How do you justify swords in a setting where guns should, by all accounts, be superior?
There's plenty of settings, mostly weeb-based fantasy or sci-fi, where characters choose swords over guns, even though guns should by accounts be superior. Other than extremely OP characters, what would a legitimate excuse be?
Have you ever had a setting where you came up with a justifiable reason for this?
Barring discussion and yelling, post pictures of weapons or people with weapons, any weapon at all.
>>46767277
These threads never turn out well.
More on topic, you could justify choosing swords over guns in any fantasy setting just by making damaging magic only work at close range. There are plenty of other ways to justify swords over guns infantasy as well, and unsurprisingly they all have to do with a certain disregard for the laws of physics. Now enjoy the thread as it devolves into shitflinging by weeaboos who are butthurt that guns beat swords in real life, autistic screaming by 12 year old /k/omrade wannabe tryhards, and people who legitimately cannot understand why soldiers carry both guns and combat knives.
This is by no means wholly fact-based and speculation that I can't remember the source of. But I've heard that in the future defense would be much more powerful than offense, so shooting someone in a powersuit does nothing. In that case using the strength of the power suit and a sword made of similar materials (idk man) you would actually be able to damage someone. Nukes and very powerful weapons are still a thing, but consider Iron Man for example, he may get blown away by rocket launchers and grenades but he is minimally damaged still.
A more logical answer is that guns have a set power in a way, while swords scale with whoever is using it, so with incredibly fast humans able to dodge bullets you'd have to shoot them point blank and then you might as well slice the fucker. Most high-power anime will have guns be weak because the characters can just evade them with insane speed, or be hit without it hurting much with superhuman endurance/strength. The more super-human characters are, the less effective normal guns will be.
>>46767277
Dune shields I guess?
Also could have a setting with gun control. Guns > Swords, and only the ruling class get them or something like that. Using/having one as a commoner may end up bringing too much trouble down on your head, but it is an option.
>>46767277
Advanced body armour that stops small arms fire but is relatively lightweight, yet it doesn't stop something with continual pressure behind it.
You can either use bullets the size of your arm, or use a sword.
>>46767277
I think that Legend of Galactic Heroes did it good. You would only use melee weapon when there is a risk of air being explosive or when you are in small space ship so you dont accidentally shoot through it and thus making everybody die.
>>46767503
This is where you can draw from real life. California may be a nightmare if you want a firearm, so almost everyone carries a knife.
Now if your even if it's a rural area or a packed city like New York, you can say body armor is very effective in the setting. And for our unarmored friends, acurracy is not something to be forgotten. A missed shot isn't unheard of. Besides, our unarmored classes are usually really balls to the wall crazy enough to charge, out shoot, magic blast, or try and flank a firearms wielder.
>>46767781
but seriously. why wouldnt i blow that shit up when i see that im the last man of my crew, or something like that?
I mean, soldiers today carry around fucking axes, and they're plenty useful in situations where a gun won't do.
>>46767277
>How do you justify swords in a setting where guns should, by all accounts, be superior?
People with disposable incomes like them, so they're still being produced in small numbers?
>>46767277
If in your setting bullets can be dodged it makes swords as viable as guns. Pic related.
Also >>46767353 is right, swords scaling off wielder's strength helps too. Again, pic related.
In addition to those two, my personal justification is that fantasy setting humans are simply more tough than real life humans. Not to mention magic existing - even if you're non-magic user scrub, there's at least some magic coursing through your body, protecting it from harm - not to the point of shrugging of bullets, but to the point when you need a serious effort to actually kill someone.
Infinity kinda makes this shit work. Guns are most useful in pretty much every situation. Close Combat Weapons come out when two or more combatants are trapped in a tight corridor together.
Other troops that have high close combat skills usually have stealth skills to let them close into sword range with minimal fuss.
Hell, 40K justifies it somewhat with Power Weapons. The device that generates its obscene armour-melting power is just too expensive for throwaway ammunition, so it's put on something that can be swung around in a battle and reused later.
In a setting I'm writing, swords are still valid because everyone's using black powder firearms except some really rich guys with personal gunsmiths. Even then, guns are commonplace.
