Drat and botheration. Looks like a sub-heading got dropped...
Just glanced at the pdf. Drooling now. Can't wait!!!
Chris
Was hoping Jackie Chan or somebody was making a special appearance but niftiness nonetheless 
Knives are for sissies, real men throw Halberds when they need to make their point!
Nice stuff. My only comment on the weapons pdf is that the basterd sword is not listed on the weapons table, as far as I can see. But anyhow, this is a book I've been waiting a long time for. 
Also, I wonder if there will be rules for using one weapon in each hand in this book. Couldn't find any hints about this in the ToC. But some of my players would really like their characters to do just that. Will there be such rules?
-E
That's a really lovely offer CJ. Which city are you holding it in this year? Linda and I are trying to fit about five years of travel into three weeks, but I think there's a day we are planning to drive from Bath to Chester through the border of England and Wales which we could change to fit in GT UK.
Darn, too bad about the Bastard Sword being missing. i wonder if that can be caught on the printer's end?
Regardless, as usual the ToC gets me drooling. Hopefully this arrives before my game's focus turns back to the covenant's problems in Aquitaine and the clash between King Henry of England and the unAnointed King Louis the Lion...
Vrylakos
Well, can't someone at least correct the missing basterd sword in the pdf expansion? Even though it would be a Late Medieval weapon (it would, wouldn't it?), it would be nice to have it included.
Soo... anything in the book about using two weapons, or the shield as a weapon? Didn't knights often bash foes with their shields?
-E.
I was wondering: are two weapons used in period at all besides shield-bashing/pushing? Certainly they were used before (like a net in the off-hand) and after (such as the main-gauche). I figure someone somewhere must have done so even if it wasn't common.
Chris
Yes, I believe that some Frankish warriors did use two axes at some point too. Anyway, the point is that there should be rules to at least allow it, even though it would be uncommon historically.
E.
As Niall Christie used to point out when he frequented the boards, some mamluk troops also wielded two blades. One of the sample characters he included in RoP: TD does too (Mamluk Emir, IIRC).
The modified stats for using two Longswords together are listed in his Equipment and can be compared to the regular Longsword stats and extrapolated upon to give rules for using other paired weapons...
I do have an issue with that. Longswords are mounted weapons historically, how does one use one efficiently when the opponent is inside your reach with a short sword ?
Im no expert, but when I am told that a weapon is thought, trained for, and designed for mounted combat, won't you end up having trouble using it on foot ?
François
Now, remember I didn't write that bit, and I wrote my bit of this book some years ago, so I might be about to completely misrecall everything and get all of this wrong. In which case Andrew will save my bacon, I hope.
Ars traditionally uses a simplified, roleplayingish way to describe swords. I'm not sure if we keep doing that here, but believe we do, simply because the authors and playtesters didn't know better. You're right that historical longswords are basically 150 years after tha Ars period, depending on what you mean by "longsword". There are some early longswords known archaeologically from the Ars period, but they are scarce. I just don't see how you could use two of them at once.
Basically I think Ars sometimes uses "long sword" to mean an "arming sword" and "great sword" to mean a historical long sword. This is, by the way, a basic roleplaying convention. Virtually all sword and sorcery RPGs do this - divide swords into short, long and two handed and I trhink we have kind of followed blindly along.
If the web supplement was going to be fiddled with, I'm not sure what I'd like to see.
Historically, most people with swords used shortswords, and the historical longsword is a very rare type of cavalry sword in 1220. Of course, at the time they didn't call them shortswords: they just look short to us now, because we compare them to later longswords. What would a person in Ars call his sword? Historically he probably called it his "war sword", which is a silly name, but there you go. He didn't call it a short sword, or a long sword. We, players, call them these things. If you go with "arming sword" for one handed and "long sword" for one and a half to two handed, you'd need to explain that you don't mean what RPers think they mean when they talk about longswords, and then that's a history lesson, and who wants one of those? In the interest of clarity and playablilty you need to make understandable categories, even if they aren't entirely historical, because otherwise you get to the point of saying "Every previous supplement was wrong, because the basic noble weapon in Mythic Europe is a shortsword." and I'm sure many authors have used "longsword" as the default sword. I certainly have used longsword in places where, now, I know I should use shortsword to be historically accurate.
If Ars ever does a 6th edition, I'd like to see this changed. 8)
As to bastard swords, bastard swords are just a type of historical longsword, which in this supplement means they are just a "great sword." Gamers go on about them because they appear in D&D and they have a cool name, but most longswords are of the hand and a half type. Bastard swords aren't really anything unique to the historical class of objects from which they arise and statting them up separate makes about as much sense as statting up the Welsh spear separately from all other spears.
As to simple fixes either: if you are using them with a shield, use the longsword stats. If not, use the great sword stats.
or
You can just note that arming swords are shortswords, and use the longsword stats as is for bastard swords.
As I say: I don't recall what Andrew does with this in his part of the book: he may fix it all in a different way. I don't even recall if his default nobles use short or long swords, but you've put your finger on an issue which could eventually become part of the line style. What we mean when we say "longsword" has been inconsistent before.
What is the approximate length of the short sword you mention? If I take a look at Albion Swords website (a well-known historical sword maker), they make the "Norman" sword (albion-swords.com/swords/alb ... an-xas.htm) which is 38,75" (98 cm) in total length. It can only be wielded one-handed, preferably with a shield. Is it the kind of sword you would classify as a short sword?
