It's okay, she's actually a robot.

Seems uppity, looks good to me. Besides, I'd be more worried about her being a spellcaster.

>look for reality in anime

Correct me if I'm wrong, OP, but your posting intent hardly seems to be to have your question answered. My troll sense is ringing.

The hair is loose, good for gripping. That bow could be used to choke. Shirt restricts movement.
I could probably take her.

>>12456342
>anime

Also, are you a fencer OP? If not I really don't think you're qualified to judge her school uniforms effectiveness, especially given her years of experience.

Rapiers can puncture most armor without difficulty, so you're generally better off without any armor on anyways.

Ever notice how those duelist types always dress like gentlemen instead of soldiers? This is why.

>>12456344
>implying fast reflexes aren't all one needs in a duel

>>12456364
>implying you know anything about fencing or swordfights in general

>>12456364
It's important, but reach is too.

Well she's a school girl, not a trained fighter.

Why are we even having this conversation.

She's a crazy person that shoots herself in the head to symbolically kill her ego so her shadow jungian self can pop out and kill the fuck out of people with magic and/or it's swords.

I don't think what she wears really matters.

>>12456377
Actually, if what you say is true then what she wears is ALL that matters. What is madness without STYLE!?

>>12456353

Actually, its because duelers were aristocrats.

rarely saw the battlefield.

Still, in a modern battlefield her armor is a good as anybody else. She could kill you pretty easy from up close. Way back when she would have to get you from behind unless she had an introduction to swords training, in which case she would be good against unarmed foes.

>>12456377
So this is an actual character from something?
One of the Persona games if I'm guessing right, from your description.

>>12456381
The party traveled into a nightmare tower made by despair and grief after going to high school and macking on the ladies.

In her favor she wears actual clothes on her off days (and quite stylishly in winter, I add), but she IS still just a school student.

Yukari's winter outfit still confuses me.

>>12456377
Trying too hard, bro. She's not crazy and they don't actually shoot themselves in the head.

>>12456389
Persona 3. Good game, but 4 is basically strictly superior.

It has a remake on the PSP which is apparently pretty good.

Is there a game that can model the idea of Persona easily, to make this more /tg/?

This is why I prefer axes. No fanciness needed. You just swing heavy, sharp piece of metal (A) at person (B) until one of you is dead.

>>12456417

You could do it with M&M pretty easily. Limit the actual characters PL as desired and give X ammount of PP to pay for a campaign level summon power.

>>12456415

They shoot themselves in the heads.

Just...not with bullets.

>>12456417
>Persona 3. Good game, but 4 is basically strictly superior.
You stupid motherfucker. You can't call one story "strictly superior" to a completely different story.

I mean, I prefer P4, but it's not "strictly superior" to P3:FES at all.

>>12456428

A friend of mine ran a M&M persona game. You make your normal person character, and a persona (higher PL) character.

Went really well.

>>12456434

I think he meant gameplay mechanics, which 4 did improve on.

4 did not have MARIN FUCKING KARIN.

>>12456425
An anxe can be easily deflected or dodged by a skilled rapier fighter though. It's a clumsy weapon that needs support. Basically, you need armor and shield if you go down the axe road.

>>12456415
>implying I wasn't exaggerating

Evokers ARE shaped like guns and they DO shoot themselves in the head, though. And girl is messed up- even if it's for a good reason.

>cyborg nerve
I am not posting Aigis, captcha.

>>12456444
Like I said, swing it until one of you is dead.
They may be easier to dodge, but if you DO get hit with an axe, chances are good you'll STAY DOWN. I've seen people still fight after several stab wounds.

>>12456444
>Basically, you need armor and shield if you go down the axe road.

Or the wrath of Odin.

I am an actual fencer, who fences sabre most often (the weapon this anime girl seems to be using).

Imo i don't really see much wrong with her costume, fencing with that kind of weapon is all about movement and armour was not really used (for many different reasons).
Therefore protection wise her costume is fine.

