I think you're misunderstanding my point, there's no fine line between interest and importance. I'm also basing my opinion about relevancy based upon the original means of the module, rather than what the community make it out to be. If swords are used in NW, even if there's fewer tournament or players who use them, the point is still there, they're still used. If you were to define a list based on skill, relevancy doesn't matter, as there's skill involved with both sword and bayonets, where and how they're used does not make them any more or any less relevant. My original point about both being as 'irrelevant' as each other is because lists are subjective, meaning they're not an accurate representation of the player's skill, but more so a bucket of egotistical numbers and placements. Even if fewer people were to use swords, they're still just as important as a bayonet when it comes to the main reason the modules exist; line battles. Obviously people come to know and love bayonets, so they've become the 'mainstream' as swords were only ever introduced to NCOs, meaning other players never had the chance to use them, which gave the illusion that they're irrelevant. Someone's true melee potential would be a combination of bayonets and sword play, rather than just picking one. Fewer people use awlpike in Native, yet it's considered extremely important and just as relevant as swords when it comes to fights and battle skill, just like how swords are considered to be important in line battles or other tournaments. Just because people form tournaments without swords does not make them less relevant. Obviously none of my argument is about duelling but about group fighting.
In group fighting tournaments where swords exist, in some cases, the swordsmen could single-handedly take out multiple people with ease (I'm not saying bayonets can't, it's just there's no comparison between the two) because of the 4 directional combat, making them the strongest and most skill based weapon on the module. A sword would beat a bayonet in a 1 on 1 combat, players from Native join NW and are almost instantly better than a lot of NW players without knowing the NW meta, and since they catch on quickly can progress in the ranks 1000s of hours quicker than just sole NW players. So I can't stress enough that the true test of NW infantry skill would be a combination of both, which is why I'd advocate swords to be introduced in all tournaments, as a true test of a player's melee ability. Only being able to block two directions in a module where both 4 direction and 2 direction melee weapons exist is a bit silly. Coming from Native with no NW experience and then joining an 8v8 swords and bayonet groupfight, I'd have a larger impact as an 'NW noob' by killing more people with a sword than a top level bayonet fighter would, because of 4 directions. Just because swords are ruled out because people can't block 4 directions, doesn't mean the players are better, I'd argue they're worse. git gud with both or stay bad forever.
Talking about regimental group fights, it should stick to the same format as a line battle would, the officers would use the sword and the rest use bayonets.
Basing relevancy off interest is silly.
kind regards
trot888