In the sense that Francois is using "longsword", the historical one, then yes, a sword with an 84 cm blade length, and is arguably too short to be a longsword, and so if your only other category is shortsword, that's what it is.
Now, remember, this is because in Ars we have short, long and great as our categories. In Ars, we often call something like what you have posted a longsword, when, actually, historically, that's not what people meant when they called something a longsword. That's a typical arming sword, which they used "long-" to differentiate from. As I say, I know I have been guilty in the past of calling what companions with arming swords use a "longsword", when it's not a historical longsword.
Now, when roleplayers think of a short sword, they are thinking in D&D terms, where a short sword is a 60cm blade like a gladius, but that's not what it means, as a historical term, and so when Francois is saying "Isn't a longsword really..." he's bang-on right ,ni the way he's using the term. I'm just notingthat in the way we use it as players, we are a bit rubbery on what it means when we say "My character draws his longsword".
One factor which limits this confusion, by the way, is the cost of equipment. So, most grogs can't have this mistake, because longswords are marked as expensive. This limits the error, in my case, to a handful of companions who you can argue really were carrying longswords, and some faeries, who wanted unnaturally large swords for dramatic effect. 8)
So, when it comes to the bastard sword, was it the intention that this should just use the stats for a long sword when used in one hand and a great sword when used in two hands? What about the really big great swords that can never be used in one hand. You know, the one in Braveheart. Even though it was very rare historically, they did have the technology to make it, and I'm sure a couple of rich knights would want the bigger swords just to be intimidating. Or maybe they were big and strong and a large sword felt more natural to them.
Also, what is the sword used by the main characters in Kingdom of Heaven? A scene from the extended version shows a duel between the Balian and Guy de Lusignan. Might not be historically correct, but it's and interesting duel. What are the weapons used here? youtube.com/watch?v=2Xw-myeCHOU
-E.
As I said: no idea. from me, you'll need to wait for Andrew. 8) I have some vauge feeling that there's just some sort of bonus for going two handed, but don't know what it is. This isn't me skirting the NDA by feigning amenesia: it's just that in my games melee combat is done by cinematic description rather than using the proper rules, and so I'm a little ropy on those parts of the supplement.
Again, this is not so much me as an author as me as a participant in a more general conversation, but the Wallace Claymore is likely a processional sword, rather than an actual battle weapon, and as such its enormous size is part of its ceremonial function. Wallace himself did not use what we'd now call a claymore, although he might have called his sword a "claymore", sinced that just means "big sword" in Gaelic. Claymores are mentioned textually in the Ars period, but I don't think we know what these actually were like, physically. The claymore as I think you mean it is post-Ars.
True two-handed swords are not, as far as my poor memory serves, a feature of medieval armies at all. They come to the fore in the Reniassance as counters to pikemen.
Now, as a player, you have every right to say "Damn it Ferguson! Stop spoiling my fun with your "There are no longbows outside of Wales and no claymores yet either!" rubbish. I want to play a blue-painted savage with a sword the size of a bus!" and that's entirely fair. I'd just like to make the point that even historical claymores, when they did appear, were a lot smaller than people expect. Sure they were two handed swords, but they were little two handed swords, compared ot the ones that came out of Germany in the Reniassance.
I'm on a slow connection at the monent, so I can't watch it, sorry.
I would say they are longswords. HOwever, there are better longsword videos out there, played by recreationists, mostly.
I would class this video as being longswords, but some might consider those weapons too big for such a classifications
hispagimnasios.com/foro-de-a ... 59640.html
In our troupe:
- Shortsword: can be used only one handed. The normal swords.
- Longsword: hand and a half. Can be used one or 2 handed. If used 2 handed, it gains a bonus to damage. People assumes you are a noble when you carry one. And that you mean trouble.
- Bastard sword: can only be used 2 handed. They are not common at all in our game world, though.
Been like that for the past few years. But then, our combat system is far away from the published material, beiung WAY less detailed when it comes to weapon differentiation (only 4 damage categories, and no bonus/malus in attack/defence at all).
Later I will read the 2 PDFs and say something about them 
Cheers,
Xavi
Yes. Though I seem to have forgotten to actually write that in black and white. 
Well, it looks like we have a candidate for a new FAQ entry.
EDIT: I think what happened was that the rules changed during the process, the Bastard Sword entries got dropped from the table, and I forgot to update the "Notes on Weapons" text. I'll check my manuscript & notes and post errata if appropriate.
Those are great swords, by definition.
I agree, and I would add that you should only let history affect your game as much as you want it to. If you think it is just cool to have high medieval characters wielding great swords, then go for it! You will notice that I list great swords as late-medieval weapons, yet they are in the core book (likewise with longbows). As far as I know that was intentional -- adding a bit of flair and variety to the core setting while taking some liberties with historical accuracy.
In my opinion, long swords. Though my opinion is not authoritative -- if you want to call them bastard swords then by all means go ahead.
Yes, as always Timothy remembers pretty well and has a good command of current sources.
I would point out that back in the 1970's, D&D was based largely on 19th century writings about medieval arms and armor, and most of those were written by gentlemen enthusiasts (read, amateurs). They got a lot of things right, but they also got a few things wrong. Those mistakes carried over into D&D and there trickled into the whole fantasy RPG genre, including computer games -- and Ars Magica.
It is a lot easier for players IMO if Ars Magica goes with the flow and uses the D&D-derived nomenclature even if doesn't map perfectly to what you'll find in a (recent) history book. Though I draw the line at calling brigandine "studded leather" or pretending that "banded mail" ever existed!