Full Version: Two-weapon fighting with dual Reach 2 weapons ?
Aren't we?
QUOTE (Manunancy @ Jan 26 2011, 02:29 PM) 
Melee weapons (be they spears, mauls, two-handed swords or whatever) don't differ much in their configuration from their one-handed version which lets a troll handle them one-handed. Guns are another kettle of fish - the pistol grip lends itself somewhat to firing the rifle one-handed, but the stance used for a bayoneted rifle doesn't translate as easily. If I remember the rules right, the -2 modifer reduced to -1 for trolls is for firing a gun, not for handling it in melee.
Picture a gun with a bayonet fitted on. Handlig it with two hands usually means one hand on the pistol grip and the other holding the barrel, using the gun somewhat like a short spear. Now try to imagine how you'd wield it one-handed - the pistol grip is perpendicular to the weapons. The only melee weapon with that sort of grips that come to mind is a tonfa, but the trigger guard and the butt don't let you pull most tonfa moves. I can see only two ways to get arouns the problem. One is to grab the barell to use the gun as a club - a great way to ruin it. The other would be to grab the barrel just in front of the magazine pit or the sights/scope dependign on the weapon's configuration. Which is somewhere i nth middle of the weapon, reudcing the reach to that of a one-hander at best.
The vibro-sword equiped Ares alpha you're mentioning seems a variation on the bayonet - though I wonder how the gun's sights zeroing will fare with the sowrd's vibration
Picture a gun with a bayonet fitted on. Handlig it with two hands usually means one hand on the pistol grip and the other holding the barrel, using the gun somewhat like a short spear. Now try to imagine how you'd wield it one-handed - the pistol grip is perpendicular to the weapons. The only melee weapon with that sort of grips that come to mind is a tonfa, but the trigger guard and the butt don't let you pull most tonfa moves. I can see only two ways to get arouns the problem. One is to grab the barell to use the gun as a club - a great way to ruin it. The other would be to grab the barrel just in front of the magazine pit or the sights/scope dependign on the weapon's configuration. Which is somewhere i nth middle of the weapon, reudcing the reach to that of a one-hander at best.
The vibro-sword equiped Ares alpha you're mentioning seems a variation on the bayonet - though I wonder how the gun's sights zeroing will fare with the sowrd's vibration
Ok. Page 162 of Arsenal lists penalties for using a 2 handed firearm in one hand. Page 161 lists penalties for using a 2 handed melee weapon in one hand. Both sets of penalties are the same, except for the DV penalty to firearms. Trolls halve both the -2 penalty for 1-handing 2-handed firearms and the -2 pentalty and damage for melee weapons.
Mechanically identical to what I said.
Also, the Bravo (vibro-Alpha) probably has some sort of smart-material on the connecting piece for the sword to the gun that would not make the whole of the weapon vibrate. This is 2072-73 with the world's best weapons manufacturer. I'm sure they're smarter than that.
Well, they are not smarter than replacing a grenade launcher with a vibro-sword or a stun-button.
Grenades are great if the fighting is not close and you are not worried about collateral damage
Back to the comment on Dagger Pistols
If you go to the "Armoury", and awesome museum in Leeds, England they have examples of dagger pistols. My favourite is a pistol with a knuckle duster handle, a pistol out of the end. Its in the hold pistol section along with lemon squeezers and other fun things.
The fact that people actually made and used them makes them more believable I think.
Back to dual wielding with long reach weapons. Pikemen would often hold a dagger in their off hand while wielding the pike. This was so that if someone stepped inside their reach (a concept which sadly shadowrun doesn't have), you can drop the polearm and you are already holding a dagger. That I think is about the limit of people "dual wielding" reach weapons. I take the point about trolls, but in shadowrun they are only slightly bigger than people, so I see no need for special rules
If you go to the "Armoury", and awesome museum in Leeds, England they have examples of dagger pistols. My favourite is a pistol with a knuckle duster handle, a pistol out of the end. Its in the hold pistol section along with lemon squeezers and other fun things.
The fact that people actually made and used them makes them more believable I think.