Mobility wise, she appears to be wearing some kind of boots which in some situations may be a bit clunky, but on a battlefield i'd imagen are sensible.
Her dress is loose so she should have no problem lunging to her full extension, her top also seems loose enough fitting to pose no problem to her arm movements.
Donno what bra she is wearing, something like a sports bra would make sense but i doubt she is.
The only major thing i'd say she should change is her hair. Either cut it short or tie it back as it will get in her eyes.

>>12456434
llllol I was talking about the mechanics. Original P3 is not as good as P4 on the mechanics front.

FES catches up but then you have to deal with the Answer and it sucks.

On a story front I like P4 better, but that doesn't mean P3 is bad.

>>12456428
>>12456437
There's an idea; just run two characters (so to speak).

>>12456468
The boots are very heeled; she's got that 'crazy tsundere dominatrix' thing going on.

>>12456468

Forgot to add, this is an anime char though so she probably has some stupid omgpowerlaserattack that makes everything i have said irrelevant

>>12456468
Actually, the hair covers half her face sometimes.
It's one of those magical anime transparent hair that never impairs vision.

>>12456468
If your clothing is TOO loose it;'s easy to grab. I know fencers are all about noble fighting and whatnot, but you get up against a dirty fighter and they will do everything in their power to hurt you any way they can.

Persona? I liked it better when it was called Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.

>>12456486

She can summon a demon out of her head.

>>12456477

In that case she is probably as good as dead as soon as she fights someone wearing sensible shoes.
If you can't move on your feet FAST (both in changing direction and general speed) you will loose 9 times out of 10.
Also i can't imagen someone being able to lunge to their fullest in high heels, making it easy for the opponent to simply step backwards to avoid any attacks she attempts.

>>12456468

Epeeist here. I sort of have a problem with the skirt. Based on the way it hangs, I'd say it was loose enough to lunge all the way. However, in all my experiences wearing that type of skirt and seeing them be worn, it shouldn't be as loose on her as it is.

Oh, and the heels are terrible. She'd probably snap them during a lunge.

>>12456468
>>12456542
Hey you fencer type guys. I have a question for you that I've always wanted to know the answer to.
In the movie The Princess Bride, is the scene on top of the Cliffs of Insanity, where Inigo and the Dread Pirate Roberts are dueling, is it accurate?

>>12456558

If it's in a movie, the answer is always no. However, it's hardly the worst offender out there. If I remember right (it's been a long time), the first few seconds weren't all that bad.

>>12456437
My friend is considering running a persona game in M&M. Allowing for physical powers with at least some sort of side effect damage on them. Personas will use the energy system in the Mastermind manual.

Fortunately she doesn't duel anyone.

>>12456558

Accurate? Not really. It's one of the most entertaining fights in cinema, but its not particularly accurate.

If you'd like to see some incredibly well orchestrated duels, watch Stewart Granger in the 1952 film adaptation of Scaramouche, or Jose Ferrer in the 1950 film adaptation of Cyrano de bergerac. In my opinion they're the most period accurate examples of that sort of swordplay ever

>>12456578
Damn. I remember reading about how the actor got all excited about learning REAL sword fighting.

>>12456596

>>12456578 here. I'll amend my always to "almost always." I've never seen these two movies, but I've heard good things about them.

>>12456558

Both actors were coached by an olympic fencer the whole time and performed all the actual fencing (don't think they did the actual flips though).
Have not seen it in a year or two but i think i remember it being pretty good.
The basic attacks, parrys and footwork is all spot on...the fight went on for a LONG time without either being seriously hit, but then it is a movie.

>>12456618
And both their characters were master swordsmen. (Inth e book, Inigo was actually BEYOND Master rank. He was a Wizard... and Wesley surpassed him in just 5 years verses his 20+)

>>12456618

For a good time, you might want to watch some people doing SCA Schlager fencing. It'd be silly to say it's more accurate than olympic fencing, but you can learn a bit by watching how it plays out when people use Olympic footwork/bladework with blades that aren't as light as a car's antennae.

