If you attack using each fist as a weapon, one has a brawl weapon the other is unarmed do the unarmed talents still apply?

I would think so.

Depends on how talent reads.

2 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Depends on how talent reads.

Yeah, seems the language is pretty explicit within the Talent's description most of the time.

In the end it depends on the individual Talent.

e.g. Martial grace allows to add damage to you NEXT Brawl-CHECK, since Brawlweapons and Unarmed both are using a Brawl check, it would count as bonus for both hits (if suceeded)

The Iron body Talent would only reduce the crit costs of the unarmed part of the attack while the Brwalweapon will hav to use it's own costs.

To use Supreme Precision Strike again only a crit of the unarmed part of the Attack can be changed (while at the same time P.S. or Improved P.S. can be used for the Brawlweapon if a crit happens)

Feral Strike allows to upgrade the next Meele or Brawl attack, since both using Brawl there is no probleme to use it for this attack.

It doesn't technically matter because as far as I'm concerned when a player is asking this sort of thing they're rule lawyering, and the answer is no at my table regardless of what cross referencing of six different Talents, in 3 different books, using 2 different rules sections say.

1 hour ago, Nightone said:

To use Supreme Precision Strike again only a crit of the unarmed part of the Attack can be changed (while at the same time P.S. or Improved P.S. can be used for the Brawlweapon if a crit happens)

Disagreeing on this. Supreme Precision Strike specifies (in two places, no less!) no weapons when making the Brawl check.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

Disagreeing on this. Supreme Precision Strike specifies (in two places, no less!) no weapons when making the Brawl check.

I see, if it states that your are not allowed to have any weapon on you while making the check, thenn of course this won't work.

Didn#t have the book with me so I didn't recall the complete wording, thought it would only work on an attack that hits (and crits) with "unarmed".

So by this it would in extension also forbid the supreme version once you have an repulsor fist installed since it IS a brawl weapon even if it uses the unarmed rules while it is recharging.

1 hour ago, Nightone said:

So by this it would in extension also forbid the supreme version once you have an repulsor fist installed since it IS a brawl weapon even if it uses the unarmed rules while it is recharging.

Yes, but only if you're using the repulsor fist when making the Brawl check. You might well have other, perfectly normal, non-weaponized appendages to use.

So you cant roll for dual fists, one unarmed using s. Precision strike and the other with repulsor fist?

The rules are open to what a GM thinks since it isn't called dual wielding, it's called two weapon combat, and Brawl does not by default mean 'fist'. To say nothing of the fact that in a system that prides itself as being narrative, and that each combat check may involve a fusillade of shots and not just a single trigger pull or punch, the whole aspect of two weapon combat, autofire, and link are a bit goofy.

Technically per two weapon combat you designate the primary 'weapon', so if the 'open hand', 'knee', 'head butt'', were the primary weapon, you probably technically can. Whether your GM wants to let you uncover that towering cheese souffle is up to them....

If you want to use Supreme Precision Strike you would be better off making a normal combat check anyway, since the goal is to inflict a critical injury. Making a dual-wielding check increases the difficulty and subsequently decreases the likelyhood of getting enough advantages.

Only if you want to maximise damage above all else would I go for dual-wielding. And if you get enough advantages for shenanigans anyway you can then still use Improved Precision Strike.

Two weapon combat , autofire etc are just indications of an increased likelihood of causing damage , ie you will inflict more damage over time using two weapons (that are hitting) than with a single weapon, it does not reflect an additional hit each round, just an increased damage output if triggered. It still works within the narrative system, even if you dont trigger enough ad with two weapon combat to gain additional damage your damage output still consists of using two weapons, and IMO can still be narrated as such.

Okay I didn't ready all of the responses, but

NO!

If you are wielding a melee weapon you are no longer unarmed.

The weapon in question may be one handed, two handed, half handed, palmed, ham-fisted, etc, but you are still armed! And therefore not unarmed, and ineligible for unarmed bonuses and benefits!

22 hours ago, syrath said:

Two weapon combat , autofire etc are just indications of an increased likelihood of causing damage , ie you will inflict more damage over time using two weapons (that are hitting) than with a single weapon, it does not reflect an additional hit each round, just an increased damage output if triggered. It still works within the narrative system, even if you dont trigger enough ad with two weapon combat to gain additional damage your damage output still consists of using two weapons, and IMO can still be narrated as such.

