Tell me Veeky Forums, how do you do more publicly obscure yet proper ways to use a sword?

To stunt on some dumb loli

>tfw you will never arrest an entire army

There's plenty we could charge them with, like behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, conspiracy to cause an affray, going equipped to commit a crime, threatening behaviour, loitering with intent, and travelling for the purposes of committing a crime.

kek

Source?

I don't. Most people don't know dick about swords or how to use them so being the only one in the room trying to wave that dick around is awkward.

>going equipped to commit a crime
>he's holding his sword upside down
>book 'em

>swords are the ideal tool for disabling nobles in heavy armour

Bitch please.

Polearms and fucking maces are designed to be actual can openers.

Go home to your wife and kid, Vimes

>that one guy who uses Mordschlag on the battlefield and ruins everyones fun.

Attached: 1519197974507.jpg (222x206, 9K)

So this is the power of westaboos?

Does he job to the eastern character to show that in the end the katana is superior?

Honestly longswords are the much more interesting sidearm, like is said there's so much more a character can do with them.

Honestly that's pretty great.

Westaboos are Bestaboos

Attached: this is bullshit you can't ground spiderman.jpg (996x700, 136K)

Attached: KF.gif (310x191, 1.55M)

And the katana guy won anyway, of course, right? Because Japanese are too chauvinist to admit that some foreign weapon is superior to their one thousand times folded, pure Yamato steel.

Don't you mean nationalist?

>Killing is one thing, but murder is a crime
damn

Nationalism is, as far as I know, considering you country superior to all others because some certain reasons; chauvinism is considering your country superior to all others because yes and fuck you. I think Japanese are the later.

I wish somebody could edit this so the katana cut straight through the sword in a really edgy, funny way.

it actually makes sense
keep in mind that you didnt want to kill enemy noblemen, but take them captive and ransom them off
in fact going straight for killing blows would be a good way of starting a feud while capturing an enemy, treating them honorably and being a good host before they were released was a good renown booster

ssry didnt mean to tag you but rather

Because reality hurts you too much?

Attached: two-pieces.jpg (2048x1536, 826K)

>keep in mind that you didnt want to kill enemy noblemen, but take them captive and ransom them off
The only thing noblemen are good for is dying so you can spread their wealth among common men.

sure
which is why commen men invented the Godendag and the Billhook, weapons to end a knight.
But Knights were the ones using Longswords and they wouldnt want to kill a nobleman if he could take him hostage.

Nah, both are pretty blind. The words are essentially synonyms—both boil down to “exessively loyal to a group”—and the only major difference is the connotation: nowadays, “chauvanism” is mostly used to describe low-key or condescending rather than aggressive prejudice while “nationalism” is mostly leveled at the extremist “my country can do no wrong, every action is justified” types.

Hey if I find a fucking longsword after some dead noble drops it I'm taking and using it, fuck off noblefucker.

>implying sumptuary laws wouldn’t nail your ass HARD.

>dead nobles
>enforcing laws
N O B L E F U C K E R G E T O U T

....source?

>sumptuary laws

Wouldn't apply to weapons. In fact, landsknechts were exempt from sumptuary laws since they would often die in battle.

Generally speaking, some countries would have laws to keep swords out of peasant hands but A) it wasn't universal with countries like England, Scotland, and the various German duchies not having them and B) didn't apply if you were a man-at-arms.

Becoming a man-at-arms just required impressing a noble enough to get hired full time. Even guards qualified as men-at-arms.

i think his rampant murder boner for Nobles would be of a higher concern to any authorities

He was disarmed, and grabbed the blade of his sword to recover it. You don't always pick attacks based on what's efficient, you do what the situation allows you to do.

What sane man doesn't have an omnipresent need to kill the wealthy and politically powerful?

I'm with Nobody is going to enforce technique rules in the middle of a battle.

Still, it was rare to kill a man in full plate even with a murder stroke. Most likely you'd knock them out or inflict serious injury but a full suit of steel is damned effective at keeping the wearer alive.

Why do you assume anyone who wants to see an edit of the katana cutting through the sword is a weeb?

I just think it would be funny after seeing the gif of the katana getting smashed to fuck and back edited so it went straight through. You could even add in animu flames on the side of the screen and a close up of the fencer-mask guy's face with a bunch of jappo text around it like it was the freeze frame in an anime.

There's also the chance that one of the popes tried banning it like they tried with crossbows.

The use of crossbows was only banned against other Christians, its all good against heathens.

it wasnt so much an enforced rule, but rather something any sane knight avoided unless it was a true life and death struggle
better to incapacitate and capture a noble for the ransom

well yeah, who gives a shit about heathens?

I can say that after had played Witcher I realise that carry 2-3 diffirent swords may be a good idea, katana for dealing unarmed or lightly armored person, longsword/twohanded sword for heavy armored person, shortsword/longdagger for real close range combat.

You would be better carrying a longsword, war-pick/mace and dagger

This is something dragoons did. Carry a lance + a saber + some vaariation of an estoic + a gun just in case

This shit is cringy as fuck.

A good mix for a knight is a Lance, a Longsword, a pick/crowbill/mace/axe and knife.

Basically, Lance for mounted work, a Longsword for something that works in any situation, a weapon for breaking open armor and smashing shields and finally a knife for gutting the poor sods you knock on their ass.

True but I take considering of if you want to play as pure swordfighter.

So's yer ma.

Because they are a bunch of insecure assholes that NEED to have something to bash at to feel good with themselves.

It's like you don't know where you are, friend.

A good mix for a knight is GUNS and MORE GUNS.

Attached: 1351216214229.jpg (1360x880, 999K)

ur dad a lesbian

>Forbidden to use in the battlefield

Attached: MY SIDES.jpg (225x225, 12K)

Anime needs their FORBIDDEN TECHNIQUES that you unseal only at the dramatic moment.

