So one of my players is facing some confusion, he wants to know if he can use the effect of jury rigged to decrease the cost of activating the second shot when duel wielding pistols down from 2 to 1.?

Strictly speaking I'd say no, it's not a weapon effect or quality.

I'd say no because unlike Autofire which is a quality of the actual weapon, Duel Wielding is an action that has nothing to do with the weapon.

I would argue that he can custom-mod the weapons so that they're easier to use together than standard models. Laser sights for pistols so he can shoot from the hip, changing the balance of swords and knives so he can more effectively swing them around quickly one-armed, etc etc.

But what if the two guns had some sort of linked targeting system (jury rigged). I could see them conferring that benefit, at least narratively.

Let's take a look at the talent itself. The pertinent rule is that the character can decrease the Advantage cost on weapon's critical, or any other effect by one to a minimum of one. I'd call an "effect" anything you can do with the weapon. You wanna make a weapon that's designed to for fire support, decrease the cost of the "Add one Boost to the next action of the character of your choice" effect. You wanna make a deadlier weapon, decrease the Crit cost. You wanna make a more balanced weapon, decrease the cost to activate two-weapon fighting.

Saying "dual wielding has nothing to do with the weapon"...I'm sorry, that baffles me. If you're fighting with two weapons, then you're dual-wielding. It has everything to do with the weapons.

Reading the Two-Weapon Combat rules (page 210), I see the word "weapon" all over the place. It's part and parcel. You can spend 2 Advantage or Triumph to hit with the secondary weapon on a successful hit. The Advantage/Triumph is generated by the attack with the primary weapon. Again, it baffles me that this could be read any other way. I shouldn't be surprised; after all, there are a ton of rules that have been read different ways.

When I read Two-Weapon Combat rules and the Jury-Rigged talent, I am left with the conclusion that, yes, obviously, you can jury-rig a weapon to be easier to dual-wield.

But what if the two guns had some sort of linked targeting system (jury rigged). I could see them conferring that benefit, at least narratively.

That works too. That's an excellent description of how a Gadgeteer might mod out his pistols. Balanced hilts, linked targeting systems. Genius.

Let's take a look at the talent itself. The pertinent rule is that the character can decrease the Advantage cost on weapon's critical, or any other effect by one to a minimum of one. I'd call an "effect" anything you can do with the weapon. You wanna make a weapon that's designed to for fire support, decrease the cost of the "Add one Boost to the next action of the character of your choice" effect. You wanna make a deadlier weapon, decrease the Crit cost. You wanna make a more balanced weapon, decrease the cost to activate two-weapon fighting.

Saying "dual wielding has nothing to do with the weapon"...I'm sorry, that baffles me. If you're fighting with two weapons, then you're dual-wielding. It has everything to do with the weapons.

Reading the Two-Weapon Combat rules (page 210), I see the word "weapon" all over the place. It's part and parcel. You can spend 2 Advantage or Triumph to hit with the secondary weapon on a successful hit. The Advantage/Triumph is generated by the attack with the primary weapon. Again, it baffles me that this could be read any other way. I shouldn't be surprised; after all, there are a ton of rules that have been read different ways.

When I read Two-Weapon Combat rules and the Jury-Rigged talent, I am left with the conclusion that, yes, obviously, you can jury-rig a weapon to be easier to dual-wield.

"Effect" in the RAW has a meaning beyond the dictionary meaning and the word effect is nowhere in the Two Weapon Combat description or rules (pg210-211). Two Weapon Combat is an Attack , unlike Auto-Fire etc. which is are Effects .

"Weapons qualities are special effects and abilities that apply only when using that particular weapon."(Pg205, 4.)

Jury Rigging can "... decrease the Advantage cost on it's (the weapon) Critical, or any single effect by one..."

An Attack is not an effect it's the basis for generating effects and nowhere in the Two-Weapon Combat RAW does it say otherwise.

Let's take a look at the talent itself. The pertinent rule is that the character can decrease the Advantage cost on weapon's critical, or any other effect by one to a minimum of one. I'd call an "effect" anything you can do with the weapon. You wanna make a weapon that's designed to for fire support, decrease the cost of the "Add one Boost to the next action of the character of your choice" effect. You wanna make a deadlier weapon, decrease the Crit cost. You wanna make a more balanced weapon, decrease the cost to activate two-weapon fighting.

Saying "dual wielding has nothing to do with the weapon"...I'm sorry, that baffles me. If you're fighting with two weapons, then you're dual-wielding. It has everything to do with the weapons.

Reading the Two-Weapon Combat rules (page 210), I see the word "weapon" all over the place. It's part and parcel. You can spend 2 Advantage or Triumph to hit with the secondary weapon on a successful hit. The Advantage/Triumph is generated by the attack with the primary weapon. Again, it baffles me that this could be read any other way. I shouldn't be surprised; after all, there are a ton of rules that have been read different ways.

