[Glyph]

Bradd's interpretation is that this maneuver allows you to get the free full defense both against ranged and melee attacks, which is broken to my point of view.
I don't know the main interpretation. Mine seems more logic to me, but maybe I'm an exception and I just don't see it.

I don't see how it could be interpreted as giving any advantage to defending against ranged attacks.  The maneuver allows you to use full defense "using only one of these weapons...".  Defending against ranged attacks doesn't involve  using a weapon, unless the GM thinks this maneuver lets you parry bullets.

[anotherJack]

Oh, I completely agree with you. But we're not in the good thread for this.

[Tex Muldoon]

Hey I don't know about you but when I used this style my GM made some pistol I fenced from a guard break so you may want to make sure its melee hardened. just saying as i don't know how tough your GM is.

[xenoice]

I have a question can you do an unarmed attack while holding pistols i know this sounds kind of stupid but it did say punching and kicking as much as shooting in the description?
the reason being I want to make a character who uses killing hands and elemental strike

[Critias]

I have a question can you do an unarmed attack while holding pistols i know this sounds kind of stupid but it did say punching and kicking as much as shooting in the description?
the reason being I want to make a character who uses killing hands and elemental strike

Sure, no reason you can't.  It strikes me as a little counter-intuitive to go out of your way to be good with pistols in close combat, and then to go out of your way to be a kung-fu expert Killing Hands/Elemental Strike Adept in close combat too...but if you've got the points for it, and you think it'd be badass, why not?

You'd be kicking with your feet on fire or something similarly awesome looking, and able to go nuts with your pistols the rest of the time.  The rules support it, so if it's what you wanna do, knock yourself out.