The phrasing sort of comes across in slow motion, and it becomes very important to conserve your energy.

Again, I really won't say it's any more historical accurate. Nothing the SCA does is. But trying it out can be a fun exercise.

>>12456353
>Rapiers can puncture most armor without difficulty
And then /tg/ gets all butthurt when people go "A KATANA CAN CUT THROUGH A TANK". You guys are fucking idiots.

>>12456642

They are supposed to be uber fencers true, but then if you look at actual international level fencers today bouts can be over very fast.
Just take a look at the following vids (they are very cool to watch) to see top level fencers in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayhtuZW9jp0&feature=fvw

This second one is the better vid but it has all three weapons, not just sabre...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=205DiZhDYGE

>>12456678

No doubt that the extria weight makes a difference to the pace (though not so much in epee, the sport and fighting versions are very similar weight).
Also it would not surprise me if people in real duels stood off more as they were hesitant to commit when their lives were on the line, i know i would be! Then again, to some extent you training may overcome this somewhat (any experts on period training and psychology around?)

>>12456754

Damn it, we were doing a good job ignoring the stupid. Why would you point it out like that?

>>12456773

Yeah, on the subject of people being hesitant to commit their lives in the same way, I can't agree more. I'm really doubtful anybody would ever have attempted a flèche, for instance, when their life was really on the line.

>>12456814

I don't know, I can see it as a desperation move, if you're seriously outclassed or exhausted. Probably not something you want to try if you think you're going to win anyways.

>>12456754

The fencingfag here (fenfag did just not sound right), im going to say thats probably bullshit. The widespread use of guns is what did away with armour, possibly even began with the recoganition of the power of the longbow & heavy crossbows. And some historyfags probably know a few more reasons.

Without the use of things such as fullplate armour there was no need to carry around big heavy weapons to combat it (bigger swords, maces etc).
Then we see the rapier coming in as people realised they needed speed over raw power (since no more armour).

Then again the 'rapiers can get through armour' guy was probably a troll so... 0/10

>>12456814

This is why I can't say I'm a fan of modern sport fencing - even though I adore weaponry and styles of all sorts. The way it's taught, practiced and put into effect lacks a certain...authenticity I suppose: due to the nature of the game and the rules it uses.

Nothing against fencers and those who enjoy sport fencing - I just prefer more...practical (is that the right word?) styles.

Sort of unrelated, but I'm reminded of a scene in the Akira Kurosawa movie Roshamon. It's not really fencing, as it's actually a samurai and a bandit, both armed with Katana, but what sticks with me about the scene is that both characters are clearly terrified as hell of committing themselves to a strike. The fight is drawn out for a long time with a lot of flinching, a lot of retreat, and a lot of scrambling.

It's really resonant, I think, for people with swords in their hands behaving in a very human way.

>>12456868

'Rapiers can go through armour' is 100% a troll (or an ignoramus; one or the other). Swords designed like rapiers are very poor against all types of armour. Most swords are quite ineffective against serious armour.Then you have gothic plate. Armour like that just renders all manner of weapons mostly ineffective (be it sword, mace, etc).

Note though, rapiers and such aren't _too_ much faster than other types of sword (if you see some reconstructed longsword styles in action...lightning fast). But they are certainly most suited to their own style. And they're suited to being fashion statements - which is what all swordfighting and swords eventually became.

>>12456814

I am actually in two minds here, one part of me thinks 'noone would ever flèche in real life due to it being their lives on the line'.
The other part of me thinks that it would be a great thing to do because noone would ever really expect it. Lets face it, everyone drops their guard at least a tiny bit when they think they are out of the other guys distance...perfect flèche time.
Also its not like you can't just do the old counter riposte as part of a second intention.

