So long as you have declared that you have equipped both one handed weapons - then you should be able to spend the surges on either abilities from both one handed weapons - regardless of which one you declared to attack. The attack declaration simply chooses the attack dice for that specific weapon - but you can spend surges from anything you have equipped - be it abilty, item, weapon or armour; provided it is in the right circumstances for the surge activation.

So equipping 2 one handed weapons, gives you more surges to choose from, even if you are only attacking with one weapon or the other.

Am I getting this ruling right?

 I like that idea. Mine was a little overpowerered but the idea of using surge abilities from either weapon is great.
We've been playing for like, seven or eight weeks straight, Campaign number 2 will come to a conclusion tonight. Wish the heroes Luck! (And Spencer)

Macnme said:

That's the jist of the house rule that we seem to be forming up for two-weapon fighting here.  That is NOT how the official rules work in general, though.

The rules for picking a weapon on page 12 clarify that (per RAW) you must pick which weapon you are using and you can only use surge abilities from the chosen weapon.

There are some skills and items which provide surge bonuses that can be used "when attacking" regardless of what weapon you pick, but weapons other than the one you choose to attack with are generally ignored, whether they're equipped or not.

Id say that you will have to wait untill FFG releases a hero that can benefit from dual wielding as an ability before you can use more than one weapon in one attack. And creating house rules for it will make that future hero suck (or throw your players into a fit).

Wrapped said:

 Well, one ranged and one melee weapon would make a difference. Also, one that stuns and one that does more damage (as an example).

Wrapped said:

Heroes get a free equip at the start of their turn, so unless they are planning on making two attacks, one with each weapon  (a rare case), they are getting no benefit of carrying that other weapon around.

There is one hero in the ck that needs to have two weapons to use his heroic ability, but he's a pretty weak character IMHO.  Low HP and a brown defense die is crippling on a melee character.

The berserker card gives the same benefit if a 2h weapon is equipped, so might as well use a 2h instead for the extra damage (unless you happened upon a very powerful 1h).

In other words, there's virtually no reason to use 2 weapons.  I agree that ffg will probably release a hero class that can in the future.  Personally I like the house rule as it pairs nicely with the berserker class, which I think is the class most likely to dual wield anyways

I've had moderate success dual wielding with Ronan of the Wild in a 1st edition quest.  Sword and crossbow work great together as long as you have a shield in your pack because you can always have the right equipment at the right place at the right time.  We only played with 3 heroes, so it helped to have somebody versatile.  I have got to get a copy of 2nd edition with the conversion kit to see if it still works.

I have literally played two games and have already come up with a situation in which I wish I had two one-handed weapons equipped.  I was playing Arlic (or whatever his name is) and I had the mace and shield.  I picked up a sword along the way.  I mostly used the sword and shield, but I had to kill the goblin king (quest 2 I think).  If I had both weapons equiped, I could have stunned him with my first attack, and maximized damage with my second.  I was maintaining hit-points with my special ability of adding a hit point with surges pretty well.  So, in those instances when using two different weapons' effect against a boss-type monster would be a good time to have two weapons armed.

Good Gaming!