[anotherJack]

The Full Defense rule allows you to dodge ranged attacks just fine while defending with a weapon, so I disagree with you..

Yes it does. But not by using a weapon, you do not use a weapon to dodge a ranged attack, like you do not use a gun to dodge a ranged attack even if you were using it a second ago. You make your dodge, whatever is in your hands doesn't change anything.
You just "dodged" the word "using" and replaced it by "while defending with", it's not the same meaning, you can't disagree with an argument by changing its meaning, you disagree with the modified argument, not with the original one.
May I have made a mistake in formulation, I would reformulate this in :
"7) Can you use a weapon to make a full dodge against rangeds attacks ?"
But I think the previous formulation has the same meaning, so the answer to the 7) is correct too, you can't use a weapon to make a full dodge against a ranged attack, and the rest of the argument also, unless you find another lack, but not by changing words and meanings.

But take care : some points are essential to the argument, others are just here to enforce it : examples : 2) and 4) aren't essential, they just enforce 3), and 7), 8 ), 9) and 10), 11), 12), 13) are redundant.

[Bradd]

"Using a weapon" is relevant only in that it tells you which weapon skill to apply for the parrying forms of Full Defense, and whether to apply the off-hand penalty. It doesn't limit your Full Defense any more than using a weapon does normally. I still disagree with you on this key point of your argument, and simply repeating it isn't helping.

I understand how it's intuitive for "using a weapon" to mean "parrying only," but that simply isn't how defense works in Shadowrun. You always have a choice of several defenses. TWS doesn't take anything away, it only adds the ability to attack at the same time without sacrificing an interrupt action.

I think the RAW supports my interpretation well enough, I think it's a fair ruling, I think it makes characters cooler, and I think it supports the source material better. That makes it good on most of the levels I care about. Most of the objections I see to this ruling are on aesthetic grounds (objecting to the idea of melee skill helping you against ranged attacks) or for balance reasons (because it allows a free attack/defense). But I personally have no problem with better melee skill making you better at combat all around, and I think the extra action is balanced well enough against similar options. These things are a matter of taste, and if that's the crux of the argument, we simply aren't going to agree.

If you think there's something else to discuss, or if there's some compelling reason I should change my mind on those matters of taste, cool. But otherwise, we're just rehashing what's already been said, and that's not productive.

[anotherJack]

"Using a weapon" is relevant only in that it tells you which weapon skill to apply for the parrying forms of Full Defense, and whether to apply the off-hand penalty. It doesn't limit your Full Defense any more than using a weapon does normally.

Yes, but then, it means you're using a full defense option which does not fit the the TWS maneuver rule condition, so you can't take benefit of the TWS maneuver rule by using this Full defense option.
Again, see the TWS maneuver rule conditions.

I still disagree with you on this key point of your argument, and simply repeating it isn't helping.

You force me to, by twisting the meanings of my arguments and regularly ignoring points of it. See the answer I had to make just above on the previous quote, the demonstration has already been made. You just ignored it.

I understand how it's intuitive for "using a weapon" to mean "parrying only," but that simply isn't how defense works in Shadowrun. You always have a choice of several defenses. TWS doesn't take anything away, it only adds the ability to attack at the same time without sacrificing an interrupt action.

Wrong. TWS maneuver allows you to take benefit of it only if you fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule, as for any rule.
You don't fit the conditions of a rule, you can't apply it.
You don't fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule if you make a full defense without an explicit use of one of your two weapons, so you can't apply it.

I think the RAW supports my interpretation well enough, I think it's a fair ruling, I think it makes characters cooler, and I think it supports the source material better. That makes it good on most of the levels I care about. Most of the objections I see to this ruling are on aesthetic grounds (objecting to the idea of melee skill helping you against ranged attacks) or for balance reasons (because it allows a free attack/defense). But I personally have no problem with better melee skill making you better at combat all around, and I think the extra action is balanced well enough against similar options. These things are a matter of taste, and if that's the crux of the argument, we simply aren't going to agree.

Okay, but if you push your interpretation to its limits, then you get characters that can take benefits of the TWS maneuver even when wielding a gun. It's just logic, and applying the same way of thinking you just applied to TWS. Do you want me to write the argument in the same way I've done before ? it's easy, but it'll take a little time and a lot of quotes of your previous posts. If you want me to, and you don't mind, I could make it this week-end.