When I read Two-Weapon Combat rules and the Jury-Rigged talent, I am left with the conclusion that, yes, obviously, you can jury-rig a weapon to be easier to dual-wield.

I agree with this interpretation. The talent itself (page 138) says nothing about weapon qualities, only effects. Duel wielding is an effect, if you ask me.

-EF

I guess its semantics, but dual wielding is the effect of an Action, or skill check, not inherently the guns themselves. That said, I am not against the idea.

Let's take a look at the talent itself. The pertinent rule is that the character can decrease the Advantage cost on weapon's critical, or any other effect by one to a minimum of one. I'd call an "effect" anything you can do with the weapon. You wanna make a weapon that's designed to for fire support, decrease the cost of the "Add one Boost to the next action of the character of your choice" effect. You wanna make a deadlier weapon, decrease the Crit cost. You wanna make a more balanced weapon, decrease the cost to activate two-weapon fighting.

Saying "dual wielding has nothing to do with the weapon"...I'm sorry, that baffles me. If you're fighting with two weapons, then you're dual-wielding. It has everything to do with the weapons.

Reading the Two-Weapon Combat rules (page 210), I see the word "weapon" all over the place. It's part and parcel. You can spend 2 Advantage or Triumph to hit with the secondary weapon on a successful hit. The Advantage/Triumph is generated by the attack with the primary weapon. Again, it baffles me that this could be read any other way. I shouldn't be surprised; after all, there are a ton of rules that have been read different ways.

When I read Two-Weapon Combat rules and the Jury-Rigged talent, I am left with the conclusion that, yes, obviously, you can jury-rig a weapon to be easier to dual-wield.

"Effect" in the RAW has a meaning beyond the dictionary meaning and the word effect is nowhere in the Two Weapon Combat description or rules (pg210-211). Two Weapon Combat is an Attack , unlike Auto-Fire etc. which is are Effects .

"Weapons qualities are special effects and abilities that apply only when using that particular weapon."(Pg205, 4.)

Jury Rigging can "... decrease the Advantage cost on it's (the weapon) Critical, or any single effect by one..."

An Attack is not an effect it's the basis for generating effects and nowhere in the Two-Weapon Combat RAW does it say otherwise.

I guess it boils down to whether you want to obey the letter of the rules or the spirit of them. Rules and stats in Edge are there to provide a framework for the mechanics of the narrative to rest on, not a fence to pen them in.

Would it require 1 weapon Jury Rigged, or both? If only 1 would it require that the effected weapon be the primary attack or secondary, or does it matter?

I agree with this interpretation. The talent itself (page 138) says nothing about weapon qualities, only effects. Duel wielding is an effect, if you ask me.

-EF

"Weapons qualities are special effects and abilities that apply only when using that particular weapon."(Pg205, 4.)

I guess its semantics, but dual wielding is the effect of an Action, or skill check, not inherently the guns themselves. That said, I am not against the idea.

It's not really a semantic argument, effects are defined in EotE and an Attack is not an Effect.

I guess it boils down to whether you want to obey the letter of the rules or the spirit of them. Rules and stats in Edge are there to provide a framework for the mechanics of the narrative to rest on, not a fence to pen them in.

I get what you're saying but usually the RAW will tell you what is and isn't "the spirit". The reason I would not let this happen is because Two-Weapon Combat is as good as it need to be, just like Auto-Fire is as powerful as it should be, more than this and you end up throwing combat out of whack.

For some people it's all about DPS and while I have only a minor issue with one trick pony characters I prefer not to encourage Munchkinism.

I guess it boils down to whether you want to obey the letter of the rules or the spirit of them. Rules and stats in Edge are there to provide a framework for the mechanics of the narrative to rest on, not a fence to pen them in.

I get what you're saying but usually the RAW will tell you what is and isn't "the spirit". The reason I would not let this happen is because Two-Weapon Combat is as good as it need to be, just like Auto-Fire is as powerful as it should be, more than this and you end up throwing combat out of whack.

For some people it's all about DPS and while I have only a minor issue with one trick pony characters I prefer not to encourage Munchkinism.

Every GM has their own methods, but I tend to discourage munchkinism by not giving as much of a hoot to the rules. In my experience the more of a stickler you are about adhering to mechanics and stats, the more your players try to squeeze everything they can get out of them. If you're more fluid in their interpretation of them and focus more on the narrative, the players don't invest nearly as much energy min-maxing because they know your playstyle has a good chance of invalidating their hard work.

"Dual wielding" is not a thing in EotE. It is "two-weapon combat".

Reading "Jury rigged" it says it can be applied to one weapon or piece of gear per rank. As shooting two pistols involves two weapons a strict interpretation would require the character to have two ranks of the Jury Talent and apply one rank to each pistol. A lenient GM would only require one such weapon to be modified. In either case I would advocate that the threshold for hitting with the second weapon be lowered to one Advantage.

I could see such modifications also being used for a rapier and parry dagger style combination of melee weapons.

I would expect the modification to be done to the secondary weapon, but don't see a particularly strong argument either way.

