Restrictions to Armor -1 reply

Please wait...

Puck Udroc

Fallen Jedi

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#11 14 years ago
FyuriiBattle commences, the one in armour is over confident and loses.[/quote] Jedi don't get overconfident [quote=Fyurii]The Force might allow Jedi/Sith to enhance their physical abilities, but wearing armour would just make that a compensation for the armour, whilst Jedi/Sith without armour get the full benefit of the physical enhancement.

^I love how that makes sense. If a Jedi is in armour, he won't make the fight any less difficult. The point is now, he is fighting still with all his strength, yet not only does he have armour to protect from a saber wound, but he can both shield from kicking attacks, and hit the enemy with his torso as an attack.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#12 14 years ago

1: I did not say it was a Jedi who got over confident.

2: How does armour shield from a kick? A hard enough kick can still damage, even through armour.

3: Armour would be useless against the Force.

4: There is no call to be patronising - "I love how that makes sense" I have not been patronising to you, please show me the same courtesy.

5: Armour would only protect for a limited amount of time against a Lightsaber + any armour has a chink in it, it's physical weakness




Puck Udroc

Fallen Jedi

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#13 14 years ago

1) ust because I had armour, I wouldn't go easy on my opponet. They would use any advantage they got. 2) It would shield from a kick by...lemme see....not damaging you when kicked? Duh! 3) Never mentioned Force. 4) I patronise anyone on these forums? Got a problem, go cry to a mod about it. 5) Armour won't get chinks. It isn't Chain Mail, it is solid Armour. If hit with a lgithsaber on the side, the armour would most likely protect you.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#14 14 years ago

The term "chink in the armour" does not solely refer to chain mail, but all forms of body armour.

To stop a Lightsaber, you would have to be covered from head to toe in a suit of armour made entirely of Cortosis, that had a shield generator built in - Galak Fyarr in Jedi Outcast - which would slow your movements drastically. Any area of the body that requires mobility would be less protected due to less armour.

Response times would be absolutely crap. Plus, you already think you would be almost untouchable = over confidence.

Mobility is a key element in CQC. As I said, enhancing your abilities with the Force would only be a compensation, not an advantage.

Body armour does not provide a good enough defense against an unarmoured, more mobile opponent.




Puck Udroc

Fallen Jedi

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#15 14 years ago

Sure it does. If a Jedi has armour, he will use the Force to not only make the Armour not restrict him, but also make him faster, and he won't think himself untouchable, far from it. A straight stab would still kill you, but if grazed at all or hit from the side, the armour can help protect you. you wouldn't think "Oh, I have armour, so now I'm invincible" He would fight just as hard, but now with backup incase he is grazed or tapped. sorry, mods. It is really getting annoying. Now all you are doing is arguing in nearly every forum I post on. It is getting really fucking annoying. Knock it off.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#16 14 years ago

I'm not arguing, merely pointing out the flaws in your posts.

I don't particularly care if you find what I'm posting as annoying.

Don't presume to tell me what to do.

I haven't sworn at you, nor have I told you what to do.

I am being very civil when I ask you to show me the same courtesy that I show you - not flaming you, or being patronising.

If you cannot take someone pointing out the flaws in your posts, tough.

I suggest you put a little more thought into your posts, so that it has less to no flaws what so ever.

All types of body armour cause restrictions to mobility and your body's full range of movement, putting you at a disadvantage immediately. Proven fact.




Puck Udroc

Fallen Jedi

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#17 14 years ago

What you do, is contradict everything I say.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#18 14 years ago

Because what you are saying about armour is flawed. Simple as that.




Puck Udroc

Fallen Jedi

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#19 14 years ago

No, if I were against it, I garuntee ou would be for it.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#20 14 years ago

No I wouldn't. Don't you start an argument because I am pointing out the flaws to your posts.

Have you ever fought wearing any form of body armour? I have, and I found it to be too restrictive, so I simply honed my defensive abilities.

It also has a far greater psychological effect on your opponent to not wear armour. They will be over confident that they are better protected, and therefore think they have the upper hand.

When you defeat someone who wears body armour, they are forced to both think twice about their armour, and about how they underestimated you.

I am using proven fact for my point of view. Why do you think that in the real world, Soldiers wear limited body armour? Not just because of economic constraints, but also freedom of movement.