Can you fire a wrist mounted weapon as a offhand shot while using a 2h weapon in close combat? The offhand shot would obviously be modified by -10, but I would imagine that since both hands are still firmly on the weapon, it would not take that penalty?

Also, Eviscerators do not have Tearing? Seems strange for a chain weapon.

Ah nevermind, just looked at the Errata and see that an Eviscerator is 1D10+10 with Tearing now.

Daedalius said:

No, wielding the 2-handed weapon means your hands are constantly in use. Your hand is not free to take the shot. You´d need three hands for that.

I figured it would be a bit over the top anyway.

I can settle for being able to shoot before going into combat without having to put the weapon away.

Thanks!

If its a forearm mounted weapon there is nothing from what I have read that would prevent a character from swinging his two-handed chainsword, and then firing his mounted bolter using the same multiple attack action.

I would also argue there is nothing preventing him from taking multiple attack actions with the chainsword and another melee weapon (mounted or not). Isn't that why you mount weapons in the first place? So your hands are free to carry additional weapons.

Example.

Tom has an enemy in front of him and another approaching.

Tom declares he will be using the multiple attack action during his turn.

He has swift attack, so he can make two melee attacks with the eviscerator and another attack with the mounted bolt pistol.

Tom attacks twice with the eviscerator slaying one. Then makes a third attack with his forearm mounted bolter slaying the other. He used both hands to swing the chainsword and then fired the bolt pistol mounted to his forearm. Whats the problem???

This also means one can both wield an eviscerator and parry by using a forearm mounted powersword. That's the whole point of the exotic weapon listed in RT's Into the Storm. Hands full? Can't parry? Strap a defensive powerblade to your forearm and never be in that situation again.

Point me to the page that says otherwise please. The talents never specify main-hand, off-hand, can't do this when carrying a two-handed weapon... they say weapon not hand. Its two-weapon fighting not two-handed fighting.

Also, since the forearm mounted weapon isn't ever in his hand does that mean he never gets to use it Daedalius???

The part about needing three hands is irrelevant as its hands-free. He never even has to take his hands off the chainsword to fire the bolter; if he doesn't want to. His hands aren't 'constantly' in use either. Ever heard of a free action. Hell! He could pull a knife from his belt and throw it If he isn't swinging the chainsword at the same time which he wouldn't be.

Remember, it doesn't say this weapon requires two hands to carry it says the weapon requires two-hands to use.

If a talent says you get X number of attacks come up with a legitimate way to use them. Why can't I use swift attack with the eviscerator and then pummel strike him for my third attack or throw in a backhand or kick? I didn't use the blade I used an improvised weapon. Same with guns. Shoot, then swift attack with the bayonet, or shoot, then smack 'em with it.

I say reread all the talents and combat actions, count the attacks, and discuss with your GM. At the end of the day its up to him, but 9 times out of 10 unless he's a stubborn ass or doesn't like making a ruling without it specifically being spelled out for him a logical argument for what you to do and why will often end in a ruling you can both live with.

NGL said:

There is no problem. You just cant do it in one round.

Why not. What says you can't.

1st off: It is no problem if you are only holding something in your hands and using the arm-strapped Bolter to shoot.

The problem in your example is that the shooting of the Bolter would be at the exactly same time when the arm on which it is strapped is being used to wield a greatsword in a fencing duel. To shoot the Bolter at the approaching enemy of your example you´d have to stop the fencing and point your arm in the direction of the approaching enemy. But you already commited your arms to wielding the Eviscerator this Round. While the mounting frees up your hand, it is still attached to your arm and your arm is not freed up to point at the enemy because this round it is in use wielding the Eviscerator.

By your definition of occupied one could never perform two actions in a single round because you are doing something else. It doesn't work that way.

I could aim and attack two half actions. Aim doesn't prevent me from attacking.

I could move and attack. Same as above.

I could be unarmed sitting in a chair at a table. Leap Up (Free), Quickdraw a gun (Free), shoot it (half). Drop it (free). And walk away (half). All in one round.

Surprise the Multiple Attack option allows you to make multiple attacks in a single round.

Also I would say moving ones arm is a free action if all the free actions listed above involve moving to some degree.

No. You're incorrect. You may take the Multiple Attack action which specifically states that it allows you to use the Swift Attack and Lightning Attack Talents to make multiple attacks. It does not say "This action allows you to use anything on your body that could possibly be construed as a weapon to make an attack roll." You're example is actually flawed in one crucial way - it contradicts common sense, and the balance of this is the comment on free actions. "There is no formal limit to the number of free actions a character can take in a Round, but a GM should use common sense to set reasonable limits on what can be done in a few seconds." So sure, by the rules RAW, you could do it because nothing says you can't. But that is assuming your GM has become devoid of his common sense and would let you read a full novel to your enemy as a Free Action because he's just speaking.

When you make a Multiple Attack action to use Swift/Lightning attack, you are committing whatever limbs are wielding that weapon (in the case of the Eviserator both Arms) to spending the full round squeezing every ounce of speed into the attack, hence why you gain multiple attacks. That means you do not have time to use one of the limbs that is already committed to three attacks disengage immediately following and make another attack. Irrational, and therefore subject to the most important law of all, the law of Common Sense.

Wow, so many replies since i checked this last!

I decided a stealthy assassin probably shouldn't be using an eviscerator most of the time anyway, so I put that into storage along with the wrist mount. Now I am carrying a Nomad, twin-power blades, and a bolt pistol; all of which are much stealthier than a body-sized chainsword!

BangBangTequila said:

Finally. Someone gets it. Like I said.

"reread all the talents and combat actions, count the attacks, and discuss with your GM. At the end of the day its up to him, but 9 times out of 10 unless he's a stubborn ass or doesn't like making a ruling without it specifically being spelled out for him a logical argument for what you to do and why will often end in a ruling you can both live with."

Whether you or the other guy thinks its possible its ultimately up to the GM. I also don't like your idea of throwing common sense about like its the end all. One's definition of common sense is obviously relative since I have repeatedly given the people of this forum too much credit.

There would be a valid alternative way to get your shot while in melee, that most GMs would probably allow.

Dualwielding allows you to use pistol class weapons in the off-hand, and fire them. This means that a character with Two Weapon Wielding: Ballistic + TWW: Melee is able to make one melee attack and one pistol attack. Swift and Lightning Attack add additional melee (and ONLY melee) attacks. The pistol may not fire full or semi-auto, as these are full round actions and cannot be used as part of the multi-attack action.

If one of my players asked to spend the XP on Ambidextery and both of the Two Weapon Wielding talents in order to use a pistol/arm mounted weapon in close combat with, I would probably allow it, even if they are wielding a two hander. That's a hefty chunk of xp for a combat upgrade, especially considering some of the attribute requirements of those talents. That means the player would be allowed a number of melee attacks according to his Swift/Lightning melee talents plus one additional single shot attack with his arm-mounted pistol or compact basic class weapon.

Personally I think this is power gaming and munchkinizing to an extreme degree, but not one I can logically and mechanically see a problem with. If I disallowed it, I would do so purely on the grounds that the exp should be spent elsewhere to make a better, more rounded character rather then squeezing out one more drop of killing power.

Of course, the upcoming mechanics changes in Black Crusade are likely to replace a number of current mechanics in our current game, if we like the changes. So all of the above is likely to be moot quite soon.