant trying to dodge a sword ban, you'll be judged by the nobleman who don't want you to rebel. In ton, you're either lacking social standing or an outsider, and will be judged by people jealously guarding their privileges, including that to carry a sword. Hair splitting won't get you very far here. A peasant banned form owning a sword wouldn't get a sword sized messer instead, he'd get a large knife that was still considered a knife by the relevant judicial authority.

>tfw even in medieval Europe, people still had to break up the occasional thotfight

>longsword means whatever the fuck you want as it is not a specific weapon.

A long sword is just any long sword.

"Longsword" is rather more specific.

And yet the oakshotte typology exists. It was a weapon used over hundreds of years by many different people for verg different purposes. But they are at least similar weapons - the broadsword has no such luck

Swords are not professionally classified with terms such as "longsword". That's slang. Fact is, historical weapons were rarely codified and there is a lot of variation. Therefore, weapons are classified by handle and blade types.

Also Poland-Lithuania, it was forbidden for non nobles to carry swords(sabre) so burghers often carried a cane as surrogate ceremonial weapon.

The existence of typologies to group items based on specific criteria does not exclude the existence of a less detailed but still somewhat specific nomenclature. With typologies often leaving a few swords or whatnot falling through the cracks (Records of the Medieval Sword includes a number of "Unclassified" swords), such can be quite useful. It isn't always the case either that we have any well known typology to work with, if any at all. Many different types within a typology can also be untied in function and purpose, justifying a shared name. Even if the typology covered every sword it'd be quite a bother having to rattle off all the relevant Oakeshott types whenever we're to mention longswords.

Completely useless post.
You asserted in that
>A long sword is just any long sword.
>"Longsword" is rather more specific.
Which is untrue. A long sword is really just any long sword. It's not a specific term.

...

Tell me fag, how many dicks do you slurp every day?

Why would you pack a longsword on horseback? Don't you need to two-hand that shit?

>A long sword is really just any long sword. It's not a specific term.

Yes? That's what I said. You even quoted that part. My point there was that "long sword" and "longsword" are not the same. A longsword is a somewhat specific weapon. If a non specific term for long swords, then "long sword" would be the closest one available.

Longsword can be generally be used with either one or both hands, depending on the situation and what techniques you intend to employ. One hand on horseback (for single handed swords, cavalry ones tend to be larger than those meant for fighting on foot), primarily two hands on foot.

>Yes? That's what I said.
>"Longsword" is rather more specific.
Wrong. By the way, long sword and longsword are completely interchangeable. There is no consensus on the term, because it's just slang.

>A longsword (also spelled as long sword or long-sword)
>The term "longsword" is ambiguous, and refers to the "bastard sword" only where the late medieval to Renaissance context is implied. "Longsword" in other contexts has been used to refer to Bronze Age swords, Migration period and Viking swords as well as the early modern dueling sword.
>The "longsword" type exists in a morphological continuum with the medieval knightly sword and the Renaissance-era Zweihänder.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword goes into pretty good detail about why it's a bullshit ambiguous slang term. Give it up, you're just plain wrong. Take this is a learning experience, tripfag.