>>46767353
I get it, but also if you're strong/powerful enough to swing a zweihander like a dagger, you could also probably be shoulder-firing a cannon.
>>46767918
Also, Shadowrun strikes balance between guns and swords pretty well.
Guns offer immediate and easy killy power, but they do not scale as well as swords do (unless you heavily invest in 22 availability forbidden prototypes, and this is not a good idea.). In the hands of a dedicated user melee weapons are terrifying - running up to someone and punching his entrails out is the LEAST impressive thing you can do.
>>46767940
Well, if in your setting bullets can be dodged, it evens the powerlevel.
In a fantasy setting, enchanting a sword might be as difficult as enchanting a bullet, and the sword can be reused.
Hell, some settings might have guns outpace swords entirely, and swords are used purely as honor weapons. Milennia old vampires who still use an old cruciform sword- they put in six decades into learning every trick in the book and they'd be staked before they abandoned all that effort in favour of one of those new-fandangled "gatler guns".
I think the 40k thing is pretty good. There are technologies available (power weapon) that makes melee weapons be able to cut through tanks like butter, yet the same technology is not really applicable to projectile weapons.
If we could build swords that could cut through M1 Abram armour then troops would be wearing them in real life too.
>>46768129
Rather, it IS applicable to projectile weapons, but it's so insanely expensive it's rarely used.
The Vindicare Exitus rifle uses rounds that have power fields.
>>46767972
granted, in Shadowrun, you can literally make your melee weapon better because Qi.
>>46767277
For a non weeb based answer the new Unknown Armies has a gun mage that's not allowed to fire a gun. Their power comes from idea of the threat of their guns alone being enough to solve problems. I'd imagine some cheating gun mages would probably carry big knives around so they can stab people that call their bluff.
>>46768474
>gun mage
>can't fire gun
that is the most infuriatingly un american thing I have ever heard
>>46768491
The point of magic in Unknown Armies is to be a bit hypocritical. The school of magic that relies on breaking tradition needs healthy societies to arbitrarily rebel against, the school of magic involving driving is meant to signify freedom when most practitioners of the school just move from point a to point b under the rules of someone else.
Gun mages CAN fire their weapon, but they lose any magic they've charged up to that point and have to gather it up again which is a bitch that can take weeks.
>>46767277
Brainstorming for a supers campaign where guns are generally a no-go because most people don't have the defensive powers to offset guns. If you bring a gun you've made sure the fight ends in somebody dying. So people stick to unarmed or melee fighting to avoid that.
At certain distances melee weapons are more effective than guns. Just a simple real life fact.
Dune shields is a good sci-fi explanation
>>46767277
Power armor, environments where a misfire could mean collateral you're not willing or permitted to knowingly create (such as venting the ship's hull while you're in it or firing into civilians if you're not a grimdark shitter), and a poorly worded law in your setting about the police and escalation of force which lets criminals get away with doing more by not using guns, as the cops cannot themselves switch to guns unless they do first.
If you try hard enough you can make up a lot of reasons. You just have to let suspension of disbelief fill in the smaller holes and thwack an autist with a rulebook once in a while if he can't get his head out of technicalities for ten seconds.
>>46767277
1. Old stuff is better than new stuff. Works best with magic. It's a common idea that magic is fading from the world, which means magic weapons created in the past are more powerful, with newer magic weapons (if they exist at all) being crappy. Or, it might be the case that magic slowly accumulates in objects, making them more and more powerful as they age - magic heirlooms might be passed down for centuries accumulating power from their users and enemies defeated. Or the ancient civilization that produced the most powerful magic weapons might have collapsed thousands of years ago, and nobody in the modern day can replicate their methods. Maybe people who fight with primitive weapons are emulating the great warriors of old, and channel their power in battle. In these scenarios, guns are better on a physical level, but they missed the boat when it comes to magic.
2. A source of power that needs to be located with the user or the weapon itself, and doesn't work with projectiles. For instance, your sword might have a force-field generator in the hilt that allows it to cut through anything, including other force-fields, but the generators can't be installed into bullets (it might be too big, too expensive, or fucks their flight) meaning only melee weapons work. Or, warriors might use a technique that channels their inner power into their weapons, and it only works when you and the weapon form a complete 'circuit', and doesn't extend to bullets you fire away from yourself.
