Moderator: Belegarth: Forum Moderators
Akroth wrote:On a related note, can we have a "Theoretical Foamsmithing" forum so that people don't keep posting this crap on the main foamsmithing board?
Varadin wrote:thats weapon will fail and you should feel bad for taking the time to draw out a design.
Theres is no way to do these without someone punching someone.
Also you will break your * wrist.
Elebrim wrote:...I question why lately it seems like we must do everything that Amtgard does or else we are no longer the best fighters. I don't think it's right or necessary.
Thorondor wrote:PS - I wish I had Blackhawk's photos with the weapon he tied to his wrist...it shows, in a picture, how your wrist angle would be when trying to swing something like this. And the angle SUCKS.
Blackhawk wrote:Make a regular sword and hold it like this, swing it around, fight someone.
Then tie it to your arm like this:
Swing it around, fight someone. Then untie it and realize that tying a sword to your arm is stupid. Anyone in martial arts will tell you the same thing.
Koom Di' Puts wrote:And here I thought the point of the game was to have fun?
Savage wrote: I find that beer often aids in this process.
Ticonderoga wrote:And if all else fails. I'm getting my mom.
Forkbeard wrote:[And]I'm going to continue being a happy sword weilding wierdo until then.
FB
Myles wrote:what about something like this http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2442235861532&set=a.2005592985733.121600.1420899901&type=1&theater it would stop some newb from just taking it when you die
Sieglatan wrote: it looks like you killed and skinned a tiny cow, and riveted the hide onto it.
Ignatius wrote:I love that he just got put in time out for a month!!!
Mughi wrote:Note #3 specifically. If I caught anyone trying to do this **** on my field, they wouldn't just get a time out, they're banned for life. It is deliberate, intentional, premeditated, unrepentant cheating with the intention of being dangerous to yourself and others.
Forkbeard wrote:Label it **** illegal. It is.
You are stupid. You are either going to break your arm badly or it will fall apart.
Where are you? I have a red sword and I would like to show you why we are all saying this.
Do you have health insurance? After I break your arm, I will not pay to get it fixed. I will not take you to the hospital either.
FB
Forkbeard wrote:NO BEERS FOR YOU!
fb
Arrakis wrote:I have a totally sweet totally legal katar design, Forkbeard.
I mean, it involves some changes to make it stay legal, of course, but it's very similar to the historical katar. It just rotates the handle a little.
Here you go: Super Sweet Awesome Katar Design with Slightly Rotated Handle
It's even strike-legal, not just stab, and fights better than the stupid PVC+Joints designs, too!
Forkbeard wrote:Did you read the **** posts?
PUNCH WEAPONS ARE **** ILLEGAL.
...
Please stop trying to figure out ways to cheat.
Thurat wrote:How hard would it have been for one(1) poster to stop the thread at that? If we just go around yelling at people because they want to try something they are not aware is dangerous and incapable of passing by current rules what kind of impression is that going to convey to the new smith and any others who read that thread? To me, that tells them that they shouldn't ask questions, because they are probably wrong. That is why I defended OP. Not because I agree with his idea (I don't), but because anyone who is going to have their idea, original or not, stomped on deserves a better explanation that "Because we say so."
Thanks for not tearing me a new one in the process of providing me the information I need, Galya and Jimmy. I know that just the idea of this kind of weapon is alarming and extremely dangerous, but we can't crucify people because they are unaware of something they haven't been around long enough to experience for themselves, that's why they ask for advise here.
Thurat wrote:Also, yes, I do realize that there are a million threads discussing the topic, that does not necessarily mean they are correct, and it does not mean that I would be able to discern from the 20 something posts flaming the OP what exactly has been determined by the discussion, or as is outlined by the BoW.
Theros the Large wrote:Swung green weapons FAIL. End of story.
There is far too much risk of a piece of core tearing through the foam and really hurting someone. They fall under the same kind of restrictions as punch weapons.
Big King Jimmy wrote:No, you're missing the point. There is NO SUCH THING as a swung green.
...
If you thrust with a weapon, it's green, if you swing it, it's blue/red. Period.
Now, what people have problems with is a weapon whose core is perpendicular to its target at the point of impact. And there IS no rule against it, and honestly I feel the hit test tests to make sure such a weapon is safe. But when a vet comes on and tears apart an idea of a punching weapon, it's because this concept terrifies us. We see it enough with javs and arrows and spears, and these are the weapons I see hurt people the most, next on the list is giant reds. When people want to combine the two on the field, yes, we're terrified.
Big King Jimmy wrote:The idea of the punching weapon is that when the blade makes contact with the target, the spot it hits is not on one side or the other of the wrist. Normally it would be, like on a normal blue, this causes the wrist to break (not like broken bone, but like your wrist bends.) and your shot loses some power. When the target is in front of your first, that power isn't lost, and much more energy is transferred into your opponent, exactly was would be causes here, or any weapon with a striking surface in front of a fist. It's brass knuckles with a bunch of * on either side.
Thurat wrote:If we just go around yelling at people because they want to try something they are not aware is dangerous and incapable of passing by current rules what kind of impression is that going to convey to the new smith and any others who read that thread? To me, that tells them that they shouldn't ask questions, because they are probably wrong. That is why I defended OP. Not because I agree with his idea (I don't), but because anyone who is going to have their idea, original or not, stomped on deserves a better explanation that "Because we say so."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests