Poll: Ninja or Samurai

[Yopaz]

snip

As I said, I quoted a full post. Don't believe I used the term 'refer'. And I have read all of your posts.

Saying that X wins on X's terms and Y wins on Y's terms is just asinine. The whole who would win thing is just pointless. A ninja wouldn't fight a samurai so what's the point in asking who'd win? Ninjas assassinate, samurai's fight. You can't compare apples and oranges.

Also

Still believe I mentioned fighting? Read this part from my last post:

I might be wrong here, but samurai were warriors right? So there are armies of samurai. I think this fight would depends solely on the conditions they were fighting in. One on one and a ninja would kill the samurai and he wouldn't know it

Be clearer about what you're saying before you get all pissy.

Thank you. In this post you clearly show that I never mentioned them ACTUALLY fighting. You also managed to blatantly ignore the fact that I did not accuse you of quoting me out of context. I worked really hard to make that clear. You accuse me of not being clear yet this:

I will repeat what I said in my last post: correct me if I'm wrong, not if I've been quoted out of context. Also since you didn't seem to understand it the last time, I have been quoted out of context, but you were not the one to do so.

Is not clear enough for you. Please, is there any way I can make it more clear?

 

[Dandark]

Im going to go with Samarai, I just like them a lot better. Im not sure what the exact requirments are but im going with

Ninja= Smart, sneaky, stealthy and deadly efficiant, sneaks into enemy army camp to assasianate the leader.

Samari= Badass who values swords and honour above all else, walks up to enemy camp and challenges the enemy leader to a dual.

I just prefer Samarai characters more.

Spoiler: Im pretty sure this guy is more samarai than ninja

 

[SpAc3man]

Ninja are just Samurai that aren't held back by the shackles of duty towards a clan. They are better spies too. Ninja wins.

 

[Yopaz]

snip

Except for the part where you say 'the fight'.

Saying 'the ninja could kill the samurai before he knows what's happening' could mean any number of things. It wasn't clear what you were saying, especially considering you said the fight could go either way.

And the point I'm getting at is that I quoted a full post. If you don't think that's enough context for someone to quote you on you should put qualifiers on the post.

Yes, the part that you quoted included me using the word fight. It also included me explaining that it wouldn't be an actual fight, but a samurai that would try to slaughter ninjas with their numbers and a ninja using stealth and killing the enemy without being noticed.

Seeing as you think I was accusing you for quoting me out of context when I threw in a few sentences explicitly I can understand that you would be unable to see the meaning of a sentence when I used a word that you didn't think fit in. It's hard to remember what you read a second ago, I understand that and believe me, I am really struggling trying to get you to understand both my first post and that the post you originally responded to. Please, give me some hints on how I can make this clear enough.

Also to all those who are confused. My last post was not just the word snip. I have been quoted by someone who doesn't want to make a huge wall of text or because the poster only wants to respond to a small part of a post, so a part of my post has been removed to save you the trouble from reading what you might have possibly read before. Do not think that this post, which is a response to a post that I wrote once that got quoted, is my original post on this thread. If you want to see the full post the easiest way to do this is to click on the blue letters with my name to see the full post.

As you can see, specifying the basics of how a forum works in every post takes a little extra time and I assume most people understand that this is done. However I think I might have to start doing so based on your posts because you prove that not even seasoned forum users can be expected to understand the basics or even something spoken as clearly as I know how.

 

[Sixcess]

Samurai, because Seven Samurai is a fantastic movie.

I think Ninja and I just think those guys that got beat up by Daredevil a lot back when Frank Miller was still sane.

On the other hand there was Tenchu, which was a really good game and might almost make me change my vote.

 

[Yopaz]

snip because *yawn*

Your condescending attitude does you no favours.

You said

I think this fight would depends solely on the conditions they were fighting in. One on one and a ninja would kill the samurai and he wouldn't know it

That isn't clear enough for you to snark at someone when they assume you're talking about a ninja and a samurai fighting.... It's right fucking there in plain English.

"I think this fight would depends solely on the conditions they were fighting in."