Back to dual wielding with long reach weapons. Pikemen would often hold a dagger in their off hand while wielding the pike. This was so that if someone stepped inside their reach (a concept which sadly shadowrun doesn't have), you can drop the polearm and you are already holding a dagger. That I think is about the limit of people "dual wielding" reach weapons. I take the point about trolls, but in shadowrun they are only slightly bigger than people, so I see no need for special rules
QUOTE (Omenowl @ Jan 28 2011, 05:15 AM)
Grenades are great if the fighting is not close and you are not worried about collateral damage
For close fighting there are always gas and splash grenades. And don't say there's no way not to harm yourself in the process.
QUOTE (Seth @ Jan 28 2011, 02:58 AM)
I take the point about trolls, but in shadowrun they are only slightly bigger than people, so I see no need for special rules
Trolls are this guy, +200 lbs of muscle. They are much more than "slightly bigger than people."
Yes, they can dual-wield Reach 2 weapons just fine.
Not by the RAW.
They can handle 2h weapons one handed without problems. at least shooty stuffs.
They can. But they can't do Two Weapon Melee Combat with Reach 2 weapons. They can, of course, carry two such weapons, using them alternately between Action Phases. Again, by RAW, which is the limit of my point.
I wouldn't mind a Troll fighting with Two No-Dachi or other "light" two handed Swords(especially with a customized Grip).
Two Polearms would be ...unwieldly even for Trolls
with a -1 in SR4A, not completely effordless
with an ambidextrous Dance
Medicineman
Two Polearms would be ...unwieldly even for Trolls
QUOTE
They can handle 2h weapons one handed without problems. at least shooty stuffs.
with a -1 in SR4A, not completely effordless
with an ambidextrous Dance
Medicineman
2.5 meters is quite tall, 300 kg is quite heavy. I'm quite tall at 1.85 m and 80kg (around 6' 2", 175 lbs), and if there are people taller, it's never by a huge margin (6' 6" is rare). Seriously an 8' 2" guy weighting 661 lbs or more would be quite intimidating to anyone. "Slightly bigger than people" is a pretty big understatement. 
(And let's not speak of 3m giants.)
(And let's not speak of 3m giants.)
QUOTE (Neraph @ Jan 28 2011, 11:19 AM)
Trolls are this guy, +200 lbs of muscle. They are much more than "slightly bigger than people."
Yes, they can dual-wield Reach 2 weapons just fine.
Yes, they can dual-wield Reach 2 weapons just fine.
One Picture is worth more than a Thousand Words
he who mimes dancing
Medicineman
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 28 2011, 02:17 PM)
They can. But they can't do Two Weapon Melee Combat with Reach 2 weapons. They can, of course, carry two such weapons, using them alternately between Action Phases. Again, by RAW, which is the limit of my point.
Can you show from page 161 Arsenal where it says you cannot dual wield 2-handed weapons? That's where I'm getting the information to allow using two Reach 2 weapons. Now, you cannot use Two Weapon Style with them, since Two Weapon Style specifically states they need to be Reach 0 or 1, but that's not saying that you can't dual wield at all with them.
That is what I'm referring to, nothing else. I think I made it very explicit in my previous post, in fact, which you quoted.
The distinction is, as I pointed out, that you cannot use both at the same time: not for attacking, not for parrying, no +1 defense, etc. For any given Action Phase, you're either using one or the other.
I think I made it very explicit in my previous post, in fact, which you quoted.The distinction is, as I pointed out, that you cannot use both at the same time: not for attacking, not for parrying, no +1 defense, etc. For any given Action Phase, you're either using one or the other.
Ahh, since the "Style" was missing I was confused. I thought you were asserting that you cannot dual wield 2-handers at all.
So sword-pistols work, not bayonett-rifles. And technically the Bravo would work, since the Vibrosword is Reach 1.
So sword-pistols work, not bayonett-rifles. And technically the Bravo would work, since the Vibrosword is Reach 1.
