Up until a few months ago I assumed that the Cyber Implant Weaponry skill was used for the forearm snap blades (because IMO they simulate cyberspurs). On an old thread, it was suggested that the Edged Weapons Skill should be used. This may seems like a no brainer to me but I've been wrong about things like this in the past.

What do you think?

I'm pretty sure it's Unarmed Combat, just like with Hardliner Gloves and Shock Gloves.

Since they aren't actually implants, I would rule that Edged Weapons would cover them.

[edit] I didn't consider Doc Funk's solution, which could also work. [/edit]

Oh crap. Now I have three options. Would you accept a martial art in the place of Unarmed Combat?

Of course. The Martial Arts Skills replace Unarmed Combat.

So...when I go to crank out my next combat mage I can use Unrmed Combat, Martial Arts, or Edged Weapons (assuming of course I can find a GM IRL or DS to approve it) to use forearm snap blades?

Eh, if you want. It's really up to the GM since I don't think they ever strictly say which skill they're used by. But, wait, lemme check something real quick...

Okay, yeah, the SR3 p. 275 actually lists them as Edged Weapons (they're in that group). If it was in the Other category, you'd be able to use the Unarmed Combat routine. My mistake for going off memory/house rules in the past. Sorry. You can always ask the GM, though... I know I've allowed it in the past.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Snap Blades do not qualify for the dual-implant melee rules, right?

No change in the Cannon Companion either. So it is really an Edged Weapon.

They most certainly should. They're the same thing as Spurs, just strapped on instead of built-in.

The fact that I got opposite answers in two posts was why I asked. I could easily see it going both ways.

So to sum up, by canon, you should use the Edged Weapons skill. You should not--again, by canon--get the strength bonus for dual snap blades (even though it makes no sense not to).

As a player I like the idea of the Edge Weapons rule even though as a GM I would rule its CIW and I'd let the strength bonus count.

Its a head scratcher to be sure...

Bah, you mean I have to say something insightful too?

Wasn't there some rule in canon companion about using two melee weapons? Shouldn't that be enough? But if you want to be picky, I'd have to say no to the strength bonus. The cyberspurs have the advantage of being set into the bones and gaining the advantage that it's easily an extension of a person. The strap-ons (ergh, that sounds kinda XXX ) are that, strapped on and not as effecient as the cyber spurs.

Other question... two handed melee skill from the cannon companion? Off hand melee? And does that also need to apply to one with cyberspurs? Though, it's true, it is advanced rules and one does not have to use them.

So a Forearm Snap Blade should be 100% as effective as a Retractable Spur *only* if you use one of them at a time? But the moment you use two, bam, the Spur gains some magical (and highly significant) advantage for... well... no reason in particular?

Canonically, they might use the Edged Weapons skill, but personally, I think the Cyber-Implant Combat skill fits them better. That skill is described as "Combining the quick strikes of edged-weapon fighting with the in-your-face style of unarmed combat." My opinion is that cyber-implant combat should be used for any kind of weapon that would use the same style as a cyber implant weapon. In other words, things like ninja climbing claws or spiked brass nucks would fall under this category as well. I would give forearm snap blades the same bonuses as spurs when used in pairs - they are essentially the non-cyber version of the exact same weapon.

If you are going to give bonus to all kinds of non-implanted weaponry, how do you justify the dual-knife weilding warrior not getting the same bonus?

I never really got my head around the difference between dual-wielding C-I weapons and, well, any other weapon. The former gives you a boost to strength while the latter requires either another skill or high levels of Ambidexterity, and gives you more dice.
I work it thus: actually implanted C-I weapons (razors and spurs) give +50% Strength when used as a pair without off-hand skills. If you're ambidextrous (+6/+8 ) or have an offhand C-I combat skill, you can choose between either using the above to increase the power, or to add half the off-hand skill (or base skill again) to get more dice for the combat, but not both. Any other combination (including Snap Blades) only gets the two-handed-combat option as in Cannon Companion. I justify this on the fact that, as snap blades are not implanted, they do not provide the leverage garnered from being anchored to the user's skeletal structure. However, I would let a Snap Blade user default to C-I Combat or a Spurs specialisation at -1 to the usual TN modifiers for defaulting due to the inherent similarities between the two weapons. And if the player then Rule-of-Ones, I'd snap his forearms as he puts too much leverage through it.

-JH.

IMO it doesn't really matter if you explicitly allow the strength bonus for Forearm Snap Blades as you get 1/2 of the powerlevel of your off-hand weapon added to your main-weapon wich being (str)M in either case wich translates to (3/2 str)M. With an off-hand skill of 0 and no ambidex you don't get any additional dice, wich is essentially the same as just getting a str boost of 50%.

unless of course the str boost would be factored in before 2 weapon fighting rules wich would just be too powerfull (My str 10 char would do 22M in that case).

My interpretation ofcourse, but since the two-weapon rules in CC came out I've ruled in my games that they replace the str-bonus previously given to dual spurs. If someone wants to use two spurs, they just get offhand cyberimplant skil or ambidexterity edge and slice away just like everyone else.

It might have to do with the fact that strapping something on to your fore arm isn't as solid as having something come out of your forearm.

I am all for allwoing anyone using two weapons to get the %50 bonus to damage.