[All4BigGuns]

Made an adept last night with 22 dice to swing katana and did 8P (could've gotten 9, but thought that was just ridiculous).

Trust me it wasn't intentional. It just friggin turned out like that. I actually feel dirty with that level skill on Blades. Probably helped that I was just seeing what was possible building a real adept, and well, looks like that pretty well proves that adepts don't need implants.

Could you please post the character in the Creation and Critique forum?

Nope. Why? Because I do not wish to.

[Crunch]

Well, part of the reputation of the katana isn't hype. They tested blades on prisoners, and rated them on how many bodies the blade went through in a single slice. There were two and three body blades made. On Deadliest Warrior, I saw a guy with a katana cut through two and a half pig carcasses in one cut. The speed of the katana combined with its sharp edge make it a formidable weapon, and is easier to find gaps in armor with it. Now against someone wearing full plate armor, the katana user would be at a disadvantage, yes. But they had other weapons besides the katana.

I would say that the hype around the katana isn't really based on the katana at all, though, but on the people that wielded them. The samurai with their bushido code are something of a legend that has grown with time. The ninja of myth are also legendary, as well. These things combine to make a mythos around the katana, which is pretty powerful, even to someone who isn't part of Japanese culture. The only thing we Americans have that comes close would be gunslingers out in the Wild West, with weapons like the Colt Peacemaker or the Winchester rifle. The guns that won the West aren't particularly impressive compared to modern weapons, but they still resonate strongly with people, because of their legendary past.

Although just as a reality check, the Samurai never won a war against anyone who wasn't also a Samurai.

[All4BigGuns]

Well, part of the reputation of the katana isn't hype. They tested blades on prisoners, and rated them on how many bodies the blade went through in a single slice. There were two and three body blades made. On Deadliest Warrior, I saw a guy with a katana cut through two and a half pig carcasses in one cut. The speed of the katana combined with its sharp edge make it a formidable weapon, and is easier to find gaps in armor with it. Now against someone wearing full plate armor, the katana user would be at a disadvantage, yes. But they had other weapons besides the katana.

I would say that the hype around the katana isn't really based on the katana at all, though, but on the people that wielded them. The samurai with their bushido code are something of a legend that has grown with time. The ninja of myth are also legendary, as well. These things combine to make a mythos around the katana, which is pretty powerful, even to someone who isn't part of Japanese culture. The only thing we Americans have that comes close would be gunslingers out in the Wild West, with weapons like the Colt Peacemaker or the Winchester rifle. The guns that won the West aren't particularly impressive compared to modern weapons, but they still resonate strongly with people, because of their legendary past.

Although just as a reality check, the Samurai never won a war against anyone who wasn't also a Samurai.

This is partially because they were fairly isolationist then.

[Crunch]

This is partially because they were fairly isolationist then.

Sure, but it makes it really hard to evaluate the actual combat effectiveness of a Samurai army against anyone who is, well, not a Samurai. The Medieval Europeans and Arabs on the other hand fought several different groups.

I've always suspected that a large part of the Samurai Hype is simply nostalgia. The Samurai were still doing the Swords and Arrows thing when everybody else was already on to gunpowder. It just looks cooler.

[Redmercury]

This is partially because they were fairly isolationist then.

Sure, but it makes it really hard to evaluate the actual combat effectiveness of a Samurai army against anyone who is, well, not a Samurai. The Medieval Europeans and Arabs on the other hand fought several different groups.

I've always suspected that a large part of the Samurai Hype is simply nostalgia. The Samurai were still doing the Swords and Arrows thing when everybody else was already on to gunpowder. It just looks cooler.

Pshhhhhh, forget the samurai, it's all about those badass ronin. Ain't no-one's dog. Musashi! Musashi!

Also, while I can't vouch for the quality of samurai in a full scale war, their training made them top notch warriors for small skirmishes, duels, all that populace suppressing jazz.

[Unahim]

In college I was part of a field of study called "Japanology" for two years. I thus believe I can talk with a small matter of authority on the subject.

As others have already stated, the isolationist nature of the nation has prevented a lot of inter-country warfare from occuring. It's worth noting that during the majority of Japan's hsitory this isolation was not self-imposed, but rather a result of the difficulties in traversing the seas with the primitive crafts then available.

For a long time the Japanese mostly had a culture of warriors, not soldiers. What this means is that battles resembled more closely a collection of loosely connected 1 on 1 fights and small skirmishes rather than the formation fighting we see in ancient and medieval times in Europe, Greece, etc. This evolution made sense when seen against the cultural backdrop of the nation; however, when the Mongolians once invaded Japan they brought with them an actual professional army, and the Japanese were quite powerless against it. The Mongolians didn't play by their rules and just "dishonourably" cut them down as efficiently as possible. Thus the Japanese troops were routed, but the Mongolians--who couldn't believe the ease of their victory and thus expected a trap--returned to their ships. That night a huge storm swept across the coasts of japan, a storm of catastrophical proportions, and the majority of the Mongolian fleet sank, leaving the men to drown. The remaining forces hastily departed back to the mainland. (this is known as the kamikaze; the God Wind).