3. It's cool so it works.
Keep in mind that when it comes to killing ordinary, unarmoured humans, the gun is hard to beat. Even if your sword is enchanted +1 million, what is the benefit of that when a gun already kills someone and does it at a longer distance? The sword needs an advantage to offset its inherently inferior range. If that means giving it higher damage, your setting also needs enemies with a similar level of defence who can shrug off gunshots.
>>46767277
>How do you justify knives in a setting where nuclear warheads should, by all accounts, be superior?
No idea, it's a real mystery why people even carry knives in this day and age irl...
>>46767277
What a stupid fucking thread you've made. But you knew that, shitposter-kun.
>>46771994
Thanks, faggot-senpai.
>>46771961
10 foot rule
If you're closer than 10 (sometimes even 20) feet when you draw, you might as well carry a knife.
always fear the experinced hardened man who prefers the knife.
knew a guy who had over 20 confirmed knife kills, was a complete fucking sociopath.
>>46767277
Dune has energy shields that interrupt objects moving past a certain speed, which stops bullets, but not blades. They are, however, expensive and used mostly by the upper class and elite soldiers.
>>46772943
Didn't they do something similar in Knights of the Old Republic? Personal energy shields were just starting to become commonplace and made blasters much less effective, so people started carrying swords again because conventional firearms weren't readily available.
>>46772943
>They are, however, expensive and used mostly by the upper class and elite soldiers.
not to mention the whole "causes a nuclear explosion when hit by a laser" thing
>>46767277
>How do you justify swords in a setting where guns should, by all accounts, be superior?
So what you're basically asking is this:
>Justify why people make sub-optimal choices.
Such a question is largely outside of the scope of /tg/ and basically boils down to "Because they do."
>>46767503
Except gun control doesn't work. It fucks over people who care about the law, but criminals can effectively ignore it.
Guns aren't hard things to make, they're exceptionally simple mechanical devices. I could build a basic submachinegun like the STEN in about 3 hours in my garage with a hacksaw, an arc welder and a drill press. Case(s) in point: the IRA was well known for using homemade SMGs despite British draconian gun control, same for biker gangs under Australian law, Chechen separatists in Russia and cartels in Brazil.
Pic related, homemade SMGs seized from the HueHues.
>>46767940
I personally wouldn't use a shoulder-firing cannon at melee distances.
The point I am trying to make is, why not both guns and swords? They aren't mutually exclusive.
At very close range, a gun is almost worthless, but a sword/long knife is still useful.
>>46777639
>a gun is almost worthless
To the poorly trained moron, yes. There's close combat firearms techniques like center axis relock which can make guns much more effective at close range.
>>46777676
>CAR
enjoy shooting your own bicep
>>46767854
Axes are useful tools. You're a moron if you think anyone's actually going to use one of those as a weapon.
>>46777639
>>46777676
A better statement is "in a varied list of scenarios a gun is no more useful than a stabbing / slashing implement at killing the other guy first".
>>46777304
Except that gun control works. The number of guns that criminals have is way fewer that in 'Murica. And no rampage killings, no accidents and no cowboy states bullshit. Buy a dildo if you need relief.
>>46772359
You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
>>46767277
Swords make sense even today. You just need short ones as most of the time when you want a very sharp stick is in close-quarters combat. Something on the level of a Bowie Knife or Machete is CQC GOLD. In open combat though as most body armor today is optimized to stop guns, a sword would make an impression. There's a reason why cops in some countries have to put on extra "stab plates" to prevent getting shanked.
Welcome to the 21st century when if you get the drop on a gunslinger you own their body.
>>46777822
>gun control works.*
For certain definitions of "works". Socioethnic homogeneity, economic opportunity, and cohesion/consensus-valuing social mores do a lot more for discouraging any crime than does presence or absence of a gun.
>>46777822
Enjoy your authoritarian power fantasy, but it's just that, a fantasy.
