TheIrishDoctor

This user has not updated recently.

697 0 1 5
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

TheIrishDoctor's forum posts

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@paytience:

I never said that Chain rendered the knife useless, just that it mitigates the effectiveness. Of course you can still slash the neck, or get under the mail shirt into the groin, but these are much harder targets to get to. Defending the neck is easier than defending the armpit or belly, and in order to get under a chain shirt safely (without exposing yourself to attack) you need to have almost knocked your opponent off their feet or somehow have them grappled.

And NO NO NO. A knife CANNOT pierce through chain. The ONLY knife in history that I know of that can do this is a rondel dagger because they ultra-specialized it just for that purpose.

Unless an apache has a knife like THIS, with a piercing point so acute that it slips inside one of the rings and busts it, it CANNOT get through chain.

This is one of my most frustrating pet peeves and common misunderstandings about chainmail, that it can be so easily pierced. Go onto Youtube and find a video of someone "proving" that weapon 1, 2, or 3 can pierce chain. When you do, take a GOOD look at the chain in question.

Does it look like this?

No Caption Provided

Or does it look like this?

No Caption Provided

The first of those images is what is almost always used and it is NOT historical in the slightest. The links are not held together by anything and you can pull them apart by just pulling on them hard enough. In the second image, the rings are either solid circles, or the rings are riveted shut. And riveted mail can turn WAR SPEARS. No knife is getting through that.

Again, I am NOT saying that the knives are useless. Obviously there are places where the viking won't be armored. Even against a knight in full plate the knife wouldn't be useless (you can jam it through the helmet's visor, or even rip the visor off after you bring him to the ground in a grapple), but that chain DOES mitigate a lot of the Apache's superior knife skills, and the vikings still had excellent grappling techniques and their own knives to fall back on. I'm just saying that it isn't clear-cut at knife range. And even that is assuming that the Apache can get past the bow, the shield, and the sword in order to get into that range, which is very difficult to do.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By TheIrishDoctor

As someone who is actually versed in pre-gunpowder combat, both weapons and tactics, this isn't a fair fight. Vikings had access to Chainmail, and contrary to what Deadliest Warrior liked to show (they used entirely reproduction butted chain, not riveted chain as was historically used almost everywhere) Chainmail will stop pretty much any cut and most forms of piercing weapons that aren't specialized for it.

Vikings have spears which were designed for major armed combat. They had swords which massively out-range the Apache's knives. Each Norse child was trained in combat from childhood too, and they had some very sophisticated combat tactics (the martial art Glima is still practiced today).

Both have bows, but only the Viking has the armor and shields to survive those bows. And while Apache might be legendary knife fighters, I know from experience that it is extremely difficult to overcome a weapon with greater reach, such as the vikings sword or long-axe, no matter how skilled you are.

The armor is the big deal-breaker though. It really limits the options that the Apache has even if he gets into knife-range, and the Viking's grappling, Glima techniques, and their own combat knives (the Seaxes) would give them an edge.

At the end of the day, this is really just a matter of superior technology. I'm assuming that the Apache DOESN'T have access to guns brought over by Europe because that would totally skew it in their favor. Vikings had metal-work while Apache didn't really have access to that.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

...assuming current Harry Potter, he should totally stomp.

Where are people getting that Maul blitzes? He isn't Sidious or Yoda. Regular people are perfectly capable of reacting to Jedi and Sith levels of speed as long as they are at a distance. Mandalorians alone killing so many Jedi prove this. Heck, a Mandalorian leader held his own against Maul for a while, which shows that a regular human can react to his speeds. And Harry has access to magic that Maul can't defend against.

Transfiguration is the main one. It is non-verbal, and has never been depicted as having a spell beam/bolt/whatever. Harry can literally just point his wand at Maul and turn him into a hamster. Even if Maul's reaction was fast enough to try and block the invisible not-beam, then the lightsaber would turn into a hamster (if it would even block it at all).

If Harry was morals off, then he also has Sectumsempra, a spell which turns your wand into a laser-pointer except that wherever the red dot would be slashes open. Again, no beam to block, just point and it happens.

Psychology also works in Harry's favor. Maul likes to intimidate and overwhelm his opponents before killing them (or even attacking them sometimes) while Harry survived as long as he did by taking the initiative and acting before his opponents. So Maul won't be blitzing, but if Harry felt he was in danger, he could totally quick-draw an unavoidable Transfiguration spell.

Not saying that Harry is stronger or a better warrior than Maul. He's not, and there are plenty of enemies that Maul would decimate whom Harry would have no chance against. But HP wizards have utility and versatility that really makes them hard for a straight fighter like Maul to go up against.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I...don't think people are giving Sherlock Holmes enough credit here. Yeah, some of ACD's "deductions" are entirely arbitrary, but other versions of Sherlock that have come after have been MUCH more rational and logical and...are still utterly and totally broken.

Batman? Not even close. Bat's deductive reasoning is extremely good, but I wouldn't even place him as a second tier fictional detective. It's not where his focus is.

Most of the other people mentioned here aren't on the same level either.

