It is specified. The text says they are two-handed.
How is "this weapon is two-handed" open to interpretation, other than arbitrarily deciding to ignore some descriptive text and not others?
This concept of "it is fluff unless I say it isn't" is not a viable interpretation of a rules system. The only "fluff" is clearly delineated in short fiction on color commentary from setting persona.
Everything else is the rules.
I never said it was 'fluff'; it is a description, and that description states that the weapon is a two-handed weapon. In the description of the Hammerli 620S, it tells you that the weapon comes with an integral gas-vent and a smartgun system. This isn't 'fluff'; this is description.
We're not disagreeing on what is written. What we're disagreeing on is what saying 'it is a two-handed weapon' means in regards to a Reach 1 weapon.
You say that that means that it
requires two hands to wield properly. I say that, in regards to a Reach 1 weapon, it
may be used with both hands. You say that 'this two-handed sword' delineates an exception - when every exception I've found specifies how the exception is handled. I say that 'this two-handed sword' clearly defines a weapon that is NOT an exception, but is instead the
archetypal weapon requiring one hand to be used with both hands in order to gain an improvement in striking.
Your interpretation is 'exception' when there is no 'and this is how the exception is handled'.
My interpretation is 'this one in particular exemplifies the rule' - not the exception, but an example of what the rule is about.
If that is NOT the case, how do you think the descriptive text would need to be written to make a weapon that is a Reach 1 weapon and is a two-handed weapon, such as a katana, be two-handed?
Thus:
Details like you cite are given when the weapon adds relatively rules-unique elements.
I want to specifically address this, though, because one thing SR doesn't have is a Great Hammer - or a Great Axe. You know, the huge weapons with a giant chunk of metal on it, or an axehead facing one way, and another giant axehead facing the other way? These things might easily be mounted on a short shaft, thus making it Reach 1, but you would then state more than just 'two-handed weapon'. You would say, "Because of its massive weight and momentum, a Great (Weapon) requires two hands to wield." THAT is an exception, with the explanation as to why it is a 'two-handed weapon' even though it only has a Reach of 1.
Because a katana is actually two-handed, like the text says. It was developed as the Samurai transitioned from primarily mounted archers to more of a close combat role.
A katana is designed to be used two-handed. It can be used with one, but is designed for two. Iai-jutsu and Niten Ichi-Ryu are the exceptions, not the rule.
No offense, but you can't have both be true.
Equip a mounted archer - bow, arrows. Have his class start moving from focussing on mounted archery to close combat - which means the first weapon designed is a melee weapon designed to be used
while on horseback. This is a one-handed weapon, with the other hand for your mount. Once you dismount (willfully or forcibly), yes, using both hands is wise, in part because
as an archer you don't carry a shield. (Nor, really, were shields big things in Japan, so far as I can discover.)
If you are correct and the design of the weapon comes from the transition of horse-mounted archers to, well, horse-mounted close combatants (and eventually ground combatants), then the design of the weapon comes from
that necessity, and not being built as the weapon of a fighter on foot. (Those, as we know, are primarily polearms.) The techniques developed to
use that weapon on foot evolved from the weapon design and cultural philosophies; the weapon design did not evolve from the technique.
You really are proving my point. In any case, as you said, I don't play at your table, so you as GM can declare it's a two-hands-required weapon, as is your right. Textev does not require that, however.
