Isekai ni Teni Shitara Yama no Naka datta. Handou de Tsuyosa yori mo Kaitekisa o Erabimashita - Vol. 4 Ch. 17

[Nixeu]

Special pleading fallacy. The exception is not the standard. You are not Simo Häyhä. You will die.

You choose a pistol but the guys you're fighting have level 4 plates and body armor that you now cannot penetrate. But yeah you keep picking guns based on familiarity. Do you honestly think you're john wick? Lmao

🤦‍♂️no, you simple simple idiot. A falchion is nothing like a katana. I said "European style swords" with the assumption that you would understand i was talking about period appropriate weapons not shit from the Renaissance era. The whole point of the discussion is that magic isint a part of it. If you bring magic into the discussion then its all meaningless, i could pick up a giant rubber dildo and bash your skull into a soup because i say its a magical +99 dildo and you cant argue with me because its a reductio ad absurdum

What time "period" is appropriate, exactly? Most fantasy settings are a pastiche of stuff from across a few thousand years of history, including the Renaissance. Falchions were produced from the 13th-15th centuries. Is the 13th century not medieval enough? And again, it's a light, single edged slashing weapon. What makes it so distinct from a katana that they absolutely can't be compared?

You just keep adding weird requirements to your scenario. But this isn't about fighting one specific enemy. This about general use. I acknowledged already that using a sidearm as your main weapon is probably not a good idea. You continuing to focus on that point isn't exactly doing you any favors here.

Also, swords are not guns. Form factor matters a lot to swords, because you have to swing them. Weight distribution and balance are factors. This is why you can't hand someone trained to use a rapier a claymore and expect them to do well with it. Or even a katana and a "European style sword". By which I'm guessing you either mean a Viking sword (it's the name of the style) or something on the Oakeshott typology. The weapons in this aren't either, since they have no taper, but that's besides the point. You probably can't half-sword well with a katana, and trying to iai with a Viking sword will have mixed results.

 

[MrGrinns]

What time "period" is appropriate, exactly? Most fantasy settings are a pastiche of stuff from across a few thousand years of history, including the Renaissance. Falchions were produced from the 13th-15th centuries. Is the 13th century not medieval enough? And again, it's a light, single edged slashing weapon. What makes it so distinct from a katana that they absolutely can't be compared?

You just keep adding weird requirements to your scenario. But this isn't about fighting one specific enemy. This about general use. I acknowledged already that using a sidearm as your main weapon is probably not a good idea. You continuing to focus on that point isn't exactly doing you any favors here.

Also, swords are not guns. Form factor matters a lot to swords, because you have to swing them. Weight distribution and balance are factors. This is why you can't hand someone trained to use a rapier a claymore and expect them to do well with it. Or even a katana and a "European style sword". By which I'm guessing you either mean a Viking sword (it's the name of the style) or something on the Oakeshott typology. The weapons in this aren't either, since they have no taper, but that's besides the point. You probably can't half-sword well with a katana, and trying to iai with a Viking sword will have mixed results.

What are you even arguing at this point dude? You've only dug the hole deeper and moved the goal post. The point being that the utility of the weapon in the given environment superceeds the user's familiarity with another weapon. You've even admitted that several times in your own argument. Are you really that retarded?

 

[Nixeu]

What are you even arguing at this point dude? You've only dug the hole deeper and moved the goal post. The point being that the utility of the weapon in the given environment superceeds the user's familiarity with another weapon. You've even admitted that several times in your own argument. Are you really that retarded?

When the heck did I concede that? Also, you literally keep shifting the goal-posts yourself with your bizarre "you'd never use a handgun to take on 4 people with machine guns and body armor and a tank" crap. My point is that users make their decisions based on many factors. And yes, familiarity is one factor. There are people who keep using their old things instead of constantly "upgrading". Even in the military, this is a thing.

But even if that wasn't the case, you've yet to prove that a katana is actually inferior in this environmental context. You seem to be taking the position that this world has totally worked out the absolute most optimal sword design, it's the most optimal design for literally all scenarios, and that any deviation is automatically inferior. This despite the fact that, as shown, their designs are utter garbage. There are 5th century Viking swords with better designs. That's probably down to the artist not knowing what a freaking taper is, though.

So please, explain to me why the katana is a bad design choice in this environment. Because I don't see any way in which it's actually inferior. It's a matter of personal taste and if the sword is suited for the techniques used. And again, you can't use a katana and a straight sword the exact same way,

...Of course, the realistic weapon here would probably be a spear anyway. Keeping the giant monster as far away from you as possible is kinda how you want to do things. But that's a whole different topic.

Edit: Also, I would probably be a heck of a lot more willing to drop this if you weren't being incredibly abrasive and arrogant about this whole thing, while displaying little to no knowledge of actual swordplay, sword design, or weapons in general.

 

[MrGrinns]

When the heck did I concede that? Also, you literally keep shifting the goal-posts yourself with your bizarre "you'd never use a handgun to take on 4 people with machine guns and body armor and a tank" crap. My point is that users make their decisions based on many factors. And yes, familiarity is one factor. There are people who keep using their old things instead of constantly "upgrading". Even in the military, this is a thing.

But even if that wasn't the case, you've yet to prove that a katana is actually inferior in this environmental context. You seem to be taking the position that this world has totally worked out the absolute most optimal sword design, it's the most optimal design for literally all scenarios, and that any deviation is automatically inferior. This despite the fact that, as shown, their designs are utter garbage. There are 5th century Viking swords with better designs. That's probably down to the artist not knowing what a freaking taper is, though.

So please, explain to me why the katana is a bad design choice in this environment. Because I don't see any way in which it's actually inferior. It's a matter of personal taste and if the sword is suited for the techniques used. And again, you can't use a katana and a straight sword the exact same way,

...Of course, the realistic weapon here would probably be a spear anyway. Keeping the giant monster as far away from you as possible is kinda how you want to do things. But that's a whole different topic.

Edit: Also, I would probably be a heck of a lot more willing to drop this if you weren't being incredibly abrasive and arrogant about this whole thing, while displaying little to no knowledge of actual swordplay, sword design, or weapons in general.

You've literally been talking out of your ass this entire time and making shit up. Why would i need to address something thats just not true? Its like saying the moon is made of cheese and expecting me to take your argument seriously lol