Melee Weapon 1v1

[Radium]

What would you choose in a 1v1 fight? Explain your choice.

[PALEMOON]

I'd choose a Claymore. Those things are enormous. It'd take only one hit to end the battle, basically.

[Radium]

I'd use this long trident and poke the shit out of my opponent.

[toasters]

Dagger, just Gouge then Backstab. Plus everyone runs faster with the knife.

[ChaoStar]

What? there's no 'magic umbrella' choice. screw this. =P

[DW40]

I'd choose the claymore because it's amazingly big. Also it's Scottish.
Have you seen one of those things in RL? They're huge.

[Tunco]

Mace. Those things are shaaarp.

[Topo]

A claymore or hammer would be cool, but i don't think i could lift either with both arms. katana is light. (relatively)

[Radium]

I think trident is the obvious choice. Before you guys could even reach me I'd use my 7 foot spiky poll to gouge your eyes. With ease.

[29403]

A Frog.

[jinxed_07]

I think trident is the obvious choice. Before you guys could even reach me I'd use my 7 foot spiky poll to gouge your eyes. With ease.

Same opinion here,unless you want to add a banhammer to the list

[Atilla]

A claymore or hammer would be cool, but i don't think i could lift either with both arms. katana is light. (relatively)

Medieval weapons are lighter than you might think, especially hammers. A one-handed sword would typically weigh less than two kg (whether a katana or a Western sword), and a war hammer is basically a modern claw hammer with a longer handle. Hell, look at the picture of a knight wielding one on Wikipedia - it's no bigger than a largish regular hammer. Speaking of which, Wikipedia also claims the average claymore weights a whopping... 2.5 kg. If you can't lift 2.5 kg using both hands, I think you have more pressing concerns than wielding a weapon.

Anyway, I take the halberd. They're one of the most versatile and effective melee weapons used in medieval times.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Back in high school, a particularly less socially-adapted friend of mine liked to make weapons out of PBC piping, fun noodles, and duct tape. He made multiple copies of swords of various lengths, as well as spears and other weapons. Then a bunch of us would go out to a field and smack each other around with them.

In one-on-one fights, I've found that the spear is the almighty destroyer, especially of groins. The friend of mine who made the weapons was far more skilled than I was, and would consistently kick my ass if we had any combination of swords. But whenever a spear was involved, there was always a single outcome: the guy with the spear would win, regardless of skill.
You can talk all you want about parries and dodges, but they never work. You have to be phenomenally fast and skilled, and up against a total moron, for one of those maneuvers to succeed. I have plenty of personal experience with this, and all of it tells me that these stunts are simply not practical. There's a reason why you'll find you have more success using a claymore like you would a spear than by swinging it over your head repeatedly (which tires you out very quickly anyway).

The problem with spears is their lower effectiveness in a free-for-all involving more than two people. It annihilates whatever's in front of it, but you can't exactly bring it to bear very quickly if someone surprises you from a flank. Just about every free-for-all bout that involved a spear that I've been in involved ganging up on the guy with the spear so that he doesn't murder everyone before proceeding with the free-for-all. If the guy with the spear could backpedal and maneuver himself so that no one was behind him, it would be practically guaranteed that he'd win.

So yeah, I chose spear. Halberds appear to have the same principle, but I'd only ever stab with the thing, so I wouldn't need the extra weight.

[Radium]

Back in high school, a particularly less socially-adapted friend of mine liked to make weapons out of PBC piping, fun noodles, and duct tape. He made multiple copies of swords of various lengths, as well as spears and other weapons. Then a bunch of us would go out to a field and smack each other around with them.

In one-on-one fights, I've found that the spear is the almighty destroyer, especially of groins. The friend of mine who made the weapons was far more skilled than I was, and would consistently kick my ass if we had any combination of swords. But whenever a spear was involved, there was always a single outcome: the guy with the spear would win, regardless of skill.
You can talk all you want about parries and dodges, but they never work. You have to be phenomenally fast and skilled, and up against a total moron, for one of those maneuvers to succeed. I have plenty of personal experience with this, and all of it tells me that these stunts are simply not practical. There's a reason why you'll find you have more success using a claymore like you would a spear than by swinging it over your head repeatedly (which tires you out very quickly anyway).

The problem with spears is their lower effectiveness in a free-for-all involving more than two people. It annihilates whatever's in front of it, but you can't exactly bring it to bear very quickly if someone surprises you from a flank. Just about every free-for-all bout that involved a spear that I've been in involved ganging up on the guy with the spear so that he doesn't murder everyone before proceeding with the free-for-all. If the guy with the spear could backpedal and maneuver himself so that no one was behind him, it would be practically guaranteed that he'd win.

So yeah, I chose spear. Halberds appear to have the same principle, but I'd only ever stab with the thing, so I wouldn't need the extra weight.

That sir, is awesome. Trident has more blades than spear though, so it would win :D. 1v1 I'd go with trident. Free for all, I'd go with katana :)

[T3chno]

All I need is a wrench.


/TF2

[Broghan]

Mmm. I'm with Tsukatu. I actually do enjoy practicing maneuvers with swords like katanas and such, but the effectiveness of a staff or spear is really apparent. You can block a wide range of attacks with it, and close up it can do a lot of damage. You don't really need to be very quick to block an attack.

[KlanKaos]

1v1? Spear. Tsukatu convinced me.

Free-for-all, however, merits a badass scimitar. They're just SO fucking versatile. I love them.

[Chase]

All I need is a wrench.


/TF2

Yup, crit wrench ftw.

Or maybe the Butterfly Knife

"What did they expect"

[Ad]

Ad used Flail!
IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE

[Donfuy]

[blue_tetris]

The utility of the trident beats all. If the weapon were a bit lighter, enabling a swifter swing, it'd be the perfect combat tool.

[Yoshimo]

I instantly singled out 'spear'. Awesome weapon, to be sure.

[capt_weasle]

After effectively testing a crowbar against various threats, ranging from annoying neighbors to advanced alien races wielding long range projectile weaponry, I have decided this is the most efficient form of combat. It also opens boxes.

[origami_alligator]

I voted katana and then read Tsukatu's post and that reminded me of Donatello of TMNT and how badass he is with a staff. So normally I would choose a staff, but I voted katana because it sounds cool.

[noops]

I'd already known everythig Suki was gong to say.Never, ever go up against a spear in a 1v1 fight, especially without a shield. The Spartans had all three, sword, shield, spear, and they kicked mondo ass. Yes, I know they had help from the 1000or so other dudes, but they were still awesome. I'm talking about the actual, historical event, by the way, not the crazy unrealistic movie.

In a 1v1 fight, I'd probably go for the trident, since it's essentially a spear, but with prongs that make it easier to block and parry your opponents. Or a halberd, since the blade section of it makes it better to swipe. Also:What about polearms? Or are those halberds of another name?