KEY ENEMIES UPDATED (8/1/13)

[Ferth]

I really appreciate it!

We already had the Gunblade and Gunhalberd as Garlean weapons in version 1.x, so I'm glad they keep this idea for the other generals.

Remember that the Garlean Empire is very advanced in machina builds, so it makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry... I could maybe be convinced about the validity of the gun halberd... and possibly about the gun shield, too... But gunbaghnakhs? Someone isn't trying hard enough.

[Anonymoose]

Sorry... I could maybe be convinced about the validity of the gun halberd... and possibly about the gun shield, too... But gunbaghnakhs? Someone isn't trying hard enough.

Allow me to attempt to convince you.

Your weapon of choice is your fists. Your arms are of equal weight, allowing you to dispatch with counter-weighted armor and constant recalibration of balance and momentum. This makes you agile, and to enhance that agility, the blunt impacts usually provided by fists has been converted into slashing impact by blades, or claws, upon the fists - otherwise known as "tiger claws," or bagh nakh in Hindi.

These are your strengths - but your weakness is that you are limited to melee combat; you cannot interrupt a charging enemy's momentum; you cannot scatter an approaching group; you cannot launch a ranged or surprise attack... unless each of your wrists were armed with a gun. No time is wasted on the prep or the draw, you point and fire.

If an enemy group is charging you in formation, automatic fire from both hands breaks their form and momentum, allowing you to slip between the defensively dodging enemies and dispatch them with martial prowess. If you are facing a larger or heavily armored enemy, you can disorient them and break weak points with fire before delivering a volley of blows to their Achilles heel.

Not to mention nobody's going to see it coming when they catch one to the head from across the field or castrum from the seemingly unarmed. Not trying hard enough? They'd be my weapon of choice!

The only weapon that'd be pretty stupid is a gunbow.

So you can shoot while you shoot.

[Beowolf]

Allow me to attempt to convince you.

Your weapon of choice is your fists. Your arms are of equal weight, allowing you to dispatch with counter-weighted armor and constant recalibration of balance and momentum. This makes you agile, and to enhance that agility, the blunt impacts usually provided by fists has been converted into slashing impact by blades, or claws, upon the fists - otherwise known as "tiger claws," or bagh nakh in Hindi.

These are your strengths - but your weakness is that you are limited to melee combat; you cannot interrupt a charging enemy's momentum; you cannot scatter an approaching group; you cannot launch a ranged or surprise attack... unless each of your wrists were armed with a gun. No time is wasted on the prep or the draw, you point and fire.

If an enemy group is charging you in formation, automatic fire from both hands breaks their form and momentum, allowing you to slip between the defensively dodging enemies and dispatch them with martial prowess. If you are facing a larger or heavily armored enemy, you can disorient them and break weak points with fire before delivering a volley of blows to their Achilles heel.

Not to mention nobody's going to see it coming when they catch one to the head from across the field or castrum from the seemingly unarmed. Not trying hard enough? They'd be my weapon of choice!

The only weapon that'd be pretty stupid is a gunbow.

So you can shoot while you shoot.

i'd be more afraid of the point blank range implications. thinkin back to FFVIII squals shear trigger timing on impact...she might very well be able to rip a tank to shreds. the initial impact, gunshot, then reverberation of the claw tearing you a new one. whew.

[Ferth]

Allow me to attempt to convince you.

Your weapon of choice is your fists. Your arms are of equal weight, allowing you to dispatch with counter-weighted armor and constant recalibration of balance and momentum. This makes you agile, and to enhance that agility, the blunt impacts usually provided by fists has been converted into slashing impact by blades, or claws, upon the fists - otherwise known as "tiger claws," or bagh nakh in Hindi.

These are your strengths - but your weakness is that you are limited to melee combat; you cannot interrupt a charging enemy's momentum; you cannot scatter an approaching group; you cannot launch a ranged or surprise attack... unless each of your wrists were armed with a gun. No time is wasted on the prep or the draw, you point and fire.

If an enemy group is charging you in formation, automatic fire from both hands breaks their form and momentum, allowing you to slip between the defensively dodging enemies and dispatch them with martial prowess. If you are facing a larger or heavily armored enemy, you can disorient them and break weak points with fire before delivering a volley of blows to their Achilles heel.

Not to mention nobody's going to see it coming when they catch one to the head from across the field or castrum from the seemingly unarmed. Not trying hard enough? They'd be my weapon of choice!

