Re: Birds in war

From: Paul May <kax_at_...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:58:21 +1000

At 10:13 AM 14/10/04, you wrote:
>Well, my view is that even if most Rinliddi aren't fliers or avilry,
>this is the mythically dominant approach. Thus, I see the standard
>Rinliddi style of spear as being a medium-length weapon, long enough
>to reach down from a tall bird or in low flight, but short enough
>that it can be swung as well as stabbed and used either one- or two-
>handed. The blade is longer than the usual and also configured also
>for the cut, with long, sharp side edges. In some ways, they might
>be considered glaives, and if one-handed use were not an issue, they
>might have evolved into heavier, point-plus-poleaxe bills like a
>bardiche.

  That sounds right for a light cav force who also fight on the ground. A long-bladed medium-light spear that can be used as if it's a lance, a spear or a two-handed sword. Very versatile, and light enough you can be flashy with it. I'd carry separate javelins, but the main spear can also be thrown; it's going to be a bit heavy for normal ranged use. Take some skill to use well, looks good in use; sounds about right for flashy swashbuckly types. makes me want to play one...
  The heavy version they didn't go to strikes me more as a partisan, the heavy wide bladed spear with side blades. ;) Glaives &c have only one edge.

>In battle, I think they are used a little like lances in the
>cava/avilry assault, as spears in the first rush for infantry, and
>then stabbing and cutting alike in the melee, while Rinliddi heroes
>jump around, stabbling, slashing, dodging and riposting, but always
>with agility and aplomb!

  Yup! And with highly-polished blades, to give that flashing showy look to the unit fighting in the sun. Plus, of course, the effects of magic ones...

| Paul May               | kax_at_...
| Kax Hoplodyne, Ltd     | the_kax_at_...
| MIB 1138; RD Australia | spell_at_...
| PGP key on www.pgp.net | games and freeforms done while you
|                        | wait (some lead-time required)

  "We only accept logic as being inviolate because we don't have the ability to doubt it. Now, isn't it rather arrogant to assume that something is true simply because we don't have the ability to doubt it? I decided that it was, and rejected logic as anything but a product of the limitations of human understanding. This rather neatly knocks the pins out from under virtually every argument ever put forth and relegates some of the loftiest works of the human mind to the level of mere conjecture."