Confused about the signature weapon...

Hi all, I am a backer about to start a campaign with my group.

I was thinking of playing a Fighter but I am confused about signature weapons. I choose a descriptor, add 2 perks, that much is clear; what is not clear is if the 2 perks are summed to the perks that the generic weapon already has.
Let me make an example: if I choose a flail as a descriptor, should I add the +1 which the generic flails already have (page 326)? Similiarily, what if my descriptor is sword? Do I add the perks for the generic longsword (again, +1 to damage)?
Thanks.

You use only the perks listed. This isn't just any sword, it's your sword.

I thought as much, but it strikes me as odd, as I figure signature weapons to be special personalized versions of normal weapons.

Another thing: if I want my signature sword to be a longsword (which is very much the default iconic weapon for much fantasy epic) I can't, because I have to take "serrated edges" which completely changes the image of the weapon. Also, apparently I can't take a two handed weapon, or can I?

 I understand this is just a matter of color, this is not meant as a critique to the mechanics that in my opinion strive for the correct balance of crunch and fluidity but I find it a bit strange for a game that evidently pursues certain ideals of fantasy.

Thanks for your reply.

Signature Weapon isn't a way of building the common weapons in the back of the book. It's it's own thing, not expected to line up.

Another thing: if I want my signature sword to be a longsword (which is very much the default iconic weapon for much fantasy epic) I can't, because I have to take "serrated edges" which completely changes the image of the weapon. Also, apparently I can't take a two handed weapon, or can I?

It's just my opinion, but I'd allow "two-handed, +1 dmg" as another enhancement option under Signature Weapon.  I might even allow it as a "free" effect if they want greatsword or bat'leth or something as their base description, so you still get two enhancements, but I'd be curious to hear if people who've played more than I think that would be a bad idea.  In theory, you're paying for that extra +1 dmg with -1 armor (no shield), which sounds reasonable to me.

I'd also have no problem allowing the "serrated edges" color to be changed to whatever the player likes (dwarven masterwork, or damascus steel, or whatever).  I mean, character creation also says you're supposed to pick the character's name from the given list, but I'd never dream of enforcing that rule.  (...thankfully I don't have players inclined to names like Sir Punchalot.)

Yeah, if a player wanted two-handed I'd probably give it out for free along with +1 damage.

The idea I'm having now is:
Lhang (elven naginata-like from the intro of LOTR)
Sword, close, two-handed (damage +1), mithril edge (damage +1) [was: serrated weapon], sharp (+2 piercing).
I'll see what the designated MC thinks about it.
Thanks for your clarifications!

Yeah, that sounds great to me.

The reason there's characteristics listed with each modifier isn't because they have to be that way, just because we want every modification to mean something and it's easier to give a default of what they mean instead of saying "+1 damage, say why."

If you see serrated and have another idea for why it would get that bonus, just talk it over with everyone at your table. Can't see any reason it wouldn't be fine.