Josh and Omnom learn how to play with swords. >_>

[Omnom]

@ Bold - Very true, but you won't ever see that in 'serious' battle. Not without techniques anyway.

And yes, the description is delightfully generic. It basically leaves everything up to the user.
Can you use this to your advantage? How/Why not?

Like Ezio said, it's biggest asset is it's biggest weakness. Since the technique doesn't state the specifics of the technique, it is up to use to define those. We could in theory make the wave as large/small as we like, etc, but under the same principle, the opponent can argue that since the technique doesn't specifically state that, it doesn't happen. It gets in to a really grey area.

Very true. Tai and Kenjutsu share a sentiment of realism, if so to speak. Where Ninjutsu largely revolves around rank and damage, there's a deeper 'feel' to Close Quarter Combat (CQC).
So you've got to, as you said, be realistic with how you describe your use of this technique, but don't let that stop you from being creative.
Your turn, boys; can you see yourselves using this technique in different ways? And for Omnom specifically; how could you use the Chidori Katana in different ways?

xd

You know me too well, ZK. I will be very happy to be able to use Chidori Katana. Specifically for the numbing part of the technique. Create a sword using Dead Bone Pulse, swing it at the opponent. When they go to block, charge the bone with Chidori Katana, and slice straight through their defense.. Oh the fun I could have.

On other occasions, I have used a bone whip, and when the opponent blocks it, shock them. This would augment that strategy immensely. God I love Kaguya. xd

One question though: What's the difference between this technique and simply using Nagashi and channeling it down the sword?

 

[Salad]

Due to the "slice through steel easily" part in the description of the chidori katana technique, I would choose it. Since this clearly displays how much damage this could produce, while on the other hand, the red crimson wave is pretty mysterious, as we already established, but I find it could be pretty cheap in the opponent's eyes due to us being able to easily manipulate it's characteristics. But that's just my thinking.

 

[ZK]

Like Ezio said, it's biggest asset is it's biggest weakness. Since the technique doesn't state the specifics of the technique, it is up to use to define those. We could in theory make the wave as large/small as we like, etc, but under the same principle, the opponent can argue that since the technique doesn't specifically state that, it doesn't happen. It gets in to a really grey area.



xd

You know me too well, ZK. I will be very happy to be able to use Chidori Katana. Specifically for the numbing part of the technique. Create a sword using Dead Bone Pulse, swing it at the opponent. When they go to block, charge the bone with Chidori Katana, and slice straight through their defense.. Oh the fun I could have.

On other occasions, I have used a bone whip, and when the opponent blocks it, shock them. This would augment that strategy immensely. God I love Kaguya. xd

One question though: What's the difference between this technique and simply using Nagashi and channeling it down the sword?

Due to the "slice through steel easily" part in the description of the chidori katana technique, I would choose it. Since this clearly displays how much damage this could produce, while on the other hand, the red crimson wave is pretty mysterious, as we already established, but I find it could be pretty cheap in the opponent's eyes due to us being able to easily manipulate it's characteristics. But that's just my thinking.

Bolded 1 - That's where common sense magically appears. You'll find it mysteriously absent many places on NB, but I'm 100% sure the both of you can work within reasonable measurements when using a generic jutsu like this one.

Bolded 2 - Nagashi is a full-body technique. Creating it around yourself and then flowing it through the sword takes extra time. Furthermore; it won't have the same cutting effect. Nagashi is a non-focused current, but the original Chidori isn't. The Chidori Katana is a variation of the 'Chidori', not the 'Chidori Nagashi'.

Bolded 3 - What do you care? If your opponent's opinion mattered to you, you wouldn't be using questionable methods in the first place. My philosophy is that as long as you stay within certain boundaries and use common sense, your opponent's opinion is irrelevant.
'Cheap' is just a word. People put the label on 2009 CJs and beg for permission to use them. It's contradictory. You can't have it both ways.

Now; attack me. You'll have to learn to defend yourselves from Kenjutsu, too. It's part of the training. Plus; learning to structure your attacks will be a nice supplement to just knowing the techniques.
Imagine that you're on seperate battlefields, facing Hawke. He's mid-range from you, looking relaxed with both his hands in his pockets.
Cut him to pieces and tell me of your battle philosophy as a supplement, for kicks.

