Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cattoy" data-source="post: 2750657" data-attributes="member: 38606">It appears that you are fixated on problems that aren't actually there.You presume that the sheet of adamantium that makes up the surface of the quarterstaff has to be thick in order to be useful. This is a useful argument if you are arguing against the feasability of such a construction, and a false premise if you are only concerned with the effectiveness of a weapon.All that is required for a quarterstaff to be effective is a hard striking surface, a consistent density throughout its length and an acceptable degree of rigidity. (the exact amount of flexibility desired/required is dependent on who is using the weapon - shao lin monks seem to prefer more flexibility than sherwood forest bandits)That being said, a thin surface of adamantium with internal bracing for strength is all that is required. This exactly parallels the construction of bracers and greaves which you have conceded is not problematic.This does not confer a great deal of strength for something so long as a quarterstaff, so it is now required to add internal stiffening and lateral bracing. This is not rocket science.Your argument also betrays a lack of imagination. At no point is it ever required that the construction is limited to a sheet rolled into a tube. There are fighting staff weapons with cross sections that are not circular. An octagonal cross section allows for segmented construction which should be more than doable for a technology base that can manage articulated adamantium armor for sizes ranging from cloud giant to pixie.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cattoy, post: 2750657, member: 38606"] It appears that you are fixated on problems that aren't actually there. You presume that the sheet of adamantium that makes up the surface of the quarterstaff has to be thick in order to be useful. This is a useful argument if you are arguing against the feasability of such a construction, and a false premise if you are only concerned with the effectiveness of a weapon. All that is required for a quarterstaff to be effective is a hard striking surface, a consistent density throughout its length and an acceptable degree of rigidity. (the exact amount of flexibility desired/required is dependent on who is using the weapon - shao lin monks seem to prefer more flexibility than sherwood forest bandits) That being said, a thin surface of adamantium with internal bracing for strength is all that is required. This exactly parallels the construction of bracers and greaves which you have conceded is not problematic. This does not confer a great deal of strength for something so long as a quarterstaff, so it is now required to add internal stiffening and lateral bracing. This is not rocket science. Your argument also betrays a lack of imagination. At no point is it ever required that the construction is limited to a sheet rolled into a tube. There are fighting staff weapons with cross sections that are not circular. An octagonal cross section allows for segmented construction which should be more than doable for a technology base that can manage articulated adamantium armor for sizes ranging from cloud giant to pixie. [/QUOTE]

Verification