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.
Hard to take you seriously Nathan, Fietta with a chicken picture and stupid trot888 name and addressing every post like a damn letter. Either way just wanted to address a few reasons as to why swords are inferior to bayonets. Less range by a lot, less damage by a lot. Officers have slower move speed and can't run away and are very susceptible to kicks. I've never seen a sword player take out more than 3 or so players in 1 round or ever win a 1v2 or 1v3 in over 4 sword + bayonet tournaments. This includes native sword players like Maximou.
Saying Native players are completely superior then a lot of NW players is a complete fallacy. When Gibby played for The Oven (tz0) a couple of times I just ran at him with side stabs and simple lunges and he died over and over again unable to block a bayonet from range. His latest sword and bayonet tournament his final score was something like 5-20 no offence to him. He had no awareness, same with maximou his GF awareness was terrible he had no idea of bayonet range and still arguably doesn't. Something which takes a while to wire into your brain. I played for TBE with Maximou on sword for me in many sword bayo tournaments and it was always the case that NW sword players had the advantage over native. In fact Hokej won two I believe simply because unlike maximou he had far superior GF awareness and just far more survivability than a Native player. Voluble was right when he said Native players were terrible vs bayonet even with 4 attack directions.
So the main reasons swords are added for fun is because they are just an inferior weapon to the bayonet. The only advantage are the attack directions but the range, damage and speed of an infantry man with bayonet is over all superior. Of course 1vs1 its subjective as that would depend on the sword player and the bayonet player and their play styles but over all just stats wise I would argue the bayonet is superior. And I think NW players know this hence why that has been the competitive format and why it always will be. Besides arguably two stabs means players have to be more intuitive at high levels especially in GF to make kills allows for more interesting styles.
Bayonets are superior to swords for groupfighting without a doubt; they have better range, higher damage and faster speeds (when class proficiencies are taken into account). That said, I think there's no question a sword player wins 1v1 against someone with a bayonet, not least because most bayonet players aren't familiar with how to counter a good sword player - the same problem native sword players have in NW groupfights. The 4 directions are definitely superior for duelling and there are many more "duel moves" you can do with a sword.
I don't think getting into a NATIVE VS NW PLAYER WHO IS BETTER AT GAME conversation is worthwhile because they are obviously different skill-sets with limited cross-compatibility. As the mighty MATT said to me:
Larry Wheels Roid Rage Monday, 22/07/2019, 04:42:
its like boxing vs an mma fighter
a mma fighter can box
but a boxer cant do mma
I don't think Fietta should be talking about how good native players are with bayonets because we don't really know the answer to that question yet; people like Arni and myself have only done a couple of gfs and no tournaments, so until we've taken part in one and played a bit longer it's not really possible to rate us anywhere in terms of skill because it's not possible to know where we belong. I mean the main skills we can carry over aren't mechanical or meta related, but are just the reactions and teamplay that we built up in Native; we are still pretty bad when it comes to NW TRICKS and META. Also, the fact that 2 of the best infantry of all time in Native are also good in NW doesn't mean that anyone from Native is gonna be good in NW. Pretty sure 90% of Native players would be garbage in NW. Only the ones that have top level reactions and know how to teamplay have a chance of being decent/good as soon as they switch to NW.
Still tho:
4v4 two swords two bayonets tourney please 
