Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sword"
From AmtWiki
(New page: Those CK swords are not legal- the handle is too long. Do we really want illegal examples on the Wiki? -Lurker) |
LucasTheLost (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Those CK swords are not legal- the handle is too long. Do we really want illegal examples on the Wiki? -Lurker | Those CK swords are not legal- the handle is too long. Do we really want illegal examples on the Wiki? -Lurker | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think [[Lurker]] is right. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The strike legal portion of a non-pole/non-hinged must be 2/3 or more of the total length of the sword. I haven't counted pixels or anything, but those look a bit long to me. Remember, the pommel counts as part of the handle. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For reference: | ||
| + | *[[Short Weapon]] | ||
| + | *[[Long Weapon]] | ||
| + | *[[Reach]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | They all contain the same verbage: ''The [[pommel]] and [[Handle]] of the weapon can be no longer than 1/3 of the weapon’s total length. If used to slash or bludgeon, at least 2/3 of its length must be [[Strike-Legal]]. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I suppose they could be thrust-only swords, but I Rather Doubt It. | ||
| + | --[[User:LucasTheLost|Lucas]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:03, 6 February 2009
Those CK swords are not legal- the handle is too long. Do we really want illegal examples on the Wiki? -Lurker
I think Lurker is right.
The strike legal portion of a non-pole/non-hinged must be 2/3 or more of the total length of the sword. I haven't counted pixels or anything, but those look a bit long to me. Remember, the pommel counts as part of the handle.
For reference:
They all contain the same verbage: The pommel and Handle of the weapon can be no longer than 1/3 of the weapon’s total length. If used to slash or bludgeon, at least 2/3 of its length must be Strike-Legal.
I suppose they could be thrust-only swords, but I Rather Doubt It. --Lucas 19:03, 5 February 2009 (EST)
