People never hit anyone in the back, that's just stupid

>>2725053
>to be fair they probably don't even speak the local language
A subtle reference to rapefugees?

>>2725053

I don't think I've ever even heard the expression "back attack". I know in roleplaying games there's typically an option for a sneak attack which is sometimes called a "backstab" but that's explicitly something you do when your target doesn't know you;re there, it's not a combat maneuver.

>>2725053
>traitor
What did the Anglo press mean by this?

>>2725116
In counterstrike 1.6 a knife stab from the back is an instakill while one from the front does only 65 damage to give an example

>>2725191

That might be realistic, special ops guys apparently train with knives for "quiet takedowns", but what Lloyd is talking about is something I've never heard of in rpgs or in real life.

It does make sense, you would have to aim carefully otherwise you would hit the spine or the ribs.

>>2725053
The video is NOT saying that no one was ever ambushed and stabbed in the back, or run down by pursuing cavalry.

What he's saying is that in a swordfight, it would be very rare for someone to be struck in the back when they attempt to flee. RPG's occasionally have a free hit if one party in a fight tries to disengage, which is dumb.

>>2725208
>RPG's occasionally have a free hit if one party in a fight tries to disengage

Really? Which ones? I've played a fair few and never encountered the idea.

>>2725215
I think they tend to call them "Attacks of opportunity". I don't think they're bad in general, i.e. some movements should leave you especially vulnerable, like firing a ranged weapon, grappling an enemy adjacent to another enemy, things like that. But there's no reason moving away should give them an automatic free swing at you, unless they have a substantially longer weapon.

>>2725252

I don't consider games played on a grid with miniatures to be roleplaying games, they're more like a type of boardgame imo.

>>2725053

Lindy is referring to tabletop RPGs in this video where enemies typically get a free "attack of opportunity" when you try to move out of melee range with them, not video games - its purely for balance reasons so you cant easily run away from something

>>2725269

tabletop games were the original RPGs you fucking pleb
dont you know what dungeons and dragons is?

>>2725463
>Lindy is referring to tabletop RPGs in this video where enemies typically get a free "attack of opportunity" when you try to move out of melee range with them

A nonsense rule that I've never seen in any of the many rpgs I've played.

>tabletop games were the original RPGs you fucking pleb
>dont you know what dungeons and dragons is?

Gee I've only played rpgs for 30 years and I only started with red box D&D, why don't you explain more to me about stuff I know better than you do?

>>2725215
Dungeons and Dragons

>>2725493

Not any of the four versions of it I've played.

>>2725486

>A nonsense rule that I've never seen in any of the many rpgs I've played.
>why don't you explain more to me about stuff I know better than you do?

attacks of opportunity has been a rule in RPGs like DnD and Pathfinder for fucking years, clearly you dont have as much experience as you think

>>2725498
>Pathfinder

Pathfinder IS D&D you cretin. And I've played every version of D&D from oD&D thru AD&D thru 2e, and none of them contain such a rule. I guess one of the more recent versions might, but they'd be the exception, it's hardly a common rule if I've never come upon it in decades of gaming.

>>2725511

Attacks of opportunity have been in DnD since 3E

Pathfinder is different enough from DnD to be considered its own thing

>>2725527
>3e

I dropped D&D when 3e came out because of how it changed so many things in such a terrible and stupid way. If 3e has this cretinous rule then I'm glad I dropped it, but it would still mean all of one (1) rpg has this rule, hardly a commonplace as Lloyd suggests.

>>2725068
Is this a joke or are you just historically illiterate?

>>2725215
>Pillars of Eternity
>Tyranny

>>2725053
OOGA BULGAR

>>2725053

Did he actually just use "real fight" to describe reenactment and LARP combat?

>>2725053
Look lads, you'd have a much better time of convincing us all that Lindy is Satan incarnate, misleading us with devious historical lies to make sure we never get a clear idea of history, if you didn't devalue your own point by insisting that EVERYTHING he says is wrong. You do, and as such you just seem like rabid morons, instead of intellectuals with a valid complaint about something misleading.

>>2726192

But he is wrong...

>>2726196
He isn't. Here, he's just complaining about the inaccuracy of Attacks of Opportunity (though I don't know why he insists on calling them 'back attacks') in RPGs, and making a point that in actual combat one could fairly easily disengage.
However, some people are so determined that he has to be wrong about literally everything, that even the things he says that are perfectly reasonable are inexplicably condemned just because he said them.

>>2726207

In actual combat you are trying to murder your opponent before he musers you, not until you get the opportunity to 'disengage'.

>>2726192

>man who is using entirely modern, safety focused playacting rules, as an example of what two people fighting to the death would do
>b..but he's not ALWAYS wrong!!!

>>2726211
What?!
In almost all cases, battles are determined by which bunch of people runs off first. Everybody on the battlefield wants to live, and if they feel the fight is turning against them, the human reaction is to leg it.
Anyway, that's besides the point. He's not saying that people often or always fled fights - he's saying that if they did, they would probably manage to disengage successfully.

>>2726220
He explicitly talks about how limited LARPing is as a source in the video, and notes how it isn't really representative, but that he considers it useful in this specific case.

>>2725511
>cretin
>>2725550
>cretinous
Mix up your vocabulary.

Also love how you call the last 17 years and 4 editions of DnD an "exception".

>>2726225

Everyone wants to live. Which means killing the other guy as fast as possible. The whole reason routs are so disastrous is because people don't stop killing their opponents once they have 'disengaged'.

He specifically addresses LARP but says nothing about reenactment even though it has the same limitations. To even bring up either in a discussion about actual combat is moronic.

>>2726322
Still irrelevant. People DID sometimes run off. He's not saying that it happened in every fight or just occasionally, just that it happened on occasion and how it should be treated.
Anyway, he talks about footage of actual fights he's watched, larping, and reenactment. What superior sources could you possibly suggest, if the topic hasn't been covered by a combat manual?
Seriously though, do you disagree with his point? Do you think that if someone tried to flee an engagement, they would somehow fail and immediately get stabbed in the back?

>>2726328

>people being slaughtered end masse as they run away, is irrelevant to a discussion about if people were killed when running away

>>2726395
People being chased down is a different matter (though even in a rout, you'll note that the vast majority of people survive) because then it's just a test of running speed. In the video, he's specifically addressing the immediate disengagement where you turn and run from an opponent. So I'll ask you again - d'you really think that if someone tries to break off an engagement they would somehow fail and immediately get stabbed in the back, a la an attack of opportunity?