When we read the berserker ability “Weapon Mastery” which states: “Each time you perform an attack with either 1 melee weapon with 2 hand icons or 2 melee weapons with 1 hand icon each, you may exhaust this card to add 1 Z (surge) to the result” we had a question:

“or 2 melee weapons with 1 hand icon each, you may exhaust this card to add 1 Z (surge) to the result” Does this mean you can perform an attack with 2 one-handed weapons? And how would this be played out.

The rulebook isn't clear about this. It only says:
"When a hero player performs an attack action, he may use one of his equipped weapons to attack a space containing a monster" p.9 section Attack.

JohnMill said:

To me it just means B needs to have 2 1-handed melee weapons equipped to benefit from WM (or one 2-handed melee weapon).

I agree. If the rulebook says you can only make an attack with one weapon at a time, then perhaps this ability cannot be used when wielding a (one-handed) sword and a shield? It sounds like a condition of this ability is that you must have two hands of weapons equipped (perhaps getting an off-hand bonus, if that still exists in 2nd ed.?).

Monsterberger said:

There is Eliam from the CK who gets a bonus when using two 1-handed weapons. Kind of sad as his Heroic Ability is useless until he gets another weapon (or two is you start him as Berserker).

I'm a little disappointed they removed the off-hand bonus of weapons. I'd like to see this return. Or something similar anyway, as I can't see them reprinting every one handed weapon again.

I would like to see some kind of official rule for dual-wielding one-handed weapons (if only so that we know how to "attack with 2 one handed weapons" when trying to use Weapon Mastery.) I don't really care if it's a reimplementation of off-hand bonus or something else entirely.

Whatever they might do about this, I do hope it won't involved new things being printed on the gear cards, though. Otherwise it will be something that only expansion cards can have. It will also be a rule they have to re-explain in every expansion set, assuming they want to maintain their policy of each expansion only requiring the base game. (There was a lot of that to go around in 1E, it was kind of annoying sometimes to see how much of the rulebook was dedicated to stuff I already knew, though I do understand why they did it that way.)

If they come up with another rule (that doesn't require anything be written on the weapon card) then it can be applied to existing gear as well as new stuff. If they make it an errata, they don't even need to print it in ONE rulebook! =D

Official reply:

You can perform an attack while equipped with 2 one-handed weapons, but you have to choose which 1 of those 2 weapons you are using for the attack before rolling dice.

Thanks,

Adam Sadler
Managing Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

To me, Dam's reply sounds logical. If you don't have a 2-handed weapon or two 1-handed weapons you can't benefit from this ability.

But I don't get the point (when you don't have this ability) of having two 1-handed weapons if you can only ever use one of them (one at a time). why would you have two weapons if you can also have something like a shield or something, that way you can benefit from both items. From replies I understand there was a bonus in the 1st edition? Haven't played that. Could you explain "off-hand" (dont understand the meaning of this word, from holland).

We play 2nd edition with a lot of our own rules, which makes it a lot better for our gameplay. this way we balance the game out to our playing style.

JohnMill said:

'Off-hand' is a term used to denote when you're not using your dominant hand. The 'off-hand' bonus was awarded for having a weapon in your other hand, but attacking with a different one.

As for re-implementing such a rule, I'd be happy with a blanket +1 surge off hand rule. Or +1 damage (or both). Or even +1 yellow die. It's a bit of a shame that different off-hand weapons wouldn't give different effects, but I totally agree with you Steve-O on expansion specific rulings, repeat rulings and reprints.

Personally I always liked the idea of if you miss when you have two one handed weapons, you can reroll that attack. You miss with your main Hand weapon and make up for it with your offhand decreasing it's effectiveness.

Blue + Red + Red = Blue + Red
Blue + Red + Yellow = Blue + Red
Blue + Red = Blue + Yellow

So you're off hand attack would be weaker but you'd still have a chance to hit. I just came up with that and you know what, I like it.

I would like to see a rule for two weapons to the effect: choose one weapon and roll its attack dice and use its passive abilities. Surges may be spent on either weapons effects. With the exception that the 2nd weapon must also be able to hit the target (no spending melee surges on a ranged attack, or reach etc.)

Nexx said:

Wouldn't this be - Blue + Red + Red = Blue + Red + Yellow? Following your other examples anyway.

Regardless, giving another possible attack is, IMO, way too powerful. Though I do like the idea of adding some dice from the 'off weapon' in some form (dropping the blue seems the obvious choice, but potentially rolling BRRRR seems terrifying).

I dunno what the solution is, but it seems there's enough of us that want a tangible bonus from two weapon fighting that we might see something at some point…

Sausageman said:

I agree. I like Nexx's idea as a house rule for two weapon fighting, although allowing what amounts to a "permanent re-roll" (as long as you keep 2 one handed weapons equipped anyway) seems too powerful.

My first impulse for fixing this was to say it costs 2 actions, but then I realized that actually makes it worse than just making two regular attacks.

Adding the dice together could also make for some illogical shenanigans if someone decided to let it work with ranged weapons too (look, my crossbow can shoot farther if I swing this sword with the other hand!)

How's this sound: "Add +1 Damage to the attack roll for every die on the off-hand weapon's card, and you may spend surges rolled on abilities granted by either weapon. Dual-wielding only requires one Action, but if you do this, your other action this turn cannot be an attack. Both equipped weapons must be Melee weapons."

(Or "…must be capable of hitting the target space from your current position." If you really want Ranged Dual-Wielding to work.)