 

[Omnom]

Bolded 1 - That's where common sense magically appears. You'll find it mysteriously absent many places on NB, but I'm 100% sure the both of you can work within reasonable measurements when using a generic jutsu like this one.

Bolded 2 - Nagashi is a full-body technique. Creating it around yourself and then flowing it through the sword takes extra time. Furthermore; it won't have the same cutting effect. Nagashi is a non-focused current, but the original Chidori isn't. The Chidori Katana is a variation of the 'Chidori', not the 'Chidori Nagashi'.

Bolded 3 - What do you care? If your opponent's opinion mattered to you, you wouldn't be using questionable methods in the first place. My philosophy is that as long as you stay within certain boundaries and use common sense, your opponent's opinion is irrelevant.
'Cheap' is just a word. People put the label on 2009 CJs and beg for permission to use them. It's contradictory. You can't have it both ways.

Now; attack me. You'll have to learn to defend yourselves from Kenjutsu, too. It's part of the training. Plus; learning to structure your attacks will be a nice supplement to just knowing the techniques.
Imagine that you're on seperate battlefields, facing Hawke. He's mid-range from you, looking relaxed with both his hands in his pockets.
Cut him to pieces and tell me of your battle philosophy as a supplement, for kicks.

For reference, my sword is a hand and a half sword, called a bastard sword, with a small fuller just before the guard. The blade is relatively thin, made for both stabbing and slashing. It has an aggressive down swept cross-guard, and the hilt is wrapped in silver wire to allow for better grip. The word "TRUTH" is raised in gold wiring in the hilt.

*Corvo stands in mid-range from his opponent, and draws his sword from the scabbard at his left hip, holding it in his right hand. He begins walking slowly towards you, but gains speed until he is at a run when he meets you. He feints a slash to the left, your right, then follows it up with a quick upwards slash, starting from your left hit to your right shoulder.*


Quickly written, but I've always had struggles engaging in a close fight. Once I'm there, I feel good. I should work on that.



As for my philosophy:

"It means only one thing, and everything: cut. Once committed to fight, cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut.

"The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resolutely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush Him. Cut him without mercy to the depths of his spirit."

 

[ZK]

For reference, my sword is a hand and a half sword, called a bastard sword, with a small fuller just before the guard. The blade is relatively thin, made for both stabbing and slashing. It has an aggressive down swept cross-guard, and the hilt is wrapped in silver wire to allow for better grip. The word "TRUTH" is raised in gold wiring in the hilt.

*Corvo stands in mid-range from his opponent, and draws his sword from the scabbard at his left hip, holding it in his right hand. He begins walking slowly towards you, but gains speed until he is at a run when he meets you. He feints a slash to the left, your right, then follows it up with a quick upwards slash, starting from your left hit to your right shoulder.*


Quickly written, but I've always had struggles engaging in a close fight. Once I'm there, I feel good. I should work on that.



As for my philosophy:

"It means only one thing, and everything: cut. Once committed to fight, cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut.

"The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resolutely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush Him. Cut him without mercy to the depths of his spirit."

I must've looked at Goodkind's 'Wizard's First Rule' and the series thereof a billion times, but I've never gotten around to reading it. You read the Wheel of Time, too, no? All my respect; a series with that kind of lengt to its name takes dedication.

Now, as for your move; I'm slightly bewildered. A feint is used to draw your target's attention/guard towards a certain point. Two feints are hard to execute when you're in range. I'd almost call the feat an impossibility unless you're facing an inanimate object. The problem with your feints is that they're executed before you come within range and thus they lose their purpose and are reduced to mindless swings.
You could feint movements when you're out of range, but slashes? Meaningless, don't you think?

Now, I can't deduce it from your move, but have you taken a look at Hawke's appearance and what he's wearing? If not; do so. Do so with every opponent you ever face. It's a bitch to stab someone only to find out that they're in armor.

Your attack essentially consists of a single, diagonal slash. You keep a hand free and both feet on the ground. Excellent.

Try again.

As for your philosophy: aggresive as can be. Elaborate on the bolded part, please. Your general principle seems to be rooted in powerful attacks. 'The best weapon need only be used once', or something down that alley.

 

[Omnom]

I must've looked at Goodkind's 'Wizard's First Rule' and the series thereof a billion times, but I've never gotten around to reading it. You read the Wheel of Time, too, no? All my respect; a series with that kind of lengt to its name takes dedication.

