RE: (TFT) Firearms

["George Dew" <gdew@ResponseNetworking.com>]

Thanks for the post Hulka!

Yes, actually the battleaxe point had crossed my mind. Maybe the body would
be a little more shreded with a shotgun, but the battleaxe would get the job
done just as well. And hence, I do see the logic with both the shotgun and
battleaxe doing 3D6.

The point you make about the historical move from mechanical weapons to
combustion weapons is well taken too. Yes, in the earlier years, the
firearms did not fully replace melee weapons--like you said. Even close to
home, you can look at the old west, the civil war, and the mid-1800's and
find battles where melee weapons were still critical in the mix. (In this
case, I'm classifying a bayonet as a melee weapon--kind of like a spear).

*Modern* firearms though have changed things the most in terms of accuracy
and lethality at long range, and with the advent of automatic weapons,
extreme lethality at close ranges. However, that being said, I can cite a
lot of examples where people have gotten shot and keep on fighting. Another
argument for the shotgun/battleaxe = 3D6 I suppose.

Anyway, thanks for the post, I just wanted to hear some voices other than
mine on this.



 

-----Original Message-----
From: tft-admin@brainiac.com [mailto:tft-admin@brainiac.com] On Behalf Of
Sgt Hulka
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 16:38
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: (TFT) Firearms

I'm not a doctor or paramedic, so my opinion is largely worthless. But that
doesn't mean I won't express it! ;)

Regarding your friends that got shot; have you seen anyone hit with a full
force swing from a battle axe? I sure haven't, but I'd imagine it would be
pretty hard to recover from, too.

There has been a lot of opining by historical miniatures enthusiasts as to
why firearms replaced muscle-powered projectiles (especially the longbow or
compound bow). A claim is often made that in the early days of black powder
guns weren't that much more effective than a crossbow or longbow. Maybe, I
don't know. I do know that in the Spanish Conquest the role of the gun is
exaggerated. It was the horse, more than the gun, that awed and defeated the
native american.

But that's the really early days of firearms. Flashing forward, the
heavily-armored knight disappears. By the Napoleonic wars you still have
some cuirass-wearing cavalry, but for the most part armor is an after
thought. Melee weapons are still an important part of warfare, however,
since the deciding moment in most battles is the bayonet charge, not the
musket volley. 

Looking at that limited evidence, it seems the biggest effect firearms had
was getting rid of armor. That, in turn, revolutionized warfare since
"knights" were pointless and equipping a soldier became far less expensive.
The nobility had to find a new role for themselves, so they decided to
become "officers" and stop risking their butts on the firing line. Armor
didn't come back, really, until the combustible engine made tanks practical
at the end of world war I. 

So this is all a long winded way of saying that in my humble opinion both
the shotgun and the battleaxe do 3d6. But chainmail won't do squat against a
shotgun. That's the difference. (admittedly, a shotgun is a poor example in
this case, since chainmail actually might help...a .30-06 rifle is a better
example).

-- On Tue, 2/2/10, George Dew <gdew@ResponseNetworking.com> wrote:

> From: George Dew <gdew@ResponseNetworking.com>
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"