I do agree that Two-Weapon Style seems to powerful, but I have gone over it several times and cannot come up with any changes while still keeping it's concept. Re-working it entirely, however, you could say it allows you to "split" your dice pool as 75/75 instead of the normal 50/50. But this also more or less overrides one of the other maneuvers - forget which one (don't have the book at the moment).

And although Riposte canceling Full Defense does make some sense, it makes just as much sense for it not to, and I still do not see it as being a balance issue due to it taking up your next action.

I would handle two weapon fighting like reach, just another way to have some more flexibility in a fight.

Yup...and something I had misinterpreted in my own games until you pointed this out. The other thing this does is benefit those that want to use Edge to go first in a pass. For example:

One 4IP dude is facing 6 2IP dudes in a firefight. 4IP goes first, fires two shots at on dude and drops him. Then, the 5 remaining IP dudes fire back, two shots a piece from pistols. Assuming my math is right, for the last 2IP dude in the first pass, his second shot was defended with a -9 defense mod.

Now we come to the second pass and the 5 remaining IP dudes decide to burn a point of edge to act first. Assuming the 4IP dude cannot "trump" that, his cumulative -9 doesn't get reset, so all 5 2IP dudes get to take advantage of that penalty, and by the 5th dudes second shot, the defender had a -19 defense mod...

What I was doing before was resetting it each pass...now I have another way to spend edge that actually makes some good sense.

OK, I don't have my books with me, but I seem to remember full defense giving you the bonus "until your next action". Since riposte uses "you next action" now, I would think it would cancel riposte.

I've done a little two weapon training in an SCA-like environment. People seem to do one of two things, either parry with the off hand, or attack with both. The two weapon manuveur seems to be for the parry crowd. When I parry with the off hand, I immediately use my main hand to exploit the opening, much like Riposte is supposed to work.

So, if you feel that two weapon's "auto full defense" ability is too much (I haven't gotten to play it out yet, I'm not sure), then I'd rework it one of a few ways.

One: it allows you to use riposte without dropping full defense. This is of course in keeping with my interpretation of riposte above. So, you defend, you riposte, and your defense stays up until the action after that.

two: If you parry with your off hand, you may add your net successes on your parry roll as bonus dice to your next melee attack with your dominant hand. This attack must be your next action and must target the opponent who's attack you parried.

Further to Bobby Derie's answer in the May Chat transcript, he makes the statement that you cannot take an interrupt action if that would require you 'borrow' an action from a future Combat Turn. Aside from the fact that this directly contradicts the BBB regarding Full Defense interrupt actions, it also means the following:

1. Interrupt Maneuvers such as Finishing Move and Throw are impossible to perform unless you have more than 1 IP
2. Riposte is only possible with 1 IP if you are attacked before your action, defend with a free parry or block and then interrupt (using your 1 IP that round)
3. A person with 1 IP can only ever Full Defense in the same Combat Turn, rendering them unable to ever attempt an attack if they go on the defensive

The last point does gimp 1 IP characters, but if they require Full Defense to survive against an opponent, they are probably best remaining on the defensive and trying to get away, so I could concede that rules change.

However, the other two points effectively render these manuevers useless to anyone with 1 IP (which includes all normal metahumans). That to me just goes against the whole idea of the Martial Arts rules in Arsenal, which appear designed to give trained fighters more options to defeat untrained fighters, regardless of the relative IPs of said fighters.

So in my games, I will continue to operate under what I believe to be the spirit of the rules, which is that you can interrupt into future Combat Turns.

Its obviously not the spirit of the rules as we know what the devs mean now.

There are so many ways to get multiple IPs that I still struggle with all the people that complain about the lowly 1 IP person being underpowered. 1 IP, in combat, is worse off when dealing with opponents with more IPs...there's really nothing anyone can do to change that...

Understood - I meant I believe the spirit of the interrupt rules as written is that you should be able to interrupt one action ahead, even if that action is in another Combat Turn. Given the Combat Turn is an abstraction of time, it doesn't make any sense that I can interrupt one action ahead at one point in time, but can't at another point in time that is functionally identical.

Yes 1 IP people are gimped against multi IP people, but I would at least like the rules to be consistent...

So how are you house-ruling it? Just curious.

the advantage 2+ IP people have over 1 IP people is that they have more actions...
I don't feel there is a need to screw over 1 IP people even more just for the hell of it...
I, and my group, are going to keep using the rules as we always have been...

I don't blame you, I'd do the same. There are are several interpretations that I have made at our table and even when an official ruling came out, I kept to what worked for me and my group. I don't believe 1IP people are getting screwed over just for the hell of it though...they have a limit to what they can do, its just lower than what you previously were giving them...

I don't see any logic to letting a 1 IP character learn finishing move and then requiring him to spend a point of edge to be able to use it...
And as if that isn't enough, the use of edge has to be declared at the start of the turn, before the player even knows if he'll need, or can use, it...
I agree they should have limits on what they do, but having 1 IP is limitation enough, and having 4 IPs if advantage enough...
It's pointless rehashing an old discussion that had been brought to some sort of gentlemen's agreement...
Let's just say that of all the official ruling I expected, the one they chose was, to me, the least satisfying or logical...

True, but now that there is an official ruling, no one has to argue what is right or wrong. We get to actually share what we are doing at our tables...which to me, is never pointless. I like what I am doing at my table (which is the official ruling, by chance, as that is what I was doing before), but I've also pulled in other poster's rules because I liked them better.

I think now we all get an opportunity to share what we are doing, so others can choose what they like...without any arguments on what is "right" or "wrong"...

Given I like to stay as close to RAW as possible, I will just be ignoring the restriction on going one action into the next Combat Turn. So an interrupt maneuver will behave exactly the same as an interrupt Full Defense.

I'm doing this because, as I said, it doesn't make any sense to me to treat them differently. If the rules allow someone to 'borrow' one action into the future, this should be possible whether it is the beginning of your Combat Turn or the end of your Combat Turn.

So a character with 4 IP would still be theoretically able to borrow 4 actions ahead? But the only time he could borrow from the next round is when he has no passes left? Or can he always borrow 4 actions ahead?

Good point. Under Bobby's clarification of the rules, it is still possible for a 4 IP guy to Full Defense, Riposte, Finishing Move and Finishing Move again all in their first Action Phase.

So I would allow as many interrupts as you have IP, regardless of whether this spans a Combat Turn.

Keep in mind that anything I see is as smoke in the wind until it hits an official FAQ or errata document.