Oddly enough, the second Mongolian invasion was stopped by a storm, too.

Anyway, this historical account shows that the Japanese of that time were not all that fiercesome in open warefare. However, it is the honourable warrior culture that many admire, the idea that war is more than a few square formations meeting to cut each other down, but rather battles between skilled warriors to prove who is the better man. This appeals to a lot of people.

It has to be said, though, that after the Sengoku period (shown in Shogun 2: total war, partially) Japan had apparently moved away from that quite a bit, with the peasantry (ashigaru troops) forming into professional armies and the like. Indeed, when Hideyoshi later invaded Korea they blitzed to the Korean capital in no time at all, and not even the intervention of the Chinese could halt their armies. Instead, their conquest was foiled by the difficulty of maintaining supply lines and guerilla tactics.

Even then, though, a direct comparison is very hard. It seems strange to us that the Japanese used almost no shields, but they just had a completely different warfare style, relying on mobility more than the protection a heavy shield could offer, because when you're facing circling archery warriors on horse back you're far better off with mobility than with being able to block arrows from one side, apparently.

So yeah, the Japanese warrior culture was very different from our own, and that's why some people feel drawn to ti. We can debate its merits all day, but in the end, their fighting style fight their needs perfectly, as the western style did ours. Letting the two battle each other is a pointless (but fun) mental excercise.

[JustADude]

Thank you very much for that excellent summary, Unahim.

The thread has actually helped bring my central point of dissatisfaction into focus for me.

The katana is, despite my earlier bout of bitterness, a very good weapon for what it was meant to do... that is to say, cutting through squishy flesh when a skilled user has found gaps in his opponent's armor. It is not, however, significantly better at doing so than the many other types of swords designed for the same task.

I've handled many types of blades, including the katana, and it just does not perform in a way that warrants a point of Armor Penetration if other similar weapons... not to mention the beefier ones meant to go through armor, rather than around it... don't.

---   ---   ---

And, as an aside... people, even here, seem to be under the impression that European swords were sharpened crowbars, when they're not. That false reputation came from much later days, when people who were used to nothing bigger than a fencing foil tried to pick up an arming sword and use it the same way as a rapier, which they're not designed for. European swords had just as much work put into the blade geometry, metallurgy, and forging process as any katana produced by a similarly skilled Japanese weapon-smith.

Shadowjack's comparison of taking a bunch of European-style SLOs (Sword-Like Objects) designed to hang on a wall and testing them against a "combat grade" katana doesn't prove anything except a good sword out-performs a crap sword. Totally apples-and-oranges. You might as well compare a set of Japanese "Samurai Armor" against a suit of articulated plate made out of cheap tin and then say Japanese armor out-performs European full-plate.

[Critias]

As statted up in SR, it's got the -1 AP in part because there's only three stats for weapons -- range, damage, and armor penetration -- to differentiate from one to the other.  And, in part, because the katana is traditionally described in SR as a two-handed weapon (so, I'm sure, they decided to give it something) to rank it up above the generic sword.

I've long been an advocate of doing away with the specific "katana" designation, though, and just having a stat for a sword, a two-handed sword, and mono-versions of each.  There's no need for a specific name for what should be only cosmetic differences between the various styles of swords, in my opinion.  If someone wants to describe their weapon as a european-style bastard sword, they can, a katana, they can, an oversized machete, a chinese dadao...whatever floats their boat.

*shrugs*  But that's just me.

[Shadowjack]

I didn't post that as proof, I hope you realize that. I just felt that the particular katana I had was incredibly damaging.

We can speculate all we like on the what weapons were better historically but I doubt anyone will be able to provide any real proof. Everyone is going to claim they had superior weaponry, it's a huge pride issue. I don't believe much of anything until I see it for myself. I figure that historic records are incredibly biased in most cases. Each type of sword was designed for a different kind of warrior. Factors such as size, quickness, strength, skill etc should all be considered when designing a sword.

Personally, I don't think it's that significant that the standard sword has lower stats than a katana. The sword has the advantage of being cheaper, which could indicate inferior craftsmanship or materials. The katana costs much more but gets armor penetration and lower availability to compensate. If you like European style swords but dislike the stats, just buy a katana and rename it to your liking.

Since none of us participated in any real battles during the era which those weapons were used, we'll never truly have all the details. It can be fun to speculate but don't be fooled into thinking you have all the facts just because you read a book, watched a tv show or even trained with the weapons yourself. We can never replicate exactly what it was like back then and there are surely factors that we're unaware of that went into the design process of each weapon.