The only two mentioned that I see as being on the same level are Hercule Poirot (who suffers from having much fewer adaptations, so while he is certainly more logical than ACD's Sherlock, you now also have to compare him to all the other Sherlock's that have come since (like Cumberbatch's Sherlock). Still, Agatha Christie was insanely genius so...he still is on the same level. And the other is the Doctor, who is supernaturally intelligent in ways that supersede Sherlock's deductive reasoning, but where it is difficult to compare which is actually better at logical/deductive reasoning because so many of the things that the Doctor is able to pull off are as much a part of his encyclopedic knowledge about everything in all of time and space just as much as it is his reasoning ability.

There may be some more obscure characters who are up there as well, but as far as the characters I'm familiar with....yeah these three are probably top tier in that regard.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Full noon? Going by the most recent chapter, and how powerful we know the Ten Commandments are...Escanor solos with ease.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

V-Rex feats or no, Kong still looses.

Indominus is much smarter than the V-Rexes (and likely smarter than Kong as far as combat intelligence and cunning goes, though Kong is smarter in every other way), has actual feats for his bite force, has long, raptor like claws that could tear at Kong if he tries to just grab Indominus' head, and he tanked pretty heavy bullets to the back and head with no problem.

Kong would likely win 1 v 1, although Indominus gives him more trouble than the V-Rexes. But with the raptors having torn the chimps apart, they'll be able to hurt Kong and prevent him from making a strong front while the Indominus goes in for the kill.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrunsmiley: King kong is a lot lot smart than indominous.

That's highly debatable. Kong had a lot more social intelligence, sure. He could understand humans a lot better. But the Indominus seemed much more tactical and much more cunning. Things like tearing out it's tracer, and camouflaging itself to trick the people into opening the gate to let it out. I don't think Kong could have done that. He seemed much more of a "KONG SMASH" sort of guy when it came to solving his problems.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I would argue that it's the purpose of the people who will debate the battles in the forums how valid the V-Rex scenes were, rather than just not letting us use it at all. It's still a feat that Kong has, even if you want to say that it isn't as solid of a feat as some might think.

That being said, I do think that the Idominus and the Raptors have this. The Raptors are just going to tear the chimps apart, making them a non-factor, and the Indominus showed pretty intense durability feats, good fighting intelligence, and once the chimps are out of the way, the Raptors can harass Kong the same way that Blue did to save the T-Rex at the end of Jurassic World except...there's 10 of them. Maybe 8 or 9 if the chimps manage to take a couple out.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@theirishdoctor said:
@vintage_spiderman said:

Oh my...now people think Yhwank can beat Supes?

Why not? He's a reality warper. I mean, he's not on the level of Franklin Richards or anything considering that, as far as we can tell, he can only make things happen that are already possible without his reality warping (so he couldn't turn Superman into a dog or something), but there's nothing to stop him from just looking into the future and saying "Oh, by the way, this battlefield that we're fighting in...I've just changed it so that it was built entirely out of Kryptonite."

He can see every possible future and he can change every possible future in any way that he wants. Yes, Superman outpowers him massively, but he's just way too hax.

Is that why Aizen oneshotted him with a genjutsu...? Allowing ichigo to fodderize him with getsuga tensho...clearly he's not as infallible as you think even if he isn't dead the fact he let that happen lets me know he's not "almighty" pun intended.

Witness the utter bull I am subjected to on a daily...lol no further words only......*silence*

We have NO idea what actually happened in that chapter yet. We don't know how Aizen's countering worked or even if it DID work and this isn't all just Ywach letting them feel like they are getting hits in just so that he can crush their spirits by showing that it won't do anything. It wouldn't be the first time he's done that. Probably not, considering that the series is ending soon, but the point is that we really don't know what happened.

Either way, your argument is that because Aizen's power, the power to give him complete control over every single thing that you observe, is possibly a counter to a guy who can reality warp anything that he can observe, then he's clearly not that great...isn't a very good argument.

Again, Ywach can see every possible future, and so far the only two things that have worked against him are a guy who can change what he sees and a guy who can create a new future by changing the past. Superman doesn't have any of that. Ywach, we have seen, can make a thing happen instantaneously because he sees all of time from this point to an infinite number of futures simultaneously and by transforming the future can effect the present. Superman appears and because Ywach will have already seen how powerful Superman is, he'll just instantly spawn a shard of Kryptonite inside his heart or something like that. Or he'll just break Superman's power by going to a future where he no longer has them. Or however he decides to do this.

I love Superman. I think that he'd win a lot of battles that other people here think that he would lose. He has WAY more destructive power than Ywach does. But it doesn't matter. Because as far as I can tell, you need to actually have something to counter the Almighty in order to defeat Ywach. Raw power can't do it alone.

Avatar image for theirishdoctor
TheIrishDoctor

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

By feats, Lucifer is far, far, FAR more powerful and dangerous than Roman.

But so are your everyday casual angels, and we've seen what happens when they go up against Leviathans. So I honestly don't think it's possible to know. Considering that it's LUCIFER, I'm still going to go with him. We know that Leviathans can stomp angels, but we've never seen them go up against an Archangel. Lucifer might not be able to kill him via normal means, but I just can't see him actually losing.

Powers in Supernatural don't make sense.