They were fighting in

THEY WERE FIGHTING IN

[HEADING=1]THEY WERE FIGHTING IN[/HEADING]

Saying he'd 'kill a Samurai and he wouldn't know it' is about as vague a qualifier as you could possibly have made it.

Do you mean he would assassinate him? Because that wouldn't be a fight, rendering the first part of your sentence contradictory. Do you mean he'd use trickery in a fight? Do you mean he'd poison him before a fight?

You can't make unclear statements and then get all pissy when someone doesn't read your exact intentions from them..... Especially after you'd said


[HEADING=1]THEY WERE FIGHTING[/HEADING]

One sentence before.

And as I said

Saying that X wins on X's terms and Y wins on Y's terms is just asinine. The whole who would win thing is just pointless. A ninja wouldn't fight a samurai so what's the point in asking who'd win? Ninjas assassinate, samurai's fight. You can't compare apples and oranges.

The whole comparison is retarded.

Also

As you can see, specifying the basics of how a forum works in every post takes a little extra time and I assume most people understand that this is done. However I think I might have to start doing so based on your posts because you prove that not even seasoned forum users can be expected to understand the basics or even something spoken as clearly as I know how.

You see this?

I might be wrong here, but samurai were warriors right? So there are armies of samurai.

They were mainly warlords. So they led armies. Which is also a problem for a ninja.

Well in that case I stand by my idea that a ninja would win against a single samurai, but ninjas aren't really the warrior kind so they could probably be wiped out if the samurai was in his right element.

They wouldn't be fighting.

A ninja would try to kill a samurai whilst he was asleep, or by poisoning his sake/rice and if he failed he'd run.

That's what ninjas did. They didn't train to fight, they trained to escape bad situations.

That was a response to a single and whole comment that has contained within, all the context required for someone to make a reply.


Rendering this comment

Correct me if I'm wrong, not if I am quoted out of context.

incorrect.

The earlier post had no relevance to what I'd said, as what I said was a reply to one of your posts... and entire one.... irrespective of your earlier post that had been 'quoted out of context.'

Comprende senor?

See, I can be snarky too!

You're right, my condescending attitude here does nothing. I have spent several posts here trying to say that when I used the word fight I didn't mean an actual fight. I have repeated that numerous times in my posts and you don't seem to understand. I really don't think I can be bothered to try to explain this anymore since you're either trolling, unwilling to understand or simply too dense to understand. I don't care which one it is. I just really don't see a reason to explain my posts to someone who wants to ounce on someone for being wrong while not seeing that he didn't understand the posts he was trying to correct.

 

[Alakaizer]

Because of the fact that I am 6'4", over 300 pounds, and can still sneak up on people without really trying, I go ninja. Every time.

 

[Yopaz]

You're right, my condescending attitude here does nothing. I have spent several posts here trying to say that when I used the word fight I didn't mean an actual fight. I have repeated that numerous times in my posts and you don't seem to understand. I really don't think I can be bothered to try to explain this anymore since you're either trolling, unwilling to understand or simply too dense to understand. I don't care which one it is. I just really don't see a reason to explain my posts to someone who wants to ounce on someone for being wrong while not seeing that he didn't understand the posts he was trying to correct.

You know what's ironic, you're claiming that I'm the one who's not understanding what you're saying whilst you're either ignoring what I've said or are

simply too dense to understand.

I'll post it again. Do us all a favour and read it before posting another pointless comment.

Pay close attention to the parts where I'm telling you that your original post was unclear. Nothing to do with me not understanding now, everything to do with your incompetence at getting your point across and how that incompetence weakens your footing when you try and act condescending, especially about people taking what you said the wrong way.

It's explained pretty clearly, although you might want to read it a few times... make sure it sinks in.

snip because *yawn*

Your condescending attitude does you no favours.

You said

I think this fight would depends solely on the conditions they were fighting in. One on one and a ninja would kill the samurai and he wouldn't know it

That isn't clear enough for you to snark at someone when they assume you're talking about a ninja and a samurai fighting.... It's right fucking there in plain English.