Attached: 1511288934796.png (1432x2958, 1.32M)

Does no one seriously know what this is from?

That’s a lot of swords. I’d consider bringing some different weapons if that’s the case.

In reality it was banned to use this technique in sparring or competitions. Probably because it was a real danger to your opponent even if they were armored.

God I hope Ippo retiring because of brain problems sticks.

Looks like Fate to me, but I got no idea which one it is if that's the case.

They are all shit anyway.

Banned in foot combat tournaments due to the fact that it would either knock out/ seriously harm the opponents.
Most knightly tournaments looked down an knights killing each other as it was a waste of resources and life

George is a pretty big hack that has dragged out the series this long, would put nothing past him.

Attached: 1512238546883.png (900x1300, 1.46M)

You bring multiple weapons and swords not only because they are answer to different threats but because weapons, from lances to swords, had a tendency the break in the middle of the battle at the worst time.

Which is why you should only rely on youre FISTS!

Who needs fists when you have YAMATO DAMASHI!!

Attached: 1512049989466.png (1028x2984, 2.18M)

Attached: 1490406470736.jpg (398x600, 26K)

>heavy armor
Pure fantasy bullshit masquerading as historically savvy.

Attached: Crusader with gun.jpg (1478x1896, 385K)

Reincarnation no Kaben.

IIRC the katana girl isn't the protagonist, so there's a good chance that she actually does lose to this guy and someone else has to bail her out.

Heavy is often relative.

I don't mind this happening to Ippo really, because in some of the newer chapters it's showing that the knockout he suffered and the symptoms afterwards might not be punch drunk syndrome.

It's kind of been hinted at earlier that people like Ippo and Sendo are outdated and can't really survive without making some changes. So if Ippo really does get sucked back in and make a return like Date, I would be cool with that if they analyzed the fundamental problems in his style.

Which is kind of weird because his style at it's core used to be a highly mobile defensive peekaboo style that could dive in and knock someone's shit off. Idk exactly when it started transitioning into this shit where Ippo gets fucking clobbered so much.

>if I lean on you, you'll fall over and won't be able to get up because your armor is sooo heavy

Plat armour weighs 100 tons.

>Punch with his face
But he ALREADY basically just blocks punches with it

Attached: 1512042589240.gif (646x403, 685K)

Hajime no Ippo is the worst boxing manga ever. It is so bad at portraying the sport, it might as well not even be about boxing.

>the ideal tool for disabling nobles in their heavy armor
>armor is literally designed to stop swords and the like
>there are plenty of other weapons designed specifically for dealing with armor
iirc swords were more of a sidearm in battlefield combat anyway, but I don't mind that as much because the sword master is a fun trope.

Attached: 1511278632136.png (188x378, 43K)

>Lean on you
>Get you in an arm lock, trip your leg and shove you over
That would generally work even if your target wasn't wearing armour.

Right. So it doesn't make any sense for them to talk about the armor or its weight and just shows that the author thinks knight armor is super duper i've fallen and i can't get up heavy

No, it's just that armor protects you less while you're flat on the ground, because it's easier for enemies to hit the gaps in it.

Are you illiterate? The page says that swords
>can do more than just slash or stab.
>In particular, it's the ideal tool for disabling nobles in their heavy armor.
Stop being dumb.

Or just use a halberd, it's a staff with a swiss army knife of kill on top, and it's pretty durable.
The dagger will stay useful, as would a shield, but then you can carry some javelins or a crossbow instead of all those swords.

After takamura won the belt there was a bit where the coach was talking about takamura "Having his own fists/" Basically, no matter who trained him taka would have been a great boxer. However this kind of reminds him that he has yet to train ab oxer to carry on his own fists, his style. Thus he basically tells ippo, fuck defense, power above all. Of course, he is to retarded to remember his style ruined his hands, crippled his friend, and is nowadays predictable. I thinks thats the point in a way, when the manga was first beginning and awhile after, i feel the author truely believed in the 'yamato dashi!' bit of it all, but after years of seeing great boxers cripple themselves it kinda hits home how foolish it all is. Ever seen a jap boxing match? Most the fuckers just take the hit and power through.

Can you even halfsword with a katana.

Takamura is a shit.

He can go blind in both eyes and lose one of his arms and he'd still win matches with 1-Hit KO's, the guy is an insufferable sue.

Also based on a real guy who did many of those achievements. Though minus the fake animu drama.

I dont see why not, just wouldent be as good at stabbing I guess.

Didn't that guy have to retire due to the eye injury? Unlike Takamura who is just powering through it.

> Unlike Takamura who is just powering through it.
For now.

>Removing the
user, I know that the D&D definition of disabling an enemy is reducing them to 0 hit points, and that in a D&D context tackling an armored opponent to the ground is dumb because it doesn't give you any advantage over tackling an unarmored opponent.

I was assuming that as a story set before the creation of D&D, he would therefore be using the non-D&D definition of "remove the ability to do something". Further, I assumed that "remove the opponent's ability to block my sword with his armor" was an example of "remove the opponent's ability to do something". Given that wrestling armored opponents to the ground to disable them is an extremely common, even fundamental technique in martial arts worldwide, I assumed (perhaps recklessly, I might admit) that a character recommending to do so would mean that they are forwarding an effective combat tactic. True, the dialogue in Berserk is not an accurate reflection of the vernacular of the time, and thus an argument could be made that the combat should be judged in terms of D&D mechanics. If your addition was intended in that context, then my response is indeed "illiterate" and "dumb" as you say, and I apologise for my lack of sense.

How will the Nips ever recover?

Attached: possibly some sort of Messer.jpg (650x289, 67K)