You are incorrect, each additional hit can land a separate critical hit. Someone could cause a single hit with 20 Wounds on a Soak 2 target but only be able to land a single critical hit. That same scenario with someone using TWC or autofire and causing two 10 Wound hits could roll two critical injuries.

The mechanical and the narrative are very much at war with one another.

29 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

You are incorrect, each additional hit can land a separate critical hit. Someone could cause a single hit with 20 Wounds on a Soak 2 target but only be able to land a single critical hit. That same scenario with someone using TWC or autofire and causing two 10 Wound hits could roll two critical injuries.

The mechanical and the narrative are very much at war with one another.

still not with you on this as a critical hit itself can also be multiple hits, For a sniper shot it could be a single blow, for brawl it could be a particularly debilatating single blow or could be several, it's all down to the way the GM and players narrate it. The results of the check tell you the physical outcome , how the opponent reaches that state is down to the GMs and players narration, especially when you consider that wounds arent technically wounds, if you want to go with the dictionary definition of wounds, and critical hits are the real injuries.

I'm not going back and forth on the semantics of the application of the word "hit". The Devs are consistent in referring to the matter as multiple hits in regards to autofire/link/TWC etc.

yep difference between the technical and the narrativ hit.

Technical you rollthe attack check and your enemy suffers one hit by you on a normal attack (and may also only use each defensive talent against it once!), two hits with linked1 activated and so on

Narrative you may shoot a barrage of lightning rays of death hitting the enemy multiple times, while at the same time he dodges a lot of the real critical ones since he isn#t down once you reload and opens his volley of blaster bolts.

In the cases where we are talking about the Rules of things like TWC/link/autofire it is always the Technical aspect we are talking about since the narrative doesn't need to be looked at at this moment (those a important on the gametable to build a good story, and to make clear why even if you reflect you still suffer damage)

On 28.11.2017 at 5:05 PM, 2P51 said:

The rules are open to what a GM thinks since it isn't called dual wielding, it's called two weapon combat, and Brawl does not by default mean 'fist'. To say nothing of the fact that in a system that prides itself as being narrative, and that each combat check may involve a fusillade of shots and not just a single trigger pull or punch, the whole aspect of two weapon combat, autofire, and link are a bit goofy.

Technically per two weapon combat you designate the primary 'weapon', so if the 'open hand', 'knee', 'head butt'', were the primary weapon, you probably technically can. Whether your GM wants to let you uncover that towering cheese souffle is up to them....

Though I actually think that it is a fine mechanic, allowing someone to increase the difficulty of his melee attack to have the chance to pull of a whole combo sounds rather cool and fitting. It's just totally against the whole narrative approach of multiple hits and all. The whole system is in this regard rather goofy, especially when you consider that wounds are basically near misses with blaster fire or bruises in a fist fight, while only critical hits are real damage.

My GM in the first Edge game I played agreed with me that having two fists qualified my wookiee Mechanic/Marauder for two weapon combat. Narratively, it was simply a more elaborate and dangerous combo to beat the enemy into submission.

Didn't a dev say you could unarm parry as long as you had one hand that wasn't holding a weapon?

yeah, but you have to be carefull with that. some argue that if you are using a one handed weapon you can use unarmed parry with the free hand... which can become quite cheesy, since the reason for the reduced strain cost is that you don't have to lift anything while using U-Parry.

Doesn't the two weapon combat rule say ranged light or one handed melee weapons?

Nope.

Checked the Edge core role book and on Page 210.

Two-Weapon Combat

First para:

"A character may opt to carry a Ranged (Light) weapon or a one-handed melee weapon in each hand, increasing his volume of attacks at the expense of accuracy. When attacking with two weapons, the character must be wielding two weapons that can each be reasonably held and wielded in one hand. Generally pistols and grenades - and one handed melee or brawl weapons."

Page 153 defines Brawl weapons - "Brawl weapons are generally light and cover the wearer's hands." also goes on to include talons and claws.

I can see an interpretation of allowing weaponless Brawl for Two-Weapon Combat however I personally interpret this as needing weapons in or on both hands and not barehanded, unless you used someone else's hands .

Of course play as you see fit.