"I think this fight would depends solely on the conditions they were fighting in."

They were fighting in

THEY WERE FIGHTING IN

[HEADING=1]THEY WERE FIGHTING IN[/HEADING]

Saying he'd 'kill a Samurai and he wouldn't know it' is about as vague a qualifier as you could possibly have made it.

Do you mean he would assassinate him? Because that wouldn't be a fight, rendering the first part of your sentence contradictory. Do you mean he'd use trickery in a fight? Do you mean he'd poison him before a fight?

You can't make unclear statements and then get all pissy when someone doesn't read your exact intentions from them..... Especially after you'd said


[HEADING=1]THEY WERE FIGHTING[/HEADING]

One sentence before.

And as I said

Saying that X wins on X's terms and Y wins on Y's terms is just asinine. The whole who would win thing is just pointless. A ninja wouldn't fight a samurai so what's the point in asking who'd win? Ninjas assassinate, samurai's fight. You can't compare apples and oranges.

The whole comparison is retarded.

Also

As you can see, specifying the basics of how a forum works in every post takes a little extra time and I assume most people understand that this is done. However I think I might have to start doing so based on your posts because you prove that not even seasoned forum users can be expected to understand the basics or even something spoken as clearly as I know how.

You see this?

I might be wrong here, but samurai were warriors right? So there are armies of samurai.

They were mainly warlords. So they led armies. Which is also a problem for a ninja.

Well in that case I stand by my idea that a ninja would win against a single samurai, but ninjas aren't really the warrior kind so they could probably be wiped out if the samurai was in his right element.

They wouldn't be fighting.

A ninja would try to kill a samurai whilst he was asleep, or by poisoning his sake/rice and if he failed he'd run.

That's what ninjas did. They didn't train to fight, they trained to escape bad situations.

That was a response to a single and whole comment that has contained within, all the context required for someone to make a reply.


Rendering this comment

Correct me if I'm wrong, not if I am quoted out of context.

incorrect.

The earlier post had no relevance to what I'd said, as what I said was a reply to one of your posts... and entire one.... irrespective of your earlier post that had been 'quoted out of context.'

Comprende senor?

See, I can be snarky too!

Sure, I used the word fight incorrectly in my post so you not understanding that is perfectly normal. I can get past that you pounce on me for that. However four posts of me saying in plain English that I did not mean there would be an actual fight should suffice. My first post was vague and poorly worded because I didn't think this discussion was important enough to do the effort of having the correct semantics.

Now before you feel like quoting the part where I used the word fight and repeat that, write it in big blue letters and all that crap. I know I used the word fight. I'm not going to deny that. Also you guessed correctly. I am ignoring the "points" you make because all of your "points" are based on you ignoring my explanation of my original posts.

 

[waj9876]

I would love to be a Ninja, trained the same way a Samurai was trained on top of the Ninja training, and have my cover be as a Samurai warlord. Who isn't a dick like the other warlord Samurai.

Mostly because I really, REALLY love swords.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Samurai retty much because I am learning the fighting style they ripped off.

 

[Souleks]

Samurai,

You can't have an army without warriors
You can have an army without assassins.

plus asssuming they were fighting not (lol kill him in his sleep) then Samurai 9/10.

 

[Starik20X6]

Ninja all the way. Voting for Samurai? Terrible decision.

 

[WolfThomas]

I'd rather be neither. I'm pretty comfortable here in the 20th century. Both Samurai and Ninja have been built up so much that the popular culture counterpart sometimes rarely resembles the true thing. If I must choose then Samurai, simply because being in a position of authority in a feudal society would be more comfortable than being a peasant.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I like samurai's more but if we were to bring this into a game world and look how I play. I prefer short quick weapons allowing for quick dodging, I don't face enemies head on preferring flank and back attacks, I scour the world for info no matter how out of reach it seems and I have a tendency to stealth when possible(trust me, it's not because I do pacifist runs, I don't) ... so yeah...

EDIT: Obviously I'm not taking actual historical representation into account as my memory of their actual history has been badly marred by years of fiction.