>>12456920
>mace
>ineffective against armor

>>12456875

The other fencer here. You seem to have the right way about thinking of it. We're more of a sport and less of a martial art. We do stuff that's meant to win us the match, not keep us alive.

Though for what you two were saying about people in real duels standing off more, I have to agree. I know contrasting the epee against the weapons the use right of way, we tend to play a lot more defensively. (My club has all three weapons in it. The other two call us boring, and I can't really disagree. Watching a foil or saber match is normally more fun than watching an epee one.) I imagine this would be a whole lot worse when it's not just a match on the line, but your life.

>>12456868
Gunpowder didn't make plate obsolete, they were developed in parallel, side by side. Guns eventually got the upper hand for a number of reasons, but that took a LONG time.

Swords like rapiers can and were used against armored opponents (though never in normal battlefield situations). The thing is, and as a fencer you probably already know, you don't use it to go THROUGH the armor, you use it to pierce the gaps in the armor (and hence you need to be a pretty good fencer to begin with).

>>12456964

Yes actually. Maces are not as effective against armour like full plate as some people would lead you to believe. They are better than swords, far better, but that isn't saying much. Sure, if you get a solid hit on someone you'll probably stagger them - and then you can wail on them easily enough but this is true of many weapons.

However, in a proper fight most blows are going to be glancing blows and not solid hits. A glancing blow from anything will do jack all to good plate + padding. Taking someone out in full plate is really, really goddamn hard. And that's why nobles could get ransomed off after battle - they were still bloody well alive thanks to their armour without even so much as a concussion.

>>12456920
I admit, it was a total troll, and yes I was alluding to the craziness that people attribute to katanas.

>>12457045

Mein gott, you admitted to being a troll in an informed and polite manner!? Well played, sir - you appear to be a reasonable person after all.

>>12457006

True, im the first to admit that my history of the time is not 100%.
Though i was more talking about armour covering the majority of the person (ie full plate, chainmail with a helm templar style and so on) being reduced to simply torso and maybe a helm. Which in this situation rapiers and the like are not a bad choice.

Though if im wrong about the timing of the widespread adoption of guns and the reduction in armour then please correct me.

>>12457034
im afraid you're wrong sir Maces>platemail

there is a reason why they became popular during that period. That reason being they're unsurprising ability to break bones, even through Armour.

>>12457006

Indeed, fencing weapons were invariably a civilian development. And it is indeed silly to blame the decline of plate armor on gunpowder alone. There were a number of things, over the years that lead to its decline. More than anything else, I personally think it was the advent of the professional, standing army that made armor impractical. Events like the 30 years war reached a scale by which it really wasn't possible for a class of well equipped mounted nobility to make a difference in the face of the sort of formations that were being fielded.

>>12457055

This entire thread seems to be a polite and informed discussion on /tg/.

oh no i jinxed it FUUUUUUUUUUU-

>>12457034
Somebody's never seen an actual medieval mace. Those flanges and spikes aren't there for decorations, sonny.

>>12457045
Hehe. Though I haven't seen anybody do that seriously on /tg/ at least in quite some time. Does that still happen on /k/, I wonder?

>>12457055
I'm only half-troll, so the other half of the time I'm a pretty good guy. With claws and regeneration.

>>12457080
I had thought that the primary use of maces on plate armor was to essentially turn that armor against the use.

Even a glancing blow can screw up the carefully constructed joints and render them immobile. Soon, the opponent of a mace-wielder would find themselves unable to defend themselves properly.

>>12457094
It's just like every other /tg/ thread that isn't directly /tg/ related.

>>12457112
And if you can crush the chest even slightly they'll suffocate.

>>12457101

...... so like Sage Troll, but with less tits?

>>12457099

You say that, but then...why did maces fall out of favour and become replaced with war hammers and pollaxes? Because the latter two were better weapons against plate armour. And even then, things like pollaxes weren't necessarly the best because of their striking power - but because you could trip a guy up with them.

