Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, scythes are farming implements that stayed on the farm. They're logically terrible weapons in virtually every capacity. They do nothing that isn't better done with a spear, sword, or poleaxe.

chain axes are basically giant clubs wielded by science fiction supermen. Farming scythes as weapons are just the worst thing dungeons and dragons ever tried to make mainstream.

Necroshea wrote:Can you kill people with it? Yes, so it is a plausible weapon. Would you be better off with a sword/axe/dagger? I would think so. Weight and general unwieldiness would make it a cumbersome and awkward weapon to use, but if you're a peasant working the fields and get set upon by bandits, a scythe might be preferable to your fists, or a rock, or even a shovel.

I suppose if you've got the skill and strength, you could be pretty efficient at beheading people. I doubt a scythe would bite into armor much, or at least as much as a stout axe could.

It's incredibly unlikely they would let you behead them with your giant unwieldy blade that requires you to be two feet from them to use in that fashion. Remember, the cutting edge on a scythe is on the inside, meaning that you need a sweeping arc that comes in from behind their neck.

Sickles used in combat and sickle shaped weapons were very common in many parts of the world for a long time. The Japanese loved 'em.

The scythe is also more of a play on the concept of reaping souls as wheat. The concept of the grim reaper as we know him is actually kind of contemporary.

Joey wrote:Most people who use a scythe as a weapon probably don't have access to a sword/spear. Just a thought

They have access to a farmers axe. They'll use that instead.

AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.

When?

VegRAWR wrote:Using a scythe like you would use a quarterstaff would be pretty effective tho.

foes wearing full body armor were not a common sight so the scythe's armor piercing problems is not such a big deal

A pretty effective way to commit painful suicide, yes.

VegRAWR wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

VegRAWR wrote:Using a scythe like you would use a quarterstaff would be pretty effective tho.

foes wearing full body armor were not a common sight so the scythe's armor piercing problems is not such a big deal

A pretty effective way to commit painful suicide, yes.

please do explain?

The blade is curved inward. Handling the scythe like you do a quarterstaff (other than being practically impossible giving the weighting and shape of the weapon) would result in you goring yourself.

ifStatement wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Seems fair enough to me. Effective/practical or not, certainly not impossible.

Iff he was to swipe that most of the time the enemie would hit the shaft. he would then have to pull off some maneuver to hit him with the blade.

Like a quarterstaff then? The point was it doesn't seem "impossible" like ShumaGorath says.

How does anything he described sound like what you do with a quarterstaff? Last I checked quarterstaves don't have giant knives on the end of them. Also, typhus isn't even holding a scythe. The handle to that thing is practically touching the blade. Theres absolutely no purpose for the lengthy shaft if he HAS to hold it up there. It's basically a really awful one handed axe.

Thats also a tiny toy based on a thousand pound demon infested superman in giant superarmor.

ifStatement wrote:He's wielding a scythe like you would a quarterstaff. Something you claim is impossible.

No, he's holding like you would hold an elongated piece of wood if you're standing in that exact position. Since his frozen pose is lost in time we can't really tell how he's wielding it.


Also, HES NOT REAL.

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

Also he's heavily armored and not proportioned like a human.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.

Point is, it's not "impossible"

Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).

The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.

Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".

Now learn what that one means.

Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.

Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.

No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.

Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.

Ugly beauty is still beauty.

Rapid slow is still slow.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.

prac·ti·cal   [prak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics.
2.
consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule.
3.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs.
4.
adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.
5.
engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.

Given the usage scenario definitions three and four are paramount. It is impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. Hell, if you really want to be diehard about this you can't wield a scythe like a quarterstaff at all since it isn't one and we didn't establish classifications for either object.

Either way this argument is ridiculous.

Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.

And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.

You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.

Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".

So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.

When?

Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt

I don't see anything about scythes in the histories of those, but presumably peasant wielded them as weapons. When did the Egyptian military class use scythes? They used a lot of sickle like weapons, but I haven't seen any use of scythes in actual warfare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.

And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.

You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.

By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.

Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".

So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.

Practically is not an adverb. There is no definition for practically "as an adverb"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

So should you....

Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”

If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.

Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.

"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "

So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.

marv335 wrote:It's worth noting that Typhus's Manreaper is a terrible example, as it isn't really a scythe, it's at best a large sickle.

It's a stick with a knife coming out of the end. It's doesn't have any inherent logic to it's design. How the hell does he use it? Does he just hit people at point blank? Does he let go of the handle? Why is there a hand guard if he has to do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practically

Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.

So should you....

Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”

If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.

Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.

"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "

So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.

The phrase 'wassup mofos' is also established. it doesn't make it into the OED however. There is englsh and there is correct english.

Are you one of those guys that gets mad every time websters adds a word to the dictionary or appends a meaning? If so I'm gonna cut off this conversation right now.

ifStatement wrote:If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.

The dictionary has it listed as an adverd. If you want to have a little cry party about it then I suggest sending them a strongly worded letter. As it is you're in the minority camp and at this point you're just being petulant about it. I researched it as I went along because you forced the issue into inane territory. At every step I was correct in my use and assumptions.

ifStatement wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ifStatement wrote:If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.

The dictionary has it listed as an adverd. If you want to have a little cry party about it then I suggest sending them a strongly worded letter. As it is you're in the minority camp and at this point you're just being petulant about it. I researched it as I went along because you forced the issue into inane territory. At every step I was correct in my use and assumptions.

No you were wrong on the base of it and have found a get out clause in an ill used adverb which makes it onto dictionary.com but not into the oed, collins or any dictionary worth reading.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/practically?q=practically
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/practically
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/practically



Did you come from some alternate dimension where things are only very slightly different? It's an adverb in everything. Go troll someone else.

Ahh, you are one of those people. Consider this conversation ended! Good day to you sir!

hotsauceman1 wrote:No i like it brought up this conversation. I just didnt think a topic like this wuld get much traffic.

Sorry, my post was meant towards the guy who was throwing English dictionaries from the 1850s at me as hard as he could. There's nothing wrong with this thread. It's a perfect nerd thread.