Every GM has their own methods, but I tend to discourage munchkinism by not giving as much of a hoot to the rules. In my experience the more of a stickler you are about adhering to mechanics and stats, the more your players try to squeeze everything they can get out of them. If you're more fluid in their interpretation of them and focus more on the narrative, the players don't invest nearly as much energy min-maxing because they know your playstyle has a good chance of invalidating their hard work.

Well the problem I have with the whole idea of not giving a hoot and having a too fluid interpretation of rules is the potential lack of consistency in the game world. If every rule is fungible then there is essentially no predictable foundation to your gaming environment. If I as a GM start ignoring rules then every rule is up for grabs. Rules are written not to keep people from having fun but to create an environment to have fun in. There also there to keep all the participants on the same page, not only are all the players bound by the same rules the GM is as well. Without this foundation you will eventually, without necessarily meaning to, "interpreted" or house ruled so many rules you find yourself in situations where the rules are no longer applied evenly. This will be unfair to someone at the table, and that shoul be avoided at all cost. Rules don't have to be balanced but they do have to be fairly applied and the more rules you change the harder it is to know when you've broken they system and are no longer being fair to everyone at the table.

A character using two blaster pistols and the two weapon combat mechanic (which is basically identical to auto-fire) is going to do less damage than the character with the auto-fire blaster rifle (and has no chance of hitting more than two targets). If you allow jury-rig to work on auto-fire, I see no reason not to let it work it for two weapon combat. The wording might not be the same but the spirit is there.

It's not really a semantic argument, effects are defined in EotE and an Attack is not an Effect.

I guess its semantics, but dual wielding is the effect of an Action, or skill check, not inherently the guns themselves. That said, I am not against the idea.

Greg, that page you keep referencing is defining Qualities, not effects. They are using the relatively common word "effect" to describe a specific portion of the rules, that is "Weapon Qualities."

Qualities are effects and abilities; effects and abilities are not necessarily qualities. Logic helps, sometimes...

A character using two blaster pistols and the two weapon combat mechanic (which is basically identical to auto-fire) is going to do less damage than the character with the auto-fire blaster rifle (and has no chance of hitting more than two targets). If you allow jury-rig to work on auto-fire, I see no reason not to let it work it for two weapon combat. The wording might not be the same but the spirit is there.

It's not really a semantic argument, effects are defined in EotE and an Attack is not an Effect.

I guess its semantics, but dual wielding is the effect of an Action, or skill check, not inherently the guns themselves. That said, I am not against the idea.

Greg, that page you keep referencing is defining Qualities, not effects. They are using the relatively common word "effect" to describe a specific portion of the rules, that is "Weapon Qualities."

Qualities are effects and abilities; effects and abilities are not necessarily qualities. Logic helps, sometimes...

Regardless, two-weapon combat is not an effect or a quality.

archon007, on 07 Oct 2013 - 9:17 PM, said:

Regardless, two-weapon combat is not an effect or a quality.

Okay...what's an effect, then?

It's not really a semantic argument, effects are defined in EotE and an Attack is not an Effect.

I guess its semantics, but dual wielding is the effect of an Action, or skill check, not inherently the guns themselves. That said, I am not against the idea.

Greg, that page you keep referencing is defining Qualities, not effects. They are using the relatively common word "effect" to describe a specific portion of the rules, that is "Weapon Qualities."

Qualities are effects and abilities; effects and abilities are not necessarily qualities. Logic helps, sometimes...

That line is what I found in a few minutes of checking the RAW and it is an example of an in-game definition of an effect that supports my argument that there is a difference between the dictionary definition and a rule. However I could be wrong, please feel free to put up what you can find in the RAW that supports your argument.

As for logic, well just because we've come to a different conclusion doesn't mean we didn't both arrive there logically. My basis is that I'm taking the RAW at face value in that Two-Weapon Combat is in the section defining Attacks, it makes no mention of Effect in it's description, no where in the RAW is an Attack defined as an Effect, and there is at least one description a few pages earlier that actually defines Effects in combat (there may be more or one that counters it but I have not see it).

archon007, on 07 Oct 2013 - 9:17 PM, said:

Regardless, two-weapon combat is not an effect or a quality.

Okay...what's an effect, then?

Exactly. Please find somewhere in the RAW that defines an Effect, other than the one I put up, that backs your argument.

I'm not saying I'm interpreting this right, I believe I am correct based on what I've read in the RAW, all you need to do is back up your argument with something more compelling within the RAW.

I kinda feel that these kinds of arguments over semantics isn't really keeping with the spirit of the game. I mean, there are game systems out there that puts a lot of stock on terminology, and let you spend all day arguing back and forth about the meaning of a comma. I don't really feel that EotE has been careful not in its' word use that arguing about it really make sense.

EotE tries to be a lot more casual about the game, so searching for in-game vs. dictionary definitions of 'effect' or other such niggling details probably isn't going to lead anywhere good.

But that's just me!

Carry on.