From what I can recall from the talent text it specifies "weapon effect" ... to me, a character using two weapons is an effect originating in the character's action, not the weapons themselves. Auto-fire is a weapon quality, or weapon effect, that is inherently part of the weapon, like stun, defensive, deflection, disorient and other active qualities. Two weapon fighting is not, as I see it, inherently part of the weapon's qualities, nor a weapon based effect, but it's skill based.

Now, I'm not saying that jury rigged should not be allowed to do this, but strictly speaking I do not see it as allowed as things stands. If I'd allow I'm not sure, although I'd probably require both weapons to be jury rigged, as a sort of "pairing quality" of the two guns. Alternately an attachment could be made, "synchronised targeting" or something, which at its base makes the two weapon into "one" weapon with a linked 1 quality - which then could be jury rigged... that's the long and roundabout way though.

Alternately an attachment could be made, "synchronised targeting" or something, which at its base makes the two weapon into "one" weapon with a linked 1 quality - which then could be jury rigged... that's the long and roundabout way though.

Bring on the Gun-Chucks!

Yes! Exactly! With that, I'd let you use Jury rigged... to be able to fire the weapons at all

EotE, now with 177% more Gun-Chucks!

Anyway I just sent the question below to CS, their pretty good at getting back with an answer, so we'll see.

"There is some confusion on whither or not you can use the effect of jury rigged to decrease the cost of activating the second shot when using Two Weapon Combat. Could you please clarify."

I'll post their response when I get it.

From what I can recall from the talent text it specifies "weapon effect" ... to me, a character using two weapons is an effect originating in the character's action, not the weapons themselves. Auto-fire is a weapon quality, or weapon effect, that is inherently part of the weapon, like stun, defensive, deflection, disorient and other active qualities. Two weapon fighting is not, as I see it, inherently part of the weapon's qualities, nor a weapon based effect, but it's skill based.

Now, I'm not saying that jury rigged should not be allowed to do this, but strictly speaking I do not see it as allowed as things stands. If I'd allow I'm not sure, although I'd probably require both weapons to be jury rigged, as a sort of "pairing quality" of the two guns. Alternately an attachment could be made, "synchronised targeting" or something, which at its base makes the two weapon into "one" weapon with a linked 1 quality - which then could be jury rigged... that's the long and roundabout way though.

That's the "rub" isn't it. I find a lot of GMs modify, house-rule, or interpret rules a certain way that makes "x" more powerful for the players. I.e. 1 advantage autofire weapons but only use it FOR the PCs, we have a rule if our group agrees on a rule or interpretation of a rule that the PCs and NPCs benefit from it.

We don't use linked misses to allow blast, to me, it just seems a bit much. However, if we agreed that what could happen then they would be getting hit with it too. That really seems to help create a good base line for rules and helps stop players wanting crazy things if they know and understand whatever they can do can happen to them too.

It reminds me of my mom teaching me and my brother to share; ok 1 of you cut that into 2 pieces the other 1 picks which piece you want. That lead to equal pieces.

I try to avoid M.A.D. rulings and tendencies in my games. But generally I agree, what is available to one side should be available at the other... of course, if its present or not, that's another thing altogether.

My point was that their use of "effect" seems to be purposed to be catch-all, not a hard RAW definition of a concrete mechanic.

The "definition" of effect that FuriousGreg and archon007 are using is not at all a definition. It is, in its own turn, helping to shape the definition of "Weapon Qualities."

What I meant by logic was just that saying "Effects and Abilites = Qualities in RAW" is logically fallacious. If all X are Y, then all Y are X . This is a fallacy. Weapons Qualities are effects and abilities, sure, fine. But that doesn't mean that "effects" must be "weapon qualities."

As others have pointed out, I think too much emphasis is being put on these words. "Effect" in the text simply means "effect." Like.."something that happens." My point is that there IS NO DEFINITION of "effect" in the RAW. It's not supposed to need definition. It's just a word that means what it says.

Which, like seemingly every other word in the rulebook, means that it is up for debate

What I meant by logic was just that saying "Effects and Abilites = Qualities in RAW" is logically fallacious. If all X are Y, then all Y are X . This is a fallacy. Weapons Qualities are effects and abilities, sure, fine. But that doesn't mean that "effects" must be "weapon qualities."

As others have pointed out, I think too much emphasis is being put on these words. "Effect" in the text simply means "effect." Like.."something that happens." My point is that there IS NO DEFINITION of "effect" in the RAW. It's not supposed to need definition. It's just a word that means what it says.

What I was pointing out was not that the only definition of Effects was "Effects and Abilities = Qualities in RAW" only that that is one definition that is in the RAW which, in my opinion, supports my point that there is an implied definition. Regardless there is nothing in the RAW that states or even implies, nor is there any reason to believe, an Attack is an Effect. So if an Attack is not an Effect and Two Weapon Combat is an Attack = Jury Rigging does not apply.

​It's not a semantic argument, its a logical one.

Also an effect is "something that happens" but as a result of an action. No action = no effect.

I just heard back from Sam Stewart (good guy BTW responding to questions personally, I have a lot of respect for this) and here is his reply:

Hello Greg,

To be succinct; no. Jury Rigged cannot decrease the cost of activating the second hit when fighting with two weapons.

I appreciate you asking about posting this. Go ahead.

Sam Stewart

Senior RPG Producer

Fantasy Flight Games

The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Rule Question:
Hello,

There is some confusion on whither or not you can use the effect of jury rigged to decrease the cost of activating the second shot when using Two Weapon Combat. Could you please clarify.

Thank you

Ps Can you also give permission in you email to copy your answer into the Forums.

OK, that's a pretty clear and straight forward answer then. Thanks, Greg for asking and Sam for answering.

Good to have that answered

Of course, in your game you can still do it however you feel comfortable with.

Of course, in your game you can still do it however you feel comfortable with.

Uncontrollable...urge...to...conform....can't........resist....

Of course, in your game you can still do it however you feel comfortable with.

Uncontrollable...urge...to...conform....can't........resist....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_Xdi4T8mgI

ahh, good ol FPS doug lol

Sorry... I couldn't resist.