If you think there's something else to discuss, or if there's some compelling reason I should change my mind on those matters of taste, cool. But otherwise, we're just rehashing what's already been said, and that's not productive.

It's true, it's not productive.
Please, stop ignoring already told arguments from post to post, take care of the whole argument, it'll end fast.
Continue ignoring it, and it can last for years, forcing me to repeat endlessly the arguments you ignore in your latest post.

[Bradd]

I think the root of the argument here is that many people (including you) interpret TWS to mean that you can only use defensive options that directly use the defensive weapon – parrying – but I read it differently. I think they're just telling you to assign one weapon to offense and one to defense so you know which numbers to use when you do parry (and so you don't use the same weapon for both).

Perhaps this phrasing makes my reading clear? "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option [as though he were] using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an [interrupt] action). [Any] defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier."

This doesn't tell you how you may defend, but only what values to use when you do use the weapons.

[anotherJack]

It's a nonsense to me, since the rule applies to a technique called the Two Weapon Style, and obviously means that it's by using two weapons that you gain a specific bonus. I don't see why you should assign a weapon to defense if you don't have to use it. It would mean you can just make classic fulls dodges against both ranged and melee attacks without using this weapon at all. Then it would obviously mean you could use this maneuver with only one weapon. Nonsense.
But I can't argue if words haven't the same meaning for you and me.

Anyway, I'll just warn you : I've got a melee based character (he just can't use any gun). It's a little bit more complicated to handle in classic fights than a gunslinger, but it is really, really powerfull if well handled, and he's even not as powerfull as some characters I've seen described on this forum.
For me, allowing a melee character to use such a powerfull option and be in permanent Full defense against both melee and ranged attacks is clearly unbalancing both this maneuver, which becomes much more powerfull than others maneuvers, and the melee character's power.
But as a GM, you do what you want, if you find it fine, no problem.

[Bradd]

The character does use both weapons, yes. He uses one to attack. He can use the other one for a second attack (normal two-weapon fighting) or to give himself a defensive advantage (Two Weapon Style maneuver). In the latter case, I don't take it to mean that he is strictly parrying, but just using the weapon to improve his defensive posture in general. Sometimes that might simply mean that he has an easier time fending off his target, so that he can focus more on his overall defense. More generally: Without the second weapon you don't dominate your target enough to fully defend against everyone else.

So yes, you do use the second weapon, even if it's not directly reflected in the defense rolls. There is no slippery slope leading to people doing full defenses all the time while shooting guns and whatnot. The maneuver only works because two weapon use gives you a huge combat advantage, either an overwhelming offense or an excellent defense.

And I've seen plenty of melee, I know how it works, and the gunbunnies have nothing to complain about. At least melee isn't as pathetic as it was in SR2.

[anotherJack]

The character does use both weapons, yes. He uses one to attack. He can use the other one for a second attack (normal two-weapon fighting) or to give himself a defensive advantage (Two Weapon Style maneuver). In the latter case, I don't take it to mean that he is strictly parrying, but just using the weapon to improve his defensive posture in general. Sometimes that might simply mean that he has an easier time fending off his target, so that he can focus more on his overall defense. More generally: Without the second weapon you don't dominate your target enough to fully defend against everyone else.

Nothing in this rule talks about dominating your target and overwhelming it. By the rule, you only dominate your target if you successfully beat it on the attack test, or force it to spend all its actions into full dodges so it can't take an action to place an attack, otherwise you don't dominate it at all.
But, according to the rule interpreted as you do, in both case whether you dominate it or not, you don't have to spend a complex action to use the full defense with your other weapon, so the bonus you get is obviously not about dominating your opponent or not.

Besides, would it be just about dominating your opponent and not about using actively your second weapon for defense, then a character with only one weapon could use it : he also could dominate his opponent with one weapon, exactly as the TWS user do, and would then be able to concentrate more on his defense, again exactly as the TWS user do.
And if overwhelming a melee opponent grants you free full defense against all others opponents, including those who shot you from distance, who are obviously not overwhelmed by your attack since you don't attack them, then this would allow you to have a free full defense against all opponents even if you don't attack anybody in melee.
Then, since making an attack with a gun is a lot more simple and takes you less time, both in the shadowrun RPG conventions and in the shadowrun ruleset, a character who's able to concentrate on its defense while attacking with a melee weapon should obviously be able to concentrate on its defense even while using a gun.
It's straight logic : your interpretation leads straight to extending this maneuver's effects to ranged fight.
And can be extended to all kind of actions which aren't more complex than a melee attack.

