Poll: Which is better for when the zombies come, something that smashes or slashes?

Hectix777

New member
Feb 26, 2011
1,500
0
0
When the zombies come we're gonna need to stock up on everything, including weapons, but which melee is most effective against the stupid little brainmunchers. I say something that smashes, you can always guarantee that something will break when you smash it, but slashing means you'll waste your time with clean cuts on the limbs over overall damage. Which will you choose when they come?
 

Phlakes

Elite Member
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
41
Smashing. The only reliable way to kill zombies by slashing is decapitation, but unless you're a trained swordsman, it's not very probable. Although something that can puncture a skull is the best. Not as much mess.
 

King of the Sandbox

& His Royal +4 Bucket of Doom
Jan 22, 2010
3,268
0
0
You have to destroy the brain. Good luck getting through any decent number of skulls with a machete. And decapitation won't work on traditional zombies, as per the brain isn't dead rule.

Plus, sledgehammers also double as lockpicks and have a hundred other uses in a zpoc scenario.
 

Vonnis

New member
Feb 18, 2011
418
0
0
As a wise innkeeper once told me: you can cut the flesh, but you must crush the bone. Zombies won't really care much about their flesh being cut, so crushing it is.
 

oplinger

New member
Sep 2, 2010
1,721
0
0
...Smashing is fine and all, but we all seem to be assuming that we're smashing them with the force of a train, or a bus.

No. I say slashing. Less force needed, less energy consumed by you. Longer survival. You don't have to kill the zombie. Just disable it, eventually it'll starve. Slash it's leg off, it doesnt need to be a clean cut. It's like medieval warfare, you don't aim to kill, you aim to disable.

Plus if you miss, a slashing weapon is generally lighter, you'll be able to slash again quickly. Being faster than zombies ensures victory.
 

The_Yeti

New member
Jan 17, 2011
250
0
0
Smashing. Slashing weapons are ineffective against enemies that don't bleed to death. Slashing weapons also dull and become frail far too easily.


Solid Metal Spiked Mace.
/Thread.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
It's not that difficult to smash a skull in, especially if you're using something with a decent amount of weight behind it. It takes skill to use a sword effectively. An aluminum baseball bat? Easy, not too heavy, and it's made for smashing things.

Definitely the baseball bat.
 

Zeraiya

New member
Jul 16, 2011
150
0
0
I just said slashing because I like the idea of taking on a zombie invasion with a sword >_>
 

alwaysrockon

New member
Sep 24, 2008
308
0
0
something to fight off any humans that will try to take your supplies. The zombies are the least of your worries.
 

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
Well I'd go with a nice Axe, which is kind of a combination of both...kinda..

This thread has given me an urge to play L4D2 hmmm
 

Merkavar

New member
Aug 21, 2010
2,429
0
0
smashes. that way you covered for infected and regular zombies. smashing skulls would probably involve less blood spray etc so less chance of getting infeted yourself
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
I like chopping zombies up into bits but I think slashing a zombie is an easy way to get some of their infected blood in your eyes.
Not that smashing is a whole heck of a lot better.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Niether.

You want something that punctures.

A short-handled pickaxe would be ideal.
 

plugav

New member
Mar 2, 2011
769
0
0
Definitely something that smashes. It may require more force to be effective, but it seems both safer (longer reach, no risk of the blade getting stuck) and more versatile.

Of course, you can have it both ways [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_maul].
 

The Forces of Chaos

New member
Mar 25, 2010
289
0
0
Chain-saws count as slashes right? As well as axes. And morning stars for smash. I think something to keep at ranged would be better like a pike or spear. A halberd I think would work for me (slashes) can chop off limbs and attack like a spear.
 

moosek

New member
Nov 5, 2009
261
0
0
You can probably hold both. A blade requires more maintenance but keeping it sharp will save your life. A blunt, well, it's heavy.

I was just playing Left 4 Dead 2. People overestimate their chances of survival. They assume guns and supplies would just fall into their lap. I have more fun analyzing my current situation and seeing how I could handle a zombie infection. I have access to a baseball bat, a 16 gauge two barrel (and no ammo), a gallon of homemade hard cider (for energy... and morale), and an ice ax. I think I could hold out, by slinking through mostly empty streets.
 

finagle

New member
Apr 10, 2011
4
0
0
Kind of depends on the kind of zombie, especially if your going for decapitation, the question is, can the body of the creature still be active without a head, or able to move without musculature? if so then bashing, go for broken bones/skulls, if not then slashing or axe weapons to render them immobile by cutting muscles/removing limbs. at the end of the day, I dont care if I killed them per se, just that I didn't join em.
I have an axe with a good piercing back end, and a few swords that would be my choice for z-day.