Question about "Weapons"(Attacking) vs "Weapons"(defending)

[AstralBlade]

Lets say some attacks me with a Large Cleaver(weapon rating 2) and i defend with a Katana(weapon rating 2), We both get the same roll. Do i take any stress?

It's my understanding that i don't because the weapon ratings negate each other, kinda like how in a Fist fight a tie results in no damage? I believe at most an aspect should be placed on my character.

Any thoughts or some examples of rulings?

By the way, i saying this only applies in negating damage not as a way to do reverse damage(unless you want to because of a strong shift in defense's favor).

Thanks in advance.

[Sanctaphrax]

Pretty sure that you take 2 stress.

[AstralBlade]

Can you explain a bit? Reading "Melee Defense" on YS pg 144 makes me think otherwise. "As a combat skill, Weapons INHERENTLY carries the ability to defend yourself in a fight OTHER Weapons and Fists attacks, so long as you have a weapon in hand."

Sounds like Weapons of equal value negate each other. Otherwise, why would it be stated that way? Why not just say, "Weapons can be used for defense"?

[UmbraLux]

If the attack and defense roll plus skill results are equal, you'll take the weapon damage as Santaphrax states. 

Your weapon's value doesn't subtract from an opponent's attacks (you need armor for that) it simply adds to your attack's end result.

Edit:  It's attacker's skill + roll vs defender's skill + roll to hit.  A tie goes to the attacker.  Once the hit has been decided, it's attacker's extra shifts + attacker's weapon value* - defender's armor* = stress caused. 

*Powers and stunts such as Toughness or Strength may also apply.

[Ghsdkgb]

It makes sense, thinking about it. You use your Weapons as a parry, effectively, which means basically the same as a dodge. If you meet, that means the weapon strikes, but just barely. So the same rules as dodging should still apply.

[ARedthorn]

I could, however, see an Expert Parry stunt that lets you add weapon rating to your defensive roll... or maybe add half your weapon rating as armor against attacks you'd use Weaponry to defend against.

[Sanctaphrax]

Why not just say, "Weapons can be used for defense"?

Because Your Story rarely uses one word where two will do.

It's a bit overwritten. I like it that way, though.

Anyway...the quoted passage doesn't sound like it says that weapon ratings cancel one another out to me. I remain fairly certain that my interpretation is accurate.

EDIT: If you aren't convinced, I'll try and find an example to the contrary tomorrow when I have my books on hand.

PS: @ARedThorn: I would worry about the balance of an Expert Parry stunt like that. +3 to all Weapons defence is too much, and so is armour 2 against all attacks which one defends against with Weapons.

[ARedthorn]

mmm... I'm sure it could be worked out though. Given the two benchmarks of "Gain a +2 to a specific application of a non-attack or defense trapping (more or less depending on how broad an application)" or "persistant 1 shift effect (Armor:1 vs certain types of things)"... it doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Armor:1 vs Melee Attacks (specifically Fists/Weaponry attack ONLY) fits right in already... it's comparable at least to Tough Stuff. Make it narrower: "Only when wielding a weapon/using Weaponry to defend" and Armor:2 seems fair to me. Won't help you if you don't have a weapon ready or are disarmed. Won't help against magic, bullets, bows/etc. Won't really help even against sneak attacks (the GM may rule that these are un-parry-able, as you're unprepared for them).

Expert Parry: Grants half your Weapon:Rating to armor (up to Armor:2) vs Melee attacks when using Weaponry to defend.

Or... how about the idea of a more active defense scenario? One that costs you a supplemental action to gain Armor:2?

[Kiero]

Ties go to the attacker, so on 0 shifts, you take the Stress value of the weapon you're being attacked with. Obviously if you're using a weapon that adds no Stress (like a fist or something improvised that isn't very big/heavy/sharp) then you don't suffer any.

That's in contrast with SotC, where ties went to the defender since 0 Shifts=0 Stress.

[sinker]

Everyone else has given you rules reasons, so I figured I'd go thematic.

Think about it this way. The weapon rating represents how deadly something is. I have a length of pipe, say about the length and weight of a sword. It is weapon rating:1. You have a sword. It's weapon rating:2. Why would yours be better defensively?

Now I have a sharper sword than you (same sword, mine's just more damaging). It's weapon rating:3. Why would it be better as a defensive weapon?

Taking this a little further (and to a bit of a ridiculous extreme that doesn't work) I now have a grenade, which is wielded with weapons. It is weapon rating:4. How does that make any sense defensively?

[TheMouse]

If you want a weapon that also protects you from damage through the mechanic of armour, why not use a shield? There's a reason that a lot of pre-modern armies used the things: They're good protection and a quite passable weapon at the same time.

[AstralBlade]

Thank you for input everyone. Guess I'll be making a stunt then lol.
 Something along the lines of "My Sword is My Shield"

brainstorm time!!!

[ARedthorn]

Fair points, sinker... I still like the idea of a stunt that lets your weapon affect defensive acts... certainly a quarterstaff or spear is more effective defensively than a sword... but there would need to be limits or at least structure I haven't thought of, and that may not be worth it.
May simply be better to have a stunt that provides armor when wielding a melee weapon (which, fyi, I would say a grenade isn't... it's a thrown weapon. If you want to use it in melee... go ahead. Have fun with that. *shudders*)

[TheMouse]

Thank you for input everyone. Guess I'll be making a stunt then lol.
 Something along the lines of "My Sword is My Shield"

brainstorm time!!!

I'd be leery of a Stunt that gave you armour dependent on the rating of your weapon.

First, there's no real connection between the ability of something to output damage and the ability to stop damage. Chain saws, for example, do really nauseating damage to people, but they're really unwieldy and would be awful to use to defend yourself.

Then there's the issue of Strength powers. Does being super strong and having weapon:6 fists really make you better protected? Not really.

If you want armour, wear armour or invest in Toughness. "I have a huge weapon:3 sword, so I've got armour:3," is beyond the scope of what Stunts should be doing.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I like the idea of a stunt which provides +1 to your defense roll (possibly Armor 1) when wielding a SPECIFIC type of weapon.

I think a shield is a weapon which provides armor as well, IMO.  Weapon rating 2 (about a baseball bat, I suppose), Armor 2 (can stop a one-handed sword cold, two handed sword would hurt your arm a bit).