The only weapon that'd be pretty stupid is a gunbow.

So you can shoot while you shoot.

There are very few arguments that favor a gun mechanically fastened to a melee weapon compared to just having a gun and a melee weapon. The one factor that slightly mitigates that in favor of these proposed Gunbaghnakhs is that they are welded to her gauntlets, leaving her hands free. At that point the debate becomes one of semantics, because those are clearly no longer baghnakhs, they would be closer to patas, or maybe katar. But now the question becomes why do the guns need to be mechanically fastened to the bladed weapons if her hands are free? it seems like it would add unnecessary weight to weapons that probably already have significant enough mass to deal damage, at which point the added weight isn't increasing inertia more so than just slowing you down.

I have a strong aversion to gun+weapons of any type, the reason I see validity in the gun halberd is that it really is close to a modified musket+bayonet, where with the musket (a weapon with a one shot capacity and a rather long reload time) the bayonet allows you some means of self defense if you are unable to reload and opposing forces are within melee range. And we saw in the Darnus fight that the time between each opportunity to fire was long enough that having a decent melee weapon at hand was necessary. Whereas the musket was a long range weapon with limited melee capacity when paired with a bayonet, Darnus' gunhalberd was a melee weapon with the limited capacity to fire ranged attacks, and seeing as the halberd already is a weapon that requires the use of two hands I'd be willing to concede that attaching the firing mechanism to the halberd itself in this instance is ok.

I won't go into why gunblades are stupid here... unless someone really wants to have a debate about it.

[Skies]

There are very few arguments that favor a gun mechanically fastened to a melee weapon compared to just having a gun and a melee weapon

Sincerely?
It's the large amount of time there is between switching weapons. Holstering/unholstering a gun and then sheathing/unsheathing a melee weapon takes a very long time, specially if you need to switch from the gun to the melee weapon (which is the purpose of having a melee weapon in first place, in case the encounter actually reaches melee range, what shouldn't happen in a realistic setting).

There is an ACTUAL reason why modern assault rifles are actual gun+weapon hybrids, what do you think bayonets are? They're there so you have a capacity to engage in melee an enemy that manages to get close enough to be under you effect aiming capacity. Melee weapons are also your fallback in case of out of ammo.

Now you take that concept to the absurdity levels that fantasy reaches, and there you go, you reach those weapons.
Also if you want to get on to how gunblades are a silly weapon, you need to remember they are a german invention (or was it hungarian? one of them), used by cavalry so they wouldn't have to spend time changing from their muskets to their swords when charging in... Yes, gunblades are real weapons.

[Ferth]

Sincerely?
It's the large amount of time there is between switching weapons. Holstering/unholstering a gun and then sheathing/unsheathing a melee weapon takes a very long time, specially if you need to switch from the gun to the melee weapon (which is the purpose of having a melee weapon in first place, in case the encounter actually reaches melee range, what shouldn't happen in a realistic setting).

There is an ACTUAL reason why modern assault rifles are actual gun+weapon hybrids, what do you think bayonets are? They're there so you have a capacity to engage in melee an enemy that manages to get close enough to be under you effect aiming capacity. Melee weapons are also your fallback in case of out of ammo.

Now you take that concept to the absurdity levels that fantasy reaches, and there you go, you reach those weapons.
Also if you want to get on to how gunblades are a silly weapon, you need to remember they are a german invention (or was it hungarian? one of them), used by cavalry so they wouldn't have to spend time changing from their muskets to their swords when charging in... Yes, gunblades are real weapons.

If I had a saber and a pistol, I'd probably not have either holstered whilst in the fray. (fun fact, war horses are trained to be steered with your legs, not with reins, allowing mounted combatants the use of both hands.) Second, I am well aware of gun swords. But question for you: Have you ever tried to hold 3 feet of steel out in front of you with one hand? While riding a horse that is in full gallop? Good luck hitting anything.

There is a reason gun swords are almost unheard of today... because they were incredibly unwieldy. The US navy even tried using a pistol built in with an 11 inch bowie knife blade for boarding parties but almost immediately switched back to the standard cutlass. Most pistol swords that were made were actually used for hunting boar, and almost all of them had very short blades. Much shorter than a standard sword.


As for your argument about modern rifles... did you even read what I wrote about muskets, bayonets and Darnus' gunhalberd?

When it comes down to it, a gun sword is little more than a novelty, the idea of which far outstrips the actual functionality.