Does the Two-Handed Sword Take up a free hand?

[figMiNT]

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but I did a search for "Two Handed Sword", "Two-Handed Sword", "lose", and even checked the FAQ. So here's the scenario.

Player A was in combat and using the Sneaky Bastard Sword, Two-Handed Sword, and Big Rock to defeat a Monster. Player B played Curse! Income Tax on herself--very Munchkinly, by the way--and discarded an item worth 600 Gold Pieces, so all the other players had to "discard an item, or items" worth at least 600 Gold Pieces.

Player A discarded the Two-Handed Sword to cover the tax.

Player B is saying that player A would also have to lose the Big Rock.

The question is whether or not the Two-Handed Sword takes up a free hand.

Player A's logic: The Two-Handed Sword is similar to the Singing & Dancing Sword as it doesn't say either ""1 Hand" or "2 Hands" but "-1 Hand" so it isn't taking up one of his two hands. And since the tax was at least 600 Gold Pieces, he could also discard the Sneaky Bastard Sword and now carry the Big Rock in both hands to continue the combat.

Player B's logic: It says "-1 Hand" not nothing like the Singing & Dancing Sword. The Big Rock taking up two hands is placed on the Two-Handed Sword like how Cheat, Poisoned, Blessed and other cards go with the item they were placed on. And since he couldn't normally use the Sneaky Bastard Sword and the Big Rock, and the Sneaky Bastard Sword is being held in the other hand, when Player A loses the Two-Handed Sword they also lose the Big Rock. He may also discard the Sneaky Bastard Sword if he wished, but he has to get rid of the Big Rock when discarding the Two-Handed Sword.

I don't know if I have this last bit is grammatically correct, but:

Whose logic prevails?

Okay, I think the grammatically-questionable question is bothering me more than the disagreement about Munchkin. Heh, heh.

Cheers, Munchkineers!

[sir_pudding]

The "-1 Hand" on the "Two-Handed Sword" (and a few other cards) is a negative integer. So two hands minus negative one hand equals three hands. 2-(-1)=3.

[MunchkinMan]

The card says that it is a one-handed Weapon, but because it has 2 Hands of its own, it gives the equivalent of one extra hand back. The upshot of using it is that if you use just the Two-Handed Sword, you now have 3 Hands left. Once you lose the sword, you go back to 2. The Huge Rock takes 2, the Sneaky Bastard Sword takes 1, so you have to lose the bonus of one Item. You do not lose the Item, but have to "unequip" one." This is an exception to the rule that you can't change which Items you are using during combat because a card (the Curse!) is forcing this situation.

[figMiNT]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

The card says that it is a one-handed Weapon, but because it has 2 Hands of its own, it gives the equivalent of one extra hand back. The upshot of using it is that if you use just the Two-Handed Sword, you now have 3 Hands left. Once you lose the sword, you go back to 2. The Huge Rock takes 2, the Sneaky Bastard Sword takes 1, so you have to lose the bonus of one Item. You do not lose the Item, but have to "unequip" one." This is an exception to the rule that you can't change which Items you are using during combat because a card (the Curse!) is forcing this situation.

The correct answer to my question is neither Player A's or Player B's logic prevails, however, Erik's does.

This wasn't a disagreement on the gain of 1 Hand (or 2-1+2) from the Weapon, but whether or not since the extra hand comes from the Two-Handed Sword does a player need to designate which item the sword is carrying? (i.e. A Weapon taking up 2 Hands or two 1 Handed Weapons). Or by using the Two Hands of the sword and one of your own you are able to wield that Three-Handed Weapon (I don't have the card but have heard about it in other threads).

Another relevant topic: if a Thief stole the Two-Handed Sword from another player, and it was because of that sword that the player was using three additional "1 Hands" Items. The Thief also thought they were entitled to what was in the hands of the Two-Handed Sword.

Thank you once again.

[Blu]

No, they'd just get the two handed sword.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Blu

No, they'd just get the two handed sword.

Yup. Just because the Two-Handed Sword gave you extra Hands, it doesn't mean that the Thief gets those Items, too. If that were the case, the card would say so.

[figMiNT]

Originally Posted by Blu

No, they'd just get the two handed sword.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Yup. Just because the Two-Handed Sword gave you extra Hands, it doesn't mean that the Thief gets those Items, too. If that were the case, the card would say so.

I thought so. Just had to be sure.

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by figMiNT

does a player need to designate which item the sword is carrying?

No.

In rules terms, the sword does not carry anything. Only a player can carry an item. The sword gives YOU hands, and that's all there is. It's your hands, not the sword's hands.
- - -
In "flavour" terms, you "pay" the sword as a "Tax" - it doesn't just vanish into thin air. Thus you can have it drop what it's holding while you hand it over, and then pick up what you dropped.

For a thief stealing the sword, the act of theft startles the sword and it drops everything it's holding, for you to pick up.

[Bristonsz]

I know this horse is dead, but I'm going to beat it anyway. Please, correct me if i'm wrong, or make fun of me for asking for clarification on earlier comments that were clear. Between the art and the text of the card, we're still arguing how this works. It's my understanding that this gives you an extra hand without occupying one of your own. So, you could ... equip the two handed sword, and 3 1 handed weapons (or a single 1h and a single 2h). Or is it simply letting you equip the two handed sword, and two 1 handed weapons, effectively giving you a +2 bonus over just using the two 1h weapons on their own? wow! been playing this game less than a week now, and have had to read, re read, over and over both the rules, FAQ, and these forums for clarification on things. a lot of fun! Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.

[MunchkinMan]

You need to use one Hand to wield the sword, but since it has two Hands of its own, it can then use two Hand Items, or one 2 Hands Item for you.