Again, yes, you're going to die to a solid hit from a mace. But those solid hits don't happen often in true fights. And against a glancing hit, plate will save your hide almost every time. It's just that good.

>>12457112
The *primary* use was to use the flanges and spikes to punch through the plate armor as if it was made out of tinfoil. Messing up the articulation is a viable secondary effect should you score a glance, though.

>>12457130
A great deal less tits. And Ii I'd go to the gym more often, there would be no tits to speak of at all.

>>12457137
They were replaced because of the tripping thing you mentioned, plus the fact that they let you completely invalidate somebody's plate armor at a *distance*, whereas with a mace you still have to risk getting up in the guy's face. Direct blows aren't as uncommon as you seem to think, either.

Of course, at this point we're probably talking about different periods in history (and consequently, different levels of effectiveness in armour and weapons) so we could be getting muddled up.

I'm specifically talking about the latest, latest types of plate armour - forged at the zenith of armour design before their gradual decline.

Flanged maces were developed earlier and, consquently, were designed to aid in the defeat of a different quality of plate armour - before they were supplaneted by later weapons that were more effective against the better and better armours.

>>12457081
Pretty much. The elites were like:

"Hey X von Y, remember crossbows?"

"Of course, Sir Z, gave a bunch of those to the rabble, they don't even need proper training!"

"Well, what I hear that they are now mounting CANNONS on crossbows"

"Damn, that's hot. With something like that I could even get rid of the annoying aristocracy..."

>>12457165

Direct blows are rare in fights because if you take a direct blow you're probably about to lose/die. Consequently, in any one fight you will only see a couple of direct and serious blows inflicted upon any one party as the fight is about to end in short order.

>>12457137
>You say that, but then...why did maces fall out of favour and become replaced with war hammers and pollaxes? Because the latter two were better weapons against plate armour.
Not really. Thing is, back when maces were popular, plate wasn't all that developed, so the soldiers still had to carry shields around, making a one-handed weapon essential. After plate became awesome, you could use things like halberds because shields weren't needed anymore.

>>12457170
I highly doubt a flanged mace or morningstar would have any trouble against any plate armor of any particular time period. The sheer physics involved with all that force focused into such a small area should cause deep punctures and crumples.

>>12457203
They're rare in *non-lethal* fights because of this. In serious battlefield fighting, you're aiming to end the other guy as quickly as possible. Therefore it's direct strikes, direct strikes forever.

>>12457216

Aye, pretty much the conclusion I came to - we're talking about different periods of history with correspondingly different types of armour and weapons to beat that armour. You were talking earlier period wereas I was talking later period. C'est le vie.

>>12457139
Protip, flanges won't pierce plate harness "like tinfoil".
It's pretty freaking hard to punch through a milimeter of hardened steel, that is suspended and allowed to "give" like the armor on a man, with anything hand held. Even lances with the weight of a Destrier behind them were much more likely to skip off than punch through.

Victory in armored combat came through attacking unarmored shit, disarming your opponent, or bearing him to the ground and overpowering him.

Yeah, well, in the game she's from, she's a high school student.
That happens to be the basic school uniform for girls.
I know this because that fucking game ate up 200+ hours of my life.

>>12457203
>Direct blows are rare in fights because if you take a direct blow you're probably about to lose/die. Consequently, in any one fight you will only see a couple of direct and serious blows inflicted upon any one party as the fight is about to end in short order.

>Direct blows are rare because they ended the fights.

So every serious fight usually had one...?

>>12457236

Um...no. While, yes, you are aiming to do direct strikes all the time there is one small problem: that of another guy also attempting to go for direct strikes and trying his damndest to stop you from doing the same. Direct strikes in a lethal fight are _rare_ because if you take a direct hit you are in all seriousness probably about to die.

Glancing strikes are far more common simply because of the difficulty in landing a solid hit on a moving, higly trained target who is also trying to do you in.

