no banana@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 年前flanged rulelemmy.worldimagemessage-square50linkfedilinkarrow-up1259arrow-down10
arrow-up1259arrow-down1imageflanged rulelemmy.worldno banana@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 年前message-square50linkfedilink
minus-squareDragonTypeWyvernlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 年前Good for multiple opponents sure sounds like you actually mean “good for putting down peasant revolts where they’re both underarmed and unarmored”
minus-squareAussiemandeus@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 年前More so for defending yourself against multiple people or holding a bridge head
minus-squareDragonTypeWyvernlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前The only time a fighter can be assumed to win with even 2 to 1 odds is with a significant material and training advantage. And they’d still be better off with a weapon that isn’t a gimmick.
minus-squareAussiemandeus@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Oh you so mighty and knowledgeable in the martial arts teach us your wisdom
minus-squareDragonTypeWyvernlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Sure thing. A good big man beats a good small man. Two men beat one man. You’re welcome buddy.
Good for multiple opponents sure sounds like you actually mean “good for putting down peasant revolts where they’re both underarmed and unarmored”
More so for defending yourself against multiple people or holding a bridge head
The only time a fighter can be assumed to win with even 2 to 1 odds is with a significant material and training advantage. And they’d still be better off with a weapon that isn’t a gimmick.
Oh you so mighty and knowledgeable in the martial arts teach us your wisdom
Sure thing.
A good big man beats a good small man.
Two men beat one man.
You’re welcome buddy.