Even in America, criminals don't buy guns legally, they get them on the black market. America has more crime because we have a huge drug problem, a huge gang problem and giant heavily urbanized shitholes full of different ethnic groups that all hate eachother. We also share a direct land boarder with Mexico, which is an enormously corrupt, crime-ridden state virtually run by cartels. Mexico also has draconian gun control yet still has a higher homicide rate than the US. In comparing the gun laws of US states with their overall homicide rates, we discover that there is no correlation (positive or negative) between gun laws and crime. Crime is an extremely complex beast, with dozens if not hundreds of factors contributing to it's presence or absence. However, to put it in simplest possible terms, poverty and population density are the biggest predictors of a high homicide rate, while guns have no correlation at all.
>>46777961
It is true that a man with an edged weapon has an advantage over a man unaware and with a holstered firearm up to a distance of 21 feet.
It is patently untrue that, in open close-quarters combat, an edged weapon is at all a sensible choice over a handgun or carbine.
>>46777822
>The number of guns that criminals have is way fewer that in 'Murica
So fucking what? The overall homicide rate is what matters, if you care more about victims of certain weapons than others, you need your head examined.
>And no rampage killings
Which make up less than 1% of the annual homicide rate and are therefore an irrelevant statistical outlier.
>no accidents
Citation fucking needed.
>no cowboy states bullshit
If by that you mean that there are American states which don't value the lives of criminals above those of law abiding citizens, I fail to see the issue. I'm guessing you're a supporter of "run, nigger, run" laws, aka Duty to Retreat? You'd get along well with the Klan.
>Buy a dildo if you need relief.
I don't understand why you cucks think this tactic is insulting or offensive to us in any way. The only thing it does is make you look like an idiot, and us laugh at you. /k/ probably owns more dragon dildos than any board besides /trash/, and we call *ourselves* ammosexuals. You're literally trying to insult us with a self-deprecating joke *we* came up with.
>>46778230
Try bringing up a shotgun on a guy swinging a machete into your dominant arm.
>>46778311
Shotguns are ass as a close-quarters weapon, for a variety of reasons.
But, I mean, I can do this too. Try swinging a machete into the dominant arm of a guy who's put two holes in your torso and one into your head from beyond striking range.
>>46778232
Also you forgot...
>Implying most spree-killings would be solved by banning guns.
The problem is with those incidents the issue is the person. Either they're cracked in the head or were from such a fucked-up and impoverished section of our society that they ended up a predator.
Simply put if you got hyper-violence in your society, it's because your SOCIETY is fucked up, not that you have too many weapons.
Of course rationality is badthink in 2016.
Obligatory.
>>46767277
I thought Vicious got away with the sword because he was careful about only using it in very close quarters most of the time. And he was probably on Red Eye.
>>46778408
Nice goalpost move.
>>46778230
>in open close-quarters combat
You're loading the outcome by defining the scenario. You have to look at all the variables -- party A ambushes B, party B ambushes A, range of engagement, training and readiness of participants, types of weaponry employed, ease with which it can be brought to bear, etc. At your aforementioned 21 foot range, or in room to room fighting, it's mostly a wash.
>>46778507
I didn't move any goalposts. I mentioned handguns and carbines (though shotguns are serviceable) in open close-quarters combat.
>>46778508
The post which I responded to explicitly mentions open combat.
What the Gun nuts want is a white-room no-chaos scenario with all parties aware to prove their toys are superior.
Reality isn't so black and white.
the very existence of this thread is nothing more than masturbation at this point and a magnet for shit-posting.
>>46778682
>What the Gun nuts want is a white-room no-chaos scenario with all parties aware to prove their toys are superior.
Nice strawman fucko
>>46778762
Yet there is evidence in the thread for everything I mentioned.
When people wanna kill, anything that can cause a person to breed or to break the right things inside their target's body is all that is needed.
The moment someone can touch you, you're in for a world of hurt. Yea, SOMETIMES you'll get just enough time to get your pistol out, but you'd better pray when you pull the trigger you're not missing them entirely or hitting them in a spot that won't do a thing other than make them angry.
>>46778813
>hitting them in a spot that won't do a thing other than make them angry
Why are you firing birdshot?
>>46778813
>When people wanna kill, anything that can cause a person to breed or to break the right things inside their target's body is all that is needed.
