User blog comment:Leolab/Ancient User Tourney, Round 4: Ganzorig (Wass) v Tiberius Proditus (EA)/@comment-5078776-20160607042634/@comment-4661256-20160611211003

1) I'm sorry Cfp, but this argument literally makes no sense. "[The] sharpened point made it more it a more hacking type weapon than a fluent slash." The sharpened point has no bearing on the rest of the weapon's design--it does not affect its double-edged nature, and it does not change the fact that, as a modified infantry variant of a cavalry weapon, the spatha is still going to have a deadly slash. I will concede to an extent that the straight-bladed design of the spatha (and not the sharpened point, as you claim) will limit its effectiveness on the slash when compared to a curved blade like a scimitar. Either way, I'm not foolish enough to claim that the spatha is a superior slashing weapon to the scimitar. What I am claiming, however, and what you failed to disprove, is that the spatha is more versatile as its slashing capability is still superior to the scimitar's thrusting ability. Therefore, the spatha's effective stab and viable slash/hack is superior to the scimitar's effective slash and much less viable thrust/stab.

2) You can also argue that drawing back a bowstring and firing an arrow is a very telegraphed move. You still failed to address the fact that the plumbata is much lighter and quicker to deploy, especially when Ganzorig will always be within effective range of the darts, nullifying any potential range advantage the bow could have. You also failed to take into consideration the fact that, with less extensive armor coverage, Ganzorig has way more body parts that are vulnerable to being struck by a plumbata, whereas while the arrows have more stopping power, they have to contend with both a scutum and more extensive armor on Tiberius' part. Since your entire argument here consists of calling the plumbata "telegraphed" without addressing any of the other points I brought up, I really don't feel like you've refuted my long range claim.

3) Obviously the mace delivers more power per blow than the pugio, but that's completely beside the point. For one thing, Tiberius is not using the scutum in conjunction with the pugio, so it's not like Ganzorig has a really big target to hit with his mace. So actually the scutum is not affecting the speed of the pugio, therefore nullifying a pretty big chunk of your argument here. Anyway, the pugio's larger killing surface area over the mace's smaller head (and yeah, Leo brought up the potential for the mace's shaft/handle to stun, but I mean a ton of weapons can stun, including the spatha's pommel and the scutum itself, so I don't see that as being particularly noteworthy), coupled with its potential to inflict bleeding damage rather than blunt trauma, means it's still the more dangerous weapon. You also failed to take into account that while the mace offers more reach, once Tiberius closes that distance the reach will work against the mace, especially with its smaller killing surface area. Overall, Tiberius' greater mobility with the pugio, its larger killing surface area, its comparatively greater speed, its superior practicality at close distances, and its potential to inflict more serious trauma all work together to make it a better choice than the mace.

4) Good. You should edit your original vote to reflect this.

5) Yes, it's a very cheap tactic, but as Leo pointed out, it's also good strategy. Anyway, I wasn't aware that you were going out of town, so it's not like I was doing this as a deliberate dick move (not that such a dick move is below me--I'd totally own up to it if it was intentional). Regardless, it doesn't matter, because I don't care if it's cheap. You want to complain about cheap, complain about Skully's armor.