Now, as for your move; I'm slightly bewildered. A feint is used to draw your target's attention/guard towards a certain point. Two feints are hard to execute when you're in range. I'd almost call the feat an impossibility unless you're facing an inanimate object. The problem with your feints is that they're executed before you come within range and thus they lose their purpose and are reduced to mindless swings.
You could feint movements when you're out of range, but slashes? Meaningless, don't you think?

Now, I can't deduce it from your move, but have you taken a look at Hawke's appearance and what he's wearing? If not; do so. Do so with every opponent you ever face. It's a bitch to stab someone only to find out that they're in armor.

Your attack essentially consists of a single, diagonal slash. You keep a hand free and both feet on the ground. Excellent.

Try again.

As for your philosophy: aggresive as can be. Elaborate on the bolded part, please. Your general principle seems to be rooted in powerful attacks. 'The best weapon need only be used once', or something down that alley.

Ah, I should've been more patient. Here's what the move should've said:

*Corvo stands in mid-range from his opponent, and draws his sword from the scabbard at his left hip, holding it in his right hand. He begins walking slowly towards you, but gains speed until he is at a run when he meets you. He feints a slash to HIS left, your right, then follows it up with a quick upwards slash, starting from your left hit to your right shoulder.*

Tis one of my weakness. Writing out on a forum, with rampant dyslexia, I'm bound to have some errors. Regardless, I need to be patient and check it as many times I needed.

About the bolded in my philosophy;

It's not a bout aggressiveness, it's about ferocity. Over aggressive can get you killed, but being fierce and your attack and defense strengthens you.

The power is not in throwing all of your strength and weight behind the sword and striking as hard as possible, it's about being completely committed to the fight, committed to death. If you fight restrained, attempting not to kill, the you will only kill yourself. Your power lies in your ferocity and commitment. And while, "One shot kills" are rampant, it is not the focus of the style. The focus is not making a single wasted movement. What ever the situation calls for, whether it be removing limbs or a stab to the chest to kill, but not a pointless reckless attack.

Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible.

Many of the rules in Sword of Truth rely on reason. The same reason can be used here. Direct is a relative term, depending on the situation at the moment. If the opponent is unarmored, a stab will suffice to end the fight. If he's wearing heavy plate mail, the most direct path would be to slip under one of his arms and stab him in the hole of his shoulder joint. All in what the situation calls for.

As for both series, I would vehemently suggest them to any person of standing intelligence. They call both your thinking and your resolve into question, without setting impossible standards. Richard Cypher in particular, makes plenty of mistakes. But his resolve and commitment are without question.

 

[ZK]

Ah, I should've been more patient. Here's what the move should've said:



Tis one of my weakness. Writing out on a forum, with rampant dyslexia, I'm bound to have some errors. Regardless, I need to be patient and check it as many times I needed.

About the bolded in my philosophy;

It's not a bout aggressiveness, it's about ferocity. Over aggressive can get you killed, but being fierce and your attack and defense strengthens you.

The power is not in throwing all of your strength and weight behind the sword and striking as hard as possible, it's about being completely committed to the fight, committed to death. If you fight restrained, attempting not to kill, the you will only kill yourself. Your power lies in your ferocity and commitment. And while, "One shot kills" are rampant, it is not the focus of the style. The focus is not making a single wasted movement. What ever the situation calls for, whether it be removing limbs or a stab to the chest to kill, but not a pointless reckless attack.



Many of the rules in Sword of Truth rely on reason. The same reason can be used here. Direct is a relative term, depending on the situation at the moment. If the opponent is unarmored, a stab will suffice to end the fight. If he's wearing heavy plate mail, the most direct path would be to slip under one of his arms and stab him in the hole of his shoulder joint. All in what the situation calls for.

As for both series, I would vehemently suggest them to any person of standing intelligence. They call both your thinking and your resolve into question, without setting impossible standards. Richard Cypher in particular, makes plenty of mistakes. But his resolve and commitment are without question.

Full commitment. Only exert the force needed, not all the force one can muster. Observe, adapt, survive.
Thumbs up.

I forgot to mention something about your move: nice detail that you start your slash at my hip and go upwards from there. Had you started further up, I'd have been able to lean backwards and out of range while counter-attacking with a kick. Those few inches make a real difference.