>cause a person to breed
>breed
Nip detected.
>>46778813
All you've really established is that action beats reaction.
Which is true. But if someone has the drop on you, it's not like he'll be any worse off with a gun instead of a knife, and it's not like you'll be any better off with a knife instead of a gun.
>>46778879
But what are you fighting... everyone thinks this is a white-room scenario, but if you got a drugged up psycho coming down on you and all you tore up with your pistol (I wager a 9mm or a .22 at this point which is the more common sidearms these days) was soft tissue...
Well, god be with you.
>>46778915
Just noticed that. If your only retort is to point out a mistake, you really shouldn't try to act intellectual.
>>46778994
>carrying a .22
In that case, you probably deserve to die.
>>46779024
Thing is you guys are offering scenarios, thing is most people have a 9mm or a .22 for personal defense. Good luck to the .22 owner, the 9mm owner might have a better chance, but again, if you don't hit anything vital and you got someone who is completely wanting to hurt you...
Well...
again, good luck.
>>46778994
>Just noticed that. If your only retort is to point out a mistake, you really shouldn't try to act intellectual.
>shitposting
>acting intellectual
One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
>>46779060
>most people have a ... .22 for personal defense
Where in the hell do you live?
>>46767277
The main actors of the setting all posses finely tuned precognitive abilities, trying to shoot one is folly as they will simply move wherever you would not hit them. In close range however they are more vulnerable especially to being outmatched in swordplay.High explosives work to but I think I'm halfway there and they carry their own sets of issues.
>>46779060
>thing is most people have a 9mm or a .22 for personal defense.
Well, I think everyone here can safely ignore anything you have to say about guns after that gem.
>>46779083
Yes. You.
>>46779089
Reality.
>>46779119
>implying everyone walks around with a deagle or a .45
Try harder, jimbo.
>>46779130
Just give up bud, you've already proven yourself an idiot.
>>46779130
No, really. Do you live in Europe, maybe?
>>46779159
People do walk around with .45s all the time, and just the fact that you're mentioning 'deagles' in the same sentence tells me you're probably full of shit.
>>46779161
Give up what? The fact I just wound up a troll, or the fact that your shitposting isn't proving anything to anyone?
The majority of people in this thread don't even OWN a firearm, or have fired one, or even had the training to know how in certain situations it's not even worth getting the pistol out of it's holster as your attacker probably has already stabbed you 3 or 4 times.
>>46779196
The Deagles remark was an insult, actually. Towards people who think 5 minutes with Counterstrike makes them an expert.
>>46779159
>oh yeah Ima put words in his mouth then everyone will think im the smarty-man
Most people grew out of your MO in highschool my man.
But to be direct: fucking nobody except absolute brain-dead morons has carried a .22 for self-defense since the Age of Imperialism. .45 is very popular in the US (where the vast majority of civilian carry occurs), along with 9mm, .380, .38 Special, .40 S&W and .357 Magnum.
>>46779218
>Give up what?
Your impotent rage and trying to act like an expert on a subject you've proven you know exactly nothing about.
>The Deagles remark was an insult, actually
Well it was a shit one.
The fact that people took you seriously reflects more on the general ignorance you're projected thus far than any failing on their part.
>>46779218
That's the thing, though. Why even bring up CS?
Do YOU own any firearms?
>>46779242
Now who is the mad one?
>>46779224
Didn't I mention the 9mm is a common pistol? Also I've seen people keep .22s for plinking.
Also your responding to me with insults only proves to me you feel threatened.
>>46779278
Like I'd be a dumbass and admit that on a imageboard. That and now you're resorting to an appeal to authority.
I'm not even rustled but there sure is a lot of salt here, I'd better be careful so I don't have a heart attack.
>>46767972
>unless you heavily invest in 22 availability forbidden prototypes, and this is not a good idea.
You don't need to go that far, just get a reinforced spine, some strong cyberlimbs (or be a troll) and get a good old-fashioned Ma Deuce. 150 years in the future, it'll still turn people into chunky spaghetti sauce.
>>46779329
>Like I'd be a dumbass and admit that on a imageboard.