I don't remember if there were any major changes between the SR2 and SR3 melee ruleset, but in SR3, melee was just overkill. You just had to take a weapon with the best reach you could, a good strength, and you blasted all. A troll with a +2 reach weapon, it was clear overkill.
I find melee in SR4 still very powerfull, but much more balanced.

[Bradd]

You read these rules far more literally than I do or would want to. I don't need them to tell me literally that two weapons let you dominate a foe; it's obvious from the effects of two-weapon attacks. I don't assume that "using a weapon" specifically means parrying, and so on. Given this difference in interpretation style, I doubt that we're likely to reach any kind of agreement here. I have trouble even following your arguments because they're so buried in assumptions and details that I simply don't hold or agree with. It's not worth the effort to me to sort it out, sorry.

[anotherJack]

I just use straight logic, both applied to the rules' meaning and your interpretation of them.
If you just want to ignore logic and both where it leads the rule, and where it leads your interpretation of the rule, you can do so, no problem, since you're the GM.
But it isn't logic, it's a romantic/poetic interpretation, full of nonsense, that you can only patch by using the "I'm the GM, I decide so" answer.
If you assume it, and it doesn't affect the main issue, which is you and your PC have fun, and I trust you about it, no problem.

And I don't try to reach any kind of agreement with you on this subject, though we may agree on a lot of others, I just try to force people to use their logic, whatever the forum on which I am is, I think it's very very important in the world we live in to use logic to contest thingsn whether they are game rules, public informations, politic arguments and so. Yeah, it probably sounds a bit fanatic, but I don't think it's useless.
So if I read an illogic argument, I can't help but just contest it.

[Bradd]

Logic is only as good as your premises. Mine differ!

[anotherJack]

Yep, but when applied to your premises, then logic leads to applying this rule to any action which is not more complex than a melee attack, as seen above.
So you may have different premises, no problem, your interpretation of the rule still isn't logic if you don't extend the rule to all actions which fit the description above. And shooting with a gun fits the description above.

[Bradd]

It only leads to absurd results if you assume things that I have not claimed and in many cases have refuted. Please, this is annoying, I'm done with it.

[anotherJack]

It only leads to absurd results if you assume things that I have not claimed and in some cases have explicitly denied.

Quote pliz. With logic argument, without ignoring previous arguments of mine, without changing words.

[Bradd]

You keep going from "not rolling to parry dice" to "not using the weapon" to "don't need the weapon" to "kick puppies for satan." I've said repeatedly how the first and second links in that chain of reasoning are not true, you keep ignoring it, I'm sick of it, I'm done with the argument. Please let it lie.

[anotherJack]

You keep going from "not rolling to parry dice" to "not using the weapon"

Obviously. Since you can do full dodges againts rangeds attacks or even against melee attack without involving the weapon in it, and handling a weapon or not doesn't affect these full dodges options, a character does not use the weapon when he makes a full dodge, his weapon has strictly no utility in these full dodges, or it would affect him in a way on another. Straight logic.
It would be exactly the same thing if he had a commlink or a vanilla ice cream in his hand, it does not involve or change anything (except that the ice cream will probably fall on the floor) in two of the three options of the full dodge, including the only full dodge option which works against rangeds attacks.

"not using the weapon" to "don't need the weapon"

Obviously again. If you don't need to use the weapon in these two full dodge options, as seen just above, then you can do strictly the same thing without the weapon. Logic again.

to "kick puppies for satan."

Sorry, I don't understand this expression. Could you please explain it to me, or reformulate it, so that I can see if it is true or not, and answer to you ?

I've said repeatedly how the first and second links in that chain of reasoning are not true,

I've just shown you once again they are true.

you keep ignoring it,

I'm not ignoring it, I argue clearly (…well, as clearly as I can in english) to show how these links are true from a logical point of view which assumes your premises.

I'm sick of it, I'm done with the argument. Please let it lie.

Then why don't you let it lie ?
I'm not sick of it, I'm used to this kind of discussions.
It's a common forum rule, when two posters are arguing against each others, none of the two can really stop and let it lie if he doesn't have the last word.
And you can see here an illustration of this principle since you keep answering to me even if you pretend to be bored with it.