Talk:Katanas are Underpowered in d20

From 1d4chan

Fa/tg/uys are Underpowered in D20 section made me lol, good job. Fatum 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Can someone who knows what they're doing fix the bottom of this page please? I /fail at wiki. -01:53, 18 March 2010

Is the original thread archived somewhere? I wasn' able to find it on sup/tg/


Iron is weaker than wood? Steel can't cut through crap oak kite shields? What?

>The European Knight practiced a "Sword and Shield" tanking tactic, while wearing a full suit of platemail; which was often made of pig iron (As is the sword), while the shield is made of thick oak, or other strong woods, banded with steel straps and a cloth on front.
>suit of platemail; which was often made of pig iron (As is the sword)
>often made of pig iron
>pig iron

-- 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese stared folding "all on their own"?[edit]

The Japanese got the technique for folding the metal from China, where they'd been doing it for quite a while. Also the shape of the swords. Early Japanese swords were straight, but once they started folding them, they made them curved ...and very similar (shape, guard, handle... everything) to a certain type of dao (i.e. one edged Chinese sword) that was popular in China, at the time. Also the idea of having different metals at different places of the blade (a notion that the Chinese used, as far back as during the bronze age), was imported at the same time. The greatest reason for using different metals on different places of the blade, is arguably economic: You only have so much high quality steel, so using more common and less good iron, at places where its quality won't matter as much, while using the best metal where it matters... Also: Folding a piece of metal a million times, isn't just a lot of extra work: It'll weaken the metal as well. Fold it a bunch of times, and it'll reduce the weaknesses, but fold it more than that, and it'll only get worse, for every time you fold it. A million times, and it'll be shit.-- 16:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

...oh and they started the whole folding thing, somewhere around the late nine hundreds AD (which is close to when the Europeans stopped doing it). Not 1300 AD (you could say, that that's when they really got good at it, but it certainly wasn't when they started).-- 16:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

oh my god you could not be missing the point any further than if you were stationed on the motherfucking moon. --NotBrandX (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
What point? Please do explain. Also please explain how that point, whatever it may be, would make it fine to add clearly and unambiguously inaccurate information, in the bit where you are supposed to actually have accurate (if not formal and proper) information.-- 03:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the entire seriousness is the big point. Rockingpilgrim (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Katana syndrome.[edit]

I went through this about thirty years ago with people wanting to play Ninjas and Samurai. Why, you ask? Because, supposedly, Ninja and Samurai are unbeatable, OP, super (Uber) cool, kill-anything characters and, as DM, I'm supposed to treat them as such. No amount of logic could convince these drooling retards (just old enough to get a hard-on) that said classes are just classes. Apparently, every comic and movie in existence had programmed everyone's gonads.

It was a low point in my career as a DM. Along with D&D 3.5.

Don't worry, these guys either get raped by the logic train or fade away into nothing --Taumanta (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

M16 entry[edit]

Wouldn't even be half as hilarious without the spelling mistakes


I do not see a reason this section should exist, which I suspect is true for many of us. To quote the page, "No one should have to be told why this page is retarded." Additionally, line-by-line analysis of the pasta eliminates any humor that it could possibly contain.

I think it should be allowed to stay - if only because the sheer butthurt in that section is pretty funny :) Maybe we could put it at the bottom of the page? --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  • As an image, perhaps- preferably with a caption along the lines of "Some people take things WAY too seriously."--Newerfag (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the explanation. It's an interesting 'what if' scenario. 17:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

editing pages is underpowered in 1d4chan.

Can someone add this formatted properly?[edit]

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Drukhari are OP" bullshit that's going on in /40kg/ right now. The game designers that rigorously play-tested the new codex deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself have been playing Drukhari since Rogue Trader (back when they were called 'Naughty Elfs') and have been practicing with it for almost 38 years now. I can table most people's lists in the deployment phase.

GW game designers spend years working on a single codex and play-test it up to a million times to produce the finest crunch known to mankind.

Your average Drukhari player is just thrice as skilled as other 40k players and thrice as well-endowed for that matter too. Anything a Death Guard player can beat, a Drukhari player can beat faster. I'm pretty sure most Drukhari players could easily win any ITC match with a simple Liquifier-spam list.

Ever wonder why nogames secondaries never bother to buy and paint an army and go to their LGS? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Drukhari and their Dark Lances of destruction. Even experienced tournament players start to sweat when a Drukhari player puts his army down on the table, because their strategic genius is so feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Drukhari players are simply the best players 40k has, and thus, the Drukhari codex if anything is underpowered, not overpowered. Here is a few changes I propose:

>Dark Technomancers should be changed: It should also increase the range of flamer weapons by 6" >Raiders need their points value adjusted. Cutting them to twenty points would better represent their ability on table. >Succubus. Needs more attacks to be viable, I suggest upping her base attacks to 12 but at least 10 would be adequate.

tl;dr = Drukhari need to be more effective to help new, less skilled players.