>being THIS un-free that firearm ownership is something to pussyfoot around on the internet
>>46779329
>Like I'd be a dumbass and admit that on a imageboard.
Anon, are you some kind of lawbreaker?
>>46779402
>conflating liberty with consumption of a specific product
>>46779402
Reason why I said dumbass is I could do a Google search for people posting their firearms and claim it's mine. Because then I'd enter a circlejerk over "those aren't yours".
I saw that trap from a mile away.
>>46767277
Guns run the risk of explosive decompression in space ships.
Honor duels
Combat is based around stealth, guns are too loud for hit and run strikes
Guns and ammo that could penetrate modern armor aren't man portable anymore, but a sword can fuck someone up.
Treaties among the species banning ranged weaponry more advanced that a compound bow
It may not matter anymore but Fading Suns has a decent explanation in that while guns are still commonplace, the knowledge to make them is very rare due to centuries of suppression, tech hoarding and crumbling industrial capacity.
It's easy to buy ammo for one gun, incredibly expensive to equip and supply an army with them. Especially if that army is invading a star system away.
>>46779457
It's fine if you're noguns. Really. That's nothing to be ashamed about. Most people were noguns at some point
But why pretend you know dick about what you're talking about?
>>46767277
We've already had this thread, and I've already given the same reply.
Being a crazy motherfucker.
>>46767277
Post-empire setting where they destroyed like 95% of guns in the world to keep them out of the hands of commoners. Guns are rare and prized.
>>46779487
Or more I do own, but I know people won't believe it as well... anon image board.
See, the circle-jerk happens even when I don't fall for it.
>>46779464
People today make guns in their sheds. The British Sten was specifically designed so the local blacksmith could make them if necessary. They might not necessarily be GOOD guns but it wouldn't be that difficult to make a crude SMG or pistol that you could mass produce cheaply.
>>46779487
>Most people were noguns at some point
Which implies that there were some people that never were.
Now I'm imagining a baby sliding out of his mother's vagina carrying a Beretta in each hand and the dad being mildly disappointed 'cus it's "only 9mm" and therefore not a real man.
>>46779487
>>46779533
Not that anon, but I try not to discuss gun ownership specifics in any sort of a public forum. Obviously an opaque textual watering hole for fantastical Vietnamese woodcut prints isn't somewhere I care, but every time I hear an idiot bragging about guns they own in a bar I'm thinking that everyone now knows who to get drunk and brain with a rock if they want [SPECIFIC GUN X].
>>46779661
>but every time I hear an idiot bragging about guns they own in a bar I'm thinking that everyone now knows who to get drunk and brain with a rock if they want [SPECIFIC GUN X].
Exactly my point. You can't tell here.
>>46779565
That works just fine with the knowledge people have today, but this is a setting (as much as quasi-medieval space future can be taken seriously) that is going through the end of the universe where technology is not only rare it is actively persecuted.
Most of humanity are serfs slavishly devoted to folklore that anything more complicated than an ox pulling a cart is powered by demons and even getting near something complex is risking damnation.
The few people who do use guns/laser swords/spaceships don't know how to replicate them, just to maintain or maybe copy the simpler machines. There is no innovation, or the Guilds will stifle or ruin you. The Nobles will see you as a threat that must be co-opted or destroyed and even these previous two power blocs needed special dispensation by the space pope.
>>46767277
Mythcreants can be pretty hit-and-miss, but they wrote a pretty solid article on this subject:
http://mythcreants.com/blog/four-ways-to-bring-swords-to-a-gunfight/
>>46777759
Not intentionally, but shit's gone down in a pinch.
Soldiers train with combat knives for a reason, even if bayonet charges are rare today. They do still happen, though.
>>46767277
You don't have to reload a sword. Bullets don't always automatically stop their target, either.
Imagine if a dude was running at you with a sword, right? You place a couple of shots in his torso as he approaches, but he keeps running at you. You then aim for his head and "thuck"... Your gun is jammed.
That would be a frightening scenario.
>>46767277
Simple. If armor advances to the point where someone wearing it can get into melee range without being swiss-cheesed by someone with a gun, swords and such become much more appealing, at least for extreme close quarters combat.