>>12457241
I've seen it done. You end up with a hole right through the plate, *every time*. What does sometimes change is whether or not the spike goes in deep enough to kill you or if there's enough padding to just give you a lot of broken ribs and bruised organs.

Almost without exception, you only have to stab someone in the head/torso once.

>>12457241

I personally like the 'hitting him with what is basically a lump of very heavy metal on the end of a long piece of wood swung as fast as you can untill the other guys internal organs rupture'

Even with all the underpadding and deflection angles of the armour itself a LOT of force must be transferred to the internal organs in this situation.

Actually, loose clothing is better for fencing combat, because there is more opportunity to catch the opponent's blade in something other than flesh.

>>12457261

Probably (it might also become a wrassling contest or something else). But they're less common than glancing blows. And the beauty of plate is it turns a lot of otherwise lethal blows into glancing blows which you can then ignore - because you're wearing plate armour and lots of padding.

So yes, if you get a direct strike in with a mace you'll kill someone armour or no - and maces, warhammers, etc were well placed to make direct strikes if you could find an opening (which is the hard part).

>>12457271
Most fights don't last that long, regardless of training. And a *lot* of the time either both men aren't exactly highly trained, or only one is.

>>12457286
Indeed. It's just that in addition to the heavy ball, you also have bits to focus that weight and momentum onto a *very* tiny part of the target's armor.

And then you use flails in tight formation...

>>12457306

That I will agree with. But I never insinuated a fight would last a long time - only that you'd see more glancing blows than direct strikes in a fight. And that plate armour turns a lot of otherwise lethal or crippling attacks into glancing blows that the armour lets you ignore.

Lethal fights tend to be short fights which are ended by decisive blows. The better your armour, the less likely it is you will be the one reciving the decisive blow. Plate makes it very hard to get hit by a decisive blow (assuming you can defend yourself properly).

>>12457318

Wait what!? Tight what!?

So, I'm standing here. Bob is standing one foot to my left. Tom is standing one foot to my right. We're all swing flails in wide arcs.

Yeah... I'm sure nothing's going to go wrong there.

This reminds me, the best and most fun character I ever played was a duelist type fighter who totally SKEWERED an entire tribe of bullywugs almost single-handedly while the main big fucking sword guy was out cold. Then he put on the bullywug's crown and declared himself their king. The survivors fleed shortly thereafter.

Singlehandedly saved the entire estate. Not to mention the party.

>>12457338
That's what I'm trying to say, though--usually in most serious fights the one lethal blow comes in relatively quickly and ends the fight right then and there. There may have been only one, but one is all that was needed. And, again--maces and hammers and the like aren't ignorable in full plate, direct or glancing. It's much the same thing as how getting shot on a ballistic trauma plate will still leave you with an agonizing bruise at best and broken bones at worst.

>>12457272
Was the plate on a man, or on a post?

Men give, posts do not.

It makes a huge difference.

>>12457880
Crash test dummy, I believe. That said...even though a live person could roll with the blow somewhat, I don't see how you could avoid serious trouble from a shot like that. In all but the absolute best case scenario, you're going to be unbalanced and possibly even staggered, and thus ripe for a real shot straight-on, which WILL put you down for good, plate or no.

>>12456417

Thread's gone on another direction, but I might as well put in my two cents.

There's a nWoD Persona game on RPGnet. It's sort of unfinished. Our group is trying to complete it as we play it, so things are going slowly.

I hear that you can tune Geist to be a Persona game, but I've never seen anyone do it.

I've also heard that the Smallville game/Cortex could pull it off.

And there's always Mutants and Masterminds and GURPS.

>>12458004
I'm in a similar situation. Keep at it, I'd like to see someone do a Persona homebrew since the setting is pretty interesting.

PURSE OWNA!

What is all this?

>>12460288
Fencing, my good man. Fencing and weapons and armor discussion.