I mean, it depends on your wording. I don't think 'Style' is obligatory, but if 'wield' means 'carry', then you *can*. If 'wield' means 'use in the same Action Phase for any purpose', then you *can't*. And again, this is merely RAW, so it doesn't really matter in play.
And again, this is merely RAW, so it doesn't really matter in play.
Eh, I'd disagree with you slightly there. I don't remember seeing a specific rule saying you can't two weapon fight with Reach 2 weapons, only that the specific Two Weapon Style martial arts maneuver is unavailable unless you're using Reach 0 or 1 weapons. It may simply be that I'm fuzzy on the rules, and I'm actually getting ready for work ATM, but I was talking about TWF in general, not a specific maneuver.
No one is talking about "Two Weapon Style martial arts maneuver". The referenced page (Arsenal p163) is about any two-weapon melee combat. I'd actually forgotten there was a maneuver (which is completely separate on p160). 
Now that I check, I see that they do indeed use the same wording:
p160: "In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1."
p163: "In order to use two weapons in melee combat, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1."
So that explains the confusion, though Quake did specifically point out p163.
Now that I check, I see that they do indeed use the same wording:p160: "In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1."
p163: "In order to use two weapons in melee combat, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1."
So that explains the confusion, though Quake did specifically point out p163.
You ganked my Rules-Fu attempt. Yeah, the specific ruling was cited in the first post, though it's not a "Core SR4A" ruling (though using Two Weapon Style implicitly involves endorsing pp.160 and 163).
Yeah, the specific ruling was cited in the first post, though it's not a "Core SR4A" ruling (though using Two Weapon Style implicitly involves endorsing pp.160 and 163).
Anyway. Like others have said, I'd probably just do a house rule allowing a Troll to use a Reach 2 weapon *that made sense*, an obviously subjective decision that (for me) excludes bayonet-rifles, but includes long swords, etc.
Like others have said, I'd probably just do a house rule allowing a Troll to use a Reach 2 weapon *that made sense*, an obviously subjective decision that (for me) excludes bayonet-rifles, but includes long swords, etc.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 29 2011, 10:02 AM)
I mean, it depends on your wording. I don't think 'Style' is obligatory, but if 'wield' means 'carry', then you *can*. If 'wield' means 'use in the same Action Phase for any purpose', then you *can't*. And again, this is merely RAW, so it doesn't really matter in play.
And again, this is merely RAW, so it doesn't really matter in play.Ahhh... but you should STILL be able to use both weapons to attack in a single Complex action, assuming you are attacking more than 1 person within 1 meter of you (though you would still suffer all the possible bonuses and penalties for splitting your dice pool in that way). But yes, You cannot use the Martial Arts Maneuver "Two Weapon Style" for any of its benefits, as the "Style" does not allow this...
Even that I'm not sure of, TJ, though it probably works. The wording on p163 mentions using both weapons on the same person, but it doesn't necessarily mean its restrictions don't apply to splitting your melee action into two nearby targets.
The wording on p163 mentions using both weapons on the same person, but it doesn't necessarily mean its restrictions don't apply to splitting your melee action into two nearby targets.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 29 2011, 04:27 PM)
Even that I'm not sure of, TJ, though it probably works. The wording on p163 mentions using both weapons on the same person, but it doesn't necessarily mean its restrictions don't apply to splitting your melee action into two nearby targets.
The wording on p163 mentions using both weapons on the same person, but it doesn't necessarily mean its restrictions don't apply to splitting your melee action into two nearby targets.And I am evidently still wrong here, because at the end of the relevant section, it is explicit that Reach must be 0 or 1 for the weapon... My mistake... I must have been remembering page 158 of SR4A, where it does not mention weapon size at all...
Yeah, it doesn't mention two weapons at all, there. So we've got a rule for multiple targets, and a rule for two-weapon combat.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jan 29 2011, 01:11 PM)
No one is talking about "Two Weapon Style martial arts maneuver". The referenced page (Arsenal p163) is about any two-weapon melee combat. I'd actually forgotten there was a maneuver (which is completely separate on p160). Now that I check, I see that they do indeed use the same wording:
Now that I check, I see that they do indeed use the same wording:That explains that then.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.