Lastly, Shadowrun isn't real life. If the katana is better in the game, that's just how it is. I don't really see the problem I think it adds color to the game and like I said, feel free to buy one and rename it.

[Redmercury]

Well said on the sword design factors shadowjack.
 I would rather give my character a claymore than a no-dachi. I ain't no daisy eating samurai wannabe! IRL, there are so many cool weapons and they all have their disadvantages and advantages over other weapons in different scenario's. It's like rock paper scissors, or as some weapons just own in more situations, pokemon. Heh, I kinda want to see a pokemonesque game where instead of a trainer you're a warrior, and instead of pokemon they're, well, weapons. More on track though, sure some weapons may have better stats in the RAW, but it's up to the GM's to decide when a particular weapon has an advantage over another (non-obligatory of course). Sure a combat axe would smash through a katana in most scenario's, but in a dark confining jungle undergrowth, or some other cramped quarters, the lesser statted kukri (or any weapon with no reach) would stomp them. In my rules anyway.

[Mad Hamish]

Made an adept last night with 22 dice to swing katana and did 8P (could've gotten 9, but thought that was just ridiculous).

Trust me it wasn't intentional. It just friggin turned out like that. I actually feel dirty with that level skill on Blades. Probably helped that I was just seeing what was possible building a real adept, and well, looks like that pretty well proves that adepts don't need implants.

Could you please post the character in the Creation and Critique forum?

Nope. Why? Because I do not wish to.

I'm curious to see how much other than swing a sword it can do.
I've tossed together an adept which has 22 dice doing 8P with a Weapon Focus Katana but it's taken 250 out of 400 bp and 5.25 power points and the only stats that are above starting are str & ag, the only skill is blades and the only gear is the katana power focus.

That leaves the character struggling to do much else

(Mind you it's the first physical adept I've made in 4th ed)

making an augmented physical adept with 22 dice for katana took 231 karma with 3.5 power points left  (again It could almost certainly be done cheaper)

[Xzylvador]

ˆ Don't.
Just don't.
Go derail another thread into yet another "Pure Adept" vs. "Augmented Adept" balance/contest or pick one of the many still floating around there.
Apart from a slip or two, this thread has actually been fun to read so far.

[Anarkitty]

Just my 2¥, but any weapon in the game is just an example.  There are as many other cosmetically different makes and models of each gun in the rule book as your game group has imagination.  Same stats, same rules, same cost, but it's made by a small Italian boutique arms shop and you got it for your 16th birthday.
"Katana," in this case, is a Brand or Model of two-handed sword like "Ares Predator."  If you want a different gun with the same stats and same cost, you buy a "Predator" and say it's a Venetian "Il Gatto Sette."  If you want a different sword with the same stats and same cost, you buy a "Katana" and say it's a "Claymore."

[Mithlas]

I'm not sure on the credibility of this, but I've also heard that Toledo supplied Japan with some of its superior smithing material.

I would be suspicious of this given that my looking into folded steel seems to indicate that both places came up with the idea independently, but I'd always be open to a new source stating otherwise.

I would still question whether a katana or curved blade is better than a double-edged straight sword. They have different design and function - I wish I could post a couple of the PDFs I've acquired about armed martial arts forms, but most of the straightedged weapons have shorter swings which would indicate less time between attacks. It's also easier to block or parry with the flat of a straight sword than it is to turn aside a similar blow with a katana or saber (in general).

Also: you can get a claymore in Arsenal p14. But I still see what you mean, and "blades" is vague enough anyway that your point remains. The maneuvers of thrusting with a dirk and throwing out a flurry of slashes with a cavalry saber are as different as night and day in the real world, but for ease of use Shadowrun simplifies it all to one skill (though with options to specialize).

[Mirikon]

Depends on the weapon, Mithlas, as well as how you use it. The best comparison to a katana amongst European swords would be the bastard sword. Similar length blade, made to be used with one or two hands. Between the two, the katana is lighter and faster, and it is easier to use one-handed than a bastard sword because of that. The European longsword and shortsword were designed to be used with a shield, and so the actual use of the weapon differs greatly from how a katana was used. As for a curved blade being slower, it was the Japanese who created the art of iaijutsu, where one would draw and strike a foe with the same action, at incredible speed. While it is possible you could do that with a longsword, the difference in weight and shape makes it difficult.

Regarding blocking a blade with the flat of a longsword, from what I've read the style the katana was used with was less about blocking and more about parrying and deflecting. It is true that a curved blade isn't as good at physically blocking a blow, but you can deflect it and parry it quite well. And because the blade kept such an edge, even a quick strike from inside an enemy's guard after a parried attack could be fatal.

Honestly, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. They were two different types of weapons, made for different jobs under different conditions, utilizing different fighting styles.