Sausageman said:

I'd certainly be interested in any other suggestions people have to offer. An official rule from FFG would be nice, but it seems like something we can add a house rule for easily enough if they don't want to be bothered.

"From replies I understand there was a bonus in the 1st edition? Haven't played that. Could you explain "off-hand" (dont understand the meaning of this word, from holland)."

As one previous poster said, "Off-hand" refers to your non-dominant hand. So if you were to wield a sword and a dagger, you'd almost definitely put the sword in your dominant hand and your dagger in your off-hand.

In 1st edition, every 1-handed weapon had an off-hand bonus listed on it, which was added to the attack of your other weapon if you attacked while both were equipped. You were free to choose which weapon to actually attack with, just as in 2E, but there was little reason to switch it up ever, as you generally would have one weapon with the best dice to roll you could, and a second weapon with the biggest off-hand bonus you could find. Most weapons had offhand bonuses of just "+1 damage" or "+1 Surge".

This overall added a good balance between a 1-handed weapon + Shield (best defense), 2 1-handed weapons (more damage than with shield and consistent damage, and not hurt nearly as bad when a weapon gets broken by the overlord), and a 2-handed weapon (wider variance of damage than 2 1-handed weapons, and probably just slightly higher average damage). In 2E, without this skill that started this conversation, there's basically no reason to ever wield two weapons.

Rajamic said:

Agreed - which is a shame, an opportunity missed AND why I think it's something they'll revisit…

And Steve-O, I quite like this: "Add +1 Damage to the attack roll for every die on the off-hand weapon's card, and you may spend surges rolled on abilities granted by either weapon. Dual-wielding only requires one Action, but if you do this, your other action this turn cannot be an attack. Both equipped weapons must be Melee weapons."

Possibly a little convoluted or unweildy (heh), but it works for me.

Rajamic said:

That's exactly what I thought, couldn't find any bonuses for wielding two weapons. Thanks very much for the clear explanation.

Sausageman said:

Let's hope so.

i think just adding the ability to spend surges on either weapon is more than enough of an off hand bonus. It's simple, and not so overpowered that everyone will start dual wielding. Some combinations I can see is a mace on the off hand paired with a strong weapon for a chance to stun, a blast weapon paired with a weapon that rolls yellow dice for better chance to blast, or two of the same weapon if your character gets a lot of free surges. My only stipulation would be that the weapons should be of the same type.

I dint think the shields are as powerful in 2e as they are in 1e, so the offhand bonus shouldn't be too powerful. This gives the heroes the choice of defense (shield), damage (2 hand), or versatility (2 weapon)

So long as you have declared that you have equipped both one handed weapons - then you should be able to spend the surges on either abilities from both one handed weapons - regardless of which one you declared to attack. The attack declaration simply chooses the attack dice for that specific weapon - but you can spend surges from anything you have equipped - be it abilty, item, weapon or armour; provided it is in the right circumstances for the surge activation.

So equipping 2 one handed weapons, gives you more surges to choose from, even if you are only attacking with one weapon or the other.

Am I getting this ruling right?

I like that idea. Mine was a little overpowerered but the idea of using surge abilities from either weapon is great.
We've been playing for like, seven or eight weeks straight, Campaign number 2 will come to a conclusion tonight. Wish the heroes Luck! (And Spencer)

Macnme said:

That's the jist of the house rule that we seem to be forming up for two-weapon fighting here. That is NOT how the official rules work in general, though.

The rules for picking a weapon on page 12 clarify that (per RAW) you must pick which weapon you are using and you can only use surge abilities from the chosen weapon.

There are some skills and items which provide surge bonuses that can be used "when attacking" regardless of what weapon you pick, but weapons other than the one you choose to attack with are generally ignored, whether they're equipped or not.

Id say that you will have to wait untill FFG releases a hero that can benefit from dual wielding as an ability before you can use more than one weapon in one attack. And creating house rules for it will make that future hero suck (or throw your players into a fit).

Wrapped said:

Well, one ranged and one melee weapon would make a difference. Also, one that stuns and one that does more damage (as an example).

Wrapped said:

Heroes get a free equip at the start of their turn, so unless they are planning on making two attacks, one with each weapon (a rare case), they are getting no benefit of carrying that other weapon around.

There is one hero in the ck that needs to have two weapons to use his heroic ability, but he's a pretty weak character IMHO. Low HP and a brown defense die is crippling on a melee character.

The berserker card gives the same benefit if a 2h weapon is equipped, so might as well use a 2h instead for the extra damage (unless you happened upon a very powerful 1h).

In other words, there's virtually no reason to use 2 weapons. I agree that ffg will probably release a hero class that can in the future. Personally I like the house rule as it pairs nicely with the berserker class, which I think is the class most likely to dual wield anyways

I've had moderate success dual wielding with Ronan of the Wild in a 1st edition quest. Sword and crossbow work great together as long as you have a shield in your pack because you can always have the right equipment at the right place at the right time. We only played with 3 heroes, so it helped to have somebody versatile. I have got to get a copy of 2nd edition with the conversion kit to see if it still works.

I have literally played two games and have already come up with a situation in which I wish I had two one-handed weapons equipped. I was playing Arlic (or whatever his name is) and I had the mace and shield. I picked up a sword along the way. I mostly used the sword and shield, but I had to kill the goblin king (quest 2 I think). If I had both weapons equiped, I could have stunned him with my first attack, and maximized damage with my second. I was maintaining hit-points with my special ability of adding a hit point with surges pretty well. So, in those instances when using two different weapons' effect against a boss-type monster would be a good time to have two weapons armed.

Good Gaming!